City Council Committee of the Whole · Saturday, May 9, 2026 · City Council Digest

CITY COUNCIL RETREAT

Welcome

Public Comment

packet pp.5–20

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration establishes a work plan at the beginning of each year, with years in the same biennial budget cycle often having significant overlap in work. The Administration typically brings the list of projects that will be reported on to the City Council’s January retreat and begins giving quarterly updates after that. Due to the change in Administration and changes to the work plan report, the Administration is bringing both the list of projects and the first quarter update to the May 9 retreat. The Administration welcomes feedback on the projects included for reporting on in 2026.

2026 Citywide Workplan COM 0267

Gillian Straub, Management Analyst

Economic Development Plan Update COM 0225

Alexis Fitzsimmons, Economic Development · packet pp.21–51

Topics: Economic Development

Open packet at p.21 ↗

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 2025, presenting trends and analysis of performance, and sharing planned changes for 2026.

2025 Performance Measures COM 0269

Lee Critcher, Executive Dept. Intern · packet pp.53–63

Open packet at p.53 ↗

Staff report:

Continue the

Potential Park Bond Renewal COM 0268

Jeff Watling, Parks Director · packet pp.65–83

Topics: Parks

Open packet at p.65 ↗

Staff report:

Administration is recommending;

2027-28 Budget Planning COM 0252

Kristin Garcia, Finance Director

Topics: Budget

2027-28 Budget Planning - Continued

Topics: Budget

Public Comment

Closing

7089 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ I was thinking I I have said for a long

0:04 ↗ time that the most important thing this

0:07 ↗ council does is the is the budget

0:09 ↗ because we can uh write ordinances or

0:13 ↗ not. We can write resolutions or not,

0:17 ↗ but we better pass a budget every two

0:18 ↗ years. And so, uh it's super important.

0:22 ↗ This year is I think probably the first

0:25 ↗ time where a majority of council has not

0:28 ↗ been through this full process before.

0:31 ↗ Um only three of us uh have have been

0:34 ↗ through a full budget cycle. Um

0:37 ↗ there is a lot of grace to be given um

0:40 ↗ as people come up to speed on this sort

0:42 ↗ of arcane process. Um we have an ace in

0:45 ↗ the hole which is when I started on

0:48 ↗ council there's always sort of a budget

0:50 ↗ zar on the council. there's always

0:51 ↗ somebody who like speaks the language

0:54 ↗ forwards and backwards and Mark was that

0:56 ↗ person at the beginning. So, so now he

1:00 ↗ gets to be on the other side of the

1:01 ↗ table um but still having that eagle eye

1:04 ↗ on finance and and innovation in finance

1:07 ↗ and I'm I'm really excited that he's in

1:09 ↗ that role and he will and he will help

1:10 ↗ us um today. You know, one of the things

1:14 ↗ about having a lot of folks that haven't

1:16 ↗ done it before is the administration

1:17 ↗ wanted to get started early. So, we're

1:19 ↗ doing this early uh earlier than we have

1:22 ↗ previously. Uh Wally's going to do some

1:25 ↗ sort of table setting after I get out of

1:27 ↗ the way and he's going to talk a little

1:29 ↗ bit about sort of how today flows into

1:33 ↗ uh the rest of the budget process and

1:35 ↗ and how we're sort of looking at a

1:37 ↗ little bit differently this year. Um we

1:39 ↗ will we have also added um before we get

1:42 ↗ to the actual budget item that's on the

1:45 ↗ agenda today, we're going to do a little

1:46 ↗ bit of a roundt um with Kristen and

1:48 ↗ Wally because eagle-eyed people when

1:51 ↗ they tore into the budget um or to tore

1:54 ↗ into the packet for today realized that

1:56 ↗ there's some surprises in there, right?

1:58 ↗ There's stuff that's surprising even

2:00 ↗ from Monday night's annual budget

2:01 ↗ update, right there. And so, um, we're

2:04 ↗ going to have sort of a and I I said I

2:07 ↗ asked for this sort of late in the game

2:10 ↗ and I said, you know, don't even

2:11 ↗ necessarily have to have slides, but

2:13 ↗ let's just slow things down for 10 or 15

2:16 ↗ or 20 minutes and just talk about where

2:19 ↗ is the city today and these surprises

2:22 ↗ that are in there will potentially have

2:24 ↗ profound impacts on the decisions that

2:26 ↗ we make uh for the budget for the next

2:28 ↗ two years. So, so I want to I want to

2:30 ↗ really have a I want to make sure that

2:32 ↗ all of us

2:34 ↗ share the same understanding of where we

2:36 ↗ are at or at least understand the

2:38 ↗ administration's uh view on where we are

2:41 ↗ at so that we understand the assumptions

2:43 ↗ that are hooked into the initial

2:45 ↗ conversation about the budget.

2:48 ↗ So, that's all I have. Um, does anyone

2:51 ↗ have any questions before we get going?

2:54 ↗ All right, let's dive into it. Um, we

2:57 ↗ are now at public comment and my

2:59 ↗ understanding is there may be uh does

3:01 ↗ does anybody wish to make public comment

3:02 ↗ at the meeting this evening? All right,

3:04 ↗ please come forward because the way

3:05 ↗ we're set up today, we have a microphone

3:08 ↗ up here and you're going to be best

3:09 ↗ heard if you're standing here. So, and

3:11 ↗ I'm going to get out of your way.

3:14 ↗ >> She should me. So,

3:16 ↗ >> of course, of course she

3:17 ↗ >> she of course. All right. Well, good

3:20 ↗ morning city council members uh both

3:23 ↗ returning and new. And uh good morning

3:26 ↗ mayor and city administrator and and

3:29 ↗ staff and everyone that's here. My name

3:31 ↗ is Anne Fletcher. I'm a resident of ISA

3:34 ↗ and um today I want to talk about

3:36 ↗ priorities, measurement and resources.

3:40 ↗ Uh priorities.

3:42 ↗ Today you will be weighing many

3:44 ↗ priorities. Oh my gosh, I'm sure your

3:46 ↗ mind is just full of stuff. Um,

3:50 ↗ one really heavy priority that we

3:51 ↗ sometimes forget about is climate change

3:54 ↗ and what this is can do about it. People

3:57 ↗ for climate action coalition researched

3:59 ↗ and published 12 critical actions for

4:02 ↗ reducing greenhouse gas emissions and I

4:05 ↗ sent you a link last night so that you

4:07 ↗ can look at it in more in depth. Uh the

4:11 ↗ document prioritizes five building and

4:14 ↗ energy, five transportation and two

4:16 ↗ general actions. One general action is a

4:19 ↗ community engagement

4:21 ↗ very important and sufficient dedicated

4:24 ↗ funding for the priority actions.

4:28 ↗ The table of contents provides an

4:30 ↗ outline. So if you don't have much time,

4:31 ↗ you can look at that. And then it's also

4:33 ↗ possible to delve into the different

4:35 ↗ actions to see what other cities are

4:37 ↗ doing and other places that are um doing

4:40 ↗ some of these actions that might give us

4:42 ↗ some ideas.

4:44 ↗ Okay, moving on to um measurement. So

4:48 ↗ far, our greenhouse gas inventories show

4:50 ↗ that we are not doing nearly enough in

4:52 ↗ priority areas to have significant

4:54 ↗ impact on emissions. The actions need

4:57 ↗ integration, more integration with in

5:00 ↗ the relevant departments and in

5:02 ↗ particular buildings and energy seems to

5:04 ↗ be the hardest to address and it needs

5:07 ↗ the most creative solutions.

5:10 ↗ Unfortunately, the state, county, and

5:12 ↗ federal government are not doing enough

5:15 ↗ to support our cities. and we can

5:19 ↗ continue to wait for them or we can take

5:21 ↗ a look at things maybe a little

5:22 ↗ differently and take some responsibility

5:25 ↗ to do more of the crucial actions.

5:28 ↗ In the staff report on the citywide

5:30 ↗ performance measures, the administration

5:32 ↗ indicates it did not include the new

5:34 ↗ measures for the 2025 strategic plan

5:37 ↗ which include a lot of climate measures

5:40 ↗ uh due to staff capacity.

5:42 ↗ So if climate is a priority then we

5:45 ↗ should have the budget to measure our

5:47 ↗ performance in order to make the

5:50 ↗ decisions about our organization and

5:52 ↗ resources. So I would request that you

5:55 ↗ please include enough direction and

5:57 ↗ enough um staffing to provide timely

6:02 ↗ performance measures.

6:04 ↗ Thirdly, resources. I sympathize with

6:07 ↗ budget deficits. I hate that when it

6:09 ↗ happens to myself and it's horrible when

6:11 ↗ it happens to a city. But I do not

6:14 ↗ sympathize with status quo thinking. We

6:16 ↗ are creative. We are intelligent. We can

6:19 ↗ do things. And what are the priorities

6:22 ↗ for the funds that we do have? As our

6:25 ↗ city council, you have the authority to

6:28 ↗ approve the plan, make the ordinances,

6:31 ↗ as TA said, and importantly to provide

6:34 ↗ the budgetary resources to do what it

6:36 ↗ will take to lower greenhouse gases. I

6:39 ↗ ask that you set aside preconceived

6:42 ↗ ideas about our local capacity

6:45 ↗ and the federal, county, state context

6:48 ↗ that you think limits us, you know, and

6:51 ↗ think about what we might do differently

6:53 ↗ to show leadership partnership with our

6:56 ↗ community. We are here ready to work on

6:58 ↗ this with you and make stronger progress

7:02 ↗ on challenging issue of climate change.

7:06 ↗ So today, please keep in mind

7:09 ↗ climate priorities, measurement and

7:11 ↗ resources. Thank you.

7:16 ↗ >> And and I'll ask if there's anyone else

7:18 ↗ in the public wishes speak at this time.

7:22 ↗ >> Then with that, audience comments are

7:23 ↗ closed and we can move on to uh CO267.

7:28 ↗ Oh, sorry. No, we're gonna

7:30 ↗ >> table. I'm going to do a little

7:33 ↗ >> a little bit of introduction. Good

7:35 ↗ morning, everybody. Um, I've got a

7:37 ↗ slide, uh, Tisha, that I'd like to put

7:40 ↗ up. Um, as Council President March said,

7:44 ↗ um, this is a new team working on a

7:46 ↗ budget. And I'd like to talk a little

7:48 ↗ bit this morning about budgeting as a

7:51 ↗ sport because it really is a sport. It

7:55 ↗ really takes a team uh, to go through

7:57 ↗ the process and we have a different

8:00 ↗ team. And so our hope today from the

8:03 ↗ administration um is to help this team

8:06 ↗ be ready uh for the budget process and

8:09 ↗ it's really a season. And this uh slide

8:12 ↗ um is from MRC and it kind of talks

8:15 ↗ about the different parts of the season.

8:18 ↗ And so I'd like you first to think uh

8:20 ↗ that we are in the pre-budget or using a

8:22 ↗ sports analogy we are in the pre-season.

8:25 ↗ So this is a pre-season game today that

8:28 ↗ we're having. We have had in the past

8:30 ↗ only one preseason game and the

8:32 ↗ administration proposed to council

8:34 ↗ leadership this year that we have two

8:35 ↗ preseason games because in order for the

8:38 ↗ team to be ready for the season which

8:40 ↗ will start when the mayor presents his

8:42 ↗ budget in September uh there's work to

8:44 ↗ be done. And so that first uh uh purple

8:48 ↗ box that says pre-budget spring summer,

8:51 ↗ um what MRC recommends is that the

8:54 ↗ council host a council retreat, that

8:56 ↗ they have a staff budget objectives

8:58 ↗ discussion, which we've had and you'll

9:00 ↗ hear about uh through some of uh

9:02 ↗ Kristen's presentations, that we

9:04 ↗ organize community priority forms. So

9:06 ↗ that may be something that you want to

9:08 ↗ do. Um we update capital facilities

9:10 ↗ plans, which we're in the process of

9:12 ↗ doing. um and that we review and update

9:14 ↗ financial policies, which is something

9:16 ↗ that you'll see in the second preseason

9:18 ↗ game um in July.

9:20 ↗ >> Notice that's a preseason game got moved

9:21 ↗ from Saturday morning to Monday night.

9:23 ↗ >> That's right.

9:24 ↗ >> We're going to be on television.

9:26 ↗ >> The bright lights and all.

9:28 ↗ >> Yes. Okay.

9:29 ↗ >> Budget night in America. Um so then you

9:32 ↗ get budget estimates. And so what we've

9:34 ↗ done with this first preseason game is

9:37 ↗ we've kind of moved that up because

9:38 ↗ normally in when we've only had one

9:40 ↗ preseason game, we would do the budget

9:43 ↗ estimates and start that process in

9:46 ↗ July. And so what we've done today is

9:48 ↗ we're giving you some of those earlier

9:50 ↗ pre-season estimates, but a lot of times

9:53 ↗ with pre-season, you're still working

9:55 ↗ kinks out. And so we're going to walk

9:57 ↗ through today some assumptions that

9:59 ↗ we're making. We're going to get

10:00 ↗ feedback from you as the team. Uh and so

10:03 ↗ when we come back for your second

10:04 ↗ preseason game in July, we'll have

10:07 ↗ better numbers with that. Um again,

10:09 ↗ revenue and expense estimates, uh the

10:12 ↗ Kirk compiles all estimates. Again, the

10:14 ↗ July meeting, and this is a a calendar

10:16 ↗ that MRSC suggests for all Washington

10:18 ↗ cities, um is something we have done,

10:21 ↗ but we are doing that now in a first

10:23 ↗ preseason game as well as a second

10:25 ↗ preseason game. The preliminary budget

10:27 ↗ is when the regular season begins when

10:30 ↗ the mayor will submit the budget in

10:31 ↗ September. We have had uh staff

10:34 ↗ presentations. We've had council

10:36 ↗ deliberations. And I think it during the

10:38 ↗ second uh meeting on July 27th, the

10:41 ↗ council should think about what you want

10:42 ↗ that regular season budget discussions

10:45 ↗ to look like. And then uh hopefully uh

10:48 ↗ we get to the final budget which is uh

10:51 ↗ has been traditionally in November. Uh

10:53 ↗ we don't have to do it until the end of

10:55 ↗ December. Uh we don't want to go into a

10:57 ↗ postseason. We want to finish the

10:59 ↗ regular season and have the budget done.

11:02 ↗ So playoffs, huh? There's no playoffs.

11:04 ↗ Okay.

11:05 ↗ >> Hopefully not.

11:06 ↗ >> Unless Samish is very competitive.

11:12 ↗ But I also think as we use this analogy

11:16 ↗ of preseason, another thing that that

11:20 ↗ teams do in the preseason is they kind

11:22 ↗ of take stock of the team members. And

11:24 ↗ so we have a mayor, Mark Mullet. He was

11:30 ↗ uh originally with the team and then he

11:33 ↗ changed teams for 12 years and went to

11:36 ↗ the state senate and now has come back

11:38 ↗ to this team. But in that time he was

11:40 ↗ gone in 12 years. What did Mayor Mullet

11:42 ↗ do? But Mayor Mel wrote the capital

11:45 ↗ budget for the Washington state senate.

11:47 ↗ So while perhaps he was a little bit uh

11:50 ↗ early in his career when he left Isiqua

11:53 ↗ went to the state senate he comes back

11:54 ↗ to isiqua with lots of experience about

11:57 ↗ this game about the budget game and so

12:00 ↗ he is going to be an important player uh

12:02 ↗ through this. We have three seasoned

12:05 ↗ veterans on the team. uh the captain of

12:09 ↗ the team, the longest serving council

12:12 ↗ member, has been through this, has seen

12:14 ↗ this, has lots of experience, is is here

12:17 ↗ for the council in the clubhouse. He's

12:19 ↗ the guy who's going to rally the team

12:21 ↗ once we get into the regular season. Uh

12:23 ↗ and that's really very important and

12:24 ↗ powerful. Um we have council member Joe,

12:27 ↗ uh that veteran again who also left the

12:30 ↗ team for a while, uh had other

12:32 ↗ experiences, uh and then came back to

12:35 ↗ the team. And so, Council Member Joe

12:37 ↗ brings uh not only the experience from

12:39 ↗ his prior service on the council, but

12:41 ↗ certainly having been on the council for

12:43 ↗ the last few years. Then you have

12:45 ↗ Council Member Walsh. You know, she

12:47 ↗ she's bucking for the Hall of Fame. So,

12:49 ↗ she has been focused on the budget

12:52 ↗ process. She is the season player. you

12:55 ↗ know, she starts every game and she is

12:58 ↗ coming to this budget season, you know,

13:01 ↗ at the top of her career and so is there

13:04 ↗ for all the team members with the

13:06 ↗ experience that she has ready to go so

13:08 ↗ that when when we get to a clutch

13:10 ↗ situation, Council Member Walsh with the

13:13 ↗ details that she has um is really an

13:16 ↗ important part of that team.

13:19 ↗ Council member Nichols got got elected

13:22 ↗ to the team uh this year. You know, he

13:25 ↗ comes from a completely different realm

13:28 ↗ of budget. He asked for the budget in a

13:31 ↗ spreadsheet, ladies and gentlemen. And

13:33 ↗ so that that that skill bringing that to

13:36 ↗ the team is so very important. Uh and

13:39 ↗ then you have two council members who

13:40 ↗ got called up. So for those of you who

13:43 ↗ aren't baseball people, you know that

13:46 ↗ boards of commissions aren't quite the

13:47 ↗ minor leagues but but got called up and

13:50 ↗ are now part of the team. So they have

13:52 ↗ experience, have been playing the game,

13:54 ↗ have those skills and abilities that

13:55 ↗ they learned in the minors and they are

13:57 ↗ now part of that team. So Isiqua is used

14:00 ↗ to having an all-star team doing the

14:03 ↗ budget. It has an all-star team this

14:05 ↗ year, uh but it's a different team. And

14:07 ↗ so these two pre-season meetings are

14:10 ↗ really meant to help get that team

14:12 ↗ together for you all to appreciate the

14:15 ↗ skills and experiences that you each

14:17 ↗ bring uh to the table. Um and sometimes

14:20 ↗ in preseason it's always not smooth and

14:22 ↗ there'll probably be times today where

14:24 ↗ there's questions and we have to work

14:26 ↗ things out. But again, we've got two

14:28 ↗ preseason games. We'll be ready and

14:30 ↗ we'll be more prepared for July when we

14:33 ↗ meet. And one of those call-ups manages

14:35 ↗ family finances for people for a living.

14:37 ↗ That's

14:37 ↗ >> right. I mean,

14:39 ↗ >> but it's very different.

14:41 ↗ >> Everybody brings those skills. But then

14:43 ↗ you look at the support that the team

14:46 ↗ has. You have Kristen who came here

14:49 ↗ from, you know, several all-star seasons

14:51 ↗ with another team, joined the team last

14:54 ↗ year, mid-season. Uh, and so this is her

14:57 ↗ first season as your your finance

14:59 ↗ director. And so she brings those skills

15:01 ↗ and abilities, but she's got to tailor

15:03 ↗ them now and wants very much to tailor

15:05 ↗ them to the needs of the team. And so

15:07 ↗ she's here with Michael, our new budget

15:10 ↗ budget manager. You know, he's he's the

15:12 ↗ rookie in in in the crowd. He's a rookie

15:15 ↗ uh to this team, has played in for other

15:17 ↗ teams in Arizona, um other parts of the

15:20 ↗ country. Uh but he supports that team.

15:22 ↗ And then you see everyone else that's

15:24 ↗ here, you know, you know, Jillian uh

15:26 ↗ Stra who has been here for for a number

15:28 ↗ of years. Uh we have with us uh Lee who

15:32 ↗ is still in the minor leagues uh but uh

15:35 ↗ but is but is looking to to come up to

15:37 ↗ the majors here pretty soon. Um Jeff

15:40 ↗ Watling, a season veteran, Andrew

15:42 ↗ Leoner, a season veteran. Um who did I

15:45 ↗ miss? Tisha Gizer,

15:47 ↗ you know, will be elected to the Hall of

15:48 ↗ Fame immediately upon retirement. Um, so

15:52 ↗ it's a really, really strong team. So I

15:54 ↗ hope as we go into today that you think

15:56 ↗ of it in these terms that we've got two

15:58 ↗ preseason games. Uh, we will be ready so

16:01 ↗ when the mayor presents his budget in

16:02 ↗ September, we're ready to go. So let me

16:04 ↗ talk a little bit about what we have on

16:06 ↗ the agenda today. Uh, you're first going

16:09 ↗ to hear from Julian Stra about the

16:10 ↗ citywide work plan. Uh, we've had work

16:13 ↗ plans in various shapes and sizes over

16:16 ↗ the last several years. Um, this work

16:18 ↗ plan is different. um it's based on the

16:20 ↗ mayor's goals versus based on the

16:22 ↗ strategic plan. So, one of the pieces of

16:24 ↗ feedback um for from you today is how

16:28 ↗ does that feel? Um one of the things

16:30 ↗ that the administration feels is that

16:32 ↗ the work plans have been a little clunky

16:34 ↗ trying to take actual current year work

16:37 ↗ and compare it to a strategic plan

16:39 ↗ that's meant to be much more long-term.

16:42 ↗ And so, one of the questions for the

16:43 ↗ council is how do you want to track

16:46 ↗ current work? Does this make sense? How

16:48 ↗ does the strategic plan fit in? Should

16:50 ↗ we do something separate? Because quite

16:51 ↗ honestly, we spend a lot of time putting

16:54 ↗ together reports and we've put this on

16:56 ↗ PowerBI. So, that makes it a little it's

16:59 ↗ not a spreadsheet anymore. Uh but that's

17:01 ↗ important for you to to know because one

17:03 ↗ of the things that you'll need during

17:05 ↗ these two preseason games is

17:07 ↗ understanding what the priorities are.

17:09 ↗ You've already identified them. We met

17:10 ↗ in January. Um but make sure that we're

17:13 ↗ tracking those priorities appropriately.

17:15 ↗ Uh we're also going to talk about

17:16 ↗ performance measures.

17:18 ↗ Many of you on this team are very

17:21 ↗ focused on performance measures and

17:23 ↗ performance measures have been built in

17:24 ↗ different ways over the years. So you

17:27 ↗ all need to decide now as this team, do

17:29 ↗ these performance measures make the most

17:31 ↗ sense for you? They also take a lot of

17:33 ↗ energy and time to track uh which the

17:36 ↗ administration's happy to do, but we

17:38 ↗ want it to be meaningful. So that's

17:40 ↗ something we'll be talking about today.

17:42 ↗ Um the park bond renewal um is an

17:46 ↗ ongoing discussion. Uh it's going to be

17:48 ↗ a major event uh through the season and

17:51 ↗ so we want to make sure that the council

17:53 ↗ has the latest information there. We

17:55 ↗ also want to give you an economic

17:56 ↗ development update. Alexis Simmons, our

17:58 ↗ economic development director,

17:59 ↗ unfortunately has had some family health

18:02 ↗ issues that she's been dealing with. So

18:03 ↗ she's not here. So I think uh council

18:05 ↗ president maybe we can move that

18:07 ↗ presentation around so other staff can

18:09 ↗ get on with their Saturday. Um, and then

18:11 ↗ as the council president said, before we

18:13 ↗ get to the main budget discussion, kind

18:16 ↗ of reflect on what you've heard this

18:18 ↗ morning. Reflect on what else you'll be

18:20 ↗ needing um before we get into the detail

18:22 ↗ because it is um the numbers we're

18:25 ↗ providing are different. We've never

18:27 ↗ given you numbers this early. There are

18:29 ↗ assumptions that we're making, but we

18:31 ↗ really felt it was really important to

18:33 ↗ start early. And so again, that you have

18:35 ↗ these two pre-season meetings that by

18:38 ↗ the time the budget comes out in

18:40 ↗ September, you're ready to go. Um, you

18:42 ↗ have a good working relationship about

18:44 ↗ how you want to process information, how

18:46 ↗ you want to make decisions. I think that

18:48 ↗ will make the process stronger because

18:50 ↗ again, you want to win. And what's

18:53 ↗ winning in this this scenario? Winning

18:57 ↗ is making sure that you as the elected

18:59 ↗ body that the mayor uh make sure that

19:02 ↗ the resources we're spending meet

19:03 ↗ community needs and do it in a way that

19:05 ↗ is responsible. That is winning. And so

19:07 ↗ all of this is about building a team

19:10 ↗ that can win and deliver a budget that

19:12 ↗ meets your needs as the elected

19:14 ↗ officials of this community as well as

19:17 ↗ meets the needs of the community. So I

19:19 ↗ apologize that we didn't do this sort of

19:21 ↗ level setting earlier. I hope my few

19:23 ↗ comments this morning kind of help

19:25 ↗ characterize what we're going to be

19:26 ↗ doing in a little bit better way.

19:30 ↗ >> Thank you, Willie. Does anybody have any

19:31 ↗ questions before we uh dive in? Well,

19:34 ↗ I'll just give kind of an analogy of how

19:39 ↗ I viewed in the capital budget role was

19:42 ↗ I would meet with all 29 members of the

19:44 ↗ Senate Democratic caucus in the interim

19:46 ↗ and in January when session started and

19:49 ↗ I would just ask them like what are your

19:50 ↗ priority projects in your district,

19:52 ↗ explain them to me, get a sense of that.

19:55 ↗ I would also go to Republican districts

19:57 ↗ to understand their priority pro

19:59 ↗ projects. And to me it was helpful and I

20:02 ↗ think to Wallally's point, the sooner

20:03 ↗ you know those priorities, the sooner

20:05 ↗ you can kind of try to fit those pieces

20:08 ↗ into the puzzle. My hardest challenge as

20:11 ↗ a capital budget chair was when somebody

20:13 ↗ came to me the first week of April and

20:15 ↗ said, "Here's the thing I need to have

20:17 ↗ done." And I'm like, "Well, crap." We're

20:20 ↗ like 90% of the way through this

20:21 ↗ process. And it's really really hard at

20:23 ↗ that point to get stuff in. So I think

20:26 ↗ I'm really hoping that we kind of get a

20:27 ↗ sense from the council on what some of

20:29 ↗ these priorities are and it isn't like

20:31 ↗ every time you met with someone and they

20:32 ↗ said this is my priority project didn't

20:34 ↗ mean you could deliver that project and

20:36 ↗ it's full scope but it still helped you

20:38 ↗ do it and sometimes it just meant you

20:40 ↗ could start down some of those paths at

20:42 ↗ that point even if it wasn't all the way

20:44 ↗ to completion. But I do agree with Bali.

20:46 ↗ The the sooner that information is out

20:48 ↗ and I hope people This isn't like a

20:50 ↗ poker game where it's advantageous to

20:52 ↗ keep your cards close and then lay them

20:54 ↗ over in the very final turn the river

20:56 ↗ gets revealed. It's like no, we want to

20:58 ↗ see your two cards right away. And that

21:00 ↗ way it's easier for us to manage the

21:02 ↗ process.

21:02 ↗ >> Yeah.

21:04 ↗ >> Right.

21:05 ↗ >> No bluffing then.

21:11 ↗ >> Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Appreciate those

21:12 ↗ comments. Um, so I think we're ready to

21:15 ↗ turn to COM267,

21:17 ↗ uh, the work plan. Um, as the city

21:19 ↗ administrator mentioned, Gileian's job,

21:21 ↗ our management analyst,

21:34 ↗ just a moment and I'll get my

21:35 ↗ presentation pulled up.

21:57 ↗ Hey Tisha, it shows that I'm screen

21:59 ↗ sharing but I'm not.

22:07 ↗ Let me go ahead and pull it up.

22:09 ↗ >> Okay.

22:11 ↗ Maybe try maybe one more one more

22:13 ↗ attempt. No problem.

22:20 ↗ >> By the way, my IT error earlier in the

22:23 ↗ week when I couldn't get things to work

22:24 ↗ is I plugged my personal laptop into

22:29 ↗ >> was It's always great when you call it

22:31 ↗ and they're like, "You have the wrong

22:32 ↗ device plugged into your computer right

22:33 ↗ now."

22:36 ↗ Oh, good tip.

22:41 ↗ >> Ollie, what are you in this team

22:42 ↗ analogy?

22:43 ↗ >> I'm sorry.

22:44 ↗ >> What are you in this team analogy?

22:46 ↗ >> Dan Wilson,

22:46 ↗ >> the manager Wilson

22:49 ↗ is like Dan Wilson's pitching team.

22:51 ↗ >> Hey, I thought about that and I didn't

22:52 ↗ think there was a good

22:56 ↗ >> general manager.

22:59 ↗ Yeah,

23:01 ↗ >> Jerry Dotto.

23:07 ↗ You could be John Snder. He's had a a

23:09 ↗ better He's had a better run in the

23:11 ↗ general manager role than our fellow

23:13 ↗ people.

23:15 ↗ >> All right.

23:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Good morning. My name is

23:17 ↗ Jillian Stra. I'm a management analyst

23:19 ↗ in the executive department and I'm here

23:21 ↗ to talk with you all today about

23:22 ↗ citywide work plan reporting.

23:25 ↗ So today we're going to talk about the

23:26 ↗ new method that Wally mentioned for

23:28 ↗ citywide work plan reporting the 2026

23:30 ↗ projects that we're reporting on and

23:32 ↗ we'll be receiving your feedback on the

23:34 ↗ products included and if this new method

23:36 ↗ works.

23:38 ↗ So we have a few direction needed

23:39 ↗ questions to kind of shape that

23:41 ↗ discussion today. First, um, is the

23:42 ↗ propos proposed method of sharing the

23:44 ↗ link to quarterly updates and using a

23:46 ↗ PowerBI dashboard rather than having

23:48 ↗ this update attached as part of the

23:50 ↗ council packet uh, preferred by city

23:52 ↗ council and what changes would you

23:53 ↗ recommend to improves improve the user

23:55 ↗ experience of the work plan dashboard

23:57 ↗ knowing that you all are some of the

23:58 ↗ primary users um, of this?

24:02 ↗ So, with that for just a little bit of

24:04 ↗ background, the administration has

24:05 ↗ typically established a work plan at the

24:07 ↗ beginning of the year and shared it with

24:08 ↗ city council at the January retreat.

24:11 ↗ given the newness of the administration

24:13 ↗ um and the turnover in city council and

24:15 ↗ the other items that needed to be

24:16 ↗ addressed at the January retreat, this

24:18 ↗ was pushed to this May retreat. Um so

24:20 ↗ we've established the the work plan

24:22 ↗ priorities

24:24 ↗ um and obviously look forward to hearing

24:25 ↗ if there are any anything that's

24:27 ↗ missing. Um but we also have a quarter

24:29 ↗ one update to share with you so that

24:30 ↗ we're not lagging in this process.

24:34 ↗ Typically, we've provided the quarterly

24:35 ↗ updates that include a description of

24:37 ↗ the action, a schedule of the active

24:39 ↗ work, the status of the work as of that

24:41 ↗ quarter, and a written update covering

24:43 ↗ what happened that quarter. In the

24:45 ↗ previous way that we presented it, which

24:47 ↗ was a word doc attached to your city

24:48 ↗ council packet, the um the citywide work

24:52 ↗ plan item was at least 20 pages, if not

24:55 ↗ more, and there wasn't an easy way to

24:57 ↗ quickly find information about the

24:58 ↗ projects that you were interested in.

25:00 ↗ That's why we've moved to the dash the

25:02 ↗ dashboard um mode. Um I'll also note

25:06 ↗ that typically we included the the

25:08 ↗ capital work plan as well. We haven't

25:10 ↗ fully figured out the the new format for

25:12 ↗ that knowing that that was also pretty

25:14 ↗ time inensive and staff intensive and

25:16 ↗ resulted in really long um agenda items

25:19 ↗ for council. So today we're just talking

25:21 ↗ about citywide work plan reporting. I'll

25:23 ↗ also note that as part of this process

25:25 ↗ we we weren't great at delivering the

25:27 ↗ update in a timely fashion. and it often

25:28 ↗ occurred about halfway through um the

25:31 ↗ next quarter by the time we were

25:32 ↗ reporting on the the previous quarter's

25:34 ↗ actions. So, taking kind of all of that

25:36 ↗ into account, we developed a new process

25:40 ↗ um and we just have a few uh kind of

25:43 ↗ guidelines here that we were working off

25:44 ↗ of. So, the goals were to have a quick

25:47 ↗ reference for you and the mayor for um

25:49 ↗ and timely updates for the actions that

25:51 ↗ staff is working on in 2026. We also

25:53 ↗ want to make sure that that reporting

25:55 ↗ process is not ownorous for staff so

25:56 ↗ that they can be doing the work um

25:58 ↗ that's in the work plan. Uh as well as

26:00 ↗ everything else when we were thinking

26:02 ↗ about what actions to report on, we tied

26:04 ↗ them to the mayor's priorities. Um we

26:07 ↗ tried to focus on new work. So for

26:09 ↗ example, implementation of a plan might

26:11 ↗ not be included on the citywide work

26:13 ↗ plan, but creation of a new plan might

26:15 ↗ be or an update to a plan. Um

26:19 ↗ we focus on items that had significant

26:21 ↗ staff time or commitment. But I also

26:22 ↗ want to note this is obviously not

26:24 ↗ exhaustive or not perfectly perfectly

26:26 ↗ representative of all the work that the

26:27 ↗ city does. So this is a quick hit of

26:30 ↗ 35ish actions knowing that there's a lot

26:33 ↗ more that staff is spending their time

26:34 ↗ doing beyond what's reported here.

26:38 ↗ So with that um we have a new process um

26:42 ↗ and a new dashboard. I'll actually stop

26:43 ↗ screen sharing this briefly just to show

26:45 ↗ you the dashboard and what it looks like

26:46 ↗ to click around.

26:48 ↗ So give me just a second.

26:59 ↗ Okay. So, this is um if you are on the

27:03 ↗ city quarterly updates page um of the

27:05 ↗ city's website, you could click into

27:07 ↗ this work plan dashboard and I'll make

27:09 ↗ it just a little bit smaller so we can

27:10 ↗ see it

27:13 ↗ clearly. Um so, here on this landing

27:16 ↗ page, you have the five main priority

27:19 ↗ areas. um in the first five boxes left

27:21 ↗ to right. And then you also have an

27:23 ↗ other actions bucket for things like the

27:25 ↗ 2728 budget that don't neatly fit into

27:28 ↗ one of the five other categories but are

27:30 ↗ still obviously important both because

27:32 ↗ of the staff time and because of the

27:33 ↗ council touch points that we anticipate

27:35 ↗ with that kind of work. Um from here you

27:37 ↗ also have a quick look at the work plan

27:40 ↗ progress. So as you get into the actions

27:41 ↗ you can see whether or not they are on

27:43 ↗ track or if they're facing challenges.

27:46 ↗ So, I'll go ahead and quickly click into

27:49 ↗ getting around town um safely and

27:52 ↗ easily. And here on this first page, you

27:55 ↗ see all of the actions that we are

27:57 ↗ reporting on under this priority area.

27:59 ↗ So, you can click around on this page

28:01 ↗ between the text to see the project

28:03 ↗ description. Um this is brief. It's

28:05 ↗ meant to be kind of just a quick

28:07 ↗ overview of what the project is. It's

28:09 ↗ not exhaustive. And then if you wanted

28:12 ↗ to get a little bit more information,

28:15 ↗ you would click on the icon and then

28:17 ↗ that would have the quarter 1 status

28:18 ↗ update and save as a qual light rail

28:20 ↗ probably has updates from yesterday. So

28:22 ↗ perhaps this wasn't the the best choice

28:24 ↗ to to show you, but it just shows you a

28:26 ↗ little bit of the update provided um

28:30 ↗ earlier this month. It shows you the

28:32 ↗ action status. Um, and once we have more

28:34 ↗ quarters of updates, you can kind of

28:36 ↗ click through to see how this project

28:38 ↗ has progressed um, throughout the year.

28:41 ↗ So, with that, I'll stop sharing, go

28:43 ↗ back to my PowerPoint.

28:58 ↗ So, that's my overview of the dashboard.

29:00 ↗ Um, following your feedback today, we're

29:02 ↗ going to continue to to refine the

29:03 ↗ dashboard. There are some changes we

29:05 ↗ know we want to make around including

29:06 ↗ some more links to um to information so

29:08 ↗ that people have kind of a one-stop shop

29:10 ↗ for some of these projects. Um, and we

29:13 ↗ intend on providing the quarter 2 update

29:15 ↗ in mid July.

29:17 ↗ So, with that, here are the direction

29:19 ↗ questions uh for today and I'm happy to

29:21 ↗ answer any clarifying questions as well.

29:27 ↗ Um, I'll I'll start. So, um,

29:32 ↗ so this was this was a conversation

29:34 ↗ about the dashboard. Just a few minutes

29:36 ↗ ago, we heard that we're going to be

29:38 ↗ focusing going forward more on a we're

29:42 ↗ going to try to tie things to a work

29:44 ↗ plan, not necessarily fit every not try

29:48 ↗ to do effectivity of everything to uh

29:50 ↗ the strategic plan. But this is very

29:52 ↗ much this seems to me very much about

29:55 ↗ the strategic plan and not about I mean

29:58 ↗ I have in my notes that this is about

29:59 ↗ the citywide work plan. So I'm a little

30:02 ↗ confused.

30:04 ↗ >> So maybe you could bring the the at

30:06 ↗ least the graphic up. Yeah.

30:07 ↗ >> So what we've done is in previous years

30:11 ↗ we've had the strategic plan and so

30:14 ↗ we've had updates in each category and

30:16 ↗ we've kind of shoehorned in projects

30:19 ↗ based on those categories. What we've

30:21 ↗ decided to do instead is take the

30:23 ↗ mayor's five goals for the year and then

30:25 ↗ put the projects in under that because

30:27 ↗ those are the things we're actually

30:29 ↗ working on. Many of them come from the

30:31 ↗ strategic plan, but this is I think a

30:33 ↗ little bit easier for us to present and

30:35 ↗ hopefully a little bit easier for the

30:36 ↗ council to understand. We don't want to

30:38 ↗ lose the strategic plan and so perhaps

30:41 ↗ the council can talk about would you

30:43 ↗ like something separate for that? And

30:45 ↗ maybe that's not something that's done

30:46 ↗ quarterly. that's either done annually

30:48 ↗ or semianually. Um so that that still is

30:52 ↗ part of this, but this is based on again

30:54 ↗ Mayor Mullet's uh goals for the year. Uh

30:58 ↗ we've shared them with the council in

30:59 ↗ January. Uh we have you know housing,

31:03 ↗ land use, and mobility really are I

31:05 ↗ think the consensus three priorities not

31:08 ↗ only for the mayor but for the council.

31:10 ↗ And so this work plan addresses the

31:11 ↗ projects in there.

31:13 ↗ And yet the front page talks in terms of

31:16 ↗ the strategic plan.

31:18 ↗ >> Isn't that what aren't I seeing the six

31:20 ↗ elements of the strate?

31:22 ↗ >> These are the these are the five mayor's

31:23 ↗ priorities. Um they are not

31:27 ↗ >> um so for example there's get around

31:28 ↗ town safely and easily protect

31:30 ↗ >> the strategic plan calls that mobility.

31:33 ↗ So the strategic plan that's labeled as

31:35 ↗ mobility. So this is

31:37 ↗ >> so so there's overlap of course

31:40 ↗ but these are the mayor's five

31:42 ↗ priorities. Why does it show me six

31:44 ↗ colors?

31:44 ↗ >> There are six colors because there's a

31:46 ↗ six bucket for other things that don't

31:47 ↗ fit neatly into the I see

31:49 ↗ >> the five areas.

31:51 ↗ >> All right. Uh I don't know who had their

31:52 ↗ card up first. Lindsay

31:54 ↗ >> house.

31:56 ↗ >> Yes, we are doing that.

31:57 ↗ >> That's good.

31:58 ↗ >> Um

32:02 ↗ I think this presentation

32:06 ↗ works in work plan

32:09 ↗ and performance measures.

32:13 ↗ And I'm having a hard time

32:16 ↗ understanding how we

32:21 ↗ influence set understand and

32:27 ↗ track future

32:30 ↗ touch points for the work plan. So if I

32:33 ↗ think back to previous council periods,

32:38 ↗ we would set a work plan for what

32:41 ↗ council was going to work on for the

32:43 ↗ year. And oftentimes it would be set

32:47 ↗ according to the strategic plan or

32:50 ↗ things that kind of we came up with. And

32:53 ↗ so some of the examples of that might be

32:56 ↗ the intelligent transportation system um

33:00 ↗ or other things that had been identified

33:02 ↗ as major things that the city was going

33:05 ↗ to work on that were going to come to

33:07 ↗ council because there were policy

33:10 ↗ conversations or budget needed or things

33:14 ↗ like that. So

33:16 ↗ calling

33:18 ↗ like this isn't the work plan

33:22 ↗ and it also doesn't tell me how we're

33:26 ↗ doing on that. So I guess is there a

33:29 ↗ point where we are actually going to

33:31 ↗ discuss what our work plan is and what

33:34 ↗ our priorities are or did that just get

33:38 ↗ deleted for the year with the new

33:41 ↗ mayor's administration which I

33:44 ↗ understand I I get it. We've had really

33:47 ↗ busy beginning of the year, but is this

33:49 ↗ the new practice in the future that we

33:53 ↗ don't have a sense of what is coming for

33:56 ↗ council or how to influence

33:59 ↗ what we are going to be working on.

34:03 ↗ >> But I would go back to the January

34:05 ↗ retreat. So when it came time to the

34:07 ↗ land use suggestions, you look at the

34:10 ↗ work plan around those issues, all of it

34:13 ↗ was I mean I think

34:16 ↗ Kevin, yourself, I think council member

34:19 ↗ Walsh and council member Jang, we were

34:22 ↗ given kind of a long list of things and

34:24 ↗ if you look at the work plan, what you

34:26 ↗ see on there is those items that came

34:29 ↗ out of that January conversation. And so

34:32 ↗ I think a lot of these things you tried

34:35 ↗ to bring up, I mean, I think the park

34:37 ↗ bond similar things. I mean, I think

34:39 ↗ it's like as we've had the back and

34:41 ↗ forth, it's kind of a

34:44 ↗ constant kind of adjusting of what

34:46 ↗ council's saying is important to them

34:48 ↗ and how you then incorporate that.

34:50 ↗ >> But you were asking for us to talk about

34:53 ↗ new things that we wanted to do in

34:55 ↗ housing or new things that we wanted to

34:57 ↗ do in transportation. That doesn't that

35:01 ↗ adds to what was already on our plate,

35:04 ↗ which I don't see here necessarily. And

35:08 ↗ it was asking for feedback in one area.

35:11 ↗ And one of the things that I think has

35:13 ↗ been missing is a sense of overarching

35:18 ↗ what are our priorities?

35:21 ↗ When should we expect them to come to

35:22 ↗ council and how do we determine if we're

35:25 ↗ making progress on those? And so I guess

35:29 ↗ I bring it up as just this larger

35:32 ↗ question of

35:35 ↗ have we done that this year? I would

35:38 ↗ argue no. And maybe that's fine for the

35:40 ↗ first year of a mayor's term, but are we

35:44 ↗ establishing

35:45 ↗ a new

35:48 ↗ method of choosing priorities that

35:51 ↗ discounts having a

35:54 ↗ start of the year or end of budget cycle

35:57 ↗ period where we say, "Look, these are

35:59 ↗ the things that we set in the budget as

36:02 ↗ priorities that we were going to fund

36:05 ↗ because one of our jobs as elected

36:09 ↗ officials is to provide oversight

36:14 ↗ of the budget that we provide for

36:19 ↗ x number of items and make sure that

36:21 ↗ they're making progress.

36:24 ↗ So I I'm just I'm trying to take a step

36:26 ↗ back and understand

36:28 ↗ how do we influence the work plan? How

36:31 ↗ does the work plan reference the things

36:34 ↗ that we already said were important to

36:36 ↗ us in the strategic plan and how would

36:39 ↗ we utilize data to see when that's

36:43 ↗ coming to council and whether or not

36:45 ↗ we're on schedule for those things.

36:48 ↗ >> So, so in January, I mean I I think we

36:51 ↗ have a hybrid and so one of the

36:52 ↗ questions are what do we do in 27? Yeah.

36:56 ↗ And so I maybe we put that over to the

36:58 ↗ side for a moment, but u when we came to

37:00 ↗ the council in January, the mayor

37:02 ↗ proposed basically three major areas

37:05 ↗ that he felt that there was consensus

37:07 ↗ between him and the council. Uh

37:10 ↗ mobility, land use, and um and and

37:15 ↗ housing. And so those are the those are

37:18 ↗ the areas that we've already um on the

37:21 ↗ land use have a very specific plan. uh

37:24 ↗ the council had a separate session to go

37:25 ↗ through that. There are quarters

37:28 ↗ assigned to that and that's moving

37:30 ↗ forward. On the mobility side, a big

37:33 ↗ portion has been sound transit. Uh the

37:35 ↗ other portion has been the

37:36 ↗ transportation improvement plan which

37:37 ↗ has been going through the council

37:38 ↗ committees and boards and commissions

37:41 ↗ and that'll be coming back to the full

37:42 ↗ council for adoption at the end of June.

37:45 ↗ >> And I think we got feedback from the

37:46 ↗ council because we had a whole dedicated

37:48 ↗ meeting just solely on that topic early

37:50 ↗ on like in early February I think. you

37:53 ↗ know, and and then the affordable

37:54 ↗ housing piece is part of the economic

37:56 ↗ development update today on what we've

37:58 ↗ been doing to, you know, there's a

38:00 ↗ there's a policy piece to that, but

38:02 ↗ there's also a we want you to come build

38:04 ↗ here piece. And so that's been ongoing.

