City Council Special Meeting · Monday, December 10, 2018 · City Council Digest

3996 segments .txt ↗

0:13 ↗ welcome to the explicity Council

0:16 ↗ work session for Monday December 10th

0:19 ↗ 2018 and we are going to start this

0:22 ↗ evening I'm going to ask mayor Polly to

0:25 ↗ come forward and our first agenda item

0:28 ↗ is going to be ID 0 3 7-6

0:31 ↗ for recognition of a certain outgoing

0:33 ↗ council Thank You council president

0:36 ↗ Mart's typically we like to do some

0:40 ↗ recognition for those who have served on

0:42 ↗ our council and are moving on to

0:43 ↗ different things so if councilmember

0:45 ↗ Rommels would come up to join me today

0:47 ↗ that would be great for those of you not

0:53 ↗ in this room but maybe watching on TV

0:55 ↗ who are not familiar a council member

0:56 ↗ Ramos is service I'd like to go over a

0:59 ↗ few of the highlights bill started on

1:01 ↗ city council in 2016 and he is in the

1:04 ↗ third year of his term he has served on

1:07 ↗ the council committee landed Shore

1:09 ↗ committee as well as chaired the council

1:12 ↗ Infrastructure Committee and served as a

1:14 ↗ board member of Eastside Fire and Rescue

1:15 ↗ our fire service as well he has

1:18 ↗ represented us out in the region by

1:20 ↗ serving on the King County Regional

1:22 ↗ Transit Committee you site

1:24 ↗ transportation partnership and the

1:26 ↗ emergency management advisory committee

1:28 ↗ so tonight I would like you to join me

1:30 ↗ in thanking councilmember Ramos for his

1:32 ↗ service to City Council we look forward

1:35 ↗ to our new working relationship as he

1:37 ↗ moves on to the state legislature

1:39 ↗ representing us as a representative for

1:41 ↗ the 5th district and I'd also like to

1:44 ↗ take a moment to allow council president

1:46 ↗ Mart's and others who would like to say

1:48 ↗ a few words to join in our recognition

1:51 ↗ appreciation tonight thanks mayor Pauly

1:54 ↗ I just I want to convey a story that I

1:56 ↗ think says a lot about bill as a as a

2:00 ↗ public official so bill and I had worked

2:03 ↗ together for a while but you know knew

2:05 ↗ each other kind of up on the dais and

2:07 ↗ but there was a thing that happened in

2:09 ↗ the community that got me really really

2:10 ↗ upset there was a vandalism at the local

2:14 ↗ Muslim Association in Puget Sound up in

2:16 ↗ Redmond and I was I was just really

2:18 ↗ upset and I didn't know what to do about

2:19 ↗ it but I knew that you know Billy come

2:21 ↗ out of human services so I gave bill a

2:23 ↗ call and I my voice was shaking I was

2:25 ↗ just I was so upset because I felt like

2:27 ↗ we as elected officials needed to do so

2:30 ↗ being to show that that sort of stuff

2:32 ↗ wasn't who we were as a community even

2:34 ↗ though it was Redmond not Issaquah and

2:37 ↗ it was great

2:38 ↗ feels like my wife and I know some

2:40 ↗ people up there we'll give them a call

2:42 ↗ we'll let you know

2:44 ↗ he set things up to introduce me to some

2:47 ↗ folks up there they were having a public

2:51 ↗ event for what for folks in the

2:53 ↗ community to show their support

2:54 ↗ there Polly I think you were there also

2:56 ↗ so as a councilmember so the three of us

2:59 ↗ all Wed but bill just he he knows folks

3:03 ↗ in the community and he has such a big

3:05 ↗ heart and it really helped me get my

3:08 ↗ arms around doing something for a really

3:10 ↗ awful situation and it also went from

3:12 ↗ bill went from being a colleague to a

3:14 ↗ friend so I just want to share that with

3:15 ↗ the public as a measure of the man and

3:18 ↗ as confidence that I know he'll do so

3:21 ↗ well representing us at the next phase

3:23 ↗ of his career Thank You council

3:25 ↗ president marks would anybody else care

3:26 ↗ to share anything Beauty council

3:30 ↗ president Vitesse so I just wanted to

3:33 ↗ first of all you just really want to

3:36 ↗ wish you well bill I'm very excited for

3:40 ↗ this new chapter and you're you're such

3:44 ↗ a dedicated servant to to Issaquah and

3:47 ↗ to the whole area and just really

3:51 ↗ wishing you well and you know I've

3:53 ↗ gotten to know you now we I think we six

3:58 ↗ or seven years ago we both started on

4:01 ↗ the economic vitality Commission and the

4:04 ↗ Human Services Commission and sat on

4:07 ↗ both of those commissions and got to

4:09 ↗ know each other and just always learned

4:12 ↗ so much by working side by side with you

4:15 ↗ and and then following you and the chair

4:18 ↗ positions through human services to City

4:20 ↗ Council's so just really wishing you

4:24 ↗ well and very very excited for this new

4:27 ↗ chapter and I'm so honored and happy

4:30 ↗ that I had the opportunity to work with

4:32 ↗ you on council as well Thank You deputy

4:35 ↗ president Patti's council member we're

4:38 ↗ just a thank you bill

4:39 ↗ enjoy Olympia

4:41 ↗ I appreciate all that you've done for

4:43 ↗ the community and and you and I do also

4:48 ↗ go back to the Human Services Commission

4:49 ↗ many years ago so I think you're now

4:51 ↗ moving to a place with with the passion

4:53 ↗ that I saw on you there in Olympia

4:55 ↗ there's a lot you can do really make a

4:58 ↗ difference in more people's lives and I

5:00 ↗ know you carry that passion with you to

5:02 ↗ Olympia and and I'll be anxious to

5:04 ↗ follow and and participate as much as I

5:07 ↗ can as you try to go do the right thing

5:09 ↗ for this whole state of Washington thank

5:11 ↗ you Oh councilmember hunt um it's hard

5:18 ↗ to follow but follow all of the great

5:22 ↗ comments which I agree with but I wanted

5:24 ↗ to say that

5:25 ↗ councilman Ramos has really instilled in

5:28 ↗ me the importance of making connections

5:29 ↗ and connecting with people in the

5:30 ↗ community and I hope to go forward and

5:33 ↗ do that and he's been I think a great

5:34 ↗ example of that and I wish you well and

5:38 ↗ thank you anyone else Curtis anything I

5:42 ↗ want to thank you I want to thank you

5:46 ↗ all for your comments that's wonderful

5:48 ↗ and I also want to remind you that your

5:50 ↗ first meeting with our representative

5:52 ↗ will be tomorrow morning at our

5:54 ↗ legislative breakfast so you are not

5:56 ↗ going to be missing him for long bill

5:59 ↗ thank you for everything that you have

6:01 ↗ done so proud of you thank you and we

6:03 ↗ take a picture

6:10 ↗ Thank You Emily thank you both thank you

6:13 ↗ for having letting me have the time to

6:14 ↗ come up today thank you madam mayor just

6:24 ↗ thank you so much for all those kind

6:26 ↗ words it has been my honor and privilege

6:28 ↗ to work with all of you all the city

6:30 ↗ staff as well as all the councilmembers

6:33 ↗ I've just I've enjoyed it so much that's

6:35 ↗ why I'm trying to do do more know that

6:38 ↗ the one thing I'll be always judging

6:39 ↗ everything I look at is are we building

6:41 ↗ community and what we're doing and I

6:43 ↗ will always be looking after cities and

6:45 ↗ how things happen there that affect

6:47 ↗ cities because that's just you know

6:50 ↗ peace that come from it I know a lot of

6:52 ↗ folks down there don't have that

6:53 ↗ background so it'll be something always

6:55 ↗ you're looking forward to to take care

6:58 ↗ of and you all know where I live so

7:00 ↗ around the corner thank you all very

7:03 ↗ much

7:03 ↗ if you council member Ramos and we're

7:06 ↗ gonna hold you to that we're gonna

7:07 ↗ remind you that we've got tape down so

7:09 ↗ there you have it with that we're gonna

7:12 ↗ move on to agenda bill 75 38 updated

7:16 ↗ water system plan and this is we're

7:18 ↗ gonna the conversations going to be

7:19 ↗ headed up by Sheldon Linn our Director

7:21 ↗ of Public Works engineering

7:27 ↗ Thank You council president council I'm

7:31 ↗ Sheldon Lin Director of Public Works

7:33 ↗ engineering and tonight we're gonna

7:35 ↗ brief the council kind of summarize

7:38 ↗ what's been going on in the

7:39 ↗ conversations with the council about the

7:41 ↗ policy issues associated with the water

7:43 ↗ system plan update from June through

7:47 ↗ September the council had three work

7:49 ↗ sessions in which it discussed three

7:51 ↗ major policy issues associated with the

7:52 ↗ water system plan those were water

7:54 ↗ conservation slash demand projections

7:57 ↗ the supply operating options and

7:59 ↗ treatment for the supply when September

8:02 ↗ 10th the last council workshop the

8:05 ↗ council requested additional information

8:07 ↗ and detail regarding the financial pro

8:09 ↗ formas on the supply options as well as

8:11 ↗ additional opportunities for community

8:13 ↗ engagement in November of this year the

8:18 ↗ council Infrastructure Committee held

8:20 ↗ the first option or first opportunity

8:24 ↗ since then for community engagement and

8:26 ↗ tonight is the second opportunity for

8:28 ↗ community engagement tonight the

8:32 ↗ consultant jeffrey hansen of HDR will

8:35 ↗ provide you with the additional

8:37 ↗ information regarding the financial pro

8:38 ↗ formas summarize the previous workshops

8:41 ↗ and then be open for discussions and

8:46 ↗ questions if they're already from the

8:48 ↗ council the goal of this is that

8:50 ↗ currently the agenda bill sits in the

8:52 ↗ council infrastructure committee arena

8:55 ↗ and in January the committee is expected

8:59 ↗ to bring the agenda bill back to Council

9:02 ↗ with a recommendation regarding the

9:04 ↗ water system plans adoption so with that

9:07 ↗ I'm going to hand it over to Jeffrey

9:09 ↗ Hanson of HDR the consultant helping us

9:13 ↗ with the water system plan welcome thank

9:18 ↗ you thanks Sheldon pull up a very brief

9:21 ↗ PowerPoint presentation we have for this

9:26 ↗ evening

9:34 ↗ well good to see you all again it's been

9:36 ↗ quite a ride throughout the past few

9:38 ↗ months as a Sheldon mentioned tonight is

9:41 ↗ intended to be a fairly brief recap and

9:43 ↗ really highlight things that have

9:45 ↗ changed since we were all together last

9:47 ↗ so this slide really hits what Sheldon

9:50 ↗ already mentioned this water system plan

9:52 ↗ update process began last year in

9:55 ↗ planned development extended into early

9:57 ↗ part of this year as Sheldon just

9:59 ↗ mentioned for the past few months

10:01 ↗ council has been discussing various

10:03 ↗ policy related items regarding

10:06 ↗ conservation water supply options and

10:08 ↗ then water quality and treatment and

10:10 ↗ then again as Sheldon mentioned since

10:13 ↗ the last time we were all together as

10:14 ↗ full council in work session in

10:16 ↗ September we updated the pro formas and

10:20 ↗ the cost risk analysis of the three

10:22 ↗ water supply options and I'll highlight

10:25 ↗ those updates in a moment

10:27 ↗ we have also don't want to forget that

10:30 ↗ this draft water system plan has already

10:32 ↗ gone out for external review at the

10:36 ↗ State Department of Health level King

10:38 ↗ County adjacent water purveyors such as

10:41 ↗ Sammamish Sammamish plateau water we

10:44 ↗ received comments in late summer those

10:46 ↗ comments have all been responded to and

10:49 ↗ we've now sent those responses back out

10:52 ↗ to the state into the county and we're

10:53 ↗ seeking confirmation that those

10:54 ↗ responses satisfy all of those comments

10:57 ↗ and we have also begun the CEPA process

11:00 ↗ related to this plan that was initiated

11:03 ↗ late last week that will extend through

11:05 ↗ December so moving right along again as

11:09 ↗ mentioned we updated the pro formas

11:12 ↗ provided the pro formas to council for

11:14 ↗ for review and the results of that are

11:18 ↗ summarized here numbers changed a little

11:22 ↗ bit due to revisiting of some of the

11:25 ↗ assumptions with city staff and the

11:28 ↗ bottom line result of all of this is

11:30 ↗ reminder that we were looking at three

11:32 ↗ water supply options moving into the

11:34 ↗ future option one is maintaining the

11:38 ↗ city's groundwater supplies and blending

11:41 ↗ that with

11:41 ↗ regional cascade supplies option 2 was

11:45 ↗ to move away from using the wells and

11:47 ↗ only utilizing regional supply there's

11:49 ↗ two sub options there then option three

11:51 ↗ is really a spin-off of option one which

11:55 ↗ is blended but do a lot of

11:57 ↗ infrastructure work rework the the

12:00 ↗ valley zone to defer the need for

12:03 ↗ bringing in regional supply into the

12:05 ↗ valley zone bottom line when we look at

12:08 ↗ this over a 20-year present value cost

12:11 ↗ perspective incorporating incorporating

12:14 ↗ both capital and annual O&M costs the

12:17 ↗ the total twenty year present value

12:19 ↗ costs of option one comes in as the

12:21 ↗ lowest second highest would be option

12:25 ↗ three that reduced groundwater area and

12:27 ↗ then the regional options are higher

12:29 ↗ than that I'll stop there open it for

12:34 ↗ questions if there are questions on that

12:36 ↗ cost analysis comes mega winter's night

12:39 ↗ thank you and if you have this later on

12:42 ↗ writes in the material please just say

12:45 ↗ so sure is there any difference on the

12:50 ↗ revenue side of the formula for these

12:52 ↗ three options so the city provides a

12:56 ↗ service and we get paid for that service

12:57 ↗ right and I realize that might not be a

13:02 ↗ simple answer because I know that we do

13:05 ↗ we do rates based upon actual expenses

13:09 ↗ graded but why why is that not part of

13:15 ↗ what we're seeing here in so so right

13:19 ↗ this is not looking at the revenue side

13:22 ↗ the right side this is simply the cost

13:24 ↗ what is there an assumption in there

13:26 ↗ then about the right side well I mean

13:28 ↗ the core assumption is what you just

13:30 ↗ spoke to a moment ago that you establish

13:32 ↗ your rates and update your rates

13:33 ↗ periodically based on cost of service so

13:36 ↗ those are cost of service based rates

13:38 ↗ and so that analysis of determining

13:44 ↗ actual rate impacts in rate changes was

13:47 ↗ not a part of this water system planned

13:49 ↗ effort that's a secondary kind of

13:51 ↗ follow-on effort to this in a formal

13:53 ↗ rate study which

13:55 ↗ is scheduled and budgeted to occur next

13:57 ↗ year 2019 so yes this analysis doesn't

14:01 ↗ look at that revenue side I mean the

14:03 ↗ assumption is that the city would recoup

14:05 ↗ those costs you know with whatever

14:08 ↗ pathways is chosen and that's my line of

14:11 ↗ questioning he is forgiven forgive me we

14:15 ↗ we did just emerge from our operational

14:20 ↗ budget which also had a capital

14:22 ↗ component we're not done with that

14:23 ↗ actually we're gonna pick up capital

14:25 ↗ again and it's easy to look at this to

14:27 ↗ say Wow and I haven't done a

14:29 ↗ cross-reference with with our capital

14:31 ↗ plan and I imagine these options

14:34 ↗ obviously aren't going to be there but I

14:36 ↗ guess maybe I'd like to hear from staff

14:38 ↗ then is what the expectation would be

14:40 ↗ there's an assumption that or maybe what

14:43 ↗ our policies are when it comes to

14:45 ↗ covering costs for capital operation and

14:47 ↗ as a water purveyor you know what what

14:50 ↗ what is the kind of the revenue side of

14:52 ↗ the assumption that I should be aware of

14:55 ↗ as we look at these options so so I'm

14:57 ↗ moving forward Geoffrey's right I we do

14:59 ↗ have in 2019 Council budgeted for a rate

15:02 ↗ study in the water utility and the

15:06 ↗ utility operates as a nonprofit

15:07 ↗ enterprise fund and its goal is to make

15:12 ↗ sure that it recovers the cost

15:13 ↗ associated with

15:14 ↗ the necessary capital and operating

15:17 ↗ expenditures of the utility the the

15:21 ↗ percentages of what these costs would be

15:24 ↗ that would go towards new development ie

15:26 ↗ connection charges versus existing

15:29 ↗ customers which would be your rate base

15:31 ↗ we haven't sat down and dialed that in

15:34 ↗ but it's gonna be a combination of

15:36 ↗ connection charges and rate based cost

15:41 ↗ recovery for these facilities does that

15:44 ↗ answer your question

15:45 ↗ I think what you're saying is that

15:48 ↗ between connection and rates connections

15:51 ↗ and rates if we follow our policies then

15:55 ↗ these numbers also represent the kind of

15:58 ↗ money we'll be raising to deliver the

16:01 ↗ service that's correct

16:03 ↗ that and so you can look at these

16:05 ↗ numbers and think kind of in proportion

16:07 ↗ what type of fees might residents and

16:11 ↗ property owners may experience we look

16:14 ↗ at these numbers that that's correct and

16:16 ↗ it depends on how the utility funds

16:18 ↗ these improvements if the utility funds

16:21 ↗ it through bonded indebtedness it

16:23 ↗ changes the the rates and the

16:26 ↗ connections are there's a number of

16:27 ↗ things that play a role in what happens

16:30 ↗ to the rates associated with these

16:32 ↗ facilities okay

16:34 ↗ that's all for now thank you other

16:36 ↗ questions I've got one yeah so let's say

16:40 ↗ so constant of array lives in talus

16:43 ↗ let's say he spends ten bucks a month on

16:46 ↗ water it's probably not right but

16:47 ↗ councilmember Goodman lives in the

16:49 ↗ highlands let's say she spends ten bucks

16:51 ↗ a month on water I live on squawk yeah I

16:54 ↗ spent ten bucks a month on one I get

16:59 ↗ that different options are gonna impact

17:01 ↗ us differently from here but is there

17:03 ↗ any would there be any potential spatial

17:05 ↗ variation on the impacts of these

17:07 ↗ different options between the three of

17:09 ↗ us living in different locations right

17:11 ↗ well I think Sheldon probably speak to

17:12 ↗ that too yeah yeah no the council has a

17:17 ↗ number of years ago adopted a policy of

17:19 ↗ no geographical advantage or

17:21 ↗ disadvantage for its utility customers

17:24 ↗ we're and we're in this together as a

17:26 ↗ community and so the rates across the

17:28 ↗ community from Montreux to the Highlands

17:31 ↗ to talus to squawk Mountain to Old Town

17:33 ↗ everybody pays the same rates okay thank

17:36 ↗ you

17:38 ↗ other questions right now okay all right

17:42 ↗ so that's the update on that on the cost

17:44 ↗ analysis of the supply options so now

17:47 ↗ then and this is one of the main things

17:49 ↗ that was modified since September when

17:52 ↗ we looked more in depth at that so now

17:54 ↗ to kind of bring this all home kind of

17:55 ↗ recap the summary overall of some of the

17:58 ↗ the big things that are laid out in the

18:00 ↗ water system plan update this is a

18:03 ↗ summary of what we're referring to as

18:04 ↗ the integrated solution to the biggest

18:08 ↗ challenge that was identified in the

18:09 ↗ plan and that need just to recap was the

18:12 ↗ fact that regional water supply will be

18:14 ↗ needed by sometime between

18:16 ↗ approximately 20 21 and 20 27 in the

18:20 ↗ areas of the city that currently

18:21 ↗ utilized only groundwater supply so the

18:25 ↗ integrated solution to that incorporates

18:27 ↗ conservation so maintaining continued

18:29 ↗ implementation of your existing

18:30 ↗ conservation program converting talis

18:34 ↗ back to regional supply recall that

18:36 ↗ Tallis for a time was on regional supply

18:39 ↗ has been transitioned off back to

18:41 ↗ groundwater but can readily go back to

18:44 ↗ utilizing regional supply and then the

18:47 ↗ construction of a centralized treatment

18:49 ↗ and blending facility which really

18:51 ↗ satisfies multiple objectives it

18:53 ↗ upgrades your existing treatment

18:55 ↗ processes prepares you for future

18:58 ↗ regulatory changes and supports this

19:00 ↗ concept of blending regional water with

19:03 ↗ the groundwater supply it's kind of a

19:04 ↗ three-pronged overall water supply

19:07 ↗ solution into the future questions on

19:10 ↗ that was it more interesting and just to

19:16 ↗ be clear I think you've already said

19:17 ↗ this that the talus conversion is just

19:20 ↗ why are you recommending that I mean

19:22 ↗ it's just to extend the time window that

19:26 ↗ we have right yep exactly if the demands

19:31 ↗ increase as projected I remember we

19:35 ↗ looked at a range right we don't have

19:37 ↗ that perfect crystal ball but on the

19:39 ↗ high end of that range if demands were

19:41 ↗ to increase increase as projected and if

19:44 ↗ you were to have a supply shortfall as

19:45 ↗ early as say 2021 2022 the city would be

19:49 ↗ very hard-pressed to implement this this

19:52 ↗ centralized treatment facility by that

19:54 ↗ amount of time you know within that

19:56 ↗ amount of time so this conversion to

19:58 ↗ tell us is kind of a if needed component

20:01 ↗ of this solution that that can happen to

20:05 ↗ by the city time to implement that

20:07 ↗ centralized facility okay thank you and

20:09 ↗ as a follow-up is talus the only part of

20:13 ↗ town that's a candidate that for it to

20:16 ↗ occur in that manner yes because

20:19 ↗ infrastructure wise talus was set up to

20:22 ↗ be able to receive regional water so

20:24 ↗ it's very easy to to modify things right

20:28 ↗ now

20:29 ↗ turn valves and redirect regional supply

20:32 ↗ into Tallis there's no other portion of

20:33 ↗ the city it's my question that's

20:35 ↗ currently that way thank you mm-hmm I'll

20:39 ↗ ask you a question

20:40 ↗ under this recommended solution what

20:42 ↗ does the fluorination chlorination map

20:45 ↗ look like at the end of the day so this

20:49 ↗ is yet another policy decision or policy

20:52 ↗ item for council to discuss into next

20:55 ↗ year we've talked about this before that

20:58 ↗ if by implementing this solution you

21:01 ↗ still have a range of options open to

21:04 ↗ you for what happens with respect to

21:07 ↗ fluoridation throughout the city

21:10 ↗ regional supply has fluoride in it your

21:14 ↗ groundwater supply does not so if you

21:17 ↗ were to bring fluoridated water into the

21:19 ↗ system and not remove that fluoride then

21:23 ↗ by the end of the implementation of all

21:26 ↗ three prongs of this there would most

21:29 ↗ likely be fluoride throughout the city

21:31 ↗ but there are different ways to manage

21:32 ↗ that do you add fluoride to keep levels

21:35 ↗ of fluoride to a certain level do you

21:37 ↗ allow ambient mixing the fluoride or

21:39 ↗ remember the other end of the spectrum

21:41 ↗ is potentially removal of fluoride from

21:43 ↗ the regional water so as to not

21:46 ↗ introduce fluoride into the system so by

21:48 ↗ implementing this three-pronged solution

21:50 ↗ there's no set decision made on the

21:55 ↗ fluoride question there's not if it's

21:58 ↗ not taking a policy decision but it

22:01 ↗ would result in some some amount of

22:04 ↗ fluoride going to the general population

22:07 ↗ if no action were taken no actually the

22:10 ↗ no action option mm-hmm yes all right

22:12 ↗ that's right I just was just curious

22:15 ↗ other questions right now okay one last

22:20 ↗ slide just to kind of show you and this

22:21 ↗ kind of gets to that point that was just

22:24 ↗ raised about the fluoride question quick

22:26 ↗ overview of the timeline I'm not going

22:27 ↗ to go through all of these steps this is

22:29 ↗ just here really for your reference and

22:30 ↗ to indicate obviously where we are here

22:33 ↗ tonight December 10th in work session

22:35 ↗ and to hit a couple highlights here as

22:38 ↗ Sheldon mentioned the plan moving

22:40 ↗ forward

22:41 ↗ is in January for council Infrastructure

22:45 ↗ Committee Infrastructure Committee to

22:47 ↗ refer this out back to Council for

22:49 ↗ action with respect to adoption of the

22:53 ↗ water system plan which could they

22:54 ↗ conceivably take place on January 22nd

22:57 ↗ as you then move into further into 2019

23:00 ↗ and 2020 we have various items here

23:03 ↗ about the implementation of this

23:05 ↗ integrated solution and one of those

23:08 ↗ items is this topic of fluoridation

23:12 ↗ again implementation of this recommended

23:15 ↗ approach does not tie you to one option

23:20 ↗ or the other with respect to fluoride

23:22 ↗ more conversation to be had on that in

23:24 ↗ 2019 any other questions on next steps

23:28 ↗ or timeline what's behind on the

23:32 ↗ timeline we had discussed this earlier I

23:34 ↗ think that this is probably the same

23:36 ↗ slide that we saw earlier but I think

23:38 ↗ that and I'll speak for myself I think

23:42 ↗ my preference would be to have that

23:44 ↗ discussion happen in early 2019 I don't

23:47 ↗ see why we're contemplating early 2020

23:50 ↗ for the fluoride discussion sorry just a

23:58 ↗ point of clarification on that miss Hine

24:00 ↗ the what he's saying is as the council

24:03 ↗ action on that policy could be in 2019

24:07 ↗ the conversations are going to begin in

24:09 ↗ early 2019 as we move forward with bench

24:13 ↗ scale testing and pre design efforts

24:14 ↗ associated with the the treatment

24:16 ↗ facility there questions

24:23 ↗ all right okay well that really brings

24:26 ↗ me to the conclusion of tonight's formal

24:28 ↗ presentation so but it's open for any

