City Council Special Meeting · Friday, June 7, 2019 · City Council Digest

2317 segments .txt ↗

0:28 ↗ Thank you all for coming. I'm going to open the City Council Special Meeting this

0:32 ↗ evening. The purpose of this meeting is to hold a Council Administration Retreat for Council

0:37 ↗ Strategy and Budget Planning. A couple extra notes about the room. We're meeting in the

0:43 ↗ Pickering Room this evening. The sound system in this room is a little different than

0:48 ↗ in Council Chambers, so we have to speak very loudly and clearly. And for those

0:53 ↗ that are joining us, staff and other members in the audience, sidebar conversations get picked

0:58 ↗ up as well and make it hard for people to hear on the audio. So

1:02 ↗ keeping sidebar conversations to a minimum would be great. First step on the agenda is

1:07 ↗ welcome and introduction. I'm going to turn it over to City Administrator Moon. Thank you.

1:11 ↗ Thank you. Welcome, everybody. We have... quite a few items on our

1:17 ↗ agenda tonight. We're going to try to get you up, particularly in the second half

1:21 ↗ of the meeting, to do a little exercise. We have a break planned as well.

1:27 ↗ Dinner will be arriving around 5 o'clock. We will have a break to be able

1:32 ↗ to go back to the back of the room and pick that up.

1:38 ↗ And I want to take a moment just to introduce a few folks that are

1:41 ↗ in the room. We have most, not all, our department directors,

1:47 ↗ Staff at the table include Beth Goldberg, our finance director, Andrea Snyder, our

1:53 ↗ deputy city administrator, Megan Curtis Murphy, our sustainability coordinator, and

1:59 ↗ David Fujimano, our sustainability director. And then we have other staff here,

2:05 ↗ too, that have played a role in developing the CIP, or the CIP,

2:11 ↗ strategic plan, and are either assisting with this

2:17 ↗ meeting tonight are going to be playing a role in implementation of the plan and

2:23 ↗ the budget. And so I wanted to just point out two of those individuals. And

2:29 ↗ so Suzy Monzel is our new budget analyst. If you want to raise your

2:33 ↗ hand. Doing phenomenal work for us already. And Gene Paul is the

2:40 ↗ management analyst in the executive department. And he will be helping later in the meeting.

2:47 ↗ So with that, I wanted to just review what our goals are for this evening.

2:52 ↗ Can I just mention that we do have a quorum. We've heard from Council President

2:55 ↗ Martz that he is going to be late. But we do expect the other two

3:00 ↗ council members to be here this evening. Correct. Excellent. So I'm going to review just

3:06 ↗ the outline for tonight, starting with some goals that we have for this

3:12 ↗ evening. This workshop was intended to be an opportunity for

3:18 ↗ us to review some of the potential action items that we might pursue

3:24 ↗ to try to implement the strategic plan. And year one of the strategic plan

3:30 ↗ starts in January of 2020. And as you know, there were some potential action items

3:35 ↗ that were included in the plan when it was adopted. Staff has had an opportunity

3:40 ↗ to review those action items, discuss them further,

3:47 ↗ talk about potential resources that might be needed. I

3:53 ↗ just started, Moran. Just started, Mr. Wright. Yeah.

4:01 ↗ So we've had an opportunity to use more cost

4:07 ↗ estimation, think about staffing resources, etc. So we'll talk more about that

4:14 ↗ in a moment. Our goal tonight is to get

4:20 ↗ your early feedback on potential action items, knowing that we're

4:26 ↗ having this conversation before we have even kicked off our budget development on the staff

4:31 ↗ side. So we have not done a ton of work yet to fine tune

4:37 ↗ estimates of revenue, to have conversations about expenditures

4:43 ↗ we're anticipating in the operating budget. All of those conversations are yet to

4:49 ↗ come. You do have a financial workshop that's planned in August.

4:55 ↗ That is typically the moment in time where we tell you what our assumptions are

5:01 ↗ that we are utilizing as we are building the preliminary budget of the mayor.

5:09 ↗ So at this point it's still a little early. And we'll talk more about that

5:14 ↗ in a later segment of tonight's meeting. So this early feedback will give us

5:20 ↗ an indication of what you're interested in, what your priorities might

5:26 ↗ be with regard to action items and then we will have to take that input

5:32 ↗ and kind of marry it up with what seems to be feasible in the confines

5:37 ↗ of the budget. We will also couple that information with what we hear from departments

5:43 ↗ in terms of what's needed on the operating budget for delivery of critical services.

5:51 ↗ All right. I'm seeing if there's anything else do we want to do?

5:57 ↗ Because the work that we have undertaken so far to look at the action items

6:02 ↗ is preliminary because we are at an early phase of budget development,

6:08 ↗ we still have work to do to refine costs on these, to

6:14 ↗ think about staffing resources that will be needed. We approach this to some

6:20 ↗ degree action item by action item, and we have just stopped lately to

6:26 ↗ step back and looked at it in terms of what does it mean for work

6:30 ↗ teams or departments that would be engaged and look at those areas of overlap and

6:35 ↗ to think about how our staff would be deployed. We

6:41 ↗ also need to explore in some cases alternative ways of approaching the action

6:47 ↗ items and we'll talk a little bit more about that later too.

6:57 ↗ That's all I wanted to say on goals and expectations.

7:04 ↗ One of the assumptions also that we will need to wrestle with is if there

7:09 ↗ are action items that may need additional staffing resources and what we can supply with

7:14 ↗ our existing staff, is that feasible this year? We'll try to point out where we

7:19 ↗ might have one or more of those.

7:26 ↗ We talked about this when we developed the plan. It's referenced to some degree in

7:31 ↗ the plan that we have not gone through an exercise to

7:38 ↗ evaluate our current service delivery, the level of service, quality of service,

7:44 ↗ cost of service, and that is work that still needs to be done.

7:49 ↗ Absent having done that, the way in which we might go about funding

7:56 ↗ potential action items. I think you've got four different ways to do that. One

8:02 ↗ is do we have new revenue available to us to fund any new

8:09 ↗ items? Second would be to look at reallocating what was one time in

8:15 ↗ this year's budget, not needed next year, and therefore we might be able to reallocate

8:20 ↗ those dollars toward something new, such as a strategic plan action item.

8:27 ↗ Third is to create capacity within our operating budget. That's the work that we haven't

8:33 ↗ done a great deal on yet, but that's another opportunity to examine

8:39 ↗ our ongoing expenses and see if there might be a way to reduce those in

8:44 ↗ order to then provide funding resources for either something new on the critical

8:50 ↗ services side or something new out of the strategic plan. And then the fourth would

8:55 ↗ be to use available fund balances. And I don't just mean general fund

9:00 ↗ fund balance. We have kind of designated funds as well that may be applicable

9:07 ↗ to particular action items. For example, there's a few things that we have

9:12 ↗ highlighted in the CIP or strategic plan that may be aligned with the use of

9:18 ↗ the school zone safety fund. So that's one example where we have a balance that

9:23 ↗ would be available to us. So those are the four ways that we might go

9:27 ↗ about finding some funding to implement. So with that, I

9:33 ↗ think we can talk about strategic planning cycle and where we're at. Sure.

9:39 ↗ So I think this chart should look familiar. It's straight out of the strategic plan.

9:45 ↗ The idea with the strategic planning process is that we're following annual cycle that

9:52 ↗ marries up with the budgeting cycle and an implementation cycle. Right now,

9:58 ↗ we're at the kind of dark green phase of this strategy and budget planning workshop.

10:03 ↗ As Emily mentioned, that we would be then taking that early input, that early direction,

10:09 ↗ incorporating it into our budget development process. You're going to be hearing a little bit

10:14 ↗ more about some very early information about financials for this year and next year today,

10:20 ↗ but really more detail that will be coming from our finance department in August.

10:26 ↗ And so those two things will help to marry up and shape up the administration's

10:31 ↗ proposed budget. which will also include that strategic work plan proposal. So that's really

10:37 ↗ the time at which the deliberations about how those things fit together come together. This

10:43 ↗ is really kind of, as Emily mentioned, kind of early guidance, if you will. And

10:48 ↗ then we go into implementation and evaluation. The plan in the future is to

10:54 ↗ report out to the community, get some feedback, consider whether or not we make adjustments.

10:59 ↗ in part because we're in that very first or even kind of before the first

11:03 ↗ year of implementation it's a little bit different with the cycle so we don't have

11:07 ↗ the benefit of all that information as inputs but we do have a newly adopted

11:11 ↗ strategic plan. Okay, yeah.

11:24 ↗ We're next going to go into a section that talks about budgetary

11:30 ↗ needs and financial forecast. I'm going to first talk about

11:37 ↗ what we have called the critical or core services side of the equation.

11:45 ↗ Services that our community receives today, the services our community would

11:51 ↗ expect from the local government. and what we see on that side

11:56 ↗ of the budget equation. That's going to give

12:03 ↗ some context for this, but I thought I would mention, if you recall last

12:09 ↗ year as we did budget development, I said that we had a budget that was

12:14 ↗ built on about $1.8 million of new revenue.

12:22 ↗ year-over-year adopted budget, new revenue, and that we

12:28 ↗ had a variety of operating costs, not new

12:34 ↗ expenses, but just the incremental year-over-year inflation in those

12:40 ↗ costs that exceeded that number. So right off the bat, we had opened the doors

12:46 ↗ on January 1, higher costs in 2019 than we did in

12:52 ↗ just doing the same things. So not a lot of capacity to add new things

12:59 ↗ from existing revenue sources. We

13:05 ↗ utilized some fund balance in 2019 in order to accomplish some of the goals.

13:11 ↗ So knowing that's the case, Beth will also talk about what we foresee for 2020.

13:21 ↗ based on what we experienced in 2018 and what we're seeing in 2019. But I

13:26 ↗ wanted to give you a little sampling of some things that we're already starting to

13:31 ↗ talk about. Again, we have not kicked off budget developments happening next week. But some

13:37 ↗ of the things that we're thinking about is whether or not we have any growth

13:42 ↗ in general fund revenues. Again, that gets back to one of the four ways in

13:45 ↗ which we want to create some funding capacity for new things.

13:53 ↗ and we asked our department directors to help us identify if there were

13:59 ↗ kind of larger order magnitude things that they were thinking about that they may

14:05 ↗ need to request in their budget proposals the second

14:11 ↗ bullet there is across the board we know we will have higher costs for

14:16 ↗ personnel next year, contractual obligations, increases in health care. We have not yet

14:22 ↗ met with our third-party administrator and health care providers to

14:29 ↗ really assess what we might see in our insurance cost

14:35 ↗ increases, but it seems quite possible those will be

14:41 ↗ double-digit this year. So that's not insignificant. Also on the

14:47 ↗ existing personnel cost bullet, I would highlight that in addition

14:53 ↗ to salaries and benefits, we are nearing completion

14:58 ↗ of our classification and compensation system analysis. And we have

15:04 ↗ not seen the results yet of the market data study, but I'm anticipating senior

15:10 ↗ leadership will be reviewing that concurrent with budget development, and we will need to think

15:14 ↗ about what's necessary to implement that study.

15:22 ↗ Under the bullets that I have approximated at about $1.1 million, I

15:28 ↗ wanted to point out that we have legal services both in terms of

15:35 ↗ historically under budgeting our base budget for city attorney services, plus we

15:41 ↗ have had some additional court cases that we

15:47 ↗ have had to staff. Next year we will have all of that plus

15:54 ↗ labor contract negotiations for bargaining groups. We're anticipating one labor hearing,

16:02 ↗ potentially arbitration if needed, and

16:08 ↗ overhauling some of our policies that will require some legal services as well.

16:14 ↗ So if we have If we have all of those costs, that will certainly be

16:19 ↗ a cost driver in our budget and we typically try to plan a little bit

16:23 ↗ ahead for those. Financial

16:29 ↗ management improvements in services, you know we have contracted with Governmental Finance Officers Association or

16:35 ↗ GFOA for some consulting services. anticipating that those would need to

16:40 ↗ continue for us to keep doing the improvement work we want to do in our

16:45 ↗ finance department, including updating and modernizing those systems.

16:56 ↗ I'll point out that state passed new minimum wage

17:02 ↗ law, and we have some implementation costs to attend to there. The high number of

17:07 ↗ part-time non-regular staff particularly in our Parks and Recreation Department in classifications right

17:13 ↗ now and compensation bans that are just below that new adopted

17:19 ↗ state minimum wage. So we will need to adjust and plus take a look at

17:25 ↗ our pay ranges above that to make sure we don't have compression and

17:31 ↗ make some changes to our salaries schedule on Parks and Recreation.

17:39 ↗ The police department staffing analysis, we're anticipating that Chief will

17:45 ↗ propose that. We've had that on our radar for a couple years at

17:51 ↗ least now and have not been able to allocate the funding to it. So it's

17:56 ↗ just another item I'll highlight for you. This is something that, again, like class comp,

18:01 ↗ you want to do on a somewhat regular basis so that you're making sure that

18:07 ↗ we're doing best practices, providing the level of service that we want to the

18:13 ↗ community, and meeting other objectives.

18:19 ↗ Cybersecurity, I'll point out that I'm anticipating IT will make some proposals for

18:26 ↗ enhancements in that regard, including maybe a tool or dashboard for real-time

18:32 ↗ monitoring that would help alert us and provide for a response to any

18:38 ↗ of cybersecurity attack. I'll point out aerial mapping.

18:45 ↗ We haven't done that since 2015. Again, it's helpful to do that as our community

18:51 ↗ grows on a periodic basis so that we reflect current conditions.

18:57 ↗ And also those updated maps help us to build out infrastructure plans, which

19:03 ↗ then also become part of the VBASE system. that we

19:08 ↗ utilize for budgeting. And then lastly, bridge load calculations. You'll

19:14 ↗ recall that we added some funds into our budget to start to do those on

19:19 ↗ a regular basis as that requirement became the

19:25 ↗ city's requirement rather than a different governmental agency. And

19:31 ↗ so the first half of our city's bridges were assessed for the new bridge load

19:37 ↗ calculations in 2018. But we need to get to the second half of those as

19:42 ↗ well in order to meet the requirements that have been established by the state.

19:49 ↗ So that's just some of the things that we see on the horizon that we're

19:57 ↗ a larger dollar amount and that had a little bit more time sensitivity that I

20:01 ↗ expect as the department directors and I meet to discuss the budget. We

20:07 ↗ will be having conversations about whether or not we need to find a way to

20:12 ↗ accommodate these in next year's budget. So that's on that side of the ledger. We're

20:17 ↗ going to also talk about strategic plan items. And as David had said, we're going

20:23 ↗ to put all of that into the mix. see what we can afford and your

20:28 ↗ help in prioritizing on the strategic plan side of the equation will help us to

20:33 ↗ sort through what winds up in the preliminary proposed budget by the mayor.

20:40 ↗ All right, so next I think we're going to do a little bit of a

20:44 ↗ financial update. Beth is going to... give you a sense of

20:50 ↗ where we ended 2018, give you a little bit of data from 2019

20:57 ↗ since it's still very early, and talk a little bit about how that might inform

21:02 ↗ us about how to proceed with 2020. Thank you.

21:09 ↗ Good evening, everyone. I know everyone's looking forward to getting a financial update on a

21:14 ↗ Friday evening. So much fun. So as

21:20 ↗ Emily pointed out, we did do this look at 2018, and we've

21:26 ↗ got a pretty good set of numbers on 2018. The books aren't yet closed, they're

21:32 ↗ not audited, so they're subject to change, but we have a good sense of where

21:35 ↗ we ended 18. For 19, it is a little bit more tricky. Yes, this is

21:41 ↗ June 7th, but because of lags in when we receive data, particularly on the

21:46 ↗ revenue side, we are doing this based off of three and four months worth of

21:50 ↗ data, which is not a lot of data upon which to

22:02 ↗ make definitive assessments of where we are. We can make some preliminary assessments, but nothing

22:06 ↗ definitive. I thought maybe I would quote Alan Greenspan before I

22:12 ↗ start. When I last presented to you a couple weeks ago, I guaranteed one thing,

22:18 ↗ which was the forecasts for the TBD sales tax would be wrong. Pivoting off of

22:23 ↗ that, Alan Greenspan once said, we really can't forecast all that well. Yet we pretend

22:28 ↗ we can, but we really can't. With that stage, I will jump in and I

22:34 ↗ guess I will also qualify it by saying that chances are you don't get a

22:38 ↗ forecast correct, but what you want to get is, do you have the

22:44 ↗ tools in place to closely approximate what might be coming? And that's I think

22:51 ↗ where we're heading with all of this. So with that preface, David, if you could

22:55 ↗ move to the next slide. provide you an overview of our 2018

23:02 ↗ year end results, highlighted in that green column over to the right

23:08 ↗ of the screen. While we did not hit our

23:14 ↗ revenue targets for 2018, we did finish

23:20 ↗ relatively strong. Our revenues did exceed our expenditures,

23:26 ↗ allowing us to add to fund balance. But on the revenue side in particular,

23:32 ↗ I wanted to point out that the 49, nearly 49.9 million of revenue

23:38 ↗ that we brought in is both below the 2018 adopted amount,

23:44 ↗ but also below the 2017 adopted amount. And so

23:51 ↗ that combined with the fact, the column the farthest to the right is

23:57 ↗ the revenues that we've adopted for 2019. That includes Bergsma. If

24:04 ↗ you back Bergsma out, the revenues are $52.8 million.