38:06 ↗ And so, yes, I think this has been a

38:07 ↗ hybrid given the changes. Um, we are

38:10 ↗ proposing that this is a methodology to

38:12 ↗ report on that. You know, we can put

38:15 ↗ more detail here on timing and next

38:18 ↗ touches if that would be helpful. Um,

38:20 ↗ and then I think the council has to

38:21 ↗ decide at the conclusion of the budget

38:24 ↗ season, what would you like a work plan

38:26 ↗ to look like for 27 and beyond.

38:29 ↗ >> Okay. So, what I'm hearing is we're not

38:31 ↗ establishing a new process uh

38:34 ↗ necessarily for 27 and the

38:36 ↗ administration is willing to come back

38:38 ↗ and kind of set that process. What we're

38:42 ↗ looking at is the

38:47 ↗ work plan that and I will agree there's

38:50 ↗ been a lot of council feedback and

38:52 ↗ everything into um all of these pieces

38:55 ↗ so the measurement of that work plan in

39:00 ↗ 26 and we can have then feedback on what

39:04 ↗ other pieces

39:07 ↗ um can fit into that both in topics and

39:10 ↗ we're missing any topics because again I

39:12 ↗ think as you heard from Jillian the the

39:15 ↗ previous work plans over the last few

39:17 ↗ years have not really focused on the

39:19 ↗ core issues that the council was f it it

39:21 ↗ was more a compendium of pretty much

39:23 ↗ everything and what the administration

39:25 ↗ is asking is we don't go back to that

39:28 ↗ that we would have something that looks

39:30 ↗ like that perhaps maybe continues to be

39:32 ↗ around the strategic plan goals but it

39:35 ↗ really focuses on current year work and

39:39 ↗ if we need to do something sep separate

39:40 ↗ that's longer term for the strategic

39:41 ↗ plan. We're happy to do that and we can

39:43 ↗ talk about that maybe at another

39:44 ↗ meeting.

39:45 ↗ >> And I think like in the get around town

39:47 ↗ safely or mobility, whatever you want to

39:49 ↗ call the title, like we'd be honest like

39:52 ↗ when it came to like what are we doing

39:54 ↗ with Metroflex? Like we're being pretty

39:56 ↗ transparent. We don't have we haven't

39:58 ↗ figured out like we were like okay we

39:59 ↗ just added the Highlands like basically

40:01 ↗ the administration's take was we need

40:03 ↗ six months of data to see if wrership

40:05 ↗ changes after the Highlands. And so we

40:07 ↗ basically said that's on pause. light

40:10 ↗ rail was the opposite. It's like light

40:11 ↗ rail like that's on accelerator because

40:14 ↗ the decisions are going to be made. So

40:16 ↗ like metrlex would basically so I think

40:19 ↗ if you look at this thing you'll see on

40:20 ↗ that piece like you're just going to say

40:23 ↗ nothing accomplished yet because there

40:25 ↗ hasn't been anything accomplished. So I

40:26 ↗ think there is ways to track I think

40:28 ↗ kind of the goals we set out and we're

40:30 ↗ trying to make it transparent. The ones

40:32 ↗ where we put a lot of time and energy

40:33 ↗ and this is what's the result of that

40:35 ↗ investment. And there's others where

40:37 ↗ we're just like I've told staff don't

40:39 ↗ waste. We've hit a pause

40:42 ↗ >> on the metrlex conversation because we

40:44 ↗ felt like we didn't have any data yet

40:45 ↗ and we needed to see the new alignment

40:48 ↗ play out. So I don't know. I think every

40:50 ↗ issue but I think to Wally's point we're

40:52 ↗ really trying to focus on tangible

40:55 ↗ you know like going back to Anne

40:56 ↗ Fletcher stuff like we're like we're

40:59 ↗ switching LED lights like everywhere in

41:02 ↗ Isqua. like we're really trying to do

41:04 ↗ tangible changes, not just saying here's

41:06 ↗ our target. Like when it comes to

41:09 ↗ electric, we will have the first

41:11 ↗ electric patrol car on the entire east

41:13 ↗ side like by the end of this year. It'll

41:15 ↗ be a Chevy Blazer, all EV and and we're

41:18 ↗ also adding two other electric like

41:20 ↗ we're kind of just taking some of the I

41:23 ↗ think overarching goals we had kind of

41:25 ↗ in

41:27 ↗ the bigger strategic plan, but trying to

41:29 ↗ convert those into super tangible things

41:32 ↗ we can get done in 2026 and then hold

41:35 ↗ ourselves accountable to that tangible

41:38 ↗ sort of progress if that makes sense. I

41:41 ↗ think that's

41:43 ↗ I'm calling or council

41:44 ↗ >> directly on that. Um I think that's

41:47 ↗ great as long as we don't lose the

41:48 ↗ strategic plan.

41:49 ↗ >> Oh yeah.

41:50 ↗ >> And we have a plan that is presented

41:52 ↗ soon of when and how that would be

41:54 ↗ updated.

41:56 ↗ >> I think that's Yeah.

41:57 ↗ >> I mean while you alluded I mean I don't

41:59 ↗ want to get too far out of the you

42:01 ↗ alluded to the that we need to talk

42:03 ↗ about how we link back to the strategic

42:05 ↗ plan. So I think that's we won't please

42:07 ↗ take that as a to-do. Sure. is if we

42:10 ↗ call it effectivity in engineering,

42:12 ↗ right? How do requirements where where

42:13 ↗ do requirements get validated and

42:15 ↗ verified, right? And we want to validate

42:17 ↗ and verify it back to the strategic

42:19 ↗ plan. So, I want to go to council member

42:20 ↗ Adair.

42:21 ↗ >> I believe council member was first, but

42:23 ↗ I believe you had your first.

42:24 ↗ >> All right, I'll take take mine. So, one

42:26 ↗ of my questions in terms of this

42:27 ↗ dashboard. So, I'll say like I like the

42:29 ↗ idea of dashboard. I love dashboards.

42:30 ↗ Again, it's easier to navigate around

42:32 ↗ and get access. Um, but at the moment I

42:34 ↗ had some struggles with it working on my

42:36 ↗ end and maybe this stuff is in there. Is

42:39 ↗ there to me what all I saw was very

42:42 ↗ broad stroke updates and I couldn't like

42:45 ↗ drill into details like I expect to the

42:47 ↗ kind of details I get out of a packet

42:48 ↗ which so to me it felt very just like

42:50 ↗ public facing and not necessarily

42:52 ↗ council facing in terms of what I was

42:53 ↗ able to access. And I'm curious, you

42:55 ↗ know, you mentioned maybe there's more

42:57 ↗ and maybe there's either more that's

42:59 ↗ planned to be in it, like the ability to

43:02 ↗ drill down into, you know, like the on

43:05 ↗ demand transit, like it just says, you

43:07 ↗ know, projects on hold. Well, can I pull

43:09 ↗ more detail onto that? Like I would

43:10 ↗ normally see in a packet. There would be

43:11 ↗ support. There would be the contracts

43:13 ↗ asis. There would be, you know, the

43:15 ↗ current thing is, you know, scheduled to

43:17 ↗ last for a year. You know, I'd be able

43:19 ↗ to see all that kind of detail.

43:20 ↗ >> But in this system, I can't do that. So

43:23 ↗ I don't know what if there's mechanisms

43:25 ↗ to add that kind of linkage of detail or

43:28 ↗ how we do we have to just ask that one

43:30 ↗ off each time we want to get into detail

43:32 ↗ like how would that work?

43:33 ↗ >> Well that's why we're here. So we want

43:35 ↗ that feedback. Again

43:37 ↗ >> we think the system is is as effective

43:40 ↗ and as as timeconscious as it can be,

43:43 ↗ >> but we want it to be meaningful.

43:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

43:45 ↗ >> And so you're now giving us additional

43:47 ↗ information to help make it more

43:48 ↗ meaningful. we'll devote the staff time

43:51 ↗ to gather all that information because

43:52 ↗ we can do links to staff reports.

43:54 ↗ There's all sorts of stuff we can do.

43:56 ↗ Um, but we didn't want to do that

43:58 ↗ without this conversation.

44:00 ↗ >> And I think Jillian highlighted the

44:01 ↗ balancing act, right? Because our

44:03 ↗ ultimate goal is tangible results, the

44:05 ↗ things we're staff having staff do. And

44:07 ↗ so it's this balancing act of how much

44:09 ↗ time are we asking staff

44:11 ↗ >> to shift away from converting to LED

44:13 ↗ lights to updating the plan about how

44:16 ↗ many lights we've actually converted

44:18 ↗ every single week. Like that's the the

44:20 ↗ just give a really specific granular

44:22 ↗ example of the balance we're trying to

44:25 ↗ figure out and guidance from this group.

44:27 ↗ I think it's helpful because every time

44:29 ↗ we can put in more information as

44:30 ↗ Wall-Ally said, but then this group has

44:32 ↗ to acknowledge like there is a trade-off

44:35 ↗ with that because you're diverting staff

44:37 ↗ resources from executing the plan to and

44:40 ↗ so the guidance we get from this group

44:42 ↗ is going to be really helpful on finding

44:44 ↗ that right balance.

44:46 ↗ Well, it's like I'd say I'd like to see

44:47 ↗ more. I I personally would want more

44:49 ↗ detail because for me, I feel like I

44:52 ↗ can't do much with this information.

44:53 ↗ It's stuff either I'm already aware of

44:54 ↗ because we've had meetings about it or,

44:57 ↗ you know, it's hard for me to get a lot

44:59 ↗ out of this as I've seen it thus far.

45:01 ↗ Um, and then I also just wanted to voice

45:04 ↗ that I am in support of some sort of,

45:07 ↗ you know, maybe it's, you know, twice a

45:08 ↗ year or whatever back to the strategic

45:10 ↗ plan because I feel like, you know, the

45:11 ↗ mayor, these are your priorities and I

45:13 ↗ get that and we support those

45:14 ↗ priorities, but we also, I feel as a

45:16 ↗ council also need to always have that

45:17 ↗ big picture view of what's the larger

45:19 ↗ plan, the 10-year plan, the 20-year

45:21 ↗ plan. And this I fear focuses too much

45:24 ↗ on just this year and we need to be

45:26 ↗ checking in on the larger scale goals.

45:29 ↗ So, I would still want something

45:31 ↗ that is more broad, more strategic plan

45:33 ↗ focused at some point. It doesn't have

45:34 ↗ to be a quarter though on my own

45:36 ↗ personal opinion.

45:38 ↗ >> Who was next between the two of you?

45:40 ↗ Council member Boyd.

45:41 ↗ >> Uh thank you. Um I am going to echo

45:44 ↗ largely what council member Adair said.

45:46 ↗ I uh

45:48 ↗ I like the purpose and the intent of a

45:50 ↗ dashboard as it is public facing. We're

45:53 ↗ getting we're being more transparent,

45:55 ↗ getting data out to the community and

45:58 ↗ I'm sympathetic to the goal of saving

46:00 ↗ staff time for sure, but I uh but I do

46:05 ↗ want to whatever we can be tying back to

46:08 ↗ the strategic plan, I really want to see

46:10 ↗ that. Um that plan as I understand it

46:13 ↗ was informed by uh a community task

46:17 ↗ force. there's a bit of like bubble

46:20 ↗ grassroots bubble up around it and I'm

46:23 ↗ not I don't disagree with administrative

46:25 ↗ priorities but I think that just it

46:26 ↗ comes from a different place and so I

46:29 ↗ would love for the dashboard to marry

46:30 ↗ the two as best we can. Uh

46:35 ↗ I understand not having a 20page packet

46:37 ↗ that is you know now not as timely. Um,

46:42 ↗ can we get some other sort of, you know,

46:46 ↗ there's a one-pager exact summary of

46:48 ↗ like the major changes or quarter or

46:51 ↗ whatever timeline we want that at that

46:55 ↗ even if it's just got like a, you know,

46:58 ↗ saving, you know, me time uh, from going

47:01 ↗ and find, okay, where is the details of

47:03 ↗ the data as council was saying, and it's

47:05 ↗ just like a link salad or something

47:06 ↗ that, you know, now I don't have to go

47:09 ↗ uh, like to me That's also helpful. I

47:12 ↗ guess

47:14 ↗ uh I just want to know what on these are

47:18 ↗ and I think it might be in there of like

47:19 ↗ what is what parts of the strategic plan

47:22 ↗ are these touching and then uh I don't

47:25 ↗ want to lose sight of the little things.

47:26 ↗ So for um getting around town easily I

47:29 ↗ know like Metroflex is a big part of

47:30 ↗ that. Light is a big part of that. Is

47:32 ↗ there a way to measure hey we put in a

47:35 ↗ crosswalk on Black Nugget Road and that

47:36 ↗ bumped us up like a point half of a

47:38 ↗ percent. I know. And then I but I'm

47:40 ↗ trying to thread the needle between well

47:42 ↗ yeah that's you know 30 more seconds of

47:44 ↗ staff time to punch that in. But I guess

47:46 ↗ >> sure

47:47 ↗ >> people might be able to then better see

47:49 ↗ oh that happened in my neighborhood

47:50 ↗ right um if they're really needling

47:52 ↗ around on it. And then just a usability

47:55 ↗ thing. This might be operator error but

47:57 ↗ I cannot toggle between the um oh gosh

48:01 ↗ where'd it go?

48:03 ↗ >> It just might be like how Jillian was on

48:05 ↗ the Is that just me? There's a there's a

48:07 ↗ few that it's hard to talk about.

48:09 ↗ >> Okay. Okay. So, that's just like user

48:11 ↗ feedback and I know it's

48:13 ↗ >> Thank you.

48:14 ↗ >> Council member Nichols.

48:18 ↗ >> So, just on the specific question of do

48:20 ↗ we like the format or not? Um had a

48:23 ↗ similar usability

48:25 ↗ comment. I think it's a good first

48:26 ↗ draft. Um but I it could probably

48:30 ↗ benefit from some sort of usability

48:33 ↗ oversight a little bit. Um there's some

48:35 ↗ um

48:37 ↗ accessibility things too that I think

48:39 ↗ will probably help in terms of font

48:40 ↗ sizes just to make sure everybody can

48:41 ↗ actually see it. Um the bigger question

48:44 ↗ of is this a good idea? I I think it's

48:46 ↗ fine. Um one of my concerns with going

48:48 ↗ to dashboards versus written documents

48:50 ↗ is just on the um the uh the public

48:54 ↗ records and accountability side of

48:55 ↗ things and that these things can be

48:56 ↗ harder to archive if they're archived at

48:59 ↗ all. Uh, I find it useful to be able to

49:01 ↗ go back through and see what some of the

49:02 ↗ things that we have said we've been

49:03 ↗ doing over the years were and then how

49:06 ↗ we found them. When a dashboard gets

49:07 ↗ updated, it's harder to do that. I think

49:10 ↗ a a reasonable compromise might be um I

49:14 ↗ don't think this needs a 20page doc, but

49:16 ↗ I think there's probably some sort of

49:18 ↗ planning document that exists somewhere

49:20 ↗ for this dashboard that has these things

49:22 ↗ laid out. Um, I'm guessing that it's not

49:24 ↗ just reviewed. It's probably if it's is

49:26 ↗ that a word doc or some spreadsheet? I

49:28 ↗ don't know. I'm guessing that exists. If

49:30 ↗ that could be quickly converted into

49:32 ↗ something that was just published along

49:34 ↗ with the agenda whenever there's regular

49:36 ↗ updates, I think that would be a useful

49:38 ↗ way to uh get to the spirit of this,

49:41 ↗ which I appreciate is reducing some of

49:43 ↗ the overhead associated with tracking

49:44 ↗ everything we're doing uh without losing

49:46 ↗ the long-term accountability that comes

49:48 ↗ from good public records practices.

49:53 ↗ your main thing is you like it's nice to

49:55 ↗ have something written down tangible at

49:56 ↗ the start so you have something you can

49:58 ↗ go back to to say here was the original

50:00 ↗ like 12 things or whatever and nice to

50:02 ↗ have that kind of

50:03 ↗ >> I do actually yeah so separately I

50:05 ↗ actually prefer written documents but

50:06 ↗ that's a personal preference um and that

50:10 ↗ >> that's a bit arbitrary from the I think

50:12 ↗ the bigger point is I think it's useful

50:13 ↗ to have something archived so that

50:14 ↗ >> yeah that makes total sense

50:15 ↗ >> like this we have the ability to go back

50:17 ↗ and see what what's what's different

50:18 ↗ over

50:19 ↗ >> your point is the dashboard's created

50:21 ↗ from that document So a document

50:23 ↗ argument.

50:23 ↗ >> Exactly. I'm assuming I'm assuming it

50:25 ↗ exists.

50:26 ↗ >> Yeah, it exists.

50:26 ↗ >> So yeah.

50:28 ↗ >> So we've already gone super long, but

50:30 ↗ this is a super important conversation.

50:32 ↗ Um,

50:33 ↗ in every job that I have had in my day

50:36 ↗ job, you've got a CEO sets goals for the

50:39 ↗ organization that are very high level

50:41 ↗ and business unit uh VPs set goals,

50:44 ↗ interpret those goals for their business

50:45 ↗ unit. I as a director set goals for my

50:49 ↗ team and I have my team set individual

50:51 ↗ goals. CEO doesn't care about my

50:53 ↗ individual members goals, right? They

50:55 ↗ care about their goals being met and and

50:57 ↗ probably one level down. Um I and goals

51:01 ↗ need to be, you know, smart, specific,

51:03 ↗ measurable achievable relevant time

51:05 ↗ bound. I think we are I don't think

51:07 ↗ we've paused metro flags. I think we

51:09 ↗ have a goal and the goal is and I don't

51:12 ↗ know if we have a date, but it's

51:13 ↗ specific. It's go get data right on this

51:16 ↗ change. It is measurable because it's

51:18 ↗ it's the data. It's certainly

51:19 ↗ achievable. we think it's relevant

51:21 ↗ because we think the metrlex

51:23 ↗ conversation is relevant back to our

51:24 ↗ strategic plan. It needs to be time

51:26 ↗ bound, which is the thing that I don't

51:27 ↗ always see, right? Uh but if if the if

51:30 ↗ it says we're going to come back in July

51:32 ↗ with the data that we've got on on

51:35 ↗ Metroflex, then that's the we're we're

51:37 ↗ working the Metrlex and that's what

51:39 ↗ we're working.

51:39 ↗ >> I just pause the vendor interview

51:41 ↗ discussion.

51:42 ↗ >> Sure. So So stop lights, right? It's

51:45 ↗ specific. We're going to be implementing

51:46 ↗ stoplights. Um it's certainly

51:48 ↗ measurable. I don't know if we need to

51:50 ↗ say 15 is passable and 10 is not

51:52 ↗ passable. I don't know but some number

51:54 ↗ implemented. It's certainly achievable

51:56 ↗ but certainly relevant time bound right

51:58 ↗ when are we going to come back and look

51:59 ↗ at it. So I think all those things the

52:01 ↗ question is for this dashboard and for

52:04 ↗ this council where do at what level do

52:06 ↗ those goals live right and and I think

52:08 ↗ they do need to be smart. Um I you know

52:11 ↗ you mentioned you know your three

52:12 ↗ highest priorities housing, land use,

52:14 ↗ mobility, right? What is the council

52:17 ↗ level goal associated with each of those

52:19 ↗ three that is smart, right? That is time

52:21 ↗ bound. When do we come back on land use?

52:24 ↗ What does that look like? And if I

52:25 ↗ somehow forget where we're at from the

52:27 ↗ last time we met on the subject, I can

52:28 ↗ go someplace and look it up and go, "Oh

52:30 ↗ yeah, that's right." From a council

52:31 ↗ standpoint, here here's where we're at.

52:33 ↗ I I think every executive and manager

52:37 ↗ and individual should know what their

52:39 ↗ goals are because at the end of the year

52:41 ↗ you want to say I did a great job,

52:42 ↗ right? I knocked it out of the park and

52:43 ↗ you should give me a huge raise, right?

52:45 ↗ The only way to do that is if you've had

52:46 ↗ a set of goals that you've been

52:47 ↗ executing to over the course of the

52:48 ↗ year. I don't know how that exactly maps

52:51 ↗ to this particular dashboard. I just

52:53 ↗ know that what I have heard from council

52:55 ↗ is is is really wanting and you're

52:57 ↗ hearing it some today, right? some of

52:58 ↗ the meats, but it is not how is Joe

53:02 ↗ Jablonsky doing on the light at sunset

53:04 ↗ and Newport, right? It is that we're

53:07 ↗ going to have a date certain when we're

53:09 ↗ going to come back and we're looking to

53:10 ↗ see how we're doing. And I think if we

53:12 ↗ can do that at a high level and really

53:14 ↗ those three big areas, right, housing,

53:16 ↗ land use, mobility, I personally would

53:18 ↗ add public safety. But, um, you know, in

53:20 ↗ those three knowing and if somebody in

53:22 ↗ the public says, "How are you doing with

53:24 ↗ land use?" Right? I want to be I want to

53:26 ↗ have the answer off the tip of my tongue

53:27 ↗ from a from a council standpoint, not

53:29 ↗ from the 200 some odd individuals in

53:31 ↗ your organization.

53:32 ↗ >> Yeah,

53:33 ↗ >> council member Joe.

53:34 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh like the dashboard

53:36 ↗ concept, like the fact that the five

53:39 ↗ priorities that are on there are things

53:42 ↗ that we think we can get done pretty

53:44 ↗ immediately. Um, I think about the

53:46 ↗ dashboard as kind of a a triangle where

53:49 ↗ a person in the public can come and and

53:51 ↗ ask about a subject and find that piece

53:54 ↗ of information. If they need the other

53:55 ↗ things, they can go to the links along

53:57 ↗ the way. Um, we want to make it simple

53:59 ↗ for them to find out the information

54:01 ↗ that they need in a quick timely

54:03 ↗ fashion. U, when I go to a website for X

54:07 ↗ product, if I can find it quickly, I'm

54:08 ↗ more likely to purchase it or feel

54:10 ↗ confident that they're doing their job.

54:12 ↗ Um the one suggestion I would have is um

54:15 ↗ put the the kind of goal that you're

54:18 ↗ shooting for and then uh also reflect

54:21 ↗ how it ties into the budget to show that

54:24 ↗ we as a council and as administration

54:26 ↗ are thinking about how to fund that

54:28 ↗ already. If it's fully funded, you know,

54:30 ↗ and it's ready to go, that's great. If

54:32 ↗ it's something that we're still trying

54:34 ↗ to get county or city uh you know

54:36 ↗ another uh state to match or or federal

54:38 ↗ match on there, put that on there to

54:41 ↗ show the work that we're doing in a very

54:43 ↗ small timely fashion. Then they can go

54:45 ↗ to the links for the other reports if

54:46 ↗ they need to to see how it all ties in.

54:49 ↗ But just from a council point of view,

54:50 ↗ it does need to tie into the the

54:51 ↗ strategic plan as has been mentioned.

54:53 ↗ >> Yeah. So what I've heard I think is it's

54:56 ↗ nice to the whatever we create this

54:58 ↗ document with obviously exists on a word

55:00 ↗ document. It's nice to publish that

55:03 ↗ share it. I think it's nice to find the

55:06 ↗ ways to link this stuff back to how it

55:08 ↗ incorporates to the larger strategic

55:10 ↗ plan vision. Those requests to me seem

55:13 ↗ super reasonable and pragmatic and point

55:16 ↗ like yes make sure we just have kind of

55:19 ↗ time and goals and and stuff like that

55:22 ↗ laid out in there. That all seems super

55:25 ↗ reasonable.

55:26 ↗ >> Now, I want to give council member Walsh

55:28 ↗ the last word.

55:29 ↗ >> Just wanted to um echo I really like the

55:32 ↗ way that you mentioned the smart goals

55:34 ↗ and the fact that you know these are the

55:36 ↗ things that we are working on.

55:38 ↗ Appreciate that. Um I think there are

55:41 ↗ some things that might be missing in

55:43 ↗ this that are uh going to be touch

55:45 ↗ points for council over the year that

55:47 ↗ might be important. But I also liked

55:50 ↗ what council member Dar said about the

55:52 ↗ whole update on strategic plan items. I

55:56 ↗ don't know if we need that quarterly,

55:58 ↗ maybe twice a year is a useful touch

56:01 ↗ point, but I do think the oversight and

56:03 ↗ accountability there is important. And

56:05 ↗ similarly, I would say on our capital

56:08 ↗ improvement projects, um, we have a plan

56:10 ↗ there. It is a both annual and long-term

56:15 ↗ plan. And again, one of our our

56:17 ↗ requirements and our goals um in seeing

56:21 ↗ that data previously was to ensure that

56:24 ↗ we were making progress on it. And so

56:26 ↗ that we understand if there is something

56:29 ↗ that is blocking this plan, maybe it's

56:32 ↗ budget-wise, it's important for us to

56:34 ↗ know that, hey, we weren't able to hire

56:37 ↗ somebody for this or the costs are

56:39 ↗ rising and other things. And so that

56:41 ↗ context helps us as we make future

56:45 ↗ decisions. And so I want to make sure

56:47 ↗ that that piece of it all doesn't get

56:49 ↗ lost as well. And

56:50 ↗ >> and we're comm we can replicate the CIP

56:53 ↗ plan. I I think that if we could do it

56:55 ↗ less than quarterly, maybe three times a

56:57 ↗ year because I think semi

57:00 ↗ >> twice.

57:01 ↗ >> Okay. I mean, I'm notice

57:04 ↗ your head.

57:04 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll

57:06 ↗ >> you want to save time. I appreciate the

57:09 ↗ idea of, you know, people who are

57:11 ↗ working on the plan are not working on

57:14 ↗ installing the light. So,

57:15 ↗ >> so if we do the strategic plan and the

57:17 ↗ CIP twice a year,

57:19 ↗ >> does that make sense?

57:22 ↗ >> I'm seeing thumbs up.

57:23 ↗ >> And then and then Julian, you said

57:25 ↗ there's about 35

57:27 ↗ separate projects within that.

57:29 ↗ >> So, we will we'll if there's no if

57:32 ↗ there's anything else you want, please

57:33 ↗ let us know. Otherwise, we will do a

57:35 ↗ deep dive because it's easy to do a deep

57:37 ↗ dive into 35 knowing that we're only

57:40 ↗ going to have to do strategic plan and

57:41 ↗ CIP twice a year. You freed up staff

57:44 ↗ time in order to do that. So, we can do

57:46 ↗ that. We'll come back at your second

57:48 ↗ preseason meeting uh in July with an

57:51 ↗ update.

57:52 ↗ >> Council member Boyd.

57:52 ↗ >> I'm sorry. I I Lindsay was supposed to

57:54 ↗ have the last word, but um I think this

57:57 ↗ might go into other actions, but I also

57:59 ↗ I have it on my like budget feedback

58:01 ↗ when we get to there, too. I just don't

58:03 ↗ want to also lose I don't want to call

58:05 ↗ it the little things but because they're

58:06 ↗ very important but um you know

58:09 ↗ maintaining arts human services like

58:13 ↗ there's these big pillars and I just

58:14 ↗ want to make sure those also don't get

58:15 ↗ lost those are in the strategic plan in

58:17 ↗ various ways so I think that's one way

58:19 ↗ that can tie back but I just you know

58:22 ↗ would leave this conversation feeling

58:23 ↗ kind of churn if

58:26 ↗ >> but that's a valid point this is our

58:27 ↗ challenge is yeah

58:28 ↗ >> you're almost like narrowing down to

58:29 ↗ your favorite children it's hard but

58:31 ↗ it's is a tough process. And every time

58:34 ↗ we say those are top three priorities, I

58:36 ↗ think parks is a pretty big priority for

58:37 ↗ me. And I look at Jeff, I'm like, man, I

58:39 ↗ feel really bad every time

58:43 ↗ housing, land use, and mobility. No,

58:45 ↗ parks are also important.

58:46 ↗ >> Housing and land use, sir.

58:49 ↗ >> Our budgets fire, we never talk about

58:51 ↗ it.

58:51 ↗ >> So, speaking of saving time, I'm uh this

58:54 ↗ was a a really important conversation

58:56 ↗ and a a major element of having a

58:59 ↗ meeting like this on a day like today. I

59:01 ↗ do want to do my best Diana Dawson time

59:03 ↗ cop and point out that we're about 20

59:04 ↗ minutes behind schedule. So just as we

59:06 ↗ think about that going forward, we at a

59:08 ↗ point where we had CRM O225 economic

59:10 ↗ development plan and Wally's going to be

59:12 ↗ presenting that. Uh and let's let's

59:14 ↗ let's move that around.

59:16 ↗ >> I can I can do should I should we talk

59:18 ↗ about the

59:20 ↗ association stuff while we're on this?

59:22 ↗ >> I'd love for to be able to have a

59:24 ↗ Saturday match. So

59:25 ↗ >> Oh, Lee. Okay, we're going to let go

59:27 ↗ first. after this thing.

59:29 ↗ >> 0269 2025 performance measures with Lee

59:32 ↗ Critcher, executive department intern.

59:34 ↗ >> Let's do that.

59:35 ↗ >> And Lee, you have to give them your

59:37 ↗ background with your Belby College

59:39 ↗ course and everything. We'll do

59:44 ↗ >> I can get my screen share.

59:56 ↗ I just got in the back. She's hanging

59:59 ↗ out in the kitchen.

1:00:01 ↗ >> There are snacks back there. It's a good

1:00:03 ↗ place to hang out.

1:00:07 ↗ >> Good morning.

1:00:07 ↗ >> Oh, look at that. On a pass bill, you've

1:00:09 ↗ already passed because you have screen

1:00:11 ↗ sharing set up, which is more than I can

1:00:12 ↗ do.

1:00:13 ↗ >> Good morning, city council. Uh my name

1:00:14 ↗ is Lee Critcher. I'm the new executive

1:00:16 ↗ department intern with the city of

1:00:18 ↗ Esqua. I've been here for about a month.

1:00:22 ↗ Uh and it's been it's been a lot of fun.

1:00:24 ↗ I've learned a lot and thank you all for

1:00:26 ↗ having me. A little bit of background

1:00:28 ↗ about me. I am a student in my final

1:00:31 ↗ quarter at Belleview College. I'm

1:00:33 ↗ attending Belleview College after six

1:00:35 ↗ years serving in the Navy and I'm

1:00:38 ↗ looking to continue working for local

1:00:41 ↗ governments and using the skills I've

1:00:42 ↗ learned in college to make a difference

1:00:44 ↗ in my community.

1:00:45 ↗ >> What did you do in the Navy?

1:00:47 ↗ >> I did a variety of things in the Navy.

1:00:49 ↗ Um, my ship was broken for the majority

1:00:53 ↗ of the time. So I actually worked in a

1:00:54 ↗ shipyard. Uh during that time I did a

1:00:58 ↗ little over a year of quality assurance

1:01:00 ↗ which was kind of like project

1:01:02 ↗ management between the Navy and the

1:01:04 ↗ shipyard that was doing the ship's

1:01:06 ↗ maintenance. I also uh spent the better

1:01:09 ↗ part of a year as a data management for

1:01:12 ↗ the it's called NTAG Navy Talent

1:01:15 ↗ Acquisition Group Pacific Northwest

1:01:17 ↗ which was in charge of managing training

1:01:19 ↗ for all the recruiting stations from

1:01:22 ↗ Montana to Idaho to Alaska. Um

1:01:26 ↗ outside of that I was technically a

1:01:28 ↗ sonar technician but wasn't at SE much

1:01:29 ↗ so didn't do much sonar.

1:01:32 ↗ And uh with that, I'm looking forward to

1:01:35 ↗ speaking with you all about Isqua's

1:01:37 ↗ citywide 2025 performance measures.

1:01:40 ↗ >> And now you work for an organization

1:01:41 ↗ that is not shipwrecked. We are having

1:01:43 ↗ fun.

1:01:45 ↗ >> It's a great change.

1:01:52 ↗ >> A little bit of purpose. The purpose of

1:01:56 ↗ thisformational update is to provide

1:01:58 ↗ city council with an annual update on

1:02:00 ↗ the citywide performance measures,

1:02:02 ↗ providing data and performance from

1:02:03 ↗ 2025, presenting trends and analysis and

1:02:07 ↗ sharing plan changes.

1:02:10 ↗ This is anformational update and no

1:02:12 ↗ direction is needed from the city at

1:02:14 ↗ this time. City council

1:02:17 ↗ have a few slides for background. Um,

1:02:20 ↗ I'm sure you all know a lot about the

1:02:22 ↗ strategic plan, so we'll get through

1:02:23 ↗ them relatively quickly, but we'll still

1:02:25 ↗ touch base. Uh, the citywide performance

1:02:27 ↗ measurement plan was developed following

1:02:29 ↗ the 2019 city council adoption of the R

1:02:32 ↗ is strategic plan. Since 2021, it's been

1:02:36 ↗ used to guide both the administration

1:02:38 ↗ and city council in strategic

1:02:40 ↗ decision-making. As a companion to the

1:02:43 ↗ strategic plan, the measures are

1:02:45 ↗ organized by strategic goal area such as

1:02:48 ↗ mobility, etc. Um, in 2024, the

1:02:51 ↗ administration led an effort to update

1:02:53 ↗ the strategic plan so the plan success

1:02:55 ↗ measures may better align with each uh

1:02:58 ↗ plan area.

1:03:03 ↗ The purpose of the Oh,

1:03:08 ↗ >> sorry.

1:03:10 ↗ we are here. The purpose of the city

1:03:13 ↗ strategic plan is to help city

1:03:15 ↗ departments set service level standards,

1:03:17 ↗ support city council and budgetary and

1:03:19 ↗ policy decisions, and to provide

1:03:21 ↗ residents with increased transparency

1:03:23 ↗ into the city's performance.

1:03:28 ↗ >> The city provides this transparency

1:03:30 ↗ through its interactive city-wide

1:03:31 ↗ performance dashboard where users can

1:03:33 ↗ view the current and historical

1:03:35 ↗ performance for each measure. It works a

1:03:38 ↗ lot like a slideshow. You can navigate

1:03:41 ↗ through it and then there are drop downs

1:03:43 ↗ so that you can see amplifying data for

1:03:45 ↗ each year. It's updated annually and

1:03:48 ↗ improvements were made in 2023 to

1:03:50 ↗ attempt to make the dashboard more

1:03:52 ↗ understandable by a wider audience. Um

1:03:55 ↗ before I move on to 2025 performance,

1:03:57 ↗ are there any questions on the

1:03:59 ↗ background of performance measures?

1:04:03 ↗ Nope.

1:04:04 ↗ >> Thank you, Council President.

1:04:07 ↗ 25 update. In this section, I will

1:04:10 ↗ briefly cover the city's performance

1:04:12 ↗ throughout the strategic plan goal

1:04:13 ↗ areas, as well as some considerations

1:04:16 ↗ for measures that have not seen

1:04:17 ↗ improvement in previous years. In 2025,

1:04:21 ↗ the city met or exceeded 62% of

1:04:23 ↗ applicable performance measures and was

1:04:25 ↗ approaching the target on an on an

1:04:27 ↗ additional 18%.

1:04:29 ↗ Excluding measures without a determined

1:04:32 ↗ goal, the city was approaching, met, or

1:04:35 ↗ exceeded targets in over 83 of

1:04:37 ↗ applicable measures. The total number of

1:04:39 ↗ measures in 2024 is or in 2025 is lower

1:04:43 ↗ than in 2024 because we're still

1:04:44 ↗ awaiting data on two measures in social

1:04:46 ↗ and economic fatality, which we'll go

1:04:48 ↗ over shortly. Only 11 of 65 applicable

1:04:52 ↗ measures did not meet goal in 2025, and

1:04:54 ↗ this is the lowest amount since the

1:04:56 ↗ majority of goals were defined for these

1:04:57 ↗ measures.

1:05:00 ↗ trend of o year-over-year performance.

1:05:03 ↗ The city's performance has been on an

1:05:05 ↗ upward trajectory since the inception of

1:05:07 ↗ the program with the exception of 2021.

1:05:11 ↗ In 2025, performance improved in growth

1:05:14 ↗ and development and city leadership and

1:05:16 ↗ services compared to 2024.

1:05:19 ↗ Performance in mobility, social and

1:05:21 ↗ economic vitality, infrastructure, and

1:05:23 ↗ environmental stewardship remain stable.

1:05:27 ↗ The city met or approached 80% of

1:05:29 ↗ applicable goals in 2025.

1:05:33 ↗ Now, I'd like to share a short summary

1:05:36 ↗ of each goal area. I'm going to focus

1:05:38 ↗ more on highlighting a few measures of

1:05:40 ↗ significant performance or change,

1:05:41 ↗ whether they're good or bad.

1:05:44 ↗ >> Quick question. Could you kind of

1:05:45 ↗ clarify what approaching means like in

1:05:47 ↗ terms of data? Like, yes.

1:05:49 ↗ >> Like one or two points off or like what

1:05:51 ↗ is that really? So approaching is

1:05:53 ↗ typically in the realm of within 5% of

1:05:55 ↗ goals. Uh it can be 10% if the goal is

1:05:58 ↗ higher. Like we have some goals that our

1:06:01 ↗ objective is 100%. And 90 would

1:06:04 ↗ technically be considered approaching

1:06:05 ↗ for those goals.

1:06:08 ↗ >> So I had asked for a spreadsheet on what

1:06:10 ↗ the numbers were. It's in your email,

1:06:12 ↗ but it might have been lost because we

1:06:14 ↗ did get a fair number of emails last

1:06:15 ↗ couple days. So that's from Lee uh

1:06:18 ↗ yesterday at 9:30 in the morning. Thank

1:06:21 ↗ you.

1:06:22 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Nicholas. Um,

1:06:26 ↗ so I, as I said, I'm planning on um

1:06:28 ↗ focusing more on a few measures, either

1:06:31 ↗ good or bad, of significant performance

1:06:33 ↗ instead of listing every single measure

1:06:35 ↗ from every goal area. Um, that's to

1:06:37 ↗ allow more questions on specific

1:06:39 ↗ measures. But once this data is uploaded

1:06:41 ↗ into the city's performance dashboard,

1:06:43 ↗ you'll be able to look at detailed

1:06:44 ↗ narratives for any measure I don't speak

1:06:46 ↗ on. Um, 67%

1:06:49 ↗ of mobility measures approached met or

1:06:52 ↗ exceeded goal in 2025.

1:06:54 ↗ Some of those measures of note are that

1:06:57 ↗ were met are average public transit

1:06:59 ↗ boardings increase for the fifth

1:07:00 ↗ consecutive year, an 8.2% increase from

1:07:04 ↗ 2024.

1:07:05 ↗ Um linear feet of sidewalks constructed

1:07:09 ↗ totaled over double its goal of 500

1:07:11 ↗ linear feet. Approaching targets

1:07:13 ↗ included commute mode share which saw a

1:07:16 ↗ decrease in the amount of people working

1:07:18 ↗ from home over the past few years. So

1:07:21 ↗ driving alone increased throughout the

1:07:24 ↗ year which stopped the city from meeting

1:07:26 ↗ its goal. However, it's important to

1:07:28 ↗ note that that change comes from almost

1:07:30 ↗ entirely a shift from working from home

1:07:33 ↗ to back in the office and most or all

1:07:37 ↗ other transportation methods were at

1:07:39 ↗ least stable or rose within the year.

1:07:44 ↗ Targets that were not met,

1:07:46 ↗ linear feet of bicycle facility

1:07:49 ↗ constructed annually. The city did not

1:07:51 ↗ meet its annual target for 2025, but the

1:07:55 ↗ proposed transportation improvement plan

1:07:57 ↗ includes numerous projects that will

1:07:59 ↗ enhance and build bicycle facilities in

1:08:01 ↗ the coming years.

1:08:04 ↗ Another goal that was not met was

1:08:06 ↗ resident perception of mobility within

1:08:08 ↗ Isqua. Satisfaction overall lowered in

1:08:10 ↗ 2025, but on the upside, public transit

1:08:14 ↗ met its goal with a satisfaction raised

1:08:16 ↗ by 8.4%.

1:08:19 ↗ Uh and the city is exploring how the

1:08:21 ↗ application of GIS data analytics

1:08:23 ↗ platforms can get shed more in shed more

1:08:26 ↗ light on the trends within commute mode

1:08:30 ↗ share in the coming years

1:08:33 ↗ targets to be determined for this

1:08:36 ↗ target. The city is working with GIS

1:08:39 ↗ vendors that would be able to provide

1:08:41 ↗ the relevant data. Uh we're currently

1:08:43 ↗ looking at two vendors. One is Placer AI

1:08:45 ↗ which provides data on where people go

1:08:47 ↗ in the city and the other is search

1:08:49 ↗ light a vendor focused primarily on

1:08:51 ↗ transportation data.

1:08:53 ↗ >> So so before you move on um I think for

1:08:57 ↗ anything that's a target not met or a

1:08:58 ↗ target TVD we we should have somewhere

1:09:02 ↗ uh a master doc that says what's our

1:09:04 ↗ plan to get there. It doesn't have to be

1:09:06 ↗ doesn't have to be and thus we will be

1:09:08 ↗ fully compliant by the end of the year

1:09:10 ↗ but just what's our plan.

1:09:11 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:13 ↗ So um yeah linear feed at bicycle

1:09:16 ↗ facility constructed annually. I mean if

1:09:18 ↗ we that's a you know if we execute the

1:09:21 ↗ capital plan this year as designed we

1:09:24 ↗ think we will be there. We think we will

1:09:26 ↗ mostly be there whatever.

1:09:28 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure.

1:09:30 ↗ >> Thank you. Council

1:09:31 ↗ >> please continue.

1:09:32 ↗ >> Oh

1:09:33 ↗ >> 500 ft and we didn't achieve that.

1:09:37 ↗ >> You you can keep going.

1:09:38 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:40 ↗ For growth and development, 80% of

1:09:42 ↗ measures approached met or exceeded

1:09:44 ↗ targets in 2025.

1:09:46 ↗ For targets met, first permit review

1:09:48 ↗ time. In 2025, all categories met their

1:09:51 ↗ goal for the first time since 2018. It's

1:09:54 ↗ important to note that there were no

1:09:55 ↗ preliminary PLA first reviews in 2025,

1:09:58 ↗ but this is still a big win for the city

1:10:00 ↗ and for the permit center. The city also

1:10:03 ↗ met its goal in total number of permits

1:10:05 ↗ issued, uh, reaching the highest total

1:10:08 ↗ since 2021.

1:10:10 ↗ Targets not met include new affordable

1:10:13 ↗ housing units created. No new affordable

1:10:15 ↗ housing units were created in 2025.

1:10:18 ↗ While the city does have an annual goal

1:10:20 ↗ of a year-over-year increase, affordable

1:10:22 ↗ housing units often become available in

1:10:24 ↗ spurts, which means some years will show

1:10:26 ↗ either only a few or no new units, and

1:10:29 ↗ other years we'll see a cluster. Over

1:10:32 ↗ the past 5 years, the city has added 41

1:10:34 ↗ new affordable housing units.

1:10:37 ↗ Targets not applicable. Total housing

1:10:38 ↗ units by type. This provides insights on

1:10:41 ↗ the overall housing landscape within the

1:10:44 ↗ city, but it does not have an annual

1:10:46 ↗ goal since it's dependent upon several

1:10:48 ↗ factors. Housing and growth targets are

1:10:50 ↗ outlined within the city's comprehensive

1:10:52 ↗ plan.

1:10:54 ↗ In environmental stewardship, 80% of

1:10:57 ↗ measures approached met or exceeded

1:10:59 ↗ targets in 2025.

1:11:02 ↗ Targets met include tree canopy. tree

1:11:05 ↗ canopy was bad, but it's important to

1:11:09 ↗ note that it likely will drop below the

1:11:11 ↗ goal when measured next due to the

1:11:13 ↗ impacts of the bomb cyclone event. Tree

1:11:16 ↗ canopy is measured every 3 to 5 years

1:11:18 ↗ and should be updated this year.

1:11:22 ↗ Percentage of materials diverted from

1:11:24 ↗ the landfill. At the May 13, 2025

1:11:27 ↗ meeting, the city council approved a

1:11:29 ↗ change to this goal to see an annual

1:11:30 ↗ improvement leading up to the goal of

1:11:32 ↗ 70% diversion by 2030.

1:11:35 ↗ Overall diversion has improved for the

1:11:37 ↗ third consecutive year.

1:11:40 ↗ Targets not met. Communitywide

1:11:42 ↗ electricity use. There was an overall

1:11:45 ↗ rise in electricity use in 2025.

1:11:47 ↗ However, something to consider is that

1:11:49 ↗ this measure does not account for the

1:11:51 ↗ city's uh efforts to reduce overall gas

1:11:54 ↗ emissions through either installation of

1:11:56 ↗ heat pumps or electric vehicle charging

1:11:58 ↗ stations. New measures are proposed in

1:12:00 ↗ 2026 to allow us to better compare these

1:12:04 ↗ measures and more accurately represent

1:12:07 ↗ sustainab sustainability measures

1:12:10 ↗ efforts as a whole.

1:12:13 ↗ Targets to be determined. Percentage of

1:12:15 ↗ city-owned streets receiving storm water

1:12:16 ↗ treatment. This is the third year of

1:12:18 ↗ tracking for this measure and an annual

1:12:20 ↗ goal should be determined this year.

1:12:24 ↗ Social and economic fatality 100% of

1:12:27 ↗ applicable targets set for social and

1:12:29 ↗ economic fatality uh were met for the

1:12:32 ↗ second consecutive year. However, two

1:12:35 ↗ measures are awaiting 2025 data

1:12:37 ↗ reporting and this may change the

1:12:38 ↗ overall performance when reported.

1:12:40 ↗ Additionally, parts of these measures

1:12:42 ↗ may vary yearbyear and it's important to

1:12:44 ↗ maintain high performance in this area.