24:31 ↗ other further discussion or questions

24:35 ↗ come to mind wintertime didn't talk

24:39 ↗ about SEPA what are you what

24:42 ↗ alternatives are you are you gonna be

24:45 ↗ they're gonna be evaluated as part of

24:46 ↗ supa so the CEPA process for the water

24:50 ↗ system plan itself as a non project

24:54 ↗ action does not have specific

24:57 ↗ alternatives as a part of it

25:00 ↗ so the CEPA for the water system plan

25:03 ↗ does not explore any other alternatives

25:05 ↗ than what have been presented here as

25:07 ↗ this project of a centralized treatment

25:10 ↗ and blending facility moves forward as a

25:12 ↗ unique project

25:14 ↗ SEPA as a part of that effort will would

25:18 ↗ then explore alternatives with respect

25:21 ↗ to them to that project and we're not at

25:24 ↗ that stage yet specific to the project

25:28 ↗ is that answer to that question you did

25:30 ↗ I'm just yeah I assumed there would be

25:33 ↗ alternatives if you're gonna do SEPA I

25:36 ↗ thought you had two well you would for a

25:38 ↗ for a prime you know this for a project

25:41 ↗ specific SEPA that's evaluating impacts

25:44 ↗ of moving forward with construction of a

25:47 ↗ particular project there you would be

25:49 ↗ looking at alternatives to understand

25:51 ↗ the variances and impacts between

25:54 ↗ different options then let me ask it

25:56 ↗ about this way the the question about

25:58 ↗ fluoridation you said one end of the

25:59 ↗ spectrum is we could remove it yeah

26:01 ↗ now and I don't know if that's Matic

26:04 ↗ enough of a thing to try to do that you

26:07 ↗ would have to wow you know SEPA has to

26:09 ↗ look at yes we do that we don't we do

26:11 ↗ that but that would that's what kind of

26:12 ↗ prompted that question in my mind is

26:15 ↗ from a super perspective do we have to

26:18 ↗ consider those alternatives you know all

26:22 ↗ I'm not sure if the CEPA specifically on

26:27 ↗ that project would have to look at

26:28 ↗ alternatives with respect to treatment

26:33 ↗ on fluoride I don't think so because

26:35 ↗ we're really looking at construction

26:36 ↗ related impact

26:37 ↗ we're thinking of SEPA always know the

26:41 ↗ the CEPA wouldn't have to evaluate

26:42 ↗ alternatives for fluoride unless the

26:45 ↗ decisions being made affect the

26:49 ↗ environmental impact of the project

26:51 ↗ itself

26:52 ↗ the decisions whether or not to

26:54 ↗ fluoridate or not to fluoridate or you

26:58 ↗ know the in between our policy decisions

27:01 ↗ unless they impact the I'll say the

27:05 ↗ external impact of the project itself

27:08 ↗ SEPA doesn't evaluate okay that answered

27:11 ↗ my question you're saying that service

27:13 ↗ wouldn't have an environmental impact

27:15 ↗ right right no picking their heads no

27:18 ↗ okay thank you correct

27:23 ↗ all right other other questions I'll

27:27 ↗ have a I have a question for City

27:28 ↗ Administrator moon so this conversation

27:32 ↗ has to do with debt capacity but doesn't

27:36 ↗ necessarily have to do directly with our

27:39 ↗ the other conversations we've been

27:40 ↗ having about capital expenditure can you

27:42 ↗ speak a little bit to that topic and how

27:46 ↗ this relates to the conversations that

27:48 ↗ we'll have in 2019 sure most of the

27:51 ↗ conversations we've been having and

27:53 ↗ those that we will be having beginning

27:57 ↗ in January about unfunded capital

27:59 ↗ projects have been about general fund

28:03 ↗ projects and the constrained revenue

28:06 ↗ sources for those and the ability for

28:09 ↗ the general fund to pay any new

28:13 ↗ increment of debt service so utility

28:15 ↗ fund as an enterprise fund has dedicated

28:19 ↗ revenue and we have ability to set up

28:25 ↗ that revenue system in a way that funds

28:27 ↗ the capital improvements that we wish to

28:30 ↗ take on and then plan in that way

28:32 ↗ general fund is is a little bit

28:34 ↗ different in its design so you don't see

28:38 ↗ any of our decisions that we make around

28:41 ↗ capital investiture that we're going to

28:43 ↗ be have around transportation and

28:46 ↗ Recreation and any of those things

28:48 ↗ having a potential it's fully decoupled

28:51 ↗ from our options here it is although you

28:54 ↗ know to be clear anytime we're asking

28:57 ↗ our residents to pay anything more we

29:01 ↗ have to be cognizant of the overall

29:03 ↗ burden so it's just that these revenue

29:07 ↗ sources are very very different and the

29:12 ↗ utility fund is really on a usage basis

29:16 ↗ it's just structured differently so I I

29:19 ↗ will be decoupling those conversations

29:21 ↗ but I want to be upfront about the fact

29:24 ↗ that yes overall total cost of services

29:28 ↗ is an important thing to contemplate

29:30 ↗ thank you

29:32 ↗ well thank you for the presentation

29:35 ↗ another one I realized so I I do

29:38 ↗ appreciate the cost risk analysis that

29:40 ↗ you provided it's a it's a twenty year

29:42 ↗ window mm-hmm Sheldon I'll do how do

29:49 ↗ those numbers compare to what we have

29:52 ↗ spent say over the past twenty years ten

29:55 ↗ years even you have any idea what

29:59 ↗ increment over what we've had to do to

30:04 ↗ instruct maintain deliver service would

30:07 ↗ this represent if I remember the numbers

30:13 ↗ correctly now is this isn't historical

30:15 ↗ expenditures but the revenues in the

30:17 ↗ utility are somewhere around five to six

30:20 ↗ million dollars a year total revenues

30:22 ↗ and we pretty much spend those revenues

30:25 ↗ annually so we're looking at over a

30:29 ↗ twenty year period you know adding you

30:32 ↗ know what 40 divided by five eight

30:36 ↗ million dollars more per year so roughly

30:40 ↗ doubling if my numbers in my head are

30:43 ↗ working right the way I would read it

30:45 ↗ the option one which is blended

30:47 ↗ groundwater regional if that 20 year

30:48 ↗ cost is 40 million over 20 years that's

30:51 ↗ yeah roughly 22 million a year so it's 2

30:54 ↗ million more--not to me a year sorry

30:56 ↗ that's way off I'm ok so and so this is

31:00 ↗ just a very rough back of the napkin if

31:02 ↗ today we need revenues to cover roughly

31:05 ↗ 5 million dollars in expenditures to add

31:07 ↗ this is the low-cost option is an

31:11 ↗ additional 2 million and then the higher

31:13 ↗ cost highest cop cost option is quite a

31:17 ↗ bit higher so yeah it just goes up from

31:18 ↗ there so I can just very roughly say you

31:22 ↗ know we might be looking at minimally a

31:24 ↗ 40% increase in cost yes yep this back

31:29 ↗ of the napkin

31:30 ↗ yeah connection charges may offset some

31:32 ↗ of that too it's for that qualifier

31:34 ↗ yeah thank you for the correction on my

31:37 ↗ math wait any other questions

31:40 ↗ oh all right well thank you again for

31:43 ↗ the presentation I appreciate it

31:45 ↗ you City Administrator move ahead we put

31:47 ↗ you on the spot and we're gonna move on

31:49 ↗ to ID zero three seven zero resourcing

31:54 ↗ plan Title 18 land use code and green

31:56 ↗ necklace by our very own economic can

32:00 ↗ development services director Keith

32:02 ↗ Niven swarthy interesting colors both on

32:08 ↗ your shirt and I wouldn't want to

32:10 ↗ disappoint good evening council

32:14 ↗ president marks director of economic

32:18 ↗ development development services so to

32:21 ↗ refresh your memories when we were going

32:24 ↗ through budget this year there was some

32:28 ↗ conversation about the update of Title

32:30 ↗ 18 which is the land use code and the

32:33 ↗ green necklace and during that

32:35 ↗ conversation we talked about when we

32:40 ↗ could get those work products done and

32:42 ↗ there was at least a sense of urgency

32:45 ↗ that I think was expressed by the City

32:47 ↗ Council to do that work so what we

32:52 ↗ talked about that evening to refresh our

32:53 ↗ memories was that there is besides the

32:57 ↗ additional budget appropriation there's

32:59 ↗ there going to be a taxing of existing

33:01 ↗ staff that are gonna be needed to help

33:04 ↗ do that work and I'll get into that in a

33:06 ↗ little bit but we weren't ready to talk

33:08 ↗ about what that meant that evening and

33:11 ↗ so this is what we're gonna do tonight

33:14 ↗ so I want to go through this fairly

33:18 ↗ briefly but I want to explain what's

33:21 ↗ going on with Title 18 so this is tile

33:23 ↗ 18 all the sections within it all the

33:27 ↗ chapters within it and as you can see

33:29 ↗ there's a number of updates that are

33:31 ↗ going on I'm gonna go through these and

33:33 ↗ just quickly explain and we can go into

33:36 ↗ more detail if you'd like so out of

33:38 ↗ eighteen oh four procedures one of the

33:40 ↗ things that we had already identified in

33:42 ↗ our work plan was to update public

33:44 ↗ notice what we've known for a

33:46 ↗ long time is that public notice in city

33:49 ↗ code as a relates to development

33:50 ↗ projects is not very effective and we've

33:53 ↗ been experimenting with changing you

33:55 ↗ know think about the big whiteboards

33:56 ↗ that are out on development sites and

33:58 ↗ those are really hard for people to get

34:01 ↗ a sense for what those mean even if they

34:03 ↗ stop and read every word and so we've

34:05 ↗ started working with Gateway and Vale

34:08 ↗ and Ennis Wood to do something different

34:10 ↗ a little bit more graphic but that's

34:12 ↗ going to require some updates in the

34:14 ↗ code we've talked about I'm gonna go to

34:18 ↗ environmental protection right now we're

34:21 ↗ updating our shoreline master plan and

34:23 ↗ that's something that we've started this

34:26 ↗ year we're gonna send out an RFP for but

34:28 ↗ that needs to be updated it's mandated

34:31 ↗ by Department of Ecology signs we're

34:34 ↗ updating our sign section Gilbert versus

34:37 ↗ Reed content-based signs in the right

34:40 ↗ away and needs to be changed but we also

34:43 ↗ have like five sign codes in the city of

34:46 ↗ Issaquah and part of what we're trying

34:48 ↗ to do is consolidate that and funnel it

34:51 ↗ down Old Town plan you guys just adopted

34:54 ↗ the old town plan update thank you very

34:56 ↗ much part of that is changing a number

34:59 ↗ of codes that are currently in Old Town

35:02 ↗ and then wireless communication you know

35:05 ↗ we like to when we when we do our codes

35:07 ↗ we like them to at least sit for a year

35:10 ↗ before we have to update them sadly due

35:14 ↗ to the FCC decision we have to come back

35:17 ↗ and tweak our wireless communication

35:20 ↗ code to be consistent with the FCC

35:23 ↗ decision and then the green necklace so

35:26 ↗ right now central Issaquah the what we

35:30 ↗ call the SIDS the central is quad

35:32 ↗ development and design standards there

35:34 ↗ is a chapter 7 which is community spaces

35:39 ↗ that talks about parks and open spaces

35:42 ↗ and that's where the green necklace

35:44 ↗ update needs to be inserted it would

35:47 ↗ actually be part of the 18 update the

35:50 ↗ way I see it but we have to write code

35:52 ↗ to be consistent with that vision that

35:55 ↗ you guys adopted as part of the park

35:57 ↗ strategic plan so all of these things

35:59 ↗ are happening

36:00 ↗ all at once it's a lot of work besides

36:03 ↗ just making the code easier to read and

36:06 ↗ to look for the disconnects between

36:08 ↗ policy and code because as we know

36:11 ↗ there's a lot in our comp plan and it

36:13 ↗ just doesn't translate well to city code

36:15 ↗ there's a lot to do here but I needed to

36:19 ↗ set up that framework before we get

36:21 ↗ further into this so one of the things

36:23 ↗ questions that came to mind was has

36:26 ↗ anybody else overhauled their land-use

36:28 ↗ code and if so how long did it take and

36:31 ↗ did they use a consultant so I reached

36:33 ↗ out to Mrs C and said hey can you pull

36:36 ↗ planning directors and let me know who

36:39 ↗ out there has done this recently so I

36:43 ↗ was a little bit less than thrilled with

36:46 ↗ the cities that came back what I would

36:51 ↗ take from this list here is you know it

36:54 ↗ really it really takes about a year and

36:56 ↗ a half I mean what that means is really

36:58 ↗ drafting the code in in a calendar year

37:01 ↗ and then going through the adoption

37:02 ↗ process in six months you know most of

37:07 ↗ them have used consultants West Richland

37:10 ↗ if you want to read the notes they're on

37:12 ↗ two years counting the because they

37:15 ↗ didn't use a consultant it's just kind

37:17 ↗ of an ongoing process for them to

37:19 ↗ continue update their code so this was

37:22 ↗ the best I could do again what I would

37:25 ↗ take away from this is it really needs

37:27 ↗ to be kind of a year and a half to two

37:30 ↗ years to get completed so to kind of

37:33 ↗ recap what was in the memo so in the in

37:36 ↗ the 2019 budget we originally had

37:39 ↗ appropriated sixty-seven thousand

37:41 ↗ dollars and then there was an additional

37:42 ↗ 140 that was added by the city council

37:45 ↗ so at 207 what what's in the box so to

37:49 ↗ speak how do we how do we get more staff

37:53 ↗ time to work on the code update to move

37:56 ↗ it faster if that's what the council

37:58 ↗ wants we actually have to either have a

38:01 ↗ consultant come in and off burden

38:03 ↗ existing staff work because really the

38:07 ↗ people that need to have their hands on

38:10 ↗ this is really myself Lucy and Trish

38:14 ↗ I mean we know the code we know the

38:15 ↗ policies best a consultants not going to

38:19 ↗ be able to figure that out they're just

38:20 ↗ not so you're gonna have to have a

38:22 ↗ certain amount of staff time to actually

38:24 ↗ move this along in a productive way so

38:28 ↗ how do you do that you either you have

38:30 ↗ to bring additional resources into off

38:34 ↗ burden that existing staff from their

38:37 ↗ work plan that's already full so so

38:41 ↗ here's the choices the way I saw it was

38:43 ↗ you know if we don't add additional

38:46 ↗ resources you know my guess is we could

38:50 ↗ get it done by 2021 July we could push

38:55 ↗ it I think this was a question council

38:57 ↗ member winter Stein asked you know if

39:00 ↗ I'm gonna pay more what's the what's how

39:02 ↗ much quicker can it be I think the

39:06 ↗ answer back from the administration is

39:08 ↗ we could knock a year off it if you

39:10 ↗ wanted to add additional resources to

39:12 ↗ this effort so this is I think where I

39:15 ↗ stopped talking and I think I'll look

39:19 ↗ for questions would like to start okay

39:26 ↗ I'll start so I'm looking in the

39:31 ↗ materials and it's it's sort of the

39:35 ↗ background material on how you get to

39:37 ↗ the numbers that you get I had one that

39:39 ↗ jumped out at what jumped out was that a

39:45 ↗ in 2080 in 2080 our work here somebody

39:53 ↗ could do 832 project hours and that that

39:58 ↗ the value of those 832 hours would be a

40:01 ↗ hundred and sixty two thousand dollars

40:02 ↗ couple things jump out at me that that I

40:07 ↗ appreciate that you put the information

40:09 ↗ above how you got to forty percent

40:11 ↗ utilization I would submit that most

40:15 ↗ people who bill it forty percent

40:16 ↗ utilization in most professional

40:18 ↗ organizations that's considered a low

40:20 ↗ number but the other thing the bigger

40:22 ↗ question that I have is that presupposes

40:24 ↗ a Senior Planner has an internal bill

40:28 ↗ rate of just shy of $400,000 a year

40:31 ↗ several time so that's probably not

40:33 ↗ reading very well then so let me clarify

40:36 ↗ so the annual salary of a Senior Planner

40:40 ↗ is the 162 seven it's assuming though

40:44 ↗ for that calendar year that you brought

40:47 ↗ maybe a limited term employee on only

40:51 ↗ forty percent of their time would be

40:54 ↗ usable to project related work so that's

40:57 ↗ so the important was generating that

41:00 ↗ eight hundred and thirty two hours so

41:02 ↗ the cost is you can't bring a well you

41:05 ↗ could bring a part-time staff on and I

41:09 ↗ think part of the reason why the

41:11 ↗ administration is saying if you want to

41:12 ↗ go with staff we're suggesting two years

41:15 ↗ to get someone in who has the experience

41:19 ↗ and the ability that we would be seeking

41:22 ↗ but getting to that eight thirty two

41:24 ↗ because then that translates down to the

41:27 ↗ 125 under the consultant line-item so so

41:30 ↗ what I did was we don't we don't have a

41:33 ↗ metric for how many project hours I work

41:37 ↗ a year or Emily works a year hopefully

41:39 ↗ she doesn't work any a year but getting

41:44 ↗ but using an industry norm and maybe

41:46 ↗ that forty forty percent number was was

41:49 ↗ is not accurate but that's the best one

41:52 ↗ I could find

41:53 ↗ but that generated the eight thirty two

41:55 ↗ which then I bumped to nine fifteen

41:57 ↗ under a consultant to get a comparable

41:59 ↗ cost for a different type of resource

42:03 ↗ that makes sense sure it was a

42:08 ↗ methodology to try and get an apple - an

42:10 ↗ apple comparison all right other

42:16 ↗ questions or no other questions about

42:21 ↗ the options in France councilmember hunt

42:24 ↗ could you go back to the slide with the

42:27 ↗ different parts of the chapter that will

42:31 ↗ be updated the green necklace part so

42:38 ↗ is affected by the changes that we are

42:43 ↗ making here are the other timelines to

42:46 ↗ these other parts of the overhaul

42:48 ↗ affected I read that it will take at

42:51 ↗ least six months but is the timeline

42:53 ↗ then the regardless of the other parts

42:59 ↗ of the chapter that will be updated then

43:00 ↗ this will be on top of that or how does

43:02 ↗ that sequencing work sure let me see if

43:05 ↗ I can answer this so everything that's

43:08 ↗ got a box on this page has its own

43:11 ↗ specific timeline because it's

43:13 ↗ significant enough that it does there's

43:16 ↗ changes we see a complete change to

43:21 ↗ title 18 so things that don't have

43:24 ↗ things identified like 1801 1802 1803

43:30 ↗ those are all going to change but

43:33 ↗ because they don't have a significant

43:35 ↗ work item component I didn't highlight

43:37 ↗ them here so all of the all of the

43:40 ↗ chapters within 18 will change as part

43:43 ↗ of this process we see doing next year

43:46 ↗ but some of them will have significant

43:48 ↗ changes that will require additional

43:51 ↗ staff time like public notification I

43:54 ↗ can't I can't ask a consultant to just

43:57 ↗ start that because we already know where

43:59 ↗ we want to go with the public notice

44:01 ↗ because we've been pilot testing it this

44:04 ↗ last year so we will provide them with

44:08 ↗ direction on what to do there and then

44:11 ↗ they will ultimately draft it into code

44:13 ↗ language which will be incorporated into

44:15 ↗ 1804 so so that'll happen that might

44:20 ↗ take that might only take a couple

44:22 ↗ months you know but it will happen

44:25 ↗ within the subset of the the amount of

44:28 ↗ time it'll take to overdue the whole

44:30 ↗ chapter because the idea would be you

44:32 ↗ draft up all the new code language and

44:34 ↗ then you go out to the public because

44:36 ↗ there's a huge public component piece to

44:40 ↗ this to make sure that everybody has a

44:43 ↗ chance to weigh in before you start

44:46 ↗ going to PPC and Landon Shore we could

44:48 ↗ do it individually but that

44:52 ↗ be a lot of work at both Planning

44:55 ↗ Commission and council committee to do

44:58 ↗ it independently and not as a complete

45:00 ↗ package

45:01 ↗ so what we're what we're suggesting is

45:03 ↗ drafting all the changes and then taking

45:05 ↗ through the public adoption process

45:07 ↗ afterwards as a complete package and

45:12 ↗ part of why part of my question is about

45:15 ↗ what what changes in that sequencing

45:19 ↗ because would you do that

45:21 ↗ step going out to the public whether or

45:23 ↗ not the green necklace portion gets

45:26 ↗ added in right so it is the timing of

45:29 ↗ that affected by adding in the central

45:32 ↗ Issaquah area development and design

45:33 ↗ standards in green necklace part of the

45:35 ↗ chapter update well let me answer let me

45:43 ↗ see if I answer your question and if not

45:45 ↗ please ask it again so right now if

45:49 ↗ we're on a trajectory to write it all in

45:52 ↗ twelve months and then go through a six

45:54 ↗ month adoption process then the green

45:57 ↗ necklace piece would happen in concert

46:01 ↗ with all the other pieces if if we go to

46:04 ↗ a longer time frame we could stage some

46:09 ↗ of them sooner than others so for

46:11 ↗ example I don't know that there's any

46:14 ↗ magic so so like the wireless

46:17 ↗ communication facilities that one's

46:19 ↗ basically almost done

46:22 ↗ I would hope to maybe have it to

46:23 ↗ infrastructure in January you know so

46:26 ↗ that one is is moving at a very fast

46:29 ↗ pace because we know what it needs to be

46:32 ↗ some of these others might have a longer

46:36 ↗ gestation period in the public because

46:39 ↗ there's no code relating to it right now

46:41 ↗ and the green necklace would be one of

46:43 ↗ those because we're writing all new code

46:46 ↗ to implement the vision that was adopted

46:48 ↗ as part of this strategic plan so that's

46:50 ↗ gonna have a lot more public touch I

46:52 ↗ could see Parks Board PPC and maybe even

46:58 ↗ some general public meetings on that

46:59 ↗ particular one

47:04 ↗ don't smell good night Keith can you go

47:07 ↗ back to the slide that had that with the

47:11 ↗ options yes please

47:13 ↗ can you explain two and three a little

47:16 ↗ more please sure

47:18 ↗ so if the council wants so the big

47:22 ↗ difference between 2:00 and 3:00 I think

47:26 ↗ is the completion date I think there's a

47:30 ↗ year quicker there's a year taken off as

47:35 ↗ opposed to option one which is do it

47:38 ↗ under the 207 and part of the way we get

47:42 ↗ there is we bring in some additional

47:45 ↗ resources to offer an existing

47:48 ↗ development services staff to work on

47:51 ↗ other projects and I listed I gave you

47:54 ↗ guys some choices in the memo that we

47:57 ↗ would probably be able to assign to a

48:01 ↗ consultant or to a new staff member

48:02 ↗ which would free up some of the key

48:05 ↗ staff that would be needed for title 18

48:07 ↗ so you're not so the the anticipated

48:15 ↗ estimated completion date would be July

48:18 ↗ 20 24 2 or 3 number 3 is more but both

48:25 ↗ of them involved both a consultant and

48:28 ↗ LTE staff would be not working on the

48:31 ↗ code it would be other work right

48:34 ↗ because so go ahead sorry I have

48:40 ↗ appreciated in the past couple of years

48:42 ↗ having consultants having fresh eyes on

48:44 ↗ our code so I don't know that I'm that I

48:48 ↗ I think you would have to say more about

48:52 ↗ that or why you because they are they're

48:56 ↗ not firms out there consultants out

48:58 ↗ there who are who work with cities and

49:02 ↗ counties on probably not the county line

49:04 ↗ code so so what I'm trying to avoid the

49:07 ↗ reason why I'm suggesting we do it the

49:08 ↗ way we do so the 207 will be spent on a

49:12 ↗ consultant or maybe two consultants we

49:15 ↗ might hire

49:16 ↗ a planning firm to come in and write the

49:18 ↗ code and maybe a legal firm to actually

49:21 ↗ then QC it at the end

49:22 ↗ why I wouldn't suggest bringing another

49:25 ↗ consultant in to then also work on the

49:28 ↗ code writing is is that ego thing where

49:31 ↗ you have two consultants working on the

49:33 ↗ same project and so rather than getting

49:36 ↗ that consultant conflict to deal with

49:38 ↗ what I would suggest is having the

49:41 ↗ consultant if you chose to bring in a

49:43 ↗ consultant how that consultant do some

49:45 ↗ of staff's work which would then free

49:47 ↗ staff up to work with the consultant

49:50 ↗ that we hire under the 207 contract to

49:53 ↗ actually move it forward you know in a

49:56 ↗ more expedient manner okay and so then

49:58 ↗ why would we choose number three over

50:00 ↗ number two if it's more money so the

50:05 ↗ pros the reason why you'd go three over

50:08 ↗ - so - so the reason why you'd hire

50:12 ↗ consultant is it's less money and you

50:14 ↗ could bring them on faster than staff

50:16 ↗ the reason why you choose staff is it

50:20 ↗ gives us a little bit more flexibility

50:22 ↗ to work on some other things but I mean

50:27 ↗ it's it's your choice that's why we

50:31 ↗ tried to list the pros and the cons on

50:33 ↗ the memo yeah interesting

50:38 ↗ I'm gonna ask you two questions go back

50:40 ↗ to your slide where you show your work

50:41 ↗ plan that would that one that's it there

50:49 ↗ are significant work plan items that

50:51 ↗ aren't on your work plan that are not

50:54 ↗ part of title 18

50:55 ↗ absolutely so that's that's listed in

50:57 ↗ the memo and you don't have those in a

51:01 ↗ slide anywhere and did not put them in a

51:03 ↗ slide sorry that's okay that's fine and

51:06 ↗ okay there's the

51:11 ↗ okay so now go to

51:13 ↗ [Music]