24:10 ↗ Seeing the 2018 year end results for 2018, seeing how they were

24:17 ↗ below the budgeted levels for 2018 and below 2017 it does

24:22 ↗ give us some cause for concern about how realistic it is going to be for

24:28 ↗ us to hit that $52.8 million mark. But we also have a

24:34 ↗ history of under expenditures. And just again as a marker that 61.2

24:40 ↗ million includes the amount we paid for Bergsma. If you back that out, it was

24:46 ↗ a one time thing. Expenditures are at 53 million. I

24:52 ↗ am going to go into more detail in the subsequent slides but I want to

24:55 ↗ tee that up as the overview. We did add nearly $70

25:01 ↗ million to fund balance and our fund balance Even with

25:07 ↗ the expenditures for Bergsma remain healthy at 27% of expenditures, you

25:13 ↗ will recall that our target fund balance is 15 to 20% of expenditures. So our

25:19 ↗ fund balance does remain healthy, and we do remain optimistic that

25:25 ↗ we are going to receive some grants that are going to allow us to replenish

25:30 ↗ the amount of fund balance we used for the Bergsma property. So if you could

25:36 ↗ switch to the next slide. So I wanted to go into more detail about

25:42 ↗ revenues for 2018. And I

25:48 ↗ want to first point you to 2017, because this helps set the context for 2019.

25:56 ↗ What you will see is that we have been on a trajectory in 2017

26:04 ↗ And into 2018 where the big four revenues in particular,

26:10 ↗ sales tax, property tax, utility tax, and B&O tax, remain strong. So there was no

26:15 ↗ reason to believe in mid, like this time last year in 2018

26:22 ↗ and then into the fall as we were building the 2019 budget that revenues weren't

26:28 ↗ going to remain strong. That is one reason I don't want to spend a lot

26:32 ↗ of time on 2017 but you will see particularly with the sales tax that we

26:37 ↗ were seeing tremendous strength in that revenue line. I

26:43 ↗ am going to pause there and maybe not pause there but I will come back

26:46 ↗ to that in a minute. Again, I want to point out on this slide that

26:52 ↗ because revenues in 2018 came in

26:58 ↗ slightly lower than 2017 and because the 2019 budget is

27:03 ↗ assuming we bring in 52.8 million of revenue outside of Berksma,

27:09 ↗ again, that might be an area of concern. But again, it is early so we

27:15 ↗ need to be monitoring this. David, if you could move to the next slide. So

27:20 ↗ I wanted to spend some time on what I'm calling the big four revenues, property

27:23 ↗ tax property tax, sales tax, business and occupation tax and utility tax.

27:30 ↗ Together these revenues make up nearly 70% of our general fund revenue. So

27:36 ↗ what happens here is a good indication of what may be going on with the

27:42 ↗ health of the overall fund. Overall for these revenues we pretty much hit the target.

27:48 ↗ We slightly exceeded it by about $100,000. So the forecast held up

27:54 ↗ for these big four revenues. And there was growth of 1.8

27:59 ↗ million, almost 2 million relative to the 2017 actual levels.

28:06 ↗ Sales tax was the big driver for these results.

28:12 ↗ We brought in 15.2 million, I'm sorry, 16.3 million in 2018

28:18 ↗ actual revenues. which is about $1 million greater than what was assumed in the budget

28:23 ↗ and $1.5 greater than what we collected in 2017. So

28:31 ↗ that's the big driver for why we hit the mark. In terms of property tax,

28:38 ↗ we were Ever so slightly under budget, our 2018 results

28:44 ↗ were ever so slightly below budget, essentially on target, and slightly above the 2017

28:52 ↗ actual numbers. You will all recall that property tax is a fairly

28:58 ↗ restricted revenue source. It's only allowed to grow 1% plus new construction relative to what

29:03 ↗ we had collected in the previous year. So the growth on this tends to be

29:07 ↗ relatively subdued. Business and occupation tax,

29:13 ↗ we collected slightly more than what was budgeted, again ever so slightly, and

29:19 ↗ about a $300,000 increase over what was collected in 2017.

29:25 ↗ Again, that is probably reflective of strength in the local economy. Utility tax.

29:33 ↗ We missed the mark on that. It came in slightly under budget. And I'm going

29:37 ↗ to talk about this a little bit later in the presentation. But as we're looking

29:43 ↗ to where we're going to be in 2019 and where we're going to be in

29:48 ↗ 2020, one element of this is definitely the economy and the health of the economy.

29:54 ↗ And that's influencing these numbers. But one of the things that we're starting to

30:00 ↗ unpack as we're analyzing these results and looking at 2019 is that

30:07 ↗ it looks like there are some structural flaws in how some of our

30:12 ↗ revenues have been forecasted. So it looks like when we were forecasting growth,

30:19 ↗ we were doing it on a bottom line basis. With utility taxes, we looked at

30:24 ↗ what we collected last year, what was budgeted, applied a percentage increase to that

30:29 ↗ bottom line number. What that is masking is the details within the

30:35 ↗ utility tax line. For example, one of the places where we are applying the

30:41 ↗ utility tax is to telephones. one of the biggest

30:46 ↗ contributors to utility tax. Telephones, landlines in particular,

30:52 ↗ are a dying breed, a relic from a different era. There has been

30:58 ↗ consistent weakness in telephone related utility tax collections. But if

31:04 ↗ you are applying the forecast to a bottom line number, you are missing that nuance.

31:10 ↗ It is magnifying and you can see that in these numbers here. of how the

31:16 ↗ bottom line is growing but the actual revenues are slipping. So that's

31:22 ↗ some fine tuning that we plan on starting to integrate into our

31:29 ↗ forecasting techniques moving forward. And hopefully it means that we've got some more

31:34 ↗ precise data to provide to all of you. So David, if you can go to

31:40 ↗ the next slide. I also wanted to talk about some of the other revenues.

31:45 ↗ Departmental revenues, particularly DSD and parks came in $1.7

31:52 ↗ million under budget for 2018. We have been engaging in

31:58 ↗ productive discussions with both departments. It appears that

32:07 ↗ There was not a lot of communication in the past between the finance department and

32:12 ↗ the line departments about revenue and expenditure assumptions. There

32:18 ↗ wasn't a lot of coordination of those assumptions.

32:25 ↗ This is an important reminder that we need to have a more open dialogue

32:31 ↗ with our line department so that they understand what we're assuming in the budget and

32:36 ↗ they can offer their expertise to us to say, yeah, that's realistic. No,

32:42 ↗ that's not realistic. So that is something we intend to, well, we've already started doing

32:48 ↗ it, but to make that a regular part of our business as we continue to

32:52 ↗ look at 2019 and then prepare the 2020 budget. The other

32:57 ↗ taxes category came in slightly below budget and also below 2017

33:04 ↗ actuals. This is another example of where looking at individual revenue line

33:10 ↗ items while a lot of work is really important. One of the things that we

33:15 ↗ discovered is buried in the other taxes line item is a tax that I actually

33:21 ↗ didn't even know existed which is a gambling tax on

33:28 ↗ arcade games that you would play like Pac-Man and

33:34 ↗ it's a state authorized tax we collect a very small amount but built into our

33:40 ↗ budget forecast in 2018 assumed we were going to collect 18 to $18,000 worth of

33:45 ↗ revenue off of arcade video games which don't really exist anymore

33:52 ↗ and then the 2019 budget inflated that from $18,000 to $20,000.

33:58 ↗ In 2018, we collected $382. We need to go back and

34:05 ↗ we need to back that out. We need to unbury these numbers because they are

34:10 ↗ starting to compound. What I will also say is that when our revenues were

34:16 ↗ growing at a tremendous rate, it was masking these things.

34:22 ↗ As we are starting to see the economy slow, revenue growth slow,

34:29 ↗ it is forcing us to start to look at these things and makes it that

34:33 ↗ much more important that we right size a line, not

34:39 ↗ assume taxes from the arcades that I don't want to judge other people's age, but

34:45 ↗ were available when I was in high school. Anyway, that is another example of what

34:51 ↗ I would call some structural issues with how we are forecasting revenues and that we

34:57 ↗ need to start to unravel and then integrate into our processes.

35:04 ↗ Then last on this slide, I just want to point out that miscellaneous revenues were

35:09 ↗ about $730,000 above budget, about a million below 2017

35:15 ↗ actuals, although with the chart of accounts things probably got a little bit mixed up

35:20 ↗ in the miscellaneous category. So I wouldn't put too much there except again, these are

35:25 ↗ what we're going to go line by line through all of these revenues. I will

35:31 ↗ say though that because of some of these structural issues in addition to what appears

35:35 ↗ to be a slowing economy, and notice I'm not saying a contracting economy, I'm saying

35:39 ↗ a slowing economy. It does suggest that we need to

35:45 ↗ closely monitor what's going on with 2019. which is a good segue to the next

35:50 ↗ slide. I did want to provide a preview of what we are

35:56 ↗ seeing year-to-date for 2019 with the Big Four revenues. You will

36:02 ↗ recall this makes up about 70% of our general fund revenues. And

36:08 ↗ year-to-date we are seeing weakness in two of these

36:14 ↗ revenue lines in particular. Sales tax is the one that is

36:20 ↗ potentially the most concerning. I mentioned when I presented the

36:26 ↗ Transportation Benefit District Revenue Forecast to the Council a couple weeks ago that we were

36:31 ↗ seeing three consecutive months of declines in our sales tax collections relative to

36:41 ↗ We only have three months worth of data through March on the sales tax.

36:48 ↗ It looks like that footnote fell off there. Sales tax is three months worth of

36:53 ↗ data. The other revenues are four months worth of data. Collectively for that three

36:59 ↗ month period sales tax revenue is down 4.5%

37:05 ↗ relative to the same three months in 2018. This is

37:11 ↗ an area of concern, but I want to point out when the budget was built

37:16 ↗ for 2019, we were seeing tremendous growth in this revenue line. 2017

37:25 ↗ actuals were $14 million. I believe the budgeted amount was $11 million.

37:31 ↗ There was no reason not to expect that this would grow.

37:37 ↗ We exceeded the mark for 2018 and then the 2019 adopted numbers

37:44 ↗ are ever so slightly above what we collected in 2018.

37:50 ↗ Again, no reason initially to be concerned, but if the rate of growth is slowing,

37:56 ↗ that might be an area of ongoing weakness. And then the utility tax is another

38:02 ↗ one that didn't hit the mark in 2018 and appears to

38:08 ↗ also be slipping in 2019. And again, this one is more related to the

38:14 ↗ precision with which we are doing the forecasts. And we'll be going in and looking

38:20 ↗ at the individual utility tax line items and getting more

38:25 ↗ precise with our forecasts. This

38:31 ↗ picture does, this potential weakness in these big four revenues

38:38 ↗ do give us some cause for concern about how we're going to do in 2019,

38:44 ↗ but again, it's very early. So, not ready to sound the alarm bells, but

38:51 ↗ it is a reminder that we need to be closely monitoring these results for 2019

38:56 ↗ and integrating this information into our 2020

39:01 ↗ forecast. As Emily pointed out,

39:08 ↗ there are financial needs, desires of this city like most cities that

39:15 ↗ tend to exceed the amount of revenues that we have available. One of the things

39:19 ↗ that we are in the early stages of talking about is what revenue

39:26 ↗ opportunities might we have to meet current needs and plus new

39:32 ↗ needs. So we are starting to also look at utility tax of those areas

39:37 ↗ where we're not currently charging utility tax about whether that's something we want to consider

39:43 ↗ to meet the city's needs. Last, before wrapping up, I want to give a

39:49 ↗ brief snapshot of where we are with expenditures. This one at this stage is

39:55 ↗ far trickier to forecast where we are going to end the year with

40:03 ↗ four months worth of data. We just closed May, but there wasn't time to integrate

40:07 ↗ that. We are expecting some under expenditure

40:13 ↗ in 2019, but the extent of which is beyond what we're able to predict or

40:19 ↗ responsibly predict right now. In terms of 2018, expenditures did

40:25 ↗ come in under the adopted budget by about $3.2 million,

40:32 ↗ but we're about $2.3 million above the actual expenditures in 2017.

40:38 ↗ As I mentioned earlier, excluding Bergsma, the expenditures that we have

40:44 ↗ assumed for 2019 are 53 million. So, certainly

40:50 ↗ higher than how we ended 2018. In terms of specific expenditures

40:56 ↗ that we've been looking at, and this again

41:02 ↗ goes back to the need for

41:08 ↗ more discussion between finance and the departments. Two areas in particular, planning

41:14 ↗ and development and parks. Both of those came

41:20 ↗ in under budget in terms of their expenditures, offsetting

41:26 ↗ to some degree some weakness and also those departmental revenues.

41:33 ↗ We need to spend more time with those departments in particular, but frankly all departments,

41:39 ↗ again, so they're clear on what we're assuming and we could leverage their

41:44 ↗ expertise about what we should be assuming on both the revenue side and the expenditure

41:50 ↗ side as we are building our budget for 2020. So those discussions will be

41:55 ↗ continuing as we go through the year and prepare for next year. And then

42:01 ↗ last, I just wanted to highlight next steps, many of which you've heard me talk

42:07 ↗ about throughout my comments. We're going to continue to monitor revenue, expenditure, and

42:12 ↗ economic trends to help inform a forecast for 2020. We

42:19 ↗ are going to be doing these deep dives into revenue and expenditure lines to make

42:24 ↗ sure that we understand what is in there where things are

42:29 ↗ obsolete such as generous revenue amounts from

42:37 ↗ Pac-Man game playing. We will be backing those out and then we will be

42:43 ↗ collaborating with departments far more closely than in the past as we develop revenue and

42:48 ↗ expenditure assumptions for the 2020 budget. As Emily mentioned, we will be presenting a 2020

42:55 ↗ financial forecast to the Council on August 12th, and by that point we will have

43:01 ↗ several more months' worth of data and we'll be able to speak with more certainty

43:06 ↗ at that point. So Beth, maybe I'll also interject that early on in the

43:12 ↗ year when we began hearing

43:19 ↗ different pieces of news nationally, regionally, locally about

43:24 ↗ potential changes in the economy. We took some steps to

43:31 ↗ mitigate some costs. For example, we

43:37 ↗ held back on filling some positions for a while.