1:12:47 ↗ Measures met include number of human

1:12:49 ↗ services program beneficiaries supported

1:12:51 ↗ through city funding for this fifth

1:12:53 ↗ consecutive year. Number of businesses

1:12:55 ↗ supported with startup training and

1:12:57 ↗ development reported an all-time high of

1:12:59 ↗ 178 businesses.

1:13:01 ↗ And finally, participants attending

1:13:03 ↗ municipal art fund supported programs

1:13:05 ↗ and events met goal for the third

1:13:07 ↗ consecutive year. Targets approaching

1:13:09 ↗ include percentage of human services

1:13:11 ↗ partners achieving one or more goals

1:13:13 ↗ reached 98% the highest recorded result

1:13:16 ↗ of this measure and number of business

1:13:18 ↗ retention visits fell within 6% of its

1:13:21 ↗ goal.

1:13:24 ↗ Not applicable targets include number of

1:13:28 ↗ Isiqua residents receiving support from

1:13:30 ↗ the Isiqua Food and Clothing Bank. This

1:13:33 ↗ is an indicator of community need and

1:13:35 ↗ does not come with a goal of increasing

1:13:37 ↗ or decreasing food bank use. Performance

1:13:40 ↗ measures awaiting data. Both of the

1:13:42 ↗ performance measures for total jobs in

1:13:45 ↗ ISQA and PE percentage of people who

1:13:47 ↗ both work and live in Isqua come from

1:13:50 ↗ external sources. It's usually provided

1:13:52 ↗ in June and both will be updated when

1:13:55 ↗ the data is received.

1:13:56 ↗ >> So I sorry I I have I have a question.

1:13:58 ↗ This is specifically for Mayor Mullet

1:14:00 ↗ because I know Isqua Food Bank has been

1:14:03 ↗ a longstanding passion of yours. What

1:14:06 ↗ What do we do with metrics that don't

1:14:08 ↗ have targets, right? What do we what do

1:14:11 ↗ we do with this metric? Because I I can

1:14:14 ↗ imagine a lot of things.

1:14:16 ↗ >> Well, I guess it would just be a data

1:14:19 ↗ point so people can get a sense of what

1:14:20 ↗ the demand is for. I mean,

1:14:23 ↗ >> if it goes up,

1:14:24 ↗ >> you shouldn't be happy about people

1:14:26 ↗ going to the food bank more. But I think

1:14:27 ↗ people just want to know as a sense of

1:14:30 ↗ kind of where the community is at. Is

1:14:32 ↗ the demand on food bank services

1:14:35 ↗ >> higher than normal, normal, lower than

1:14:37 ↗ normal? I don't know. I mean, it might

1:14:38 ↗ be helpful information just to get a

1:14:40 ↗ sense of economically,

1:14:41 ↗ >> qualitatively is there's really like I

1:14:44 ↗ don't Yeah, it's hard to have a target,

1:14:47 ↗ right?

1:14:48 ↗ >> Because I think a lot of us care a lot

1:14:49 ↗ that we have a food bank and that it

1:14:51 ↗ does a good job. I just struggle to

1:14:53 ↗ figure out what to do with this number.

1:14:55 ↗ Right.

1:14:55 ↗ >> I think the press might like the number

1:14:57 ↗ and be able to compare Reton to Isiqua

1:15:00 ↗ to Everett and then do a news story

1:15:02 ↗ about food bank usage is up area wide or

1:15:06 ↗ just in one area. It's a data point that

1:15:08 ↗ we can provide to inform the public. I

1:15:10 ↗ think

1:15:11 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Boy.

1:15:13 ↗ >> I think it can also shape our policy

1:15:16 ↗ thinking as we're building our budget

1:15:18 ↗ where this is an indicator of use. That

1:15:20 ↗ means that more people's budgets are

1:15:23 ↗ impacted and they are now going to food

1:15:26 ↗ bank and so what are like our what is

1:15:29 ↗ our city role in responding to that? How

1:15:31 ↗ do we alleviate that? Looking at our

1:15:33 ↗ human services portion of our budget,

1:15:35 ↗ >> you know this Yeah. And it was

1:15:37 ↗ interesting because W and I met with the

1:15:38 ↗ VP of Costco yesterday and we asked

1:15:40 ↗ Claudine, we said, "How many of your

1:15:42 ↗ employees live in Isqua?" She goes,

1:15:43 ↗ "Holy crap, I don't know. Let me find

1:15:46 ↗ out and get back to you guys." It was an

1:15:48 ↗ interesting response because I don't

1:15:50 ↗ think she'd ever been asked that before.

1:15:51 ↗ And so they have 6,000 employees here.

1:15:54 ↗ And she obviously was like, I don't know

1:15:55 ↗ how many actually live exactly within

1:15:58 ↗ the city limit. She's like, I have an

1:16:00 ↗ idea that 80% of them live between

1:16:02 ↗ Belleview and Soami in is that rough

1:16:06 ↗ geographic vicinity, but she really

1:16:08 ↗ didn't know. So it'll be interesting.

1:16:10 ↗ I'm curious just to get the Costco

1:16:12 ↗ employee data point back from her, which

1:16:15 ↗ I think she's going to get us. won't

1:16:16 ↗ take that long, but I guess it will

1:16:18 ↗ happen by the end of next week.

1:16:20 ↗ >> Council member deer.

1:16:21 ↗ >> Yeah. Well, I was say I think I feel a

1:16:23 ↗ use of the the food bank number is that

1:16:26 ↗ if it were to change in a significant

1:16:29 ↗ way in a year, that should trigger some

1:16:31 ↗ sort of action of the why like is it

1:16:33 ↗ that no more people don't need it or is

1:16:36 ↗ it that the food bank does not have the

1:16:37 ↗ resources to deliver, you know? So it's

1:16:39 ↗ more that like by tracking it and if

1:16:41 ↗ something changes it would trigger an

1:16:42 ↗ action for us to find out the why and

1:16:44 ↗ address it in one way or the other

1:16:46 ↗ depending on what that might be.

1:16:47 ↗ >> That that's a great point. I mean any

1:16:48 ↗ any kink in the curve is worth

1:16:50 ↗ understanding. Yeah. Right. Really of

1:16:52 ↗ any measure at a certain point.

1:16:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:16:55 ↗ >> All right. All right. Thanks. I just

1:16:56 ↗ wanted to understand because you know

1:16:58 ↗ you're rightfully in the places where we

1:16:59 ↗ have targets you're rightfully pointing

1:17:02 ↗ out how we're doing against those

1:17:03 ↗ targets. I just wanted to understand a

1:17:04 ↗ little better non-target metrics.

1:17:06 ↗ >> Thank you C council presidents.

1:17:08 ↗ Moving on to city leadership and

1:17:11 ↗ services. 78% of city targets were met

1:17:14 ↗ for this measure in 2025. This is a

1:17:17 ↗ slight improvement from 2024.

1:17:19 ↗ Targets met include police emergency

1:17:22 ↗ response and overall response time with

1:17:25 ↗ relatively consistent or improving

1:17:27 ↗ behavior or behavior performance from

1:17:29 ↗ the past several years.

1:17:31 ↗ Uh resident perception of overall city

1:17:33 ↗ services was also met goal after

1:17:36 ↗ adjusting the target in 2024

1:17:39 ↗ uh at the May 13, 2024 council meeting.

1:17:43 ↗ Targets approaching for 2025 included

1:17:45 ↗ language accessibility in city produced

1:17:48 ↗ materials and resident perception of

1:17:51 ↗ public safety, which saw 80%

1:17:53 ↗ satisfaction in 2025, which falls short

1:17:57 ↗ of the city's goal of 85% but

1:17:59 ↗ outperforms both regional and national

1:18:01 ↗ averages.

1:18:04 ↗ And targets not met include racial

1:18:07 ↗ equity and implicit bias training. focus

1:18:10 ↗ shifted to other types of training since

1:18:12 ↗ 2025 and the city will be returning to

1:18:14 ↗ this training in the upcoming years. Um,

1:18:17 ↗ demographics of city applicants, staff,

1:18:19 ↗ board, and commission members was also

1:18:22 ↗ not met and has not reflected the

1:18:25 ↗ demograph demographics of Isqua as a

1:18:27 ↗ whole since 2023.

1:18:31 ↗ Targets not applicable includes debt per

1:18:33 ↗ capita. This measure has helped to

1:18:34 ↗ evaluate how responsibly the city is

1:18:36 ↗ taking care of its debt and whether or

1:18:38 ↗ not it's in the position to take on new

1:18:39 ↗ debt. But no goal is set for this

1:18:41 ↗ measure.

1:18:45 ↗ Infrastructure

1:18:47 ↗ performance was approaching met or

1:18:49 ↗ exceeded 86% of targets for

1:18:52 ↗ infrastructure in 2025. This is

1:18:54 ↗ consistent with 2024 performance and

1:18:57 ↗ besides 2024 is the highest score since

1:18:59 ↗ 2019.

1:19:03 ↗ Targets met include number of wing water

1:19:06 ↗ main breaks with zero breaks in 2025.

1:19:09 ↗ Number of elicit discharge reports filed

1:19:11 ↗ and responded to with the number of

1:19:13 ↗ elicit discharge is falling by 75% since

1:19:17 ↗ 2024.

1:19:19 ↗ Targets approaching includes number of

1:19:21 ↗ sanitary sewer overflows which total one

1:19:24 ↗ while the goal was zero and targets not

1:19:27 ↗ forward targets not met. All

1:19:29 ↗ infrastructure targets not met fell

1:19:30 ↗ within three quarters of their annual

1:19:32 ↗ goal.

1:19:32 ↗ >> Got a question from council member

1:19:34 ↗ Walsh.

1:19:34 ↗ >> Um more of a comment. I noticed that

1:19:37 ↗ this is the fourth year in a row that we

1:19:40 ↗ have not met our target for percentage

1:19:42 ↗ of storm water lines cleared. I guess at

1:19:45 ↗ some point I'd like to know why and

1:19:47 ↗ whether or not we are making adjustments

1:19:50 ↗ on that. Well, and I think at the

1:19:52 ↗ beginning of this conversation, you came

1:19:53 ↗ up with a whole new report which we'll

1:19:55 ↗ work on which is a list of all the ones

1:19:57 ↗ we didn't meet and why. And so we'll

1:19:59 ↗ bring that

1:20:01 ↗ >> we'll sort out how long to put together.

1:20:02 ↗ We'll bring it to the council.

1:20:04 ↗ >> Awesome.

1:20:05 ↗ >> Great idea.

1:20:06 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:20:07 ↗ >> Thank you, Council Member Walsh.

1:20:10 ↗ Moving on. Excuse me. Moving on to

1:20:12 ↗ positive trends in 2025.

1:20:15 ↗ First permit review time met in all

1:20:17 ↗ categories for the first time since

1:20:18 ↗ 2018. public transport

1:20:21 ↗ >> and I just have to throw in for new

1:20:22 ↗ council members that is unbelievable. So

1:20:25 ↗ th this has been a bugaboo for this city

1:20:29 ↗ for as long as I have lived in this

1:20:30 ↗ city. So this is a huge big deal.

1:20:33 ↗ >> Manny's team takes this very seriously.

1:20:40 ↗ >> Public transit boardings rising trend

1:20:42 ↗ continues for the fifth.

1:20:44 ↗ >> Sorry, question from council me.

1:20:45 ↗ >> Quick one on that one. Uh on the review

1:20:47 ↗ time. So we also do have a bunch of new

1:20:49 ↗ state requirements on that. Are the are

1:20:51 ↗ we there for the new review time

1:20:54 ↗ requirements?

1:20:55 ↗ >> Okay, closer.

1:20:58 ↗ >> What are you doing? I'm meeting 5290

1:21:00 ↗ requirements about the 5290

1:21:02 ↗ requirements.

1:21:02 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:21:03 ↗ >> this can be a quick answer and we can

1:21:04 ↗ come back later. I was just this is we

1:21:06 ↗ met our goal from last year. Do the new

1:21:09 ↗ will we are we going to will we have met

1:21:11 ↗ with those numbers or are we on track to

1:21:13 ↗ meet the new newly required numbers? I

1:21:15 ↗ think there's still progress to make the

1:21:17 ↗ fact we'll get your precise answer.

1:21:22 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:21:24 ↗ >> And landfill diversion overall trend

1:21:27 ↗ continued for the fourth including 2024

1:21:30 ↗ consecutive year or 2022, excuse me.

1:21:35 ↗ New measure focus areas in 2026. There

1:21:38 ↗ are new measures to be implemented in

1:21:40 ↗ 2026.

1:21:42 ↗ Um well, let me back up. In late 2024,

1:21:45 ↗ the city council approved the adoption

1:21:47 ↗ of an updated RA strategic plan and the

1:21:50 ↗ plan proposed new measures to close the

1:21:52 ↗ gap between what is currently measured

1:21:54 ↗ and what would help the public and city

1:21:55 ↗ council make more informed decisions

1:21:58 ↗ about investments. These are some broad

1:22:01 ↗ examples of what some performance areas

1:22:04 ↗ that these measures aim to target or

1:22:07 ↗ improve. These are not measures

1:22:08 ↗ themselves. If you'd like to see a

1:22:11 ↗ complete list of new new performance

1:22:13 ↗ measures, they can be found in

1:22:14 ↗ attachment A grouped by strategic plan

1:22:16 ↗ goal area.

1:22:17 ↗ >> Council member Nichols has a question.

1:22:20 ↗ >> So, I wanted to pick on the mobility one

1:22:21 ↗ in particular and see if what our

1:22:23 ↗ proposal is is going to get better on

1:22:25 ↗ this. Um, so I really appreciate the

1:22:26 ↗ spreadsheet that you sent out. Um, I

1:22:28 ↗ love I love a good spreadsheet. Um, and

1:22:32 ↗ looking at mobility in particular, I

1:22:34 ↗ this is a good example where as council

1:22:37 ↗ president Mart has pointed out, having

1:22:38 ↗ smart goals would be a we don't quite

1:22:42 ↗ have them right now. Um, our goal for

1:22:44 ↗ mobility is simply reduction or one of

1:22:46 ↗ our big goals for commut share is

1:22:48 ↗ reducing of driving alone percentage. um

1:22:52 ↗ having a goal like that and then having

1:22:55 ↗ all of our related goals derived from

1:22:57 ↗ that meaning so for example we don't

1:22:59 ↗ have a specific goal for vamping or

1:23:01 ↗ biking or walking they all just tie into

1:23:03 ↗ this

1:23:05 ↗ very car ccentric goal the only time we

1:23:08 ↗ have

1:23:09 ↗ picking up biking as an example we don't

1:23:11 ↗ have a goal on improve and increasing

1:23:14 ↗ the mode share of biking and this is now

1:23:16 ↗ the 12th year where bike mode share has

1:23:19 ↗ been decreasing in Isqua we have some

1:23:21 ↗ goals around for example increasing the

1:23:24 ↗ p the number of linear feet of bicycle

1:23:26 ↗ feet of we have a specific number for

1:23:29 ↗ linear feet of bicycle facilities it's

1:23:30 ↗ 500 uh we constructed zero in the past I

1:23:33 ↗ guess two to three years um so we didn't

1:23:36 ↗ meet that but my point is going to be

1:23:38 ↗ when we're when we're constructing these

1:23:39 ↗ goals if they all come back to cars

1:23:42 ↗ we're going to miss better potentially

1:23:44 ↗ better ways to improve even bikeability

1:23:47 ↗ as an example in that one bikeability

1:23:50 ↗ within a city is simply about the number

1:23:51 ↗ of l of um feet of stuff you build. It's

1:23:56 ↗ also about the traffic light situation.

1:23:59 ↗ Um the the quality of the intersections,

1:24:02 ↗ the number of um uh bike stalls

1:24:05 ↗ themselves. I don't want to do a deep

1:24:06 ↗ dive on that right now. That's not my

1:24:08 ↗ point. But the the point is having goals

1:24:10 ↗ that tie into something that's unrelated

1:24:12 ↗ in some ways will potentially lead us

1:24:14 ↗ astray in seeing better fixes that we

1:24:17 ↗ could actually afford to do um that

1:24:19 ↗ would improve the reality of those um

1:24:24 ↗ mode shares for the people that are

1:24:25 ↗ using them.

1:24:27 ↗ >> That's a great point, Council Member

1:24:29 ↗ Nichols.

1:24:30 ↗ >> Council member Walsh. Uh, I think I want

1:24:33 ↗ to double down on that in either it

1:24:36 ↗ sounds like there may be some areas

1:24:38 ↗ where we need to rethink the top to

1:24:41 ↗ bottom on this in order to achieve our

1:24:43 ↗ goals, but I'll also point out what

1:24:46 ↗ Mayor Mullet was talking about with um

1:24:48 ↗ the LED lights and things like that.

1:24:50 ↗ There may be things that we don't

1:24:53 ↗ necessarily track, but that help us

1:24:56 ↗ achieve our goals. And so trying to

1:24:58 ↗ figure out which ones which one of these

1:25:00 ↗ things should be on a performance

1:25:04 ↗ dashboard and measurement versus which

1:25:07 ↗ ones like

1:25:09 ↗ are we only doing the things that we can

1:25:11 ↗ measure or you know so I don't know

1:25:14 ↗ where my thoughts go there but I think

1:25:16 ↗ there's a mix of all of that as we

1:25:20 ↗ really think about how do we achieve the

1:25:23 ↗ goals.

1:25:24 ↗ >> So maybe we let Lee Lee you're almost

1:25:25 ↗ done right? I

1:25:26 ↗ >> okay maybe we get

1:25:27 ↗ >> y council president we can let thee

1:25:29 ↗ finish and then we can double back to

1:25:31 ↗ council member Walsh

1:25:32 ↗ >> we we'll come back to a high level

1:25:33 ↗ conversation again

1:25:35 ↗ >> where from here

1:25:37 ↗ >> timing and next steps during my

1:25:39 ↗ remaining time with the city I will be

1:25:41 ↗ working with data department stewards to

1:25:43 ↗ determine the feasibility of new

1:25:45 ↗ measures compare performance measures

1:25:47 ↗ from other cities and request

1:25:49 ↗ clarification as needed from the

1:25:51 ↗ administration and city council on

1:25:52 ↗ recommended new measures

1:25:56 ↗ A plan for reporting these new measures

1:25:58 ↗ will be sent to city council in the

1:25:59 ↗ second half of 2026. The administration

1:26:02 ↗ will provide council a note when the

1:26:04 ↗ performance dashboard is updated in the

1:26:06 ↗ coming weeks. And finally, the

1:26:08 ↗ administration will return to city

1:26:09 ↗ council in the spring of 2027 with its

1:26:11 ↗ annual update on 2026 performance.

1:26:15 ↗ Uh now I'll take any more questions or

1:26:17 ↗ if there's any specific recommendations

1:26:19 ↗ for new measures or concerns for

1:26:21 ↗ previous ones, I'd be happy to take them

1:26:22 ↗ now. Thank you,

1:26:23 ↗ >> Council Member Ch.

1:26:24 ↗ >> Thank you,

1:26:27 ↗ >> Lee. Thank you for your service to our

1:26:28 ↗ country. I appreciate it.

1:26:29 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:26:30 ↗ >> People say it all the time, and I know

1:26:32 ↗ that you put a lot of different things

1:26:34 ↗ on the sideline to go serve. We

1:26:35 ↗ appreciate that.

1:26:37 ↗ >> Uh during your time in the Navy, you

1:26:38 ↗ were in sonar and uh you had a way of

1:26:41 ↗ tracking enemy subs or surface

1:26:45 ↗ vehicles or whatever you want to call it

1:26:47 ↗ all the time. Is there anything out

1:26:49 ↗ there that allows us to track bicycle

1:26:52 ↗ traffic as council member Nichols has

1:26:54 ↗ stated that could give us more

1:26:55 ↗ information or better information on

1:26:56 ↗ some of these measures that we're trying

1:26:58 ↗ to look after? That is a that's a great

1:27:02 ↗ question, council member. One of the new

1:27:04 ↗ proposed measures in 2026

1:27:07 ↗ now is percentage of identified bike,

1:27:10 ↗ pedestrian, and vehicle network goals

1:27:12 ↗ closed annually. I don't know that that

1:27:14 ↗ can necessarily help you track bicycles,

1:27:16 ↗ but it may help improve usage of

1:27:19 ↗ bicycles. As far as tracking, I was

1:27:22 ↗ involved in well, I was present for a a

1:27:26 ↗ showcase for Placer AI, one of the GIS

1:27:29 ↗ data analytics platforms that the city

1:27:31 ↗ is looking to work with. And they using

1:27:35 ↗ cell phone data are able to track

1:27:37 ↗ people's locations. And this could give

1:27:38 ↗ us a much better idea of how many people

1:27:40 ↗ are using bikes within the city. and

1:27:42 ↗ more importantly what the city is doing

1:27:45 ↗ whether what the city is doing is having

1:27:48 ↗ a real meaningful impact on the number

1:27:50 ↗ of people riding bikes in the city.

1:27:52 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks

1:27:53 ↗ >> council member.

1:27:55 ↗ >> Yeah. A couple measures I'd been

1:27:56 ↗ thinking about were one was you know we

1:27:59 ↗ have the traffic related collisions but

1:28:00 ↗ do that broken down by like collisions

1:28:02 ↗ with pedestrians or collisions with

1:28:04 ↗ bicycles in terms of the safety of

1:28:07 ↗ pedestrian you know people walking and

1:28:08 ↗ biking in the city?

1:28:10 ↗ >> That is an interesting question. I did

1:28:13 ↗ look at I believe it was city of

1:28:15 ↗ Kirkland that does have data that

1:28:17 ↗ specifically shows the mode of

1:28:20 ↗ transportation that resulted in um I

1:28:23 ↗ don't believe it was fatal but I believe

1:28:25 ↗ it was serious injur injury collisions.

1:28:27 ↗ Right now the city is primarily using

1:28:30 ↗ census data which involves the severity

1:28:32 ↗ of the collision but not necessarily the

1:28:35 ↗ the mobility mode of the people

1:28:37 ↗ involved.

1:28:38 ↗ >> Okay. Um the other one I thought about

1:28:40 ↗ in terms I saw that you know we have

1:28:41 ↗ total jobs but do we have like average

1:28:43 ↗ wages of jobs in Isiqua?

1:28:46 ↗ We have

1:28:48 ↗ the average um

1:28:52 ↗ taxable income from Isiqua businesses.

1:28:55 ↗ Uh I don't think that actually extends

1:28:57 ↗ to residents,

1:28:59 ↗ >> right?

1:28:59 ↗ >> But I can take that down and I'm sure

1:29:01 ↗ that's something that we could

1:29:03 ↗ >> in terms of the live and work in Isiqua.

1:29:04 ↗ You know, where are wages looking like?

1:29:06 ↗ I think the annual income information is

1:29:08 ↗ is available. I've seen it for different

1:29:10 ↗ cities. It's maybe not something we're

1:29:12 ↗ tracking, but it's readily available, I

1:29:14 ↗ think.

1:29:14 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:29:15 ↗ >> But is it Isiqua jobs for Isiqua

1:29:17 ↗ residents or is it all Isqua residents

1:29:20 ↗ >> people that work at Isiqua? Here's your

1:29:21 ↗ average wage.

1:29:22 ↗ >> Okay.

1:29:23 ↗ >> So,

1:29:23 ↗ >> yeah.

1:29:24 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:29:24 ↗ >> I think I've seen that.

1:29:25 ↗ >> Okay.

1:29:28 ↗ Well, Lee, I have I have to say at the

1:29:30 ↗ risk of being hyperbolic, this is

1:29:32 ↗ possibly the best presentation on

1:29:34 ↗ metrics I have seen ever for the city.

1:29:36 ↗ The quantity of information you went

1:29:38 ↗ through in a half hour. Um, and and this

1:29:41 ↗ is basically what I've been asking for

1:29:43 ↗ for a long time. Combine that with an

1:29:46 ↗ understanding that we're going to uh do

1:29:47 ↗ a turn on how do we get the notats and

1:29:50 ↗ the TVDs. Um, this is this is huge. So,

1:29:53 ↗ thank you very much.

1:29:54 ↗ >> Thank you, Council President Marks. You

1:29:56 ↗ should know Lee compliments from Council

1:29:58 ↗ Marts not come easily.

1:29:59 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:30:00 ↗ >> you may be new to this, but

1:30:03 ↗ >> I will plus one. I will plus one to

1:30:06 ↗ that. And also, thank you for asking the

1:30:08 ↗ question about what are we doing to um

1:30:11 ↗ handle the things that are not met. I

1:30:13 ↗ think this is a meaningful moment in our

1:30:16 ↗ performance metrics to kind of move that

1:30:21 ↗ state of the union forward. So,

1:30:24 ↗ >> council member Boy,

1:30:27 ↗ >> I might be over my skis here because I

1:30:29 ↗ know they set their work plans and

1:30:30 ↗ whatnot, but I think it would be really

1:30:32 ↗ cool if we could send this to the boards

1:30:34 ↗ and commissions

1:30:35 ↗ >> if they're interested. I just know like

1:30:37 ↗ when I was on tab, a lot of like how are

1:30:39 ↗ we measuring things would come up and I

1:30:40 ↗ just if they have I know this is, you

1:30:42 ↗ know, going to be accessible in public,

1:30:43 ↗ but if you know if it's even just

1:30:45 ↗ emailed in their packet or something, I

1:30:47 ↗ just I think this yeah really great to

1:30:49 ↗ share out. That's a great idea.

1:30:52 ↗ >> And help them set their strategic future

1:30:54 ↗ plans.

1:30:54 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:30:54 ↗ >> Council member Nichols.

1:30:56 ↗ >> So, I know we don't have time to do a

1:30:58 ↗ deep dive on these right now, but I

1:31:00 ↗ think that there's um I'd like to find

1:31:03 ↗ time when we could get some more touch

1:31:05 ↗ points on the specific new measures for

1:31:07 ↗ 2026. I do think these are I think there

1:31:10 ↗ there lots of great ideas in here. I

1:31:12 ↗ suspect that there would be others that

1:31:13 ↗ would come up in further discussion. And

1:31:15 ↗ since we're we're one of the main

1:31:17 ↗ customers for these data, um

1:31:20 ↗ I'd like to get a chance to push on some

1:31:24 ↗ both um the goals we have uh not just

1:31:27 ↗ new goals. This is a good list of new

1:31:29 ↗ measures, but there's some goals in here

1:31:30 ↗ that I we're measuring that I I don't

1:31:32 ↗ even they I think they might be

1:31:34 ↗ counterproductive frankly.

1:31:36 ↗ >> Use less electricity.

1:31:39 ↗ >> Literally going to point that one out.

1:31:40 ↗ Yeah. um like why

1:31:42 ↗ >> I I think I'm hearing you say please

1:31:44 ↗ don't come to us with a shrink wrapped

1:31:45 ↗ package of new goals for us to thumb up

1:31:47 ↗ or thumb down but have us be part of the

1:31:49 ↗ conversation of what those goals should

1:31:50 ↗ look like.

1:31:51 ↗ >> Thank you. Yes.

1:31:52 ↗ >> How would you like to do that?

1:31:54 ↗ >> Like to send your standing committee a

1:31:56 ↗ cow?

1:31:57 ↗ >> I think a cow. I think these are big

1:31:58 ↗ enough that all seven of us should

1:32:00 ↗ invest time in them.

1:32:01 ↗ >> Great.

1:32:02 ↗ >> And I'm seeing head nods to that effect.

1:32:04 ↗ >> I'm saying services

1:32:08 ↗ >> do an ad hoc committee.

1:32:10 ↗ Council member Walsh,

1:32:11 ↗ >> I was just going to say I also want us

1:32:13 ↗ to make sure that we are willing to let

1:32:15 ↗ go of measures that are not serving us

1:32:17 ↗ well. Um, so I will add that in because

1:32:21 ↗ I don't want every year to be add more

1:32:23 ↗ measurements, add more measurements, add

1:32:25 ↗ more measurements. So

1:32:26 ↗ >> yeah, and we wholeheartedly agree. I

1:32:29 ↗ mean, we this is you are our primary

1:32:31 ↗ audience. You're not the only audience,

1:32:32 ↗ but you are a primary audience of all

1:32:34 ↗ this. If it's not useful to you, then

1:32:36 ↗ why are we doing it?

1:32:38 ↗ And and I want to and I want to point

1:32:40 ↗ out one thing in that which is metric

1:32:42 ↗ persistence matters right like we

1:32:44 ↗ shouldn't be afraid to change measures

1:32:45 ↗ if a measure isn't working for us but

1:32:47 ↗ there is a value to a persistence in a

1:32:49 ↗ metric right and to you the conversation

1:32:51 ↗ with council member Dare when we see a

1:32:53 ↗ kink in a long-standing measure it's

1:32:55 ↗ probably important so I'm I'm all for

1:32:57 ↗ looking at some new measures but I I

1:32:59 ↗ want to be very careful that I have seen

1:33:02 ↗ in the past sometimes we were on a very

1:33:04 ↗ aggressive like let's rebaseline the

1:33:06 ↗ metrics. Let's rebaseline the metrics. I

1:33:08 ↗ don't like the idea of rebaselining. I

1:33:10 ↗ like the idea of of making calculated

1:33:13 ↗ changes. Um I thought somebody had their

1:33:16 ↗ no.

1:33:17 ↗ >> Are we done with metrics?

1:33:19 ↗ >> So just so I'm clear again, thank you

1:33:22 ↗ Lee. Uh and Dale Market Crimp of course

1:33:24 ↗ has pieces to all this as well. Um so we

1:33:28 ↗ will come back with a cow and I guess we

1:33:30 ↗ will we can bring to the cow this report

1:33:33 ↗ that you mentioned. So we'll look at the

1:33:34 ↗ calendar.

1:33:35 ↗ >> Great. Uh, and

1:33:36 ↗ >> that'll be a great meeting.

1:33:37 ↗ >> Um, you are now in in some respects

1:33:39 ↗ three minutes ahead of schedule,

1:33:42 ↗ >> but we haven't had the economic

1:33:43 ↗ development,

1:33:43 ↗ >> but but that's going to be you can

1:33:46 ↗ either do that now. Um, I know the mayor

1:33:49 ↗ has one topic he'd like to raise and we

1:33:51 ↗ can have Alexis's report come back

1:33:53 ↗ another time.

1:33:54 ↗ >> Uh, let's take a let's let's give people

1:33:57 ↗ the 10-minute bio break and then come

1:34:00 ↗ back with

1:34:02 ↗ >> and then we'll have Alexa.

1:34:04 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:34:06 ↗ So, please be back at 10:47.

1:34:10 ↗ >> Yes, sir.

1:34:11 ↗ >> Oh, hey. Um,

1:34:14 ↗ >> all right. We're going to turn it over

1:34:15 ↗ to the mayor for one element of economic

1:34:17 ↗ development.

1:34:18 ↗ >> Yeah. I think uh I wanted to talk about

1:34:21 ↗ downtown disco association. Before we do

1:34:23 ↗ that, I would say Lexus isn't here. I

1:34:26 ↗ think a lot of the I'll give an example

1:34:29 ↗ of broad economic development like

1:34:31 ↗ Governor Greg Wuire spoke to Association

1:34:33 ↗ Washington Business this past week. She

1:34:36 ↗ spoke for an hour. Within that hour, she

1:34:38 ↗ had 30 seconds where she said, "Hey,

1:34:40 ↗ thank you. We appreciate the fact that

1:34:42 ↗ you're here, you're employing people,

1:34:43 ↗ blah blah blah." At the end of the hour,

1:34:45 ↗ like the overwhelming response was

1:34:47 ↗ they're most grateful for just that

1:34:49 ↗ thank you. And I think as Alexis and I

1:34:51 ↗ have met with people who want to build

1:34:53 ↗ homes in Isiqua, the main message hasn't

1:34:56 ↗ necessarily I mean we get into the

1:34:57 ↗ nuance weeds of things, but I think some

1:34:59 ↗ of it's just been like, hey, we're here

1:35:01 ↗ to be your partner so you can build

1:35:03 ↗ homes in Isiqua. And it's almost just

1:35:04 ↗ like that broad theme similar to how

1:35:08 ↗ Greg Wuire's kind of broad thank you

1:35:10 ↗ went over really well with AWB. I think

1:35:12 ↗ has gone over well with people who want

1:35:14 ↗ to build homes throughout the Puet Sound

1:35:17 ↗ region of saying, "Oh, isqua's gonna be

1:35:19 ↗ a partner I think in that process." So,

1:35:22 ↗ I think that's been really positive. I

1:35:23 ↗ think Alexis has done a good job. The

1:35:25 ↗ the second piece is really tasked Alexis

1:35:29 ↗ with kind of looking at the relationship

1:35:31 ↗ between the city and downtown

1:35:32 ↗ Association and how we kind of take that

1:35:35 ↗ to a new level and really just view it

1:35:37 ↗ as a partnership. I think the things

1:35:38 ↗ we're trying to do to to attract and

1:35:41 ↗ bring bring vibrancy to historic Isiqua

1:35:44 ↗ obviously directly overlay with the

1:35:46 ↗ downtown Isqua association and the thing

1:35:50 ↗ I wanted to get feedback from this

1:35:52 ↗ council on today was I would like to

1:35:55 ↗ come back in June with a kind of a

1:35:57 ↗ midyear proposal to do $120,000

1:36:01 ↗ investment in downtown Association

1:36:03 ↗ knowing this is the way it works is you

1:36:05 ↗ then get a $90,000 tax credit, there is

1:36:08 ↗ a timing delay. You make the investment

1:36:10 ↗ now, your tax credit comes in the

1:36:12 ↗ following fiscal year is how that timing

1:36:14 ↗ works. So, yes, it net only cost you

1:36:17 ↗ $30,000 to make $120,000 investment, but

1:36:21 ↗ there is that timing delay. But that

1:36:23 ↗ being said is I would like to kind of

1:36:27 ↗ and and I will say in talking to their

1:36:30 ↗ board chair Christina who's obviously in

1:36:32 ↗ the room uh we've had discussions Alexis

1:36:35 ↗ and I have around Alexis being on the

1:36:38 ↗ board I think to really strengthen the

1:36:40 ↗ partnership between the city and

1:36:42 ↗ downtown association. We've also kind of

1:36:44 ↗ gone over this kind of audit report we

1:36:47 ↗ had around what the best practices in

1:36:48 ↗ terms of nonprofit governance and having

1:36:51 ↗ rotating chair governance models and all

1:36:53 ↗ those things have kind of been addressed

1:36:54 ↗ and uh but I do think it's important to

1:36:58 ↗ kind of highlight our commitment to

1:37:00 ↗ historic Front Street that we have this

1:37:02 ↗ discussion and so I'm looking because I

1:37:04 ↗ think if we get sort of a sense the

1:37:07 ↗ council's open to this then I think we

1:37:08 ↗ would come back in June with a more

1:37:11 ↗ formal funding proposal.

1:37:13 ↗ Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council member

1:37:15 ↗ Boyd.

1:37:15 ↗ >> Uh, can you explain a little bit more

1:37:17 ↗ about that 90 does that the tax credit

1:37:20 ↗ is going to the city?

1:37:22 ↗ >> What are the parameters of its use? It

1:37:23 ↗ has to then put back into economic

1:37:25 ↗ development or

1:37:26 ↗ >> has to go to an accredited main street

1:37:29 ↗ program and downtown Esco Association is

1:37:31 ↗ an accredited Main Street program. And

1:37:34 ↗ the exact nuances of how that works is

1:37:37 ↗ they're allowed to get up to $213,000

1:37:40 ↗ of businesses and local organizations

1:37:42 ↗ and then donate up. You can get a 4 to1

1:37:45 ↗ match but up to that $213,000 limit. And

1:37:49 ↗ so this proposal would basically put

1:37:51 ↗ them really close to that limit. So, you

1:37:54 ↗ know, let's say they've, you know,

1:37:57 ↗ raised 90ish thousand dollars from other

1:38:00 ↗ people in the community. This would make

1:38:02 ↗ sure we're not leaving any of the

1:38:04 ↗ potential 4 to1 match dollars on the

1:38:07 ↗ table for 2026.

1:38:12 ↗ >> Council member J.

1:38:13 ↗ >> Oh, thank you. U Mayor, could you uh

1:38:16 ↗ talk a little bit about how uh a

1:38:19 ↗ partnership with DIA would improve both

1:38:21 ↗ our arts grant funding if it does and

1:38:24 ↗ our relationship with the ELTC program

1:38:28 ↗ and our partners there?

1:38:30 ↗ I think uh in the arts funding I think

1:38:34 ↗ murals is a great example. I think like

1:38:36 ↗ the owner of like the trek building has

1:38:39 ↗ that huge gray wall right there. I think

1:38:41 ↗ that's prime for a mural. I think

1:38:44 ↗ >> working through DIA you have an

1:38:45 ↗ opportunity to do things like that. A

1:38:46 ↗ mural cost $20,000. The owners of those

1:38:49 ↗ buildings are like

1:38:50 ↗ >> do a mural. We just don't want to pay

1:38:51 ↗ for it. So it's hard. But like I say, if

1:38:54 ↗ you want to spend $20,000 on a mural, it

1:38:57 ↗ makes 10 times more sense to do it as a

1:38:59 ↗ partnership between the city and and

1:39:01 ↗ downtown Isqua association because then

1:39:04 ↗ in city dollars is really costing you

1:39:06 ↗ five, not 20, right? And so I think

1:39:08 ↗ we're really I think looking at

1:39:10 ↗ opportunities to bring vibrancy in the

1:39:12 ↗ arts kind of community, which right

1:39:15 ↗ there that creative district obviously

1:39:17 ↗ isn't historic front street. it just

1:39:19 ↗ makes sense to make those investments

1:39:21 ↗ through a partnership with DIA than it

1:39:22 ↗ does for the city to be on its own

1:39:24 ↗ making those investments. And uh and I

1:39:27 ↗ think my kind of thinking going forward

1:39:29 ↗ is to make sure like of that $213,000

1:39:32 ↗ you're eligible for and the 4 to1 match

1:39:34 ↗ that between us and other various

1:39:37 ↗ partners, we're making sure that DIA has

1:39:39 ↗ the resources so we can kind of invest

1:39:40 ↗ in arts, we can invest in all the other

1:39:43 ↗ things and ideas that bring vibrancy to

1:39:45 ↗ this part of Isiqua.

1:39:47 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks, Council Member Nichols.

1:39:49 ↗ >> Uh, what kind of uh over Oh,

1:39:52 ↗ >> no. It

1:39:53 ↗ >> doesn't matter. Anyway, uh what kind of

1:39:55 ↗ oversight or control do we get over that

1:39:57 ↗ money that we would be?

1:39:58 ↗ >> So, I think uh there's a normal board

1:40:02 ↗ process that comes up I think at the end

1:40:04 ↗ of the year and I think the thought is

1:40:06 ↗ with Alexis being on the board, you have

1:40:08 ↗ that. And I also think part of this is

1:40:10 ↗ just an element of trust is Alexis and I

1:40:13 ↗ have been working with, you know, Corby

1:40:16 ↗ and Christina and the downtown

1:40:18 ↗ association. It's just kind of saying,

1:40:19 ↗ hey, here's a lot of, I think, great

1:40:22 ↗ ideas of things we could do. Uh, I mean,

1:40:25 ↗ bike racks,

1:40:27 ↗ you know, there's just so many things

1:40:29 ↗ that we're trying to invest in historic

1:40:30 ↗ Isiqua. To me, it makes sense to kind of

1:40:33 ↗ revisit the partnership between the city

1:40:36 ↗ and the downtown association. But I I

1:40:39 ↗ feel pretty confident that there will be

1:40:41 ↗ a high degree of partnership and

1:40:43 ↗ coordination going forward.

1:40:45 ↗ >> Are there any guardrail in this

1:40:46 ↗ agreement though? Are there any specific

1:40:48 ↗ guardrails on what that money can be

1:40:50 ↗ used for the council can have input on

1:40:51 ↗ or is it kind of a how how close is it

1:40:54 ↗ to on the spectrum of detailed statement

1:40:57 ↗ of work to blank check where

1:41:02 ↗ >> I would say it's in the middle between

1:41:04 ↗ that. There's definitely an element of

1:41:05 ↗ trust that occurs here. Uh and

1:41:10 ↗ yeah, so there's an element of trust

1:41:11 ↗ that occurs, but I feel like I trust the

1:41:14 ↗ downtown school association as we go

1:41:16 ↗ through this process. Uh but I do think

1:41:22 ↗ you're not allowed to be 100%

1:41:23 ↗ prescriptive, I guess, is is how I think

1:41:25 ↗ about it. But you are allowed to have a

1:41:28 ↗ presence on the board to make sure

1:41:30 ↗ you're part of the discussions as you

1:41:34 ↗ and uh so I think I think my impression

1:41:38 ↗ from the downtown association is they're

1:41:40 ↗ looking for a stronger partnership

1:41:42 ↗ between them and the city and so I think

1:41:44 ↗ that's kind of what I've heard from them

1:41:46 ↗ and I think the start of that is is

1:41:50 ↗ we're doing a lot of this work already

1:41:51 ↗ as we prepare for you know the idea of

1:41:54 ↗ Alfresco on front during the August

1:41:56 ↗ weekends and they've been a great

1:41:58 ↗ partner in the preparation of leading up

1:41:59 ↗ to Alfresco on front which is the five

1:42:01 ↗ weekends in August when it would be

1:42:03 ↗ pedestrian only from Saturday morning to

1:42:05 ↗ Sunday night. Uh but I do think like to

1:42:09 ↗ me I want to make sure we're not leaving

1:42:11 ↗ money on the table through the main

1:42:12 ↗ street tax credit program is kind of my

1:42:15 ↗ ultimate

1:42:16 ↗ and to really commit to the partnership

1:42:18 ↗ through that as well. Council member

1:42:21 ↗ Walsh,

1:42:22 ↗ >> uh, highly supportive of this idea as a

1:42:25 ↗ way to make smart investments in one of

1:42:28 ↗ the most burgeoning and economically

1:42:30 ↗ successful areas of our town. Um, and I

1:42:34 ↗ also appreciate that this is also tied

1:42:36 ↗ to moving the relationship forward. Um,

1:42:39 ↗ so that we can have something that

1:42:41 ↗ coexists rather than bashes heads. Um,

1:42:44 ↗ and something that, you know, works

1:42:47 ↗ toward mutual success. I appreciate

1:42:50 ↗ that.

1:42:51 ↗ >> So, um, before I get to round two, um, I

1:42:55 ↗ mean, I I love that we have a real

1:42:56 ↗ downtown, right? I I came from Eden

1:42:58 ↗ Prairie, Minnesota, which is a charming

1:43:00 ↗ place to live, but Eden Prairie's idea

1:43:02 ↗ of a downtown is the mall, which the

1:43:04 ↗ singular accomplishment of that mall is

1:43:06 ↗ that they filmed the movie M Rats there.

1:43:08 ↗ >> They did.

1:43:08 ↗ >> They did. Other than that, it really it

1:43:11 ↗ doesn't and it's it's they shoot their

1:43:12 ↗ fireworks off at the mall, for instance.

1:43:15 ↗ Um, and so, uh, you know, I love that we

1:43:18 ↗ have a real downtown. It's part of us

1:43:19 ↗ being a real city and not us just being

1:43:21 ↗ a suburb.

1:43:22 ↗ We spent good money on that audit and so

1:43:24 ↗ here's where I'm I just I'm going to be

1:43:26 ↗ I guess a bit of a crunch. Um I want to

1:43:28 ↗ make sure that the issues that were

1:43:29 ↗ brought up in the audit were addressed.

1:43:31 ↗ I thought it was a thoughtful audit and

1:43:32 ↗ I thought it it raised some things about

1:43:34 ↗ how to have a better relationship. Um I

1:43:37 ↗ think there's times where um we ask hard

1:43:40 ↗ questions of our partners and I think

1:43:42 ↗ that that audit pointed to some hard

1:43:44 ↗ questions. I'm I'm all for considering

1:43:47 ↗ um a new relationship, but um those

1:43:49 ↗ issues have to be addressed one way or

1:43:51 ↗ the other.

1:43:52 ↗ >> I think that's a fair request. I think

1:43:54 ↗ uh so Wally I don't want to I think I

1:43:57 ↗ would suggest that we come back to the

1:43:59 ↗ council with a presentation from DIA

1:44:03 ↗ >> before we go forward with the funding

1:44:06 ↗ and and we can get that scheduled so

1:44:08 ↗ that way great

1:44:09 ↗ >> council president Marks you're you can

1:44:11 ↗ make sure you're comfortable that

1:44:13 ↗ everything's been addressed from the

1:44:15 ↗ audit

1:44:16 ↗ >> before the financial commitment occurs.

1:44:18 ↗ >> I would appreciate that. Thank you

1:44:19 ↗ council member Boyd. I uh would also

1:44:22 ↗ very much appreciate the presentation. I

1:44:24 ↗ do do if we're asking to me I know we're

1:44:25 ↗ asking just for feedback. There's no

1:44:26 ↗ decisions made but it does feel a little

1:44:28 ↗ bit Johnny on the spot for me um to be

1:44:30 ↗ comfortable with it. So would love to

1:44:31 ↗ hear more. Um and uh sorry I just lost I

1:44:36 ↗ was writing this down. Um, is there okay

1:44:39 ↗ trying to again thread the needle

1:44:40 ↗ between, you know, moving back, not

1:44:42 ↗ losing this opportunity of money that is

1:44:43 ↗ potentially on the table, but also tying

1:44:46 ↗ things back to the existing boards,

1:44:49 ↗ commissions, resident input. Uh, I know

1:44:52 ↗ like the DIA board, they are going to be

1:44:55 ↗ weighing in on what they would want to

1:44:57 ↗ do with this. Those are folks that are

1:44:58 ↗ in Isqua.