51:16 ↗ go back to the options this says we have

51:23 ↗ to spending options but either one

51:25 ↗ allows us to get all of that including

51:28 ↗ the green necklace codification a year

51:30 ↗ sooner yes and what you didn't

51:34 ↗ contemplate it all was was well option

51:42 ↗ option limit Lim before I ask that

51:44 ↗ question option one still assumes some

51:47 ↗ sequencing that's different that option

51:51 ↗ two and three such as the start of the

51:53 ↗ work on the me necklace codification so

51:58 ↗ so here's the thing we're gonna sit down

52:01 ↗ we haven't picked a consultant yet right

52:03 ↗ we're gonna sit down with the consultant

52:06 ↗ and say okay here's all the stuff that

52:07 ↗ needs to get done some of this is being

52:10 ↗ done by staff with other consultant

52:13 ↗ expertise coming in for example the sign

52:16 ↗ consultant and the title 18 consultant

52:19 ↗ will pine not be the same consultants

52:21 ↗ and so could be but they may not be

52:25 ↗ and so this shoreline master plan might

52:27 ↗ be a better one that's probably not

52:30 ↗ going to be the same we're gonna have an

52:31 ↗ environmental consultant help us with

52:33 ↗ the shoreline Master Plan Update so

52:35 ↗ what's going to happen is that

52:36 ↗ consultant will do their work there will

52:38 ↗ be a work product which will then be

52:40 ↗ handed over to the 207 consultant who

52:44 ↗ will then put it into the framework to

52:46 ↗ fit it into the new code the new title

52:48 ↗ 18 update but is but one of the things

52:53 ↗ that that you were alluding to council

52:56 ↗ member is so like things on our work

52:59 ↗ plan like the impact fee updates doing

53:03 ↗ buildable lands doing the housing

53:04 ↗ strategies all those things are

53:07 ↗ irrespective of this conversation I

53:10 ↗ think one of the things which is maybe

53:14 ↗ choice zero would be if you wanted to do

53:19 ↗ no additional resources and have us try

53:22 ↗ and hit a 2020 timeline it may require

53:26 ↗ some of those things

53:29 ↗ off the work plan well--that's we're

53:31 ↗ actually where I was going am not

53:32 ↗ advocating that I'm just trying to

53:34 ↗ understand the various scenarios

53:35 ↗ obviously for different reasons some of

53:37 ↗ them are legislated to us right and

53:40 ↗ again there's times such as the

53:42 ↗ shoreline Master Plan Update I think

53:44 ↗ some things we have to do with the FTC

53:45 ↗ as well and but but is there an option I

53:49 ↗ I'm not sure if what we were saying a

53:52 ↗ budget was the cauda fication of the

53:55 ↗ green necklace into title 18 is priority

53:59 ↗ number one I'm not sure if we were

54:01 ↗ saying that I don't know if you had that

54:02 ↗ conversation I mean there's a lot of

54:04 ↗ important things but if it was is there

54:07 ↗ even another option is what I'm saying

54:09 ↗ it's like you know there's like there

54:10 ↗ are things we have to do but let's take

54:11 ↗ this one and slot this one and we're

54:13 ↗ just going to start work on this right

54:14 ↗ away it's still going to take us a year

54:16 ↗ and a half we get it done in in 2020 but

54:18 ↗ then the other things are gonna slide

54:21 ↗ there has to be some other things that

54:24 ↗ slide did you did you look at that yes

54:27 ↗ so you could take this table on page

54:30 ↗ four of the memo so I'll just I'll just

54:32 ↗ go ahead and put table for 3b density

54:35 ↗ and diversity of housing as one of those

54:37 ↗ things right where so it's it's it's a

54:42 ↗ big staff analysis I mean it's gonna

54:44 ↗ take some time for us to figure that out

54:47 ↗ that we said we do that next year

54:51 ↗ you know we have two housing strategies

54:54 ↗ yet to finish we were gonna do those

54:58 ↗ next year so so all these things on in

55:01 ↗ that table all those things have been

55:05 ↗ kind of identified buildable lands we

55:08 ↗ have to do that that's that's a

55:09 ↗ obligation of GMA so if you guys said

55:12 ↗ yeah you guys you can defer that one I

55:15 ↗ can't defer that one the park impact fee

55:18 ↗ update can't defer that one it needs to

55:21 ↗ we need to finish that it's overdue so

55:23 ↗ there's some of these things I think

55:25 ↗ would be really hard to say kick that

55:27 ↗ one to the curb that's where hunt if I'm

55:33 ↗ sorry

55:36 ↗ we're not really say kick any of to the

55:38 ↗ curb I mean it's just just we're gonna

55:40 ↗ potentially reshuffle so I guess I

55:42 ↗ appreciate it I appreciate what you're

55:44 ↗ saying what I'm where I'm sitting right

55:49 ↗ now what I'm thinking is as you've

55:53 ↗ outlined it here the question I mean

55:55 ↗ we've already authorized spending yes so

56:00 ↗ the question I guess I'm changing my

56:01 ↗ question in real time your question to

56:04 ↗ us isn't whether to spend or is it right

56:08 ↗ or is is it more of which of these

56:10 ↗ options do you think we should follow my

56:13 ↗ boss is looking antsy so I'm gonna I

56:18 ↗ think what we committed to with the

56:21 ↗ additional dollars is that we would hire

56:24 ↗ the consultant that would help our staff

56:26 ↗ do the work to incorporate the green

56:28 ↗ necklace and Sentra squad code update

56:31 ↗ but we said in order for staff to spend

56:35 ↗ its time on that piece that was above

56:38 ↗ and beyond what we had forecasted and

56:40 ↗ what we're able to cover with our

56:43 ↗ existing labor and so we needed to

56:46 ↗ either take some off the plate to free

56:49 ↗ up their time or we need to add another

56:51 ↗ individual that would assist with that

56:53 ↗ or professional services that would take

56:55 ↗ other tasks off their plate so we

56:57 ↗ haven't solved the labor equation we

56:59 ↗ solved the consultant dollar equation in

57:02 ↗ the budget okay and then then this says

57:08 ↗ still haven't an outstanding question

57:10 ↗ about labor right like for that extra

57:15 ↗ money we can bring it all in including

57:18 ↗ the green necklace a year earlier that

57:24 ↗ is what Keith is proposing all right

57:26 ↗ thank you let's remember hunt

57:31 ↗ in the background section there are some

57:34 ↗ different tasks than what's in that

57:36 ↗ table where the estimated staff hours

57:41 ↗ are listed and one of the ones that has

57:43 ↗ stood out to me is the visions the

57:47 ↗ village revisiting and I wondered what

57:52 ↗ the estimated hours for that would be

57:54 ↗ and if that's a potential trade-off and

57:56 ↗ my my rationale there is that this green

58:01 ↗ necklace is implementation of a plan and

58:04 ↗ of a vision and so I would like to see

58:06 ↗ that encode versus a revision enforce

58:10 ↗ still working on that that codes sure so

58:14 ↗ sadly that's not that many hours

58:16 ↗ you know what was envisioned when we

58:18 ↗ talked about the replacement regulations

58:21 ↗ for the Highlands and talus there was

58:24 ↗ some conversation about changing the

58:28 ↗ land uses and having a different vision

58:30 ↗ for some of those remaining to be

58:33 ↗ developed properties and part of what

58:37 ↗ the council talked about at the time was

58:39 ↗ let's go ahead and put the replacement

58:42 ↗ regulations in place and go back out to

58:45 ↗ the villages a you know within a year

58:47 ↗ and have a conversation with the

58:49 ↗ community to see if that live-work-play

58:53 ↗ vision was still an important piece of

58:57 ↗ living in those neighborhoods so I don't

58:59 ↗ think it's a lot of hours I think it's

59:02 ↗ probably you know a couple community

59:04 ↗ meetings so maybe it's 20 hours that

59:07 ↗ doesn't get us very far sometime of a

59:13 ↗ ray I mean I need a little bit of a

59:15 ↗ retrospective here so my recollection is

59:19 ↗ when we were discussing this during

59:21 ↗ budget deliberations the issue on the

59:24 ↗ table was the code chapter 18 plus the

59:29 ↗ green necklace updates was part of the

59:34 ↗ mayor's budget that correct but it had

59:37 ↗ it had a completion date something like

59:39 ↗ July of 2002

59:42 ↗ administrative oh no the green necklace

59:43 ↗ was not included in the back okay so

59:45 ↗ that was just for the title 18 update

59:48 ↗ was what was in the mayor's budget and

59:51 ↗ we had originally the original

59:53 ↗ allocation envisioned kind of a like a

59:56 ↗ three-phase approach to getting that

1:00:00 ↗ title updated it was a little it was a

1:00:03 ↗ more modest approach given I think

1:00:08 ↗ budgetary concerns so because was it

1:00:11 ↗ and I could be wrong but it was my

1:00:13 ↗ thinking and that the intent when we

1:00:16 ↗ were talking about the additional

1:00:17 ↗ $140,000 that we added into the budget

1:00:19 ↗ that evening was to accelerate this

1:00:22 ↗ process so that we could do it faster

1:00:23 ↗ than 2021 is that wrong I think that we

1:00:30 ↗ put a placeholder in and we said we were

1:00:33 ↗ gonna have the administration come back

1:00:35 ↗ to us with a revised number right so I

1:00:39 ↗ guess what I'm struck 'la struck with is

1:00:41 ↗ the 2019 budget number of 67 plus 140

1:00:44 ↗ the 207 included some additional

1:00:48 ↗ resources to accelerate the process B

1:00:51 ↗ and pull it back from a 2021 date

1:00:54 ↗ because it was the will of this body

1:00:56 ↗ that this was something important and we

1:00:58 ↗ wanted to move this faster mi thought mi

1:01:01 ↗ recollecting wrongly before I answer

1:01:06 ↗ that I let cg administrator moon have a

1:01:08 ↗ comment not entirely but the difference

1:01:11 ↗ is that labor component we had not

1:01:12 ↗ solved that piece so we only added the

1:01:16 ↗ consultant dollars in order to part way

1:01:18 ↗ enable that to happen as Keith mentioned

1:01:21 ↗ that 67,000 that was for Title 18 was

1:01:25 ↗ either one-third or two-thirds of the

1:01:29 ↗ total amount we thought we would need

1:01:31 ↗ just for the title 18 work and we

1:01:33 ↗ envisioned that being a two or more year

1:01:38 ↗ process to get that work done so the 140

1:01:41 ↗ allowed us to bring on additional

1:01:43 ↗ consulting services that would enable us

1:01:47 ↗ to work faster on it except

1:01:49 ↗ that with every consultant you also have

1:01:51 ↗ to have added staff time this is an

1:01:54 ↗ another chunk of the code writing work

1:01:57 ↗ and so we need to free up our staff time

1:02:00 ↗ as well okay that answers your question

1:02:08 ↗ that answers my question I'm just not

1:02:10 ↗ sure I buy it all all right I was

1:02:14 ↗ remember Hunt I have it I think I have a

1:02:17 ↗ follow-up question so if we had not

1:02:19 ↗ authorized the 140 what would the

1:02:21 ↗ timeline look like with but yeah

1:02:25 ↗ no so just that 67 no so I think I think

1:02:30 ↗ what we had envisioned was the title 18

1:02:33 ↗ would be updated maybe by the end of

1:02:39 ↗ 2021 and the green necklace would be

1:02:43 ↗ reliant upon an additional council

1:02:47 ↗ appropriation maybe in 2020 so so there

1:02:52 ↗ was there was no clarity on when the

1:02:54 ↗ green necklace piece would be so

1:02:56 ↗ originally what was brought forward was

1:02:58 ↗ updating title 18 you know there's

1:03:02 ↗ there's some savings to doing the green

1:03:05 ↗ necklace as part of title 18 since it's

1:03:07 ↗ part of the SIDS

1:03:08 ↗ and so we've pulled them together where

1:03:12 ↗ I think the original conversation was

1:03:14 ↗ thinking about the green necklace as its

1:03:17 ↗ own work project it does for me it

1:03:20 ↗ doesn't make sense for it to be its own

1:03:22 ↗ work project if we're gonna update Title

1:03:24 ↗ 18 anyway so I think there's some

1:03:25 ↗ savings to bring it in and do it as part

1:03:28 ↗ of that bigger process but I think I

1:03:32 ↗ think it was that 67 didn't envision the

1:03:38 ↗ green necklace piece that was a whole

1:03:40 ↗ other work project that was I think

1:03:42 ↗ being assumed would be done in 2020

1:03:45 ↗ because of Parks departments proposed

1:03:47 ↗ 2019 work plan was full

1:03:55 ↗ all right is that into question and so

1:03:59 ↗ so then title 18 without the green

1:04:04 ↗ necklace would have been completed I

1:04:08 ↗ 2021 and then in 2020 we would have had

1:04:11 ↗ a discussion about doing the green

1:04:13 ↗ necklace piece separately with the

1:04:14 ↗ unknown and Dave but after 20 anyone at

1:04:18 ↗ some point after that probably would

1:04:19 ↗ have been completed as a separate work

1:04:21 ↗ pass the package that we're comparing to

1:04:24 ↗ I think so all right deputy council

1:04:30 ↗ president booties so Keith and could you

1:04:34 ↗ just speak to the differences that that

1:04:38 ↗ you see just from I guess staff

1:04:41 ↗ perspective and that kind of thing in

1:04:42 ↗ terms of getting the the work done under

1:04:45 ↗ option two or three with the consultant

1:04:48 ↗ for the twelve months or the LTA staff

1:04:50 ↗ for two years they're they're both

1:04:52 ↗ obviously there's cost difference

1:04:54 ↗ they're both slated for July 2020 right

1:05:00 ↗ so I I think I think I think so one of

1:05:10 ↗ the things I guess if you're asking me

1:05:12 ↗ which one I think would provide better

1:05:15 ↗ value and my boss might disagree with me

1:05:19 ↗ but I believe number two would be I

1:05:22 ↗ think it's it's less cost it would we

1:05:25 ↗ could bring them on quicker and assuming

1:05:29 ↗ we got the right consulting firm I think

1:05:31 ↗ you could offload a number of projects

1:05:33 ↗ on to them almost immediately bringing

1:05:36 ↗ on LTE staff the the advantage to that

1:05:40 ↗ piece is you have someone who is fully

1:05:44 ↗ here at the city as opposed to maybe

1:05:46 ↗ partially here and partially working for

1:05:49 ↗ other municipalities and so you don't

1:05:52 ↗ have to vie for their time you know

1:05:53 ↗ where they are and what they're thinking

1:05:56 ↗ about they also have a better ingrained

1:06:00 ↗ perspective on our community

1:06:03 ↗ if you've hired if the consultant hired

1:06:06 ↗ under to has never worked for Issaquah

1:06:09 ↗ before they may not really understand

1:06:11 ↗ some of the nuances of our community and

1:06:14 ↗ that's always hard to instill in someone

1:06:16 ↗ if they haven't worked here before so so

1:06:19 ↗ there's definitely some pros on both of

1:06:22 ↗ those choices but I think I think it's

1:06:27 ↗ probably just a little bit more of a

1:06:28 ↗ management issue on number two but you

1:06:33 ↗ know I I'm not worried about that

1:06:36 ↗ I guess councilman awareness time as

1:06:44 ↗ bringing this green necklace forward as

1:06:49 ↗ we're envisioning it's really it's

1:06:51 ↗ really kind of putting more through the

1:06:55 ↗ system it's just a short period of time

1:06:56 ↗ right we need we need we need more

1:06:59 ↗ capacity to get more done over a certain

1:07:04 ↗ amount of time then our workload and the

1:07:09 ↗ resources we're using will readjust a

1:07:13 ↗ more of a normal we're just we're trying

1:07:15 ↗ to get something bigger through the

1:07:16 ↗ system so I appreciate this it seems

1:07:22 ↗ clear to me I think it's a it's simple

1:07:24 ↗ you're saying instead of some time maybe

1:07:27 ↗ after 2020 I have two options to get all

1:07:30 ↗ of 18 and the green necklace done in

1:07:32 ↗ 2020 or I actually have misspoke instead

1:07:38 ↗ of sometime after 2021 yeah I have two

1:07:43 ↗ options for getting all of title 18 and

1:07:45 ↗ the green necklace done in 2020 that's

1:07:47 ↗ what you're doing this Thanks that seems

1:07:50 ↗ like maybe it might be a good time to

1:07:52 ↗ segue to going around the table to get

1:07:55 ↗ people's thoughts so start at that end

1:07:59 ↗ let's put you on the spot councilman

1:08:01 ↗ beret but I'm gonna put you in the spot

1:08:03 ↗ my I'm still going back to what I

1:08:08 ↗ thought was in the original budget which

1:08:09 ↗ was that we were going to update title

1:08:11 ↗ 18 it was going to be a two-year process

1:08:12 ↗ and was going to cost 67 thousand

1:08:14 ↗ dollars this year in 67

1:08:16 ↗ now there's next year we went through a

1:08:18 ↗ fairly long and protracted process

1:08:20 ↗ because there was a desire to move that

1:08:23 ↗ up particularly as related to the green

1:08:26 ↗ necklace which was my understanding was

1:08:27 ↗ included in title 18 and Keith did you

1:08:29 ↗ go back a slide it looks like it's part

1:08:31 ↗ of haidle 18 so 18 point 19 a would be

1:08:37 ↗ part of title 18 is I recollect ik so if

1:08:40 ↗ I am wrong that's fine and I know we had

1:08:43 ↗ a long discussion that night about

1:08:44 ↗ staffing and resources in one hundred

1:08:46 ↗ and forty thousand dollars was a was a

1:08:49 ↗ swag at best and and that's why we're

1:08:51 ↗ having this discussion but the numbers

1:08:56 ↗ aren't adding up for me

1:08:57 ↗ I can't the zero dollar thing should be

1:09:00 ↗ a sixty seven thousand zero dollar thing

1:09:02 ↗ not a $207,000 zero dollar thing so I

1:09:07 ↗ can't I'm having a very difficult time

1:09:08 ↗ wrapping my brain around the the

1:09:11 ↗ evolution of the mathematics of how we

1:09:13 ↗ got from there to there so so I just

1:09:18 ↗ don't understand the the process that

1:09:25 ↗ we've gone through to go from that

1:09:27 ↗ evening in November to this evening in

1:09:29 ↗ December all right well that sounds like

1:09:32 ↗ a vote for maybe bringing it back after

1:09:35 ↗ with with additional subsequent

1:09:38 ↗ conversation and and supplemental

1:09:41 ↗ information coming back I will say I do

1:09:43 ↗ appreciate the administration trying to

1:09:46 ↗ come back quickly on this one after the

1:09:48 ↗ budget but I'm going to take that as as

1:09:51 ↗ a vote to not make a decision this

1:09:54 ↗ evening I would I would like to study

1:09:57 ↗ this some more gotcha councilmember

1:10:00 ↗ Goodman I think we're gonna have time to

1:10:03 ↗ look at it some more anyway because it

1:10:04 ↗ would have to come back in the form of

1:10:05 ↗ an agenda bail anyway so my recollection

1:10:08 ↗ is that the whatever we had in the

1:10:11 ↗ budget for 2019 was the purple noted

1:10:15 ↗ Title 18 updates up there dot the green

1:10:17 ↗ necklace that's what that's what

1:10:20 ↗ generated the discussion and the concern

1:10:23 ↗ the options on your option page 1 2 3

1:10:27 ↗ I mean yet I'm hard pressed to see why

1:10:32 ↗ why - wouldn't be the one we would turn

1:10:35 ↗ to it's less expensive I don't know I

1:10:39 ↗ also don't know why in the world we

1:10:44 ↗ would as a city take I think you said

1:10:48 ↗ ending on without any extra money that

1:10:51 ↗ we thought maybe it would take until the

1:10:54 ↗ end of 2021 that's three years I really

1:11:00 ↗ I mean if I miss I'm fine with citizen

1:11:02 ↗ and we have all these code updates to do

1:11:05 ↗ and it's taking three years I think

1:11:08 ↗ that's insane and and why wouldn't we

1:11:11 ↗ put more money to it to get it done and

1:11:13 ↗ put more resources to it to get it done

1:11:15 ↗ that to me that just I just can't even I

1:11:18 ↗ can't wrap my head around that so anyway

1:11:21 ↗ I would like to see an agenda bill come

1:11:23 ↗ forward and at this point I would look

1:11:26 ↗ pretty hard at number two Thank You

1:11:29 ↗ councilmember hunt I agree with

1:11:34 ↗ councilmember Goodman I think that

1:11:35 ↗ option two of those put forward is the

1:11:38 ↗ one that expedites the process and it

1:11:40 ↗ expedites the process for less money and

1:11:41 ↗ I think it's really important that as

1:11:43 ↗ part of our code update that we do

1:11:46 ↗ include the green necklace so I would

1:11:50 ↗ look forward to more information in the

1:11:52 ↗ agenda bill I will say that I think the

1:11:53 ↗ one piece of information that would

1:11:55 ↗ really help with the timeline would be

1:11:57 ↗ just also giving that that option what

1:12:01 ↗ what time line change did we get with

1:12:05 ↗ the 140 from the base budget of just the

1:12:09 ↗ 67 because we verbally went through that

1:12:12 ↗ it's a lot of numbers jumbling so I

1:12:16 ↗ think having that in the timeline would

1:12:18 ↗ help us remember winters time thanks

1:12:22 ↗ Kate Keith this is complex topic I drew

1:12:25 ↗ under spent understand it much better

1:12:27 ↗ than when we talked about during budget

1:12:30 ↗ and and I just per my comments earlier I

1:12:34 ↗ think option 2 for the consultants

1:12:37 ↗ is fine but I I questioned a moment ago

1:12:40 ↗ about this is this is a bump going

1:12:42 ↗ through the system was really a question

1:12:45 ↗ about we did LTE's did you see some

1:12:52 ↗ increase in the future we're having them

1:12:55 ↗ on board now and trends and converting

1:12:58 ↗ those to FTEs was maybe a plan to

1:13:01 ↗ consider as well you don't have to

1:13:02 ↗ answer that right now but that was the

1:13:04 ↗ basis of my question member Ramos yes

1:13:10 ↗ yeah I mean option 2 is the best I still

1:13:14 ↗ go back a little bit trying to remember

1:13:16 ↗ to mentioned that putting 142 it was was

1:13:19 ↗ I thought getting that done and then

1:13:21 ↗ done the additional 125 whenever so it

1:13:25 ↗ just seems like the price tag has grown

1:13:27 ↗ pretty pretty big from what I thought it

1:13:30 ↗ was from the discussion but if that's

1:13:32 ↗ what it takes to get it done and that's

1:13:33 ↗ what it takes to get it done council

1:13:37 ↗ deputy president Vitesse so the I guess

1:13:42 ↗ just an overall comment I just to echo

1:13:45 ↗ some of what my fellow council members

1:13:47 ↗ have talked about just the ability to

1:13:49 ↗ work through this faster then then we

1:13:54 ↗ have slated would be great and the

1:13:57 ↗ reason that I asked about the difference

1:13:59 ↗ between number 2 and number 3 could you

1:14:02 ↗ go back to that with was simply because

1:14:05 ↗ I that there there might be certain

1:14:09 ↗ consultants or LTE staff that you know

1:14:12 ↗ if they have a great background in this

1:14:16 ↗ and they've done this before for another

1:14:19 ↗ city and they would be the best person

1:14:23 ↗ to come in but they're very interested

1:14:25 ↗ in LTE and they're not interested in

1:14:27 ↗ being a consultant that was my reason

1:14:29 ↗ for asking that question so I think

1:14:32 ↗ trying to focus on is like number 2

1:14:35 ↗ makes the best sense but trying to focus

1:14:37 ↗ on who the best person for that position

1:14:40 ↗ would be that would get us through in a

1:14:43 ↗ more expedient fashion

1:14:45 ↗ if if that were an option would be great

1:14:50 ↗ thank you

1:14:51 ↗ so the way I view it is we put we ask

1:14:57 ↗ the administration to come up with a

1:14:59 ↗ quick number they came up with a quick

1:15:00 ↗ number or 140 the number to get it done

1:15:04 ↗ you said all along it wasn't agreed done

1:15:06 ↗ in 12 months he said I think it may be

1:15:08 ↗ even said 18 months so I take this as

1:15:11 ↗ you know 140 was the first estimate to

1:15:15 ↗ 65 355 might have been a more precise

1:15:19 ↗ estimate given more time which is the