43:44 ↗ did not allocate some one-time expenditures until further into the year,

43:50 ↗ until we had a bit more data, and we still have

43:56 ↗ not authorized all of our fleet purchases for the year. The transfer

44:02 ↗ has been made, and this highlights another opportunity that we have going

44:08 ↗ forward, albeit possibly for one-time revenue, and that's where

44:14 ↗ underway with and will be I think throughout a portion of next year

44:20 ↗ examining our funds, looking at the assumptions going

44:26 ↗ into how to forecast those funds both on the revenue and

44:32 ↗ expenditure side, but also looking back historically to make sure that we have a good

44:37 ↗ sense of where the fund balance came from and if need

44:43 ↗ be, if some of those balances need to be reallocated back to the origination fund,

44:50 ↗ then we go ahead and take that step. There's not a minimum requirement of fund

44:55 ↗ balance in those particular funds. There's not a already

45:02 ↗ decided purpose for the use of those fund balances

45:08 ↗ as laid out in your financial management policy. we need to have subsequent conversations about

45:14 ↗ what do we want those fund balances to be reserve levels, targets, or do we

45:20 ↗ want to send some of those funds back to their original funds. In this case,

45:25 ↗ for example, with the fleet fund, some of those funds might be able to be

45:29 ↗ reverted back to the general fund. So we have a lot of work still to

45:33 ↗ do, as you know, to get some clarity on not only our

45:39 ↗ financial picture, But we have a lot of work to do to develop both a

45:44 ↗ near-term and a long-term financial sustainability plan. But we're

45:50 ↗ committed to that work. I think we have now put in place and are still

45:55 ↗ putting in place for hiring at this very moment. A fantastic team that will be

46:01 ↗ able to carry out that work. And as you saw, we're still forecasting that

46:07 ↗ we're going to need some additional help with that. It's a lot of work for

46:12 ↗ our team to take on at the same time as they are doing payroll,

46:17 ↗ processing accounts payable, accounts receivable, et cetera. So we appreciate your

46:23 ↗ ongoing support as we continue to take on those efforts. Can we take a little

46:29 ↗ break for questions too? Sure. Because it's a lot of information. We don't have to,

46:33 ↗ but if you have some questions on what you've heard already. Yeah, Mary Lou, maybe

46:37 ↗ one more piece just before. do that, if I might. As we look to 2020

46:42 ↗ and as we continue every day to gain more information that helps provide

46:48 ↗ context for the 2020 budget and helps us to understand the

46:54 ↗ guidelines that we may give department directors for shaping up their 2020 budget proposals,

47:00 ↗ one of the things that we are thinking about is what sort of budget should

47:06 ↗ they build. And in some years we have said there might be a little money

47:11 ↗ to do some things, give us some proposals. In other years we have said you

47:14 ↗ should not consider doing some new things. We're going to take an approach that

47:21 ↗ asks them to sort of prepare budgets along a few different paths. I

47:27 ↗ expect, for example, they will give us a budget that starts by being fairly conservative

47:34 ↗ This is one type of budget we will ask them to build for us. And

47:38 ↗ also identifies a sequestering or phasing in plan. So if there

47:44 ↗ are one-time items that we could consider if the revenue performance looks good,

47:50 ↗ we could then authorize those expenditures later in the year. So

47:57 ↗ that's another tool that we have for 2020 budget development.

48:03 ↗ So we'd be happy to answer any questions. Or are we good to go ahead?

48:10 ↗ Go ahead. Keep on.

48:18 ↗ All right. I think we're switching back to talking strategic plan.

48:24 ↗ And Megan and David are going to talk us through the next part, which was

48:29 ↗ the staff work thus far on the potential actions. Thank you.

48:35 ↗ So with that bit of sobering information about Pac-Man and other things,

48:42 ↗ we wanted to give you a little bit of information about the strategic approach to

48:46 ↗ taking a look at potential actions in consideration of the 2020 strategic work plan.

48:52 ↗ And then we're going to spend some time going through each of those potential or

48:57 ↗ preliminary recommendations. We are kind of at this place where we are converging the latest

49:03 ↗ information about financial information with the planning process. And so some of this is, as

49:09 ↗ Emily had said, work in progress that we're going to need to be assimilating and

49:13 ↗ squaring up some of those pieces. So just know that that's still a piece that

49:18 ↗ needs to be applied to all of this work, even with some of the content

49:22 ↗ that we're presenting here today. So in this part of the agenda, until

49:29 ↗ we now in our dinner break, and if it takes longer we'll decide I think

49:33 ↗ if we can take a break for dinner. We'll be reviewing the approach to considering

49:38 ↗ the potential actions. We'll be reviewing those sets of preliminary actions and asking for your

49:44 ↗ initial thoughts on them. And the intent is to see if there's some general

49:49 ↗ consensus that an item might be able to kind of proceed forward for further consideration

49:55 ↗ Or conversely, if an item might be more appropriate, say, you know what, this doesn't

49:59 ↗ really make sense. Let's remove that from consideration. Or if there's an item that you'd

50:03 ↗ like to see flagged for further consideration. And after the break, there'll be some time

50:08 ↗ for further discussion of some of those items. And then we'll be asking you to

50:12 ↗ help us to prioritize and identify the most critical actions through a multi-voting exercise list.

50:20 ↗ So that's kind of the lay of the land as we go forward. So this

50:23 ↗ part of it is really about sharing with you the process. We're thinking of how

50:27 ↗ do we identify these things and then making sure that you're clear and understanding what

50:32 ↗ those things are before you kind of go into additional discussion on them.

50:38 ↗ Please, if you have questions along the way, please feel free to stop me or

50:42 ↗ Megan. So a little bit about our process. We were taking a look at the

50:48 ↗ potential actions that are within the strategic plan. That was the basis for our starting

50:52 ↗ point. There were a number of items that were identified as potential 2020 actions as

50:57 ↗ well as a number that were potential 2021 actions. And we followed a process where

51:03 ↗ we had staff develop some proposals around each of those potential actions in order for

51:09 ↗ us to start beginning to shape those up and consider how they might weigh

51:15 ↗ relative to other actions. There were a total of 39 actions that we

51:22 ↗ took a look at preliminary proposals for. They covered all six strategic goal areas.

51:28 ↗ And as we've said before, it's important to note that these are very preliminary, kind

51:33 ↗ of initial looks at these things. And as we get some feedback, those will help

51:37 ↗ us to refine the approach and the budget and the considerations associated with each of

51:42 ↗ them. We did ask the staff to consider several things in the review of those

51:48 ↗ proposals. They did include considering a project or program approach, the

51:53 ↗ timing, what kinds of policy decisions might be anticipated through that project and the results

51:59 ↗ of that project. Was it a single year implementation or was it a multi-year effort?

52:06 ↗ And then also some of the anticipated outputs and outcomes associated with them. They also

52:11 ↗ helped to develop some initial labor and direct cost estimates. And again, in a lot

52:15 ↗ of cases, there was a range that was provided because it really depends on the

52:20 ↗ details of implementation. If it's more of a staff-led effort or the scale of the

52:25 ↗ effort, it could dramatically affect both labor hours as well as costs. And then

52:31 ↗ the proposals were evaluated. across a variety of aspects. So in the strategic plan, there

52:37 ↗ are some strategic prioritization criteria which were applied and considered. And those

52:43 ↗ criteria include level of impact. And you can think of those as being about

52:49 ↗ substantial progress or were they critical to the achievement of an objective versus

52:55 ↗ having something that had more limited impact or a more indirect connection to

53:01 ↗ the objective. objective in the strategic plan. Control over outcome was another

53:07 ↗ area and we considered things like did the city have control over the budget, the

53:12 ↗ project management, were we reliant on outside parties or partnerships, was

53:17 ↗ it more of an influential relationship as opposed to somebody else had more control over

53:21 ↗ it than we did. Likelihood of success in the expertise and

53:27 ↗ experience in place, did we have that in place in order to do this work?

53:31 ↗ Or is this a new venture on the part of the city that we might

53:35 ↗ not have had prior experience or there might be higher risk? Cost and time and

53:39 ↗ money was also prioritization criteria identified in the strategic plan. And we felt at this

53:45 ↗ point in time we didn't have all enough data in order to evaluate something like

53:48 ↗ a return on investment. But we did capture some information about both labor hours as

53:53 ↗ well as estimated costs for those projects. And then we also took a look at

53:58 ↗ timing and opportunity, whether or not there was a narrow window of opportunity for a

54:03 ↗ particular action, or if an action might be necessary for other actions that were

54:08 ↗ identified, some sequencing considerations, or whether it was an action that really didn't have

54:15 ↗ a particular requirements around the timing, meaning it could happen at a point in time.

54:22 ↗ But we also took a look, we took some of those criteria into consideration. As

54:27 ↗ I mentioned before, I thought about the timing and dependencies of various actions across the

54:31 ↗ different proposals. Another important consideration was whether work that

54:37 ↗ was strategic in nature and was aligned with the strategic plan was already underway in

54:42 ↗ 2019. We found that there were a fair number of potential actions that are related

54:48 ↗ to the work that the city is currently doing. In some ways, it's a reflection,

54:52 ↗ I think, of some alignment with the strategic plan, which I think is good,

54:58 ↗ particularly in the first year of implementation. So that weighed heavily. And then also, as

55:03 ↗ I mentioned before, consideration of action and impact. Following that review, we broke the

55:11 ↗ actions into three different tiers, with tier A, B, and C, with A being the

55:16 ↗ highest priority tier. Just real briefly and generally, we

55:22 ↗ consider those Tier A proposals are the ones that we might consider for doing first.

55:27 ↗ They have strong connections to the objectives or the desired outcomes in the strategic plan.

55:32 ↗ And again, the plan is built on having actions drive objectives, and the objectives are

55:37 ↗ intended to help us meet those goals. So it's really about how do we move

55:41 ↗ forward and meet some of those objectives. They might have been important in terms of

55:46 ↗ timing relative to other actions. So some activities set the

55:51 ↗ foundation, collect some data, do some analysis, provide for other actions to be more successful

55:57 ↗ as they go forward. As I mentioned before, we weighted heavily towards some of the

56:02 ↗ items that were strategic in nature and aligned that were already underway. and again had

56:07 ↗ action and impact. There were a number of items that also fell into this kind

56:11 ↗ of Tier B category where if there's funding available we'd like to pursue, they were

56:16 ↗ perhaps less critical in terms of timing. And then finally Tier C, which were there

56:21 ↗ were a number of items that were lower in priority or in some cases required

56:25 ↗ some additional consideration and thought. And actually there's a fair number that fell into that

56:30 ↗ category as good good potential actions but ones that were reliant on

56:36 ↗ Tier A actions so was really a timing consideration in those cases.

56:45 ↗ So preliminarily for discussion and consideration tonight, we've identified 21

56:52 ↗ different actions that are landed in the Tier A category for consideration. We'll spend most

56:57 ↗ of our time talking today about those actions, but certainly if City Council has some

57:02 ↗ questions about other potential actions that were listed in the strategic plan, thoughts about how

57:07 ↗ to shape those actions or other ideas as well, those are certainly pieces that we'll

57:13 ↗ want to know and understand. It's important, as I mentioned before, that about 14 of

57:18 ↗ those actions follow strategically aligned efforts already underway.

57:24 ↗ And because we're in that first year of implementation, there are a fair number of

57:29 ↗ those carryover items that are identified. There we did, as we were going through the

57:34 ↗ process of taking a look at these, we did identify a couple of actions that

57:38 ↗ actually are making some progress we're anticipating to get through a substantial amount of work

57:43 ↗ this year. And so we identified a couple of those. One of those was in

57:47 ↗ regards to looking at mitigation fees, and we expect that The majority of that work

57:52 ↗ is actually, will be completed by the end of this year. And there was a

57:56 ↗ second action related to education and outreach to new, to businesses and new

58:02 ↗ residents. And in that one we anticipate to make significant progress although we do have

58:07 ↗ some additional work that might carry over in terms of reaching out to residents in

58:11 ↗ the future years. Here's just a quick

58:17 ↗ snapshot of the strategic work plan or potential preliminary thoughts on the

58:23 ↗ strategic work plan. And this is organized by the strategic priority goal areas of mobility,

58:28 ↗ growth and development, environmental stewardship, social and economic vitality, city leadership and services and

58:34 ↗ infrastructure. So you'll see that it covers all six of those. And then within the

58:39 ↗ strategic plan itself, there's 16 different objectives. And those are listed with the

58:45 ↗ shorthand MO1, Mobility 1, MO2, Mobility 2, et cetera.

58:52 ↗ And you can see that there are two actions in mobility, five in growth and

58:58 ↗ development, two in environmental stewardship, six in social and economic vitality, five in city

59:04 ↗ leadership and services, and one in infrastructure. Of the 52 potential actions

59:10 ↗ that are in the strategic plan, there's about 21 that are covered there.

59:16 ↗ And there's some additional information on estimated expenses and labor costs. Any

59:21 ↗ questions? Council

59:29 ↗ Member Ray. On the, that one. The estimated labor, is that new hours? Those

59:35 ↗ existing hours repurposed? Those existing hours being absorbed? What are those? Those are

59:41 ↗ estimated labor costs for implementation of those actions. They're not presuming that they're all new

59:47 ↗ hours. That would need to be a part of the next phase of work for

59:51 ↗ identifying the other work that departments are anticipating doing, critical services,

59:57 ↗ budget availability based upon overall financial picture. So it's

1:00:05 ↗ there's no specificity to that. You can add the gross number though. I think what

1:00:09 ↗ Council Member Ray is saying, it's up to 10 positions if you look at the

1:00:12 ↗ total hours. Let's break this down a little bit. It depends

1:00:18 ↗ on which item you're looking at. We can talk about that on action item by

1:00:23 ↗ action item. I'm just trying to figure out how to use the data. Let me

1:00:27 ↗ give an example. Mobility one. Our example

1:00:33 ↗ is an area of work that we have our transportation planner working on

1:00:39 ↗ right now as he's working on the mobility master plan. He has a certain number

1:00:44 ↗ of hours already on his job today that are being put toward that effort. The

1:00:49 ↗ scope of work next year for this action item changes, but the stuff that he's

1:00:54 ↗ doing this year will be completed so he's got that capacity potentially. So that's why

1:01:00 ↗ we have to look at it. on a per action item basis. There are a

1:01:06 ↗ couple in here, one or more I think, that have some recommendations

1:01:12 ↗ or options for potential adds to staff.

1:01:18 ↗ That would be found on the high range of the estimated expense and on labor.

1:01:24 ↗ There's one, for example, that has to do with environmental stewardship

1:01:30 ↗ that has a that ranges to hiring an FTE to help

1:01:35 ↗ provide some volunteer coordination. That one in particular is actually in Tier B, so that's

1:01:41 ↗ not included here. Thank you. Okay, so I'm just trying to figure out what the

1:01:46 ↗ numbers tell me. So if, and if you're saying it's both, can you split it

1:01:50 ↗ out subsequently so we can see what is new and what is repurposed? And you

1:01:55 ↗ can arrange them, that's fine. I just need to know if we're adding 11 FTE

1:01:58 ↗ or if we're, or if those are 11 FTEs that we

1:02:05 ↗ think we can cover with existing, or it's 5 and 5 or whatever. I just

1:02:08 ↗ need the data to make an informed decision. Understood. I will tell you that there

1:02:12 ↗ is not a proposal here to add 11 FTE. Most of this is assumed to

1:02:18 ↗ be prioritizing the work of existing employees such that

1:02:24 ↗ they would period these action items. What that means is they either are completing the

1:02:29 ↗ scope of work that is new and unique for 2019 and 2019, or we are

1:02:34 ↗ telling them instead of focusing on this and your base job, we want you

1:02:40 ↗ focusing on that. Great. Let me understand that as we go through. Yeah, so we

1:02:45 ↗ will try to and that activity of breaking it out is one that we're going

1:02:50 ↗ to have to continue to work on because it's going to depend on the proposal

1:02:54 ↗ where we land within that range, how we want to accomplish the work. So it's

1:02:59 ↗ scalable would be part of my answer and by and large does not reflect an

1:03:04 ↗ assumption of new personnel. Great question. That's member Walsh.

1:03:11 ↗ So similarly on that, knowing how it breaks down to

1:03:18 ↗ available staff by department, you know, because if I'm looking at this and saying, oh

1:03:24 ↗ gosh, that's a whole bunch of estimated labor hours in

1:03:29 ↗ social and economic vitality is that in the finance department is that in

1:03:35 ↗ dsd you know where where does that go in and then each of the departments

1:03:40 ↗ is different in the number of hours available yeah yeah and and we've done that

1:03:45 ↗ work um to some degree but as i as i said um we have a

1:03:50 ↗ whole bunch of work to um really talk through um

1:03:56 ↗ which end of the spectrum are we trying to carry out We need that input

1:04:01 ↗ from all of you to understand that, to better quantify that. But we have looked,

1:04:06 ↗ given what we have on the board right now, and

1:04:10 ↗ understanding that many, most of these action items are

1:04:16 ↗ cross-departmental. And so there's a lot of work that hasn't been done yet to tease

1:04:22 ↗ out how much what's going to be the exact division of labor across

1:04:28 ↗ departments. But if you just look at who's the lead department on each

1:04:34 ↗ of these, we have broken it out by department against the high-low range, against the

1:04:39 ↗ tier A, tier B. If you look at it on just

1:04:46 ↗ a number of actions per department level, the two most effective departments are DSD and

1:04:54 ↗ sustainability. Each of them have

1:05:00 ↗ five action items where they are designated as the lead.