1:45:00 ↗ if there's a way to have the relevant

1:45:02 ↗ boards. I think council member Joe was

1:45:04 ↗ kind of getting at this with elac arts

1:45:07 ↗ who I don't some mix of both. I don't

1:45:10 ↗ want to be uh and then yeah economic

1:45:13 ↗ vitality

1:45:16 ↗ this is very conceptual in my brain. I

1:45:18 ↗ don't know what one is the best one or

1:45:19 ↗ all of that just seems

1:45:20 ↗ >> I think all three of those would be

1:45:21 ↗ relevant

1:45:22 ↗ >> organizing that's city staff work etc.

1:45:24 ↗ But um and not as a this is our feedback

1:45:28 ↗ you will do this now Dia I just as a

1:45:31 ↗ like we strongly encourage and recommend

1:45:33 ↗ these are what we would like to

1:45:34 ↗ prioritize recognizing that you are the

1:45:36 ↗ fiduciary steward of money it sounds

1:45:38 ↗ like so that's my input

1:45:40 ↗ >> yeah that's super valid

1:45:43 ↗ >> all right I'm not seeing any table cards

1:45:45 ↗ are you looking for any other feedback

1:45:47 ↗ >> I think I just got it so that sounds so

1:45:49 ↗ we will come back with a presentation to

1:45:51 ↗ the full council idea before there's a

1:45:55 ↗ formal vote on on doing the

1:45:58 ↗ >> awesome

1:45:59 ↗ >> $120,000 of money.

1:46:00 ↗ >> Thank you. And with that, we are only 9

1:46:02 ↗ minutes behind schedule. We have clawed

1:46:04 ↗ our way back. Um so um we will then turn

1:46:07 ↗ things

1:46:09 ↗ >> we'll turn things over to Director

1:46:10 ↗ Watling for the parks department on

1:46:12 ↗ potential park bond renewal.

1:46:14 ↗ >> All right. Thank you all and I will try

1:46:17 ↗ and expedite this switch and uh get

1:46:21 ↗ going.

1:46:23 ↗ stick with our trend. All right. Well,

1:46:25 ↗ thank you um back again. Um I think the

1:46:28 ↗ purpose of today's conversation is to um

1:46:34 ↗ further here I go again. Great. Um just

1:46:37 ↗ continue this discussion uh on uh this

1:46:40 ↗ potential opportunity for a park bond uh

1:46:43 ↗ renewal going to Isqua voters in

1:46:46 ↗ November. uh provide the opportunity for

1:46:48 ↗ services, safety, and parks committee

1:46:49 ↗ members to uh share some of their

1:46:52 ↗ feedback and thoughts uh fresh off of

1:46:54 ↗ the meeting and conversation we had on

1:46:56 ↗ Tuesday night.

1:47:00 ↗ direction we're requesting and um really

1:47:03 ↗ seeking is are we getting closer to

1:47:05 ↗ consensus um around council support for

1:47:09 ↗ the recommendation from administration

1:47:11 ↗ uh to move forward with park farm

1:47:13 ↗ renewal this November at the 8 cents per

1:47:15 ↗ 1000 assessed valuation. That 8 cents

1:47:18 ↗ value would would demonstrate or is

1:47:21 ↗ demonstrative of um an actual renewal.

1:47:24 ↗ We're not asking necessarily voters for

1:47:26 ↗ additional funding. Um second, uh does

1:47:29 ↗ council support the package of projects

1:47:32 ↗ uh that we've identified for that 8 cent

1:47:35 ↗ uh bond renewal? Uh and then lastly, um

1:47:39 ↗ a lot of conversation we had with

1:47:41 ↗ services, safety, and parks had to do

1:47:43 ↗ with community engagement. Does council

1:47:45 ↗ support the idea of us hosting a public

1:47:47 ↗ open house, a community meeting uh that

1:47:49 ↗ first week in June to gather additional

1:47:51 ↗ public feedback um as we continue to try

1:47:54 ↗ and move this forward. Um, as you'll see

1:47:56 ↗ with timeline, uh, this this does have a

1:47:59 ↗ shot clock. Um, and so we're really

1:48:01 ↗ again trying to have some real focused

1:48:03 ↗ conversation with you. Um, this is now

1:48:06 ↗ our third conversation. I've really

1:48:08 ↗ appreciated the dialogue we've had. This

1:48:10 ↗ is a big deal. Um, thankfully, if I can

1:48:13 ↗ just add as a big deal

1:48:16 ↗ and a very strategic moment for the city

1:48:18 ↗ to consider and it feels time

1:48:20 ↗ compressed. Um, I can say from the staff

1:48:23 ↗ standpoint and my appreciation to

1:48:25 ↗ council um and administration is we're

1:48:27 ↗ able to meet this moment because of the

1:48:29 ↗ years of work we've been doing. We've

1:48:31 ↗ had a lot of community engagement. We've

1:48:33 ↗ done a lot of park system planning and

1:48:35 ↗ strategic planning and it gives us the

1:48:37 ↗ opportunity to meet this moment. So, I I

1:48:39 ↗ just I note that so it doesn't feel like

1:48:41 ↗ wow this is out of the blue. There's a

1:48:43 ↗ lot of pre-work that's been done uh to

1:48:45 ↗ to let us to to let us get to this

1:48:47 ↗ point. Um I'm not going to go through

1:48:49 ↗ all these questions. I just I want to

1:48:51 ↗ highlight these uh thank you for the

1:48:53 ↗ April 6 conversation we had. Um your

1:48:56 ↗ questions um your requested feedback

1:48:58 ↗ then went back to services, safety and

1:49:00 ↗ parks in sort of these four buckets. Um

1:49:03 ↗ you had questions around park capital

1:49:04 ↗ funding. We had a conversation around

1:49:06 ↗ that. Uh you had uh questions and

1:49:09 ↗ feedback around the projects themselves.

1:49:10 ↗ We had a lot of discussion Tuesday night

1:49:13 ↗ about that. Um you had questions around

1:49:16 ↗ vision. What is the vision and purpose?

1:49:18 ↗ uh we had uh some conversation around

1:49:20 ↗ that. Also in that presentation, if you

1:49:23 ↗ haven't had a chance to see it, we did

1:49:24 ↗ some research on recent um uh ballot

1:49:28 ↗ measures uh that have occurred

1:49:29 ↗ countywide um five different measures in

1:49:32 ↗ the last five years by different

1:49:33 ↗ municipalities. We we talked through

1:49:35 ↗ some of that information.

1:49:38 ↗ Um, real quickly to to vision. Um,

1:49:43 ↗ um, as I said, um, this work is really

1:49:46 ↗ born out of the community engagement

1:49:48 ↗ we've done, not only with the 2024 plan,

1:49:50 ↗ but the 2018 plan. Um, a a vision we put

1:49:54 ↗ together with the the park board. Uh

1:49:56 ↗ this is an opportunity to re renew the

1:49:58 ↗ park bond to build upon the past

1:50:00 ↗ investments and advance the vision of

1:50:02 ↗ for Isiqua's Creeks to Peaks park system

1:50:04 ↗ by enhancing developed parks and school

1:50:06 ↗ spaces for more places to play, gather,

1:50:09 ↗ connect. Um uh again, this comes right

1:50:13 ↗ out of the park plan. Um, if you were to

1:50:15 ↗ look at page 10 of the park plan and the

1:50:18 ↗ core values, those four core values of

1:50:20 ↗ connectivity vibrancy resiliency and

1:50:23 ↗ balance again were the the four biggest

1:50:26 ↗ words, the four prominent and consistent

1:50:28 ↗ voices that this community has said and

1:50:30 ↗ how they want their their city park

1:50:32 ↗ system to function.

1:50:36 ↗ I noted um and I'll note here quickly, I

1:50:38 ↗ noted service, safety, and parks. This

1:50:40 ↗ is not intended to be a campaign vision.

1:50:42 ↗ Um if if we were to move forward with

1:50:44 ↗ this uh there would be work by a citizen

1:50:46 ↗ group and a campaign campaign group that

1:50:49 ↗ would need to uh really I think focus on

1:50:52 ↗ what that campaign vision is. Uh quick

1:50:54 ↗ slide here. I'm not going to go through

1:50:56 ↗ all these words. Um as we start talking

1:50:59 ↗ about projects and talking about the the

1:51:01 ↗ potential projects and the focus of

1:51:03 ↗ them, there were some really important

1:51:04 ↗ considerations and filters. Um again we

1:51:07 ↗ emphasize this a lot with services,

1:51:08 ↗ safety and parks. Um, we really consider

1:51:11 ↗ a high value u given um the the monetary

1:51:16 ↗ number we have for this potential

1:51:17 ↗ renewal to really focus on multiple

1:51:20 ↗ medium-sized projects, not have one

1:51:22 ↗ large project dominate this. Uh because

1:51:25 ↗ we have a community that wants its park

1:51:28 ↗ system to do a bunch of different

1:51:29 ↗ things. And each household wants the

1:51:31 ↗ park system to do something different

1:51:33 ↗ than other households. So we really

1:51:35 ↗ think um diversifying uh investments

1:51:39 ↗ helps us meet multiple needs. Uh we

1:51:42 ↗ think things like um if there's a high

1:51:44 ↗ level of site complexity or project

1:51:46 ↗ complexity uh that could be um that

1:51:49 ↗ could be problematic when we we think of

1:51:51 ↗ taking something to voters. Uh none of

1:51:54 ↗ these projects are fully designed. None

1:51:56 ↗ of these projects are fully permitted.

1:51:58 ↗ That's not a bad thing and that's not

1:51:59 ↗ rare for bond measures. It's just

1:52:02 ↗ important for us to note that we're

1:52:04 ↗ still going to need to go through a

1:52:05 ↗ design process, a community engagement

1:52:07 ↗ process. We want projects that don't

1:52:10 ↗ have a high level of complexity. We also

1:52:13 ↗ don't want to have projects that have a

1:52:15 ↗ high level of controversy or community

1:52:17 ↗ concern. Um, public engagement does a

1:52:20 ↗ really good job of building consensus,

1:52:23 ↗ but if we're asking voters to approve on

1:52:24 ↗ something before we've done the

1:52:26 ↗ community engagement, we just want to be

1:52:27 ↗ really careful and cognizant. um

1:52:31 ↗ cognizant of that. City of Kirkland did

1:52:33 ↗ a did a a levy measure recently that

1:52:36 ↗ failed. Um it had a aquatics community

1:52:39 ↗ center that I think as I've talked with

1:52:41 ↗ my peers there wasn't fully vetted and

1:52:44 ↗ so it had a high degree of community

1:52:46 ↗ concern and that um didn't have a chance

1:52:49 ↗ to be vetted in public engagement

1:52:51 ↗ unfortunately was vetted in a in a

1:52:53 ↗ campaign.

1:52:56 ↗ And then thinking about geographic uh uh

1:52:58 ↗ diversity really really important us to

1:53:01 ↗ us as well to the recommended package

1:53:04 ↗ itself. Um we've seen these numbers.

1:53:07 ↗ I'll I'll go through these um really

1:53:09 ↗ really quick. Um the rate we're

1:53:12 ↗ proposing is that 8 cents per 1000 um

1:53:15 ↗ AV. Uh that represents on a million-doll

1:53:18 ↗ home an $80 a year investment. Uh what

1:53:22 ↗ we feel in messaging is hey is is

1:53:25 ↗ relatively simple. Hey residents would

1:53:27 ↗ you like that $80 a year back because

1:53:29 ↗ it's about to expire or would you

1:53:31 ↗ consider further investing that $80 a

1:53:34 ↗ year along with everyone else's $80 a

1:53:36 ↗ year to do when when combined with some

1:53:40 ↗ other leverage with some other revenues

1:53:41 ↗ do do 23 to $24 million of investments

1:53:45 ↗ in your park system that you've

1:53:47 ↗ identified as priority projects. Um the

1:53:50 ↗ package of projects again we feel are

1:53:52 ↗ super balanced. Um Confluence Park is an

1:53:56 ↗ amazing place and an amazing park that

1:53:58 ↗ um continues to have opportunity to be

1:54:01 ↗ further invested on that northeast

1:54:03 ↗ corner where e house is does not feel

1:54:05 ↗ like a finished portion of that park. Um

1:54:08 ↗ and this project would really um would

1:54:10 ↗ really do that.

1:54:11 ↗ >> Can you speak to that because that's the

1:54:13 ↗ original vision right was it was like

1:54:15 ↗ that was like the grand entrance or I

1:54:17 ↗ don't know how would you describe I

1:54:19 ↗ don't know. There's a grant. Yeah. There

1:54:20 ↗ was a master plan done. Boy, Council

1:54:23 ↗ President March 15 years ago 15. Yeah.

1:54:26 ↗ Yeah.

1:54:26 ↗ >> Before Before you got here.

1:54:28 ↗ >> Exactly. Exactly. Um but that master

1:54:30 ↗ plan really talked about all four

1:54:32 ↗ corners of that park being important

1:54:35 ↗ gateways. And so that's a gateway that

1:54:37 ↗ isn't hasn't been done yet. uh that

1:54:39 ↗ master plan also identified a a really

1:54:42 ↗ prominent phase, a third phase for that

1:54:45 ↗ park uh which could still happen, but

1:54:47 ↗ that that phase is on our current

1:54:50 ↗ facilities and park maintenance shop. Um

1:54:53 ↗ that's not going to be done as part of a

1:54:55 ↗ bond measure. Uh but boy, as part of

1:54:57 ↗ this bond measure, we could do that

1:54:58 ↗ northeast corner and really um help move

1:55:02 ↗ the needle on Confluence Park.

1:55:04 ↗ uh trail head projects um at at uh Ramos

1:55:08 ↗ trail head that really um interesting

1:55:10 ↗ these these three trail projects would

1:55:12 ↗ touch all three of our Alps. Ramos trail

1:55:14 ↗ head is our gateway to West Tiger

1:55:16 ↗ Mountain. Um with the acquisitions we

1:55:19 ↗ did of Bergsma on Cougar with the

1:55:21 ↗ acquisitions we've done with Kilkari and

1:55:23 ↗ Wayimouth uh we have 30 acre corridors

1:55:26 ↗ now to Squawk and a 30 acre corridor to

1:55:29 ↗ Cougar. Uh we think this package doing

1:55:31 ↗ the trail work on those corridors, great

1:55:34 ↗ timing. A lot of support from Isa Els

1:55:37 ↗ Trails Club and all of our enthusiasts.

1:55:40 ↗ Community sports fields. Again, how do

1:55:42 ↗ we move the needle on um a very land

1:55:45 ↗ constrained town? Um providing athletic

1:55:49 ↗ fields that those in our community that

1:55:51 ↗ want that have that. And we think uh

1:55:54 ↗ this partnership um to do community

1:55:56 ↗ sports fields at our three elementary

1:55:58 ↗ schools would really u be a be quite

1:56:01 ↗ frankly a resilient and I would even say

1:56:03 ↗ an environmentally friendly way to to

1:56:05 ↗ add synthetic turf fields to this to

1:56:07 ↗ this community um and geographically

1:56:11 ↗ spread out through town and benefiting

1:56:13 ↗ an equitable equitable way families um

1:56:16 ↗ and and and students uh throughout uh

1:56:19 ↗ the city. Other community park amenities

1:56:22 ↗ Uh we continually hear our court spaces

1:56:24 ↗ with pickle ball growing. Tennis is

1:56:26 ↗ actually making a comeback as well. Um

1:56:29 ↗ adding um using the lower the lower

1:56:33 ↗ fields at Central Park. There's a a a

1:56:36 ↗ non-escript grass area between the

1:56:37 ↗ parking lot and the fields. Uh there's

1:56:40 ↗ enough room there for four tennis courts

1:56:42 ↗ and or eight pickle ball courts. Um um

1:56:46 ↗ and adding a a plaza space around that

1:56:48 ↗ restroom that would really really clean

1:56:50 ↗ up that area and um add this um the

1:56:53 ↗ pickle ball community is over the moon

1:56:55 ↗ excited and ready to to certainly

1:56:58 ↗ support that. And then Tibets Valley

1:57:00 ↗ Park.

1:57:00 ↗ >> This is going to make up for the 48 to1

1:57:02 ↗ vote in the Senate where I was the only

1:57:03 ↗ person not to vote for pickball to be

1:57:05 ↗ the state sport.

1:57:06 ↗ >> Well, the state sport

1:57:10 ↗ >> your

1:57:10 ↗ >> someone had to stand up for the tennis

1:57:12 ↗ community.

1:57:15 ↗ Tivots Valley Park is a park we know

1:57:18 ↗ with with Central Isiqua and our growth

1:57:21 ↗ goals of Central Isqua. You've heard me

1:57:23 ↗ talk Tivots Valley Park um a park needs

1:57:26 ↗ some love and it needs improvement. Um

1:57:28 ↗ there's a lot of complexity to Tibets

1:57:30 ↗ Valley Park and doing something with the

1:57:32 ↗ athletic fields at Tibets Valley Park

1:57:34 ↗ and that those those bullets I said

1:57:36 ↗ earlier that's super complex and super

1:57:38 ↗ complicated and we need engagement to to

1:57:41 ↗ answer those questions. But we could um

1:57:45 ↗ commit to investments of a dog park and

1:57:47 ↗ and a community park-sized play area at

1:57:50 ↗ Tibbitz Valley Park would do would do

1:57:52 ↗ tremendous work knowing we're about to

1:57:54 ↗ have um the tod project right across the

1:57:59 ↗ street. Um this is really really

1:58:01 ↗ important timing to consider. So that's

1:58:04 ↗ the the recommended package. Um, uh,

1:58:08 ↗ thank you, Council Member Boyd, for

1:58:10 ↗ asking the question for for a map. Um,

1:58:13 ↗ if we were to map these, uh, what would

1:58:15 ↗ be nine projects in total, um, here's

1:58:17 ↗ what it would look like, uh, within the

1:58:19 ↗ community. Uh, it doesn't touch every

1:58:21 ↗ corner, but it really spreads those

1:58:23 ↗ investments out in a large way. Um I

1:58:27 ↗ think important to note that um as we

1:58:30 ↗ consider any bond package um to do 20ome

1:58:34 ↗ million dollars of investment in our

1:58:35 ↗ park system, something's going to be

1:58:36 ↗ missed. Uh we're not going to meet all

1:58:38 ↗ the community needs. Um that said, there

1:58:41 ↗ still would be exploration. there would

1:58:44 ↗ still be if resources are available some

1:58:47 ↗ of our other lowhanging fruit park

1:58:49 ↗ capital projects or priorities uh the

1:58:51 ↗ acquisition program that we've started

1:58:53 ↗ and acquisition strategies that we've

1:58:55 ↗ initiated would uh continue uh with or

1:58:58 ↗ without this this bond package

1:59:03 ↗ you want me to keep going okay

1:59:06 ↗ uh and then just real quickly we're

1:59:07 ↗ towards the end here timing next steps

1:59:09 ↗ again thank you for the conversations

1:59:10 ↗ we've had you have a park board that's

1:59:12 ↗ really leaning into this and ready to be

1:59:14 ↗ a voice as well. Um

1:59:20 ↗ following the retreat, we are proposing

1:59:22 ↗ that first week in June and doing a

1:59:24 ↗ public meeting. We're we would think

1:59:26 ↗ hosting that at either Pickering Barn or

1:59:28 ↗ the senior center. Uh we're quite quite

1:59:31 ↗ certain there'd be a very large audience

1:59:33 ↗ very interested in that conversation. Um

1:59:37 ↗ at that conversation, we'd really talk

1:59:39 ↗ about I think two two things. one, what

1:59:42 ↗ we're recommending, what's in it, but

1:59:44 ↗ also being honest about what what might

1:59:46 ↗ not be in it and what's not in it. Um,

1:59:49 ↗ is this the time to invest, is this the

1:59:52 ↗ the funding source to invest in a pool?

1:59:54 ↗ We'd welcome that conversation. Um um

1:59:58 ↗ but have that discussion with the

2:00:00 ↗ community. Um ideally then, uh June

2:00:02 ↗ 15th, uh we're scheduled to have another

2:00:05 ↗ conversation with you all. I if we're in

2:00:08 ↗ a place that we're comfortable, it'd be

2:00:10 ↗ great to have the ordinance approved so

2:00:12 ↗ that we can start the work preparing

2:00:14 ↗ materials for King County uh elections

2:00:17 ↗ um and starting to move towards a

2:00:19 ↗ November ballot

2:00:22 ↗ >> and I and with that that's share

2:00:28 ↗ I think the thought process

2:00:31 ↗ first off this was driven while council

2:00:33 ↗ member Dare was on the park war I think

2:00:35 ↗ it was basically getting a sense from

2:00:38 ↗ them of kind of their long list of kind

2:00:41 ↗ of some of the priority projects and

2:00:43 ↗ trying to incorporate it into this

2:00:45 ↗ proposal.

2:00:46 ↗ Also acknowledging the size of our

2:00:49 ↗ current parks department and saying we

2:00:51 ↗ need something we're trying to avoid

2:00:53 ↗ being sound transit. We don't want to

2:00:55 ↗ say we're going to do all these things

2:00:56 ↗ and all of a sudden we're like oh sorry

2:00:58 ↗ we ran out of money and everything's

2:00:59 ↗ delayed and blah blah blah. So, I think

2:01:01 ↗ it's trying to kind of bite off

2:01:03 ↗ something that we feel we can actually

2:01:04 ↗ actually execute and deliver on. I think

2:01:07 ↗ as

2:01:08 ↗ Jeff said, this is not like an

2:01:10 ↗ all-inclusive attempt to do everything

2:01:12 ↗ we would like to do in the park space.

2:01:13 ↗ So, I hope people realize

2:01:16 ↗ approving this does not preclude having

2:01:18 ↗ discussions about other I think exciting

2:01:21 ↗ opportunities. I think uh Council Member

2:01:23 ↗ Boyd, Council Member Jen have both

2:01:26 ↗ expressed interest in North Isqua Park.

2:01:28 ↗ I think we've had discussions with

2:01:30 ↗ Lakeside and their development of what

2:01:32 ↗ that would look like and I think there's

2:01:34 ↗ opportunities. I think Jeff and Robin at

2:01:37 ↗ parks are constantly pursuing

2:01:39 ↗ conversations with the Kelly family

2:01:40 ↗ around what those opportunities look

2:01:42 ↗ like. That's everything around expanding

2:01:44 ↗ Tibbitz comes down to having an actual

2:01:47 ↗ formal, you know, assessment of that

2:01:51 ↗ property of what its assessed value is

2:01:53 ↗ because we can't pay more than assessed

2:01:54 ↗ value. So we can't even really move

2:01:56 ↗ forward with Kelly family discussions

2:01:58 ↗ until we have a agreement. Are they in

2:02:00 ↗ agreement that you know the assessed

2:02:02 ↗ value seems reasonable to them. So we

2:02:05 ↗ didn't include those things in here

2:02:07 ↗ because we're trying to make sure the

2:02:08 ↗ stuff that's on the list is things that

2:02:10 ↗ we're confident we can actually deliver

2:02:12 ↗ and that we don't need other things to

2:02:14 ↗ break our way. And so like I I

2:02:18 ↗ personally think Timoth Valley Park

2:02:19 ↗ needs a lot of TLC and I think as we get

2:02:22 ↗ light rail, it's the natural place where

2:02:24 ↗ we're going to want to put a lot of our

2:02:25 ↗ future investments to really bring that

2:02:28 ↗ park to its full potential. Uh this is

2:02:30 ↗ the starting point of that with the

2:02:32 ↗ playground and the dog park, but I think

2:02:34 ↗ there's other opportunities that aren't

2:02:35 ↗ in this proposal that we still plan to

2:02:37 ↗ continue to pursue. But let's go through

2:02:40 ↗ all the different questions.

2:02:42 ↗ >> All right. So, um, first off, uh,

2:02:45 ↗ director Watling, how great that we are

2:02:47 ↗ not discussing, uh, but what about

2:02:49 ↗ Hillside Park? I just want to mention,

2:02:52 ↗ doesn't it feel good that you don't have

2:02:54 ↗ to hear the Hillside Park

2:02:55 ↗ >> for reference for the new people? That

2:02:57 ↗ was definitely

2:03:00 ↗ if you go see the uh the movie this

2:03:03 ↗ summer, the what's the one about Odicius

2:03:05 ↗ and the and his 10-year journey? The

2:03:07 ↗ Odyssey. The

2:03:08 ↗ >> Odyssey. We had we had a a 10-year quest

2:03:11 ↗ to

2:03:12 ↗ >> to to do that park. Um after as a city

2:03:16 ↗ we resolve the a a park bond, we should

2:03:19 ↗ get a refresher on the master plan for

2:03:22 ↗ confluence park. Um the the the

2:03:24 ↗ centerpiece of that is the actual

2:03:26 ↗ confluence of the of the east fork and

2:03:28 ↗ the south fork, right? And that's the

2:03:30 ↗ problem because it's right next to the

2:03:32 ↗ shop. um and and and none of the vision

2:03:35 ↗ for how that works. But it's been a long

2:03:37 ↗ time since we've had that conversation.

2:03:39 ↗ Um I may dis I don't I may disagree with

2:03:42 ↗ you a little bit. I I continue to

2:03:44 ↗ believe Confluence should be the

2:03:45 ↗ centerpiece of our park system because

2:03:48 ↗ it can also um trails it has trail

2:03:50 ↗ access that Tibbitz doesn't. I think

2:03:52 ↗ Tibbitz is great and we should do more

2:03:54 ↗ with Tibbitz and all that, but you know,

2:03:56 ↗ it's no shock to anybody that I I

2:03:58 ↗ continue to believe that um the vision

2:04:01 ↗ for Confluence is amazing and it's

2:04:03 ↗ incredibly expensive. So after after the

2:04:06 ↗ bond, right, after that um I I would

2:04:10 ↗ like to politely revisit that master

2:04:13 ↗ plan. And then the the the big question

2:04:15 ↗ that I have for you, Director Watling,

2:04:16 ↗ is you mentioned services and safety and

2:04:18 ↗ park on Tuesday. Assume for a second I

2:04:20 ↗ haven't had a chance to go watch the

2:04:22 ↗ services and safety parks meeting. They

2:04:23 ↗ had two things when we came out of full

2:04:25 ↗ council that were of particular concern.

2:04:27 ↗ They wanted to talk about is the 8 cents

2:04:29 ↗ the right size. Right. And then the

2:04:31 ↗ second is coming up with a composition

2:04:33 ↗ of what we chose off of the the parks

2:04:36 ↗ plan um and wanting to understand that

2:04:38 ↗ better and can either the chair or you

2:04:41 ↗ um give a status for those of us who

2:04:43 ↗ haven't had a chance to watch the

2:04:44 ↗ meeting. Yeah, that was going to be my

2:04:45 ↗ comment is kind of to address that

2:04:48 ↗ suspect and I don't know if it's

2:04:49 ↗ possible to send one thing that was

2:04:50 ↗ included was alternate options for the

2:04:52 ↗ rate as well as a few ideas in terms of

2:04:55 ↗ the plan which was not in this although

2:04:57 ↗ we did support like that coming to this

2:04:58 ↗ conversation because there was not a

2:05:00 ↗ consensus to say this is the rate these

2:05:02 ↗ are the projects for sure there was

2:05:03 ↗ still a desire to keep that conversation

2:05:06 ↗ going um so I don't know if it's

2:05:08 ↗ possible to send that rate of the

2:05:09 ↗ comparative you know um because you also

2:05:12 ↗ have the list of the different um recent

2:05:15 ↗ elections in part you know things that

2:05:17 ↗ happened and what those rates were to

2:05:18 ↗ compare to. So the committee did still

2:05:21 ↗ want that discussion to continue and

2:05:24 ↗ there was not a consensus on saying this

2:05:25 ↗ is the rate we should stick with 8 cents

2:05:27 ↗ and we should stick with these projects

2:05:29 ↗ >> but I'm assuming that the alternate

2:05:30 ↗ would be to be larger not smaller

2:05:32 ↗ >> correct yeah they had we proposed you

2:05:35 ↗ know obviously it could be anything but

2:05:36 ↗ then there was having it either be 12 or

2:05:38 ↗ 16 cents was the kind of two alternative

2:05:41 ↗ options that were you know listed um and

2:05:45 ↗ so yeah so the consensus out of there

2:05:47 ↗ was to keep that discussion open and or

2:05:49 ↗ to see if there is public input on those

2:05:52 ↗ items so that we are delivering what the

2:05:54 ↗ public wants out of this bond which I

2:05:56 ↗ think may perhaps the town hall is

2:05:57 ↗ intended to maybe address that or I'm

2:05:59 ↗ not sure about that because the town

2:06:00 ↗ hall was needed for information on my

2:06:02 ↗ yes

2:06:03 ↗ >> yeah multiple things there um yes at at

2:06:08 ↗ services safety and parks we did talk

2:06:09 ↗ about a couple scenarios

2:06:12 ↗ um um I think

2:06:16 ↗ most prominent of those scenarios was

2:06:18 ↗ Um, if we were to if if there was

2:06:21 ↗ interest in including something like a

2:06:23 ↗ pool expansion or the the pool

2:06:25 ↗ expansion, that is a doubling of this

2:06:28 ↗ levy rate. That is going from an 8 cent

2:06:30 ↗ renewal and just asking voters to renew

2:06:33 ↗ to hey, we want you to renew and tack on

2:06:36 ↗ another another amount.

2:06:39 ↗ >> Can can you, Dr. Watling, on that

2:06:41 ↗ question? And I I don't want to get

2:06:43 ↗ ahead of other questions people have. um

2:06:45 ↗ for for newer council members, we spent

2:06:48 ↗ time in treasure talking to the public

2:06:50 ↗ about uh funding uh sources for a for a

2:06:55 ↗ pool. Can you talk a little bit about

2:06:56 ↗ that because I think probably most

2:06:58 ↗ people here weren't there when we when

2:07:00 ↗ we we did extensive conversations.

2:07:02 ↗ >> Sure. So, so coming out of the pandemic

2:07:05 ↗ about 2022, 2023, as the district was

2:07:08 ↗ preparing its first bonds to add a

2:07:10 ↗ fourth high school, as park staff, we

2:07:13 ↗ quickly raised our hand and said, "Hey,

2:07:16 ↗ we need to be thinking about the pool.

2:07:17 ↗ If if there's a fourth high school, that

2:07:20 ↗ already prescribed pool is going to be

2:07:22 ↗ an issue and a problem." And so getting

2:07:24 ↗ creative, getting innovative, we said,

2:07:26 ↗ "Hey, rather than waiting for that when

2:07:28 ↗ we're going to build that brand new

2:07:30 ↗ shiny pool for $60 million, it's

2:07:32 ↗ probably not going to happen. Do we

2:07:34 ↗ consider is it is it pragmatic to expand

2:07:37 ↗ the pool on its current site?" And so we

2:07:39 ↗ launched a feasibility study. That

2:07:41 ↗ feasibility study basically came back

2:07:43 ↗ and said, "Yeah, it's doable. We could

2:07:45 ↗ add another eight lanes um um up on that

2:07:50 ↗ Julius Bow campus." Um we then with that

2:07:54 ↗ feasibility study um reached out to the

2:07:56 ↗ school district. Uh we we recognized in

2:07:59 ↗ that funding package we as a city

2:08:01 ↗ shouldn't bear that cost alone. Um how

2:08:04 ↗ do we partner with the school district

2:08:06 ↗ um to have them put put some skin in the

2:08:08 ↗ game in terms of that capital

2:08:09 ↗ investment? Um and how do we reach out

2:08:12 ↗ to the county who back in the 60s and

2:08:15 ↗ 70s uh built a bunch of of regional

2:08:18 ↗ pools in a forward thrust initiative.

2:08:20 ↗ And just because

2:08:23 ↗ 20 years ago they decided pools are now

2:08:25 ↗ magically a local service, here cities,

2:08:27 ↗ you get to do it. We we don't think

2:08:29 ↗ that's necessarily right. And so we

2:08:31 ↗ think the the county should have some

2:08:33 ↗ funding into that. So um

2:08:37 ↗ obviously fast forward now, school bond

2:08:40 ↗ didn't pass, school district funding

2:08:42 ↗ didn't come. That pool expansion remains

2:08:45 ↗ a priority. um uh but um as a priority,

2:08:49 ↗ I think it still needs some some

2:08:51 ↗ massaging in terms of what the funding

2:08:53 ↗ package of that looks like. Um I'm going

2:08:56 ↗ to let the mayor speak here, but you

2:08:58 ↗ know um

2:09:02 ↗ I think to to to speed that up and put

2:09:06 ↗ and feel like this funding is the the

2:09:09 ↗ time and the moment to do that. Um

2:09:12 ↗ there's a complexity kind of those

2:09:14 ↗ bullet points. There's a complexity to

2:09:16 ↗ the pool expansion. Doesn't mean it's

2:09:18 ↗ it's incredibly important, but um there

2:09:21 ↗ could be some complexity cons and

2:09:23 ↗ concern. Before we go to the mayor, I

2:09:25 ↗ was I was maybe I was thinking even

2:09:27 ↗ earlier. We did a poll out there both

2:09:29 ↗ for the city of Isiqua and for a larger

2:09:32 ↗ patch to basically on the interest and

2:09:36 ↗ appetite in the community for a pool and

2:09:38 ↗ the issue I think you were here for that

2:09:40 ↗ I mean it was a while ago but it wasn't

2:09:42 ↗ that long ago and the result of that

2:09:44 ↗ polling was that uh folks in Isiqua were

2:09:48 ↗ very much in favor and would support

2:09:50 ↗ doing a pool. The issue was when we

2:09:52 ↗ asked in a larger patch which was the

2:09:54 ↗ people who would actually be using the

2:09:56 ↗ pool and that we would hope I mean it's

2:09:57 ↗ roughly co-terminus with the school

2:09:59 ↗ district size um the the support was

2:10:02 ↗ softer. So that was the issue right here

2:10:05 ↗ in the city proper. There's a lot of

2:10:07 ↗ support for a pool, but it would be hard

2:10:09 ↗ structurally to run a funding mechanism

2:10:12 ↗ for uh and I realize we're getting off

2:10:15 ↗ potentially giving off from the bond,

2:10:17 ↗ but I think it's important to understand

2:10:19 ↗ this conversation. The last time it

2:10:20 ↗ occurred with data, right, was that the

2:10:23 ↗ issue was that

2:10:25 ↗ our city would support it, but that

2:10:27 ↗ wasn't enough. We would really need a

2:10:29 ↗ bigger patch. And the support in that

2:10:30 ↗ bigger patch was soft.

2:10:32 ↗ >> Yeah. I don't I don't recall that survey

2:10:34 ↗ that could that could have possible but

2:10:36 ↗ I'm thinking it was a few years ago and

2:10:38 ↗ that it was actually before you got

2:10:39 ↗ here.

2:10:39 ↗ >> I don't recall it either.

2:10:41 ↗ >> All right. Well, it's out there. The

2:10:43 ↗ date I I would bet any I mean I I

2:10:46 ↗ remember this well. I may have the dates

2:10:48 ↗ wrong, but that was the conclusion,

2:10:50 ↗ right? Is how do you fund it because

2:10:52 ↗ it's not a big enough patch is what we

2:10:54 ↗ concluded at the time. The city was not

2:10:56 ↗ a big enough patch and we weren't

2:10:57 ↗ confident that we could sell it to the

2:10:59 ↗ patch of folks who would actually use

2:11:01 ↗ it. that there's a funding complexity. I

2:11:03 ↗ would agree.

2:11:05 ↗ >> Well, I think uh

2:11:08 ↗ the challenge we've had is I mean the

2:11:10 ↗ two big things like elephants in the

2:11:12 ↗ room is the Confluence Park example to

2:11:16 ↗ move our main facility. You're in that

2:11:18 ↗ $50 million plus price tag. So, you have

2:11:21 ↗ to find land and do everything else. I

2:11:23 ↗ think the pool, you're also in that $50

2:11:24 ↗ million plus price tag. And so, like

2:11:28 ↗ Jeff said, I don't think those are both

2:11:29 ↗ good ideas. I just think we're at this

2:11:31 ↗ timing point now where we need to get

2:11:34 ↗ something to King County in terms of a

2:11:36 ↗ ballot measure and and going back to the

2:11:39 ↗ January discussion when we very first

2:11:40 ↗ this is actually our fourth sort of

2:11:42 ↗ discussion on this topic because it did

2:11:43 ↗ come up in January as well.

2:11:46 ↗ >> I think the council expressed interest

2:11:48 ↗ in in maybe doing a little bit more and

2:11:51 ↗ I would say that was

2:11:53 ↗ what prompted the 8 cents. To be honest,

2:11:56 ↗ the 8 cents is what we approved in 2006.

2:11:59 ↗ the 1% property cap naturally sort of

2:12:02 ↗ slowly erodess that to the point where

2:12:04 ↗ it got down to a nickel. And so I think

2:12:07 ↗ the feedback we got from the council was

2:12:09 ↗ if if we could do more, it' be better.

2:12:11 ↗ And so then we kind of said, okay, well,

2:12:14 ↗ we'll just renew at the exact same levy

2:12:16 ↗ rate we had from 06, which is the 8

2:12:18 ↗ cents, which did enable us to

2:12:20 ↗ substantially increase the amount we

2:12:22 ↗ could do within this package. And so I

2:12:25 ↗ think that's sort of the responsiveness

2:12:27 ↗ to the council of trying to be a little

2:12:29 ↗ bit bolder in terms of what we

2:12:31 ↗ accomplish in this. We thought we were

2:12:33 ↗ reflecting from going from the nickel to

2:12:35 ↗ the A. Uh I know it came up, can we come

2:12:39 ↗ back with what this 12 and 16 cents look

2:12:41 ↗ like? And our challenge from, you know,

2:12:44 ↗ getting that kind of guidance on

2:12:46 ↗ Wednesday morning to now is it's really

2:12:47 ↗ hard to come up with anything thoughtful

2:12:50 ↗ in terms of community building and input

2:12:52 ↗ of what that would look like. And so I

2:12:55 ↗ think we find ourselves based on the

2:12:57 ↗ timing of saying

2:13:00 ↗ we think the park bond renewal thing is

2:13:03 ↗ a communitydriven list. Nothing

2:13:06 ↗ precludes us from going out and doing

2:13:08 ↗ more investments in parks. I think the

2:13:10 ↗ administration is open to it and uh and

2:13:13 ↗ I think we can have that conversation of

2:13:14 ↗ what it looks like. I do think the odds

2:13:16 ↗ of us getting public support go up

2:13:18 ↗ dramatically if we execute on what we're

2:13:20 ↗ proposing here. And so I think our

2:13:24 ↗ recommendation is to go forward with the

2:13:26 ↗ 8 cent proposal knowing if we execute on

2:13:29 ↗ it, we kind of build trust in the

2:13:31 ↗ community of other things we could do

2:13:34 ↗ and knowing that we have opportunities

2:13:37 ↗ at both Tibbitz and North Isiqua that we

2:13:40 ↗ are going to pursue aggressively

2:13:42 ↗ completely,

2:13:43 ↗ you know, separate from this park bond

2:13:45 ↗ renewal package. And uh and I think we

2:13:48 ↗ have I don't know that's kind of our

2:13:50 ↗ sense of how we're thinking about it and

2:13:53 ↗ approaching it. But I know there's a lot

2:13:55 ↗ of things up here. So uh Council

2:13:57 ↗ President Marts, you can decide the

2:13:59 ↗ order.

2:14:00 ↗ >> Well, I I I think Council Member Boyd

2:14:02 ↗ was

2:14:05 ↗ >> um where where do you even start? Um, I

2:14:12 ↗ the North isquat comes up so many times

2:14:15 ↗ and I feel like I'm just like I'm still

2:14:18 ↗ going to be beating my drum for North

2:14:19 ↗ Isqua. Uh, sincerely appreciate the

2:14:22 ↗ discussions that we've had director

2:14:23 ↗ Wling and um, so I I'm hearing that like

2:14:26 ↗ yes, we will turn our attention to this.

2:14:28 ↗ It might not be a part of the bond.

2:14:33 ↗ We're on a tight timeline for that. So,

2:14:35 ↗ I'm still deciding my ultimate feelings

2:14:37 ↗ about just, you know, do I do I and I'm

2:14:41 ↗ new, so do I trust uh I guess I would

2:14:46 ↗ love to have more discussions of the and

2:14:48 ↗ this is what we're going to do like

2:14:50 ↗ measurable things timeline to meet that

2:14:53 ↗ parallel concurrent with the parks bond

2:14:55 ↗ that maybe doesn't address that just

2:14:56 ↗ because it comes up so many times in

2:14:58 ↗ strategic plan. Uh I I'm just pulling a

2:15:01 ↗ quote out of there. North Isqua appears

2:15:02 ↗ to be an area of priority due to the

2:15:04 ↗ existence of high density residential

2:15:06 ↗ developments with limited access to

2:15:08 ↗ parks and open spaces.

2:15:11 ↗ I just talked to my neighbors

2:15:13 ↗ very briefly as best as I could before

2:15:15 ↗ before this knowing it would come up of

2:15:17 ↗ their big thing is walkability. Um I

2:15:21 ↗ live off Black Nugget Road. my walk

2:15:23 ↗ route, if I just need to go clear my

2:15:24 ↗ head, is next to a, you know, four,

2:15:27 ↗ five, if you count the turn, lane road

2:15:29 ↗ that is, it's not particularly

2:15:31 ↗ enjoyable, but it does the job. Just go

2:15:34 ↗ touch grass. And so,

2:15:37 ↗ >> uh, yeah, I guess that's I just need to

2:15:41 ↗ get that out there. That's going to be I

2:15:43 ↗ I'm going to keep,

2:15:44 ↗ >> you know, clanging on pots and pants

2:15:46 ↗ about it. And if the parks bond isn't

2:15:49 ↗ the way to address that, I'll figure out

2:15:52 ↗ how to be at peace with it. But I I'm

2:15:56 ↗ hearing that it will be a focus. I think

2:15:58 ↗ I just need more of the how. And

2:16:01 ↗ >> and I think it's 100% a focus. I think

2:16:03 ↗ we went

2:16:05 ↗ >> I personally drove and parked at the

2:16:07 ↗ storm water ponds.

2:16:09 ↗ >> They're there and was like and we looked

2:16:11 ↗ at that and it just doesn't

2:16:13 ↗ >> No. Sure. There wasn't a great

2:16:15 ↗ opportunity to create anything like you

2:16:17 ↗ know the the stormwater pond by LRO has

2:16:20 ↗ that nice trail around it. There is

2:16:22 ↗ there was no way to replicate what you

2:16:24 ↗ have by the stormwater pond by LRO at

2:16:26 ↗ the stormwater ponds there. uh because

2:16:28 ↗ there's still some homes in the middle

2:16:30 ↗ of like that parcel as well which are

2:16:33 ↗ privately owned which

2:16:34 ↗ >> uh I think the the conversation with

2:16:37 ↗ Lakeside is really the land they own on

2:16:41 ↗ Iskaw Falls City Road on the south side

2:16:44 ↗ you have all that wooded territory

2:16:45 ↗ within that because it's very steep

2:16:47 ↗ there's actually some waterfalls and I

2:16:49 ↗ think I know none of us knew that

2:16:51 ↗ existed either and I think the the

2:16:53 ↗ conversation with Lakeside is I think

2:16:55 ↗ they're open to the idea of like

2:16:58 ↗ donating the land but not having like

2:17:02 ↗ necessarily to be the one who puts in

2:17:05 ↗ all the bridges and all the other

2:17:06 ↗ things. So I think they're saying if you

2:17:07 ↗ guys are open to building a trail

2:17:09 ↗ network similar to what I think Jeff has

2:17:11 ↗ proposed on both Bergsma and Kari here

2:17:14 ↗ because those are both like 1.8 million

2:17:16 ↗ trail projects because you have bridges

2:17:18 ↗ going over streams etc. I think they're

2:17:20 ↗ very open to that conversation. And so

2:17:24 ↗ and then you have a walking trail, but

2:17:26 ↗ the challenge is if that is a still a

2:17:29 ↗ steep it's like the walking trail sort

2:17:32 ↗ of by the Belby College site in the

2:17:33 ↗ Highlands which is kind of a steep trail

2:17:36 ↗ that goes through the woods and uh and

2:17:38 ↗ so but that being said I think there's

2:17:41 ↗ an opportunity there and uh and there's

2:17:43 ↗ also a part that we space we have by

2:17:46 ↗ Swedish on the other side of Swedish

2:17:48 ↗ there is kind of a a parcel there that

2:17:51 ↗ >> that more in islands. But yeah, a future

2:17:54 ↗ neighborhood park

2:17:56 ↗ >> and and it's but it's it's been hard to

2:18:00 ↗ find in North Isiqua.

2:18:01 ↗ >> The geography is tough. It's

2:18:03 ↗ >> the geography of it. And so, but those

2:18:07 ↗ are our best the best opportunity is

2:18:09 ↗ definitely this lakeside partnership

2:18:11 ↗ right now, but at this point all those

2:18:14 ↗ conversations started from yourself and

2:18:17 ↗ council member Jen raising what about

2:18:19 ↗ North isqua and so we're really in the

2:18:22 ↗ early stages of what our opportunities

2:18:24 ↗ are

2:18:26 ↗ with those parcels is how I think about

2:18:28 ↗ it. And and not to be uh not to in any

2:18:31 ↗ way throw any cold water on it, but just

2:18:33 ↗ understand if you do better than 10

2:18:34 ↗ years, you've done better than Hillside

2:18:36 ↗ Park.