1:15:22 ↗ sum of those not counting the 67 and I

1:15:26 ↗ recognize there's these questions

1:15:28 ↗ swirling around about what's the

1:15:30 ↗ baseline but I view it as just a

1:15:34 ↗ revision to the estimate that was made

1:15:35 ↗ last month so I am okay with option 2

1:15:39 ↗ but of course I would love to see some

1:15:41 ↗ of the questions that were brought up

1:15:43 ↗ this evening from various council

1:15:44 ↗ members addressed as the bill comes back

1:15:47 ↗ to us soon administrator moon how how is

1:15:51 ↗ that likely to get routed it's gonna

1:15:53 ↗ come back to full council and then off

1:15:54 ↗ to committee either way so we could

1:15:58 ↗ either bring it back for action in early

1:16:01 ↗ January or your heart hope to get

1:16:03 ↗ everything locked in and be able to go

1:16:05 ↗ shopping for consultants as quickly as

1:16:08 ↗ possible so we can either bring it back

1:16:10 ↗ for action at that first meeting or if

1:16:14 ↗ it's the council's pleasure we could

1:16:15 ↗ send it to committee we were sort of

1:16:17 ↗ anticipating this was the committee

1:16:19 ↗ conversation we'll bring back the

1:16:21 ↗ recommendation based on this

1:16:23 ↗ conversation and it was our hope that

1:16:25 ↗ you could take action quickly so and and

1:16:30 ↗ there's there's a couple things that are

1:16:33 ↗ in play one is the 207's that the real

1:16:36 ↗ number is a real number right so we can

1:16:39 ↗ go out we can send out an rfp right now

1:16:41 ↗ and get a consultant on board by early

1:16:45 ↗ January that conversation could help

1:16:49 ↗ inform what comes back ultimately

1:16:53 ↗ because right now

1:16:56 ↗ that's a variable and I think having

1:16:59 ↗ less variables it would be good so it

1:17:01 ↗ may behoove us to wait and bring

1:17:05 ↗ something back after we understand who

1:17:07 ↗ we have under contract and and see what

1:17:10 ↗ that looks like any other any thoughts

1:17:16 ↗ to what was just said seems reasonable

1:17:19 ↗ seems like the full bill that would come

1:17:20 ↗ back would be better circumscribed I'm

1:17:24 ↗ not seeing any violent disagreement to

1:17:26 ↗ that so sounds like a plan all right

1:17:29 ↗ thank you very much I want to thank you

1:17:32 ↗ for color coding color matching your

1:17:34 ↗ presentation to your shirt and your tie

1:17:35 ↗ it's that sort of professionalism that

1:17:38 ↗ really sets you above and beyond Keith

1:17:40 ↗ thank you very much all right so with

1:17:45 ↗ that we will move on and we want to

1:17:50 ↗ welcome back dr. Fujimoto who is heading

1:17:56 ↗ up our conversation this evening around

1:18:00 ↗ ID zero three zero three five six course

1:18:04 ↗ our citywide strategic plan Brian Scott

1:18:07 ↗ our consultant good evening Council

1:18:11 ↗ members David Fujimoto again and we're

1:18:14 ↗ here to have another check-in with full

1:18:17 ↗ council and work session I will be

1:18:19 ↗ joined by Brian Scott and Gabriel silver

1:18:21 ↗ Blatt from BDS planning consulting and

1:18:24 ↗ we've made good progress as you all know

1:18:27 ↗ with the strategic plan and staff have

1:18:29 ↗ been at work along with the consultants

1:18:32 ↗ since our last check-in talking about

1:18:35 ↗ objectives and we're here to talk a

1:18:39 ↗ little bit more about some of the next

1:18:40 ↗ steps but also importantly to talk about

1:18:42 ↗ the implementation of this so we're

1:18:44 ↗ developing a plan and the implementation

1:18:47 ↗ side of the equation is equally if not

1:18:49 ↗ more important than the plan itself how

1:18:52 ↗ we go about using that so we're gonna

1:18:54 ↗ lay out some things to have a

1:18:55 ↗ conversation with Council tonight and

1:18:57 ↗ also talk about tee up some conversation

1:19:01 ↗ about the goal level performance

1:19:02 ↗ measures so we can get some feedback on

1:19:04 ↗ what counsels interest in comfort level

1:19:06 ↗ is on what those are starting to look

1:19:08 ↗ like

1:19:09 ↗ our plan then is to come back forward at

1:19:12 ↗ the next stop in the first part of next

1:19:14 ↗ year to talk more specifically about the

1:19:16 ↗ kind of the guts of the plan if you will

1:19:18 ↗ as it starts to come together and be

1:19:19 ↗ assembled so that's kind of the plan for

1:19:22 ↗ tonight and we're going to turn it over

1:19:25 ↗ to Brian to carry us through and we'll

1:19:28 ↗ take any questions along the way yeah

1:19:35 ↗ festive it's five points good evening so

1:19:42 ↗ our purpose is that Brian's got BDS

1:19:45 ↗ planning is it nice to be with you here

1:19:47 ↗ again tonight the three things that we

1:19:50 ↗ want to do tonight we want to discuss

1:19:54 ↗ the implementation process and cycle for

1:19:57 ↗ the strategic plan how we will update it

1:19:59 ↗ and know whether we're on track we want

1:20:02 ↗ to review and direct some goal level

1:20:06 ↗ performance measures for the strategic

1:20:08 ↗ plan which is really where I think

1:20:09 ↗ councils primary guidance on what we're

1:20:12 ↗ trying to accomplish should come in and

1:20:14 ↗ then we want to give you a prick a quick

1:20:16 ↗ preview of the staffs work on actions

1:20:19 ↗ that'll be going forward so give you

1:20:23 ↗ just a quick process update to refresh

1:20:26 ↗ everybody's thinking spend a few minutes

1:20:28 ↗ on the implementation cycle the

1:20:31 ↗ framework for it the three categories of

1:20:34 ↗ city work plan items and selection

1:20:37 ↗ criteria for how will how will we think

1:20:40 ↗ we'll help you set put things on the

1:20:42 ↗ annual work plans and then kind of lay

1:20:45 ↗ out the schedule going forward and then

1:20:47 ↗ Gabriel is going to go through with you

1:20:49 ↗ the goal level performance measures and

1:20:53 ↗ if we have time at the end we'll try and

1:20:56 ↗ give you a quick preview of the action

1:20:59 ↗ items that are in the plan

1:21:03 ↗ so just a reminder kind of taking us

1:21:06 ↗ clear back to when you hired us at the

1:21:10 ↗ beginning of this process what did the

1:21:13 ↗ city say you were trying to accomplish

1:21:14 ↗ with the strategic planning process with

1:21:17 ↗ it might be useful to think you wanted

1:21:19 ↗ vision and strategy alignment to make

1:21:22 ↗ sure that you had a clear vision for the

1:21:23 ↗ city and that what was happening was in

1:21:27 ↗ alignment with that you had a

1:21:29 ↗ disciplined approach to council and

1:21:30 ↗ staff decision-making and coordination

1:21:33 ↗ among departments you wanted to engage

1:21:36 ↗ diverse community voices through a

1:21:38 ↗ community driven priorities and we've

1:21:40 ↗ done a lot of that and you wanted an

1:21:42 ↗ actionable plan with realistic

1:21:44 ↗ priorities ability to make assignments

1:21:48 ↗ how the plan will sync with the budget

1:21:51 ↗ and capital improvement decisions

1:21:53 ↗ metrics and monitoring and as a

1:21:55 ↗ communication tool we're kind of getting

1:21:58 ↗ into the last steps of that we've kind

1:21:59 ↗ of touched most of those things so far

1:22:03 ↗ quick reminder three phases to this

1:22:06 ↗ process the first phase is who we are

1:22:09 ↗ the second one where do we want to go

1:22:11 ↗ and third how will how we'll get there

1:22:15 ↗ we're just clear over on the right side

1:22:17 ↗ now getting to this implementation phase

1:22:21 ↗ the PHA the first two phases were

1:22:25 ↗ counsels direction on the why and the

1:22:27 ↗ what about what the strategic plan is

1:22:29 ↗ we've spent a lot of time sort of

1:22:30 ↗ figuring out who do we want to be what

1:22:33 ↗ do we want to do what are those big

1:22:35 ↗ council led directions and now we're

1:22:39 ↗ thoroughly working on the phase three

1:22:41 ↗ where we have intensive staff work on

1:22:43 ↗ the how are we going to do what the

1:22:46 ↗ council has told us to do quick reminder

1:22:51 ↗ the structure of the plan it begins with

1:22:53 ↗ a vision mission and guiding principles

1:22:54 ↗ the kind of why we're doing this the

1:22:59 ↗ strategic priorities you identify two

1:23:01 ↗ set of strategic priorities each one

1:23:03 ↗ with a goal and then we spent a good

1:23:06 ↗ amount of time in recent weeks and

1:23:09 ↗ months on objectives and staff is

1:23:11 ↗ currently working on actions and targets

1:23:14 ↗ that how

1:23:15 ↗ we gonna do what the council told us to

1:23:17 ↗ you have approved the vision mission

1:23:20 ↗ guiding principles strategic priorities

1:23:22 ↗ goals and objectives and what's

1:23:25 ↗ happening right now is we're working on

1:23:27 ↗ the actions and the targets we're gonna

1:23:29 ↗ spend some time on the targets or on the

1:23:32 ↗ measures at the goal level tonight so

1:23:35 ↗ Ryan can you go back just for a second

1:23:37 ↗ you bet I want I want you to just I want

1:23:39 ↗ you to reiterate that because I think

1:23:40 ↗ this might be a little confusing right

1:23:42 ↗ the staff is in process on actions and

1:23:46 ↗ targets right correct right what we're

1:23:48 ↗ gonna talk about tonight is the

1:23:51 ↗ performance measures at the goal level

1:23:53 ↗ okay so I just want to make sure we

1:23:56 ↗ understand that's the hope around this

1:23:59 ↗ evening is to understand some of these

1:24:01 ↗ key metrics at the goal level and also

1:24:05 ↗ sort of looking for I would say are we

1:24:08 ↗ missing anything at a high level

1:24:10 ↗ are there any holes in this that aside

1:24:13 ↗ from the particular tweaking of one

1:24:15 ↗ metric or another are we just

1:24:16 ↗ fundamentally missing a metric at the

1:24:18 ↗ goal level that we think is important as

1:24:21 ↗ a city we think a really successful

1:24:24 ↗ strategic plan has half a dozen or so

1:24:28 ↗ high level performance measures that you

1:24:32 ↗ can all kind of remember what it is

1:24:33 ↗ you're trying to accomplish and then you

1:24:35 ↗ can regularly get updates on how you're

1:24:37 ↗ doing on those measures and sure every

1:24:41 ↗ project has its own measure of how it's

1:24:44 ↗ doing but you can't keep track of 47 of

1:24:47 ↗ those at the level of the council what

1:24:49 ↗ you want to do is be looking at those

1:24:50 ↗ high levels so we want to talk about

1:24:52 ↗ what are those high level goal level

1:24:53 ↗ measures tonight so quick just whirlwind

1:25:00 ↗ reminder on the vision mission and

1:25:02 ↗ guiding principles we agreed and you

1:25:04 ↗ have approved vision that it's a quarter

1:25:07 ↗ Ives as a welcoming community creating a

1:25:09 ↗ sustainable legacy for future

1:25:11 ↗ generations that honors its rich history

1:25:14 ↗ and passion for the natural environment

1:25:17 ↗ you also approved a an updated mission

1:25:20 ↗ statement is to foster a safe vibrant

1:25:24 ↗ livable and inclusive community through

1:25:27 ↗ effective

1:25:27 ↗ ship and quality public services you

1:25:32 ↗ agreed on a set of guiding principles

1:25:35 ↗ related to people environment community

1:25:38 ↗ prosperity service excellence and equity

1:25:41 ↗ with a descriptive statement about each

1:25:43 ↗ of those and then we've been identified

1:25:48 ↗ entity check priorities goals and

1:25:51 ↗ objectives the strategic priority areas

1:25:53 ↗ because we're doing this in 2018 and

1:25:57 ↗ things are happening that need strategic

1:25:59 ↗ attention those include mobility growth

1:26:02 ↗ and development environmental

1:26:04 ↗ stewardship social and economic vitality

1:26:07 ↗ core infrastructure and city leadership

1:26:10 ↗ and services identified a goal under

1:26:14 ↗ each of those categories I'm not going

1:26:17 ↗ to read them all to you I've done that a

1:26:19 ↗ lot of times so far in this process but

1:26:21 ↗ there's a goal there for mobility growth

1:26:23 ↗ and development environmental

1:26:24 ↗ stewardship social and economic vitality

1:26:26 ↗ core infrastructure and city leadership

1:26:29 ↗ and services and then each goal has a

1:26:33 ↗ set of objectives that we the last time

1:26:36 ↗ I was here we went through one by one

1:26:38 ↗ and agreed on the wording of each of

1:26:40 ↗ those objectives so we now have a

1:26:41 ↗ complete set basically the core of the

1:26:44 ↗ strategic plan is done and since the

1:26:50 ↗ last time that we were here at a council

1:26:52 ↗ work session we the staff have been

1:26:54 ↗ doing intensive work on the actions they

1:26:57 ↗ did a kickoff shortly after you approved

1:26:59 ↗ the objectives in October they've had

1:27:02 ↗ several individual workgroup meetings to

1:27:04 ↗ flesh those out they've been doing a

1:27:06 ↗ full group peer review of what the

1:27:08 ↗ workgroups did six work group meetings

1:27:10 ↗ 22 objectives and about 88 actions they

1:27:14 ↗ have developed through that work a ton

1:27:15 ↗ of staff work to respond to the

1:27:18 ↗ direction you gave them at the why and

1:27:20 ↗ how level they've been working through

1:27:21 ↗ the or the Hawaiin what level and

1:27:24 ↗ they've been working on the how actions

1:27:26 ↗ quite a bit and then for each of these

1:27:30 ↗ just to give you a sense of how much

1:27:31 ↗ work they've been doing these we're

1:27:33 ↗ calling these activity worksheets for

1:27:37 ↗ each one there's an objective and then

1:27:40 ↗ there's a set of

1:27:41 ↗ performance measures related to that and

1:27:43 ↗ then City actions timing lead

1:27:46 ↗ individuals resort resources needed just

1:27:49 ↗ a ton of work there's the on this list

1:27:52 ↗ down here that there's eighty-eight of

1:27:54 ↗ those and I think there are twenty-four

1:27:57 ↗ objectives so there's one of the twenty

1:27:58 ↗ four of these sheets and so we'll come

1:28:02 ↗ back circle back around to those as we

1:28:04 ↗ have time just to give you a preview of

1:28:05 ↗ what all of those actions are we don't

1:28:08 ↗ we don't think we think this is the hard

1:28:10 ↗ work that you pay the staff to do and

1:28:12 ↗ you don't want to spend as a council a

1:28:14 ↗ lot of time at this level of detail but

1:28:16 ↗ we've got a preview set up of what all

1:28:18 ↗ the actions are the implementation

1:28:22 ↗ framework and the place where you get to

1:28:24 ↗ keep driving as we go forward on

1:28:27 ↗ reviewing how are we doing on

1:28:29 ↗ performance and how are you going to

1:28:31 ↗ update that over time we've previewed

1:28:34 ↗ this before but let's get into it a

1:28:36 ↗ little bit of detail the implementation

1:28:38 ↗ framework is pretty straightforward

1:28:40 ↗ strategic planning is long-term

1:28:43 ↗ strategic thinking getting your head up

1:28:46 ↗ out of the day to day and thinking

1:28:47 ↗ what's happening how do we need to

1:28:50 ↗ disproportionately invest somewhere

1:28:52 ↗ because we need to change the course

1:28:53 ↗ make a strategic move implementation is

1:28:57 ↗ the coupling of that strategic thinking

1:28:59 ↗ that you've got to keep doing with new

1:29:01 ↗ realities because stuff happens that we

1:29:04 ↗ didn't know was going to happen things

1:29:07 ↗ work out better or worse than we thought

1:29:09 ↗ something new comes up so implementation

1:29:12 ↗ is kind of balancing remember what the

1:29:14 ↗ strategic direction was and then deal

1:29:15 ↗ with new reality and adjust accordingly

1:29:18 ↗ and as you do that council is setting

1:29:21 ↗ direction while staff is managing the

1:29:24 ↗ implementation process so you're both

1:29:26 ↗ kind of doing plan your appropriate

1:29:27 ↗ roles and then we think and with all the

1:29:31 ↗ local governments we're working with and

1:29:33 ↗ and large nonprofits we think setting up

1:29:36 ↗ a deliberate and intentional annual

1:29:39 ↗ schedule for policy making and budgeting

1:29:41 ↗ will keep you balancing the strategic

1:29:45 ↗ thinking and the new realities so that

1:29:48 ↗ annual cycle or schedule generates an

1:29:53 ↗ annual work plan which

1:29:54 ↗ is the annual prioritization of work

1:29:57 ↗ from the strategic plan mejia quirk work

1:30:03 ↗ plan and critical services work plan so

1:30:06 ↗ we're trying to sort of you get into

1:30:08 ↗ this what is it that we're doing that

1:30:10 ↗ strategic and what is what we have to do

1:30:12 ↗ because we're a city government and you

1:30:13 ↗ got to do that whether it's a strategic

1:30:15 ↗ move now or not so we've tried to create

1:30:17 ↗ kind of a cycle model and then and then

1:30:20 ↗ sort of categories for that this annual

1:30:22 ↗ cycle if you figure you spend most of

1:30:26 ↗ your time in the kind of lower and left

1:30:31 ↗ quadrant where you're doing the work

1:30:33 ↗ you're working on the process but then

1:30:36 ↗ as it comes around time to think about

1:30:38 ↗ it you want to do some performance

1:30:40 ↗ evaluation which means your reporting to

1:30:43 ↗ your community and gathering input from

1:30:45 ↗ the community about how you're doing and

1:30:46 ↗ checking in on your measures and then as

1:30:49 ↗ a council you're making a strategic plan

1:30:52 ↗ adjustment in in in response to those

1:30:55 ↗ performance measures and then you have

1:30:58 ↗ your annual retreat and adopt a new work

1:31:00 ↗ plan for what's happening is that

1:31:02 ↗ adjustment to the strategic plan and the

1:31:04 ↗ new year's work plan and then you do it

1:31:05 ↗ again and you come around and then you

1:31:08 ↗ you sync up the budgeting and capital

1:31:11 ↗ improvement planning kind of as you're

1:31:12 ↗ moving into that performance evaluation

1:31:15 ↗ one way to demonstrate this that David

1:31:19 ↗ helped us figure out is sort of you've

1:31:21 ↗ got the doing part of it and then the

1:31:23 ↗ checking in adjusting accordingly and

1:31:26 ↗ then adapting the plan kind of and it's

1:31:30 ↗ that annual cycle and then you do that

1:31:32 ↗ for four or five years and it's time to

1:31:34 ↗ kind of rethink the whole thing because

1:31:36 ↗ the world has changed a lot but

1:31:37 ↗ basically for a while that keeps you in

1:31:39 ↗ touch with your strategic plan while

1:31:41 ↗ you're implementing things so the parts

1:31:46 ↗ of the city's annual work plan this is

1:31:49 ↗ where you get into sort of how when is

1:31:50 ↗ that strategic when is it not strategic

1:31:52 ↗ and we've spent a lot of time working

1:31:56 ↗ with the staff leadership on on what do

1:32:00 ↗ we call these things what are the things

1:32:02 ↗ so we think there's the strategic work

1:32:04 ↗ plan which is that annual cycle we

1:32:07 ↗ adjusted every

1:32:08 ↗ year and there's the critical services

1:32:10 ↗ work plan which is the stuff the city's

1:32:12 ↗ got to do regardless and then there are

1:32:15 ↗ those timely opportunities because

1:32:17 ↗ something comes up you didn't see coming

1:32:18 ↗ and you have to deal with it it's either

1:32:19 ↗ because there's a crisis or because

1:32:22 ↗ there's some opportunity so the annual

1:32:25 ↗ work plan would be identified through

1:32:27 ↗ that annual strategic planning process

1:32:29 ↗ it's selected by the council during the

1:32:35 ↗ annual council staff prioritization and

1:32:38 ↗ your it's what's going to be important

1:32:41 ↗ and then over the next five years you're

1:32:43 ↗ thinking out long-term the critical

1:32:46 ↗ services work plan is critical city

1:32:49 ↗ functions police fire maintaining the

1:32:51 ↗ roads that are those critical things

1:32:54 ↗ that are essential to health safety and

1:32:56 ↗ welfare of community members and as well

1:33:00 ↗ as mandates and those are things that

1:33:03 ↗ are always important because you're a

1:33:05 ↗ city government and then those timely

1:33:07 ↗ opportunities of those things you didn't

1:33:09 ↗ think of and they don't fit neatly into

1:33:11 ↗ those other buckets it's a few modest

1:33:14 ↗ opportunities with agreement from the

1:33:17 ↗ council and the senior leadership team

1:33:19 ↗ that we got it we got to jump on this

1:33:21 ↗ they could be nice nice to haves or easy

1:33:25 ↗ wins and you only consider them after

1:33:28 ↗ screening is this a strategic issue is

1:33:31 ↗ that a critic is an ongoing critical

1:33:33 ↗ services issue if it's one of those than

1:33:35 ↗ it belongs up there or if it doesn't

1:33:37 ↗ quite fit then you have to deal with it

1:33:40 ↗ because it's a timely opportunity but it

1:33:43 ↗ shouldn't detract from keeping to do

1:33:45 ↗ those longer-term things and the timing

1:33:48 ↗ is it's like it's important right now

1:33:49 ↗ really crystal clear example of this for

1:33:52 ↗ me it's kind of up close and personal is

1:33:55 ↗ we did a strategic plan for the city of

1:33:57 ↗ Salem there may be 18 months ahead of

1:34:02 ↗ you and adopting the strategic plan we

1:34:04 ↗ did the annual work plan we're moving

1:34:07 ↗ along they're doing these things you

1:34:09 ↗ know and at least if you listen to the

1:34:10 ↗ consultant it was all going great and

1:34:12 ↗ then suddenly there was this algae bloom

1:34:15 ↗ and

1:34:16 ↗ in reservoir and you couldn't drink the

1:34:18 ↗ water and suddenly the city of Salem had

1:34:21 ↗ a whole new strategic opportunity or a

1:34:25 ↗ timely opportunity that they had to deal

1:34:27 ↗ with and they had to learn a lot of

1:34:28 ↗ stuff about a city function that we

1:34:30 ↗ didn't talk about it all in the

1:34:31 ↗ strategic plan because they didn't know

1:34:32 ↗ it was coming

1:34:33 ↗ so that stuff happens and we think it'll

1:34:38 ↗ help you as you go into this if by the

1:34:40 ↗ time we're finished with this process

1:34:42 ↗ we're not going to try and do it tonight

1:34:43 ↗ but open to some feedback is is how do

1:34:47 ↗ you what are the criteria for selecting

1:34:49 ↗ the things that go on the annual work

1:34:51 ↗ plan and we often talk about there are

1:34:55 ↗ several criteria and you know just it's

1:34:57 ↗ to help you figure out how to rank them

1:34:59 ↗ you might rank them which ones are most

1:35:01 ↗ important to the vision and mission

1:35:04 ↗ which ones are we most likely to succeed

1:35:07 ↗ at because there are some great ideas

1:35:08 ↗ that we don't have much chance of

1:35:10 ↗ influencing what is our potential for

1:35:12 ↗ direct influence and how much is the

1:35:15 ↗ time in cost and how does that relate to

1:35:17 ↗ the budget seems like available

1:35:20 ↗ resources might be one critical services

1:35:22 ↗ might be one there might be others so we

1:35:26 ↗ think it will help if we can set some

1:35:27 ↗ criteria when for the first time you

1:35:29 ↗ come around to that annual work plan

1:35:31 ↗ which is quite quite some months ahead

1:35:33 ↗ before we'll be doing that but we want

1:35:35 ↗ to identify some criteria so this

1:35:39 ↗ typical annual schedule might look

1:35:41 ↗ something like this in January your

1:35:44 ↗ beginning implementation of the

1:35:46 ↗ strategic plan initiatives and then

1:35:49 ↗ January February you're starting your

1:35:52 ↗ doing the community satisfaction data in

1:35:55 ↗ March you're doing an annual report to

1:35:58 ↗ the community on how it's going and