1:05:06 ↗ So you're reading that off of something, but you don't. I am. We can share

1:05:10 ↗ this with you. I had anticipated it would be a question. The issue is

1:05:16 ↗ I don't know how much you can take to the bank. If I tell you

1:05:19 ↗ there are five action items that OS is going to do, and then after tonight

1:05:22 ↗ you say, none of those are our top priority or it's just indicating who's the

1:05:28 ↗ lead and I go back and David says we're the lead but we're a 15%

1:05:32 ↗ stakeholder and really we're anticipating most of the work is going to be done by

1:05:37 ↗ two other departments. We haven't allocated that to that precision yet.

1:05:44 ↗ Administrator and Marine, is it fair to say that the reason there are expenses and

1:05:48 ↗ labor here is to sort of just indicate the magnitude of a project? That's correct.

1:05:53 ↗ And it's not necessarily a request for new money or a request for new people.

1:05:56 ↗ That's right. We're not there yet. But just something to help, because what I wouldn't

1:05:59 ↗ want council to worry about tonight is that in prioritizing that they

1:06:05 ↗ feel like they are committing new monies and new positions, because it's really just to

1:06:10 ↗ help a little scale to what the project is. That's right. Our primary goal is

1:06:14 ↗ to give feedback on the scope of work, the thing that you might want us

1:06:18 ↗ to focus on. Again, how we carry that out, we have options. We've shown sort

1:06:23 ↗ of a range here, but I will tell you, given perhaps some budget constraints, if

1:06:28 ↗ you say, these five things we absolutely need to get done, let's find a way

1:06:33 ↗ to do it, and we had anticipated bringing extra

1:06:39 ↗ consultants on board to help us with that, Instead I may turn back to department

1:06:43 ↗ directors and ask for alternative proposals. What can we do in house? What can we

1:06:47 ↗ do more cost effectively? How can we get creative about getting all of these

1:06:55 ↗ outcomes done or a good chunk of them so that we can still make some

1:07:01 ↗ progress on strategic plans? So it is a little flexible at this moment.

1:07:08 ↗ Any more questions? Or continue?

1:07:14 ↗ Let's continue. Okay. So, and we will get into more of the specifics about each

1:07:18 ↗ of those actions, but real, or somewhat briefly, I want to just

1:07:24 ↗ articulate, if you take a look at those 21 different actions,

1:07:30 ↗ there's a few ways to think about them. Certainly they are, as I noted before,

1:07:34 ↗ will finish important, kind of strategically aligned work that's already underway. It would

1:07:40 ↗ enable subsequent actions to follow on and to take place, make

1:07:46 ↗ progress across several different priority areas, which I think is a question for council to

1:07:51 ↗ consider as well. And also to some extent reflects some capacity

1:07:57 ↗ limitations in terms of phasing that we know, but certainly there's some more work to

1:08:01 ↗ be done, certainly some more work as we get some additional financial information. But of

1:08:07 ↗ the actions that are out there, These are some of the results that could be

1:08:11 ↗ achieved through this strategic plan. A mobility roadmap getting into place and presenting a

1:08:17 ↗ case for funding. There's some pieces in here that talk about taking a look at

1:08:22 ↗ travel shed data and identifying specific measures for how we would handle

1:08:28 ↗ new options in ways the city could consider affordable housing. Helping and implementing

1:08:34 ↗ better management tools for growth, looking at protections in neighborhoods, talk about some

1:08:40 ↗ progress with financial transparency, aligning environmental management approaches,

1:08:46 ↗ providing support to small businesses and startups, new tools for business recruitment,

1:08:53 ↗ improving access to physical and behavioral health services, and kind of making

1:08:59 ↗ this linkage between capital projects and funding for ongoing maintenance.

1:09:05 ↗ There's a piece in here about prioritizing strategic land acquisitions across all of the variety

1:09:11 ↗ of different resource needs that the city has, whether those are parks or open space

1:09:16 ↗ or critical areas or others. Working with community members to increase the needs

1:09:21 ↗ and meet the increasing needs of our more diverse and changing economy.

1:09:27 ↗ Taking our next steps, which are currently underway, to consider how we would provide city

1:09:32 ↗ hall services for residents and businesses. And then, taking continuity takes those steps to improve

1:09:38 ↗ organizational performance. So these are some of the kind of the results of the work

1:09:43 ↗ that we would be able to achieve with some of those actions for next year.

1:09:50 ↗ As I mentioned before, as we start to go through this part of the evening

1:09:55 ↗ we really want to make sure that you have a good understanding of what those

1:09:58 ↗ potential actions are and kind of seeking some clarity on those, not getting into the

1:10:03 ↗ discussion about the relative priority. We'll do that next. But we'll be looking to hear

1:10:09 ↗ from you as we go through each of those groups. Is there a general feeling

1:10:14 ↗ that those are okay to proceed and move forward for consideration? Should they be flagged

1:10:19 ↗ for additional discussion? or modification, or is it really clear that that's not something we

1:10:25 ↗ should be pursuing right now and it ought to be for consideration for 2020. David,

1:10:30 ↗ is step two happening with each of them, or are you going through all of

1:10:33 ↗ them? I think with our plans we're going to go through each of the different

1:10:36 ↗ goal areas and describe the actions in those areas, and then we'll move back around

1:10:41 ↗ and ask that question. All

1:10:46 ↗ right. And with that, we'll jump into mobility. that's going to help walk through some

1:10:52 ↗ of these items. Yes. So I'm going to be looking primarily at the

1:10:59 ↗ spreadsheet, or if you want to follow along a little bit, I'll be going through

1:11:02 ↗ each of the details of actions that are in Tier 1. The spreadsheet here is

1:11:08 ↗ organized similarly by objective, actions, the timing,

1:11:14 ↗ the labor, the expenses for 2020, which are operational. Also,

1:11:20 ↗ the maintenance if it's a multi-year action, the tier that it's in, and then whether

1:11:25 ↗ it's a continuation from 2019. In the packets, there's also action

1:11:31 ↗ descriptions as well. So, I'll be talking about each of these, as David mentioned, by

1:11:36 ↗ goal area, and then we'll pause after for any clarifications and to see if we'll

1:11:42 ↗ go ahead and proceed or move on with them. So, the first one, M01A.

1:11:49 ↗ As MOA and MOB included, so provide for the timely and successful adoption of the

1:11:55 ↗ mobility master plan. And assemble and analyze data to better understand regional travel behavior

1:12:01 ↗ and define pass through traffic and policy objectives. So this is part of the development

1:12:05 ↗ of the mobility master plan, which started in 2019 and will continue with final adoption

1:12:10 ↗ in 2020. The plan will contain the guiding principles, policies, programs, and

1:12:16 ↗ projects that the city will use to achieve its long-term vision. The project itself

1:12:22 ↗ will look at the regional travel shed data, which will be analyzed to help inform

1:12:27 ↗ approaches for addressing regional traffic. As we talked about, some of the labor here and

1:12:33 ↗ cost represents those for 2020. So not the project of the whole pieces that will

1:12:38 ↗ already be completed in 2019, but just the ones moving forward.

1:12:44 ↗ M01C is develop and execute a long-term funding approach for larger capital projects and

1:12:49 ↗ ongoing sustainable management of assets. So this is work that's currently underway in the finance

1:12:55 ↗ and public works engineering departments. The action is reviewing capital financing approaches and

1:13:01 ↗ several larger transportation projects currently. And efforts in 2020 would include preparation

1:13:07 ↗ of a transportation funding ballot measure if this action is pursued. The costs here are

1:13:13 ↗ based on some previous ballot measures and also some communication pieces that would be needed

1:13:19 ↗ if we're pursuing going forward with the ballot measure. And those

1:13:25 ↗ are the mobility ones.

1:13:31 ↗ So, conversation then now on your previous question number two, which was

1:13:37 ↗ if you could flip on. So we want to answer any questions that you have

1:13:42 ↗ about these potential action items. Make sure that it's clear. And

1:13:48 ↗ then I think we're going to, we're taking the polls. We're looking for just on

1:13:53 ↗ a three-point scale. Are you interested in this one? That's

1:13:59 ↗ as David put up, you know, okay to proceed. Continue to think about incorporating this

1:14:05 ↗ into the preliminary budget. Or... On the far end of the spectrum, no,

1:14:11 ↗ we're not so interested in trying to accommodate that in 2020's budget. And then

1:14:17 ↗ in the middle would be, let's set this aside for a little bit more conversation,

1:14:22 ↗ perhaps after we have gone through all the rest of the potential action items.

1:14:30 ↗ So were there questions? In this category, both of these are ongoing.

1:14:39 ↗ They're things that you're already working on, where the city is already working on. And

1:14:44 ↗ so I'm trying to understand, in terms of the direction that we're giving, if we

1:14:50 ↗ are saying that we're, just hypothetically, if we say we're not interested in

1:14:56 ↗ this first one, it's already work that's going on. There's already a person that's employed

1:15:01 ↗ that is doing this work for the master mobility plan. So does that mean, though,

1:15:05 ↗ that we would actually have this potential $30,000 and then $192,000

1:15:12 ↗ over the all years to do something else? Or is it already in the budget

1:15:17 ↗ somewhere else and we would just continue along that route but use the other

1:15:22 ↗ funding? Because I know that both of these are things the city is doing. Yeah,

1:15:26 ↗ yeah. And David and Megan can correct me if I'm wrong. While there is an

1:15:30 ↗ allocation in the 2019 budget, both for an FTE that is doing this scope of

1:15:34 ↗ work this year, and this is a different an additive next step scope of work

1:15:40 ↗ for next year. And we have a budget line item, for example,

1:15:46 ↗ for the contract for the professional services group that's assisting us with development of the

1:15:52 ↗ mobility master plan. Next year as that contract ends and as

1:15:58 ↗ we try to take on potentially this additional scope of work. We either would

1:16:04 ↗ think about it as we've got some baseline capacity from one-time allocation that we could

1:16:08 ↗ partially reauthorize or, you know, put toward the 2020 scope. So

1:16:15 ↗ wouldn't necessarily be new money in that sense. FTE would continue, but it may,

1:16:21 ↗ if you said no, it may reshape what that employee is doing

1:16:27 ↗ for his work plan next year. Having said that though, the first question that I

1:16:31 ↗ would have is why? If the initial reaction was no, this isn't one of our

1:16:36 ↗ top priorities for 2020, then we would probably want to dig a little bit deeper

1:16:40 ↗ so that we can understand what does that mean for that person's work plan

1:16:46 ↗ next year for transportation advisory board. We would want to dive a little bit

1:16:52 ↗ deeper to understand your intent and your answer so that

1:16:58 ↗ and the work plan accordingly. Yeah, so to be clear, I wasn't answering. I was

1:17:03 ↗ asking a question about how to interpret these because I think our direction, as I

1:17:09 ↗ understand it, our direction about how if we're interested or not interested, it is

1:17:14 ↗ context-dependent because some of these are things the city is already doing and some are

1:17:19 ↗ new things. So being interested in a new thing is different than being interested in

1:17:23 ↗ something the city is already doing.

1:17:33 ↗ So I'm struggling a little bit because these are all in

1:17:39 ↗ response to objectives that this council has and the community has worked through

1:17:45 ↗ over an admirably thorough process to get to where we are today. And because none

1:17:51 ↗ of these are really, I mean there's a couple that are bigger ticket, but they're

1:17:56 ↗ not really all, I mean there's nothing that is like, you know, these are all

1:18:02 ↗ $100,000 and this other one is $10 million. So there's an old Dilbert

1:18:08 ↗ disparaging marketing people that says, we have to give the customer what they want. And

1:18:13 ↗ the marketing guy says, what they want is better products for free. And I just

1:18:16 ↗ feel like looking at this, this process seems it's going to be like, yep,

1:18:22 ↗ this is what we asked for. And we're not down selecting, we're not saying 627,000

1:18:28 ↗ to 942,000 is too much.

1:18:34 ↗ So we need to figure out something that's below X number of dollars. So I'm

1:18:39 ↗ just not sure. It just seems to me like what we're going to get is

1:18:42 ↗ a reaffirmation that these are the objectives that we like and that all of these

1:18:47 ↗ things are, some of these are noticeably smaller, but most of all this stuff is

1:18:53 ↗ between $100,000 and $200,000. per line item. So they're all, you know, squint and stand

1:18:59 ↗ back a little ways. They're all sort of a piece. So I'm not really sure

1:19:03 ↗ how we, not really sure what we'll select for in this process unless

1:19:09 ↗ there's something that just comes across to somebody who's just not ready for prime time.

1:19:13 ↗ Yeah, and that's the sort of feedback that we're looking for. We have clarity that

1:19:19 ↗ the objectives are are ones that you are comfortable with, or ones that the community

1:19:24 ↗ has vetted. We have listed potential action items throughout. This is the moment in time

1:19:30 ↗ where we get feedback from you saying, yeah, that's how we want you to try

1:19:34 ↗ to carry out that objective. Or no, that's not what we have in mind. We'd

1:19:39 ↗ like you to consider something different. Or this one is really important to me. This

1:19:45 ↗ one, I'm lukewarm about. We have not done that sort of work to

1:19:51 ↗ from the community action item at will. So we don't have that data. We're asking

1:19:56 ↗ you as you understood the feedback that went into the strategic plan and as you

1:20:01 ↗ have shaped up your own desires about how to carry it out, are these the

1:20:05 ↗ right action items? You want to assist us with helping to

1:20:10 ↗ understand decision weights so that as we know what size box to fit them in,

1:20:17 ↗ can make choices about where to draw the line. These are the ones the council

1:20:22 ↗ felt really solid on, understood, liked, felt were super important to the

1:20:27 ↗ achievement of the strategic plan, didn't have any concerns

1:20:33 ↗ about scope of work identified in those action items, down to ones where there were

1:20:40 ↗ questions, concerns, lack of passion around. We would put those lower on the list.

1:20:47 ↗ Before we go to Council Member Walsh, just a process check. So we had two

1:20:52 ↗ steps to this. One was to go through and do David's number one and two

1:20:57 ↗ exercise, but I also thought at one point in time there was going to be

1:21:00 ↗ a going around the room with dots exercise where they could

1:21:06 ↗ express their own priorities based on the full list. That's right. Is it the Council's

1:21:11 ↗ will for instead of doing that as we questions on clarification, so we just go

1:21:16 ↗ through them all first and then go through the exercise to do the ranking instead

1:21:21 ↗ of trying to take off the list now? That's fine. We hoped that there would

1:21:26 ↗ be first this opportunity to better understand each one, ask questions, and

1:21:32 ↗ then secondly, if there's an opportunity to whittle some off the list before we go

1:21:38 ↗ to the dot exercise, that was the end. Okay. And there may or may not

1:21:41 ↗ be an opportunity. There may or may not. There may or may not. We're just

1:21:44 ↗ posing that question. Okay. Council Member Walsh. So it looks like right now we're only

1:21:50 ↗ being presented with the items that the administration considers Tier A. Correct.

1:21:56 ↗ And I have a little, like that to me seems like we're making

1:22:01 ↗ assumptions on that and not getting the feedback maybe from the council on whether or

1:22:07 ↗ not a Tier B item. So we're seeking that at this time too. Yeah, you'll

1:22:11 ↗ get that. Okay. We'll go all the way through. Okay. But yeah, so to clarify,

1:22:15 ↗ we're going to give you some detailed

1:22:21 ↗ summary of the Tier A projects. But as we started this off, we said if

1:22:27 ↗ there's something else on Tier B that you want to talk about, you need to

1:22:31 ↗ raise that at this time. We're not going to be detailing Tier B. Because

1:22:37 ↗ what has landed on Tier A, staff has described why. And part of it is

1:22:42 ↗ about sequencing or about looking at that big resource picture and what staff is involved

1:22:48 ↗ where, all the cross departmental considerations. And so we've landed with what we think

1:22:55 ↗ meets the criteria for A, is timely, all of that. But if you have an

1:23:00 ↗ interest in something on B, this is when you need to raise that, ask questions.

1:23:06 ↗ We can explain why it didn't land on A. Does it make

1:23:12 ↗ sense then to do the mobility category and talk about the A, Bs, and Cs?

1:23:17 ↗ Or what was the plan? Is the plan to go through all Tier A? Our

1:23:20 ↗ plan was just to talk about, yeah, just to talk about Tier A.

1:23:26 ↗ Okay. Council Member Wright. Do we have a list of the Bs and Cs?