2:18:37 ↗ >> I was going to that's my I guess if I

2:18:38 ↗ can have a followup is just what with

2:18:40 ↗ like the like we're in talks with

2:18:41 ↗ Lakeside of like what am I going to like

2:18:43 ↗ I'm going to be a grandma when but

2:18:44 ↗ there's a park in my neighborhood. Like

2:18:45 ↗ what does that mean?

2:18:46 ↗ >> No, I think you're I don't I don't know

2:18:49 ↗ how quick having children.

2:18:51 ↗ >> That's a I think the lakeside

2:18:53 ↗ conversation is more like the two to

2:18:54 ↗ five year window I think is is a sure.

2:18:58 ↗ Yeah.

2:18:59 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

2:19:00 ↗ >> So, your kids would have to procreate

2:19:02 ↗ very quickly.

2:19:04 ↗ >> And onward to council member.

2:19:06 ↗ >> Yep. I'm moving on. Um,

2:19:10 ↗ so my my direction on this area, I want

2:19:15 ↗ to echo what Mayor Mullet said about

2:19:17 ↗ sand transit and making sure that we're

2:19:19 ↗ not committing to projects that we can't

2:19:21 ↗ accomplish with the limited funds. And

2:19:24 ↗ toward that idea, I want to push on the

2:19:28 ↗ concept of a should we really be

2:19:32 ↗ committing park impact fees

2:19:36 ↗ along with park bond stuff and saying

2:19:39 ↗ that we're going to be able to

2:19:39 ↗ accomplish this much when the park bond

2:19:42 ↗ money is only going to accomplish this

2:19:44 ↗ much. Um, and toward that idea of

2:19:48 ↗ complex projects and things that have

2:19:51 ↗ historical nature, I I get concerned

2:19:55 ↗ that we haven't done

2:19:58 ↗ accurate estimates over a lot of things,

2:20:00 ↗ including e house. And so I would just I

2:20:05 ↗ would rather us commit to less and get

2:20:09 ↗ it accomplished than have to come back

2:20:13 ↗ to council and say, "Look, we promise

2:20:15 ↗ the voters that we're going to get these

2:20:18 ↗ eight projects or whatever done." And it

2:20:21 ↗ turns out they're going to cost two or

2:20:23 ↗ three million more than the grants that

2:20:26 ↗ we're assuming we're going to get and

2:20:27 ↗ the park impact fees and the park bonds.

2:20:30 ↗ this is a lot to commit and not have

2:20:33 ↗ certainty on it. So that would be my

2:20:34 ↗ first concern.

2:20:37 ↗ My second concern is obviously we've

2:20:40 ↗ heard from the school community that

2:20:41 ↗ they very much very much value

2:20:44 ↗ elementary sports fields. First of all,

2:20:47 ↗ someone needs to take every single one

2:20:48 ↗ of those emails and send it to the

2:20:50 ↗ school board so that they recognize that

2:20:52 ↗ they are

2:20:54 ↗ not meeting the needs of their

2:20:56 ↗ community. And I want to make sure that

2:21:00 ↗ as we are committing to putting dollars

2:21:03 ↗ on that, yes, the school district is

2:21:05 ↗ committing to land on it. I'm not sure

2:21:09 ↗ we're there on the

2:21:13 ↗ use agreement

2:21:15 ↗ that meets the $9 million investment

2:21:19 ↗ that this community is going to make

2:21:22 ↗ on those fields. Yes, this would be

2:21:26 ↗ great for the schools, but are we

2:21:28 ↗ getting $9 million worth of use out of

2:21:32 ↗ it with what the state of the agreement

2:21:36 ↗ is there? So, those are my two caution

2:21:39 ↗ points on this is moving really fast and

2:21:43 ↗ I'm not sure we are there that we can

2:21:48 ↗ make the commitments that we're going to

2:21:49 ↗ get out of this and can accomplish

2:21:53 ↗ what we're saying we're going to do.

2:21:56 ↗ And I think do you want to Jeff speak to

2:22:00 ↗ because before you can do IB Clark Ridge

2:22:05 ↗ there is an actual process where both

2:22:08 ↗ the school board the city council have

2:22:09 ↗ to sign off on on the use agreement with

2:22:12 ↗ each specific field. Is that correct

2:22:13 ↗ Jeff? Yes. And if I can if I can add,

2:22:15 ↗ great great questions and concerns.

2:22:17 ↗ Always a risk, right? Um we've been

2:22:20 ↗ talking about this idea of community

2:22:22 ↗ sports fields with the school district

2:22:24 ↗ staff in particular, their capital staff

2:22:26 ↗ for

2:22:27 ↗ >> six years. Okay.

2:22:29 ↗ >> Six years. I would say specifically the

2:22:32 ↗ elementary schools

2:22:34 ↗ >> for two years. And specifically the

2:22:36 ↗ model and and I I I'm going to sound

2:22:38 ↗ like I'm tooting my horn. I'm not

2:22:40 ↗ meaning to. Um, this innovative

2:22:43 ↗ partnership isn't super innovative. I

2:22:45 ↗ did this when I was in the city of

2:22:47 ↗ Seamish with the Lake Washington School

2:22:48 ↗ District. The East Lake High School

2:22:50 ↗ community sports field um has been in in

2:22:54 ↗ operation for 20ome years. Um, the city

2:22:57 ↗ of Seamish has gotten their investment

2:23:00 ↗ tenfold out of that. this premise and

2:23:03 ↗ what I've talked to the district about

2:23:05 ↗ in terms of the elementary school fields

2:23:07 ↗ is that same model that says, "Hey, you

2:23:10 ↗ provide the land, we the city provide

2:23:12 ↗ the funding, we become the scheduler, we

2:23:15 ↗ maintain it. Um, and the community gets

2:23:18 ↗ to use it as if it's a park. So, these

2:23:21 ↗ will the these elementary school fields

2:23:23 ↗ would function as a neighborhood park

2:23:24 ↗ field. It would look no different than

2:23:26 ↗ Central Park. Um, school district

2:23:29 ↗ >> fees would go into the turf replacement

2:23:30 ↗ fund for that. Exactly. Then the fees

2:23:33 ↗ >> we would manage the fees.

2:23:35 ↗ >> The fees we collect again would look

2:23:36 ↗ like just like all of our other

2:23:38 ↗ synthetic fields. School district staff

2:23:40 ↗ has

2:23:41 ↗ >> Would it be a gated park?

2:23:44 ↗ >> Would it be a gated?

2:23:45 ↗ >> I mean currently the elementary schools

2:23:47 ↗ have gates and fences around them.

2:23:50 ↗ >> There would well the it would be it

2:23:53 ↗ would be managed like an elementary

2:23:55 ↗ school campus. So during the school day

2:23:58 ↗ they're going to

2:24:00 ↗ >> Yeah. manage it and not have people

2:24:02 ↗ there. But what it how we design it and

2:24:05 ↗ what weekends look like, what evenings

2:24:07 ↗ look like, what summer looks like in

2:24:09 ↗ terms of access, this would look far

2:24:12 ↗ different than the 30-year-old headache

2:24:16 ↗ that how the school district manages

2:24:18 ↗ their middle school fields and high

2:24:19 ↗ school fields. Um, there's agreement

2:24:22 ↗ from staff. There's agreement from

2:24:24 ↗ staff. Um, you might remember two two

2:24:27 ↗ years ago I presented the same idea to

2:24:30 ↗ the joint council schoolboard meeting.

2:24:32 ↗ We had a really good discussion there.

2:24:34 ↗ School board seemed to be nodding heads

2:24:36 ↗ and and favorable with the model. So, I

2:24:39 ↗ hear your concern. Um, I think it's a

2:24:42 ↗ valid concern, but I I I think we're

2:24:45 ↗ making headway to presenting to the

2:24:47 ↗ district this is this is this is a new

2:24:49 ↗ model and this model isn't

2:24:51 ↗ revolutionary. The Lake Washington

2:24:53 ↗ School District has been doing it for a

2:24:55 ↗ long long time and it works really

2:24:56 ↗ really well. But

2:24:58 ↗ >> and I would but council member Walsh to

2:25:00 ↗ your point my anxiety is the same as

2:25:02 ↗ yours. My my anxiety is like if we

2:25:07 ↗ promise it to people and we don't build

2:25:08 ↗ it, we literally become Sound Transit.

2:25:10 ↗ So I think your fears are super valid.

2:25:12 ↗ And uh

2:25:14 ↗ I think if I guess we don't have the

2:25:17 ↗ slide up the

2:25:18 ↗ >> Which one do you want? Well, it just

2:25:20 ↗ says the source of funings like the $3

2:25:22 ↗ million of grant funding. Like I I think

2:25:26 ↗ we're being a little conservative. I'm

2:25:28 ↗ not saying

2:25:30 ↗ I just think my sense right now is all

2:25:33 ↗ these grants you go to the front of the

2:25:35 ↗ queue when you bring money matching

2:25:37 ↗ dollars to the grants. And I just feel

2:25:39 ↗ like the other communities right now

2:25:41 ↗ aren't in a position when I talk to my

2:25:43 ↗ fellow mayors, everyone's struggling

2:25:45 ↗ financially. So they're not in a

2:25:47 ↗ position to apply for those grants and

2:25:50 ↗ get the matching dollars necessary to

2:25:51 ↗ jump to the front of the queue. And I

2:25:53 ↗ think the council would be creating a

2:25:55 ↗ unique opportunity for us to be better

2:25:58 ↗ positioned than our fellow cities and

2:26:01 ↗ towns around the Puga Sound because we

2:26:03 ↗ would be bringing matching dollars that

2:26:05 ↗ they just can't bring right now. And so

2:26:08 ↗ I don't know that's the because I had

2:26:11 ↗ you're I think I started out exactly

2:26:13 ↗ where you are. The fact that I think

2:26:15 ↗ that grand number could end up being six

2:26:18 ↗ million instead of three million is

2:26:19 ↗ where I got a little bit more comfort

2:26:21 ↗ zone. But I it doesn't change that

2:26:24 ↗ you're bringing up I think the most

2:26:25 ↗ important valid concern is we cannot

2:26:27 ↗ tell people

2:26:29 ↗ >> we're going to build something and not

2:26:30 ↗ build it.

2:26:31 ↗ >> So then let me put it very bluntly. My

2:26:34 ↗ request before the June meeting or at

2:26:37 ↗ the June meeting is in order to support

2:26:39 ↗ this,

2:26:41 ↗ I either need a clear sense that we have

2:26:46 ↗ accurate estimates for these projects or

2:26:49 ↗ I think at least one project needs to

2:26:51 ↗ come off of that because you with what

2:26:55 ↗ we have now and with the overs

2:26:57 ↗ subscribed toward park impact fees and

2:26:59 ↗ grants compared to the bond, I don't

2:27:01 ↗ think we're there. So that's my first

2:27:03 ↗ ask there. My second ask is

2:27:07 ↗ if we are committing to doing $9 million

2:27:10 ↗ worth of sports fields at elementary

2:27:13 ↗ schools and we don't yet have the

2:27:16 ↗ agreement

2:27:17 ↗ in place.

2:27:20 ↗ How do we make that commitment to the

2:27:24 ↗ community? And what's going to happen if

2:27:27 ↗ the school board goes doesn't put forth

2:27:31 ↗ an agreement that we think is worth our

2:27:34 ↗ $9 million? How do we at that June

2:27:37 ↗ meeting make that vote

2:27:40 ↗ and say yes, we're hunky dory with this

2:27:43 ↗ when there are so many uncertainties out

2:27:45 ↗ there. So those are my asks because I'm

2:27:48 ↗ not there yet. And I just want to make

2:27:50 ↗ that very clear. Yeah. to the

2:27:52 ↗ administration that I love the projects.

2:27:55 ↗ I love the ideas of moving forward. This

2:27:59 ↗ is just moving very fast

2:28:02 ↗ to be able to say we can accomplish

2:28:03 ↗ these things.

2:28:05 ↗ >> Appreciate that. Before I move to

2:28:07 ↗ Council Member Nichols, just a bit of

2:28:08 ↗ housekeeping. I just want to point out

2:28:10 ↗ that Deputy Council President Jang has

2:28:12 ↗ joined us. Um, and hypothetically, I'm

2:28:14 ↗ going to be able to see if she uh puts

2:28:17 ↗ uh that she should be able to raise her

2:28:19 ↗ hand so she can participate in this

2:28:21 ↗ conversation as well. With that, I'll

2:28:22 ↗ move to Council Member Nicholas.

2:28:26 ↗ >> Okay. I have these are going to be a

2:28:28 ↗ little more just than I wanted them to

2:28:29 ↗ be because a couple things will come up.

2:28:31 ↗ Um

2:28:32 ↗ I think the easiest question first uh on

2:28:35 ↗ North is it fair to say that um

2:28:39 ↗ we could as a hypothetical could we is

2:28:44 ↗ there something specific enough in North

2:28:46 ↗ Isiqua that has been um

2:28:49 ↗ that anyone including you're aware of

2:28:51 ↗ that could be traded off into this

2:28:53 ↗ package at the moment or

2:28:55 ↗ >> does it in any situation require more?

2:28:57 ↗ >> Unfortunately not. It's so it's a

2:29:00 ↗ complex area. We don't have any land

2:29:02 ↗ acquisition lined up and ready. So it'd

2:29:05 ↗ be it'd be really hard to say there's

2:29:08 ↗ something there there. All right, that

2:29:10 ↗ that was the easy one.

2:29:10 ↗ >> That doesn't mean we're not going to try

2:29:12 ↗ outside of those packets.

2:29:13 ↗ >> I I'm not debating that. As a

2:29:16 ↗ hypothetical, we could debate that.

2:29:18 ↗ >> Given the timeline that's involved, I

2:29:20 ↗ think it's reasonable to not include

2:29:22 ↗ that at the moment. Um though I I feel

2:29:26 ↗ the the pain that uh that the ability to

2:29:30 ↗ touch grass requires crossing a strode

2:29:31 ↗ seems unfortunate. Um okay. Uh secondly

2:29:36 ↗ on the the pool and other expanded

2:29:39 ↗ options. So, one of the reasons that I

2:29:41 ↗ suggested in our SSP meeting a couple

2:29:43 ↗ days ago that we include other options

2:29:45 ↗ on the table was to see um in part

2:29:47 ↗ because of the speed that this was

2:29:48 ↗ moving if commarious community groups

2:29:51 ↗ would come out and support it and that

2:29:53 ↗ that might be one of the communities

2:29:55 ↗ that might. Um since then, I think we've

2:29:57 ↗ all seen in our emails that a community

2:29:59 ↗ that appears to support a significant

2:30:01 ↗ part of this bond has emerged. Um so, my

2:30:04 ↗ concerns about that are drastically

2:30:06 ↗ reduced. Um, so that said, I do think it

2:30:11 ↗ would with the pool in particular. Um, I

2:30:14 ↗ we can if we don't fund things, they're

2:30:16 ↗ not a priority by almost by definition,

2:30:19 ↗ right? So I I don't think we should say

2:30:21 ↗ that it's a priority unless we have some

2:30:22 ↗ plan to at least establish funding at

2:30:24 ↗ some point. Um, I can I can get to this

2:30:27 ↗ might not be the right point to do that,

2:30:28 ↗ but I would like to see how we can

2:30:30 ↗ specifically engage pool users, have a

2:30:32 ↗ plan for engaging them, and see if

2:30:34 ↗ they'll come forward and organize to the

2:30:36 ↗ extent that a community group community

2:30:38 ↗ group would need to do so to pass

2:30:40 ↗ something like this in the future. I

2:30:41 ↗ think that's a multi-year effort

2:30:43 ↗ probably to get that level of momentum

2:30:45 ↗ growing. Uh but beginning that

2:30:47 ↗ conversation perhaps at the same time

2:30:49 ↗ when we're otherwise having

2:30:50 ↗ conversations on a bond, a parks bond

2:30:52 ↗ because we'll have people in the room

2:30:53 ↗ there that will have overlapping

2:30:54 ↗ interests. We can be honest about them

2:30:57 ↗ if the council decides not to go forward

2:30:58 ↗ with a larger package at the moment that

2:31:00 ↗ this is why. But there's an opportunity

2:31:03 ↗ folks get out there and organize if this

2:31:04 ↗ is something you want to see because

2:31:06 ↗ realistically I don't see this being put

2:31:08 ↗ on a school an Isqua school district

2:31:10 ↗ bond anytime in the near future. So, if

2:31:13 ↗ Visqua residents want it, I think we

2:31:15 ↗ have to pay for this ourselves, perhaps

2:31:17 ↗ in partnership with King County if we

2:31:18 ↗ can find grant funds, etc. Um, but I

2:31:22 ↗ think that's that's probably the reality

2:31:24 ↗ that will have to be sold at some point.

2:31:26 ↗ So, but my my request is to have that be

2:31:28 ↗ a specific part of discussion when we're

2:31:30 ↗ having these

2:31:32 ↗ topics, saying that depending on what

2:31:34 ↗ council votes on, this was not in the

2:31:35 ↗ current package, but there's a we've we

2:31:38 ↗ recognize that this is a long-standing

2:31:39 ↗ need of the community, a long trip. It's

2:31:41 ↗ a it's a treasured location, has many

2:31:43 ↗ uses. Um,

2:31:46 ↗ somebody's got to come up and step up

2:31:47 ↗ and figure out how to motivate the

2:31:48 ↗ community to get behind it. Um, and that

2:31:50 ↗ can only be us to so much of an extent.

2:31:53 ↗ So, I'd like to see that that idea

2:31:55 ↗ teased. Um,

2:31:57 ↗ so to be clear on the on the other

2:32:00 ↗ options that were presented, um, I

2:32:02 ↗ appreciate the thought that went into

2:32:03 ↗ those, I would support the an 8 cent,

2:32:05 ↗ um, or the administration's proposal

2:32:09 ↗ before I mess up the math on it. Um, the

2:32:13 ↗ other topics that came up, um, I also

2:32:15 ↗ agree with Council Member Walsh, and I

2:32:17 ↗ do not want to overpromise either. Um,

2:32:19 ↗ and I don't want to do that in a couple

2:32:21 ↗ areas. Um, one is just the sheer number

2:32:23 ↗ of things that are there. Um, I think it

2:32:25 ↗ would be good to look at some of these

2:32:26 ↗ things and when we're putting together

2:32:27 ↗ the language for the bond, be careful

2:32:30 ↗ about in in some places um, writing this

2:32:34 ↗ in a way that we have a little bit more

2:32:36 ↗ flexibility in case we have unexpected

2:32:38 ↗ cost overruns. Um, let's say we start

2:32:41 ↗ digging up one of these turfs and we

2:32:42 ↗ find something we got to deal with to

2:32:44 ↗ remediate. Like that could happen,

2:32:46 ↗ right? Um, and then that could eat up a

2:32:49 ↗ lot of money very very quickly. Um, so I

2:32:51 ↗ I'd like us to be conservative in our

2:32:53 ↗ language in the sense that the language

2:32:55 ↗ is what we're we're we're truly

2:32:57 ↗ promising to the voters. Um, and that

2:33:00 ↗ might be around, for example,

2:33:02 ↗ specifically what we were promising

2:33:04 ↗ tits, for example. I I'm not I don't

2:33:06 ↗ want to go into the details right now,

2:33:07 ↗ but there's a couple places where I

2:33:09 ↗ think we should be careful about where

2:33:11 ↗ specifically we promise things on the

2:33:13 ↗ schools. I have the opposite sentiment

2:33:15 ↗ that we should be very specific about

2:33:16 ↗ what we're promising to promise there.

2:33:18 ↗ Um I'm also concerned about the relative

2:33:22 ↗ position of the cart and the horse at

2:33:23 ↗ the moment. Um I don't I think they

2:33:25 ↗ might be side by side to some extent. Um

2:33:28 ↗ and that uh we have

2:33:31 ↗ clearly um that that community has been

2:33:34 ↗ um activated um which is great um but

2:33:38 ↗ it's not fully within council's control

2:33:40 ↗ to just go and build a school there,

2:33:41 ↗ right? So I think it would be very it

2:33:43 ↗ would be hopefully we can communicate to

2:33:45 ↗ that to the public to also try to get

2:33:47 ↗ the public uh to be uh stating their

2:33:50 ↗ interest in this topic to our our

2:33:53 ↗ colleagues at the school district so

2:33:55 ↗ that they also understand that this is

2:33:56 ↗ something that would be greatly loved

2:33:58 ↗ and that would be supported um and that

2:34:01 ↗ we that we should get a school use

2:34:03 ↗ agreement in place ASAP. So I think that

2:34:06 ↗ would be a if to the extent we can get

2:34:08 ↗ some updates on that um in whatever form

2:34:10 ↗ is appropriate I think that would be

2:34:11 ↗ very useful because I think we can also

2:34:12 ↗ try to together try to make that go

2:34:16 ↗ through um this probably isn't the right

2:34:19 ↗ form to go through that but I would

2:34:20 ↗ discussion of that agreement and the

2:34:21 ↗ details of it I think would be useful at

2:34:23 ↗ some point so that we we can know where

2:34:24 ↗ else we can perhaps provide some

2:34:27 ↗ guidance but both great points by both

2:34:30 ↗ you and council member Walsh.

2:34:31 ↗ Coincidentally,

2:34:33 ↗ um we're hoping and planning as we work

2:34:36 ↗ with school district staff to have the

2:34:38 ↗ joint use agreement uh to you on June

2:34:41 ↗ 15th, the same the same evening we'd be

2:34:45 ↗ talking blunt. So,

2:34:48 ↗ when I think that uh I I definitely some

2:34:51 ↗ schoolboard members have said to me that

2:34:53 ↗ they would publicly endorse and do

2:34:54 ↗ everything they can to push for this

2:34:56 ↗ park boundary. like they sound some of

2:34:58 ↗ the schoolboard members are just I think

2:35:00 ↗ really ecstatic about this opportunity.

2:35:02 ↗ Even Harland who sometimes isn't as

2:35:04 ↗ ecstatic is is 100% ecstatic and all in

2:35:08 ↗ on this opportunity. Uh I think you guys

2:35:12 ↗ have both raised I think the valid

2:35:13 ↗ question of what happens if you've

2:35:15 ↗ overpromised here. Uh I wasn't going to

2:35:19 ↗ say it today. This is in the back of my

2:35:21 ↗ head is we currently have 1.7 million of

2:35:25 ↗ of cash flow that goes to pay debt right

2:35:27 ↗ now. You know, 700,000 of that comes off

2:35:30 ↗ when the park bond expires. The 061

2:35:33 ↗ expires at the end of this year. There

2:35:35 ↗ is another trunch of debt does come off

2:35:37 ↗ in 2029. And so in the back of my head,

2:35:41 ↗ if for some reason we were we were off

2:35:44 ↗ by two or three million dollars like you

2:35:46 ↗ guys are saying, there is an opportunity

2:35:48 ↗ to do Councilmatic debt when our current

2:35:51 ↗ councilmatic 20 million debts roll off.

2:35:54 ↗ I'm not saying we commit to doing that.

2:35:57 ↗ I'm just saying in the back of my head

2:36:00 ↗ where I was going is rather than cut a

2:36:02 ↗ project that we've told people we plan

2:36:04 ↗ to do is I would probably come back to

2:36:07 ↗ the council saying when these bonds roll

2:36:10 ↗ off when the debt service we have

2:36:12 ↗ rolling off in 2020 29 does roll off if

2:36:15 ↗ we're over budget on on something

2:36:17 ↗ somewhere else we we could have that is

2:36:20 ↗ in our back pocket of something we could

2:36:22 ↗ consider to make sure we keep the

2:36:23 ↗ promises and uh but like I said it's a

2:36:26 ↗ nuance it's a little complicated, but it

2:36:28 ↗ is in the back of my own head to make

2:36:30 ↗ sure we don't end up in the world of of

2:36:32 ↗ sound transit.

2:36:33 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think we can do both in that

2:36:36 ↗ uh certainly, Mr. Mayor, I I trust your

2:36:38 ↗ ability to try to think through this the

2:36:40 ↗ the finances of this uh in a in a

2:36:42 ↗ conservative way that will not get us

2:36:43 ↗ into trouble. Uh I think we can also

2:36:46 ↗ be careful about our about the specifics

2:36:48 ↗ of the wording that we use. um to not to

2:36:51 ↗ not falsely set expectations um but then

2:36:55 ↗ to also be deliberate in the wording

2:36:56 ↗ that we use where we are going to be

2:36:58 ↗ making very specific promises

2:37:00 ↗ particularly to communities that are

2:37:01 ↗ coming out and will likely be some of

2:37:04 ↗ the best supporters of this.

2:37:06 ↗ >> So um

2:37:09 ↗ >> I think that's it on the school use

2:37:11 ↗ agreement. Um I just to finish on my

2:37:13 ↗ points there as well. Um, I would I I

2:37:16 ↗ want to double down on some of the

2:37:17 ↗ things that Council Member Walsh said

2:37:18 ↗ about the openness of how these should

2:37:20 ↗ be. I uh

2:37:22 ↗ >> You don't want a $75 card?

2:37:23 ↗ >> I don't want a $75 card.

2:37:27 ↗ >> So, for those of you the the new the um

2:37:31 ↗ the newer school facilities require a

2:37:33 ↗ $75 card and they're and the facilities

2:37:36 ↗ are all locked. Um so, for example, in

2:37:38 ↗ my neighborhood, we can't just go run

2:37:39 ↗ around the track uh of the public

2:37:41 ↗ facility there. You need to first pay

2:37:43 ↗ for it. Um, I want to make I would very

2:37:46 ↗ much hope that we do not find ourselves

2:37:47 ↗ in a similar situation because I the uh

2:37:50 ↗ and I would even hope if we can if we

2:37:52 ↗ could use the opportunity to perhaps

2:37:53 ↗ help the school district uh learn how to

2:37:56 ↗ uh deal with the liability of having

2:37:58 ↗ parks that we have clearly figured out

2:38:00 ↗ how to handle. That was one of the

2:38:01 ↗ comments that came up at the at our

2:38:03 ↗ joint meeting that they have to have a

2:38:04 ↗ fienna because of liability. Um we have

2:38:07 ↗ solved that problem. Perhaps we can

2:38:09 ↗ perhaps we can assist. Um though I I

2:38:11 ↗ don't want to necessarily tie things

2:38:12 ↗ down, but it would be a nice opportunity

2:38:14 ↗ to do so if we could. Um so

2:38:19 ↗ >> Oh, sorry. Um

2:38:22 ↗ I I think that's it. Um so thank you for

2:38:27 ↗ putting together this

2:38:29 ↗ excellent looking proposal very quickly.

2:38:32 ↗ Um, and I think we all love our parks

2:38:34 ↗ and we'd all love to see

2:38:37 ↗ this or something very similar to it

2:38:39 ↗ pass.

2:38:41 ↗ Thanks, Kevin. Before we go to round

2:38:42 ↗ two, um, I believe Deputy Council

2:38:44 ↗ President Jang uh wishes to speak. So,

2:38:47 ↗ however we're however we're uh buzzing

2:38:49 ↗ her in, I think she's live.

2:38:52 ↗ >> Hi, can you hear me?

2:38:53 ↗ >> Yep.

2:38:54 ↗ >> Yes.

2:38:55 ↗ >> Yay. Okay, great. Um, sorry, I'm in

2:38:59 ↗ Denver right now. Um,

2:39:05 ↗ >> stop sharing. Uh,

2:39:07 ↗ >> oh, we're not hearing you.

2:39:10 ↗ >> We heard you for a second

2:39:11 ↗ >> for a brief shiny moment.

2:39:12 ↗ >> Oh, can you hear me?

2:39:14 ↗ >> Yes. Now you're back.

2:39:15 ↗ >> Intermittently. Please try again.

2:39:17 ↗ >> Um, sorry. Okay. Um, yeah, I was going

2:39:21 ↗ to say I mean this is like the most

2:39:23 ↗ emails we've gotten about anything and

2:39:26 ↗ they're all positive, which is great.

2:39:28 ↗ that doesn't happen.

2:39:30 ↗ Um, so I think the package that we put

2:39:32 ↗ together is very good and compelling. I

2:39:35 ↗ guess I'm curious about, you know, what

2:39:36 ↗ is the status of the joint use agreement

2:39:39 ↗ with the school board? What's the

2:39:40 ↗ timeline that we expect it to be sent?

2:39:43 ↗ Um, and you know, is there something

2:39:44 ↗ that we've proposed to the school board

2:39:46 ↗ or Yeah. Like what's the

2:39:51 ↗ >> Yeah, the the agreement is in its final

2:39:54 ↗ draft. It's being reviewed by um both

2:39:58 ↗ legal groups. As I just said earlier, um

2:40:01 ↗ we have it set to come to you for

2:40:04 ↗ adoption on June 15th. Uh what we've

2:40:08 ↗ said at the staff level is we want to

2:40:10 ↗ make sure this agreement when it goes to

2:40:12 ↗ council for adoption and school board

2:40:14 ↗ for adoption, it's one it's the same

2:40:16 ↗ document and so both groups are are are

2:40:20 ↗ um ready to adopt it um at the same

2:40:23 ↗ time. So it's right there at the nearing

2:40:27 ↗ the end of the finish line.

2:40:30 ↗ >> Um will we be shared the final draft? I

2:40:33 ↗ mean, I I feel like

2:40:35 ↗ it would be helpful probably for us to

2:40:37 ↗ see a final draft version so that if

2:40:39 ↗ there's any changes that we want to make

2:40:40 ↗ that can be reflected in the version we

2:40:45 ↗ because I imagine there might be, you

2:40:47 ↗ know, some concerns that could come up

2:40:48 ↗ as a result of that and I don't want to

2:40:49 ↗ like muddle the process and drag it on

2:40:51 ↗ further than June because of the tight

2:40:53 ↗ timeline for getting the bond on the

2:40:54 ↗ ballot.

2:40:56 ↗ >> Can work with administration on that.

2:40:58 ↗ Yeah.

2:41:00 ↗ >> All right.

2:41:01 ↗ >> Great. Thanks, Jeeoff.

2:41:03 ↗ Uh and then with that I will turn to

2:41:06 ↗ council member Adair.

2:41:07 ↗ >> Uh yeah I'll make it quick. You know

2:41:09 ↗ again I I support this bond. I support

2:41:11 ↗ the 8 cents. I support the projects. I

2:41:13 ↗ agree. Yeah. Any more you know any more

2:41:16 ↗ commitment or you know definitive you

2:41:18 ↗ know nature we can get on each project

2:41:19 ↗ is great but I also don't see one that

2:41:21 ↗ I'd say oh cut this. We should just let

2:41:23 ↗ that go. I think they all have a lot of

2:41:24 ↗ importance to the community. So yes any

2:41:27 ↗ ability to get those more concrete. The

2:41:28 ↗ only thing I wanted to add which is just

2:41:30 ↗ too hard to talk about North Isiqua and

2:41:32 ↗ other things as we talk about these

2:41:33 ↗ other projects is isn't correct if I'm

2:41:35 ↗ wrong. Isn't there another bond from

2:41:38 ↗ 2013 that will come up in 2033?

2:41:43 ↗ There is a 2013 bond that voters

2:41:46 ↗ approved that it was a 20-year bond. I'm

2:41:49 ↗ looking at Kristen as I said this. If it

2:41:51 ↗ was not refinanced or whatever that

2:41:53 ↗ would be expiring. Yes. in like 203

2:41:56 ↗ there's a theoretical nature of we get

2:41:59 ↗ this bond we do these projects and then

2:42:01 ↗ we have a new batch in 2033 to tackle

2:42:04 ↗ and hopefully it's north is squa or one

2:42:06 ↗ of these other larger things so just as

2:42:08 ↗ a thought for these other projects as a

2:42:10 ↗ way to talk about if they start getting

2:42:12 ↗ brought up talk about them and plan for

2:42:14 ↗ them so

2:42:15 ↗ >> um a piece of housekeeping I do see that

2:42:18 ↗ there's a member of the public that

2:42:19 ↗ wants to speak um because we are not

2:42:21 ↗ taking action on on this item uh we do

2:42:24 ↗ have a uh place in the agenda for public

2:42:27 ↗ comment at the close of the meeting. And

2:42:28 ↗ so I'm going to hold off on taking

2:42:30 ↗ public comment until that time. Uh for

2:42:33 ↗ myself, I just want to double back for a

2:42:36 ↗ second. In the same way that after

2:42:38 ↗ resolving

2:42:39 ↗ a proposed bond this fall, you know,

2:42:42 ↗ wanting to touch back to confluence, I

2:42:45 ↗ think this idea of a pool, I found in my

2:42:48 ↗ notes, it was a couple of years ago. Uh,

2:42:50 ↗ April 1st, 2013 was the last time we

2:42:53 ↗ received a uh we did a extensive survey.

2:42:57 ↗ Um, it feels like yesterday, but

2:42:59 ↗ evidently it was 13 years ago. So, uh,

2:43:02 ↗ so we have some data, albeit not fresh.

2:43:05 ↗ Um, so I I I mean, and then at the time

2:43:07 ↗ it was about a, uh, parks district,

2:43:10 ↗ right? And so I think it's fine to say I

2:43:13 ↗ mean what I'm hearing today is consensus

2:43:15 ↗ from the council particularly extremely

2:43:17 ↗ thoughtful council member Nichols I your

2:43:19 ↗ concerns around were we right sized and

2:43:21 ↗ I'm hearing you feel good about it. I I

2:43:23 ↗ think it's fine to say uh it would be

2:43:26 ↗ good at some point in the future to have

2:43:28 ↗ a conversation about a pool and that it

2:43:30 ↗ might be a parks district because it's

2:43:32 ↗ such a massive investment and would be a

2:43:34 ↗ regional uh regional uh treasure for

2:43:38 ↗ lack I guess for a loaded term. But uh

2:43:40 ↗ with that uh council member Nichols oh

2:43:42 ↗ no sorry I thought you still had your

2:43:46 ↗ Oh, council member Joe. Thank you.

2:43:50 ↗ Um, I think I'm the only person on

2:43:52 ↗ council that was around in 2006 when we

2:43:54 ↗ first approved that bond.

2:43:57 ↗ Uh, I'll just confess. Uh,

2:44:01 ↗ >> you get a donut for that.

2:44:02 ↗ >> I'd get a donut, I guess. But the the

2:44:05 ↗ one thing that we kind of took a a

2:44:07 ↗ little bit of a risk on was was um

2:44:11 ↗ putting money aside to acquire all that

2:44:13 ↗ land that we just bought the last couple

2:44:15 ↗ years. We put that money aside and it

2:44:17 ↗ really made a difference when we went to

2:44:20 ↗ uh the state or to other organizations

2:44:23 ↗ to say that we had money on the table

2:44:25 ↗ just to emphasize what the mayor was

2:44:26 ↗ saying. And that allowed us to punch

2:44:28 ↗ above our weight to acquire these pieces

2:44:30 ↗ of land that we couldn't acquire on our

2:44:32 ↗ own. But because we had money at the

2:44:34 ↗ table, it allowed us to to make those

2:44:36 ↗ acquisitions. Um, so I there's a little

2:44:39 ↗ bit of faith that you have to put in

2:44:40 ↗ there, which is a little bit of the the

2:44:42 ↗ underlying conversation that we're

2:44:43 ↗ seeing that our parks department can

2:44:47 ↗ bring those projects to fruition using

2:44:49 ↗ and leveraging the funds that are there.

2:44:51 ↗ Um, they've had a 20-year history of

2:44:54 ↗ doing that from where I sit and and I

2:44:56 ↗ think that I'm comfortable relying on

2:44:59 ↗ them to do that again uh as we go

2:45:01 ↗ forward. Um, I I hear the concern about

2:45:05 ↗ the the school fields access. Um, I

2:45:09 ↗ think I'm the only person here that has

2:45:10 ↗ a kid in high school. Um, he was on a

2:45:14 ↗ middle school.

2:45:15 ↗ >> Yeah, I got two of those.

2:45:16 ↗ >> Okay. Well, yeah, I'll just Yeah, you

2:45:18 ↗ have a Yeah. Okay. Um, but um, you know,

2:45:22 ↗ we we practice up at East Lake all the

2:45:24 ↗ time. The practices are 8:00 at night

2:45:26 ↗ after the school activities are done or

2:45:29 ↗ 7:00 at night. Um, there is an access

2:45:32 ↗ gate that's that's open because it's

2:45:34 ↗ managed by the city. They practice till

2:45:36 ↗ 8 or 9, 10 o'clock at night and then I

2:45:38 ↗ go home and collapse. But the fields are

2:45:40 ↗ accessible. I didn't even know that that

2:45:43 ↗ was a cityrun field. Just to let you

2:45:46 ↗ guys know, I thought it was the school

2:45:48 ↗ that was managing it solely and it was

2:45:50 ↗ the high school nice enough to to let us

2:45:52 ↗ in. So, if the school agreement mirrors

2:45:56 ↗ what they're doing already in Seamish,

2:45:57 ↗ I'm pretty comfortable with the access

2:45:59 ↗ and the way that we have um uh shared

2:46:02 ↗ that field or the city has the

2:46:04 ↗ opportunity to share that field along

2:46:05 ↗ the way. Just to speak to that uh

2:46:07 ↗ particular point. I guess the last point

2:46:09 ↗ I I would would say is that um fully

2:46:13 ↗ supportive of what we're trying to do

2:46:14 ↗ here. Uh I think that uh our citizens

2:46:17 ↗ deserve to see us think about the

2:46:20 ↗ future. I really like what Erica has

2:46:22 ↗ said about getting a park in North

2:46:24 ↗ Isiqua.

2:46:26 ↗ Nancy Davidson, old council member, uh,

2:46:30 ↗ walked the area along the creek where

2:46:33 ↗ Confluence Park is now and said, "This

2:46:36 ↗ would make a fantastic park." At the

2:46:38 ↗ time, it was a farm. It was a piece of

2:46:41 ↗ property that was a little bit

2:46:42 ↗ dilapidated. Um, but she started with

2:46:44 ↗ that vision, got the rest of the council

2:46:46 ↗ on board with doing that. It wasn't

2:46:48 ↗ completed by the time I was done, but

2:46:50 ↗ because that vision was talked about,

2:46:53 ↗ set, the funding was pursued, it

2:46:56 ↗ happened. And I think the conversation

2:46:58 ↗ we're having today about the future for

2:46:59 ↗ other parks is very fruitful to find out

2:47:02 ↗ what is needed for the future for our

2:47:06 ↗ park system and our citizens. And I look

2:47:08 ↗ forward to continuing that conversation

2:47:10 ↗ and hearing about it as we talk about

2:47:12 ↗ the bond and get the public feedback as

2:47:14 ↗ we go forward. Thank you.

2:47:16 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh so we are running about 40

2:47:19 ↗ minutes behind because we started 10

2:47:21 ↗ minutes late and we took an hour instead

2:47:23 ↗ of a half hour to talk about this

2:47:24 ↗ important topic. Food is here. Uh what I

2:47:27 ↗ would like to do I assume the

2:47:29 ↗ administration agrees is a good point to

2:47:31 ↗ move on to our next topic

2:47:35 ↗ slides for a second. There was feedback

2:47:37 ↗ from council that some of the

2:47:39 ↗ assumptions it, you know, page one of

2:47:42 ↗ the the packet for the budget, there was

2:47:44 ↗ stuff in there that was surprising. And

2:47:47 ↗ so we wanted to just have a have a

2:47:50 ↗ fight, you know, if there was a if there

2:47:52 ↗ was a bonfire in front of us, you know,

2:47:54 ↗ be sort of sitting around the bonfire

2:47:55 ↗ talking about um the state of the city

2:47:57 ↗ financially. So um and Kristen Wallally,

2:48:02 ↗ >> so let let me provide some initial

2:48:04 ↗ comments. Um, as I said at the beginning

2:48:07 ↗ this morning, um, you know, this is a

2:48:09 ↗ pre-season game because as we look at

2:48:12 ↗ the season, um, there are challenges and

2:48:15 ↗ there have been challenges, uh, for the

2:48:18 ↗ last several years, I would suggest

2:48:20 ↗ there are going to be challenges, uh,

2:48:23 ↗ moving forward. Um, you know, there's

2:48:25 ↗ nothing really fundamentally wrong with

2:48:29 ↗ the city of Isiqua's budget, um, other

2:48:32 ↗ than the world around us. Um that's the

2:48:35 ↗ the biggest challenge that if we were to

2:48:37 ↗ do nothing else but provide all the good

2:48:39 ↗ services we're providing today, we

2:48:41 ↗ wouldn't be able to afford it because

2:48:43 ↗ our revenues don't match our

2:48:46 ↗ expenditures. So I mean you start with

2:48:48 ↗ that base assumption that causes

2:48:50 ↗ difficulty. Um, as I said also first

2:48:53 ↗ thing this morning, we have a new team

2:48:55 ↗ here and this council uh my sense as a

2:48:58 ↗ local government management professional

2:49:01 ↗ uh has a slightly different priorities

2:49:03 ↗ or has the same priorities but perhaps

2:49:05 ↗ in a slightly different order uh than

2:49:07 ↗ we've had in previous years. And so I

2:49:11 ↗ think with the understanding that our

2:49:13 ↗ revenues aren't going to meet our

2:49:14 ↗ expenditures and that there's differing

2:49:16 ↗ priorities, it's important to start

2:49:18 ↗ early to talk about uh what those

2:49:21 ↗ priorities are informed by what we've

2:49:23 ↗ talked about this morning with

2:49:25 ↗ performance measures um and other

2:49:28 ↗ indicators.

2:49:30 ↗ The sooner you all can start talking

2:49:31 ↗ about that, knowing that you don't have

2:49:33 ↗ an extra $2 million to spend on new

2:49:36 ↗ things, I think is valid. what we tried

2:49:38 ↗ to do uh with the presentation, which

2:49:40 ↗ we'll get to in a little bit, is share

2:49:42 ↗ with you where we are currently with the

2:49:45 ↗ departments. So, part of what you see is

2:49:48 ↗ their submitts, which is something we

2:49:50 ↗ haven't really normally shared. We've

2:49:52 ↗ usually have gotten past that by the

2:49:54 ↗ time we see you in July, but we shared

2:49:56 ↗ that to inform you that that that's at

2:49:58 ↗ least a data point that's out there. uh

2:50:01 ↗ we can get into more specifics about

2:50:03 ↗ where we think uh existing revenues are

2:50:05 ↗ and what they all those changes will be.

2:50:07 ↗ But I think council member Marks um your

2:50:10 ↗ invitation to just kind of talk and to

2:50:13 ↗ hear from your colleagues and the mayor

2:50:17 ↗ where your head is on uh the budget for

2:50:21 ↗ the next bianium, you know, given those

2:50:24 ↗ general uh initial comments.

2:50:30 ↗ So the idea that we can't that we are on

2:50:31 ↗ an unsustainable path at this moment was

2:50:34 ↗ that the message from last Monday night.

2:50:37 ↗ >> You know the the message from last

2:50:39 ↗ Monday night was to kind of wrap up

2:50:40 ↗ where we were um with the year because

2:50:43 ↗ then you know you you talk planning but

2:50:46 ↗ then you have the you actually living

2:50:47 ↗ the budget and we have to balance the

2:50:49 ↗ budget to the best of our abilities. uh

2:50:52 ↗ we have revenue uh reserve balances we

2:50:55 ↗ have and so we triage uh and I every

2:50:58 ↗ year I've done a municipal budget been

2:51:00 ↗ responsible for municipal budget there's

2:51:02 ↗ always a triage involved because of what

2:51:04 ↗ actually happens you know some of your

2:51:06 ↗ expenses are a little higher some

2:51:08 ↗ expenses are a little lower some of your

2:51:09 ↗ revenues are a little higher revenues

2:51:11 ↗ are a little lower but actually happens

2:51:13 ↗ sometimes takes some triaging uh and so

2:51:15 ↗ I think what you heard from us the other

2:51:17 ↗ night was really meant to say this is

2:51:19 ↗ how we finished 25 um through a triage

2:51:24 ↗ process because you know and Andrea you

2:51:26 ↗ know I depend on Andrea for many many

2:51:29 ↗ things but she's texting me during the

2:51:31 ↗ meeting Monday night saying we don't

2:51:33 ↗ talk enough about the cuts we make

2:51:36 ↗ internally which we never share with the

2:51:38 ↗ council because they don't necessarily

2:51:40 ↗ have you know a major impact on a major

2:51:42 ↗ policy or program but it's something we

2:51:45 ↗ trim in order to help bring the budget

2:51:47 ↗ in on time and that's again maybe

2:51:49 ↗ something we should talk more out. Um,

2:51:51 ↗ but no, I think what you're hearing from

2:51:53 ↗ us this morning, this afternoon, is

2:51:56 ↗ looking forward. And looking forward is

2:51:58 ↗ that local governments in the state of

2:52:00 ↗ Washington, if not all over America, are

2:52:03 ↗ strained because our costs and our

2:52:05 ↗ expenses continue to rise faster than

2:52:07 ↗ our revenues. So, either we raise

2:52:09 ↗ revenues to meet that, we cut expenses,

2:52:12 ↗ or some combination thereof. And so with

2:52:15 ↗ this new team of council, with the

2:52:17 ↗ priorities that you have, I think the

2:52:20 ↗ administration feels the sooner we get a

2:52:22 ↗ sense of where you're at on those

2:52:24 ↗ factors. Are we raising revenue? Are we

2:52:26 ↗ increasing expenses? Are we doing

2:52:28 ↗ something in between? Are we saying, you

2:52:30 ↗ know, this is a a project or program is

2:52:33 ↗ a greater priority to this group than

2:52:35 ↗ perhaps it was to the previous council?

2:52:38 ↗ Uh this is perhaps a less priority. The

2:52:40 ↗ sooner we start talking about that, the

2:52:42 ↗ easier it is for us to begin uh trying

2:52:45 ↗ to balance budget. And it will inform

2:52:47 ↗ the discussion that we have in the sec

2:52:49 ↗ second pre-season meeting on uh July

2:52:52 ↗ 27th uh so we can help drill down a

2:52:55 ↗ little bit with that.