1:35:59 ↗ getting their feedback April you're

1:36:04 ↗ doing a strategic plan update in

1:36:05 ↗ response to that and in May you've got

1:36:09 ↗ your annual retreat and the budget

1:36:12 ↗ development starts in September

1:36:15 ↗ preliminary budget and strategic work

1:36:17 ↗ plan and then November you're adopting

1:36:20 ↗ the budget and adopting the the annual

1:36:22 ↗ work plan for the next year so this

1:36:24 ↗ implies that you're updating the

1:36:26 ↗ strategic plan the long-term strategic

1:36:28 ↗ thinking

1:36:29 ↗ in April and then just before the the

1:36:33 ↗ calendar year starts you're adopting the

1:36:35 ↗ in next year's work plan okay

1:36:51 ↗ he wasn't talking into the microphone so

1:36:53 ↗ I'm sorry he wasn't talking into the

1:36:55 ↗ microphone Oh Brian could you repeat

1:36:58 ↗ that on mic so anybody watch thank you

1:37:00 ↗ what I have several questions and I was

1:37:03 ↗ prompted to say one of the questions is

1:37:05 ↗ about the criteria it'll be easier to

1:37:07 ↗ for you to respond to that question of

1:37:09 ↗ the criteria up on the screen so it

1:37:11 ↗ backed up a slide and so we were

1:37:15 ↗ suggesting these might be some criteria

1:37:16 ↗ you would use for adopting an annual

1:37:20 ↗ work plan it'll be months before you

1:37:21 ↗ have to actually do this but we thought

1:37:23 ↗ it was a good time to give them a

1:37:24 ↗ preview so it'd be a great time for

1:37:26 ↗ feedback on that so initial feedback if

1:37:31 ↗ this were to form I guess it would be

1:37:33 ↗ the backbone to a potential scoring

1:37:35 ↗ system that we give me the way you would

1:37:38 ↗ take this is you would implement it as

1:37:41 ↗ some sort of scoring probably the way

1:37:46 ↗ I'm thinking good question probably the

1:37:48 ↗ way kind of thinking aloud here I know

1:37:52 ↗ how I would do it with a board of

1:37:54 ↗ directors which is probably not the same

1:37:56 ↗ as the right way to do it with the City

1:37:57 ↗ Council probably you would have a staff

1:38:00 ↗ report that said if we had to rank these

1:38:04 ↗ dozen things in terms of importance to

1:38:08 ↗ the vision and mission it would look

1:38:09 ↗ like this if you had to rank these

1:38:12 ↗ things in terms of the likelihood of

1:38:14 ↗ success it would look like this other

1:38:16 ↗ way wouldn't be just the same direct

1:38:18 ↗ influence would be another way time and

1:38:20 ↗ money and maybe some of these others you

1:38:23 ↗ see all those rankings and then if you

1:38:24 ↗ added those together you'd come out with

1:38:28 ↗ this is how they drank and then as

1:38:30 ↗ Council you'd say yeah we buy that or

1:38:33 ↗ disagree make these adjustments initial

1:38:39 ↗ thoughts

1:38:42 ↗ spammer couldn't

1:38:45 ↗ what does potential for direct influence

1:38:47 ↗ mean good question so what is what is

1:38:52 ↗ potential for direct influence mean my

1:38:56 ↗ sense of that is there are things that

1:38:59 ↗ the city of Issaquah can control and

1:39:03 ↗ there are things that you're going to

1:39:05 ↗ have a great deal of influence on with

1:39:07 ↗ partner jurisdictions and there are

1:39:09 ↗ things that you may think are pretty

1:39:11 ↗ important that your ability to influence

1:39:15 ↗ the outcome may be pretty limited like

1:39:17 ↗ something being done by a regional state

1:39:20 ↗ or national government that you might

1:39:22 ↗ care passionately about but you're

1:39:24 ↗ because you're the City Council you

1:39:26 ↗ can't tell them what to do and so so

1:39:29 ↗ something that you can actually control

1:39:31 ↗ might be something that's a reason to

1:39:33 ↗ prioritize that one whereas there's

1:39:36 ↗ another reason it might another one

1:39:37 ↗ might be a higher priority yeah I guess

1:39:41 ↗ with that explanation I'm not sure what

1:39:44 ↗ the difference is between that one and

1:39:45 ↗ likelihood of success because you could

1:39:47 ↗ use likelihood of success for the same

1:39:50 ↗ good question I've usually the

1:39:52 ↗ likelihood of success is how hard is it

1:39:55 ↗ durability for direct influence is how

1:39:58 ↗ much is it within our control which

1:40:00 ↗ which are they are interrelated I

1:40:02 ↗ suppose but they're not the same thing

1:40:06 ↗ do you have another question

1:40:08 ↗ No council deputy president so I feel

1:40:12 ↗ like this just to talk a little bit more

1:40:17 ↗ to the question that has some remember

1:40:19 ↗ goodman just asked in terms of direct

1:40:21 ↗ influence and likelihood of success I

1:40:24 ↗ can understand why that comes forward in

1:40:27 ↗ terms of criteria but when I think about

1:40:29 ↗ it in the the bigger picture of council

1:40:33 ↗ there definitely you know that there are

1:40:36 ↗ things that are coming to mind where we

1:40:39 ↗ we definitely want to have the influence

1:40:43 ↗ we you know in terms of lobbying that we

1:40:47 ↗ might be doing or things that we're

1:40:48 ↗ trying to get out in front of

1:40:50 ↗ where it's still very very important to

1:40:53 ↗ do it may not result in it may not be

1:40:57 ↗ direct influence but it would still be

1:40:59 ↗ influence and I would I would see that

1:41:05 ↗ if you were in a situation where you had

1:41:08 ↗ so many things to think about and then

1:41:10 ↗ you were scoring those that some of

1:41:12 ↗ those fall to the bottom where they

1:41:15 ↗ still need to be done and they're still

1:41:18 ↗ very important and that success may not

1:41:21 ↗ end up being this year but it could be

1:41:24 ↗ five years from now so that that

1:41:26 ↗ concerns me a little bit that's good

1:41:31 ↗ feedback my take on it is this this is

1:41:35 ↗ these tools as sort of criteria are

1:41:37 ↗ helpful in helping you make a decision

1:41:40 ↗ they don't you wouldn't want to give up

1:41:42 ↗ your decision-making you're using your

1:41:45 ↗ brains to some sort of score sheet but

1:41:48 ↗ you it helps you think about it because

1:41:50 ↗ you might have you you've got some of

1:41:52 ↗ those things that might be passionately

1:41:54 ↗ important to your citizens and to you as

1:41:56 ↗ council members and to the city's

1:41:58 ↗ mission you know but how much are you

1:42:02 ↗ going to be able to do about global

1:42:03 ↗ warming or the location of a light rail

1:42:05 ↗ station or you know things like that and

1:42:08 ↗ you and if you only have so many units

1:42:11 ↗ of energy or so many units of ability to

1:42:15 ↗ influence something whereas you could

1:42:17 ↗ decide where the road goes and so those

1:42:20 ↗ those you know you sort of have to

1:42:21 ↗ choose where are you going to put your

1:42:22 ↗ time and energy and money follow-on

1:42:27 ↗ question I do I have a following

1:42:29 ↗ question and and just to comment

1:42:30 ↗ actually you just brought up at an exact

1:42:33 ↗ example that would be in my head and

1:42:35 ↗ that's thinking about light rail and

1:42:38 ↗ this station so that would be an example

1:42:40 ↗ of something that I would feel that we

1:42:44 ↗ should be working on and we and we

1:42:46 ↗ should be doing and and whether we have

1:42:49 ↗ direct influence this year again

1:42:52 ↗ could be up for debate I think the

1:42:54 ↗ concern that I have is what while I

1:42:56 ↗ while I understand putting the criteria

1:43:00 ↗ together and I think that that's

1:43:01 ↗ important is that sometimes then this

1:43:03 ↗ comes forward from staff or the

1:43:07 ↗ administration and there's just so much

1:43:09 ↗ to it that some of the some of the items

1:43:15 ↗ are already prioritized and just getting

1:43:19 ↗ down to the level where you're you're

1:43:21 ↗ really being able to prioritize the way

1:43:23 ↗ if we have issues that the community is

1:43:27 ↗ really concerned about if there are

1:43:29 ↗ issues that a lot of the councilmembers

1:43:31 ↗ are very concerned about I guess I just

1:43:33 ↗ I don't want that to be lost in this

1:43:38 ↗ evaluation and sometimes there's just so

1:43:41 ↗ much on the plate that if it already

1:43:43 ↗ comes forward that way then there are

1:43:45 ↗ certain priorities that could be pushed

1:43:47 ↗ down so just want to make sure that the

1:43:50 ↗ council is the retaining their ability

1:43:52 ↗ to really be able to bring forward those

1:43:55 ↗ issues that that they feel or that

1:43:58 ↗ they've heard from the community are

1:43:59 ↗ really important and obviously they can

1:44:02 ↗ and push that forward but that it's just

1:44:05 ↗ giving me a little bit of pause thank

1:44:09 ↗ you do you want to come another letter I

1:44:13 ↗ think it's a great point and I'm I got

1:44:17 ↗ I've got both have thought about what

1:44:18 ↗ are the what are the criteria and what

1:44:20 ↗ is the process in respondent I mean it

1:44:22 ↗ seems like you just made an argument for

1:44:25 ↗ why the scoring should be very

1:44:29 ↗ transparent and I guess I was thinking

1:44:31 ↗ that's part of the reason you do this as

1:44:33 ↗ you say they rank this way on this

1:44:35 ↗ criteria and this other way on this

1:44:37 ↗ other criteria and then if you add that

1:44:39 ↗ together it comes out this way and it's

1:44:42 ↗ like showing your work on how you got

1:44:44 ↗ there rather than just getting a thing

1:44:46 ↗ that says here's the list in the

1:44:47 ↗ priority order do you like it or not it

1:44:49 ↗ actually shows you that whole backup for

1:44:51 ↗ it you could say you know what I

1:44:52 ↗ disagree with this one over here and if

1:44:54 ↗ you change that because it puts out

1:44:56 ↗ there a little more quantifiable I also

1:44:59 ↗ think you made an argument for why you

1:45:01 ↗ might put critical services and

1:45:03 ↗ available resources right there on the

1:45:05 ↗ with these other things that are here so

1:45:08 ↗ that you know you could you could spend

1:45:12 ↗ a lot of time trying to influence the

1:45:15 ↗ location of a light rail station but if

1:45:18 ↗ you were doing that at the expense of

1:45:20 ↗ some critical services that might or may

1:45:24 ↗ not be the best I mean that's a council

1:45:26 ↗ level decision of where you're putting

1:45:28 ↗ where you're spending your resources

1:45:31 ↗ that's not every winter time I have

1:45:35 ↗ another criteria to consider I think

1:45:36 ↗ council will call it risks to consider

1:45:41 ↗ in a board room you might say what's our

1:45:43 ↗ opportunity cost I think we were

1:45:45 ↗ considering one earlier this evening

1:45:46 ↗ around weather getting the the strategic

1:45:51 ↗ plan as relates to green necklace into

1:45:55 ↗ our title 18 you guys were here earlier

1:45:59 ↗ and what that conversation the reason I

1:46:02 ↗ think that that's up why we're trying to

1:46:05 ↗ bring it forward as a council because

1:46:06 ↗ there's an opportunity cost

1:46:08 ↗ there will be redevelopment in certain

1:46:09 ↗ parts of Issaquah and without the code

1:46:12 ↗ in place to ensure that our vision and

1:46:15 ↗ for the green necklace actually gets

1:46:16 ↗ built something could come in and and

1:46:19 ↗ because we don't have the right

1:46:22 ↗ regulation in place we would miss an

1:46:24 ↗ opportunity that may be an opera there's

1:46:26 ↗ opportunity cost to the city if the

1:46:29 ↗ green necklace isn't into title 18

1:46:32 ↗ sooner rather than later so that's

1:46:34 ↗ that's a that's a great point in how if

1:46:37 ↗ you were scoring if we were doing that

1:46:39 ↗ for the annual update right now that on

1:46:40 ↗ on some factors that would show up

1:46:43 ↗ gently important because otherwise be a

1:46:47 ↗ lost opportunity good point and the one

1:46:50 ↗ thing I want to say one other thing too

1:46:51 ↗ is to mariah's point intuition is great

1:46:55 ↗ at some point some decisions do need to

1:46:59 ↗ be more data-driven and more analytical

1:47:01 ↗ and how you come to it rather than just

1:47:03 ↗ my intuition so

1:47:09 ↗ evaluate this I kind of need to look one

1:47:11 ↗ slide forward and ask you a question

1:47:14 ↗ about it so let's say we've got our

1:47:18 ↗ strategic plan and then I'm stopped on

1:47:21 ↗ the street by a bunch of heartwarming

1:47:23 ↗ teenagers and they say please mister

1:47:26 ↗ city council member we need a skatepark

1:47:28 ↗ now this I mean she's an example because

1:47:30 ↗ we have a wonderful new skatepark so it

1:47:32 ↗ wouldn't be a skate park probably called

1:47:33 ↗ you three serve three times in that

1:47:34 ↗ sentence - sure and so where would I so

1:47:40 ↗ it's not on their strategic plan at all

1:47:42 ↗ right

1:47:43 ↗ but they've touched my heart so where

1:47:45 ↗ would I insert that in this process

1:47:47 ↗ where it would where we would then put

1:47:50 ↗ the these criteria that we're discussing

1:47:52 ↗ right now match it up with all the stuff

1:47:55 ↗ that's on the strategic plan and all the

1:47:57 ↗ stuff that's part of the blocking

1:47:58 ↗ tackling of like like what's the

1:48:00 ↗ lifecycle of that idea of mine in this

1:48:03 ↗ notional system so good good question

1:48:06 ↗ so assuming that it's because they think

1:48:13 ↗ it's important that this happen in

1:48:18 ↗ general then that is feedback that's

1:48:22 ↗ part of the collect community

1:48:24 ↗ satisfaction data and report to the

1:48:27 ↗ community and community check in and

1:48:29 ↗ they may or may not stop you on the

1:48:31 ↗ sidewalk in the January to March cycle

1:48:33 ↗ but probably what you say in response to

1:48:36 ↗ them is that's a great idea we would we

1:48:38 ↗ should talk about that relative to the

1:48:40 ↗ other city's priorities and the place

1:48:42 ↗ for that input is here and hopefully you

1:48:45 ↗ can figure out a way to collect to their

1:48:46 ↗ comments so they don't have to remember

1:48:48 ↗ to show up at a meeting two months in

1:48:50 ↗ the future but you would be directing

1:48:52 ↗ them toward this annual cycle and then

1:48:56 ↗ during this priority ranking

1:48:59 ↗ exercise that we're talking about that

1:49:02 ↗ idea would need to compete with other

1:49:07 ↗ things that seem like they might fit and

1:49:10 ↗ they would be ranked on how close is it

1:49:13 ↗ to the division and the mission that's

1:49:16 ↗ of time they're tossing it would have to

1:49:17 ↗ it would have to compete on that cycle

1:49:19 ↗ now there's the slightly modified

1:49:22 ↗ issue of what if one of those fellows

1:49:27 ↗ uncle's just passed away and there's the

1:49:31 ↗ abandoned property that might be sold to

1:49:36 ↗ go off to some other use and if we don't

1:49:39 ↗ deal with this in the next 60 days we're

1:49:41 ↗ gonna miss the upper the perfect skate

1:49:43 ↗ park opportunity which would push it

1:49:45 ↗ into that timely opportunity thing and

1:49:48 ↗ then it would be a senior senior staff

1:49:51 ↗ and council level decision to say is

1:49:53 ↗ this one of the few things every year

1:49:56 ↗ that we're gonna push out of this cycle

1:49:58 ↗ because we got to deal with it because

1:49:59 ↗ it's a timely opportunity that makes

1:50:02 ↗ sense sure so we're and this would be

1:50:06 ↗ that prioritization is that under the

1:50:09 ↗ may council leadership team retreat

1:50:11 ↗ where's that prioritization occur is

1:50:15 ↗ that an event where we get locked in a

1:50:16 ↗ room and we don't need to leave until

1:50:17 ↗ we've prioritized everything yeah it is

1:50:19 ↗ the council the council retreat and then

1:50:21 ↗ the rest of the budget cycle is when it

1:50:23 ↗ would have to you know it basically they

1:50:26 ↗ they don't get the skatepark

1:50:28 ↗ until they have passed muster and some

1:50:31 ↗ of this priority ranking and then it's

1:50:33 ↗ during the retreat where we start

1:50:35 ↗ discussing the annual work plan and that

1:50:38 ↗ it has to survive the the development of

1:50:41 ↗ that work plan and the budget cycle so

1:50:43 ↗ that at the end of the time you adopt

1:50:45 ↗ the budget and the work plan in November

1:50:46 ↗ it's on the list for the next year at it

1:50:48 ↗ so there's a bunch of work these things

1:50:50 ↗ that come up in this third category that

1:50:53 ↗ we're sort of optimistically saying are

1:50:55 ↗ small easy quick wins there's a bunch of

1:51:00 ↗ homework that has to occur ahead of that

1:51:02 ↗ right somebody I don't walk in honor of

1:51:04 ↗ the days when I would walk into that

1:51:06 ↗ meeting and say I want a skatepark and

1:51:08 ↗ it cost $750,000 right so the this this

1:51:11 ↗ came again now I can go back to the

1:51:13 ↗ previous slide if you go back to the

1:51:14 ↗ previous slide so all that stuff there's

1:51:18 ↗ sort of a there's an on-ramp for that

1:51:20 ↗ third category of things that to show up

1:51:23 ↗ at that meeting in May and compete and

1:51:26 ↗ to have any chance of competing with the

1:51:28 ↗ a and B stuff that we know are

1:51:30 ↗ long-standing priorities and commitments

1:51:33 ↗ all this stuff there's much homework

1:51:35 ↗ that occurs ahead of time right and and

1:51:37 ↗ with each individual idea there's some

1:51:40 ↗ sort of order of magnitude before

1:51:42 ↗ whether it gets you there if they want

1:51:43 ↗ to ride on the fire truck you might be

1:51:45 ↗ able to pull that off without having to

1:51:46 ↗ go through this whole budgeting cycle

1:51:48 ↗ but okay councilmember Goodman comment

1:51:54 ↗ to your question so I don't view this

1:51:59 ↗ strategic plan so we we have methods by

1:52:05 ↗ which we can bring agenda bills in many

1:52:09 ↗ different ways and one of those ways is

1:52:11 ↗ for council members to two or three

1:52:15 ↗ decide that they think something is

1:52:16 ↗ really important at that time whether

1:52:19 ↗ you and I would call it probably a

1:52:21 ↗ timely opportunity and I can envision

1:52:24 ↗ that there might be times when something

1:52:26 ↗ is important enough for lack of a better

1:52:28 ↗ word or opportunistic enough that it

1:52:31 ↗ wouldn't wait and for that annual we you

1:52:35 ↗ know reprioritizing that's all I really

1:52:40 ↗ wanted to say we don't give up that

1:52:42 ↗ right sure

1:52:44 ↗ so there's a whole separate path really

1:52:46 ↗ this this is a path that hopefully you

1:52:48 ↗ could trade it or competed against other

1:52:50 ↗ things but there would be another way

1:52:52 ↗ for somebody to write and then there of

1:52:54 ↗ course whoever those council members are

1:52:56 ↗ that wanted something additional at that

1:52:59 ↗ time or something separated and thought

1:53:01 ↗ it was important enough then it would

1:53:02 ↗ probably be put through more of a of

1:53:05 ↗ this test earlier just to make sure that

1:53:08 ↗ it is consistent in some way with our

1:53:10 ↗ strategic plan yes see the administrator

1:53:15 ↗ moon thank you yes that's accurate part

1:53:18 ↗ of this framework is not only about the

1:53:20 ↗ work that will happen during the

1:53:23 ↗ strategic plan update and the work plan

1:53:27 ↗ retreat which is also a precursor to

1:53:29 ↗ budget development but as you have

1:53:32 ↗ suggested if those timely opportunities

1:53:34 ↗ come outside of that schedule there's

1:53:36 ↗ still a mechanism through council rules

1:53:39 ↗ to bring an agenda built forward however

1:53:40 ↗ we would want to apply this framework

1:53:43 ↗ and say

1:53:44 ↗ how does this new thing affect our

1:53:46 ↗ ability to get the bucket a and B done

1:53:51 ↗ think thank you for that comment there

1:53:54 ↗ concentrate so the criteria that we're

1:53:58 ↗ we're noodling on right now that really

1:54:01 ↗ applies to a BNC and so it's not just

1:54:05 ↗ you know the timely opportunities that

1:54:07 ↗ we would show through the apply the

1:54:11 ↗ filter to but we would do it when when

1:54:13 ↗ evaluating things that we think are part

1:54:14 ↗ of the strategic work plan too because I

1:54:16 ↗ would contend that the skatepark

1:54:17 ↗ could easily be seen as a strategic

1:54:19 ↗ initiative under the environment and

1:54:22 ↗ amenities and so if somebody were to

1:54:24 ↗ come to me and said we need a street a

1:54:25 ↗ skatepark I think you can make a pretty

1:54:28 ↗ compelling argument to say this is this

1:54:30 ↗ is very consistent with our strategic

1:54:32 ↗ direction and and you know chapter and

1:54:34 ↗ verse and point to that so I think it's

1:54:36 ↗ really important that we do that and

1:54:38 ↗ that as recognizing your dynamic world

1:54:44 ↗ that we live in things are going to come

1:54:46 ↗ up all the time and so having a nice

1:54:49 ↗ annual cycle or biannual cycle for for

1:54:52 ↗ doing this is really nice but we also

1:54:55 ↗ have to have the the HOV Lane to get on

1:54:59 ↗ board the freeway to ABS absolutely and

1:55:02 ↗ the seven of us can't bind future

1:55:05 ↗ councils right if four council members

1:55:07 ↗ get elected to on a platform of

1:55:10 ↗ providing yet another skate park perhaps

1:55:12 ↗ to skate parks is insufficient they get

1:55:14 ↗ more skate parks so I appreciate what

1:55:17 ↗ you said I'm sorry what was that council

1:55:22 ↗ trick of it I just would like to clarify

1:55:23 ↗ for people who have just tuned in we are

1:55:25 ↗ not contemplating building another skate

1:55:26 ↗ park yes we're not contemplating any

1:55:29 ↗ time then yes it was merely used as an

1:55:32 ↗ example of something it was used as an

1:55:34 ↗ example of something we're specifically

1:55:35 ↗ not contemplating doing so as to

1:55:37 ↗ specifically avoid in any way charging

1:55:40 ↗ the conversation but thank you right oh

1:55:43 ↗ I'm sorry

1:55:44 ↗ cuz I've ever hunt so I'm I'm struggling

1:55:47 ↗ with the the likelihood of success and

1:55:50 ↗ the potential for a direct influence

1:55:51 ↗ and partly because I think if we have

1:55:54 ↗ the ability or the potential to directly

1:55:56 ↗ influence them that indicates to me that

1:55:59 ↗ if we can directly influence we have a

1:56:00 ↗ high likelihood of success they seem

1:56:02 ↗ directly linked and also I wonder - in

1:56:06 ↗ terms of the transparency of scoring if

1:56:08 ↗ we have something that's really

1:56:09 ↗ important to the vision and mission

1:56:10 ↗ that's on our work plan but then we

1:56:13 ↗ identify it as having somehow having a

1:56:16 ↗ low likelihood of success wouldn't we

1:56:17 ↗ then as part of our work play and do

1:56:19 ↗ those things to make us in a better

1:56:21 ↗ position so that we would have a higher

1:56:23 ↗ likelihood of success and wouldn't that

1:56:25 ↗ be a component of the work plan so I'm

1:56:28 ↗ I'm struggling a little bit with how how

1:56:31 ↗ that would work and then the cost in

1:56:33 ↗ time and money one I think is clear to

1:56:35 ↗ me although I like the idea of including

1:56:38 ↗ in that opportunity cost as well and

1:56:42 ↗ then resources which is the other the

1:56:45 ↗ other component of that this is good

1:56:47 ↗ feedback I'm I'm I'm hearing from this

1:56:50 ↗ conversation that we need more clean

1:56:53 ↗ either the likelihood of success and