1:23:29 ↗ Yeah. So if you look over at the second last

1:23:35 ↗ column, it's got the A, Bs, and Cs, and you have all the Bs and

1:23:39 ↗ Cs mostly on the set. Thank you. So to keep moving along,

1:23:46 ↗ any clarifications required on the two mobility ones?

1:23:54 ↗ Or for now, we're just leaving them as tier A and moving into growth and

1:23:58 ↗ development. Any thoughts?

1:24:08 ↗ Oh, sorry, Councilmember Rolsch. The only one that I see questioning, I think,

1:24:13 ↗ why it is a C and not further up is M02 on the back page.

1:24:20 ↗ M02B, establish partnerships with transit agencies for new transit options.

1:24:27 ↗ I get a little bit concerned if that gets pushed down the list, that it

1:24:31 ↗ gets grouped into the same idea as the Sound Transit. And I

1:24:37 ↗ want to make sure that we're... Maybe there's a question why that is coming up.

1:24:44 ↗ I think one of the reasons that's the case, we're not meaning to paint the

1:24:49 ↗ picture that we're not involved in this work on an ongoing basis, so let's just

1:24:53 ↗ acknowledge that first. But I think as we began discussing this

1:24:59 ↗ with staff and with the mayor, there was some work yet to be done

1:25:05 ↗ still to build out exactly what the deliverable would be here. I shouldn't say the

1:25:11 ↗ deliverable, but what the implementation actions would be. So for example, we talked

1:25:17 ↗ about do we want to convene another kind of stakeholder

1:25:23 ↗ group and talk about how to align next regional

1:25:29 ↗ policy advocacy. And one of the things that we

1:25:35 ↗ want to have done before we do that, although

1:25:41 ↗ we're having those conversations every day, is we want to complete the travel shed analysis.

1:25:46 ↗ That's part of kind of phase one on mobility master plans so we can go

1:25:49 ↗ back to some of those neighboring jurisdictions and say, this is the problem, this is

1:25:55 ↗ what we see, what are you seeing, what's your data. So that's precursor work that

1:26:01 ↗ perhaps we need to be doing and then we can shape up what this action

1:26:05 ↗ item would really be comprised of. So that's why in this case it landed on

1:26:11 ↗ C. Thanks. Council Member Wright. So I have a new topic called D's, which is

1:26:15 ↗ I think that there's a lot of really great work that the staff has done

1:26:18 ↗ to identify these action items or potential action items and to categorize them and bring

1:26:23 ↗ them forward. But at what point does the City Council get to say, you know,

1:26:28 ↗ I think that we're missing something here. I think that we need an action item

1:26:31 ↗ that looks like Yes. Now. Now. It would have been nice to have known that

1:26:36 ↗ yesterday. Comments on mobility?

1:26:41 ↗ I'm

1:26:48 ↗ clear with these. Okay. Oh, sorry. Maybe Councilman's please. So just a couple

1:26:54 ↗ more questions just so I can completely understand. And I do appreciate all the work

1:26:58 ↗ that's gone into this to... all of the grouping the way that we have, but

1:27:03 ↗ we were talking about ongoing and the, I only see,

1:27:12 ↗ I guess if you're like reading through, it's hard for me to determine what is

1:27:18 ↗ ongoing right now other than I only see it one

1:27:24 ↗ time listed as ongoing on the back. So that's one question that I have.

1:27:30 ↗ And another question that I have is just wrapping my brain around, if I'm looking

1:27:34 ↗ at C, things that are under C, and it says that they're starting in 2021,

1:27:43 ↗ just wondering, I guess, is that predicated on the

1:27:49 ↗ fact that we get all of the work ahead of that done? Is there

1:27:56 ↗ a possibility that if it lands in C, that it really doesn't start in 2021

1:28:01 ↗ based on everything that's above it? So I think I'm hearing two

1:28:07 ↗ things. And one is that it's important when we're doing the descriptions, David and Megan,

1:28:12 ↗ that we talk about those that are already underway because as we stated, when we're

1:28:16 ↗ doing the strategic plan, it's not like we're throwing out everything we've been doing and

1:28:20 ↗ saying it wasn't strategic. Some things we're already doing definitely fell in under these items.

1:28:26 ↗ And also, that whether it is nested or

1:28:31 ↗ sequential or timing has something to do with it, it is something that would be

1:28:36 ↗ good to explain in a B or a C. Why it's not happening now because

1:28:40 ↗ it is a second step. It is nested under another one and first we need

1:28:45 ↗ to collect data and then we will go out and lobby for additional metro service,

1:28:49 ↗ that kind of thing. When we're going through these descriptions, it would be good, I

1:28:53 ↗ think, to let the council members know both of those aspects. That's a good question.

1:28:58 ↗ Yeah, and just to better understand how did those that were moved to B or

1:29:03 ↗ C, how did that? Okay, thanks. Council Member Hunt.

1:29:09 ↗ On the last page, there's the two items that are

1:29:15 ↗ no cost, no hours, I guess. And it says complete in 2019,

1:29:23 ↗ and then it has start in 2019, and then just done. So the last two

1:29:28 ↗ items. So I'm just looking for interpretation on those. So those are things that are

1:29:31 ↗ going to be done before we even start the plan. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah,

1:29:35 ↗ those were the ones that David mentioned as we went through. We had the budget.

1:29:39 ↗ We had the staff application already happening in 19 because those other columns are about

1:29:44 ↗ 2020. They were listed as potential action items in the

1:29:50 ↗ plan. So I think there was a degree of continuity

1:29:59 ↗ whether or not those will be. Okay, yeah, I guess it would be

1:30:06 ↗ helpful to understand, and it doesn't have to be right now, but I think it

1:30:09 ↗ would be helpful to understand what has been done on those because they

1:30:15 ↗ were identified as actions to meet our goal, and so if we're already trying to

1:30:19 ↗ meet them. Yep, 10-10. Yep. And I think we know there is, We're still

1:30:25 ↗ covering some additional information on that second one about the outreach strategy to new residents.

1:30:30 ↗ There's some work that's underway developing essentially a welcome packet for businesses.

1:30:36 ↗ And there's some preliminary work that's underway for the residential side. So there's how far

1:30:41 ↗ we're going to get on that part I think we're not so sure about. But

1:30:45 ↗ we can certainly provide more information on that.

1:30:51 ↗ There are no more questions. We will assume that the two that are listed under

1:30:57 ↗ a priorities and mobility are on the board, on the wall for discussion later on.

1:31:04 ↗ Move to growth and development. Yes. Okay.

1:31:10 ↗ So, growth and development, GD1A, update codes and standards to retain and

1:31:16 ↗ protect essential characteristics in established neighborhoods. This action in the

1:31:22 ↗ first year, it is projected to be starting 2020, go through 2024, so it's a

1:31:28 ↗ few years long. This is not an action that is currently in process now.

1:31:34 ↗ So this action in the first year, there will be some internal work to share

1:31:37 ↗ ideas about what essential neighborhood characteristics there are and doing some

1:31:43 ↗ prioritization about which neighborhoods will be addressed in which order. It's also assumed that they

1:31:48 ↗ would We would pilot this with one neighborhood in the first year to test some

1:31:53 ↗ of the outreach methods and how we go about doing it. And then in future

1:31:58 ↗ years, staff would anticipate working with about two neighborhoods per year. So that's why it's

1:32:03 ↗ a multi-year effort. The city will be engaging in the specific neighborhoods to

1:32:09 ↗ kind of identify those essential characteristics and then develop the codes to preserve them.

1:32:16 ↗ And the costs here are around mostly outreach with the neighborhoods. Thank

1:32:22 ↗ you. I didn't see who went up first. Council President Marks. Aren't we already doing

1:32:27 ↗ this? Aren't we already? Isn't that why we're looking at clustered housing

1:32:35 ↗ changes? We just talked about that at Landon Tour last night. I think it's bigger

1:32:40 ↗ than that. It was bigger than that. In the council conversation, it was about reunions.

1:32:45 ↗ I know, but it started. I get that there's a lot more to it. I

1:32:49 ↗ think we could almost point to anything on this list and say there are bits

1:32:51 ↗ and pieces that probably are underway on a lot of these. But this was a

1:32:57 ↗ focused effort to have a comprehensive conversation with each neighborhood about what is it that

1:33:03 ↗ makes your neighborhood unique and special so that we understand where there's a desire

1:33:09 ↗ to preserve those elements or enhance those elements. So it's broader than just the housing

1:33:13 ↗ piece. So

1:33:19 ↗ from a larger context, it feels like this was somewhat recently done

1:33:25 ↗ with TELUS and the Highlands when those development agreements were ended. Replacement

1:33:31 ↗ regulations. Yeah, the replacement regulations happened there.

1:33:37 ↗ And then I also question how important is it to do this at the same

1:33:41 ↗ time as the Title 18 revamp? Is that something that

1:33:47 ↗ needs to happen at the same time as Title 18? Or

1:33:54 ↗ do we receive maybe even some benefit from doing it after that review has happened?

1:33:59 ↗ I guess my initial answer would be you can't do it all at once. We

1:34:03 ↗ have Title 18 things that we know need to be updated and fixed if in

1:34:09 ↗ going through these conversations either on Title 18, some neighborhood

1:34:15 ↗ characteristic elements seem to need to be attended to, we can do that during Title

1:34:21 ↗ 18, but the focus conversations with each neighborhood, we can have those subsequent to that

1:34:26 ↗ work or concurrent with that work, as the case may be, and then come back

1:34:30 ↗ and make whatever code changes need to happen. The intent was to have that open

1:34:35 ↗ conversation first and then identify, are the solutions to that code-related or are

1:34:41 ↗ they something else? And if they're code-related, then we can go back and do My

1:34:45 ↗ general thought is that if the idea of Title 18 code

1:34:51 ↗ revision is to achieve clarity in how things are presented,

1:34:57 ↗ it might make sense to do that before going out to the community so that

1:35:03 ↗ we're not having to have that conversation twice. So that would be my thought. Thank

1:35:09 ↗ you. Council Member Goodman.

1:35:18 ↗ I'm not exactly sure what we mean by neighborhoods. So we have

1:35:24 ↗ residential neighborhoods and then we have all the areas in the Central Issaquah Plan and

1:35:29 ↗ we've talked about protecting neighborhoods in the Central

1:35:35 ↗ Issaquah Plan. We've also talked about going out to the neighborhoods and seeing what is

1:35:39 ↗ it asking them, what's important to them. So is this all of that?

1:35:49 ↗ I think as we had shaped this up, we had identified

1:35:57 ↗ which areas of town we think define themselves as a neighborhood and having the

1:36:03 ↗ same sort of conversations that we have had, for example, with Old Town or with

1:36:10 ↗ Highlands and Talos, but having those conversations and making sure we hit all the neighborhoods

1:36:15 ↗ where we haven't had types of conversations and then posing those questions about what's important

1:36:19 ↗ to you, what makes this place special, why did you choose this place, what do

1:36:23 ↗ we need to enhance, protect, et cetera, what's missing, which ties into another goal

1:36:29 ↗ area as well. And then look at, again, what action we would need to take.

1:36:38 ↗ Any other questions on this one? We'll keep

1:36:44 ↗ moving through growth and development. Okay. GD2A

1:36:50 ↗ is Conduct a Review of Progress Towards Growth Targets. This one is

1:36:57 ↗ a 19-20 action and it is one of

1:37:03 ↗ two also related to GD2E about PSRC allocations. So

1:37:09 ↗ in 2020, council will be adopting new allocations for 2023 through 2043

1:37:16 ↗ by the end of 2020. So this is going to be a process to update

1:37:20 ↗ some information about detailed housing and jobs numbers in the city to help prepare for

1:37:26 ↗ that conversation. And it's also going

1:37:32 ↗ to be, the state is already collected annually, but this data will that next round

1:37:37 ↗ of conversations. So looking, I'll talk about with GD2E at the same time with proactively

1:37:42 ↗ influence the next round of regional growth targets. So as I mentioned, that conversation will

1:37:47 ↗ be happening next year. So this is to do kind of some early work on

1:37:51 ↗ this to prepare for negotiations with King County and other jurisdictions to get

1:37:57 ↗ the data that we have our city and start to prepare conversations that we want

1:38:03 ↗ to have with council about what we see is how we want to do growth

1:38:06 ↗ in the city so that we have a recommendation from the city that would then

1:38:11 ↗ be negotiated with both King County and the jurisdictions. Ongoing body of work.

1:38:16 ↗ Yes. Councilmember Walsh. So I don't understand why

1:38:23 ↗ the estimate is higher for a review of progress toward growth targets where that

1:38:29 ↗ seems to be something that we're much more familiar with, whereas the numbers are

1:38:35 ↗ slightly smaller or half as big for proactively influencing where

1:38:41 ↗ I think we have to have a larger conversation about what do we want those

1:38:44 ↗ numbers to be and then do the influence as well. So that seems a little

1:38:49 ↗ bit backward to me. Fair money. I might

1:38:55 ↗ call on the department director to help explain that. I would just suggest

1:39:01 ↗ that I think there's some data collection and analysis that goes with

1:39:07 ↗ A that's a little bit . Actually, before we go

1:39:13 ↗ to department director, I just want to check in with you, Lindsay. So I think

1:39:20 ↗ It's fine to direct us that if this is important to you, can you go

1:39:23 ↗ back and look at those estimates so that we see it in budget, explain it.

1:39:27 ↗ Really trying to understand if it's something you want to have on the list or

1:39:30 ↗ not, if it's a priority. Because I think we could pull Keith up and he

1:39:33 ↗ could tell you about the exercise the long range planning staff goes to do a,

1:39:38 ↗ you know, available land, build a buildable lands map and an inventory and all of

1:39:42 ↗ that. But it's more tonight about is this a priority for you? It's work underway.

1:39:48 ↗ the strategic plan, I guess is you're probably going to say, of course we need

1:39:52 ↗ you to do this. So your choice though, if you would like to hear more

1:39:56 ↗ about the labor buildup, we could do that too. Yeah, I guess for me,

1:40:02 ↗ GD2E is more important than GD2A. Yeah, okay. So that's, thank you very

1:40:08 ↗ much for that. When we do go to the exercises of, you know, having the

1:40:12 ↗ council members use the dots to say priority, my guess is that you're going to

1:40:16 ↗ be looking at the forward forward one

1:40:21 ↗ going that's really important to me. Thank you. That's really helpful. Are there, oh, Council

1:40:25 ↗ Member Wages thing? Couple questions. Megan, help me understand the timing of these. So when

1:40:28 ↗ is, these are, are your, the state will be coming up with new numbers,

1:40:34 ↗ giving them to the counties. All the, then we'll enter into this stage where we

1:40:40 ↗ start to, you know, figure out what our new targets are going to be. And

1:40:45 ↗ then there's, And then there's a comprehensive plan update round. How do all, what's the

1:40:50 ↗ timing of all of this? And how do these activities? I might defer to Keith,

1:40:56 ↗ you might be a little bit more familiar with the exact timing. Okay, so the

1:41:00 ↗ reason I'm asking, I just want to make sure I have a complete picture of

1:41:04 ↗ where, I think I know where it fits in. But there's a timing here and

1:41:08 ↗ I wasn't really sure about some of the dates that you mentioned here. I actually

1:41:12 ↗ thought it was happening later and just seem to be doing this earlier than I

1:41:15 ↗ thought we would. So maybe I'm wrong. So we're doing billable lands right now. So

1:41:21 ↗ right now we're working with King County on updating our billable lands inventory, which

1:41:26 ↗ is really the starting space for all of this. Because you basically look at what's

1:41:32 ↗ out in your community, identify those parcels that are either vacant or

1:41:38 ↗ underbuilt, and then you... you have an exchange with King County to the

1:41:44 ↗ point where we get concurrence between the city and the county about what our buildable

1:41:49 ↗ lands inventory looks like. From there then are generated

1:41:56 ↗ the next round of allocations from, no I didn't use

1:42:02 ↗ targets, from the county that we then want to

1:42:08 ↗ So what we're talking about is rather than just taking those numbers from the county

1:42:13 ↗ and putting them in our comp plan, which is what we've done in the past,

1:42:17 ↗ to have a more interactive conversation with the council and letting there be

1:42:24 ↗ some potential influence locally on those numbers when

1:42:30 ↗ we send them back to the county. So we are expecting, there may be actually

1:42:35 ↗ some active negotiations with King County on what that next round of allocations might be

1:42:40 ↗ as opposed to just taking those numbers putting them in our comp plan and giving

1:42:44 ↗ them to you to adopt. So those all come from the count that process runs

1:42:49 ↗ prior to a comp plan update? Yes. Okay so that's why this timing of completing

1:42:54 ↗ this by the end of next year 2020? Yes. And the comp plan update is

1:42:58 ↗ when? So typically you guys do your comp plan updates in November,

1:43:04 ↗ December of each year. Well, okay. Okay. So, but these numbers would be in the

1:43:09 ↗ 2021 update? They would be, no, they would be, we would come up, in theory,

1:43:15 ↗ we would come up with our numbers next year. So the buildable lands is in

1:43:19 ↗ 19. And then the new allocations would be 2020.