2:52:57 ↗ >> All right. I'd like to go to Deputy

2:52:58 ↗ Council President Chang.

2:53:04 ↗ >> Great. Thank you, Council President.

2:53:05 ↗ Sorry, I had to find my uh unful.

2:53:09 ↗ >> Yes. Yes, we can.

2:53:11 ↗ >> Great. Um, well, first of all, I want to

2:53:13 ↗ thank um, Kristen for sending the

2:53:15 ↗ presentation and the line item budget,

2:53:17 ↗ which is super helpful and not something

2:53:19 ↗ we've received before. So, um, it was

2:53:22 ↗ great to dive into that a bit last

2:53:23 ↗ night. Um, I would love to see some more

2:53:26 ↗ specifics on some of our special revenue

2:53:28 ↗ funds. Um, in particular, you know, the

2:53:30 ↗ affordable housing sales tax, that's a

2:53:32 ↗ dedicated fund that has a very, very

2:53:34 ↗ high fund balance. So, you know, even as

2:53:36 ↗ a general fund is strained, I want to

2:53:38 ↗ make sure that the tax revenues we're

2:53:39 ↗ collecting in other areas are getting

2:53:41 ↗ put to work in the community. Um, in

2:53:43 ↗ particular, I think I sent an email

2:53:45 ↗ being like, what's up with this 700K in

2:53:47 ↗ this miscellaneous category? Um, so I I

2:53:49 ↗ just want to get a better understanding

2:53:50 ↗ of that. Um, I'm also really interested

2:53:53 ↗ in exploring ways that we could

2:53:55 ↗ potentially do capital investments to

2:53:58 ↗ reduce operating costs, particularly in

2:54:00 ↗ public works. So, I learned recently

2:54:02 ↗ that the city of Redmond has developed a

2:54:05 ↗ dedicated concrete team that does their

2:54:06 ↗ sidewalk improvements. And I've heard

2:54:09 ↗ like they can save like 60 to 80% on the

2:54:12 ↗ cost of sidewalk projects. And, you

2:54:14 ↗ know, especially as we're looking to do

2:54:16 ↗ more pavement management to keep up

2:54:18 ↗ with, you know, the rate of wear and

2:54:19 ↗ tear on our roads. Is there like

2:54:21 ↗ equipment that we would need to buy?

2:54:22 ↗ It's, you know, h how would that work?

2:54:24 ↗ so that we can, you know, bring it in

2:54:26 ↗ house and actually potentially save a

2:54:27 ↗ ton of money and be able to do more with

2:54:29 ↗ less because I think that's kind of the

2:54:31 ↗ theme of what we're doing here. Um, I

2:54:33 ↗ know this is something that Lynwood is

2:54:35 ↗ exploring as well. Um, so yeah, I guess

2:54:39 ↗ my question is to the public works team,

2:54:40 ↗ you know, are there any ways where

2:54:42 ↗ there's some of these contracts where we

2:54:44 ↗ could, you know, bring things in house,

2:54:45 ↗ get some equipment, and be able to

2:54:47 ↗ execute it for a lot less than what

2:54:48 ↗ we're paying contractors to do

2:54:50 ↗ currently? um in particular in pavement

2:54:51 ↗ management area where we're trying to do

2:54:53 ↗ more. Thank you,

2:54:58 ↗ M.

2:54:59 ↗ >> Mr. Mayor, did you want to have

2:55:00 ↗ something you want to say? No. Okay.

2:55:01 ↗ >> No.

2:55:02 ↗ >> Okay. Uh Council Member Walsh.

2:55:06 ↗ >> Okay. Um I really appreciate that we've

2:55:08 ↗ refocused this conversation a little bit

2:55:11 ↗ because I think we're getting a little

2:55:13 ↗ bit too much into the weeds. Um, I've

2:55:16 ↗ always very much appreciated that Wally

2:55:20 ↗ and the city administration have really

2:55:22 ↗ been focused on making sure that you

2:55:24 ↗ have early input from the council about

2:55:27 ↗ what we think are priorities so that we

2:55:30 ↗ can form a budget around that.

2:55:34 ↗ The other part of forming a budget and

2:55:37 ↗ understanding

2:55:39 ↗ how to ask for needs and things like

2:55:40 ↗ that is having shity on our data. Um

2:55:46 ↗ when I look at budget, one of the most

2:55:49 ↗ important things for me and I will lay

2:55:52 ↗ down a line much like uh council

2:55:55 ↗ president Marts does about the uh per

2:55:58 ↗ capita um rates. I want to know what the

2:56:03 ↗ story is we are telling ourselves and

2:56:05 ↗ telling the public about our financials.

2:56:07 ↗ I understand the underlying story of hey

2:56:12 ↗ we are in a structural deficit because

2:56:14 ↗ of the way that we were able to set

2:56:16 ↗ revenues

2:56:18 ↗ um compared to continued rising

2:56:20 ↗ expenses. I think that part is clear.

2:56:24 ↗ But what I don't understand when you put

2:56:27 ↗ out numbers that say, you know, we're

2:56:30 ↗ facing a $780,000

2:56:34 ↗ deficit in 2026, but it's going to rise

2:56:38 ↗ to a five and $6 million deficit in

2:56:41 ↗ 2728.

2:56:43 ↗ There is no why behind that. There is no

2:56:47 ↗ story that it's supposed to be telling

2:56:50 ↗ me. And so that gives me a lot of

2:56:53 ↗ concern. So I really want to make sure

2:56:55 ↗ when we are looking at big picture

2:56:58 ↗ numbers that

2:57:00 ↗ if there is a change much like with the

2:57:04 ↗ performance metrics if we see a change

2:57:06 ↗ there should be a reason for that. Um so

2:57:09 ↗ please tell the story and the why to us.

2:57:12 ↗ Also in order to see what the story is

2:57:15 ↗ we need trend lines on our data. And so

2:57:20 ↗ looking at what was shown to us last

2:57:23 ↗ week compared to today, none of the data

2:57:26 ↗ is the same. And so we really need to

2:57:30 ↗ get standardized on

2:57:33 ↗ and I particularly care about general

2:57:36 ↗ fund. I think the way that we budget for

2:57:39 ↗ the enterprise funds is completely

2:57:41 ↗ different. But for general fund getting

2:57:45 ↗ providing us clarity of data and

2:57:47 ↗ standardization on something that is um

2:57:52 ↗ you know fund balance in

2:57:55 ↗ revenue expenses fund balance out. do

2:57:58 ↗ that with unrestricted versus restricted

2:58:01 ↗ funds

2:58:03 ↗ gives us a sense and do that with

2:58:05 ↗ historical data gives us what we need in

2:58:08 ↗ order to trust the data and have clarity

2:58:10 ↗ about what the story is. So that's my

2:58:13 ↗ big picture

2:58:15 ↗ thing. My second piece when I look at

2:58:20 ↗ what this data was trying to tell us is

2:58:23 ↗ we need to have a very clear and public

2:58:26 ↗ conversation about what our rate of

2:58:28 ↗ functions are. When we are doing a

2:58:31 ↗ model, which is what any budget is,

2:58:34 ↗ there are assumptions that go into that.

2:58:38 ↗ And as somebody who's done our budgets

2:58:42 ↗ recently, um I recognize how important

2:58:45 ↗ those rate assumptions are. We had a

2:58:49 ↗ budget three cycles ago where council

2:58:52 ↗ member Martz or council president Martz

2:58:54 ↗ would consistently say we are budgeting

2:58:58 ↗ to spend

2:59:01 ↗ $5 million on, you know, people and we

2:59:06 ↗ end up consistently spending four. And

2:59:09 ↗ so we when we're looking at that ending

2:59:11 ↗ fund balance percentage, which is one of

2:59:14 ↗ the metrics that we have as a financial

2:59:17 ↗ policy, we would consistently say we're

2:59:20 ↗ budgeting for 20%. But we hit 30%,

2:59:23 ↗ because we're under spending compared to

2:59:26 ↗ what our budget says. And then we got a

2:59:29 ↗ new finance director and we had that

2:59:33 ↗ conversation. We said, "This is really

2:59:34 ↗ important to us as council. Why? Why do

2:59:37 ↗ we keep missing this? Albeit for a good

2:59:39 ↗ reason. And we recognized that

2:59:43 ↗ three finance directors ago was assuming

2:59:46 ↗ personnel vacancy rates were 100%.

2:59:50 ↗ And then this finance director came in

2:59:53 ↗ and said, "Hey, but we have data showing

2:59:56 ↗ what our personnel vacancy rates are.

2:59:59 ↗ Why are we assuming it's 100% when we

3:00:01 ↗ know what they've historically been?"

3:00:04 ↗ And that got us much closer to our

3:00:07 ↗ budget and our actuals matching up. And

3:00:10 ↗ so with a new finance director coming in

3:00:13 ↗ with your own expertise, which is

3:00:15 ↗ fantastic, I need the clarity of what

3:00:18 ↗ are the assumptions that we're making

3:00:20 ↗ for rates such as personnel vacancy

3:00:22 ↗ rates, such as in this document, you

3:00:26 ↗ said historically our revenue growth

3:00:29 ↗ rates have been 4%. We're projecting 2%

3:00:33 ↗ growth rates for this budget. I need to

3:00:37 ↗ know why. I need to know what's going

3:00:39 ↗ into that and then what are the other

3:00:41 ↗ assumptions that are in that model that

3:00:43 ↗ we just don't know about because right

3:00:46 ↗ now I'm facing not knowing what the data

3:00:49 ↗ is, not necessarily having the um

3:00:51 ↗ confidence in it. I have other things

3:00:54 ↗ that I will speak to on priorities, but

3:00:56 ↗ I wanted to set that out of where I am

3:00:59 ↗ when it comes to seeing this budget data

3:01:02 ↗ and the information that I need in order

3:01:07 ↗ to have confidence for this next step in

3:01:10 ↗ July and then September. And and let me

3:01:12 ↗ if I may, Council Member Marks, um I did

3:01:15 ↗ a tremendous disservice to finance

3:01:18 ↗ department asking them to give you such

3:01:20 ↗ specific numbers so early in the year.

3:01:22 ↗ And so a lesson learned for me in this

3:01:25 ↗ process is not to ask them to do that

3:01:28 ↗ because it causes you to question

3:01:30 ↗ judgment. It causes you to have question

3:01:33 ↗ where are these numbers coming from. We

3:01:35 ↗ should have started in a broader sense.

3:01:38 ↗ But again, I think as we look at the

3:01:40 ↗ team changing, whatever role I play,

3:01:43 ↗ whatever you want to call it, um I'm

3:01:45 ↗ trying to read all of you. And so I

3:01:47 ↗ don't want uh Kristen or her staff to be

3:01:50 ↗ pillared as a decision that was mine.

3:01:52 ↗ And so in the future, if we do these two

3:01:55 ↗ touches, uh we won't do it so early. In

3:01:58 ↗ July, it's a little bit different. We

3:02:00 ↗ have more actuals under our belt. Um so

3:02:04 ↗ please don't pillar the finance

3:02:05 ↗ department. pillar me.

3:02:07 ↗ >> I'm I'm I'm not hearing you pillar

3:02:10 ↗ anybody. Um I think that

3:02:14 ↗ uh I I mean I appreciate seeing this $5

3:02:17 ↗ half million dollar number.

3:02:20 ↗ There's you know there's there's a

3:02:22 ↗ universe where this morning's meeting

3:02:24 ↗ is, you know, we'll start with the 2026

3:02:27 ↗ budget and tell me what you want to add

3:02:28 ↗ and what you want to subtract. I mean

3:02:30 ↗ eventually, you know, we we could say

3:02:31 ↗ like the way it's going to work in

3:02:32 ↗ November is, you know, we're going to

3:02:34 ↗ start you with something that looks like

3:02:35 ↗ the 2026 budget and uh you're going to

3:02:38 ↗ add stuff and subtract stuff. We're

3:02:39 ↗ going to get back to zero. That's how it

3:02:41 ↗ has often existed in the last 17 years.

3:02:44 ↗ Um or there's an austerity budget,

3:02:46 ↗ right? And if what you're telling us is

3:02:48 ↗ there's an austerity budget and you know

3:02:51 ↗ the OP when you get to an austerity

3:02:53 ↗ budget, you're like, do you cut staff?

3:02:55 ↗ Do you cut programs? You know, an

3:02:57 ↗ austerity budget looks very different

3:02:59 ↗ than a start with today's budget and add

3:03:01 ↗ and subtract until you get back to

3:03:03 ↗ something that looks like it. Right? So,

3:03:06 ↗ I don't think

3:03:08 ↗ um I I don't think I heard anybody

3:03:10 ↗ pillaring staff. It was just that if

3:03:11 ↗ you're telling us it's an austerity

3:03:13 ↗ budget, let's start with why did you

3:03:15 ↗ know convince us it's an austerity

3:03:18 ↗ budget? Because we're going to take on

3:03:19 ↗ the pain if it is an austerity budget

3:03:21 ↗ and we have to take on the pain of

3:03:23 ↗ cutting programs, right? Cut pickle

3:03:25 ↗ ball, cut uh you know, whatever, right?

3:03:29 ↗ Cut u squad uh squad cars for officers

3:03:32 ↗ that they could take home, whatever it

3:03:34 ↗ is, right? If we understand it and

3:03:36 ↗ internalize it, we will go accept it and

3:03:39 ↗ we will go tell the community we did

3:03:40 ↗ what we need to do on this budget. But

3:03:42 ↗ an austerity budget really looks

3:03:44 ↗ different than a status quo budget. And

3:03:46 ↗ when I looked at the packet today, I

3:03:48 ↗ thought they're telling us it's going to

3:03:49 ↗ be an austerity budget. And I think what

3:03:52 ↗ I would like to say is that we see uh

3:03:56 ↗ winds of that, but we are not prepared

3:03:58 ↗ to call it that yet. And so we want to

3:04:00 ↗ at least give the council a heads up

3:04:03 ↗ that we are seeing factors that would

3:04:05 ↗ indicate that. And again, we've not

3:04:07 ↗ given you numbers normally this early.

3:04:09 ↗ We are committed that on July 27th, I

3:04:12 ↗ think at that point we'll be able to

3:04:14 ↗ tell you. But as we sit here uh the

3:04:16 ↗ first week of May, we're seeing winds.

3:04:19 ↗ I'm seeing wins and I want it a new team

3:04:22 ↗ to be prepared for that and we'll give

3:04:25 ↗ you more data in July. I wish I could

3:04:27 ↗ say, you know, smooth sailing, maybe we

3:04:29 ↗ wouldn't have had this meeting. Maybe we

3:04:31 ↗ wouldn't have had a budget component. We

3:04:32 ↗ would have just talked about uh

3:04:34 ↗ performance measures. Um but I'm seeing

3:04:37 ↗ some wins.

3:04:37 ↗ >> Sure. And and I'm just saying what I'm

3:04:39 ↗ hearing from council is help us

3:04:41 ↗ understand um those wins, right? And as

3:04:45 ↗ we have a conversation this this here

3:04:47 ↗ this afternoon, you know, I'm I'm more

3:04:49 ↗ cautious if if there's winds of

3:04:51 ↗ austerity than I am if everything is

3:04:54 ↗ hunky dory. Council member Nichols, uh,

3:04:58 ↗ I'll go big picture. First, I want to

3:04:59 ↗ just react to that last exchange,

3:05:01 ↗ though. I I would I am happy to see

3:05:04 ↗ these now. I I think it would be perhaps

3:05:08 ↗ the 100% wrong message to see us

3:05:11 ↗ reacting and think that we should delay

3:05:13 ↗ those in the future. I think it's

3:05:15 ↗ totally reasonable to and good to be

3:05:18 ↗ saying that these are not to to put very

3:05:20 ↗ wide error bounds on these and say we

3:05:22 ↗ think it could be anywhere from X to Z.

3:05:26 ↗ Um and that would be a helpful bit of

3:05:28 ↗ additional context. Not just say this is

3:05:30 ↗ the number, but it could be this bad,

3:05:32 ↗ could be this good. Those will of course

3:05:34 ↗ always be subject to lots of uh

3:05:36 ↗ uncertainty in themselves. But having

3:05:38 ↗ some idea of that window of uncertainty,

3:05:40 ↗ I think that would be the tweak that I

3:05:42 ↗ would suggest uh in the future if we do

3:05:44 ↗ earlier numbers, not to withhold them

3:05:46 ↗ entirely because they're very valuable

3:05:48 ↗ at the moment. And I am much happier

3:05:50 ↗ seeing these now than I would be in June

3:05:52 ↗ and I'm happier seeing them in June than

3:05:53 ↗ I would be in July, etc., etc. because

3:05:55 ↗ the earlier in advance we get these, the

3:05:57 ↗ sooner we can decide or at least uh

3:06:01 ↗ start down a path of

3:06:04 ↗ sifting through the varieties of paths

3:06:07 ↗ that are out there. Um and to that I

3:06:10 ↗ think the the the big picture comments

3:06:12 ↗ that I have are um

3:06:15 ↗ if these numbers are even close to real

3:06:18 ↗ we do have to I think any further

3:06:20 ↗ conversations have to be focused on how

3:06:22 ↗ we bridge those those gaps uh and start

3:06:26 ↗ worrying about 2027 budgets in 2026 more

3:06:29 ↗ so than just accepting that these

3:06:32 ↗ numbers are something we deal with in

3:06:33 ↗ the future. I think it will always be

3:06:35 ↗ better to do that. The other thing that

3:06:36 ↗ I would like to propose is that we not

3:06:39 ↗ uh a priority assume um

3:06:43 ↗ no new revenue sources are available. Um

3:06:45 ↗ they're hard. They may require some

3:06:47 ↗ creativity. They may require asking

3:06:48 ↗ voters of something. But I have for a

3:06:51 ↗ while thought that municipal governments

3:06:53 ↗ will at some point find themselves in

3:06:55 ↗ the same position that our school

3:06:56 ↗ districts are where we our school

3:06:58 ↗ districts are placed in a position where

3:07:01 ↗ they the residents or where their

3:07:04 ↗ taxpayers are provided a level of basic

3:07:05 ↗ education. Um and then if their

3:07:08 ↗ taxpayers want something on top of that

3:07:11 ↗ they have to that those governing bodies

3:07:13 ↗ have to go to the voters and ask for

3:07:14 ↗ things. oftentimes in

3:07:17 ↗ annoyingly uh specific ways that are not

3:07:21 ↗ the best way to be doing budget in a

3:07:22 ↗ government government but that's where

3:07:24 ↗ we are so if we at some point as a

3:07:26 ↗ municipality or other municipalities

3:07:28 ↗ find ourselves in that situation I think

3:07:30 ↗ we have to at least recognize that that

3:07:32 ↗ is one possible path out of this it's

3:07:34 ↗ painful but that otherwise it becomes a

3:07:36 ↗ situation where we have a a um

3:07:40 ↗ a city that has come to expect excellent

3:07:42 ↗ city services uh our scores for almost

3:07:45 ↗ everything. They're always quite good,

3:07:46 ↗ right? So people people are happy with

3:07:47 ↗ the services they're provided. Um

3:07:51 ↗ if we are unable to continue providing

3:07:54 ↗ those services at the same level, I

3:07:57 ↗ think we should at least ask if what

3:07:59 ↗ they would like is for us to raise

3:08:02 ↗ further revenue or to cut um and at

3:08:05 ↗ least make that a conversation and not

3:08:07 ↗ assume that people will only always want

3:08:09 ↗ cuts.

3:08:12 ↗ Thank you, Council Member Roodier.

3:08:15 ↗ >> Uh, yeah, I want to echo that same

3:08:17 ↗ comment that I'd like seeing the numbers

3:08:19 ↗ now, even if they're highly, you know,

3:08:22 ↗ estimated and things like that. I have

3:08:23 ↗ in my own work, I deal with tax

3:08:25 ↗ estimates and I try to give those

3:08:27 ↗ numbers very early and they're very

3:08:28 ↗ conservative and I'm always like, this

3:08:30 ↗ is just where I'm starting from, but it

3:08:32 ↗ it is makes the conversation so much

3:08:34 ↗ easier going forward past that to start

3:08:36 ↗ at that place. So these are useful to me

3:08:39 ↗ and my kind of question to it for this

3:08:40 ↗ conversation of like the $5 million

3:08:42 ↗ deficit for 27. It's like should we

3:08:45 ↗ think of that as

3:08:47 ↗ a worst case scenario as a mid-case

3:08:49 ↗ scenario? Like what is you know

3:08:50 ↗ obviously it's it's it's rough but is

3:08:52 ↗ that is that again that's the worst case

3:08:55 ↗ or is it that it could be 6 million 7

3:08:58 ↗ million like where are we in terms of

3:08:59 ↗ the assumption of that so that we know

3:09:02 ↗ where we're going forward before things

3:09:03 ↗ become more concrete?

3:09:06 ↗ and we'll get to that. Okay.

3:09:09 ↗ >> Council member watch.

3:09:11 ↗ >> Oh, I'm sorry. Council member White.

3:09:16 ↗ >> Um, this is my first rodeo. I'll put

3:09:18 ↗ that out there with a budget. uh

3:09:23 ↗ as I I think I've asked uh director

3:09:25 ↗ Garcia this before uh for specific and

3:09:28 ↗ it's just probably how I visualize or

3:09:30 ↗ things having any like if there's for

3:09:32 ↗ the future maybe at the next meeting uh

3:09:36 ↗ of a like a here's what we're working

3:09:38 ↗ with which I mean I think it is that

3:09:40 ↗ like $5 million deficit or whatever but

3:09:42 ↗ I don't if it's too granular to do it

3:09:45 ↗ almost like pot by pot of where I'm

3:09:47 ↗ looking at like what do I the levers

3:09:50 ↗ that I want that are even just available

3:09:52 ↗ to push and pull. And in my mind, I'm

3:09:55 ↗ thinking of this similar as the mayor

3:09:56 ↗ mold will know this that sometimes the

3:09:58 ↗ Senate with capital. You'd have a all

3:09:59 ↗ right each district you got X amount of

3:10:01 ↗ dollars for your local community project

3:10:04 ↗ funds. Uh and pros and cons of that

3:10:07 ↗ because sometimes people get too married

3:10:08 ↗ to that particular number, right? When

3:10:09 ↗ there's it is I think that would help me

3:10:13 ↗ in the future. And so that's feedback I

3:10:14 ↗ should have given you earlier probably.

3:10:16 ↗ I think it's just I'm I'm just now kind

3:10:18 ↗ of realizing like how that would be

3:10:19 ↗ helpful for me visualizing it just to

3:10:22 ↗ know that like here is the dollar amount

3:10:25 ↗ that you're working with that you then

3:10:27 ↗ have to make policy decisions on. Maybe

3:10:30 ↗ it's in there and maybe I just need to

3:10:32 ↗ go study it more or look at it more. But

3:10:35 ↗ um

3:10:36 ↗ the word auster or the phrase austerity

3:10:38 ↗ budget is making me nervous and I know

3:10:41 ↗ that we just don't quite know where we

3:10:43 ↗ are yet

3:10:44 ↗ >> and we're not saying that for the

3:10:45 ↗ record.

3:10:46 ↗ >> Okay. Yeah, that's

3:10:47 ↗ >> wins. I'm talking about wins, but I'm

3:10:49 ↗ not prepared to put a label on anything

3:10:51 ↗ yet.

3:10:51 ↗ >> Okay, then I'll

3:10:53 ↗ >> reserve my comment on that and for when

3:10:57 ↗ we cross that bridge. Um,

3:11:01 ↗ this came up I think on Monday or a

3:11:03 ↗ different I'm wondering if we need to do

3:11:05 ↗ a almost a like flexibility cushion.

3:11:09 ↗ Maybe we have this already for uh since

3:11:12 ↗ we're doing bianial budgets of a our

3:11:14 ↗ like mid I think it was council member

3:11:17 ↗ Walsh had brought up what are we doing

3:11:20 ↗ uh the decisions we're making new year

3:11:22 ↗ that we want to add something we're

3:11:24 ↗ responding to hopefully a community need

3:11:27 ↗ that's addressed and so do we need to be

3:11:31 ↗ adding that padding within the bienium

3:11:34 ↗ I'm not sure what that looks like

3:11:37 ↗ uh I'll stop there for now.

3:11:41 ↗ >> Sorry.

3:11:41 ↗ >> Yes.

3:11:42 ↗ >> Over overarching since we're still at

3:11:44 ↗ the overarching. Um I I've mentioned

3:11:47 ↗ this before. I don't want to lose sight

3:11:48 ↗ of the little things we I know like the

3:11:51 ↗ general fund that's what people look at,

3:11:53 ↗ but just are you know I especially if

3:11:56 ↗ the wins aren't good. that I know oftent

3:11:58 ↗ times the first things that are at least

3:12:01 ↗ on the table to look at for reductions

3:12:03 ↗ are oftentimes the things that I think

3:12:07 ↗ make city beautiful to live in and so um

3:12:12 ↗ that's going to be in the back of my

3:12:13 ↗ mind as we're going through the process

3:12:15 ↗ at the front of my mind

3:12:19 ↗ >> now council

3:12:20 ↗ >> thank you um

3:12:23 ↗ I think at this time in the budget cycle

3:12:26 ↗ it would be really important to hear

3:12:29 ↗ from council about like

3:12:32 ↗ what are

3:12:36 ↗ what are the things the policies that

3:12:38 ↗ are important with a budget. So I think

3:12:41 ↗ um one of the things I would like to

3:12:43 ↗ make sure the new council members know

3:12:46 ↗ about is this ending fund balance for

3:12:49 ↗ unrestricted funds. um the history that

3:12:52 ↗ we've had there where we previously were

3:12:55 ↗ going over by a heck of a lot. And then

3:13:00 ↗ we right sized it based on a task force

3:13:04 ↗ recommendation and spent down some of

3:13:07 ↗ that fund, but that coincided with some

3:13:11 ↗ budget data issues. And so now we're

3:13:13 ↗ facing this

3:13:15 ↗ ending fund balance, unrestricted ending

3:13:17 ↗ fund balance that in the last budget

3:13:20 ↗ cycle was actually at 10% where our

3:13:23 ↗ policy is to keep it at 15 to 20%.

3:13:28 ↗ And so I think the

3:13:32 ↗ beginning portion of the memo that

3:13:34 ↗ talked about the way that the mayor and

3:13:36 ↗ the administration are looking at this

3:13:38 ↗ is really important because I look at

3:13:41 ↗ that part and I say I really don't want

3:13:44 ↗ to stay at a budget in 2728

3:13:48 ↗ that maintains a 12% ending fund

3:13:50 ↗ balance. I think we should be looking at

3:13:53 ↗ growing that. If what we are saying

3:13:55 ↗ coming out of 2526 is we achieved 12%

3:13:59 ↗ rather than the 10%. I don't think we

3:14:02 ↗ should stay at 12% for this next budget.

3:14:05 ↗ And so one of my priorities then is

3:14:07 ↗ making sure that we are carving out

3:14:09 ↗ enough savings so that we are growing

3:14:11 ↗ our ending fund balance.

3:14:13 ↗ Um I would like to have a better

3:14:15 ↗ understanding and a call out for things

3:14:18 ↗ that we achieve as one-time funds. Um

3:14:22 ↗ just to get a sense of like maybe we

3:14:25 ↗ decide to put oret one time or volatile

3:14:28 ↗ funds. Maybe we decide to put REIT aside

3:14:31 ↗ as something that funds specific areas

3:14:35 ↗ of and REIT is real estate excise tax um

3:14:39 ↗ because we get some really large sales

3:14:41 ↗ and other years don't. Um using that in

3:14:44 ↗ a different way than maybe we have in

3:14:46 ↗ the past. Um so that would be important

3:14:49 ↗ to me. The other kind of structural idea

3:14:52 ↗ that's important to me is that we be

3:14:56 ↗ really clear about what our maintenance

3:14:58 ↗ needs are as a city. I like to say we've

3:15:01 ↗ been really, really good as a city at

3:15:05 ↗ stretching that elastic band. You can

3:15:07 ↗ see that in our police department right

3:15:09 ↗ now. the number of boxes and things that

3:15:13 ↗ are in that police department scenario

3:15:17 ↗ that they've outgrown that space. Really

3:15:20 ↗ good at stretching that rubber band. The

3:15:24 ↗ same thing can be said for other

3:15:27 ↗ facilities um and the maintenance of

3:15:29 ↗ those whether it be roofs or whatever.

3:15:34 ↗ So maintenance of our fleets, our roads

3:15:38 ↗ and our facilities. And I don't think we

3:15:41 ↗ are

3:15:42 ↗ we don't have the same plan for fleets

3:15:45 ↗ and facilities as we necessarily do for

3:15:48 ↗ roads. Roads we have a standard that we

3:15:50 ↗ want to meet and what it would what

3:15:53 ↗ investment it would take to get there

3:15:56 ↗ and we can see whether or not we achieve

3:15:58 ↗ that or not. we don't have that same

3:16:01 ↗ target or sense of where whether we're

3:16:04 ↗ achieving it for fleet or facilities and

3:16:07 ↗ I think that is going to come out to

3:16:09 ↗ bite us and we've stretched the rubber

3:16:11 ↗ band way too thin on that. So those are

3:16:14 ↗ some of the big picture things that I'm

3:16:16 ↗ thinking about when I look at how we set

3:16:19 ↗ up a budget that doesn't even touch any

3:16:21 ↗ of my priorities

3:16:23 ↗ >> which we will get to. Um, I realize that

3:16:26 ↗ we went to round two of conversations uh

3:16:28 ↗ before asking council member Joe. Did

3:16:30 ↗ you have anything?

3:16:31 ↗ >> No, I'm good.

3:16:32 ↗ >> You're good for now. Okay. So, I I'll do

3:16:34 ↗ my second. So, ending fund balance just

3:16:36 ↗ to set the stage for new council

3:16:38 ↗ members. It used to be we said we want

3:16:40 ↗ to have a policy of between 15 and 20%

3:16:43 ↗ and it was often 30 to 40%. And um I led

3:16:47 ↗ the charge in saying that was too high

3:16:49 ↗ and we were holding on to too much of

3:16:50 ↗ the community's money and we weren't

3:16:52 ↗ planning right. And so now we're talking

3:16:54 ↗ about 10 versus 12 and it's much more

3:16:57 ↗ deterministic. Um I share Council Member

3:17:00 ↗ Walsh's uh idea that if we get to if we

3:17:03 ↗ close the books on 2025 and we find that

3:17:06 ↗ in fact we were at 10% or 12%. I mean

3:17:09 ↗ the policy is 15% now. It used to be 15

3:17:12 ↗ to 20. I was one of the one of the

3:17:14 ↗ people that really wanted to pull it

3:17:15 ↗ more down towards 15. It's great that we

3:17:18 ↗ have some more determinism that we

3:17:19 ↗ didn't have previously and let's use

3:17:21 ↗ that to try to to inch it back up a

3:17:23 ↗ little bit. It isn't the it isn't the

3:17:25 ↗ biggest single issue, but it it's an

3:17:27 ↗ important issue um on us being able to I

3:17:30 ↗ always think about if I see somebody

3:17:31 ↗ walking down the street and they say,

3:17:33 ↗ "You guys spend too much of my money.

3:17:35 ↗ What do I say?" Right? And I I want to

3:17:38 ↗ be able to say respectfully, "We don't."

3:17:41 ↗ And here's why. And I need the I need

3:17:43 ↗ the the tools to do that because our job

3:17:46 ↗ ultimately is to take that political

3:17:48 ↗ heat, right? The staff should go do

3:17:50 ↗ their job and if the public is mad at

3:17:53 ↗ the city on how we spend on how we tax

3:17:55 ↗ them and how they spend money, they

3:17:56 ↗ should come to the seven of us and to

3:17:58 ↗ Mark too. He's also elected. Um so

3:18:01 ↗ that's so that's our job. Um the other

3:18:03 ↗ thing I want to mention for director

3:18:05 ↗ Garcia, I'm going to tell you what I've

3:18:06 ↗ told all of your predecessors.

3:18:08 ↗ >> Uh real dollars per capita, right? That

3:18:11 ↗ is my gold standard. Every year I ask,

3:18:14 ↗ please give me the majors, police, fire,

3:18:16 ↗ parks, IT, you know, as parts of the

3:18:19 ↗ general fund. In whatever year you want

3:18:22 ↗ to make them in in 2012, in 2015,

3:18:25 ↗ whatever you've got, but I want to know,

3:18:27 ↗ my hope is that I can go to the

3:18:29 ↗ community and say, you know what,

3:18:30 ↗ corrected for inflation, corrected for

3:18:32 ↗ size, we have been doing what you would

3:18:34 ↗ hope, which is hold, which is holding

3:18:35 ↗ steady. Now, if that's not the case, we

3:18:37 ↗ have to have a conversation about why

3:18:38 ↗ that's so. If you want to put in a

3:18:40 ↗ factor that deals with construction

3:18:41 ↗ costs, I'm willing to hear that because

3:18:44 ↗ I think you guys will tell me that

3:18:46 ↗ construction costs are increasing faster

3:18:48 ↗ than the CPI, right? Um, so whatever,

3:18:52 ↗ but you you understand what it is. So,

3:18:54 ↗ I'm just letting you know right now and

3:18:56 ↗ the sooner we can have that conversation

3:18:57 ↗ and just like the just like the goals,

3:19:00 ↗ the sooner I can hear's why there's

3:19:02 ↗ exceptions, here's why there's a kink in

3:19:04 ↗ the numbers, and here's what our plan to

3:19:06 ↗ address that is, then again, this comes

3:19:08 ↗ back to this. If I see somebody on the

3:19:09 ↗ street and they say, "You guys suck

3:19:11 ↗ because you take too much of my money."

3:19:13 ↗ You know, I want to either say, "You're

3:19:15 ↗ right and we're trying to take less." Or

3:19:17 ↗ unfortunately, here's why we are where

3:19:19 ↗ we are. Because I think Council Member

3:19:21 ↗ Nichols said it. You know, the public

3:19:23 ↗ does love this city and they love the

3:19:25 ↗ services that we provide. And

3:19:27 ↗ everybody's sensitive to money right

3:19:29 ↗ now. And so we want to, you know, we're

3:19:32 ↗ more likely to get somebody stopping us

3:19:33 ↗ on the street and telling us that we

3:19:34 ↗ suck because we take too much of their

3:19:36 ↗ money. But, you know, we're trying to

3:19:38 ↗ provide the city that our residents tell

3:19:40 ↗ us they love. So, that's my getting off

3:19:42 ↗ my soap box and I will then turn uh

3:19:45 ↗ Council Member Nicholson down to um just

3:19:49 ↗ to briefly respond to something that

3:19:50 ↗ city administrator Buffquin said as well

3:19:52 ↗ about um perception that the staff is

3:19:54 ↗ being pillaried over this. I just want

3:19:55 ↗ to personally say that is not my

3:19:57 ↗ intention at all um for anything that

3:19:59 ↗ I've said or that I will say. Um, I

3:20:01 ↗ appreciate that sometimes my compliments

3:20:03 ↗ may come across as being pillared, so I

3:20:05 ↗ will be cognizant of that. Um, but uh,

3:20:08 ↗ thank you for the numbers. The numbers

3:20:10 ↗ are what they are. Um, and I think it's

3:20:12 ↗ always good to know. Um, then last big

3:20:14 ↗ picture comment. Um I appreciate this

3:20:18 ↗ will be hard to uh operationalize in in

3:20:21 ↗ a government context but a useful a

3:20:23 ↗ useful concept that I've utilized when I

3:20:25 ↗ have and when I do own P&Ls is to go for

3:20:29 ↗ zerobased budgeting as much as possible.

3:20:31 ↗ Um meaning you start from scratch you

3:20:34 ↗ everything that is in there you're

3:20:35 ↗ trying to justify some there's a

3:20:37 ↗ threshold for which that becomes very

3:20:39 ↗ difficult but the the the difference is

3:20:41 ↗ between taking a previous budget copying

3:20:43 ↗ and pasting it and moving forward. I

3:20:45 ↗ know we don't do either one of those,

3:20:47 ↗ but from a philosophical standpoint,

3:20:49 ↗ especially if we need to be making cuts.

3:20:52 ↗ Um, that's a that's a concept that is

3:20:54 ↗ useful to help us understand all of

3:20:56 ↗ those line items and to be able to dig

3:20:58 ↗ in when appropriate. Uh, and understand

3:21:00 ↗ is this here because at some point a

3:21:03 ↗ previous council placed this in there

3:21:04 ↗ and we don't really know why anymore. um

3:21:08 ↗ understanding that's going to happen

3:21:09 ↗ rarely, but is that the case or is this

3:21:11 ↗ something that is better subject to open

3:21:13 ↗ investigation and further uh

3:21:15 ↗ prioritization? Now,

3:21:18 ↗ I don't see any Oh, I don't see any

3:21:20 ↗ other cards up. Um if we are ready to

3:21:23 ↗ move into the structured COM252

3:21:26 ↗ portion, I would like to ask right now,

3:21:29 ↗ we are scheduled to be done at 1:30. I

3:21:32 ↗ would like to ask for two and then try

3:21:35 ↗ to stick to two if we can. Is is there

3:21:38 ↗ anybody who has to leave at 1:30?

3:21:42 ↗ >> I thought this was going till two.

3:21:44 ↗ >> I thought this was going till

3:21:45 ↗ >> So let's let let's try to hold to two.

3:21:47 ↗ >> The original calendar said two. I think

3:21:49 ↗ we updated at 1:30 which was probably a

3:21:53 ↗ >> All right.

3:21:55 ↗ >> So director Garcia,

3:21:56 ↗ >> the mic is yours.

3:21:58 ↗ >> Yes. Well, um thank you Council Member

3:22:00 ↗ Marks. I want to thank you for kind of

3:22:01 ↗ taking a pause um letting the council

3:22:04 ↗ have an opportunity to share some

3:22:05 ↗ initial feedback. Um that was very

3:22:08 ↗ helpful insight for me to kind of

3:22:09 ↗ understand um you know kind of where

3:22:12 ↗ everyone is, what level of information

3:22:14 ↗ that they want. So I think that will

3:22:16 ↗ help inform you know we're kind of all

3:22:18 ↗ doing a reset. Um I'm new, we have a new

3:22:20 ↗ budget manager, um new mayor, some new

3:22:22 ↗ council. So I think this is a good time

3:22:24 ↗ to kind of reset, set some expectations

3:22:26 ↗ going forward. I have better information

3:22:28 ↗ now for when we do the next development

3:22:30 ↗ process, maybe how we would start our

3:22:33 ↗ kickoff meeting or our budget planning.

3:22:35 ↗ So, I appreciate the feedback. Um, and

3:22:37 ↗ thank you for taking the time. And

3:22:39 ↗ hopefully as I go through the

3:22:40 ↗ presentation, some of the questions that

3:22:42 ↗ I did hear posy

3:22:45 ↗ will be answered. Um, and certainly more

3:22:48 ↗ information will be coming forth coming

3:22:50 ↗ in July that I think will really

3:22:52 ↗ solidify and give us a better picture

3:22:53 ↗ where we are. Thank you for kind of

3:22:55 ↗ taking that pause.

3:22:57 ↗ >> Okay,

3:22:59 ↗ >> let's see.

3:23:06 ↗ >> All right. I don't know if we want to

3:23:08 ↗ recover the Nope.

3:23:10 ↗ >> All right. So, um I think we've kind of

3:23:13 ↗ already talked about, but the purpose of

3:23:15 ↗ today's presentation is really to

3:23:17 ↗ discuss and review initial revenue

3:23:20 ↗ expense projections. This is we're

3:23:23 ↗ planning for the budget. We wanted to

3:23:25 ↗ talk about highle themes that we're

3:23:27 ↗ seeing that will help inform um council

3:23:29 ↗ directions. Staff needs that feedback as

3:23:32 ↗ we go and start developing our budgets.

3:23:34 ↗ Um I did want to point out that we are

3:23:36 ↗ focusing on the general fund operating

3:23:38 ↗ budget. Um that tends to be the biggest

3:23:40 ↗ focus. Um that's generally where we

3:23:43 ↗ start to see budget challenges. So it's

3:23:45 ↗ always good to start having

3:23:47 ↗ conversations with that. we will be be

3:23:49 ↗ be bringing forward um capital budgets

3:23:51 ↗ in July. I will talk later at the end of

3:23:54 ↗ the presentation about some of the other

3:23:56 ↗ things that we'll be bringing forward to

3:23:57 ↗ July. Um also want to hear council input

3:24:00 ↗ on what else you might like to see based

3:24:02 ↗ on what you're hearing today. Um because

3:24:04 ↗ again we want to make sure that we're

3:24:05 ↗ presenting the information that you

3:24:07 ↗ need. Um, I think we've all talked about

3:24:10 ↗ the earlier that we all have alignment

3:24:12 ↗ in this process and in terms of our

3:24:14 ↗ assumptions that will make the process

3:24:16 ↗ more efficient as we work through it.

3:24:18 ↗ I'm getting back to something Mayor

3:24:20 ↗ Mullet said earlier um this morning um

3:24:23 ↗ about I don't want to bring a

3:24:25 ↗ preliminary budget to council in

3:24:27 ↗ September and find out that we're not in

3:24:29 ↗ alignment. We haven't met the mark. We

3:24:31 ↗ haven't addressed council priorities.

3:24:32 ↗ So, I think it's good that we're having

3:24:34 ↗ these conversations earlier. Um, and

3:24:37 ↗ that's kind of the point of today. Just

3:24:38 ↗ kind of set the stage for that. We'll

3:24:40 ↗ continue setting those priorities and

3:24:42 ↗ expectations as we go through. Um, but I

3:24:44 ↗ did want to point that out. So,

3:24:45 ↗ direction needed.

3:24:47 ↗ So, we are going to seek feedback. I'm

3:24:50 ↗ going to be sharing again 50,000 level

3:24:52 ↗ view of some very initial projections on

3:24:56 ↗ major revenue drivers, major expense

3:24:58 ↗ drivers. Again, want to make sure that

3:25:01 ↗ the assumptions that we're building into

3:25:02 ↗ that are in alignment with council. want

3:25:04 ↗ to understand that um that will help

3:25:07 ↗ then inform the departments as we take

3:25:11 ↗ those priorities back um to them.

3:25:14 ↗ That'll help inform the next stage of

3:25:16 ↗ the budget process. We also want policy

3:25:18 ↗ direction getting back to council member

3:25:20 ↗ Walsh um policy direction on meeting

3:25:22 ↗ financial targets. On Monday I presented

3:25:25 ↗ the final results of 2025. We're at 12%

3:25:28 ↗ of unrestricted fund balance. We do have

3:25:31 ↗ a policy target uh between 15 and 20%.

3:25:34 ↗ We do have some recommendations that

3:25:36 ↗ administration will be making but again

3:25:39 ↗ that that is policy direction from

3:25:41 ↗ council and we would like to understand

3:25:42 ↗ that earlier in the process is that will

3:25:45 ↗ kind of help inform where we need to

3:25:47 ↗ look at revenue expense projections.

3:25:50 ↗ Also want input on priorities.

3:25:53 ↗ If after today we're going to have some

3:25:54 ↗ direction from council, we're going to

3:25:56 ↗ go back to the departments and say these

3:25:58 ↗ this is kind of the basic parameters

3:26:00 ↗ that we need to start working with as we

3:26:01 ↗ build the budget. If we are looking like

3:26:04 ↗ we're in a deficit position by the time

3:26:06 ↗ we get to our July meeting, it would be

3:26:08 ↗ helpful to know now kind of where

3:26:10 ↗ council's priorities are in terms of

3:26:12 ↗ where we might need to focus that work

3:26:14 ↗ and fine-tuning those budgets. You know,

3:26:16 ↗ are there areas that are completely off

3:26:19 ↗ limits? You know, don't look in this

3:26:21 ↗ area. Are there programs or projects

3:26:23 ↗ that are priorities? So, kind of having

3:26:24 ↗ that general understanding will help

3:26:26 ↗ inform our next set of work as we go

3:26:29 ↗ through the budget process. And then,

3:26:31 ↗ are there any other additional

3:26:32 ↗ priorities? I I would like to know

3:26:34 ↗ earlier in the process if there's things

3:26:37 ↗ that we need to start thinking about and

3:26:39 ↗ considering as we're putting those

3:26:40 ↗ budget assumptions together.