1:56:56 ↗ potential word elect direct influence

1:56:57 ↗ need to be combined or we need more

1:56:59 ↗ clarity on how they apply to municipal

1:57:02 ↗ issues and it's good that's good people

1:57:04 ↗ we wanted feedback that's good feedback

1:57:06 ↗ would recognize those aren't working

1:57:07 ↗ just as stated right now I had a

1:57:11 ↗ question about critical services because

1:57:13 ↗ it was discussed earlier that there are

1:57:15 ↗ some core functions critical services

1:57:17 ↗ that the city is going to provide

1:57:19 ↗ regardless of of what we strategically

1:57:24 ↗ apply additional resources to and so I

1:57:27 ↗ wondered why that was called out us I'm

1:57:31 ↗ in this slide as critical resources as a

1:57:33 ↗ potential draft criteria well I'd say it

1:57:36 ↗ would be a potential criteria for the

1:57:38 ↗ annual work plan in that if you're

1:57:42 ↗ putting significant cost items the

1:57:50 ↗ things that your ranking and and you

1:57:54 ↗ know there might be a new recreational

1:57:57 ↗ facility that's highly desired in the

1:57:59 ↗ community that you all think is a great

1:58:00 ↗ idea but if the

1:58:03 ↗ if the trade-off for achieving it would

1:58:08 ↗ be a significant cutback in public

1:58:11 ↗ safety services you might do it you

1:58:13 ↗ might not do it you might say we have to

1:58:14 ↗ defer that and that would be a using a

1:58:17 ↗ critical service criteria as a competing

1:58:20 ↗ criteria you know it's just sensing that

1:58:24 ↗ because you have a lot of your budget

1:58:27 ↗ goes into infrastructure and public

1:58:29 ↗ safety recognizing that those things are

1:58:32 ↗ important I think that's why we thought

1:58:35 ↗ maybe that should be on this list well I

1:58:38 ↗ do think I obviously I think that that

1:58:41 ↗ is super important but I also think that

1:58:42 ↗ as long as we're clear elsewhere in the

1:58:45 ↗ plan that the core services will not be

1:58:49 ↗ affected by or undermined by anything

1:58:51 ↗ that we decided to go forward with in

1:58:54 ↗ this work plan then I think it's covered

1:58:57 ↗ there okay fair point

1:58:59 ↗ although it I mean you get into

1:59:03 ↗ semantics as to what core services are

1:59:05 ↗ right if the city has for instance

1:59:06 ↗ critical I guess yeah if the if DSD has

1:59:11 ↗ a schedule for updating of code right

1:59:13 ↗ and we want to change that we're

1:59:15 ↗ changing course their core services

1:59:18 ↗ right but not really right so but I like

1:59:24 ↗ at your point I think we're I think

1:59:26 ↗ we're saying that if you go back to your

1:59:28 ↗ a B and C all right we have a hierarchy

1:59:33 ↗ you're saying that B is more important

1:59:35 ↗ than a is more important than see that

1:59:39 ↗ there is some more highly prioritized

1:59:47 ↗ on y'all I think I was I think I was

1:59:51 ↗ saying that if if it isn't clear that

1:59:54 ↗ critical services would be weighed more

1:59:58 ↗ highly than non-critical services then

2:00:00 ↗ we should call that out but I would

2:00:01 ↗ think that that's clear from our other

2:00:04 ↗ documentation of the plan sweet

2:00:06 ↗ administrative hood

2:00:07 ↗ I think the other thing that we were

2:00:13 ↗ considering by having that as one of the

2:00:16 ↗ criteria was to have a box basically to

2:00:21 ↗ check to say that we have indeed

2:00:22 ↗ identified this as a critical service

2:00:24 ↗ that in of itself is a little bit of an

2:00:26 ↗ exercise and we can we could debate what

2:00:29 ↗ is critical I think we were thinking

2:00:32 ↗ about that moment in time when we

2:00:36 ↗ collate all of the new ideas and are

2:00:39 ↗ trying to decide what to include in the

2:00:42 ↗ budget and how the strategic plan should

2:00:45 ↗ be a dot updated what should live in the

2:00:49 ↗ next year's work plan we want to take

2:00:51 ↗ each of those new items and ask

2:00:55 ↗ ourselves should it be incorporated into

2:00:57 ↗ the strategic work plan is or is there a

2:00:59 ↗ natural place to append this is this

2:01:03 ↗ something that council wants to do you

2:01:07 ↗ know think about year three or four on

2:01:08 ↗ the strategic work plan maybe we have

2:01:11 ↗ made enough progress on a particular

2:01:14 ↗ objective or goal but a new opportunity

2:01:17 ↗ has come along and we say that's really

2:01:19 ↗ important and directly connected let's

2:01:21 ↗ let's get that included into the next

2:01:24 ↗ year strategic work plan but there also

2:01:27 ↗ might be things that pop up that are

2:01:30 ↗ related to critical services and and may

2:01:35 ↗ have not occurred past year but are new

2:01:39 ↗ and we need to figure out how to assign

2:01:42 ↗ additional resources to that so think

2:01:44 ↗ about our pea sauce issue I would say

2:01:46 ↗ water quality is a critical service and

2:01:51 ↗ function of the city protecting that and

2:01:53 ↗ so with pea voss coming up

2:01:56 ↗ we may have had a conversation and

2:02:00 ↗ treated it either as something in the

2:02:02 ↗ sea bucket which I think staff is saying

2:02:06 ↗ it's perhaps than a or B in the moment

2:02:11 ↗ but that P posish you could have been

2:02:13 ↗ incorporated into critical services work

2:02:16 ↗ plan and so we were thinking about that

2:02:19 ↗ critical services being more of a

2:02:21 ↗ checkbox does it does it live on this

2:02:23 ↗ side of the plan or isn't in the a

2:02:25 ↗ bucket or the C bucket chance remember I

2:02:30 ↗ that makes sense in that I think was my

2:02:34 ↗ thought too is that basically that's

2:02:36 ↗ categorizing it but it's not a criteria

2:02:39 ↗ that's remember Ray one of the values

2:02:42 ↗ that I think you scribed from having a

2:02:45 ↗ plan like this all's into the critical

2:02:47 ↗ services plan in that it not only helps

2:02:50 ↗ you to understand what you have to do

2:02:52 ↗ but it also will help you to illuminate

2:02:55 ↗ things that you're doing that don't make

2:02:57 ↗ sense and so the only way that we will

2:02:59 ↗ be successful with a strategic work plan

2:03:01 ↗ is by freeing up resources that are

2:03:04 ↗ currently doing critical service work

2:03:07 ↗ and we will do that by saying that's

2:03:10 ↗ something that we can do the way we're

2:03:13 ↗ doing so I think that's one of the real

2:03:16 ↗ values in this exercise from my

2:03:18 ↗ perspective is to help us focus on

2:03:20 ↗ what's important and as much but put

2:03:23 ↗ things on our to-do list is to put

2:03:24 ↗ things on our stop doing list thank you

2:03:29 ↗ all right other questions on this

2:03:31 ↗ element or we move on so great we've

2:03:37 ↗ talked about these categories of Krait

2:03:42 ↗ of elements of a city work plan we've

2:03:44 ↗ talked about criteria and we've talked

2:03:47 ↗ about the annual schedule and the other

2:03:49 ↗ thing we wanted to talk about and we've

2:03:51 ↗ kind of touched on the questions we were

2:03:52 ↗ gonna do so the other thing we wanted to

2:03:54 ↗ talk about was the kind of goal level

2:03:58 ↗ performance measures so the council

2:04:01 ↗ level kind of how do you want to know if

2:04:04 ↗ you're succeeding on this plan I'm sorry

2:04:05 ↗ I won't you go back one slide just we

2:04:08 ↗ spent a lot of time

2:04:09 ↗ yeah sorry one more slide there we go

2:04:11 ↗ okay so we've spent a lot of time on the

2:04:13 ↗ slide before this slide we talked a

2:04:15 ↗ little bit about this slide in a in

2:04:19 ↗ relation to the previous slide and also

2:04:20 ↗ in my example right but I just want to

2:04:23 ↗ make sure I mean this is the blueprint

2:04:26 ↗ of how we would do things strategically

2:04:29 ↗ as a council right so we have talked

2:04:32 ↗ about you know what's our relationship

2:04:34 ↗ between retreats and goals and whatnot

2:04:39 ↗ this is this is saying what that is so I

2:04:42 ↗ just want to make sure that everybody is

2:04:44 ↗ and I realize this is the last time

2:04:46 ↗ we're gonna see this information but

2:04:47 ↗ it's perhaps the first time we've seen

2:04:50 ↗ it quite this way and I believe Vicki

2:04:52 ↗ had her hand up first member hunt I

2:04:56 ↗ wondered about the timing of annual

2:04:59 ↗ reports of community and then community

2:05:00 ↗ check-in just because the the community

2:05:04 ↗ satisfaction data is is in January

2:05:06 ↗ February that's first that's just with

2:05:08 ↗ the public and then we have the council

2:05:10 ↗ and the public and it seems to me that

2:05:13 ↗ it would make sense to have that sort of

2:05:15 ↗ check-in process and then the report out

2:05:17 ↗ and then maybe you could do more

2:05:19 ↗ check-in but you I think I would think

2:05:21 ↗ that the council would want to have some

2:05:23 ↗ time to check in before doing a report

2:05:26 ↗ out that's my thought and I think it was

2:05:30 ↗ councilmember Goodman and then comes

2:05:32 ↗ member winters time

2:05:36 ↗ just a comment for the consultant and

2:05:40 ↗ staff to think about the timing that

2:05:46 ↗ seems it seems crowded when you get into

2:05:48 ↗ April and May because budget is starting

2:05:53 ↗ I would think that we would want to

2:05:56 ↗ endeavour to roll this process back a

2:06:00 ↗ little bit and maybe even work at the

2:06:04 ↗ end of the prior year start planning for

2:06:08 ↗ updating the plan the following year I

2:06:11 ↗ don't know how all this works I can just

2:06:14 ↗ see this April May getting just really

2:06:17 ↗ last-minute and crowded City

2:06:21 ↗ Administrator moon you have thoughts on

2:06:24 ↗ that we can certainly try to think about

2:06:31 ↗ that I there are a few moments in time

2:06:33 ↗ that are a little bit more solid here

2:06:37 ↗ and others that I think we can be

2:06:39 ↗ flexible on I will also say this is well

2:06:43 ↗ it's so typical I think there may be

2:06:45 ↗ times that we need to be a little

2:06:47 ↗ flexible for example we're thinking

2:06:51 ↗ about starting this process in 2019 to

2:06:54 ↗ some degree even before you've adopted

2:06:56 ↗ the plan and I'm not sure if we're gonna

2:07:00 ↗ be able to collect our community

2:07:02 ↗ satisfaction data in January February

2:07:05 ↗ and as councilmember hunt spoke about we

2:07:08 ↗ we included in that although it doesn't

2:07:11 ↗ show it here that check back to

2:07:14 ↗ community or reporting out on that piece

2:07:16 ↗ of data so getting getting started with

2:07:21 ↗ that report to community and community

2:07:23 ↗ check in any time in the fall tour the

2:07:28 ↗ end of the year as councilmember Goodman

2:07:30 ↗ talked about we can contemplate as you

2:07:34 ↗ know fall tends to be pretty busy so I

2:07:40 ↗ don't think I have any any ways of

2:07:43 ↗ changing it quite yet but we'll continue

2:07:45 ↗ to think

2:07:45 ↗ about that yeah I was I was I was not

2:07:49 ↗ thinking about the council being crowded

2:07:51 ↗ in April of May I was thinking about it

2:07:53 ↗ getting pretty close to budget time and

2:07:55 ↗ then we've got it

2:07:57 ↗ that's all right so you guys will think

2:08:01 ↗ about whether how that timing works in

2:08:03 ↗ relation to the budget development yeah

2:08:06 ↗ certainly well as as you all know we do

2:08:09 ↗ get started with building the budget in

2:08:12 ↗ the spring and so we want to have all of

2:08:14 ↗ the information we possibly can about

2:08:18 ↗ community preferences perceptions as

2:08:22 ↗ well as councils ahead of that so that

2:08:26 ↗ we can incorporate that work into the

2:08:28 ↗ budget proposals although it really

2:08:31 ↗ seems like where the rubber meets the

2:08:33 ↗ road isn't that downselect that

2:08:35 ↗ potentially occurs in May all right so I

2:08:37 ↗ I question how much I mean certainly I

2:08:40 ↗ mean the regular stuff can get done

2:08:43 ↗ ahead of that but there's a bunch that I

2:08:44 ↗ would think wouldn't be able to get done

2:08:45 ↗ until after that retreat occurs that's

2:08:48 ↗ that's correct I mean we can we can work

2:08:50 ↗ on a lot of the budget but those last

2:08:53 ↗ inputs that we may not get until after

2:08:56 ↗ April and May on this calendar would be

2:08:58 ↗ incorporated in June we would aim to

2:09:01 ↗ give the that draft budget from the

2:09:04 ↗ department's to the executive office and

2:09:07 ↗ say July do our in-house work July in

2:09:13 ↗ August and get the budget into your

2:09:16 ↗ hands in September so I think it's still

2:09:20 ↗ doable I I have well Paul go first

2:09:26 ↗ quickly it was last 2000 2015 it's the

2:09:31 ↗ last time we did council goal-setting so

2:09:33 ↗ for those of us that around some of you

2:09:35 ↗ actually haven't been through that at

2:09:37 ↗ all I look obviously May and the

2:09:39 ↗ pre-work before that especially what

2:09:41 ↗ happens in April is the next generation

2:09:43 ↗ of what traditionally we had done as

2:09:45 ↗ coal setting so I appreciate you putting

2:09:47 ↗ this framework up here and me now this

2:09:50 ↗ this alone is just this list kind of

2:09:52 ↗ illustrates the fundamental

2:09:55 ↗ shift that we're making from being at a

2:09:58 ↗ year-to-year reactionary to actually

2:10:00 ↗ being very strategic within a framework

2:10:02 ↗ with with good decision-making processes

2:10:05 ↗ thank you thank you for that context so

2:10:08 ↗ I I had a question for City

2:10:10 ↗ Administrator moon which is do we need

2:10:12 ↗ to think about what this but once we

2:10:14 ↗ move to biennial budgets so we need to

2:10:16 ↗ think about what this looks like in a in

2:10:18 ↗ a budget year and an on budget here yes

2:10:20 ↗ we will I would think that we will still

2:10:24 ↗ be revisiting the strategic plan on an

2:10:26 ↗ animal update given its five-year

2:10:27 ↗ structure as to budget ripples we would

2:10:32 ↗ probably just focus the conversation

2:10:33 ↗ then in our second year or the mid-year

2:10:36 ↗ budget adjustment on those new and

2:10:40 ↗ different tweaks that need to be made

2:10:42 ↗ and won't be doing all the work of

2:10:44 ↗ prioritizing other work plan elements

2:10:47 ↗ like the critical work plan okay when

2:10:50 ↗ when this comes back for final adoption

2:10:52 ↗ I think this question about how various

2:10:55 ↗ things looking to buy any 'el system

2:10:57 ↗ probably we want to have something

2:10:59 ↗ documented around that right other

2:11:04 ↗ questions right now

2:11:05 ↗ all right thanks for I just want to make

2:11:08 ↗ sure that there's a side was really

2:11:10 ↗ important yep so we want to move into

2:11:14 ↗ the how are we going to know if we are

2:11:17 ↗ succeeding on the strategic plan and

2:11:19 ↗ again the council level performance

2:11:23 ↗ measures are related to the goals the

2:11:25 ↗ critical strategic priority areas of the

2:11:28 ↗ strategic plan and Gabriel is going to

2:11:30 ↗ walk you through those

2:11:36 ↗ thank you Oh all right so I'm gonna

2:11:46 ↗ preview some material that's come from

2:11:49 ↗ staff work in the very recent past so I

2:11:56 ↗ will defer to David and Emily when as

2:12:01 ↗ needed to fill in some of the some of

2:12:03 ↗ the details here but basically there we

2:12:06 ↗ go we've got the project leadership team

2:12:10 ↗ which is the staff leads and council

2:12:14 ↗ members the council leadership sort of

2:12:17 ↗ weighing in on sort of direction and

2:12:20 ↗ their feedback was we really need the

2:12:23 ↗ full council to direct their attention

2:12:26 ↗ to the goal level performance measures

2:12:29 ↗ so in between that meeting that we had

2:12:32 ↗ and today staff has put together some

2:12:36 ↗ work with some sort of framework from

2:12:39 ↗ from BDS on the goal level performance

2:12:43 ↗ measures so I'm gonna preview those

2:12:44 ↗ today and we're looking for is your

2:12:46 ↗ review and direction these are early

2:12:49 ↗ drafts so certainly not looking for any

2:12:52 ↗ kind of approval but I guess what we're

2:12:54 ↗ looking for is critical missing pieces

2:12:57 ↗ things that you feel really ought to be

2:13:00 ↗ considered and so I'm going to show them

2:13:02 ↗ kind of one we're gonna go one by one

2:13:04 ↗ through the strategic priority areas

2:13:07 ↗ under mobility and I've just put the

2:13:10 ↗ strategic priority and I've also put the

2:13:13 ↗ goal statement so we can be reminded of

2:13:15 ↗ that and three measures came forward

2:13:20 ↗ here

2:13:22 ↗ those were travel time with in Issaquah

2:13:24 ↗ facility connectivity and community

2:13:27 ↗ satisfaction and what we mean by those

2:13:30 ↗ in each case it's a it is a mix for all

2:13:34 ↗ of these performance measures it is a

2:13:36 ↗ mix of hard and soft data

2:13:38 ↗ so both survey responses or survey

2:13:42 ↗ questions of the community and actual

2:13:45 ↗ data

2:13:46 ↗ sort of specific things that we can

2:13:48 ↗ measure the data source we try to call

2:13:52 ↗ out where we where the staff feels that

2:13:55 ↗ will be coming from so I guess I'll just

2:13:57 ↗ I'm gonna pause and we can talk about

2:13:59 ↗ them sort of one one at a time as a

2:14:02 ↗ group here

2:14:08 ↗ don't fall I'm gonna go with comes

2:14:11 ↗ member winter Stein no all right thank

2:14:13 ↗ you I'm just gonna randomly pick a

2:14:17 ↗ couple points with in Issaquah and

2:14:18 ↗ decide the travel time or obviously or

2:14:21 ↗ is there gonna be some process that

2:14:23 ↗ we're gonna identify key you know

2:14:25 ↗ starting and ending points haven't

2:14:28 ↗ gotten that far okay but but I would

2:14:30 ↗ imagine there's there's a finite number

2:14:32 ↗ a small number let's say half a dozen

2:14:35 ↗ and we would pick trips that we think

2:14:37 ↗ hit different geographies and our kind

2:14:40 ↗ of common trips for people in town and

2:14:43 ↗ then measure them at different different

2:14:47 ↗ times so peak hour a weekend you know

2:14:51 ↗ Saturday is tough to get around town as

2:14:53 ↗ we know okay so this measure would be

2:14:56 ↗ travel times on well-established well

2:15:00 ↗ identified routes correctly would act we

2:15:03 ↗ would correct actual times correct okay

2:15:08 ↗ what's a facility in this definition on

2:15:12 ↗ number two yeah sorry

2:15:14 ↗ identified facility gaps I think that

2:15:18 ↗ was meant to be types of on roadway yet

2:15:23 ↗ like sidewalks bike lanes would they

2:15:28 ↗ move

2:15:35 ↗ okay the mobility infrastructures

2:15:37 ↗ correct opponents okay okay that this

2:15:45 ↗ relate and then percentage of housing

2:15:47 ↗ units okay I see that I see other okay

2:15:52 ↗ one of them is like I said sidewalks for

2:15:54 ↗ example incomplete and then just

2:15:58 ↗ proximity of transit service so not

2:16:01 ↗ transit stations you're just talking

2:16:02 ↗ about anything along transit routes

2:16:05 ↗ regardless of their capacities yes

2:16:10 ↗ access getting to that question yeah

2:16:14 ↗ yeah just say that the like it I get P

2:16:18 ↗ SRC the one of the considerations

2:16:19 ↗ specifically is potentially doing

2:16:22 ↗ creating a planning geography in

2:16:25 ↗ vicinity in proximity to what we're

2:16:28 ↗ calling transit stations and there's a

2:16:30 ↗ lot of different types because there's

2:16:32 ↗ train there's light rail there's BRT bus

2:16:35 ↗ rapid transit there's this regular

2:16:36 ↗ transit and and and there's going to be

2:16:39 ↗ a really rigid definition of what these

2:16:41 ↗ stations are so if we do some type of

2:16:44 ↗ growth planning or create allocations

2:16:47 ↗ there's gonna be really clear

2:16:49 ↗ definitions within there so that was my

2:16:51 ↗ feedback on on that one is to be very

2:16:56 ↗ put the rigor into defining when you say

2:16:59 ↗ transit service what do you mean sounds

2:17:03 ↗ a member hunt I agree I wasn't sure what

2:17:09 ↗ facilities meant I think that one of my

2:17:12 ↗ issues overall with this slide is that

2:17:14 ↗ it seems like it's missing the non

2:17:15 ↗ motorized and pedestrian mobility

2:17:18 ↗ emphasis which I know especially as

2:17:21 ↗ we're an urbanizing and growing city we

2:17:24 ↗ do want to have that pedestrian and more

2:17:26 ↗ walkability you mentioned sidewalks but

2:17:29 ↗ that doesn't appear here so I think it

2:17:32 ↗ if we can make it more clear that we are

2:17:34 ↗ talking about non motorized as well and

2:17:37 ↗ I noticed also the travel time is

2:17:39 ↗ specific to roadways so that's very

2:17:41 ↗ specific to cars and then the other

2:17:43 ↗ thing

2:17:44 ↗ I had an issue or a question around is

2:17:47 ↗ the percentage of housing units within

2:17:48 ↗ 1/4 1/4 mile of transit service to me

2:17:51 ↗ that sounds like the goal is to orient

2:17:55 ↗ more housing around transit service but

2:17:58 ↗ the other way the other way would be

2:18:01 ↗ right to switch it which would be that

2:18:03 ↗ we want to have more transit options for

2:18:06 ↗ people that will get to where their

2:18:07 ↗ existing housing is so I think I think

2:18:11 ↗ if both of those are within that

2:18:13 ↗ statement then teasing that apart and

2:18:15 ↗ being clear that that we want to do both

2:18:17 ↗ is warranted because I think it can be

2:18:20 ↗ read I was going to say it seems like

2:18:26 ↗ that statement would sort of incorporate

2:18:28 ↗ both of those concepts of like

2:18:31 ↗ prioritizing housing with that is

2:18:33 ↗ already within that would be within a

2:18:36 ↗ quarter mile of an existing station and

2:18:38 ↗ then also sort of locating transit

2:18:42 ↗ facilities that are close to density

2:18:45 ↗ right I would think that both would be

2:18:48 ↗ goals but I also think you could achieve

2:18:52 ↗ the same sort of percentage increase

2:18:54 ↗ because we're going to be having new

2:18:55 ↗ housing coming to the city you couldn't

2:18:57 ↗ think you could achieve a percentage

2:18:58 ↗ increase by just locating how is it but

2:19:00 ↗ I think we want to also assess the

2:19:02 ↗ housing what you're saying with this is

2:19:04 ↗ that you want people who live close to

2:19:06 ↗ where there's transit service and you

2:19:08 ↗ could achieve that either by bringing

2:19:11 ↗ transit to where they already live or

2:19:12 ↗ providing housing close to transit both

2:19:14 ↗ of those would achieve the goal you're

2:19:16 ↗ just measuring how well does it work

2:19:18 ↗ and I I would think that we would want

2:19:20 ↗ to do both because right now we have

2:19:21 ↗ some areas that are not well served by

2:19:23 ↗ transit agree completely and all this is

2:19:25 ↗ doing is saying that in a perfect world

2:19:27 ↗ everybody live within a quarter mile of

2:19:29 ↗ transit

2:19:35 ↗ it seems to be back quick so I think

2:19:39 ↗ that the idea is with the first one it's

2:19:41 ↗ that one's mostly about you might think

2:19:43 ↗ about that as being around convenience

2:19:45 ↗ and reliability the second one is more

2:19:48 ↗ about access and connectivity and so as

2:19:52 ↗ I think as Brian said there's a couple

2:19:53 ↗ of ways to achieve that piece it's not

2:19:55 ↗ just about let's build more housing

2:19:57 ↗ close to existing services it's how can