1:43:25 ↗ That's my understanding. Okay. All right. Without looking at any documents. And as they're, thank

1:43:30 ↗ you Keith, and as they're articulated here, just my understanding earlier, this idea,

1:43:38 ↗ I like this idea. As far as I know, I'm not sure how many times

1:43:42 ↗ there's been an update of this allocation since I've been on council, honestly, but I

1:43:47 ↗ don't ever remember us being, trying to get ahead of the curve and try to

1:43:51 ↗ influence the negotiation. This is exactly where we need to be. So I like the

1:43:56 ↗ idea that we do the analysis in anticipation of the upcoming negotiation. Thank you. It

1:44:01 ↗ was 2006, so I doubt you were on the council. I'm going to do a

1:44:06 ↗ little time check with everybody before I go to Councilmember Hunt's question. We had allocated

1:44:11 ↗ another 10 minutes to get through the rest of this part, which is really seeming

1:44:16 ↗ to be the part where I think there's going to be a lot of questions

1:44:19 ↗ to ensure everybody understands what we're looking at before we go and say what's important.

1:44:25 ↗ If the group is in agreement, I'm not sure when the food comes. I'd like

1:44:29 ↗ to at least spend another 40 minutes, so moving off of the agreed schedule that

1:44:34 ↗ we had so we can continue to go through this because these are really great

1:44:37 ↗ questions and I think they're adding a lot of clarity if the council's good with

1:44:42 ↗ that because we have a lot to go. So continue with this through 630. Okay,

1:44:47 ↗ Councilmember Hunt. So I think there are some

1:44:53 ↗ actions that are not given a category. So specifically, GD3,

1:45:01 ↗ there are two that I'm not seeing anywhere.

1:45:07 ↗ There's one that's already considered that it will be complete, so it would be helpful

1:45:12 ↗ to know how that's being completed. But then there's also Prioritize projects to address the

1:45:17 ↗ central Issaquah plan vision and address gaps and then explore concepts for development of a

1:45:21 ↗ new north-south under over-crossing in conjunction with light rail planning. I don't see those. That's

1:45:27 ↗ correct. So when David showed an early slide, we said there were, I'm making up

1:45:31 ↗ numbers because now I don't remember exactly, 52 action items and 21 of them we

1:45:37 ↗ put on this list into that ABC tier. So there are additional ones under

1:45:44 ↗ multiple goal areas that aren't reflected. So I guess is there somewhere like a system

1:45:50 ↗ by which you explain why those are not even ranked

1:45:56 ↗ within the ABC system? Just so, from my understanding about why those, for example, were

1:46:01 ↗ not considered. Yeah, I think there's not one answer, multiple

1:46:07 ↗ answers, but as we had staff look during plan development about the

1:46:12 ↗ sequencing of each, targeted start and completion years.

1:46:19 ↗ And that one that you just mentioned, we don't believe

1:46:25 ↗ we're going to have enough information, for example, to really has to do

1:46:31 ↗ with under-overcrossing to put the whole core in 2020. So we think there's other steps

1:46:36 ↗ that we have to do ahead of time. There's other actions that need to start

1:46:41 ↗ in 2020, and so that one we just... we would start in the

1:46:47 ↗ future, in a different year. So I guess if there's a spreadsheet somewhere, because I

1:46:52 ↗ don't think we have that about those other ones, but just about why, if it's

1:46:55 ↗ timing or if it's too expensive or if it's something that's already done or whatever

1:47:00 ↗ it is. I think there is a version. Is there not a spreadsheet that we

1:47:04 ↗ were using that had different start dates? We have a spreadsheet that looks a lot

1:47:07 ↗ like this that has start-stop kind of dates or completion dates on them. What we

1:47:12 ↗ don't have is that thinking because it maybe multiple things. So we don't have a

1:47:18 ↗ spreadsheet that shows that thinking. That was more discussion.

1:47:27 ↗ Megan, do you want to continue with growth and development? Yes. So going with

1:47:33 ↗ GD3A, create a comprehensive infrastructure master plan, public and private, to address

1:47:39 ↗ development areas planned for growth. So this is a multi-year action proposed 2020 to 2022.

1:47:44 ↗ So this action would address the preparation for future

1:47:50 ↗ growth and focus on the central Issaquah area, where it's anticipated to have the most

1:47:54 ↗ growth in the coming years. The project would review existing plans, start to identify gaps,

1:48:00 ↗ and determine what build out is required to support that growth. It would also establish,

1:48:05 ↗ include when and where infrastructure needs to be prepared for growth, as well as any

1:48:10 ↗ improvements that would be needed to make that ready. So, for 2020

1:48:15 ↗ specifically, staff will begin scoping the process, including coordination between departments

1:48:22 ↗ and working to develop a detailed scope, schedule, and cost estimate for developing the plan.

1:48:27 ↗ So, that's why there is just labor here and not dollars, so it's anticipated in

1:48:34 ↗ 2021-2022 is when the actual plan would be developed. Any questions?

1:48:42 ↗ Seeing any, let's move to the next one, growth and development. GD-4B,

1:48:48 ↗ develop code amendments to address missing middle and other housing options. So this is one

1:48:54 ↗ that is currently in progress through the housing strategy, which was adopted in 2017.

1:49:01 ↗ So this is strategy eight for that. So this action is intended to add more

1:49:06 ↗ options for smaller and less expensive housing to have more affordable housing types in the

1:49:11 ↗ city. It would fill the gaps between the single family and larger multi-family complexes

1:49:17 ↗ that are being built. So staff will develop recommendations,

1:49:23 ↗ work closely with stakeholders to ensure that there's appropriate housing in each of the zones.

1:49:29 ↗ So there's work going on to inventory for this to see what we currently have

1:49:33 ↗ in the city. Start to research the types of housing that we want to be

1:49:39 ↗ seeing. There'd be a process to kind of do an internal check on this and

1:49:43 ↗ then develop a recommendation which would be worked through some of the committees. And also

1:49:49 ↗ some effort in doing some outreach and education to see what types of projects

1:49:55 ↗ are working in other cities. of those to incorporate council into those as well.

1:50:03 ↗ Council Member Hunt. So in GD4, there's also

1:50:10 ↗ identify and implement code changes and activities to address neighborhood based and community wide gaps

1:50:15 ↗ in amenities and services. And I would think that through the process of updating the

1:50:21 ↗ codes and standards to retain and protect essential characteristics in established neighborhoods, that that would

1:50:26 ↗ be to do this update at the same time. So basically when you're going out

1:50:31 ↗ to the neighborhoods and you're talking about what you like about your neighborhood and then

1:50:35 ↗ also what you need in your neighborhood, you could do the code updates to both

1:50:40 ↗ protect what people like but also to enhance to this objective. So

1:50:46 ↗ it seems like those just go together versus making a code update for one thing

1:50:50 ↗ and then going back and making a code update. Yeah, I think we anticipated having

1:50:54 ↗ the neighborhood conversation about desired amenities and

1:51:00 ↗ desired character and then coming back and doing the scope of work on the code

1:51:05 ↗ changes and having that second conversation that you talked about, how to bridge gaps.

1:51:12 ↗ So it was a sequencing thing. We think one will, the action item that's listed

1:51:17 ↗ on the page now for Tier K can help us do some of the background

1:51:23 ↗ work that we need. We'll answer that next one. Maybe I misunderstand, but it does

1:51:28 ↗ have GD1 as tier ones to start with now. That's the

1:51:34 ↗ one that says update codes and standards to retain and protect essential characters. It does

1:51:38 ↗ have the update codes. It's not just start a conversation. Then there's also

1:51:45 ↗ identify and implement code changes into the second one. My opinion would be that these

1:51:50 ↗ seem to go together. Or the combination of the

1:51:57 ↗ outreach in both of these happens in one year and the code amendments for both

1:52:00 ↗ of these happens in another year. What you're saying is they're very linked. So if

1:52:04 ↗ it happens over two years, the conversation might happen one year and the updates would

1:52:08 ↗ happen the next year. Right. I just would not want it to be that you

1:52:13 ↗ go to the neighborhood and you ask, what do you want to retain? And they

1:52:16 ↗ say these things. We make code update. And then you go back and you say

1:52:18 ↗ what you need. Another conversation. Another update. That's a really good point. And then you

1:52:22 ↗ come back and then you do another. We see that too. We think they're very

1:52:25 ↗ interrelated and able to get a few elements on both done at the same

1:52:31 ↗ time. I can add to that. I agree there are those pieces that are connected,

1:52:36 ↗ and I think staff had identified that. The one piece that's a little bit different

1:52:40 ↗ is the services or amenities that may be community-wide as opposed to neighborhood-based. So you

1:52:46 ↗ may not need to have a grocery store in every neighborhood, but grocery stores are

1:52:49 ↗ important services and amenities to have in the community. if we're going through the different

1:52:54 ↗ neighborhoods one by one or two per year, that outreach could identify some of

1:53:00 ↗ those needs, but the citywide amenities and kind of wide distribution to how the city

1:53:05 ↗ might be. I think we hear your suggestion, which is why there's two,

1:53:11 ↗ well, there are two listed here. You believe that they may be put together in

1:53:15 ↗ different ways and done in different years. That's good input. Thank you. That makes sense.

1:53:20 ↗ And Council Member A. I'm just going to pile on because just as she was

1:53:26 ↗ saying that I was circling it, it seems to me that these are either both

1:53:29 ↗ A's or both B's and they're both multi-year initiatives. So since we're talking about changing

1:53:35 ↗ priorities at this time, I think this is one that I think it would be

1:53:38 ↗ very appropriate to promote from Monday. Second one up to an A.

1:53:50 ↗ And are we through growth and development? Yes. Okay. Moving on to

1:53:56 ↗ environmental stewardship. All right. So looking at ES1C,

1:54:02 ↗ align environmental management approaches and implement training and education activities. This is

1:54:09 ↗ proposed to be multi-year 2020 through 2022. It's not something that is continuing from this

1:54:14 ↗ year. So with this action, there would be work across departments to identify and align

1:54:21 ↗ environmental management policies and practices. So there would be work to be done to review

1:54:27 ↗ current codes, policies, and practices and start to identify improvements in order to have more

1:54:31 ↗ consistent approach across the city. There's been some discussion that there has

1:54:38 ↗ been some areas where it would be helpful to have kind of more clear interpretation

1:54:43 ↗ and priorities in order to help meet the objective of protecting and improving the

1:54:49 ↗ environment. This action also, it would establish new policies and procedures to

1:54:55 ↗ standardize interpretations and the priorities across the city. And there would also be some

1:55:00 ↗ training and overall education with stakeholders about this approach.

1:55:09 ↗ Keep going, Megan. PS3A, complete parks, stream side, forest,

1:55:15 ↗ flood plain and critical area studies to provide a comprehensive view of land acquisition goals

1:55:20 ↗ and needs community wide. So this project will review property needs identified in various city

1:55:26 ↗ planning documents and prioritize the city acquisitions. The analysis would

1:55:32 ↗ include existing plans and plans that are in progress as well.

1:55:38 ↗ It would include analysis to make sure we're filling missing links, looking at consideration for

1:55:44 ↗ critical areas, and identifying various gaps. So

1:55:50 ↗ it's estimated that staff would gather the base information that would be needed in order

1:55:56 ↗ to do the analysis. And then the dollars here represent consultant services to start to

1:56:01 ↗ synthesize that information, create some final mapping. and also help with the development

1:56:07 ↗ of the prioritization criteria. This is a multi-year action.

1:56:16 ↗ That's my role. How does this relate to the park strategic plan? Is it kind

1:56:21 ↗ of the next step of identifying the properties needed to

1:56:27 ↗ implement that, or is it a reworking of the work that we just did? I

1:56:33 ↗ don't think it would not be a reworking of the work that's done. I think

1:56:37 ↗ of it as a mashup of the Park Strategic Plan with other critical area needs,

1:56:42 ↗ for example, or other land acquisition needs so that they can be considered in the

1:56:48 ↗ context of the needs citywide. So it would take, I think, some of

1:56:53 ↗ those acquisitions that are identified within the Park Strategic Plan as one of several inputs

1:56:59 ↗ into an overall approach and prioritization. Member Winterstein. Thank you.

1:57:06 ↗ In one seat, when I read

1:57:12 ↗ words like align, align, and then I guess

1:57:18 ↗ maybe it's the verb train or implement training, your estimate of labor there, how do

1:57:24 ↗ you come up with that many hours when we're aligning something? I think with this

1:57:29 ↗ one, it's, so I, I think the labor actually for this one would be across

1:57:33 ↗ those full three years rather than just the 2020. So I think that that is

1:57:38 ↗ a little bit of a typo there, but it's also taking into account all the

1:57:42 ↗ different departments that would be involved in that effort. Which are?

1:57:49 ↗ Probably parks, public works engineering, public works operations, OS, and DSD.

1:57:56 ↗ And could I just ask for a very simple level kind of description of the

1:58:01 ↗ problem we would be addressing?

1:58:07 ↗ I think what we've heard from staff is that there's a whole variety of different

1:58:13 ↗ environmental regulations and policies and procedures. And there can be different

1:58:18 ↗ interpretations of how to apply some of those pieces, depending on the circumstances. So trying

1:58:24 ↗ to get some additional clarity on which ones prevail and do we have consistency?

1:58:29 ↗ It sounds like there is a number of cases where there are some conflicts or

1:58:35 ↗ clarifications that are required in order to improve how we go about doing some of

1:58:39 ↗ that work. So I would, I've been unaware of

1:58:46 ↗ there being impacts to this condition. Are there any circumstance, any things that have happened

1:58:51 ↗ in the past just to help eliminate for me a little bit

1:58:58 ↗ And then why we're part of this priority. I'm not saying it's not

1:59:04 ↗ important. I'm just trying to understand the task.

1:59:10 ↗ So I'm not seeing a lot of hands jumping up. Paul, can I put this

1:59:14 ↗ on a parking lot when we come back to this one as one that we

1:59:17 ↗ definitely need to have more conversation on? Thank you. OK. Yeah, and I don't think

1:59:22 ↗ I'm not looking for anything elaborate as I'm trying to get understanding. You're proposing this

1:59:27 ↗ as an A and in concept. I have no problem with that. I just need

1:59:32 ↗ to better understand. I think this is definitely something that's more internal looking to the

1:59:37 ↗ organization. And for example, the choice on a capital project would certainly

1:59:43 ↗ affect how we go about doing operations, for example, and trying to meet certain codes

1:59:48 ↗ and requirements. And we've seen that show up in policies about approaches for stormwater

1:59:54 ↗ management in different shapes and forms. And one department might be trying to meet the

2:00:00 ↗ design and construction requirements of a permit for National Pollution, MBDS permits, for

2:00:06 ↗ example. But that has significant ramifications on O&M for operations and maintenance of a rain

2:00:12 ↗ garden or a street. And there are different choices that can be made in the

2:00:17 ↗ design and construction of that facility, for example, which It might

2:00:23 ↗ conflict with other policies or different approaches. And try to get some better arms around

2:00:28 ↗ some of those and what are the priorities. Okay, so just value engineer up front.

2:00:31 ↗ You got it. Figure out,

2:00:38 ↗ as David said, what should prevail. And get some consensus around that. And then document

2:00:44 ↗ that, and that becomes the protocol. Thank you.

2:00:50 ↗ We move on to social and economic vitality. All right, so the first one here

2:00:56 ↗ is SE1A, conduct a study and propose tools that would give the Saquois a competitive

2:01:01 ↗ advantage to recruit employers that fit the city vision. So for this one, the city

2:01:07 ↗ will conduct a study to identify the Saquois competitive advantages and assets in attracting target

2:01:13 ↗ industries that were identified in the 2015 sector analysis. So the study would

2:01:18 ↗ recommend strategy options for how Issaquah can enhance its competitive advantages it has.