3:26:45 ↗ Okay. So, I know this this slide I think

3:26:49 ↗ caused a lot of angst. So hopefully as I

3:26:52 ↗ kind of walk through and talk about how

3:26:54 ↗ these numbers were derived that might

3:26:55 ↗ answer some um questions. When we

3:26:59 ↗ started approaching this meeting, we

3:27:01 ↗ were thinking about how do we come

3:27:05 ↗ forward to get just a basic sense on

3:27:07 ↗ where we think the budget might be at

3:27:10 ↗ this particular point of time. what are

3:27:12 ↗ those major trends that we're seeing um

3:27:15 ↗ right now that might have major

3:27:17 ↗ influences in the budget that then will

3:27:19 ↗ kind of direct the rest of our work. So

3:27:22 ↗ we we had to come up with some kind of a

3:27:25 ↗ baseline budget to get those indicators

3:27:27 ↗ and this was actually I know the the

3:27:29 ↗ numbers might look alarming. Um but it

3:27:32 ↗ was a really helpful exercise because as

3:27:34 ↗ we started looking at those highlevel

3:27:37 ↗ revenue streams and major expense

3:27:40 ↗ streams it did kind of help inform where

3:27:42 ↗ we need council input. So there are some

3:27:45 ↗ assumptions in the budget that we didn't

3:27:46 ↗ make because I I took a pause and said,

3:27:48 ↗ "Oh, wait. I don't want to be

3:27:50 ↗ presumptuous, for example, on the public

3:27:52 ↗ safety sales tax. That's a new revenue

3:27:54 ↗ stream that we have. We haven't really

3:27:56 ↗ had a policy level conversation. I don't

3:27:58 ↗ want to be presumptuous and and put some

3:28:00 ↗ assumptions in the budget. So just know

3:28:02 ↗ that there are some assumptions that

3:28:03 ↗ haven't been developed here. So I'm

3:28:05 ↗ going to kind of walk through how we did

3:28:06 ↗ get to these numbers and that's going to

3:28:08 ↗ drive kind of the rest of the

3:28:09 ↗ presentation on where we need council

3:28:11 ↗ input. So what we did for this kind of

3:28:15 ↗ initial exercise again for budget

3:28:17 ↗ planning is we took the baseline budget

3:28:19 ↗ of 2026 looked at our major revenue

3:28:21 ↗ drivers. Those are the really the the

3:28:23 ↗ big four revenues, property tax, sales

3:28:26 ↗ tax, utility tax, and BNO tax. We we did

3:28:28 ↗ look at those. So we look at historical

3:28:30 ↗ trends. How does that compare to where

3:28:32 ↗ we landed in 2025? How does that compare

3:28:34 ↗ to the 2026 budget? and did build some

3:28:37 ↗ assumptions which we'll talk about in

3:28:38 ↗ the next couple slides because that will

3:28:41 ↗ influence those four revenues if they're

3:28:43 ↗ trending big you know in one direction

3:28:47 ↗ um if they're going up or down those

3:28:49 ↗ have a big influence on kind of the rest

3:28:51 ↗ of the budget so we did take a look at

3:28:53 ↗ those we also look at our major expense

3:28:55 ↗ drivers salary and benefits those are

3:28:57 ↗ one of our biggest costs we did make an

3:28:59 ↗ assumption we have some CBAs that have

3:29:01 ↗ have been settled um they have some

3:29:03 ↗ parameters within there so we we we kind

3:29:05 ↗ of took a middle-of the road projection

3:29:08 ↗ on that

3:29:08 ↗ >> collective bargaining agreements in

3:29:09 ↗ case.

3:29:10 ↗ >> Sorry, collective bargaining agreements.

3:29:11 ↗ Yes. Um we also looked at some trends on

3:29:15 ↗ um our partner comfort contribution to

3:29:18 ↗ East Side Fire and Rescue for Fire. We

3:29:20 ↗ have some general idea on what that cost

3:29:23 ↗ could look like. So, we did assume that

3:29:25 ↗ that's a big cost in the general fund.

3:29:27 ↗ Um and then we also asked departments.

3:29:30 ↗ We said, "Okay, we're not in budget

3:29:32 ↗ development mode, but we do want to know

3:29:35 ↗ outside of just general cost of

3:29:38 ↗ inflation, what are you seeing that we

3:29:41 ↗ need to know about that could make

3:29:43 ↗ impacts either on revenue or expenses?"

3:29:45 ↗ So, we kind of combined all that

3:29:46 ↗ information and that's where this number

3:29:48 ↗ came from. So, again, there's some

3:29:51 ↗ questions that um will need council to

3:29:54 ↗ to help direct on the policy level.

3:29:58 ↗ I put this slide in there because I

3:30:00 ↗ always think context is helpful

3:30:01 ↗ especially um for some of us that are

3:30:03 ↗ newer and just trying to understand the

3:30:06 ↗ general general fund in general. What

3:30:09 ↗ are our major revenue drivers? And so

3:30:12 ↗ this is just a pie chart of what the

3:30:13 ↗ revenue budget would look like. So we

3:30:16 ↗ have our property tax, BNO tax, utility

3:30:19 ↗ tax, um and sales tax. Those are about

3:30:22 ↗ 72% of the general fund revenue. That's

3:30:25 ↗ why we focus on those a lot because if

3:30:27 ↗ any of those swing in one direction or

3:30:29 ↗ another, those can have a huge impact on

3:30:31 ↗ the budget. Um, we have other revenues

3:30:34 ↗ that come in from state shared revenues

3:30:37 ↗ like marijuana tax, liquor excise tax,

3:30:39 ↗ um, those kinds of things, gambling tax,

3:30:41 ↗ criminal justice excise tax. That's

3:30:43 ↗ about 5% of the budget. And then outside

3:30:47 ↗ of the big four revenue, we have parks

3:30:49 ↗ and community planning that generate the

3:30:51 ↗ next largest buckets of money. Um each

3:30:54 ↗ of those are about 6% of the budget.

3:30:56 ↗ Police does generate some of its own

3:30:58 ↗ revenue. Most of that comes from jail

3:31:00 ↗ and dispatch services and that's about

3:31:02 ↗ 4% of the budget. Um court services,

3:31:06 ↗ court fines, um court fees, that's about

3:31:08 ↗ 2%. And then we do have some cost

3:31:10 ↗ allocations that's more internal revenue

3:31:13 ↗ that's generated for internal services.

3:31:16 ↗ We have miscellaneous revenue like

3:31:18 ↗ investment income grants. Um, and those

3:31:20 ↗ all combined for about uh 3%. So again,

3:31:24 ↗ this is just kind of a general

3:31:25 ↗ understanding of what are the big

3:31:26 ↗ drivers of revenue and how some of those

3:31:29 ↗ um can influence the budget.

3:31:32 ↗ I also wanted to provide a historical

3:31:35 ↗ trend for what we're seeing in in the

3:31:39 ↗ big four revenue and that might h kind

3:31:42 ↗ of help answer council member Walsh's

3:31:44 ↗ question about how come we're seeing a a

3:31:47 ↗ different percentage growth rate based

3:31:50 ↗ on actuals when when we're comparing

3:31:52 ↗ budget to budget and that'll be in the

3:31:54 ↗ next slide but first I want to take a

3:31:56 ↗ look at um property tax is our most

3:32:00 ↗ stable collectibility ility on that is

3:32:02 ↗ generally high. Um, but that is limited

3:32:05 ↗ to a 1% increase over what we levied

3:32:08 ↗ last year plus the value of new

3:32:10 ↗ construction. So, just to put that in

3:32:12 ↗ context, our 1% increase is about

3:32:14 ↗ 100,000. Um, I looked at our um average

3:32:18 ↗ growth on new construction, that's been

3:32:20 ↗ about 127,000 per year. So, generally

3:32:23 ↗ speaking, what we can expect for%

3:32:26 ↗ increase in property tax plus new

3:32:28 ↗ construction each year is about 200,000.

3:32:31 ↗ Um sales tax that's had some small

3:32:34 ↗ fluctuations. Um it had a a slight dip

3:32:38 ↗ in 2023. It flattened out 2024. Had an

3:32:40 ↗ uptick between 2024 in 2025, but has

3:32:44 ↗ been relatively stable. All these

3:32:46 ↗ revenue streams hasn't had major revenue

3:32:50 ↗ fluctuations, but they they have been

3:32:52 ↗ somewhat stable. Um BNO tax actually has

3:32:55 ↗ a similar um pattern to sales tax. We

3:32:58 ↗ had a slight dip in 2023, flattened in

3:33:00 ↗ 2024 and then had a large jump between

3:33:03 ↗ 2024 and 2025.

3:33:05 ↗ The revenues can vary on that um based

3:33:09 ↗ on a variety of sources. So we can have

3:33:11 ↗ an increase in business or revenue drive

3:33:14 ↗ that um like construction activity. So

3:33:16 ↗ if we have a lot of construction

3:33:17 ↗ activity, you know tax can increase. We

3:33:20 ↗ can have an increase in the number of

3:33:21 ↗ businesses that also or a decrease in

3:33:23 ↗ the number of businesses that can impact

3:33:25 ↗ impact that revenue. um or a change in

3:33:28 ↗ taxable goods and services. We did have

3:33:31 ↗ the state that passed um House Bill uh

3:33:34 ↗ 5814 that did impact BNO tax.

3:33:38 ↗ Um but I think that'll be taken away or

3:33:40 ↗ at least slightly reduced. So we did

3:33:42 ↗ have a little bit of an uptick, but

3:33:43 ↗ that'll probably be taken away in the

3:33:45 ↗ next couple years. Um or we can have a

3:33:47 ↗ change in tax rates that can um generate

3:33:50 ↗ new revenue for BNO tax. City has not

3:33:53 ↗ changed tax rates in many many years as

3:33:55 ↗ far as I could tell. So the growth is

3:33:57 ↗ coming from other factors. Um either

3:34:00 ↗ increase in business or increase in

3:34:02 ↗ business revenue. Uh utility tax revenue

3:34:05 ↗ has had steady growth over the period.

3:34:07 ↗ It actually has had the largest growth

3:34:09 ↗ out of all the revenues. Um that's

3:34:11 ↗ impacted by changes in population,

3:34:13 ↗ changes in increases in revenue

3:34:15 ↗ generated from the services. Um tax rate

3:34:18 ↗ increases or or tax or um changes in the

3:34:23 ↗ rate that are on the utility services.

3:34:25 ↗ Um so a combination actually of all

3:34:27 ↗ those factors have contributed to the

3:34:29 ↗ annual growth between that period.

3:34:33 ↗ So I put this slide in um again I wanted

3:34:37 ↗ to provide a little bit of context as we

3:34:39 ↗ bring our revenue assumptions forward to

3:34:41 ↗ council and what I was seeing as I was

3:34:43 ↗ performing this exercise and kind of

3:34:45 ↗ looking at the big four revenue. How has

3:34:47 ↗ it historically been performing? How did

3:34:49 ↗ we end in 2025? How does that compare to

3:34:52 ↗ 2026 budget? Um I I found a couple

3:34:55 ↗ things that I wanted to talk about

3:34:57 ↗ because this is where kind of we wanted

3:34:59 ↗ to make sure we have an alignment with

3:35:01 ↗ assumptions. Um

3:35:04 ↗ so in looking at the actual growth

3:35:07 ↗ between 21 and 25 all of those revenues

3:35:11 ↗ combined they have been trending upward

3:35:14 ↗ and and they're stable. When we look at

3:35:16 ↗ the combined growth rate that's about 4%

3:35:19 ↗ um per year. When I started trying to do

3:35:22 ↗ the budget projections for 2027, um

3:35:25 ↗ there was two things that um stood out.

3:35:29 ↗ One was I looked at where we landed for

3:35:32 ↗ our utility taxes um in 25 and what we

3:35:36 ↗ were projecting or what we had budgeted

3:35:38 ↗ in 2026 and we were overestimating on

3:35:41 ↗ our utility tax revenue. So for example,

3:35:44 ↗ in 2026 we had budgeted 9.8 8 million in

3:35:47 ↗ utility taxes when actuals came in at

3:35:50 ↗ 7.7 million. So from my perspective, I I

3:35:54 ↗ don't want to base any increases on the

3:35:56 ↗ 2026 budget. I want to go back to where

3:35:58 ↗ the actuals were. I want to see what the

3:36:01 ↗ first quarter revenue data looks like

3:36:03 ↗ before I apply what my actuals. I point

3:36:05 ↗ that out because when you look at budget

3:36:08 ↗ to budget between 26 and 27, that

3:36:12 ↗ potentially is going to look like a big

3:36:13 ↗ decrease. But when in actuality the

3:36:16 ↗ actual revenues are trending upward if

3:36:18 ↗ that makes sense. That's where when you

3:36:21 ↗ look at the overall combined growth

3:36:23 ↗ comparing 26 to 27 budget the percentage

3:36:26 ↗ growth is lower because I'm I'm

3:36:28 ↗ suggesting that we make that adjustment

3:36:31 ↗ um when we come to the next budget. So

3:36:33 ↗ >> and Kristen I think in that case you

3:36:35 ↗ just found where I think we were double

3:36:37 ↗ counting one of the utility taxes in a

3:36:39 ↗ prediction of a future budget. It was

3:36:41 ↗ just a error.

3:36:44 ↗ >> I don't know that was an error. I think

3:36:46 ↗ it was just hard to understand when we

3:36:49 ↗ increase the tax rate on the utility

3:36:51 ↗ what that will really generate. So I

3:36:53 ↗ don't know. It was just an

3:36:54 ↗ overestimation. I I don't want to say

3:36:55 ↗ that was an error. But I I want to

3:36:58 ↗ correct that because I want to make sure

3:37:00 ↗ that we're trying to be at least as

3:37:02 ↗ realistic as possible

3:37:04 ↗ when we start developing the budget.

3:37:06 ↗ >> Yeah. I have a question.

3:37:08 ↗ >> Yes. Council member. So, okay, that

3:37:12 ↗ scares me. Um, and also really good to

3:37:16 ↗ find that. But when you're showing this

3:37:18 ↗ here is the top

3:37:22 ↗ actuals that you're saying grew at 4%.

3:37:25 ↗ >> Correct.

3:37:26 ↗ >> But then you're So that would account

3:37:29 ↗ for

3:37:32 ↗ not including the double counting of the

3:37:34 ↗ utility tax because that would be in

3:37:36 ↗ budgets.

3:37:36 ↗ >> That was in a budget, not

3:37:37 ↗ >> that was in budget. Yes.

3:37:38 ↗ >> Okay. So you're saying our actuals over

3:37:40 ↗ the last four years for our big four

3:37:43 ↗ revenue grew by 4%. Yet we are making

3:37:47 ↗ assumptions

3:37:49 ↗ that our 2026 2027 big four revenues are

3:37:53 ↗ only going to grow at 2%.

3:37:55 ↗ >> If you're comparing those budgets to

3:37:57 ↗ budgets and so that I don't want so if I

3:38:00 ↗ bring information forward to council,

3:38:02 ↗ what are your comparison points? Right?

3:38:05 ↗ Are you comparing what we're projecting

3:38:08 ↗ in 27 to where we the actuals or or you

3:38:12 ↗ want to compare to 26? So I was trying

3:38:15 ↗ to lay the context that if we're looking

3:38:18 ↗ at where we landed in 25,

3:38:20 ↗ it's going to show between 25 and 27.

3:38:24 ↗ Let's ignore 26, but that would be

3:38:26 ↗ growth. But I don't know if you're going

3:38:28 ↗ to want to look side by side to 26 and

3:38:30 ↗ 27 and be like, well, how come our

3:38:32 ↗ revenues went down? If that makes sense.

3:38:35 ↗ So, so if I'm looking at a trend line of

3:38:38 ↗ revenue,

3:38:40 ↗ >> I would assume you, yes, it's important

3:38:43 ↗ in budgets to go, okay, you know, what

3:38:46 ↗ did we budget before? What did we what

3:38:48 ↗ was actuals? But when I'm looking at

3:38:51 ↗ what was our historical rate and what

3:38:53 ↗ we're projecting, historical should as

3:38:55 ↗ much as possible be actuals

3:38:58 ↗ and future should be the assumptions

3:39:00 ↗ we're making about budget. And that

3:39:03 ↗ allows me to say,

3:39:05 ↗ are we suggesting that our growth rate

3:39:08 ↗ has cut in half

3:39:11 ↗ in the next two years? Because that's

3:39:14 ↗ what I'm getting out of that only if

3:39:16 ↗ we're comparing budget to budget. That

3:39:18 ↗ that's what I was pointing out because

3:39:20 ↗ we're budgeting too high for that

3:39:22 ↗ element in 26. But if we look at 25

3:39:26 ↗ >> because 26 budget was is already pulled

3:39:29 ↗ together. Okay.

3:39:30 ↗ >> Correct. Does that

3:39:31 ↗ >> I think to your point I think council

3:39:33 ↗ member Walsh I think the actuals will

3:39:34 ↗ come in better than 2%.

3:39:36 ↗ >> Exactly.

3:39:37 ↗ >> So I think to and going back to council

3:39:39 ↗ member Dar's thing is this like a worse

3:39:41 ↗ I would think of that 2% like is more

3:39:44 ↗ like council dare sort of like this is

3:39:47 ↗ >> I don't call it worst case scenario but

3:39:49 ↗ I

3:39:50 ↗ >> conservative with a small C.

3:39:51 ↗ >> Yes. And uh I would not be surprised to

3:39:55 ↗ see the actuals actuals come in in that

3:39:57 ↗ 3 to 4% rate. Yeah.

3:39:59 ↗ >> So again, this goes back to my I need to

3:40:02 ↗ know the story that the numbers are

3:40:05 ↗ telling us. And so if there is something

3:40:08 ↗ that it like that okay

3:40:12 ↗ >> and that's why I was kind of setting the

3:40:14 ↗ stage because I didn't want to get to

3:40:15 ↗ July and you see a budget when you're

3:40:18 ↗ comparing it to 26 like I I don't

3:40:21 ↗ understand if you're telling me that

3:40:22 ↗ their actuals actual growth rate is this

3:40:26 ↗ but now when I'm comparing to what we

3:40:28 ↗ budgeted for it last year how come it

3:40:30 ↗ went down?

3:40:31 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:40:32 ↗ >> And that's why I'm saying

3:40:33 ↗ >> I think I need to separate out those

3:40:35 ↗ two. ideas. Like it's one thing for you

3:40:38 ↗ to say, "Look, the 26 budget had some

3:40:40 ↗ flaws in it. You know, the this is how I

3:40:43 ↗ would correct it." It's another thing to

3:40:46 ↗ tell me our revenue story based on that

3:40:50 ↗ issue versus going, "Look, our revenue

3:40:53 ↗ story, here's the actuals, and here's

3:40:56 ↗ our projection, and our projection off

3:40:58 ↗ of those actuals is either up or down or

3:41:01 ↗ stable. That's the story I need."

3:41:03 ↗ >> Okay. And I think oh

3:41:05 ↗ >> well

3:41:05 ↗ >> I was just going to say that in general

3:41:07 ↗ I completely agree that your best thing

3:41:10 ↗ to use in all budgeting is actuals.

3:41:13 ↗ >> Actuals like the books now are more or

3:41:16 ↗ less closed on 2025. We have actual

3:41:18 ↗ data. And so I think I think our goal as

3:41:21 ↗ we go forward is to try to tether

3:41:22 ↗ ourselves to actual much as humanly

3:41:25 ↗ possible. Right now you're in this

3:41:26 ↗ transition where we have budgets for

3:41:28 ↗ 2026. So Kristen's in the challenging

3:41:31 ↗ spot of we're going to be comparing the

3:41:33 ↗ budgets in 2728 to the budget in 2026

3:41:36 ↗ because we don't know the actuals for

3:41:38 ↗ 2026 right?

3:41:39 ↗ >> But I I guess I'm having less anxiety

3:41:42 ↗ because I'm in my head still tethering

3:41:44 ↗ us to actuals which I think will be

3:41:46 ↗ >> tell me that story.

3:41:48 ↗ >> Yeah. And and I guess that's kind of

3:41:50 ↗ part of why we wanted to have this

3:41:51 ↗ conversation is in what context do you

3:41:54 ↗ want the story told? So when we bring

3:41:56 ↗ budgets forward to council, do you want

3:42:00 ↗ to see the historical actuals and ignore

3:42:02 ↗ 25 and 26 or do you want that context?

3:42:05 ↗ That's why I was kind of highlighting

3:42:07 ↗ this conversation because I want to know

3:42:09 ↗ what what are you going to what are the

3:42:12 ↗ comparison points that you want to see.

3:42:14 ↗ So that'll be you don't need to answer

3:42:16 ↗ that right now, but that'll be part of

3:42:17 ↗ the feedback that I'll be seeking kind

3:42:18 ↗ of at the end of this presentation. So

3:42:20 ↗ I'm being bringing forward meaningful

3:42:22 ↗ information and I can tell you that

3:42:25 ↗ story based on what we're comparing if

3:42:28 ↗ that makes sense.

3:42:29 ↗ >> But the short summary on this slide is I

3:42:31 ↗ would say the 2% growth rates

3:42:32 ↗ >> it's conserved.

3:42:34 ↗ >> Correct.

3:42:36 ↗ >> You look like you have more to say.

3:42:38 ↗ >> I'm done.

3:42:38 ↗ >> Okay. Council member Nichols. Um and to

3:42:42 ↗ be clear where this number goes is the

3:42:44 ↗ 2% number what is going into the

3:42:48 ↗ projections that the 2027 well all of

3:42:50 ↗ the projection what projections

3:42:53 ↗ what revenue growth projections are used

3:42:55 ↗ on slide five that show those deficits

3:42:58 ↗ is that a 2%

3:43:00 ↗ >> two yes

3:43:01 ↗ >> all right and

3:43:02 ↗ >> conservative number that shows

3:43:04 ↗ >> so based on what we're projecting for

3:43:05 ↗ those big four revenue um combined for

3:43:09 ↗ 27 seven as compared to what we budgeted

3:43:12 ↗ in 26.

3:43:13 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay. So, if it's actually closer

3:43:14 ↗ to 4%, then it's

3:43:16 ↗ >> it's $1 million better.

3:43:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

3:43:18 ↗ >> Or $1.3 million better.

3:43:20 ↗ >> And and I I have to put the caveat in.

3:43:23 ↗ >> We don't know.

3:43:24 ↗ >> We don't know.

3:43:24 ↗ >> We don't

3:43:25 ↗ >> we've got how many months? We have how

3:43:27 ↗ many months of real data for 261

3:43:31 ↗ and not even that in some cases, right?

3:43:33 ↗ We don't have

3:43:34 ↗ >> we don't even have the close of first

3:43:35 ↗ quarter yet. So that's why I can only

3:43:38 ↗ compare to 26 budget because I don't

3:43:40 ↗ have 20. So it will definitely be more

3:43:42 ↗ meaningful when we have.

3:43:43 ↗ >> So historically July is the first time

3:43:45 ↗ you would usually utter what you're

3:43:47 ↗ modeling out because you have hopefully

3:43:50 ↗ if not six months worth of data at least

3:43:52 ↗ four or five months worth of data where

3:43:54 ↗ now we don't have that. So we're looking

3:43:56 ↗ at historical trends and that

3:43:58 ↗ >> and you you just spent the last 10

3:44:00 ↗ minutes talking about there are pluses

3:44:01 ↗ and minuses to looking at that. So, we

3:44:03 ↗ need to put the actual pieces in, which

3:44:05 ↗ we will again first game of the

3:44:08 ↗ preseason. We're just trying to give you

3:44:09 ↗ some context.

3:44:10 ↗ >> And I think to echo what Council Walsh

3:44:12 ↗ has said, that's the with that

3:44:14 ↗ additional bit of the story then.

3:44:16 ↗ >> Yeah, it helps, right?

3:44:17 ↗ >> This all makes sense.

3:44:19 ↗ >> And I can I would I think I would much

3:44:21 ↗ rather have actuals used when possible

3:44:24 ↗ and even rolling some get rolling. Um,

3:44:28 ↗ so that's

3:44:30 ↗ >> and I think about like a different story

3:44:32 ↗ >> and here's an example of so for Ben &

3:44:35 ↗ Jerry's they sell ice cream in January.

3:44:37 ↗ I then report to Department of Revenue

3:44:39 ↗ the last week of February how much sales

3:44:42 ↗ tax I owe the state based on what I sold

3:44:45 ↗ in January. The state doesn't even give

3:44:47 ↗ us how much money we're getting until

3:44:49 ↗ the very last week of March. And so

3:44:51 ↗ that's our timelike challenge in terms

3:44:54 ↗ of actuals is literally you have zero

3:44:57 ↗ sense.

3:44:58 ↗ >> Makes total sense. We do we do know what

3:44:59 ↗ our historical rates are though and if

3:45:01 ↗ we just linearly extrapolate those those

3:45:02 ↗ would be another that that's a good

3:45:04 ↗ piece of context to add that would

3:45:06 ↗ probably make this more sense.

3:45:09 ↗ >> Ready to move on?

3:45:10 ↗ >> Yes. Council member Boyd, did you have

3:45:11 ↗ your tag up

3:45:12 ↗ >> to get you to let me know that Deputy

3:45:15 ↗ Council President Jang had her thumb up.

3:45:19 ↗ Deputy Council President J.

3:45:22 ↗ >> Okay. Hi. Um, yeah. I guess I think on

3:45:27 ↗ this slide the utility tax volume

3:45:29 ↗ increase, I mean part of that is that we

3:45:32 ↗ raised the tax rate from what what 4.5

3:45:34 ↗ to 6%. So that's like a raise in the tax

3:45:38 ↗ rate of 33%. So that that makes sense

3:45:41 ↗ that we would have a big increase in

3:45:43 ↗ utility taxes there. I mean, so I I I

3:45:47 ↗ mean I

3:45:48 ↗ >> from three to six it three to six

3:45:52 ↗ >> the rate of three to four and a half

3:45:54 ↗ four and a half to six. Yeah.

3:45:55 ↗ >> Yeah. So I I mean I don't really think

3:45:59 ↗ we're going to raise utility tax again.

3:46:01 ↗ And so I think you know probably makes

3:46:03 ↗ sense that that number instead of being

3:46:04 ↗ 11% growth year would be more in line

3:46:07 ↗ with some of the other categories. Um, I

3:46:11 ↗ think, you know, I think it'll be good

3:46:13 ↗ to see what the once we have some better

3:46:16 ↗ assumptions. I think that'll be good.

3:46:17 ↗ I'm also curious if when we're comparing

3:46:20 ↗ the 2026 budget to 2027 budget, are we

3:46:23 ↗ looking at like the reforcasted version

3:46:26 ↗ of the 2026 budget, which is like in the

3:46:28 ↗ rightmost column of the spreadsheet,

3:46:29 ↗ Kristen, that you sent us, or is it like

3:46:31 ↗ to the original 2026 budget?

3:46:35 ↗ uh the original 2026 budget.

3:46:40 ↗ >> Okay. I do think it would be interesting

3:46:42 ↗ to see the comparison relative to the uh

3:46:44 ↗ reforcasted budget since I think you

3:46:47 ↗ know there there are a few adjustments

3:46:49 ↗ there that I think like at least the

3:46:51 ↗ most recent forecast is probably more in

3:46:53 ↗ line with what we're expecting versus

3:46:55 ↗ you know what we put together at the end

3:46:57 ↗ of uh 2024.

3:47:01 ↗ >> All right. I want to do a time check.

3:47:02 ↗ How are we doing? Um, I want to save at

3:47:05 ↗ least 10 minutes at the end for some

3:47:06 ↗ closing comments and public comment and

3:47:09 ↗ we have about 35 minutes left.

3:47:10 ↗ >> 35 minutes. Okay, I will move along.

3:47:12 ↗ >> All right, thank you for the time check.

3:47:14 ↗ Okay. Um, I can cover this really

3:47:17 ↗ quickly. So, these were some of the kind

3:47:19 ↗ of emerging themes as we went through

3:47:21 ↗ the exercise to, you know, talk to

3:47:23 ↗ departments. What are you seeing? What

3:47:24 ↗ are we seeing in the major revenues? So,

3:47:26 ↗ I wanted to make it clear this was one

3:47:28 ↗ item. We have not assumed anything for

3:47:31 ↗ public safety sales tax. Um we do have a

3:47:33 ↗ recommendation that I'll have in some

3:47:35 ↗ slides from administration but when we

3:47:38 ↗ initially adopted that we had some

3:47:40 ↗ highle general ideas um facilities

3:47:43 ↗ public defense maybe some staffing some

3:47:45 ↗ capital equipment but again I didn't

3:47:47 ↗ want to be presumptuous and include

3:47:49 ↗ anything in the budget because council

3:47:50 ↗ hadn't had the opportunity to provide

3:47:52 ↗ input. That will be one area that we'll

3:47:53 ↗ all be seeking input at the end of the

3:47:55 ↗ presentation. affordable housing. Uh we

3:47:58 ↗ did create a new fund. I just wanted to

3:48:00 ↗ highlight that to council that any of

3:48:02 ↗ the numbers that you saw today excluded

3:48:04 ↗ affordable housing because as of January

3:48:06 ↗ 1, we have taken all of that fund

3:48:08 ↗ balance out, created a new fund. So you

3:48:10 ↗ will see a new fund when we start

3:48:12 ↗ looking at all the other city funds. Um

3:48:14 ↗ so all the revenues and expenses are now

3:48:16 ↗ in that fund. We do also have um a small

3:48:19 ↗ ask from the parks department to use

3:48:22 ↗ 130,000 of the affordable housing fund

3:48:24 ↗ to replace some opioid funds um to kind

3:48:27 ↗ of reset those grant processes or or the

3:48:31 ↗ grants that um historically have been

3:48:33 ↗ given out. Um, another item I wanted to

3:48:36 ↗ point out that did come out of the

3:48:38 ↗ department input is that again if we're

3:48:42 ↗ comparing 26 budget to 27 budget not

3:48:46 ↗ actuals that um we're looking at a

3:48:50 ↗ permit uh building permit revenue

3:48:52 ↗ reduction which was um pretty sizable.

3:48:54 ↗ So I if we're comparing line item

3:48:56 ↗ budgets between 26 and 27 I didn't want

3:48:59 ↗ that to be a surprise if you saw that in

3:49:00 ↗ July. Um all the other revenues, parks,

3:49:03 ↗ PD and court, not seeing anything of

3:49:06 ↗ significant there. Those look on track

3:49:08 ↗ based on historical trends. We'll

3:49:09 ↗ probably see some slight increases.

3:49:11 ↗ Didn't see any uh red flags there. Uh we

3:49:14 ↗ are expecting um an increase in King

3:49:16 ↗ County parks levy. That is a restricted

3:49:18 ↗ revenue, but I wanted to point that out

3:49:20 ↗ that kind of in relation to the park

3:49:22 ↗ bomb levy renewal discussion that

3:49:24 ↗ Director Watling just had. uh we'd like

3:49:26 ↗ to use um that increase in park levy for

3:49:29 ↗ capacity to to help support that process

3:49:32 ↗ if we're moving forward. Um the only

3:49:34 ↗ other item I wanted to highlight, it's

3:49:35 ↗ not significant in terms of um dollars

3:49:39 ↗ to the general fund, but it looks like

3:49:40 ↗ that we're going to lose our $40,000

3:49:43 ↗ economic development um grant that we

3:49:46 ↗ get from the Port of Seattle. It is

3:49:48 ↗ significant, however, to the economic

3:49:50 ↗ development budget because that is

3:49:52 ↗ really their primary source of funding.

3:49:54 ↗ That's why I put it on the slide. If we

3:49:56 ↗ do want to continue that work, the

3:49:58 ↗ general fund would need to support that

3:50:00 ↗ if we lose that grant.

3:50:01 ↗ >> Primary source of programmatic funding.

3:50:03 ↗ >> Pro programmatic funding. Yes.

3:50:06 ↗ >> Yes. To give out grants.

3:50:07 ↗ >> Council member Joe.

3:50:08 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh appreciate the revenue

3:50:11 ↗ highlights. Uh is there uh are there any

3:50:15 ↗ federal grants that we get that are in

3:50:17 ↗ danger of being cut or federal grants

3:50:19 ↗ that we might be getting this next year

3:50:20 ↗ that we should account for?

3:50:22 ↗ >> Not on the operating side. Okay.

3:50:24 ↗ >> Um no not

3:50:28 ↗ >> please proceed.

3:50:29 ↗ >> Okay. Um again just providing some

3:50:33 ↗ context. Um these are general this is

3:50:35 ↗ kind of the different buckets based on

3:50:37 ↗ type of where our um resource are

3:50:40 ↗ allocated. Um salaries and benefits are

3:50:43 ↗ our largest category about 48%

3:50:46 ↗ of all costs in the general fund. Um our

3:50:48 ↗ fire services that we pay to east side

3:50:50 ↗ are about 50% of the general fund. So

3:50:52 ↗ that's a pretty big impact. Insurance,

3:50:56 ↗ excuse me,

3:50:57 ↗ >> is uh about 4% legal professional

3:51:00 ↗ services, nine um cost allocations for

3:51:03 ↗ technology and fleet about 7%.

3:51:07 ↗ Our transfers out uh we do support

3:51:09 ↗ street operations, fuel tax doesn't um

3:51:11 ↗ cover enough, so the general fund has to

3:51:13 ↗ support those operations. And we have

3:51:15 ↗ debt service and capital projects. This

3:51:17 ↗ is 7% of the budget. And then all of our

3:51:20 ↗ other expenses, supplies, repairs,

3:51:23 ↗ utilities, grant related expenses,

3:51:25 ↗ travel um are about and communications

3:51:28 ↗ are about 9%. So again, just kind of

3:51:30 ↗ context on where the overall dollars go.

3:51:32 ↗ Um the next slide, I just put it in

3:51:35 ↗ perspective in terms of department. Um

3:51:38 ↗ police and parks and fire are generally

3:51:42 ↗ our biggest cost centers, if you will,

3:51:44 ↗ by department. So again, just giving

3:51:46 ↗ some overall context as we kind of think

3:51:48 ↗ about what the overall budget looks

3:51:50 ↗ like. Um, okay. A matter of time. I'm

3:51:53 ↗ I'm

3:51:54 ↗ >> No, I I I Yeah, I have a question. So

3:51:56 ↗ when you were showing the high level

3:51:58 ↗ towards where did where where's the $5

3:52:00 ↗ million price comes from? It was more on

3:52:02 ↗ the expense side than on the revenue

3:52:04 ↗ side,

3:52:04 ↗ >> right? We spent a bunch of time talking

3:52:06 ↗ about where revenue where's the big hit?

3:52:08 ↗ >> Salaries and benefits right now is is

3:52:11 ↗ where the biggest hit is coming from.

3:52:12 ↗ salaries and benefits, fire, um, and our

3:52:16 ↗ general insurance are kind of the three

3:52:17 ↗ biggest drivers of that right now.

3:52:20 ↗ >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

3:52:23 ↗ >> But I think salary benefits we assume

3:52:26 ↗ 5%, right? And

3:52:28 ↗ >> Right. So that's where we're kind of

3:52:30 ↗ talking about these. So again,

3:52:32 ↗ >> okay, hold on. Hold on though because 5%

3:52:34 ↗ but CPI is what? 3%.

3:52:36 ↗ >> We think it could be closer to four. So

3:52:39 ↗ >> CPI

3:52:39 ↗ >> CPI right now because of the oil shock.

3:52:42 ↗ sure

3:52:42 ↗ >> has a chance of coming in like at 3.9 to

3:52:45 ↗ 4.1. So I think Kristen's like the the

3:52:49 ↗ 3.1 CPI prints since the Iran war have

3:52:52 ↗ not been hitting at 3.1. So there is a

3:52:55 ↗ chance that CPI could come in.

3:52:56 ↗ >> So CPI in December was 3.1 and February

3:53:00 ↗ was 3.9. I I can't imagine that's going

3:53:03 ↗ to continue to go down. Um our

3:53:05 ↗ collective bargaining agreements

3:53:07 ↗ typically tie wage increases to CPI. So

3:53:11 ↗ we assumed they have a range in the

3:53:13 ↗ collective or most of the collective

3:53:15 ↗ bargain have a range a minimum maximum.

3:53:17 ↗ So we kind of went not at the top end

3:53:20 ↗ but not at the low end.

3:53:21 ↗ >> You don't see conservative

3:53:22 ↗ >> right? So that's what was assumed here.

3:53:26 ↗ Um

3:53:26 ↗ >> but don't track with CPI

3:53:28 ↗ >> and benefits

3:53:29 ↗ >> health benefits cost

3:53:30 ↗ >> understood right healthcare is

3:53:32 ↗ unfortunately they don't

3:53:34 ↗ >> but I think you can see slightly

3:53:36 ↗ conservative on actual revenue growth

3:53:38 ↗ slightly conservative on collective

3:53:40 ↗ bargaining CPI increases you combine the

3:53:44 ↗ two of those and yeah you're it's a

3:53:46 ↗ couple million dollars I mean combined

3:53:48 ↗ of conservative assumptions I mean right

3:53:50 ↗ there

3:53:51 ↗ >> right thank you

3:53:52 ↗ >> um some of the other

3:53:53 ↗ >> oh yeah deputy council President Jen,

3:53:58 ↗ >> great. Thank you. Um, going back to the

3:54:00 ↗ previous slide about revenues. Um, so

3:54:02 ↗ there was something about, you know,

3:54:03 ↗ increased revenue from the jail. I

3:54:04 ↗ remember this is something we talked

3:54:05 ↗ about in like May of last year. Um, and

3:54:09 ↗ and I think in that discussion, one of

3:54:11 ↗ the questions that we' had, which I

3:54:12 ↗ don't know if we ever really got the

3:54:13 ↗ answer to, is like, you know, with the

3:54:15 ↗ jail rates, you know, what would full

3:54:18 ↗ cost recovery be for, you know, jail

3:54:20 ↗ residents from other jurisdictions and

3:54:22 ↗ how close are we to that? because I do

3:54:23 ↗ think that is something that you know

3:54:25 ↗ given the budget situation should

3:54:26 ↗ probably take another look at um just in

3:54:28 ↗ terms of you know general fund revenues.

3:54:31 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:54:32 ↗ >> We also thought we could make it like a

3:54:34 ↗ hotel option to compete in the Spring

3:54:35 ↗ Hill suites. Normally

3:54:37 ↗ >> we have an extra 25 beds I think

3:54:39 ↗ normally on any given night.

3:54:41 ↗ >> Uh a unique

3:54:44 ↗ tourist experience

3:54:47 ↗ >> special elac grant. Elac grant here we

3:54:49 ↗ come. Heads in beds. All right. No.

3:54:52 ↗ >> Okay.

3:54:53 ↗ >> 35 minutes.

3:54:54 ↗ >> 35 minutes. Okay. Um Oh,

3:54:55 ↗ >> sorry. 25 minutes.

3:54:57 ↗ >> Some of the um other major expenses that

3:54:59 ↗ we're seeing, we looked at um historical

3:55:01 ↗ trends for fire. The mayor and I had

3:55:03 ↗ some initial um conversations with

3:55:05 ↗ Epher. So, we're thinking we could see

3:55:08 ↗ about a 6% increase. Um obviously, we

3:55:10 ↗ don't have that information from Epher

3:55:12 ↗ yet, but that's what we built in um

3:55:15 ↗ right now. Um I did mention no FTE. So

3:55:18 ↗ the salary and benefit budgets right now

3:55:20 ↗ are based on the FTEEs that we have

3:55:22 ↗ budgeted in 2026. So as salary and

3:55:25 ↗ benefits our largest cost, if council

3:55:28 ↗ has any direction in that area um please

3:55:31 ↗ provide that now um because that that

3:55:33 ↗ would be helpful um to

3:55:36 ↗ >> the blue box next to that is a very big

3:55:38 ↗ one, right? Like this is a big box like

3:55:40 ↗ of conservative again.

3:55:41 ↗ >> Yeah. And kind of going back to council

3:55:43 ↗ member Dare, we we're sort of trying to

3:55:45 ↗ build maybe a worst case scenario.

3:55:47 ↗ That's why in this initial assumption we

3:55:49 ↗ did not uh bake in vacancy rates. I kind

3:55:53 ↗ of have a debate internally of whether

3:55:55 ↗ we do that or not. I know we we t we do

3:55:58 ↗ have vacancy rates but if we do build in

3:56:01 ↗ vacancy rates and we have no turnover

3:56:04 ↗ now we have a potential for being

3:56:06 ↗ overbudget. So again I I didn't build

3:56:08 ↗ any in because I felt like that was a

3:56:10 ↗ policy question I we needed some

3:56:11 ↗ direction from council on.

3:56:13 ↗ >> Council member Nichols quickly before we

3:56:14 ↗ get to big things. So 6% increase in

3:56:16 ↗ fire. Isn't that somewhat low for Epher

3:56:18 ↗ over the

3:56:20 ↗ >> um I actually

3:56:21 ↗ >> it's really close actuals. I

3:56:23 ↗ >> I looked at the historic it was 7%

3:56:25 ↗ historical actuals and there's three

3:56:27 ↗ components to that. There's facilities

3:56:30 ↗ fleet and then there general but it was

3:56:32 ↗ about a 7% on average.

3:56:34 ↗ >> Yeah. So it's higher than six. So

3:56:37 ↗ >> and to be honest we made that guess

3:56:39 ↗ before the iron war. So we are thinking

3:56:42 ↗ right

3:56:44 ↗ stuff

3:56:45 ↗ >> we thought would be cuz we know the e

3:56:46 ↗ first CBA is already done and so we were

3:56:49 ↗ kind of going off the 3.1 print when we

3:56:52 ↗ did that and now it could be higher.

3:56:54 ↗ >> Now we have new information.

3:56:55 ↗ >> I highlight the blue box in the sense

3:56:56 ↗ that

3:56:58 ↗ >> we have 300 FTEEs approved like that is

3:57:00 ↗ our budgeted FTE and as of 48 hours ago

3:57:04 ↗ we had 282 people working for the city

3:57:06 ↗ of Isqua. So, I mean, there's an 18

3:57:08 ↗ person delta. Obviously, this is a six-f

3:57:11 ↗ figureure number. So, there's some

3:57:13 ↗ things there to Kristen's point where

3:57:17 ↗ I think she has to lay out like if if we

3:57:20 ↗ were to fill every single open FTE right

3:57:22 ↗ now, we would have 300 people working

3:57:24 ↗ for the city of Isqua like and and so

3:57:27 ↗ obviously we're trying to manage that

3:57:30 ↗ the best we can from an administration

3:57:31 ↗ standpoint. So we're not in the

3:57:33 ↗ situation how to lay people off and and

3:57:36 ↗ so that's how we've been approaching the

3:57:38 ↗ first four months of the year. But once

3:57:40 ↗ again, it's another

3:57:42 ↗ place where there's some conservative

3:57:44 ↗ assumptions. Uh

3:57:47 ↗ but even when you remove all

3:57:50 ↗ conservative assumptions, I think the

3:57:52 ↗ general theme to Wallally's point is

3:57:55 ↗ there's not a lot of extra money in this

3:57:58 ↗ scenario. But to Wall-ally's other

3:58:00 ↗ point, that's why he's not saying the

3:58:02 ↗ words austerity because there are some

3:58:04 ↗ conservative assumptions in here.

3:58:06 ↗ >> Those are your book endings. Stack up

3:58:07 ↗ all the bad things. Stack up all the

3:58:09 ↗ attention to good things.

3:58:12 ↗ >> And it's a normal budget.

3:58:15 ↗ >> I got

3:58:18 ↗ to put any merit in this, but I'm just

3:58:19 ↗ saying I have not been losing sleep at

3:58:22 ↗ night over these numbers. So I think but

3:58:24 ↗ I also I have the advantage of having

3:58:27 ↗ been involved in the nuances of the

3:58:28 ↗ numbers the last four months and so it's

3:58:30 ↗ uh I just

3:58:32 ↗ >> agree I I'm not losing any sleep where

3:58:34 ↗ we are right we are so early in the

3:58:35 ↗ process. This is really a broad brush.

3:58:37 ↗ So I I agree that gives council any

3:58:40 ↗ level of um sense that you know we're

3:58:43 ↗ not falling off a cliff but we certainly

3:58:45 ↗ want to be conservative but um we're so

3:58:47 ↗ early in the process that you know we're

3:58:49 ↗ kind of looking at things at a high

3:58:50 ↗ level. I'm not super concerned at this

3:58:51 ↗ point. But you're all from Missouri and

3:58:54 ↗ you all want to be shown.

3:58:56 ↗ So that's why

3:58:59 ↗ >> because because we know you're

3:59:01 ↗ >> we'd be doing a disservice.

3:59:03 ↗ >> Yeah.

3:59:03 ↗ >> Because the revenue growth could come in

3:59:05 ↗ at 2%. CBAs could come in CBI could come

3:59:08 ↗ in and put us at five and you could end

3:59:10 ↗ up dealing every open position. So you I

3:59:13 ↗ mean those three things add up to $4

3:59:14 ↗ million, right? So we're also can't

3:59:17 ↗ pretend like those aren't real

3:59:18 ↗ possibilities as we discuss this. Thank

3:59:21 ↗ you, Council Member Walsh.

3:59:23 ↗ >> Yeah, those are the data points that I

3:59:26 ↗ want because you have them in your head.

3:59:28 ↗ You've played with them. Um, and so

3:59:31 ↗ understanding

3:59:32 ↗ what what could be the impact factors,

3:59:35 ↗ what are the rates that we're using. Um,

3:59:38 ↗ I'd like to know what our personal

3:59:40 ↗ vacancy rate has been annually going

3:59:43 ↗ back 10 years.

3:59:46 ↗ Give me the annuals 10 years. give me

3:59:48 ↗ the averages just so that I have a sense

3:59:51 ↗ of what that would be. Um

3:59:53 ↗ >> say it's been 6 to8% if I

3:59:56 ↗ >> based on

3:59:57 ↗ >> love to get the data. Um uh fire I think

4:00:00 ↗ we you know to that point we do have the

4:00:03 ↗ CBA so that's looking pretty good. Um

4:00:07 ↗ cost of diesel it takes like

4:00:11 ↗ >> don't get us started.

4:00:12 ↗ >> Yeah. No, but fire trucks is like

4:00:16 ↗ >> we could blow the last 25 minutes by the

4:00:18 ↗ price of gas. So

4:00:19 ↗ >> miles per gallon and so that thing is

4:00:22 ↗ Yeah. Anyway,

4:00:23 ↗ >> that's why Mayor Mullins wants to buy

4:00:25 ↗ more electric vehicles.

4:00:28 ↗ >> Electric fire. So

4:00:29 ↗ >> electric fire.