2:19:59 ↗ we increase access to so those services

2:20:01 ↗ either by route changes or thinking

2:20:03 ↗ about other solutions and how we get

2:20:05 ↗ people connected to those systems that's

2:20:13 ↗ right yep other questions on these

2:20:20 ↗ slides or you move on councilmember hunt

2:20:26 ↗ um it's the the overall ease of getting

2:20:31 ↗ to the places you visit and it's a quite

2:20:34 ↗ I think is is more inclusive than

2:20:36 ↗ usually have to visit

2:20:45 ↗ okay

2:20:47 ↗ I'm so member German in terms of in

2:20:50 ↗ terms of measures and thank you David

2:20:51 ↗ for your comment a moment I really I

2:20:53 ↗ think your number two is is actually two

2:20:55 ↗ measures

2:20:56 ↗ I think the completeness of the network

2:20:59 ↗ is something that we can we plan and

2:21:03 ↗ measure and do and that can be as

2:21:04 ↗ separate from how well we are

2:21:08 ↗ integrating transit public transit with

2:21:12 ↗ in proximity to where people live I

2:21:14 ↗ think those are separate measures you're

2:21:16 ↗ related but separate I like to see them

2:21:17 ↗ separate all right okay and I'll just

2:21:22 ↗ say I think one of those rods should be

2:21:24 ↗ from my house to noodle boat it's really

2:21:27 ↗ commonly traveled route that is if we

2:21:30 ↗ improve that we're gonna improve transit

2:21:32 ↗ a lot in Rome City Sophie duly noted for

2:21:34 ↗ the record so yep sorry I move in I send

2:21:41 ↗ to the growth and development piece the

2:21:44 ↗ goal statement was growth at his pro

2:21:46 ↗ actively managed planned and

2:21:48 ↗ communicated in a responsible way that

2:21:50 ↗ retains our strong sense of community

2:21:51 ↗ and livability

2:21:53 ↗ three measures draft measures have

2:21:56 ↗ emerged all of these are proposed to be

2:22:03 ↗ evaluated by National Citizen survey

2:22:08 ↗ survey data so satisfaction with

2:22:11 ↗ Community Planning community knowledge

2:22:13 ↗ of awareness of future plans and

2:22:16 ↗ community livability it's my right so I

2:22:21 ↗ don't have an answer so I'm just gonna

2:22:24 ↗ ask them you think about this I would

2:22:27 ↗ really like to see something in growth

2:22:28 ↗ and development that is a little more

2:22:30 ↗ objective and a little less subjective

2:22:32 ↗ we have some of those and the other ones

2:22:34 ↗ which I really appreciate it

2:22:35 ↗ would like to see that if we can

2:22:37 ↗ identify something here that'd be great

2:22:39 ↗ I had the exact same reaction like some

2:22:42 ↗ of this is great but some of it should

2:22:43 ↗ also be all the tables what's it ativ no

2:22:47 ↗ qualitative CD administrative mode so we

2:22:50 ↗ have the same reaction but we're

2:22:52 ↗ struggling so if not tonight then please

2:22:55 ↗ do

2:22:56 ↗ and any thoughts you have after the

2:22:58 ↗ meaning because we are struggling a

2:22:59 ↗ little bit to come up with something

2:23:01 ↗ that is more quantitative and the less

2:23:05 ↗ subjective remember Goodman

2:23:09 ↗ well it just strikes me that we might

2:23:12 ↗ run into this as more as we continue to

2:23:18 ↗ work on the plan and finalize it and

2:23:19 ↗ that is when you start coming up with

2:23:21 ↗ your measures in your action plan your

2:23:24 ↗ action steps you might look back at your

2:23:26 ↗ bowl that's a goal statement up there

2:23:29 ↗ and realize that it might need to be I

2:23:31 ↗ need to be revised a little bit so you

2:23:37 ↗ say may point us the this effort on

2:23:40 ↗ finding metrics may point us towards

2:23:42 ↗ possible revision to the goal or yeah

2:23:47 ↗ and maybe thinking about rather than cut

2:23:51 ↗ in the next step coming up with how you

2:23:54 ↗ measure success or how you measure what

2:23:59 ↗ is it what's the vision of what that

2:24:01 ↗ might look like what are we what is

2:24:03 ↗ proactively managed planned and

2:24:05 ↗ communicated in a responsible way mean

2:24:07 ↗ you were gonna bring your magic wand

2:24:10 ↗ what would that look like I don't have

2:24:13 ↗ the answer tonight those are just and I

2:24:15 ↗ don't want to

2:24:18 ↗ that's just what strikes me about maybe

2:24:20 ↗ what the problem is with one two and

2:24:22 ↗ three is thank you that's member Ramos

2:24:25 ↗ yeah I think it's I look at that that

2:24:27 ↗ when you get down to what your trainers

2:24:30 ↗ attain is a sense of community right it

2:24:33 ↗ again it puts you in this the subjective

2:24:35 ↗ side very quickly and and so it's either

2:24:38 ↗ focusing on that there's the first

2:24:40 ↗ couple words of proactive where you have

2:24:42 ↗ some some stuff there it's hard because

2:24:43 ↗ it all comes down to a sense that's

2:24:45 ↗ gonna be hard to quantify it so we may

2:24:47 ↗ need to tweak that a little bit to get

2:24:49 ↗ to to that sense in a more quantifiable

2:24:52 ↗ way so I have an idea and I have no idea

2:24:56 ↗ what would happen if we did it but it'd

2:24:58 ↗ be interesting to look at you know we

2:25:00 ↗ had that presentation from Keith a

2:25:02 ↗ couple years ago that that led us to

2:25:04 ↗ impose a moratorium because we felt we

2:25:07 ↗ weren't getting

2:25:08 ↗ growth that was proactively managed

2:25:11 ↗ planned and I don't know about the

2:25:13 ↗ communicated part would it be

2:25:14 ↗ interesting to look back at the elements

2:25:16 ↗ that were in that and mind those and see

2:25:18 ↗ if any of those might be ripe for

2:25:20 ↗ inclusion in this councilmember Goodman

2:25:23 ↗ my recollection of that is that it we

2:25:27 ↗ called it the Chiclets report and it was

2:25:29 ↗ directly tied to the simple squat plan

2:25:30 ↗ so it wouldn't I don't know that would

2:25:33 ↗ it would transfer to this so I don't I

2:25:39 ↗ don't know that it's a bad idea to look

2:25:42 ↗ at it but it's not the same thing that's

2:25:43 ↗ all I said I would just be curious to

2:25:46 ↗ see if any of those metrics would scale

2:25:48 ↗ to full City I'm sorry ray I think it's

2:25:52 ↗ about looking at outcomes so what's kind

2:25:54 ↗ of missing is we have the goals and

2:25:56 ↗ objectives there's another element in

2:25:59 ↗ there which is what are the outcomes

2:25:59 ↗ that we're really trying to accomplish

2:26:01 ↗ and if we can tease out and articulate

2:26:03 ↗ what our outcomes are that make us know

2:26:06 ↗ that we have a sense of a community and

2:26:08 ↗ livability

2:26:09 ↗ that will help us to really hone in on

2:26:11 ↗ what it is we want to know I think some

2:26:15 ↗ discussion about the desired outcomes

2:26:18 ↗ that's more tangible will help us

2:26:20 ↗ immensely and it's a frame around this

2:26:23 ↗ and I think we'll see this in some of

2:26:24 ↗ the others too Thanks there are comments

2:26:28 ↗ questions that's been winters time I

2:26:35 ↗ don't mean to be piling on but this is a

2:26:38 ↗ good conversation about this particular

2:26:40 ↗ one and now I'm struggling

2:26:45 ↗ I do agree with what Chris said that

2:26:48 ↗ that there there there are types of

2:26:51 ↗ outcomes and that we're talking about

2:26:54 ↗ measures here right so there's there's

2:26:57 ↗ some pretty banal measures we can make

2:26:59 ↗ about housing units and plants and all

2:27:01 ↗ of that but that's not gonna help us get

2:27:03 ↗ where we want so it's it's not as clear

2:27:06 ↗ to me and the only the other thing that

2:27:08 ↗ popped in my mind again I don't want to

2:27:09 ↗ make this more difficult I know we're

2:27:10 ↗ trying to get more closure on what

2:27:12 ↗ measures are and I got to think about

2:27:14 ↗ this one a little a little bit more but

2:27:16 ↗ we do have a this is about Issaquah and

2:27:20 ↗ we have a place within the region as

2:27:22 ↗ well and and I think I think that war

2:27:27 ↗ there to be satisfaction with growth and

2:27:31 ↗ development with in Issaquah it's its

2:27:34 ↗ most appreciated and understood I think

2:27:37 ↗ if there's an understanding of what's

2:27:40 ↗ happening around us and and and how well

2:27:44 ↗ we are still in control and getting the

2:27:49 ↗ outcomes that we want in spite of or

2:27:52 ↗ because of what's happening around us so

2:27:54 ↗ this this one is I'm sorry it's a little

2:27:56 ↗ bit more gray in my mind in terms of

2:27:58 ↗ measures thank you

2:28:03 ↗ all right let's move on okay

2:28:09 ↗ environmental stewardship environmental

2:28:11 ↗ resources are proactively enhanced

2:28:13 ↗ protected and stewarded five measures

2:28:19 ↗ emerged here about tree canopy coverage

2:28:22 ↗ water quality carbon emissions resource

2:28:27 ↗ area restoration and protection and

2:28:30 ↗ community knowledge so a mix of both

2:28:32 ↗ that survey and

2:28:35 ↗ sort of harder if you will

2:28:38 ↗ quantitative data it's very interesting

2:28:43 ↗ you can go to another extreme from the

2:28:45 ↗ previous slide and then one that says

2:28:47 ↗ we're gonna measure benthic index of

2:28:48 ↗ micro and vertebrate biology integrity

2:28:50 ↗ that is awesome just saying you what

2:28:59 ↗ extent do we think we can and why I am

2:29:03 ↗ as much as anybody about carbon

2:29:05 ↗ emissions but to what extent can the

2:29:07 ↗ city of Issaquah impact a carbon

2:29:10 ↗ emission number not a scientist great

2:29:18 ↗ point and that's where he get back to

2:29:20 ↗ ability to influence might be a criteria

2:29:23 ↗ and so a question for you is is that a

2:29:26 ↗ realistic measure for the city and if

2:29:29 ↗ you're gonna grade your own performance

2:29:30 ↗ on your own plan do you want to put that

2:29:32 ↗ out there is so Mike my question might

2:29:36 ↗ be if there would be some other way to

2:29:38 ↗ measure carbon impact on things that we

2:29:42 ↗ do control right so we've got I mean I

2:29:46 ↗ don't know LEED certification we've got

2:29:49 ↗ you know it's leads equivalent and other

2:29:53 ↗ building technology we've got carbon

2:29:57 ↗ sequestration of city projects I mean I

2:30:00 ↗ don't know I'm not ready to decide it

2:30:03 ↗ tonight but it just seems like there

2:30:04 ↗ might be measures for carbon that we

2:30:07 ↗ could that would be there would relate

2:30:10 ↗ more to things that we can control

2:30:12 ↗ councilmember Goodman

2:30:17 ↗ I guess one general question I would

2:30:20 ↗ have that's I guess it's a I don't know

2:30:22 ↗ the answer because I wasn't in all the

2:30:24 ↗ meetings but it would surprise me if

2:30:27 ↗ environmental if under environmental

2:30:29 ↗ stewardship having something to do with

2:30:32 ↗ carbon emissions in Issaquah was a real

2:30:36 ↗ priority for our community but i'm i

2:30:40 ↗ would highly doubt it

2:30:41 ↗ based on the feedback that we've gotten

2:30:43 ↗ over the last several years with in the

2:30:45 ↗ last 20 years with transportation and

2:30:47 ↗ growth and maybe the comment from the

2:30:49 ↗ community would be were like well with

2:30:50 ↗ all the traffic you know we're not doing

2:30:52 ↗ a very good job but i I'm having a hard

2:30:56 ↗ time believing that that's really

2:30:58 ↗ important to our community

2:31:02 ↗ it comes from member Ramos first getting

2:31:05 ↗ mecca in the carbon emission part I

2:31:06 ↗ think I think we are doing that and

2:31:09 ↗ that's our sustainability plan and the

2:31:11 ↗ details of which are in there are the

2:31:12 ↗ things we can't control

2:31:13 ↗ obviously we can't control the cars

2:31:14 ↗ driving down i-90 right but the things

2:31:17 ↗ we can do with with with some solar

2:31:20 ↗ projects we're doing in the city there's

2:31:22 ↗ lots of things that we can do to make a

2:31:24 ↗ dent in it for our part of what we can't

2:31:28 ↗ control and I think that's in our

2:31:29 ↗ sustainability plan as far as that goes

2:31:32 ↗ so that's one comment there the other

2:31:34 ↗ comment is on tree canopy coverage there

2:31:36 ↗ it talks about tree can you know the

2:31:39 ↗ title there is repeated which are Canada

2:31:41 ↗ coverage and landscape condition that to

2:31:43 ↗ me is not it doesn't say we're doing

2:31:48 ↗ anything they're tricking coverage you

2:31:51 ↗ have a measure of that but we also have

2:31:53 ↗ a lot of lands we talked about of

2:31:55 ↗ actually trying to manage our forests

2:31:57 ↗ and open space in a way that is

2:31:59 ↗ developing you know more land management

2:32:02 ↗ plans for our open spaces versus

2:32:05 ↗ landscape condition that sounds like

2:32:07 ↗ it's just a data collection thing I

2:32:09 ↗ think it wants to be more active on that

2:32:12 ↗ and what are we doing to manage our open

2:32:14 ↗ space in our forest that we have a lot

2:32:16 ↗ of acres out so next council members

2:32:20 ↗ winter stein then petites than goodman

2:32:22 ↗ D'Andre i think and well

2:32:28 ↗ these are measurable and I'm not so I

2:32:31 ↗ guess I shouldn't be surprised at under

2:32:33 ↗ environmental stewardship we'd have

2:32:34 ↗ perhaps a little more corners on our box

2:32:37 ↗ of what we're trying to measure so I

2:32:39 ↗ generally think you're headed in the

2:32:42 ↗ right direction and and when I first saw

2:32:46 ↗ this I thought okay what you have down

2:32:48 ↗ there at number four it's there

2:32:50 ↗ I think this restoration in particular

2:32:52 ↗ and wait and you just think about what

2:32:53 ↗ we've been doing along Issaquah Creek in

2:32:56 ↗ its various tributaries that is

2:32:57 ↗ tributaries that is actually something

2:33:00 ↗ we can measure we can measure what we're

2:33:02 ↗ doing with you know sensitive lands as

2:33:06 ↗ well there's a lot of key not only

2:33:08 ↗ protecting but in restoration I think

2:33:10 ↗ water quality is very clear I think tree

2:33:13 ↗ canopy I agree with what bill said

2:33:15 ↗ earlier that there may be some more to

2:33:17 ↗ pull out of that but we should we can

2:33:21 ↗ measure that and we can track it over

2:33:22 ↗ time so all in all I think this is a

2:33:26 ↗ this is got a lot more feet underneath

2:33:29 ↗ it and I'll say around carbon emissions

2:33:32 ↗ we're a member of the global community

2:33:35 ↗ and more especially our children become

2:33:38 ↗ aware that the choices and that they

2:33:41 ↗ make and our behaviors do contribute to

2:33:44 ↗ this worldwide issue and the more and

2:33:47 ↗ more communities that do that that's how

2:33:49 ↗ we'll actually be part of the solution

2:33:52 ↗ so it's important to me that we continue

2:33:54 ↗ to keep this in front of us as well I

2:33:57 ↗ was deputy president patís

2:34:00 ↗ so just in regard to I I think the first

2:34:03 ↗ three topics I'll start with carbon

2:34:07 ↗ emissions I'll start with the third but

2:34:09 ↗ I would agree I think that it could be

2:34:11 ↗ built out a bit more in terms of

2:34:13 ↗ sustainability overall I think it's

2:34:15 ↗ really important to have there but

2:34:17 ↗ there's seem to be some missing pieces

2:34:19 ↗ in terms of green building and what

2:34:22 ↗ we've done with solar and just being

2:34:24 ↗ able to expand that and probably more

2:34:26 ↗ that we could measure water quality I

2:34:30 ↗ guess my question with water quality is

2:34:34 ↗ that is there more that we could add

2:34:37 ↗ there in terms of

2:34:40 ↗ getting getting the measures that we I

2:34:43 ↗ mean that's very specific but are there

2:34:45 ↗ more and that would be the same comment

2:34:50 ↗ that I would have for tree canopy I

2:34:51 ↗ think that there's I think the language

2:34:53 ↗ is pretty general I think that we could

2:34:56 ↗ there's a lot that that goes into

2:34:59 ↗ looking at tree canopy coverage but also

2:35:03 ↗ the impacts that it could have for

2:35:05 ↗ example looking at stormwater and all of

2:35:10 ↗ all of the different elements that could

2:35:12 ↗ fall under tree canopy there I think

2:35:13 ↗ there might be more that could be

2:35:15 ↗ measured than what we have okay thank

2:35:20 ↗ you

2:35:22 ↗ that's we have a good man sure thanks I

2:35:25 ↗ just wanted to clarify I didn't say it

2:35:27 ↗ wasn't important what I'm saying and I

2:35:29 ↗ realized and thank you Bill and I

2:35:30 ↗ realized that we we have this in our

2:35:34 ↗ city policies already I'm I'm just a tad

2:35:40 ↗ bit concerned that we're placing an

2:35:45 ↗ emphasis on it here where I'm not sure

2:35:48 ↗ that's where the community thinks that

2:35:50 ↗ we should there's the emphasis increased

2:35:53 ↗ emphasis should be that's so I'm not

2:35:54 ↗ saying it's not important I'm not saying

2:35:56 ↗ that we it's important for our children

2:36:00 ↗ and future generations to focus on it I

2:36:03 ↗ just like I said I'm very skeptical

2:36:07 ↗ skeptical that our community thinks that

2:36:10 ↗ in our strategic plan this is super

2:36:12 ↗ important that we need to expand on that

2:36:14 ↗ I would think that they would think we

2:36:15 ↗ need to spend our resources elsewhere

2:36:17 ↗ we got a this is a public engagement

2:36:23 ↗ opportunity tonight and there which we

2:36:25 ↗ heard there's nobody from the public

2:36:27 ↗ here tonight but we did get an email

2:36:30 ↗ from from Connie and I she says of the

2:36:34 ↗ environmental section that this section

2:36:37 ↗ discusses resource lands yet another

2:36:39 ↗ name of a specific extremely narrow zone

2:36:41 ↗ we also have public open space critical

2:36:44 ↗ areas buffers setbacks private open

2:36:46 ↗ space yet there's no particular way to

2:36:48 ↗ address their care and fee

2:36:50 ↗ there's no discussion in here of how

2:36:51 ↗ they connect together to create habitat

2:36:53 ↗ and wildlife corridors even though even

2:36:55 ↗ through the more urban areas and there's

2:36:57 ↗ not language to enforce those

2:36:59 ↗ connections she has a list of some

2:37:02 ↗ things that we can use to measure and I

2:37:05 ↗ don't need to read those off but this we

2:37:08 ↗ did get community input regarding this

2:37:10 ↗ section and she also has six other

2:37:14 ↗ points and I would just ask that we

2:37:17 ↗ recognized that we got this comment from

2:37:19 ↗ the public and that we would include it

2:37:20 ↗ in our in your further review and

2:37:24 ↗ revisions Thanks

2:37:25 ↗ Thanks it comes from an array I think

2:37:29 ↗ it's already been covered I'm good all

2:37:31 ↗ right sounds member hunt I would just

2:37:36 ↗ add on what councilmember Goodman said I

2:37:38 ↗ think there as as Connie pointed out in

2:37:41 ↗ her letter I think there could be more

2:37:43 ↗ expansionist particularly around habitat

2:37:46 ↗ and connectivity for wildlife which I do

2:37:49 ↗ hear from the public is as one of the

2:37:52 ↗ important things so something around

2:37:54 ↗ habitat that refers to both water I

2:37:57 ↗ think and in forested lands and then

2:38:00 ↗ also expanding or better defining the

2:38:03 ↗ resource area because lake facility I

2:38:05 ↗ think that that's not clear and probably

2:38:08 ↗ also not all-encompassing enough thank

2:38:13 ↗ you anything else on this slide let's

2:38:20 ↗ remember ray no you're just smiling all

2:38:22 ↗ right we can move on I want to reiterate

2:38:28 ↗ part of my introduction to this session

2:38:30 ↗ is where we're trying to get to is some

2:38:35 ↗ high level measures of the goal of the

2:38:40 ↗ goals all the activities that you may do

2:38:44 ↗ every activity should probably have

2:38:45 ↗ measures about how it's going but what

2:38:48 ↗ it seems to me at the council level your

2:38:51 ↗ goal is environmental resources are

2:38:53 ↗ proactively enhanced protected and

2:38:55 ↗ stewarded and I would love to see you

2:38:58 ↗ have one measure that said are we doing

2:39:02 ↗ that you know

2:39:03 ↗ and and suggestion we spend more time on

2:39:06 ↗ this one let's go on I just want to

2:39:07 ↗ remind you that there are so many things

2:39:11 ↗ that we could measure that are all

2:39:13 ↗ interesting at some level but you'll

2:39:16 ↗ never have time to review those measures

2:39:18 ↗ and figure out what they mean and you

2:39:20 ↗ can't afford to pay your staff to spend

2:39:23 ↗ all that time measuring so they're

2:39:25 ↗ bringing you good data so if we got if

2:39:27 ↗ we could only measure a handful of

2:39:29 ↗ things that would tell us are we getting

2:39:30 ↗ to our strategic plan what are those

2:39:31 ↗ things so I think what you're hearing

2:39:35 ↗ tonight from the council is a preference

2:39:40 ↗ for quantitative over data but I've

2:39:44 ↗ heard that hearing is that environmental

2:39:46 ↗ stewardship is a particularly strong

2:39:48 ↗ point for us right yeah I mean you saw

2:39:51 ↗ that you know we had three for mobility

2:39:53 ↗ we had well we split we suggested

2:39:57 ↗ perhaps a split on one of those into

2:39:58 ↗ four but we had three for growth and

2:40:00 ↗ development every was fine and on this

2:40:02 ↗ one there was talked to potentially

2:40:03 ↗ additional so respectfully the way I

2:40:05 ↗ would I would say the thing to learn

2:40:07 ↗ from this is you want a lot of measures

2:40:09 ↗ and especially a lot of environmental

2:40:11 ↗ stewardship there you go okay I heard

2:40:14 ↗ that Thanks right social and economic

2:40:21 ↗ vitality you get the drill here but

2:40:24 ↗ we've got living wage jobs business

2:40:26 ↗ growth housing cost burdened live in

2:40:28 ↗ work and access to supportive services

2:40:33 ↗ that I see council member Ramos is in no

2:40:36 ↗ okay that's member a is a living wage

2:40:42 ↗ thing yeah yes okay what is it I

2:40:47 ↗ couldn't tell you offhand but I know

2:40:49 ↗ that it's look fine what does it imply

2:40:51 ↗ is it like poverty level times four is

2:40:53 ↗ it based on the cost of we will get the

2:41:00 ↗ answer that but I believe there's a

2:41:01 ↗ specific definition for it we just again

2:41:05 ↗ so there is a specific way of measuring

2:41:08 ↗ that that's standardized and it looks at

2:41:10 ↗ things like basic needs and kind of

2:41:12 ↗ costs for households of different sizes

2:41:15 ↗ my recollection is that for a family of

2:41:18 ↗ four in this in this area it's around

2:41:20 ↗ seventy seventy five thousand dollars

2:41:22 ↗ per year let me expand on that David

2:41:26 ↗ just a little bit further how hard is it

2:41:28 ↗ to measure that do we measure that now

2:41:30 ↗ and and what's the workload to measure

2:41:33 ↗ something like that so we don't do that

2:41:35 ↗ that measure there's actually I think

2:41:38 ↗ part of the work going forward if we

2:41:39 ↗ choose to use this as identifying which

2:41:42 ↗ tool we use there are tools that are

2:41:44 ↗ used nationally but also applied locally

2:41:46 ↗ I can get a specific as this COIs or the

2:41:49 ↗ east side there is a variant on that

2:41:51 ↗ which is put together by the university

2:41:53 ↗ of washington and i forget what it's

2:41:56 ↗ called at the moment but it's a similar

2:41:58 ↗ kind of a basic needs and it excludes

2:42:01 ↗ you know dining out and entertainment

2:42:03 ↗ it's really just the kind of core things

2:42:05 ↗ that a household needs to function so we