2:01:25 ↗ The economic development department would then create a marketing strategy to target the potential prospects.

2:01:32 ↗ So the consultant dollars here would be used to provide some of the base data

2:01:36 ↗ that would be needed for the study and also help with the targeted marketing efforts.

2:01:43 ↗ And this is just a 20, 20 year action and it's not consistent.

2:01:52 ↗ Next, SE1C, expand support for small business and startup training and

2:01:58 ↗ development. This is a multi-year project until 2024.

2:02:04 ↗ It has the city updating resources and work with local organizations

2:02:10 ↗ to expand support for training and development. The work would focus on ensuring that there's

2:02:16 ↗ local and affordable resources for topics like business plans, financial options,

2:02:22 ↗ legal and HR requirements. The city would be partnering with several different organizations on this

2:02:28 ↗ effort. Small Business Administration, SCORE, Chamber of Commerce by promoting and

2:02:34 ↗ participating in their chamber university. Startup 425 with their classes and

2:02:40 ↗ Port of Seattle. Ongoing? until 2024. It's part of a

2:02:46 ↗ body of ongoing work though? Yes. From my understanding, there's been work with these groups

2:02:51 ↗ already. Question? Council Member Goodman? To what degree is it

2:02:56 ↗ ongoing? Because it calls for fairly

2:03:02 ↗ significant resources. I believe these, the expenses here

2:03:09 ↗ to supporting some of those partner organizations that I believe have already been funded in

2:03:15 ↗ previous years.

2:03:21 ↗ Keith? So we just executed a partner agreement with Startup 425.

2:03:28 ↗ Our contribution is $15,000 per year. We

2:03:34 ↗ use port grant money for a majority of that. We

2:03:39 ↗ also partner with the Chamber on their Chamber U

2:03:46 ↗ classes. This is work we're doing already. This

2:03:51 ↗ isn't actually an expansion of what we're doing on workforce development and what we're

2:03:57 ↗ already doing. So then why does it say expansion?

2:04:10 ↗ Currently my question is I see a lot of things on here that I feel

2:04:13 ↗ like we're either doing already or we shouldn't be doing. And so if there's internal

2:04:17 ↗ issues going back one or two internal issues about how we're going to interpret and

2:04:24 ↗ handle stuff, I'm a little frustrated that it would be on a

2:04:30 ↗ strategic plan. I just see a lot of things that we just should be doing

2:04:34 ↗ anyway as a city. And so back to this one, why are we calling it

2:04:38 ↗ an expansion We're

2:04:42 ↗ already

2:04:48 ↗ doing it. Why is it in here? I'm looking through my five things. I actually

2:04:51 ↗ have way more than five. Hang on. We can park a lot if we want.

2:04:54 ↗ It's just a question. Can you park a lot for now? Let me see if

2:04:59 ↗ I can find you an answer later. Social and economic

2:05:05 ↗ vitality, SC2. One second. Sorry. So

2:05:11 ↗ to me this seems like something that would need a lot of, if it was

2:05:15 ↗ actually an expansion, a lot of buy-in and work with the chamber and Dia and

2:05:20 ↗ things like that. Are they aware of this as a work

2:05:26 ↗ item or whatever you would call it? And do we have their buy-in to move

2:05:31 ↗ forward in a big part? Like basically, I know we said this would be

2:05:39 ↗ working with them, but to me this seems like a significant number of hours that

2:05:43 ↗ would need to be partnership. Have they committed to holding up their portion of

2:05:49 ↗ that? From my understanding, it's kind of two parts. So it is doing that

2:05:55 ↗ work, but there is also some updating of the city's website and

2:06:01 ↗ resources in order to kind of provide more resources for small

2:06:07 ↗ businesses and startups. So I think it's possible some of the hours are

2:06:13 ↗ part of that work. But I think that, because they do have the partnership, the

2:06:18 ↗ ongoing partnership, I believe they're aware that they're working in. Partnerships are established. The

2:06:24 ↗ partnerships are established. The one thing that I look at staff's notes, the one thing

2:06:29 ↗ that is an expansion is it looks like we, and this is something we've had

2:06:34 ↗ on our to-do list and we haven't done yet, is to work with the school

2:06:37 ↗ district in Gibson Eck to connect our local businesses to high school students

2:06:44 ↗ because there's, we find that there's a lot of value that can be

2:06:50 ↗ given through that kind of a program and that's done in some other cities. And

2:06:54 ↗ so as we look at the expansion piece of this, that would be something that

2:07:00 ↗ would be new that we're not doing right now. Thank you for that, Keith. I

2:07:06 ↗ think where my head is at is that we're having a struggle

2:07:12 ↗ getting through all of these. It is our first year, and we are

2:07:18 ↗ testing this out. I think what I'm sensing from the questions is that if there

2:07:22 ↗ is something on here that we are already doing, and if it's a minor expansion

2:07:27 ↗ or no expansion, I'm not sure that we need to give it as much air

2:07:29 ↗ time. we do for those things that we've never done before. So I think there

2:07:33 ↗ was always an assumption. It is fine, I think, to have the council say, we're

2:07:39 ↗ doing this, put it back in the budget, take it off our strategic thing for

2:07:43 ↗ now, and let us just focus on the ones that we're not doing. Only because

2:07:48 ↗ it seems to be creating some frustration to be talking about stuff we're already working

2:07:51 ↗ on. So I'm not sure if you're agreeing with that or not. Having said

2:07:57 ↗ that, I've been marking as we've gone on things that are already underway or we're

2:08:01 ↗ already doing, and it's the majority of what we've just spent the last hour and

2:08:04 ↗ a half talking about. So, what are your thoughts on

2:08:10 ↗ dealing with just those items that are on here that are new, where you need

2:08:15 ↗ to understand what the scope is? That's my agreement. Thank you. I'm still feeling

2:08:21 ↗ as though it's helpful to go through them, however, because I'm learning a lot. Fair

2:08:27 ↗ enough. Just checking. Let's continue on then with social and economic

2:08:33 ↗ vitality. Oh, Council Member, what did you say? Yeah,

2:08:39 ↗ in response to your question, we did a strategic plan.

2:08:45 ↗ Now this is the first opportunity not only to get more from staff, but also

2:08:50 ↗ to begin to shape not only a potential work plan for next year and years

2:08:55 ↗ after, but get a sense of the size of these and potential budget impacts as

2:09:01 ↗ well. Doing this comprehensively like this, whether it's new and or continuation or expansion,

2:09:07 ↗ is very helpful to me. Okay, okay, thank you. Thanks for that. Let's keep going

2:09:12 ↗ down to economic vitality. So we have SE2A,

2:09:18 ↗ Implement and Enhance the Housing Strategy Work Plan. So this is work that we are

2:09:24 ↗ doing already. Again, the housing strategy was adopted in 2017, so we're in the middle

2:09:29 ↗ of implementation for this item. So the specific work that will

2:09:36 ↗ be occurring or expected to occur in 2020 for this item is continued work with

2:09:42 ↗ strategy two on limiting and mitigate teardowns. Work on strategy

2:09:48 ↗ three to seek out affordable multi-family housing to retain. Some of that work is

2:09:54 ↗ going on already right now with inventory work in 2019. But some of the 2020

2:09:59 ↗ work might be some outreach to property owners around this action item. There's also

2:10:05 ↗ expected to be continued work on strategy nine for this item as well.

2:10:12 ↗ It is, the housing strategy goes until 2022 and it'll be expected that

2:10:18 ↗ We would look at the entire strategy itself and see which items out of nine

2:10:24 ↗ strategies might need some more work or need to.

2:10:26 ↗ Next.

2:10:31 ↗ SE2C, determine if city property assets should be used for affordable housing needs.

2:10:37 ↗ So this is just a 2020 item. However, this work does come out of work

2:10:43 ↗ that's currently being done in 2019. related to the assessment of city owned properties.

2:10:49 ↗ So with this action item, it would create a policy and process to help govern

2:10:53 ↗ decision making regarding the use of city property to accommodate affordable housing.

2:11:02 ↗ SC3B, adopt and implement the healthy community strategy. This is work

2:11:08 ↗ that is ongoing. right now and is proposed to go through 2024.

2:11:14 ↗ So the city is currently working with a consultant to develop a healthy community strategy,

2:11:19 ↗ which is expected to be adopted later this year. So this strategy is anticipated to

2:11:24 ↗ identify ways in which the city can improve health and equity outcomes in the community

2:11:29 ↗ through partnerships, policies, and direct actions. So this item is the budget is a

2:11:35 ↗ placeholder to begin implementation of these strategies in the future years. after adoption

2:11:42 ↗ of the strategy. And so we're expecting to get draft actions or anticipated in Q4

2:11:47 ↗ of this year. So again, this is kind of a placeholder for those actions.

2:11:56 ↗ SE3C, facilitate. . Why would we want a placeholder for future years in

2:12:02 ↗ here? I mean, why wouldn't we? We're already anticipating.

2:12:09 ↗ adoption later this year,

2:12:16 ↗ it just seems to me that we're one step ahead of ourselves. We don't even

2:12:21 ↗ know what it's going to say yet. So the work of the

2:12:27 ↗ Healthy Community Strategy was identified by staff to be directly related to the objective

2:12:33 ↗ of how we would reduce inequities in the city, but it is work that we

2:12:37 ↗ are doing now, recognizing there's that need. But again,

2:12:43 ↗ there's been some work on knowing what some of those actions might be, but we

2:12:46 ↗ don't have that full list until later this year. I think it's because it's early

2:12:52 ↗ in the development of the strategy itself, and it's anticipated that the strategy would be

2:12:56 ↗ complete and adopted by the end of the year, but our budgeting process is in

2:13:00 ↗ advance of the adoption of it, so that is why it would be only a

2:13:05 ↗ placeholder.

2:13:12 ↗ to the next one. Facilitate nonprofit organizations to locate or expand to

2:13:18 ↗ provide needed services locally. This is another multi-year action until 2024.

2:13:26 ↗ So the community needs assessment identified that decentralized service

2:13:31 ↗ landscape on the east side has been a significant barrier for getting some basic services

2:13:36 ↗ in Issaquah. So this action would support getting to some of these services in a

2:13:42 ↗ few different ways. One is continuing public private partnerships for development of new service

2:13:48 ↗ locations. So a recent example of that is the TOD project with the Opportunity

2:13:54 ↗ Center. Evaluating existing land and building lease arrangements for

2:14:00 ↗ nonprofit services. So example, this is the properties like Seventh and

2:14:05 ↗ Juniper at work site. identifying and facilitate partnering or joint use

2:14:11 ↗ arrangements among service providers so that could be co-location of services in the city

2:14:18 ↗ councilmember hunt on this one as I know that there is some work ongoing

2:14:24 ↗ I would be helpful to understand what this action supporting it or supporting it would

2:14:30 ↗ how it would deviate from what you're currently

2:14:49 ↗ Emily, are you looking for some additional information? Well, it

2:14:54 ↗ sounds like it would be helpful on a lot of these. I think that's one

2:14:58 ↗ of the trends is that some of these are ongoing and to different degrees. So

2:15:05 ↗ I don't necessarily need an answer now, but it's one that I would be interested

2:15:09 ↗ to understand better how much of a change represents from what we're doing and we

2:15:15 ↗ support it. City leadership and services.

2:15:23 ↗ CS1B, working with the community, identify and remove barriers to accessing

2:15:29 ↗ city programs and services. So this is a multi-year action.

2:15:36 ↗ This action would work with stakeholders in the community and also convene a community-based

2:15:42 ↗ working group to help identify needs and gaps. It would help ensure the city's programs

2:15:47 ↗ and services are updated and reflect the changing needs of our diversity in the community.

2:15:54 ↗ The working groups would review and prioritize a list of programs and services to identify

2:15:59 ↗ and implement service improvements. So this action would include some targeted outreach to

2:16:05 ↗ diverse populations, as well as working with nonprofits and community leaders.

2:16:10 ↗ It's a primarily staff-led effort, but there's also could be some consultant support for doing

2:16:16 ↗ some community outreach or doing some specific material development. Did you

2:16:28 ↗ have a question? Let's keep going, Megan. Create an equity and

2:16:34 ↗ cultural competency initiative for the city. This is work that is continuing and

2:16:41 ↗ is going, proposed to be multi-year action. The initiative will help provide

2:16:46 ↗ the foundation for city staff to increase awareness and capacity to better serve the community.

2:16:52 ↗ It includes work with leadership and staff on values and policies, citywide training, and

2:16:59 ↗ some special equity related projects. It's expected in the first year of 2020 to

2:17:06 ↗ have a citywide equity policy as well as establish a committee on developing and sustaining

2:17:11 ↗ equity. And

2:17:24 ↗ CS2A, implement improvements to the employee experience. fostering development,

2:17:30 ↗ organizational values, and connection. This is also ongoing work and is proposed multi-year

2:17:36 ↗ action. So it would enhance customer service and service

2:17:42 ↗ delivery through a city that's high performing and attracts, develops, and retains talent.

2:17:48 ↗ The city currently has an employee experience team that's working on a few items, including

2:17:54 ↗ employee recognition, performance evaluation method with more frequent check-ins,

2:18:00 ↗ establishing semi-annual all-city meetings, and also doing some organizational-wide training.

2:18:07 ↗ The labor here represents, since it's a city-wide initiative, several different employees and all different

2:18:13 ↗ departments participating, and some dollars for our training.

2:18:23 ↗ EDS2C, evaluate the condition and performance of current city facilities and options for

2:18:28 ↗ improving service delivery. So this is

2:18:34 ↗ also continuing work and expected to be completed in 2020. So for 2020,

2:18:40 ↗ the work is a continuation of work that's currently underway in terms of assessment and

2:18:45 ↗ long range planning for the three buildings, the City Hall Police Building, City Hall South,

2:18:50 ↗ and this building here, City Hall Northwest. Depending on city council direction later this

2:18:56 ↗ year, or this year, the project will take the next step in analyzing the preferred

2:19:01 ↗ option or options that are identified. So this would be both

2:19:07 ↗ staff work on this in order, and then also expected to have some consultant work

2:19:12 ↗ with the architectural team and start to do some site analysis or initial concept design

2:19:18 ↗ depending on what the direction is.

2:19:30 ↗ S2E is update financial information to be accessible, clear, and available on a regular basis.

2:19:36 ↗ So this is work that's currently underway and will be going through 2022.

2:19:43 ↗ So this includes a number of actions from the finance department for preparing budget information

2:19:48 ↗ and then making it accessible to the community. The specific pieces that this covers is

2:19:54 ↗ implementing the munis reset to both improve internal processes and also accessibility of

2:20:00 ↗ information for the departments. Also includes the preparation of the 2020 budget book and posting

2:20:06 ↗ to the city website. Preparation of variance reports for the city's website and also updating

2:20:12 ↗ financial management policies, which is being done with some GFOA

2:20:18 ↗ consultants right now. So it's a mix of all of the

2:20:24 ↗ staff work on this and then also the consultant report.

2:20:31 ↗ I'm just curious why the one block of all the blocks is in yellow on

2:20:36 ↗ the spreadsheet here. That is, so the costs for this

2:20:43 ↗ that are represented here are just the operational costs. And then there's also a CIP

2:20:49 ↗ request for this item. So this had just captured that number. But this is the

2:20:55 ↗ correct item. A couple of corrections that were made on this spreadsheet. That was one.

2:21:01 ↗ The other one was for infrastructure, IN1A, which was a

2:21:06 ↗ typographical error. So these were corrections from the first time they received their package.

2:21:12 ↗ Okay. Let's go to infrastructure. So IN1B, plan for

2:21:18 ↗ and budget operations and maintenance costs with all new capital, including both city-developed and dedicated.

2:21:25 ↗ So this is a 2020 item. to create and implement a policy that will govern

2:21:31 ↗ the identification of operations and maintenance costs for capital assets that are dedicated to the

2:21:37 ↗ city or purchase outside of the CIP process. So the current CIP process is

2:21:43 ↗ starting to identify the O&M costs for the new city developed capital purchases.

2:21:50 ↗ So this would be both staff effort and then also involve the GFOA consultants as

2:21:54 ↗ well. a template to standardize the cost for

2:22:00 ↗ use in budgets and agenda bills. And then also provide some training on that across

2:22:05 ↗ the city for its use. Council President Martz and then Council Member Hunt.