4:00:30 ↗ >> So uh very quickly one more thing on

4:00:32 ↗ this personnel vacancy rate. I mean I I

4:00:35 ↗ completely agree with council member

4:00:36 ↗ Walsh. I would go one step further. If

4:00:37 ↗ you have 10 to 15 years worth of data,

4:00:39 ↗ just go with like negative one sigma,

4:00:41 ↗ right? just do the distribution and just

4:00:43 ↗ do one sigma on the low side,

4:00:45 ↗ >> two sigma if you want to be really

4:00:47 ↗ really conservative, but I mean that's

4:00:48 ↗ an example of one that it's very easy to

4:00:50 ↗ come up with a a number that you can use

4:00:52 ↗ for the for it, right? I I use minus one

4:00:56 ↗ sigma on things all the time to to just

4:00:58 ↗ get a mildly conservative uh estimate on

4:01:01 ↗ it. So that that would be probably use

4:01:03 ↗ 4%

4:01:09 ↗ >> and council member

4:01:13 ↗ >> I think this is we've been talking about

4:01:15 ↗ the like council member had the you know

4:01:18 ↗ like low medium high bits of worry

4:01:22 ↗ is there I think that this happens at

4:01:24 ↗ the state level sometime or oftentimes

4:01:27 ↗ things will be passed and then it's a

4:01:29 ↗ they'll create a fund as a if X happens

4:01:33 ↗ that we've got that like things that we

4:01:36 ↗ have already that we want then to if

4:01:38 ↗ things come in not as bad as we had

4:01:41 ↗ conservatively planned for then we can

4:01:44 ↗ do this this and this um is that a

4:01:48 ↗ possibility because for me I've got my

4:01:50 ↗ like

4:01:52 ↗ okay if things are bad and we're just at

4:01:55 ↗ somewhat maintenance then I like making

4:01:57 ↗ sure there's like no cuts or changes to

4:01:59 ↗ the human services, grants, uh, but if

4:02:03 ↗ we things aren't, you know, we were

4:02:07 ↗ clenching our fists and now we're

4:02:08 ↗ letting them go a little bit and so then

4:02:10 ↗ now we can actually not just do a cola

4:02:14 ↗ for the human services grants, but even

4:02:16 ↗ maybe increase them by a bit.

4:02:19 ↗ >> So, so I want to answer this. At some

4:02:22 ↗ point, we're going to have a list of

4:02:23 ↗ things that we want to do, right? And

4:02:25 ↗ there are going to be things that

4:02:26 ↗ everybody thinks is absolutely

4:02:27 ↗ essential. And then there's going to be

4:02:28 ↗ other things that people would like and

4:02:30 ↗ we're going to stack rank those tiles

4:02:32 ↗ and we're going to add them up to a to a

4:02:35 ↗ zero number, right? And so we will, you

4:02:38 ↗ know, as we get more clarity, as the as

4:02:41 ↗ the anti predicted budget for next year

4:02:44 ↗ gets closer to something, hopefully we

4:02:46 ↗ will arrive in October at a point where

4:02:48 ↗ we can finalize and say, you know,

4:02:50 ↗ here's what we're going to we all agree

4:02:51 ↗ this is what we're going to go with for

4:02:52 ↗ next year and then here's what's in and

4:02:54 ↗ here's what's out. Right? So the things

4:02:55 ↗ you're talking about go into that

4:02:58 ↗ >> child list. And I think the the ultimate

4:03:01 ↗ challenge is that if you want to go from

4:03:04 ↗ 12% to 15% any fund balance, you need to

4:03:07 ↗ come up with $2 million. And so at some

4:03:09 ↗ point people are going to have to decide

4:03:10 ↗ that conversation as well because based

4:03:13 ↗ on the guidance we receive, that means

4:03:16 ↗ you're not doing anything above kind of

4:03:18 ↗ your essentials. Like I think I came

4:03:21 ↗ into this process thinking I would love

4:03:22 ↗ to have slightly more council manic debt

4:03:24 ↗ capacity

4:03:26 ↗ uh to basically catch up on a lot of

4:03:28 ↗ things we just deferred doing. I

4:03:30 ↗ obviously have made a presentation

4:03:31 ↗ around more street maintenance

4:03:33 ↗ investments. Like I may have to walk

4:03:35 ↗ away from both of those. I mean it's a

4:03:38 ↗ real possibility, right? like I I'm

4:03:41 ↗ coming into this budgeting process

4:03:43 ↗ acknowledging that some of my own

4:03:45 ↗ priorities may get deferred in this

4:03:47 ↗ whole thing. But I think to Council

4:03:50 ↗ President Mart's point, it's helpful to

4:03:53 ↗ walk out with some if there's places

4:03:54 ↗ where you're like, don't cut a penny

4:03:56 ↗ here no matter what the hell happens, we

4:03:59 ↗ want to hear it. Like we want to hear it

4:04:01 ↗ like and not from a but hear it from an

4:04:04 ↗ actual real stage, not like a grand

4:04:06 ↗ standing to show how much we care about

4:04:07 ↗ things that we all care about. just so

4:04:09 ↗ we have a sense of what is this

4:04:11 ↗ council's priorities and that's our

4:04:12 ↗ challenge. We don't have to do that

4:04:14 ↗ exactly today but we do want that

4:04:15 ↗ thought process starting today because

4:04:17 ↗ in July if there's places where you're

4:04:20 ↗ telling us no matter what you do don't

4:04:22 ↗ touch a single penny of this

4:04:25 ↗ project or this you know funding element

4:04:29 ↗ then we need to know that

4:04:30 ↗ >> or that you're not going to adopt a

4:04:31 ↗ budget that doesn't have a 15% fun

4:04:33 ↗ house. So, at some point, we have about

4:04:36 ↗ 15 minutes left in this conversation. At

4:04:39 ↗ some point, we're going to probably want

4:04:40 ↗ to stop and give all seven people a

4:04:43 ↗ chance to summarize their thoughts.

4:04:45 ↗ >> I I think we can do that now. I think

4:04:47 ↗ I've covered what you all need to know.

4:04:49 ↗ So, I would love to have that

4:04:51 ↗ conversation so we have our kind of our

4:04:53 ↗ direction.

4:04:53 ↗ >> Awesome.

4:04:54 ↗ >> That would be great.

4:04:55 ↗ >> All right. Who wants to bowl Russell?

4:04:57 ↗ Nice job, Council Member Joe. Boom.

4:05:00 ↗ >> Thank you. No, I appreciate the

4:05:02 ↗ conservative with a small C budget here.

4:05:05 ↗ Uh there's always hope that we can come

4:05:08 ↗ in a little bit higher. I like your idea

4:05:10 ↗ of, you know, what's our potential

4:05:12 ↗ secondary wish list of things that we

4:05:14 ↗ can have along the way. Um, I think that

4:05:17 ↗ for me it's uh continued the small

4:05:21 ↗ project list that you've been

4:05:22 ↗ developing, mayor, for transportation

4:05:24 ↗ improvements uh is something that's

4:05:26 ↗ important to me because I'm hearing from

4:05:28 ↗ citizens they really want to have a way

4:05:31 ↗ that they feel the city is working to

4:05:33 ↗ help them get around town from place to

4:05:36 ↗ place when all the regional traffic is

4:05:38 ↗ coming through. Um, so I would hope that

4:05:40 ↗ you'd keep that as a it's not an

4:05:42 ↗ absolute for me, but as a priority as we

4:05:44 ↗ look forward um going uh down the road.

4:05:47 ↗ And

4:05:47 ↗ >> that would fall under the capital budget

4:05:49 ↗ discussion most likely in July. Yeah.

4:05:51 ↗ But we love that.

4:05:52 ↗ >> Yes, absolutely.

4:05:53 ↗ >> The other thing is um I I'll just voice

4:05:56 ↗ again as I did last year the the danger

4:05:59 ↗ that we have for our nonprofits in our

4:06:03 ↗ community.

4:06:04 ↗ um if we can do anything to preserve

4:06:06 ↗ that funding and keep it at the same

4:06:07 ↗ level, whether it's um direct money that

4:06:10 ↗ we give or support that we're giving as

4:06:12 ↗ a financial support organization or a

4:06:15 ↗ financial sponsor, uh whatever it is to

4:06:17 ↗ help our our nonprofits is very

4:06:19 ↗ important to me. I'm kind of speaking uh

4:06:22 ↗ channeling Barb DM Michelle right now,

4:06:24 ↗ but that's a concern that I have going

4:06:25 ↗ forward.

4:06:26 ↗ >> So folks know that's roughly $610,000.

4:06:28 ↗ We we we gave out $610,000 of direct

4:06:31 ↗ grants directly out of the general fund

4:06:33 ↗ to his nonprofits or his related

4:06:36 ↗ nonprofits.

4:06:37 ↗ >> So we will understand the size of that.

4:06:41 ↗ >> All right.

4:06:42 ↗ >> That's the guidance to know.

4:06:44 ↗ >> Council member Walsh.

4:06:45 ↗ >> Thank you. um

4:06:48 ↗ emergency management.

4:06:51 ↗ And I say that because I want to know

4:06:53 ↗ from them what we need to do to move the

4:06:55 ↗ needle on making our community, you

4:07:00 ↗ know, safer, more stable, etc. Whether

4:07:04 ↗ that is staff or whether that is funding

4:07:07 ↗ a backup battery system or, you know,

4:07:11 ↗ whatever those pieces are, emergency

4:07:12 ↗ management is really important to me. um

4:07:15 ↗ maintenance. So in this budget that

4:07:18 ↗ might just be pavement management, but I

4:07:21 ↗ would like to ensure that we have a work

4:07:24 ↗ plan for getting to what the number

4:07:28 ↗ what our target is and how we address

4:07:31 ↗ our backlog of facilities and fleet. Um

4:07:35 ↗ so that's important to me, but I

4:07:37 ↗ recognize not all of it's going to get

4:07:39 ↗ accomplished in this budget. um fund

4:07:41 ↗ balance I would like to aim for 13 and a

4:07:44 ↗ half percent. I think making progress

4:07:46 ↗ not perfection is where we need to be

4:07:50 ↗ moving. I wouldn't be satisfied if we

4:07:52 ↗ stay at 12%. Because I think that

4:07:55 ↗ suggests we are almost abdicating our

4:07:57 ↗ role of saying this is our target and we

4:08:01 ↗ have a plan to getting to there. Um and

4:08:03 ↗ then I would say direct human services

4:08:06 ↗ for me is more important than the human

4:08:09 ↗ services grants.

4:08:11 ↗ Both are important but I think our

4:08:14 ↗ ability to do direct human services

4:08:17 ↗ where we are able to understand what the

4:08:21 ↗ inputs and the outputs are and we have

4:08:23 ↗ direct control over that expenditure.

4:08:26 ↗ >> You mean like the four human service

4:08:28 ↗ staff members plus the manager? Yeah.

4:08:29 ↗ >> Yep. Yep. Exactly. And so some of that

4:08:33 ↗ may be coordination with our nonprofits.

4:08:35 ↗ Um

4:08:37 ↗ but

4:08:38 ↗ >> well the nice thing about those four

4:08:39 ↗ positions is we can fund them out of the

4:08:41 ↗ 40% of the housing.1. So that's a really

4:08:44 ↗ nice thing.

4:08:47 ↗ >> There are probably 12 other priorities I

4:08:49 ↗ have but I will keep it to those areas

4:08:52 ↗ are like

4:08:53 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah.

4:08:54 ↗ >> That's me.

4:08:55 ↗ >> Thank you. Council member Gar. Um

4:08:58 ↗ actually echoing similar my actual one

4:09:01 ↗ was with emergency management as well.

4:09:03 ↗ Um more specifically a second FTE in

4:09:06 ↗ emergency management and that I feel the

4:09:09 ↗ idea that there's really only one person

4:09:11 ↗ that's an expert on our emergency

4:09:13 ↗ management is really dangerous in terms

4:09:16 ↗ of you know he's in a car accident in

4:09:17 ↗ the middle of something. And while I

4:09:19 ↗ know we have a bench that steps in, it

4:09:22 ↗ just seems to me as a place it's

4:09:24 ↗ emergency management. It should have

4:09:25 ↗ some level of back redundancy into it.

4:09:28 ↗ And that is something that I would

4:09:30 ↗ really love to see. Even though

4:09:31 ↗ obviously I know we're not conservative,

4:09:33 ↗ it's no new, but that's something that I

4:09:34 ↗ would like I equally maintenance um in

4:09:37 ↗ that in my facilities work. It was

4:09:38 ↗ brought up in terms of how many

4:09:40 ↗ facilities have problems. We're in the

4:09:42 ↗ middle of moving city hall. There's

4:09:44 ↗ going to be empty buildings. I don't

4:09:45 ↗ know. There seems to be a as as has been

4:09:48 ↗ said we're reaching a dangerous point

4:09:51 ↗ and I feel in a lot of facilities and I

4:09:52 ↗ think we have to figure out at least a

4:09:54 ↗ plan to start really addressing that in

4:09:55 ↗ a very concrete way. Um we weren't able

4:09:58 ↗ to get to I know it was in the there was

4:10:00 ↗ the proposal about the uh uh the public

4:10:03 ↗ safety sales tax and how that's used. Um

4:10:06 ↗ I know that that so that's likely going

4:10:07 ↗ to be in the later conversation. I do

4:10:09 ↗ want to you know feel that there is more

4:10:10 ↗ conversation there. Obviously, we're

4:10:12 ↗ using a bunch to upgrade the police, but

4:10:14 ↗ like police is such a big part of our

4:10:16 ↗ business. I think we need to be really

4:10:19 ↗ >> spending some time and thoughtful, you

4:10:21 ↗ know, work on that sales tax and how

4:10:22 ↗ best we use it to address its budget

4:10:24 ↗ issues. Um, and I think that's it for me

4:10:29 ↗ at the moment. So, that's what I'll do.

4:10:34 ↗ >> Well, we have several people left.

4:10:35 ↗ Council member Nichols.

4:10:37 ↗ >> Okay. Um, so echoing some of the

4:10:40 ↗ mobility statements have been made. Um,

4:10:43 ↗ I hope we can I I do like the continued

4:10:45 ↗ list of um, small to medium scale

4:10:49 ↗ improvements that we can try to tackle.

4:10:51 ↗ Um, to be specific on those for cars.

4:10:53 ↗ Um, we've had traffic signaling upgrades

4:10:56 ↗ that have been in the works in various

4:10:57 ↗ ways for a very long time. Um, I think

4:10:59 ↗ that would be nice to be able to just

4:11:01 ↗ say this is done. Um, I don't know if

4:11:03 ↗ that's possible, but it would be nice to

4:11:04 ↗ be able to say.

4:11:04 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. Um or at least say something

4:11:07 ↗ is done. Um

4:11:09 ↗ >> I think front and dogwood light at front

4:11:11 ↗ and dogwood we've heard from people is

4:11:14 ↗ >> I think he's talking about

4:11:15 ↗ >> I know the signaling stuff.

4:11:17 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. The it stuff. I'm just

4:11:18 ↗ saying in in terms of the other two are

4:11:22 ↗ front sunset improvements and

4:11:24 ↗ >> one box there being checked off is

4:11:26 ↗ better than none.

4:11:27 ↗ >> So that's great. Uh bikes and pedestrian

4:11:29 ↗ it's as well. Um, I think some of the

4:11:31 ↗ more ambitious bike and pedestrian

4:11:33 ↗ things that are out there probably don't

4:11:34 ↗ fit in that that box, but things like

4:11:36 ↗ intersection improvements, those help

4:11:37 ↗ cars as well as pedestrians and bikes as

4:11:40 ↗ well. And there's some there are

4:11:41 ↗ definitely places out there that where

4:11:42 ↗ that could be done. Um, echoing council

4:11:45 ↗ member Joe's uh comments on nonprofits

4:11:48 ↗ also, I think this is a critical

4:11:49 ↗ function we provide. I'd also like to

4:11:51 ↗ add into that arts. Um this is not a big

4:11:53 ↗ bucket that we have to devote towards

4:11:56 ↗ arts in the grand scheme of the general

4:11:57 ↗ fund but looking at how arts funding is

4:11:59 ↗ typic is is

4:12:03 ↗ greatly dependent on cinema ticket sales

4:12:06 ↗ and uh I do not think that cinema ticket

4:12:08 ↗ sales are likely to return to their pre-

4:12:09 ↗ pandemic levels. Uh so at some point we

4:12:12 ↗ either have to accept continuously

4:12:13 ↗ decreasing our funding or stepping up

4:12:15 ↗ with our general funds to make that

4:12:17 ↗ happen. Um

4:12:19 ↗ finally, um briefly on the public safety

4:12:23 ↗ sales tax, uh currently we have in there

4:12:25 ↗ 400,000 increases in public def 400k

4:12:29 ↗ increases in public defense, $250,000 to

4:12:32 ↗ fleet contributions for the take on car

4:12:34 ↗ program and 1.6 million to IPD facility

4:12:36 ↗ renovations. I'd also like us to at

4:12:38 ↗ least take a look at some of the other

4:12:40 ↗ novel things that HP 2015 allows that to

4:12:43 ↗ be used for, principally behavioral

4:12:45 ↗ health crisis teams and addiction

4:12:46 ↗ recovery services and co-responder

4:12:49 ↗ models. Uh it's a somewhat rare

4:12:50 ↗ opportunity to be able to put a sales

4:12:52 ↗ tax towards those kinds of things and I

4:12:55 ↗ would hope that we at least evaluate

4:12:57 ↗ those and

4:12:58 ↗ >> we're sort of Yeah, that's a fair point.

4:13:00 ↗ I mean, we're sort of paying for five

4:13:01 ↗ staff people out of the 0.1 on housing

4:13:03 ↗ that do a lot of the things. I mean,

4:13:05 ↗ they I feel like Brenda's team works

4:13:07 ↗ really closely with police right now,

4:13:10 ↗ but uh

4:13:11 ↗ >> but I hear you. And I wouldn't say just

4:13:13 ↗ so people know, I'm not saying this led

4:13:16 ↗ anywhere. An attempted cost-saving

4:13:18 ↗ measure was consider hiring our own

4:13:20 ↗ public defenders. So, we're not paying

4:13:21 ↗ Valley Defenders $600,000 a year, but

4:13:25 ↗ that as we dove into that, it was we

4:13:28 ↗ have 500 84% of the cases we file

4:13:30 ↗ inquense.

4:13:33 ↗ And so that ends up being over 500 cases

4:13:36 ↗ a year. The Supreme Court mandate is you

4:13:38 ↗ want to get down to 120 per person,

4:13:40 ↗ which makes the whole thing not pencil

4:13:42 ↗ out. So the attempt to switch to our own

4:13:44 ↗ public defenders kind of dissolved in

4:13:47 ↗ front of my eyes. Uh but it doesn't so

4:13:50 ↗ we are just faced with the reality of

4:13:53 ↗ either putting more into the valid

4:13:54 ↗ defender contract or or literally hiring

4:13:57 ↗ a human to figure out are there less

4:13:59 ↗ cases we file because the second you

4:14:01 ↗ file a case you have to go to a public

4:14:03 ↗ defender. So then I think that this

4:14:05 ↗ cost-saving opportunity which I don't

4:14:06 ↗ think necessarily is this budget cycle

4:14:08 ↗ in public defense but maybe two years

4:14:10 ↗ out is do you hire someone to figure out

4:14:14 ↗ like so we don't have to do the next

4:14:15 ↗ bump up again because I mentioned we'll

4:14:17 ↗ pay value defender is $1.2 million.

4:14:19 ↗ >> Yeah. in my understood and my I guess my

4:14:23 ↗ just to be explicit my my ask for the HP

4:14:26 ↗ 2015 money in particular is well those

4:14:28 ↗ are all important uh is if we can take a

4:14:31 ↗ look at those the public defense the

4:14:32 ↗ fleet the take on cars um and possibly

4:14:35 ↗ the renovations depending on what our

4:14:37 ↗ other capital money comes in at um to

4:14:40 ↗ see whether we could increase some of

4:14:41 ↗ our behavioral crisis team health crisis

4:14:44 ↗ teams again other things from the bill

4:14:46 ↗ addiction recovery services and

4:14:48 ↗ co-responder models um so just if we can

4:14:50 ↗ if we can take a look at that and then

4:14:51 ↗ briefly on the jail too just to echo uh

4:14:53 ↗ deputy council president Jang's comments

4:14:55 ↗ um my recollection from the presentation

4:14:58 ↗ from mid last year is that for our uh

4:15:01 ↗ for the the folks that are sent to us

4:15:04 ↗ from other jurisdictions that we are

4:15:05 ↗ currently losing money on each of them

4:15:08 ↗ um I don't that doesn't make sense to me

4:15:12 ↗ I that we're effectively asking esqua

4:15:14 ↗ taxpayers to subsidize the cost of other

4:15:16 ↗ cities jails inmates um Maybe there's a

4:15:19 ↗ better reason for that that I don't

4:15:21 ↗ understand, but I think that's a that

4:15:22 ↗ feels like some potentially low hanging

4:15:24 ↗ fruit that could at least generate

4:15:25 ↗ something. Um, and that we have no

4:15:27 ↗ obligation to be doing that

4:15:31 ↗ that makes any sense to me at least.

4:15:33 ↗ >> Yeah, that's I mean it's been an ongoing

4:15:36 ↗ discussion. I would say our challenge is

4:15:38 ↗ marginal cost versus the overall thing

4:15:40 ↗ because we have a fixed cost base. I

4:15:42 ↗ think what the other people are paying

4:15:43 ↗ is covering the marginal cost but it's

4:15:45 ↗ not necessarily covering. So I think our

4:15:48 ↗ challenge is if we don't take those

4:15:49 ↗ people our fixed costs are still the

4:15:52 ↗ same. Our marginal revenue so this is

4:15:54 ↗ the balancing act. Does that does not

4:15:56 ↗ mean we cannot try to I'm not saying

4:15:58 ↗ that we don't necessarily want to take

4:16:00 ↗ other people. I'm saying

4:16:01 ↗ >> we got to figure out how much I don't

4:16:04 ↗ know where we are on that curve.

4:16:05 ↗ >> Sounds like an excellent topic for

4:16:06 ↗ services safety and parks.

4:16:09 ↗ >> Council member Nichols is a member.

4:16:11 ↗ >> Uh council member point. Uh I will echo

4:16:17 ↗ a good amount of things that I've heard

4:16:19 ↗ too. Um on the arts fund I know at one

4:16:22 ↗ point I think I was told that that was

4:16:25 ↗ for it was double what it is now when

4:16:28 ↗ due to the loss of different venues and

4:16:30 ↗ whatnot. So um yeah very interested in

4:16:33 ↗ seeing what we can do there. I do not

4:16:34 ↗ have any kind of magic plan silver

4:16:36 ↗ bullet um for that. I'll keep

4:16:38 ↗ >> it's gone from 300 to 150 right?

4:16:40 ↗ >> Uh it's like 200k now and it was 400.

4:16:43 ↗ Okay, that's where they change. Okay.

4:16:45 ↗ >> Um, so, uh, and I'm thinking of this too

4:16:48 ↗ as we are growing our population,

4:16:50 ↗ hopefully building out in if that's

4:16:52 ↗ staying static or going down, I I don't

4:16:55 ↗ what does that mean for the distribution

4:16:58 ↗ of art across the city? There's probably

4:16:59 ↗ a better way to phrase that, but um,

4:17:03 ↗ so, uh, I'll echo I think I'm third

4:17:06 ↗ person or whoever to echo uh,

4:17:08 ↗ maintenance for the nonprofits.

4:17:10 ↗ maintenance is the basic that I guess is

4:17:12 ↗ for me is a do not you know if we're in

4:17:16 ↗ I don't want to say austerity then uh

4:17:18 ↗ that yeah that's the bottom line for me

4:17:20 ↗ for sure. Um I am in uh I'm in favor of

4:17:25 ↗ uh take home cars for our police. Um I

4:17:28 ↗ think that is a huge benefit. I'll speak

4:17:30 ↗ from my personal experience. That was my

4:17:32 ↗ standard growing up with my mom. She

4:17:33 ↗ always had a take home car.

4:17:35 ↗ Um anyways, uh

4:17:41 ↗ um

4:17:42 ↗ I think this is a best case scenario

4:17:46 ↗ position and maybe not something we can

4:17:48 ↗ get to now, but um one thing that stood

4:17:52 ↗ out to me in the last community survey

4:17:55 ↗ was only 61% of folks feel like they

4:17:58 ↗ know their neighbors. Um,

4:18:02 ↗ what can we do within this is high level

4:18:05 ↗ like to address that budget-wise? I

4:18:09 ↗ guess we used to have a neighborhood

4:18:11 ↗ liaison position that has gone away. I

4:18:15 ↗ would need to look more into like how

4:18:17 ↗ effective was that. It looks like maybe

4:18:19 ↗ they did have more to do just even with

4:18:20 ↗ talking to developers and I um but I

4:18:24 ↗ don't know. I'd be interested to learn

4:18:27 ↗ more about what bringing something like

4:18:29 ↗ that would back would look like,

4:18:32 ↗ especially with my northeast.

4:18:35 ↗ >> Let's go to the social connections thing

4:18:37 ↗ at at Blakeley Hall that we did. Were

4:18:40 ↗ you there?

4:18:41 ↗ >> Yeah, I've done several

4:18:43 ↗ >> because we had a big one earlier this

4:18:44 ↗ year kind of where we put all the ideas

4:18:47 ↗ up on the board where

4:18:49 ↗ >> I mean Jillian. Yeah.

4:18:50 ↗ >> Was that one of them?

4:18:52 ↗ Well, this it was all the entire event

4:18:55 ↗ was based on your premise. I mean, this

4:18:57 ↗ was a an initiative that wasn't

4:18:59 ↗ >> the city doing it. It was the community

4:19:01 ↗ doing it.

4:19:01 ↗ >> The city had staff supporting it and

4:19:03 ↗ everything. Uh I think it's a Okay, but

4:19:06 ↗ I hear you.

4:19:08 ↗ >> All right. Uh Deputy Council President

4:19:10 ↗ Chang.

4:19:13 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Um yeah, I have a

4:19:16 ↗ variety of comments. Um, I agree with

4:19:18 ↗ Council Member Walsh on the importance

4:19:20 ↗ of direct human services. Um, I think,

4:19:24 ↗ you know, our police really appreciate

4:19:25 ↗ having the mental health professionals

4:19:27 ↗ to work with them and I think that's

4:19:29 ↗ really great, an important service that

4:19:30 ↗ really is tied in with public safety.

4:19:33 ↗ Um, I also think, you know, the full

4:19:36 ↗ discussion of the public safety sales

4:19:38 ↗ tax spending deserves a much broader

4:19:40 ↗ discussion. Um, I'm hopeful that, you

4:19:43 ↗ know, the renovation costs won't take up

4:19:44 ↗ like 80% of the new revenues, which is

4:19:48 ↗ what we've, you know, preliminarily

4:19:50 ↗ budgeted so far. And to the extent that

4:19:52 ↗ we're able to use some of those funds

4:19:53 ↗ to, you know, help pay for, um,

4:19:55 ↗ behavioral health coordinators, I think

4:19:56 ↗ that'd be really valuable. Um, I think

4:19:58 ↗ on the affordable, you know, using the

4:20:00 ↗ affordable housing sales tax and

4:20:02 ↗ behavioral health sales tax to pay for

4:20:04 ↗ that aspect of things. So, one thing is

4:20:06 ↗ that, you know, we have all this capital

4:20:08 ↗ money and we don't have projects to

4:20:10 ↗ spend it on. And so if we're really

4:20:12 ↗ trying to spend that capital dollars on,

4:20:14 ↗ you know, providing the type of housing

4:20:16 ↗ that really is the hardest to build, you

4:20:17 ↗ know, the transitional housing and

4:20:19 ↗ supportive housing, there's a lot of

4:20:20 ↗ services that they have to be paired

4:20:22 ↗ with. And so if we're spending all of

4:20:24 ↗ our operational dollars from that bucket

4:20:26 ↗ on other things, then we're not going to

4:20:29 ↗ be able to be successful at, you know,

4:20:30 ↗ implementing those types of housing,

4:20:31 ↗ which is my that's kind of what that pot

4:20:34 ↗ of money is used for. So I'm a bit

4:20:36 ↗ hesitant on that. Um, but I do want to

4:20:40 ↗ see us actually, you know, make some

4:20:41 ↗ progress on, you know, setting up a

4:20:42 ↗ transitional housing program that's

4:20:44 ↗ actually going to work.

4:20:46 ↗ Um, and I think on the, uh, and so I

4:20:51 ↗ think, you know, to Council Member

4:20:52 ↗ Nichols point, I think it does make

4:20:54 ↗ sense to potentially look into using the

4:20:56 ↗ public safety sales tax to support some

4:20:58 ↗ of those, you know, additional aspects

4:21:00 ↗ of public safety, uh, like the, uh,

4:21:02 ↗ behavioral health coordinators. Um, one

4:21:04 ↗ other thing that, you know, we've talked

4:21:06 ↗ about is, uh, circulator shuttles. I

4:21:08 ↗ believe this, you know, potentially

4:21:10 ↗ replacing Metroflex with circulator

4:21:12 ↗ shuttles, all coming out of the TBD

4:21:13 ↗ fund. We haven't been talking about our

4:21:15 ↗ special funds that much, um, today, but

4:21:17 ↗ I think that's something I'd be very

4:21:18 ↗ interested in exploring. And then

4:21:19 ↗ finally, on the neighborhood, um, you

4:21:22 ↗ know, connection stuff, I do think

4:21:25 ↗ that's an area where figuring out, you

4:21:28 ↗ know, what are some really lowcost

4:21:29 ↗ things we can do? Like at this

4:21:30 ↗ fellowship thing that I was at, you

4:21:32 ↗ know, someone mentioned they had a sign

4:21:34 ↗ up for people to sign up to help their

4:21:36 ↗ neighborhood, help their neighbors in an

4:21:38 ↗ emergency. And so, you know, in their

4:21:39 ↗ community, they have snow storms. And

4:21:41 ↗ so, when there's a snowstorm, people

4:21:43 ↗ could say, "Hey, I need help." And then

4:21:44 ↗ they get connected with a neighbor who

4:21:46 ↗ could help, you know, shovel their

4:21:47 ↗ driver or whatever the case may be. And

4:21:48 ↗ so, figuring out what are like the

4:21:49 ↗ really, really low lift things that we

4:21:52 ↗ can do that don't cost a lot of money,

4:21:54 ↗ um, I think would be really interesting.

4:21:57 ↗ Um, and yeah, I think that's it for me.

4:21:59 ↗ All right. Uh before we go to round

4:22:01 ↗ twos, I'll I'll add mine. Uh I think

4:22:04 ↗ that uh I think council member Walsh's

4:22:08 ↗ idea of 13.5% as a target is a great um

4:22:12 ↗ something better than holding the line

4:22:14 ↗ but not necessarily having to get all

4:22:15 ↗ the way to 15. Uh I share Council Member

4:22:18 ↗ Adair's concerns and other people's

4:22:20 ↗ concerns around emergency management.

4:22:22 ↗ Wondering if there's any chance we could

4:22:24 ↗ share somebody with another

4:22:25 ↗ municipality. Right. Some of the needs.

4:22:27 ↗ It's good to have a full-time person,

4:22:29 ↗ but um some of the needs for emergency

4:22:31 ↗ management is situational, right? And if

4:22:33 ↗ Redmond or Kirkland or Belleview had

4:22:36 ↗ somebody that they wanted to share with

4:22:37 ↗ us um for emergent issues, that could be

4:22:39 ↗ a less expensive way than going with an

4:22:41 ↗ entire second hire. And finally, I will

4:22:43 ↗ say um I would we should at least hold

4:22:46 ↗ the line and possibly get to our full

4:22:48 ↗ number for uniformed officers for the

4:22:49 ↗ IPD. Um we are at 8.1 officers per

4:22:53 ↗ 10,000 people. that is substantially

4:22:55 ↗ below Redmond, Kirkland or Mercer

4:22:57 ↗ Island. We spend we also spend less per

4:22:59 ↗ resident um considerably less than any

4:23:02 ↗ of those cities. Um so I think that uh

4:23:05 ↗ we like I said at the very least um keep

4:23:08 ↗ all the officers that we have. We'd love

4:23:10 ↗ to get to our full strength. There are

4:23:13 ↗ times where we only have three uniformed

4:23:14 ↗ officers on duty which is too small for

4:23:16 ↗ a city of our size. Um and uh it for

4:23:21 ↗ those of you who are new to council um

4:23:24 ↗ this was really broken four years ago.

4:23:26 ↗ um we were we were facing the

4:23:29 ↗ possibility of basically being forced to

4:23:32 ↗ get rid of our police force and you know

4:23:34 ↗ basically prevailing on the the good

4:23:37 ↗ graces of King County which runs a fine

4:23:39 ↗ county sheriff's office but basically

4:23:41 ↗ basically saying like hey can you give

4:23:43 ↗ us a police force and we clawed it back

4:23:46 ↗ and it's one of those things that I

4:23:48 ↗ believe that the number one thing people

4:23:50 ↗ want in their city is that when they

4:23:52 ↗ flush the toilet it works the number two

4:23:54 ↗ thing is that when they turn the tap on,

4:23:56 ↗ water comes out. The number three thing

4:23:57 ↗ is when they turn the light switch on,

4:23:59 ↗ uh, the light switch, the the lights

4:24:01 ↗ come on in the room, but the number four

4:24:02 ↗ thing is their safety of their home and

4:24:04 ↗ their family. So,

4:24:07 ↗ >> round two, Council Member Walsh.

4:24:09 ↗ >> Well, that only gives us a few things

4:24:10 ↗ that we have to do as a city, but I

4:24:12 ↗ appreciate that. Um, public safety sales

4:24:15 ↗ tax. Um, for me, it is important that we

4:24:18 ↗ go about this the right way. when we're

4:24:20 ↗ having a conversation about it, um it's

4:24:22 ↗ really important that we all agree about

4:24:25 ↗ the scope of the IPD renovations before

4:24:29 ↗ we set what that value, that annual

4:24:32 ↗ dollar amount is rather than setting

4:24:35 ↗ that dollar amount and then using it to

4:24:38 ↗ justify or give a sense of what we could

4:24:42 ↗ or couldn't do. Yeah. So, let's let's

4:24:44 ↗ have that conversation and let's have

4:24:47 ↗ the conversation about how we want to

4:24:48 ↗ allocate the public safety sales tax

4:24:50 ↗ because I think there are a lot of good

4:24:51 ↗ options there. Um, I also uh appreciate

4:24:55 ↗ council member Boyd for bringing up the

4:24:57 ↗ neighborhood connectedness. I think

4:24:59 ↗ that's really important. I'm not sure

4:25:01 ↗ that the previous staff role um achieved

4:25:04 ↗ that. Um, but I do appreciate the idea

4:25:08 ↗ of connectedness and toward that idea. I

4:25:11 ↗ think classes that we do at um parks and

4:25:16 ↗ wreck and events that we do help achieve

4:25:19 ↗ that and many of those cover their own

4:25:21 ↗ costs. And so if there are areas within

4:25:24 ↗ parks and wreck, whether that is summer

4:25:26 ↗ camps that serve our residents or

4:25:29 ↗ afterchool activities or other things

4:25:32 ↗ for, you know, seniors and all of that,

4:25:35 ↗ I think those are areas where we can

4:25:37 ↗ provide services that don't come at a

4:25:39 ↗ cost to our budget. And so those are

4:25:42 ↗ areas that I would be very interested to

4:25:46 ↗ pursue more of. Yeah,

4:25:51 ↗ >> balance 13.5. That concludes my remarks.

4:25:54 ↗ Thank you.

4:25:56 ↗ >> Revity is the soul of W. Um, does the

4:25:58 ↗ administration have anything else on

4:26:00 ↗ this item at this time?

4:26:02 ↗ >> Just to make sure we're clear for the

4:26:04 ↗ second pregame of the season. So,

4:26:06 ↗ that'll be on Monday the 27th of July.

4:26:09 ↗ Um, are you okay having it here here in

4:26:12 ↗ this room?

4:26:14 ↗ >> Uh, is it air conditioned? council

4:26:15 ↗ chambers with

4:26:16 ↗ >> Is this room air conditioned,

4:26:18 ↗ >> Jeff? This place is air conditioned,

4:26:20 ↗ isn't it?

4:26:20 ↗ >> There's a heat.

4:26:21 ↗ >> I'm sorry. Where

4:26:22 ↗ >> this this this room?

4:26:25 ↗ Okay.

4:26:25 ↗ >> And I'm good with it.

4:26:26 ↗ >> So So we will uh come back and talk u

4:26:31 ↗ more about the citywide work plan. We

4:26:33 ↗ will come back and talk more about

4:26:34 ↗ performance measures. We will continue

4:26:38 ↗ uh the operating budget uh discussion,

4:26:40 ↗ general fund discussion. We will add

4:26:43 ↗ capital. We will talk about enterprise

4:26:46 ↗ funds. What I've heard is mostly housing

4:26:49 ↗ is number one. Um but we'll cover the

4:26:52 ↗ others as well. And then another topic

4:26:54 ↗ that will also be part of your season is

4:26:58 ↗ the legislative agenda. And so we

4:27:01 ↗ propose to start talking about that in

4:27:03 ↗ July as well because uh that season

4:27:06 ↗ seems to get earlier and earlier. Um so

4:27:09 ↗ that's what we're thinking about. I

4:27:10 ↗ think we it's a threeh hour 4 hour

4:27:13 ↗ >> three and a half

4:27:14 ↗ >> 5:30 to 9

4:27:16 ↗ >> 5:30 to 9 or something like that

4:27:19 ↗ >> but you go earlier than 5:30

4:27:22 ↗ >> and I also it's very very difficult

4:27:24 ↗ >> 5:30 to 9

4:27:26 ↗ >> is this a bring your own bag lunch

4:27:28 ↗ situation what

4:27:30 ↗ >> we have food

4:27:32 ↗ yeah we always have food

4:27:32 ↗ >> yeah feed us please

4:27:34 ↗ >> always um no this has been great I hope

4:27:37 ↗ the resetting in the first thing in the

4:27:39 ↗ morning was helpful ful exercise, but

4:27:42 ↗ you're a great team and you're going to

4:27:43 ↗ have a great season.

4:27:44 ↗ >> So, we're not quite done yet. We do have

4:27:46 ↗ public comment on the agenda. So, I'm

4:27:48 ↗ going to ask uh third keys if there uh

4:27:51 ↗ can you let's look and see if there's

4:27:54 ↗ any indicated interest in public

4:27:55 ↗ comment. I think the person who was on

4:27:58 ↗ for public comment earlier is not on any

4:28:00 ↗ or who had indicated public comment is

4:28:02 ↗ not on. I'm not seeing any either. Can

4:28:05 ↗ you confirm?

4:28:06 ↗ >> Yeah, I think um she indicated she might

4:28:08 ↗ join by phone. So, I'm going to go ahead

4:28:09 ↗ and unmute the one phone in caller with

4:28:12 ↗ us to see if they have anything they'd

4:28:14 ↗ like to say. Hold on.

4:28:18 ↗ >> Okay, our our phone and caller, you

4:28:21 ↗ should have the abil ability to unmute.

4:28:23 ↗ Are you interested in making comments?

4:28:28 ↗ >> Can you hear me? Okay.

4:28:30 ↗ >> Yes. Please, please, please speak up

4:28:32 ↗ though. You're a little bit quiet.

4:28:34 ↗ >> Oh, okay. Wonderful. Um, yes. So, my

4:28:36 ↗ wife was on earlier, but I'm I'm subbing

4:28:38 ↗ in right now. And we just wanted to have

4:28:41 ↗ a brief comment and a quick question on

4:28:44 ↗ the bond.

4:28:44 ↗ >> I'm sorry. Can you indicate your name

4:28:46 ↗ and your relationship to the city um

4:28:48 ↗ before you start?

4:28:50 ↗ >> Yeah, my name is Vinnie Richardy and I'm

4:28:52 ↗ a parent of a Clark Elementary student

4:28:55 ↗ and I also own property in Isiqua.

4:28:59 ↗ Um, and we so we just wanted to say that

4:29:02 ↗ we're very excited about the ability for

4:29:04 ↗ the turf projects to be on the bond for

4:29:06 ↗ renewal, uh, especially in regions of

4:29:08 ↗ Isiqua that are disproportionately

4:29:11 ↗ economically disadvantaged like the

4:29:13 ↗ areas around Clark and Isiqua Valley

4:29:15 ↗ Elementary. And yesterday, our community

4:29:18 ↗ of parents, we received widespread

4:29:21 ↗ templates from your council um that

4:29:24 ↗ stated that the joint agreement with ISD

4:29:27 ↗ was already signed, but from what I

4:29:30 ↗ heard today, the joint agreement was not

4:29:32 ↗ finalized. And so we've seen that the

4:29:34 ↗ communication from this council, it

4:29:36 ↗ resulted in a silencing effect on some

4:29:38 ↗ of our fellow community. Um and we

4:29:41 ↗ really need that support and advocacy.

4:29:44 ↗ And so just wanted to point that out

4:29:46 ↗ that you know primarily we wanted to

4:29:49 ↗ urge the council to be really cautious

4:29:50 ↗ in its messaging because people think

4:29:53 ↗ that joint agreement is already signed

4:29:55 ↗ and done. And then a quick question here

4:29:57 ↗ at the end uh for a takeaway from us and

4:30:00 ↗ our community. You guys have noted that

4:30:03 ↗ um you know we're a very activated

4:30:04 ↗ community. We really want these green

4:30:06 ↗ spaces and we can also appreciate that

4:30:09 ↗ there's a lot of procedural hurdles that

4:30:11 ↗ brings the city to justify the

4:30:13 ↗ investment to come you know come to a

4:30:16 ↗ joint agreement with ISIC school board

4:30:18 ↗ as well and so my big question here is

4:30:21 ↗ like where should parents like me invest

4:30:23 ↗ our time um to try to where should we

4:30:26 ↗ direct our advocacy is the hurdle trying

4:30:29 ↗ to pressure the Isqua school board to

4:30:31 ↗ get into a joint agreement with the

4:30:33 ↗ parks department or do you guys have any

4:30:37 ↗ other suggestions on how we can kind of

4:30:39 ↗ mobilize our very activated community

4:30:41 ↗ here?

4:30:42 ↗ >> I couldn't.

4:30:44 ↗ >> We don't we don't usually do Q&A as part

4:30:47 ↗ of a whole committee session. However,

4:30:49 ↗ the mayor has indicated that he would be

4:30:51 ↗ happy to share his thoughts with you.

4:30:52 ↗ >> Well, and I think and I apologize

4:30:55 ↗ around the miscommunication. I think we

4:30:57 ↗ remain highly optimistic that the joint

4:31:00 ↗ service agreement will be signed.

4:31:02 ↗ everything is 100% headed in that

4:31:05 ↗ direction. And two, we also do think

4:31:07 ↗ that the large majority of the

4:31:09 ↗ schoolboard members are actually very

4:31:11 ↗ supportive of this proposal. And so I

4:31:14 ↗ think overall we love your advocacy. I

4:31:17 ↗ think as

4:31:20 ↗ as we go further, I think the joint

4:31:22 ↗ service agreement will be signed next

4:31:23 ↗ month and then I think it'll just be,

4:31:26 ↗ you know, anything to let the school

4:31:27 ↗ board members know that I think that you

4:31:30 ↗ guys think this partnership is a good

4:31:32 ↗ idea, I think is positive, but uh I

4:31:35 ↗ don't think you have to overall I think

4:31:38 ↗ you're you're in a good trajectory right

4:31:41 ↗ now, I think, of uh where you want to

4:31:45 ↗ be, but there

4:31:47 ↗ like you've done great outreach, I

4:31:48 ↗ think, to the council and and it could

4:31:51 ↗ be that that outreach to also let the

4:31:53 ↗ school board know that you also think

4:31:55 ↗ this partnership is a good idea

4:31:59 ↗ wouldn't do any harm. Uh I don't think

4:32:05 ↗ >> Yeah. And I just wanted

4:32:07 ↗ >> Oh, council member Jang.

4:32:08 ↗ >> Hi.

4:32:10 ↗ Um yeah, I just wanted to quickly jump

4:32:12 ↗ in and say um my apologies for uh the

4:32:15 ↗ miscommunication. My understanding was

4:32:18 ↗ wrong. Um and I can reply to everyone

4:32:20 ↗ with a correction on that. I do think

4:32:23 ↗ you know reaching out to the school

4:32:24 ↗ board with your support certainly um

4:32:27 ↗ would be helpful and you know we're it

4:32:29 ↗ seems like we're on track to get that

4:32:30 ↗ signed next month. Um so yeah, my

4:32:33 ↗ apologies for the miscommunication on

4:32:35 ↗ that.

4:32:36 ↗ >> Thank you. Um thank you. Thank you,

4:32:38 ↗ caller, and thank you for hanging with

4:32:40 ↗ us to the end of uh to the end of the

4:32:43 ↗ meeting uh when when you and your spouse

4:32:45 ↗ had questions earlier on. Thank you.

4:32:46 ↗ Thank you so much. Um any any any

4:32:49 ↗ further closing comments from the

4:32:51 ↗ administration?

4:32:51 ↗ >> Thank you for your time, Mark.

4:32:53 ↗ >> Thank you. And thank you to the staff.

4:32:55 ↗ You did a great job uh supporting this

4:32:57 ↗ today. Thank you, fellow council

4:32:58 ↗ members, for uh uh a really good

4:33:01 ↗ Saturday session.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Paul Adair

Erika Boyd

Kelly Jiang, Deputy Council President (Arrived at approximately 11:30 a.m.; Attended Virtually)

Russell Joe

Tola Marts, Council President

Kevin Nichols

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (9)

Mark Mullet, Mayor

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Kristin Garcia, Finance Director

Jeff Watling, Parks & Community Services Director

Gillian Straub, Management Analyst

Michael Blunt, Budget Manager

Lee Critcher, Executive Dept. Intern

Recommendations & actions (1)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

Council requested a formal DIA presentation addressing audit concerns before approving funding, and suggested input from relevant boards/commissions such as the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee, the Arts Commission and…