2:42:08 ↗ would rely on that and then apply that

2:42:10 ↗ to data that we could collect from the

2:42:12 ↗ Employment Security Division all right

2:42:15 ↗ that's mayor winters time

2:42:22 ↗ number one looks at how much business

2:42:28 ↗ are paying their employees number two

2:42:30 ↗ looks at how much businesses are paying

2:42:34 ↗ the city in forms of taxes those seem to

2:42:38 ↗ be the collective measurements of

2:42:40 ↗ economic vitality as far as I can tell

2:42:44 ↗ think that there are other established

2:42:47 ↗ means of measuring economic vitality

2:42:50 ↗ beyond those I don't know if we get our

2:42:54 ↗ hands on them but I think in terms of

2:42:56 ↗ you know at the really large scales to

2:42:59 ↗ get to this point about maybe one number

2:43:01 ↗ and I'm not saying this is it but but

2:43:03 ↗ there are various institutions that

2:43:06 ↗ measure how much I'll take you know just

2:43:09 ↗ you know capital investment there's just

2:43:13 ↗ there's a number of ways of measuring

2:43:15 ↗ economic activity and growth beyond what

2:43:19 ↗ we have on this slide and your

2:43:23 ↗ suggestion is that they would be better

2:43:24 ↗ than these ones

2:43:25 ↗ it would give yes what's what's the goal

2:43:28 ↗ of this goal have an economically vital

2:43:31 ↗ vital and growing community that

2:43:34 ↗ prevented that has created and continues

2:43:36 ↗ to create opportunities for people to to

2:43:40 ↗ work here and afford to live within

2:43:43 ↗ proximity of where they live and and

2:43:46 ↗ it's going to be a it's going to be a

2:43:50 ↗ growing economy that provides those

2:43:53 ↗ opportunities for our growing city we

2:43:57 ↗ have to be able to measure how well the

2:43:59 ↗ business area is actually doing and I

2:44:03 ↗ don't think these are at council deputy

2:44:06 ↗ president booties so I would agree with

2:44:10 ↗ councilmember winter Stein and and I

2:44:13 ↗ think that my my take when I when I was

2:44:17 ↗ looking at this is that getting the data

2:44:19 ↗ source from for example the Employment

2:44:21 ↗ Security Division and the Department of

2:44:24 ↗ Revenue just seemed like the very basics

2:44:27 ↗ and that there are definitely are

2:44:30 ↗ elements that would go

2:44:31 ↗ beyond one you know and and I think that

2:44:36 ↗ there's a variety of different ways that

2:44:38 ↗ we could look at it but I definitely

2:44:40 ↗ think we could expand how we're looking

2:44:43 ↗ to measure that because I it seems that

2:44:47 ↗ you know I I feel like some of this

2:44:49 ↗ might be things were already doing a

2:44:52 ↗ little bit or we might already have a

2:44:53 ↗ feel for that and those are just sort of

2:44:56 ↗ the basic reports that we get so I think

2:44:58 ↗ we have to reach further beyond that and

2:45:03 ↗ one one thing in particular that that I

2:45:06 ↗ think would be helpful would be doing a

2:45:09 ↗ commercial space analysis for for the

2:45:14 ↗ city of Issaquah and understanding what

2:45:17 ↗ what is available in terms of commercial

2:45:21 ↗ and what would be available to employers

2:45:25 ↗ as they're coming in okay

2:45:27 ↗ so some direction to staff on

2:45:29 ↗ considering commercial space space

2:45:31 ↗ availability for this measure

2:45:37 ↗ councilmember Goodman you know I'm I'm I

2:45:41 ↗ don't I'm not getting this sense that

2:45:45 ↗ you have the right things were measuring

2:45:51 ↗ care for either social or economic

2:45:53 ↗ vitality I don't know what it is I just

2:45:58 ↗ did a couple of internet searches and

2:45:59 ↗ I'm not I think there are some

2:46:05 ↗ established ways of measuring economic

2:46:07 ↗ vitality and I would guess that there

2:46:09 ↗ are similar ways for so for the social

2:46:13 ↗ part of it but this doesn't this strikes

2:46:16 ↗ me is it's just kind of a smattering of

2:46:18 ↗ things that we are trying to connect and

2:46:20 ↗ I'm not sure it does that I mean okay

2:46:26 ↗ thank you all right thank you

2:46:29 ↗ I have a question around housing cost

2:46:32 ↗ burden so 30% is that 30% of pre-tax or

2:46:36 ↗ post-tax

2:46:39 ↗ because I was just if it's 30% of

2:46:41 ↗ pre-tax that I could probably tell you

2:46:43 ↗ the answer it's probably a hundred

2:46:45 ↗ percent it's probably a hundred percent

2:46:47 ↗ next year and it's probably give me a

2:46:48 ↗ hundred percent the year after that so

2:46:50 ↗ I'm just wondering how I thought housing

2:46:53 ↗ cost burden in this area was a higher

2:46:55 ↗ bogey than 30 percent of pre-tax

2:47:06 ↗ yeah isn't that most everybody in

2:47:09 ↗ Issaquah is greater than 30 percent of

2:47:11 ↗ their of their gross 30 percent is a

2:47:14 ↗ pretty standard usage for cost being

2:47:18 ↗ considered housing cost burdened and

2:47:20 ↗ it's mortgages are 36 percent right well

2:47:24 ↗ okay but I'm just speculating that this

2:47:27 ↗ is a number that in this region is going

2:47:29 ↗ to be very very high no no we've heard

2:47:32 ↗ data in the past where we have the full

2:47:33 ↗ spectrum of low to high we have this in

2:47:37 ↗ our housing strategy plan we were

2:47:38 ↗ presented this data all right thank you

2:47:41 ↗ thank you Paul

2:47:44 ↗ other questions on this page comes

2:47:47 ↗ member winters time I was gonna say I

2:47:48 ↗ think that's a good measure by the way I

2:47:50 ↗ think that was an important one because

2:47:54 ↗ it does have many layers it is about the

2:47:59 ↗ earning earnings of people who live here

2:48:01 ↗ and the effect of housing market and the

2:48:05 ↗ overall economy so I think this is a

2:48:07 ↗ it's a yeah we'll probably stew on these

2:48:10 ↗ measures a little bit more but that's

2:48:12 ↗ what I would like you to keep their

2:48:17 ↗ questions on this page council deputy

2:48:20 ↗ president Vitesse just a question for

2:48:23 ↗ David I think just access to supportive

2:48:26 ↗ services i we've got service provider

2:48:30 ↗ data and the healthy healthy youth

2:48:33 ↗ survey all the that would be great to

2:48:36 ↗ have the healthy youth youth survey but

2:48:38 ↗ I think that there I was just wondering

2:48:41 ↗ our own needs analysis needs assessment

2:48:44 ↗ is not listed there and there might be

2:48:46 ↗ some others that we could draw from as

2:48:49 ↗ as opposed to that just seemed very

2:48:52 ↗ specific I think so like many of these

2:48:56 ↗ factors but in this category in

2:48:59 ↗ particular there's there's so many

2:49:00 ↗ different types of needs or services

2:49:04 ↗ that could be addressed it's hard to

2:49:05 ↗ distill that down to the critical one or

2:49:08 ↗ a few even and so even this I think is

2:49:12 ↗ one that will require some additional

2:49:14 ↗ development as we go forward and develop

2:49:16 ↗ the healthy community strategy in the

2:49:18 ↗ next year our expectations that will

2:49:20 ↗ help to refine some this goal this

2:49:22 ↗ metric in particular we do know that we

2:49:25 ↗ can get some data from the service

2:49:27 ↗ providers who operate in our community

2:49:29 ↗ but you know kind of distilling that

2:49:31 ↗ down amongst the different service

2:49:32 ↗ providers to identify have the gap or

2:49:34 ↗ the need or the service provided versus

2:49:37 ↗ the turned away we think we can get some

2:49:40 ↗ of that information but I think this is

2:49:41 ↗ still going to require some some

2:49:43 ↗ additional work David while you're still

2:49:49 ↗ there yes so living workforce energy

2:49:52 ↗ people who live and work in Issaquah so

2:49:55 ↗ is that of the people live in Issaquah

2:49:58 ↗ what percentage work in Issaquah and of

2:49:59 ↗ the percentage of people that work in

2:50:01 ↗ Issaquah what percentage live in

2:50:02 ↗ Issaquah that is I believe you can slice

2:50:06 ↗ it both ways yes I think both are those

2:50:10 ↗ are those those are the pair of numbers

2:50:13 ↗ that I think if when I think in that

2:50:14 ↗ question yes all right

2:50:17 ↗ the questions on this page

2:50:24 ↗ I'm gonna move core infrastructure three

2:50:28 ↗ measures renewal and replacement rate

2:50:34 ↗ percentage of assets funded for renewal

2:50:37 ↗ and replacement asset maintenance

2:50:38 ↗ deferral rate quality of drinking water

2:50:41 ↗ rating of the quality drinking water

2:50:43 ↗ services in Issaquah and infrastructure

2:50:46 ↗ investment percentage of central

2:50:48 ↗ Issaquah infrastructure investments

2:50:50 ↗ funded or built versus total identified

2:50:53 ↗ you speak up a little bit yeah Erin do

2:50:57 ↗ I'm gonna read them again I can do that

2:51:00 ↗ I could do that renewal and replacement

2:51:03 ↗ rate percentage of assets funded for

2:51:05 ↗ renewal and replacement asset

2:51:06 ↗ maintenance deferral rate City source

2:51:10 ↗ city data is the source quality of

2:51:13 ↗ drinking water rating the quality of

2:51:16 ↗ drinking water services in Issaquah

2:51:18 ↗ survey data and then infrastructure

2:51:22 ↗ investment percentage of central

2:51:24 ↗ Issaquah infrastructure investments

2:51:26 ↗ funded or built versus total identified

2:51:29 ↗ I thought there was no information there

2:51:32 ↗ right questions on this page I'm

2:51:38 ↗ Samantha Ramos we're kind of on drinking

2:51:41 ↗ water again here and I think that we got

2:51:44 ↗ a whole lot more detailed there on their

2:51:46 ↗ environmental question of water quality

2:51:49 ↗ right I don't think that was relying to

2:51:53 ↗ talking about creeks and so forth so I

2:51:56 ↗ think we got that hit in kind of two

2:51:58 ↗ places there don't need it in both

2:52:00 ↗ places

2:52:00 ↗ I need it in both places and the other

2:52:01 ↗ one has a lot more detail right and then

2:52:08 ↗ the infrastructure investment and it

2:52:10 ↗ says percentage of central Issaquah

2:52:12 ↗ infrastructure investments so I'm

2:52:15 ↗ wondering why we just identify any

2:52:18 ↗ central Issaquah it's a piece of that I

2:52:22 ↗ know that I mean obvious there's some

2:52:23 ↗ things being new so quad but there's a

2:52:25 ↗ whole lot of rest of yeah I mean I let I

2:52:28 ↗ can let David or Emily speak to this but

2:52:30 ↗ I know that it is responding to one of

2:52:33 ↗ the objectives

2:52:34 ↗ in the strategic plan okay okay bring

2:52:42 ↗ anything else on this page I'm some

2:52:45 ↗ chumps remember ray how you know okay

2:52:47 ↗ all right I think we can probably move

2:52:49 ↗ on okay

2:52:52 ↗ city leadership and services the last

2:52:54 ↗ strategic priority area the goal

2:52:56 ↗ statement is leadership and

2:52:57 ↗ accountability is provided in the

2:52:58 ↗ delivery of public services for our

2:53:00 ↗ growing and diversifying community the

2:53:04 ↗ six measures that were sort of emerged

2:53:08 ↗ here the first five are proposed coming

2:53:12 ↗ from these are really about basically

2:53:16 ↗ consumer confidence or resident and

2:53:19 ↗ community confidence in a variety of

2:53:21 ↗ different aspects of city governance

2:53:26 ↗ engagement satisfaction quality of

2:53:28 ↗ services value as respected to tax taxes

2:53:34 ↗ paid equity and inclusion and

2:53:38 ↗ accountability so confidence in the

2:53:40 ↗ government all those being proposed

2:53:42 ↗ using survey data and then financial

2:53:46 ↗ performance is the sixth one sort of

2:53:49 ↗ performance on adopted financial

2:53:51 ↗ indicators I have a question for CD

2:53:55 ↗ administrator moon does it ma have

2:53:58 ↗ standard metrics that one can apply

2:54:00 ↗ towards some of these things because I

2:54:03 ↗ mean this is again one of these lots of

2:54:05 ↗ qualitative not much quantitative does

2:54:08 ↗ it may have have metrics that cities can

2:54:10 ↗ use to sort of evaluate their value of

2:54:13 ↗ services quality of services etc so the

2:54:19 ↗ National citizen survey which is done by

2:54:23 ↗ National Research Center that's an RC on

2:54:25 ↗ the slide here is the adopted tool for

2:54:29 ↗ assessing citizen satisfaction and on

2:54:35 ↗ performance on city leadership and

2:54:37 ↗ services so these questions

2:54:40 ↗ most of them are standardized questions

2:54:42 ↗ on that survey instrument and that's the

2:54:44 ↗ way it is measured across the country

2:54:47 ↗ it's the way that I see may suggest that

2:54:49 ↗ cities do measure it they they have some

2:54:55 ↗ additional suggested ways of measuring

2:54:59 ↗ but this is the first and foremost so

2:55:04 ↗ it's it's there it's their way of

2:55:06 ↗ evaluating citizen perception or

2:55:11 ↗ response but they're like you're saying

2:55:13 ↗ there's not an ICM a way to say metrics

2:55:17 ↗ to say how efficient is our parks oh I'm

2:55:19 ↗ sorry I I didn't understand on the

2:55:20 ↗ services side

2:55:21 ↗ ICA has a whole host of ways to measure

2:55:26 ↗ provision of services satisfaction is

2:55:31 ↗ about perception and that is what I

2:55:34 ↗ assume a recommends be measured to

2:55:38 ↗ assess satisfaction but quality of

2:55:43 ↗ service there are some other metrics

2:55:45 ↗ that ima points to or an RPA which is

2:55:49 ↗ the national parks association for

2:55:51 ↗ example okay so we're talking about

2:55:53 ↗ satisfaction but we don't actually a

2:55:55 ↗ little satisfaction up there right we're

2:55:57 ↗ just we happen to as we were putting

2:56:00 ↗ these together use satisfaction and and

2:56:01 ↗ we that should be part of it but I'm

2:56:03 ↗ suggesting that perhaps some of these

2:56:04 ↗ objective metrics could also be part of

2:56:07 ↗ this as well yes and then I would say

2:56:09 ↗ it's a it's a question of which services

2:56:12 ↗ are you gonna measure how many men how

2:56:13 ↗ many measurements are going to have we

2:56:15 ↗ of course collect that kind of data at

2:56:19 ↗ the management level to assess

2:56:22 ↗ performance of our services so the

2:56:24 ↗ measurements that we pick for the

2:56:26 ↗ strategic plan aren't plan aren't the

2:56:28 ↗ only measurements that were monitoring

2:56:31 ↗ across city services this was just meant

2:56:34 ↗ to be a collection that we thought was a

2:56:36 ↗ good proxy for getting to that bold

2:56:38 ↗ statement well council members

2:56:45 ↗ Oh buddy Oh buddy you ready we're coming

2:56:51 ↗ up on three hours here we mi starting to

2:56:53 ↗ lose people counts member Hut um so my

2:56:57 ↗ thought on this one is that I I think

2:57:00 ↗ some of these would be hard for me to

2:57:02 ↗ interpret if if they were given as as

2:57:08 ↗ stated so for example residents who

2:57:10 ↗ believe the quality of services provided

2:57:12 ↗ by Issaquah exceed expectations if if we

2:57:14 ↗ have a number with that it's sort of

2:57:16 ↗ building into things it's that people

2:57:18 ↗ believe in the quality of services but

2:57:20 ↗ it also has something to do with what

2:57:22 ↗ their expectations were so I just would

2:57:26 ↗ struggle with with some of this and I

2:57:27 ↗ felt the same way about value of

2:57:29 ↗ services rating relative to taxes maybe

2:57:31 ↗ they feel a certain way about taxes but

2:57:33 ↗ they also feel that so there's there's a

2:57:35 ↗ number of here that I would feel or

2:57:37 ↗ difficult so a lot of a lot of this the

2:57:40 ↗ value here comes from looking at trends

2:57:43 ↗ year over year when you're asking the

2:57:44 ↗ same question every year and so you're

2:57:47 ↗ right that any given year it's not going

2:57:50 ↗ to tell you all that much it could be a

2:57:51 ↗ little idiosyncratic but if you're

2:57:53 ↗ asking the same question every year then

2:57:55 ↗ you can start to get a sense of if

2:57:58 ↗ you're moving in the right direction or

2:57:59 ↗ not and whether you need to intervene

2:58:02 ↗ yeah and I would say to some of them I

2:58:05 ↗ think are more clear-cut so for example

2:58:08 ↗ rating of overall confidence but that

2:58:11 ↗ may change from year to year but that's

2:58:12 ↗ also easier for me to interpret again

2:58:15 ↗ you might have two things changing year

2:58:17 ↗ to year with your expectations changing

2:58:20 ↗ year to year as well as your quality of

2:58:21 ↗ services rating could change and you

2:58:24 ↗ wouldn't it would be difficult for me to

2:58:25 ↗ tease those apart so I just felt like

2:58:27 ↗ some of these are not only are they kind

2:58:29 ↗ of subjective but they're also

2:58:33 ↗ multifaceted and it would be difficult

2:58:36 ↗ to understand transit City Administrator

2:58:38 ↗ moon the other thing that I would point

2:58:41 ↗ out is for quality of services for

2:58:44 ↗ example or importance of services on a

2:58:46 ↗ survey instrument we asked those

2:58:49 ↗ questions at the specific service level

2:58:52 ↗ so we have

2:58:53 ↗ list of let's say 24 services that get

2:58:57 ↗ rated so just to make sure that you

2:59:01 ↗ understood that's another way that the

2:59:03 ↗ data is helpful it's not we have it all

2:59:05 ↗ aggregated we ask it that way and then

2:59:07 ↗ we ask it broken up at a different

2:59:09 ↗ service type other questions on this

2:59:13 ↗ slide I want to set the stage we are

2:59:17 ↗ ostensibly going to be done in six

2:59:19 ↗ minutes I suspect would not give me done

2:59:21 ↗ in six minutes but I I do think we

2:59:23 ↗ probably need to escalate the pace a

2:59:26 ↗ little bit for the remainder of this

2:59:28 ↗ evening because we're all back at

2:59:29 ↗ Tibbets Manor at 7:15 morning yes I I

2:59:35 ↗ hear that yep

2:59:39 ↗ so that the purpose we've done sort of

2:59:42 ↗ the we wanted to get meaningful

2:59:45 ↗ direction and feedback on the measures

2:59:47 ↗ that we got I think like we've

2:59:49 ↗ accomplished that and staff will take

2:59:52 ↗ that direction and we will be pulling

2:59:55 ↗ together a new iteration on a refined

2:59:58 ↗ set of goal level performance measures

3:00:02 ↗ the next piece of this was designed to

3:00:06 ↗ give you a flavor for the all that work

3:00:10 ↗ that Brian sort of previewed at the

3:00:13 ↗ beginning of the draft actions that's

3:00:17 ↗ the all that work the staffs been doing

3:00:19 ↗ with the templates trying to develop

3:00:22 ↗ actions for to support every objective

3:00:26 ↗ in the strategic plan and so we have a

3:00:29 ↗ series of slides that so it gives the

3:00:30 ↗ highest level but the idea is here is

3:00:32 ↗ not to dive into sort of detail on any

3:00:36 ↗ one of those but just to get a sense of

3:00:39 ↗ the overall flavor and your initial

3:00:42 ↗ reactions and feedback yeah so so we're

3:00:48 ↗ just just giving you a flavour and if

3:00:50 ↗ you if you don't talk we'll be done in

3:00:51 ↗ two minutes

3:00:54 ↗ so just to get time for everything again

3:00:57 ↗ give you a quick reminder you have six

3:00:59 ↗ goals and a number of objectives under

3:01:02 ↗ each goal

3:01:03 ↗ and then they break down into specific

3:01:06 ↗ actions staff has been working on these

3:01:09 ↗ so you've got the mobility goal there

3:01:11 ↗ has five objectives and then each one of

3:01:15 ↗ those five objectives the staff has

3:01:16 ↗ identified a number of actions on those

3:01:19 ↗ and then in growth and development there

3:01:21 ↗ were three objectives and there are

3:01:23 ↗ three or four actions for each of those

3:01:25 ↗ on environmental stewardship there were

3:01:28 ↗ four objectives and there are several

3:01:29 ↗ actions under each of those on social

3:01:33 ↗ and economic vitality you had four

3:01:35 ↗ objectives and again the staff has

3:01:37 ↗ identified a number of actions their

3:01:39 ↗ core infrastructure two objectives and

3:01:42 ↗ actions their city leadership and

3:01:44 ↗ services four objectives and a number of

3:01:46 ↗ actions there and then if you add it all

3:01:48 ↗ up it looks like that and the point here

3:01:51 ↗ is there's been a lot of work done on

3:01:54 ↗ trying to figure out exactly how do what

3:01:56 ↗ is it we have to do to try and respond

3:01:59 ↗ to the direction we have from council

3:02:00 ↗ here and I guess our overall message is

3:02:03 ↗ there's a lot there and we think the

3:02:06 ↗ council has done great work on

3:02:08 ↗ identifying the objectives and being

3:02:10 ↗ really specific about that and we're at

3:02:12 ↗ work as we've just been doing at

3:02:14 ↗ identifying high level performance

3:02:16 ↗ measures and then we think in the level

3:02:18 ↗ of implementation it's up this up to the

3:02:21 ↗ staff to figure out what these actions

3:02:23 ↗ are work with you on the annual work

3:02:25 ↗ plan and the budget and then they're

3:02:27 ↗ managing it at that level you don't want

3:02:29 ↗ to have the conversation that we've been

3:02:31 ↗ having about all of this detail for all

3:02:33 ↗ of those or will be here right through

3:02:35 ↗ the night so next steps in this process

3:02:40 ↗ then where are we going from here staff

3:02:42 ↗ work on the final actions and the

3:02:45 ↗ measures the high level measures you

3:02:47 ↗ just gave us feedback on council work

3:02:50 ↗ session in January final review in

3:02:52 ↗ February community review in February

3:02:55 ↗ March council review in April and

3:02:58 ↗ adoption of the final strategic plan in

3:03:01 ↗ May that's what we're going from here so

3:03:05 ↗ I have what may be a large ask for City

3:03:07 ↗ Administrator moon but it's not for

3:03:09 ↗ tomorrow or the next month so hopefully

3:03:11 ↗ you go back up one slide so let's assume

3:03:15 ↗ for a second we can all do

3:03:17 ↗ this this year coming here let's assume

3:03:19 ↗ we can't even necessarily do all of it

3:03:21 ↗ in five years I would like when we have

3:03:25 ↗ the conversation in May if at all

3:03:29 ↗ possible I would like to have at least a

3:03:31 ↗ straw man of what we can think of what

3:03:34 ↗ we think we can do over those five years

3:03:36 ↗ and maybe it's you know maybe it's a

3:03:38 ↗ little bit of everything in some of

3:03:40 ↗ these things it's 90% and some of these

3:03:42 ↗ things it's 10% of the item but a little

3:03:44 ↗ bit of an idea of what the five years

3:03:45 ↗ looks like rather than just the the one

3:03:48 ↗ upcoming year because it this is obvious

3:03:50 ↗ there's obviously a ton here and it's

3:03:51 ↗ obviously really expensive when you put

3:03:53 ↗ all 80 together is that reasonable

3:03:57 ↗ yes I think we've been anticipated doing

3:03:59 ↗ something along those lines okay other

3:04:01 ↗ questions all right Brian

3:04:10 ↗ thank you very much and sorry when do we

3:04:11 ↗ see you next anyway are we at the

3:04:16 ↗ council work session in January I think

3:04:19 ↗ so yeah well happy holidays and we'll

3:04:22 ↗ see you in January

3:04:23 ↗ thanks to you all right any closing

3:04:25 ↗ comments from anybody

3:04:26 ↗ before we adjourn and I just want to

3:04:29 ↗ point out thank you everybody we are

3:04:30 ↗ done one minute ahead of schedule we are

3:04:35 ↗ adjourned

3:04:47 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Mariah Bettise

Stacy Goodman

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Bill Ramos

Chris Reh

Paul Winterstein