2:22:12 ↗ So for the entire infrastructure subject, we have 50 to 100

2:22:18 ↗ hours of effort is what we're proposing. I mean, I look back at our strategic

2:22:23 ↗ plan. The item that we have is a C, which is develop and implement an

2:22:28 ↗ organization-wide asset management policy financial plan to ensure sound stewardship of city

2:22:34 ↗ assets. That's got

2:22:40 ↗ some more meat on it. I'm very surprised that the net sum of our estimated

2:22:46 ↗ effort towards this element of the strategic plan is 50 to 100 hours. That's nothing.

2:22:54 ↗ Looking for more. City Ministry of

2:23:00 ↗ Newham, do you want to talk to that one? Or David? A couple of notes

2:23:03 ↗ on that. So if I agree, the other potential action in other infrastructure is by

2:23:08 ↗ far the medium or more meaningful one. It's the one that we'll consider the long-term

2:23:13 ↗ ramifications and life cycle costs of maintaining our infrastructure so it stays in good repair.

2:23:19 ↗ We do have some significant, this is one of those areas where we have some

2:23:23 ↗ known limitations on construction and that's specifically in our finance department. And so this

2:23:29 ↗ one is one that was looked at, but it's anticipated, proposing that we start to

2:23:34 ↗ take this on in future years, in large part because of that, because of its

2:23:39 ↗ importance. This is, I agree, to be a relatively simple and

2:23:44 ↗ straightforward piece, but something we can do to kind of make sure that we're stemming

2:23:49 ↗ the flow, if you will, on all new considerations. The city has started to do

2:23:53 ↗ that work but hasn't done it, especially as it relates to dedications, things that come

2:23:58 ↗ through developer dedications to the city. So that is a part of kind of helping

2:24:03 ↗ to fill out the picture. And then the other piece is that on the infrastructure

2:24:06 ↗ side of the equation, there is a proposed action. I forget the GD number

2:24:12 ↗ on it, but it is about the infrastructure master plan and some work on scoping

2:24:17 ↗ of that and beginning that process so that we have an is

2:24:23 ↗ for growing areas for central as it was there. So there are other infrastructure related

2:24:28 ↗ pieces even though they're not identified under this priority area because it's more growth related.

2:24:33 ↗ Okay, I guess this is where our sort of prioritization system is a little bit

2:24:38 ↗ weird, right? Because it's not a low overall priority, right? It's just I understand that

2:24:44 ↗ it's something that is hard to start in 2020, but

2:24:51 ↗ you know, the element that's in there that's listed as a C for 2021

2:24:58 ↗ to 2024 is incredibly important. So I just, I don't know how to call it

2:25:03 ↗ a C. So we put that criteria up at the very beginning and the

2:25:09 ↗ sequencing availability of resources, all of those were factors. So

2:25:15 ↗ you shouldn't consider those labels of A, B, C to be the levels

2:25:21 ↗ in terms of a popularity or value contest. But more

2:25:27 ↗ about we can't get it all done at once. A lot of this is important

2:25:32 ↗ and some of the steps have to be completed before others. So when we look

2:25:36 ↗ at all the factors, all the resourcing factors, timeline criticality,

2:25:45 ↗ that's how we built it. This is a great comment though, Tola,

2:25:51 ↗ because I've been taking notes on what I'm hearing are sort of, I'm going to

2:25:56 ↗ call them the pain points as we go through this, but where the information can

2:26:00 ↗ be presented potentially different as we evolve through this process. And one is, and I

2:26:05 ↗ can't remember who said it, might have been Vicki or Lindsey, was that instead of

2:26:10 ↗ an A, B, or C, if it's not being proposed in this initial round, there

2:26:14 ↗ could be more of a written explanation of because it's nested, because finance has got

2:26:20 ↗ a full book and they're prime and so it's going to have to happen in

2:26:23 ↗ and out of year. So yeah, ranking, we should look at that. It might not

2:26:27 ↗ really be ranking. It might more be notes on why not this year. So that's

2:26:31 ↗ great help. That's a lot of help. Well, it would certainly help me. So I

2:26:35 ↗ mean, I guess it would help the public too. Yeah, absolutely. So again, I want

2:26:40 ↗ to check in both with Emily and the team that's presenting and the council. We

2:26:44 ↗ did not, we have gone through everything that was recommended as a, let's call it

2:26:49 ↗ a tier one. Wanted to get your thoughts on, is it clear

2:26:55 ↗ what's being proposed, how it fits in, if it's ongoing work or new work, and

2:27:00 ↗ now what to do with the remainder of the list. Oh, council member Hunt. I

2:27:06 ↗ just, I wanted to, I would like to look at if we can do

2:27:12 ↗ the infrastructure, develop and implement an organization-wide asset management policy action

2:27:18 ↗ and start that. Because the other one is forward-looking and it just seems like

2:27:24 ↗ we're starting on this forward-looking action item because it's maybe easier or

2:27:30 ↗ smaller. But the first one, in terms of taking care of what we already have

2:27:35 ↗ and having an organization-wide asset management policy,

2:27:41 ↗ So I would like to look at that again and really understand why it's not

2:27:46 ↗ here. Okay, so a question then, and I'll pose it to the administration team as

2:27:50 ↗ well, is that I think what we're hearing is that based on our staffing resources,

2:27:54 ↗ we can't take the other project on. So is where you're headed with then the,

2:28:01 ↗ if we don't have the capacity to do the bigger project first, are you thinking

2:28:05 ↗ you don't want to do the little project, the project?

2:28:11 ↗ Well, I would like to understand what the options are because it's difficult to understand

2:28:16 ↗ from it. Okay. Sure. I mean, just as a way of example, I'm not sure

2:28:20 ↗ if on your spreadsheet, but my spreadsheet has no labor hours on that one, which

2:28:24 ↗ is not accurate at all, but is indicative of the fact that our finance team

2:28:30 ↗ was super busy putting together our CIP and getting ready for budget, that they may

2:28:34 ↗ have had time to fully develop a plan. around this.

2:28:41 ↗ It's on scene because we have other priorities in the finance department and the finance

2:28:46 ↗ department is going to have to be heavily involved in this. So until we can

2:28:50 ↗ get some of that precursor work done, give you an example, understanding what our

2:28:56 ↗ fleet or street assets need, we have to do a fund analysis of those two

2:29:00 ↗ funds first to just understand what's in there now. to create

2:29:06 ↗ sustainability in those funds, propose some immediate action steps

2:29:12 ↗ to fix any problems that we have in those funds, and then we can build

2:29:16 ↗ out long-term policies and that financial plan. But there's

2:29:22 ↗ just some unraveling, some auditing kind of work, some

2:29:28 ↗ basic accounting work that we need to be spending time on before we can dive

2:29:33 ↗ into developing new plans. This is the April 1st presentation to Council?

2:29:39 ↗ Yes. About the GFOA. Yeah, and subsequent work that we have since learned that we

2:29:43 ↗ need to do. And as Beth alluded to in that presentation, we anticipated we would

2:29:49 ↗ be back asking for additional resources to do the volume of work that we

2:29:55 ↗ need to do in our finance department. So it's not just a resourcing issue, it's

2:29:59 ↗ actually a sequencing issue. Get your house in order before you go into this one.

2:30:03 ↗ Correct. Maybe if I could also add the

2:30:09 ↗ work we're doing on our systems that I think are also going to be critical

2:30:14 ↗ so that we have a better ability to track these assets and

2:30:22 ↗ set aside those costs. So that's another foundational piece that I think needs to be

2:30:27 ↗ in place in order to allow us pivot and move on to this

2:30:33 ↗ yes it's absolutely important and big we should be doing

2:30:39 ↗ this we want to be doing this but we've got to have these foundational things

2:30:43 ↗ in place before I'm going to councilmember

2:30:44 ↗ whoo

2:30:51 ↗ okay it's ray before winter sima I have no idea how Walsh fit in it's

2:30:56 ↗ really Walsh winter's time it's Ray Walsh winter's time comes my right Almost alphabetical.

2:31:01 ↗ Almost. Is this the point where we start talking about the Bs and

2:31:07 ↗ Cs or are we doing that later? That was the process question that I had.

2:31:12 ↗ I think it's great that we've gotten through sort of what we would call tier

2:31:15 ↗ one. If you want to continue with this and do the Bs and Cs now

2:31:19 ↗ or the something that's not on the list, I think we should do that. I

2:31:23 ↗ have a couple of Bs and Cs that I think should be considered and I'd

2:31:28 ↗ like to know why. Sure. What the rationale for not? Let's put them on the

2:31:32 ↗ table. What have you got? There are three of them, and they are all ones

2:31:34 ↗ that I think are externally focused. They are the ones that are focused on the

2:31:39 ↗ people who live here. One of them we already talked about, which was GD4A, the

2:31:43 ↗ implement, identifying and implementing code changes. So I've already stated that I think that one

2:31:48 ↗ is an A. The next one is SE1D, conduct a review of the city's permitting

2:31:54 ↗ to provide consistency and predictability to businesses. numerous

2:31:59 ↗ occasions that this causes our businesses a great deal of frustration and something we can

2:32:04 ↗ do that would really would be helpful in terms of economic development and then the

2:32:10 ↗ other one I would like us to consider is city leadership

2:32:15 ↗ CS 1A implemented new and enhanced public outreach strategy build upon a review of

2:32:21 ↗ engagement efforts and updates to the city's toolkit for public engagement because I believe that

2:32:25 ↗ one of our most significant issues, and we've heard this in Council way too often,

2:32:29 ↗ is about how do we effectively engage with the community. So those are the three

2:32:33 ↗ that I'd like us to consider or I'd like to just understand why they are

2:32:37 ↗ where they are. So we will get answers to that. I think what I'd like

2:32:40 ↗ to do is get everybody to throw theirs on here so we have a full

2:32:43 ↗ list and then we'll start to go through and we'll answer. Walsh. Council Member Walsh.

2:32:51 ↗ I was going to say was actually going back to the infrastructure one. It sounds

2:32:56 ↗ like there's a lot of conversation about the financial areas that we can't yet tackle

2:33:02 ↗ because we don't have all of our ducks in order. But I feel

2:33:08 ↗ like we might, and maybe this is just a question, we might be able to

2:33:11 ↗ look at more listing out the physical attributes, their age, getting

2:33:17 ↗ into that portion. Just to clarify, because I don't want you walking out of

2:33:23 ↗ the room to think we don't have that. So we have inventories of assets.

2:33:29 ↗ We have condition assessments of assets. This is work

2:33:35 ↗ that I've been involved with across departments, but in particular in Parks and Rec recently

2:33:41 ↗ for several years. And we use that information now to build out our

2:33:46 ↗ capital improvement plan. and to think about long-term spending plans, and in

2:33:53 ↗ cases where it's necessary, charges to departments. So we do that on our IT infrastructure,

2:33:57 ↗ we do that on our fleet assets. So that work is done.

2:34:04 ↗ So what I'm doing, Emily, is I have circled this one just so that when

2:34:09 ↗ we have our full list, we can provide a little more information about what this

2:34:13 ↗ is, because I think you've just told us what it isn't. Got this one circled

2:34:18 ↗ as well. And Council Member Goodman and then Deputy Council President Batiste.

2:34:25 ↗ So for SE1D, conduct a review of city permitting to provide

2:34:30 ↗ consistency and predictability for businesses. I didn't understand why this was limited to businesses.

2:34:38 ↗ Adding residences and businesses. And we are going to come back to that one as

2:34:43 ↗ well. Was there any others on here? No. Deputy Council President

2:34:47 ↗ Batiste. Thank you. So

2:34:53 ↗ I think Council Member Walsh has pretty much already asked this question. I'm just going

2:34:57 ↗ to ask it in a little bit of a different way. In terms of infrastructure

2:35:02 ↗ and the specific things that we talked about that are already in place, but the

2:35:07 ↗ finance department has other things that they need to be prioritizing, is there anything based

2:35:13 ↗ on and one that we could be queuing up that the

2:35:19 ↗ finance department would be asking for as we head into that

2:35:25 ↗ particular item? Well, the

2:35:31 ↗ example that I would give is even though we have a new inventory, for example,

2:35:38 ↗ the work that they will be doing is to examine those charges to departments.

2:35:47 ↗ a need to do two things. We need to look at the formula that is

2:35:53 ↗ charged to departments for the annual operating expense of our fleet division.

2:35:59 ↗ So labor, supplies, et cetera, that should be shared across departments.

2:36:06 ↗ We need to examine that formula. And then there's also charges that are applied to

2:36:11 ↗ departments to pay for annual vehicle replacements. We need to look

2:36:17 ↗ at that formula to reasonably believe that that formula is off at this point

2:36:23 ↗ because it hasn't been examined for some number of years. And as

2:36:29 ↗ Council knows, we've built a fund balance. We tapped that fund balance for this budget.

2:36:37 ↗ That's an example of what might be referenced in asset management policy and financial

2:36:43 ↗ to do that in a few different asset categories. We need to build out an

2:36:47 ↗ approach. We may have the inventory. We may have kind of decided about what needs

2:36:53 ↗ to be replaced when, but the financial planning still needs some

2:36:59 ↗ work and commitments that are policies that need to be replaced for some asset

2:37:05 ↗ categories. I would also maybe add, and this is a

2:37:10 ↗ little deep in the CIP this year, you'll see that we've included

2:37:17 ↗ some estimates about operating impacts. And I will tell you, they make me very, very

2:37:22 ↗ nervous because we did not have the time, capacity to really vet

2:37:28 ↗ those numbers. And we owe it to

2:37:34 ↗ the council as the council is making decisions over time about capital investments.

2:37:40 ↗ to have an honest assessment of what that is. So we

2:37:46 ↗ made some preliminary and we've caveated the heck out of the numbers, but I would

2:37:51 ↗ like to get to the point where it's part of our practice when we're building

2:37:57 ↗ the CIP that we are, we're integrating those, we have kind of vet them,

2:38:03 ↗ that's collaborating with departments, I'm looking at the big capital departments to my right and

2:38:08 ↗ left. But that's something that, and what assumptions need to go

2:38:14 ↗ in, some consistency with those estimates. So that's another thing that I think is part

2:38:19 ↗ of this. Let me clarify, just because there's, again,

2:38:25 ↗ we have so many interrelationships in this plan. IN1A is

2:38:31 ↗ about organization-wide asset management policy and financial planning. You have under Tier A, IN1B,

2:38:40 ↗ which is about planning for budget operations and maintenance costs for all new capital,

2:38:45 ↗ including city developed. So that's the stuff that shows up in our CIP typically, and

2:38:51 ↗ the dedication. And I think we tried to distinguish this before. While we have done

2:38:56 ↗ exactly as Beth has said, we've asked departments to provide estimated O

2:39:02 ↗ and M expenses for for every capital project that is proposed. We need to

2:39:08 ↗ develop more of a structure around that work. We just said give us your number.

2:39:13 ↗ We did a little bit of testing, but not enough. And we need to provide

2:39:17 ↗ more guidance. We need to provide a framework for them to do that cost estimation

2:39:21 ↗ work. That's a body of work that will be going on as we move forward.

2:39:25 ↗ The dedications, as you know, we have not, we've started to build that

2:39:32 ↗ into the agenda bills, but we haven't, planned for necessarily the implementation

2:39:37 ↗ of those projected OMM costs for land dedications in our upcoming budget. So that's the

2:39:43 ↗ work that's expressed in that Tier A item, which is different than the one that's

2:39:49 ↗ kind of about the asset management planning. Council President Mertz? Okay. Oh,

2:39:56 ↗ I'm so sorry. I'll go ahead. Follow up if it's on the same thing. No.

2:39:59 ↗ Are you sure? How's that March? No, it

2:40:05 ↗ was you, you, and then I don't know between the two. So I have kind

2:40:09 ↗ of a large suggestion, and you're going to say that you can't scope it tonight,

2:40:15 ↗ so I just want to put that out there. That's great. Because it actually relates

2:40:19 ↗ to three areas that I think might actually be all birds that could be killed

2:40:23 ↗ with one stone. So you've got environmental stewardship, ES1C, aligned environmental management

2:40:28 ↗ approaches and implementing and education activities, and then It's already been mentioned

2:40:35 ↗ SE1D, which is in the B section, conduct review of city permitting to provide consistency

2:40:39 ↗ and predictability for businesses. To which I would add, SC2D set customer service

2:40:45 ↗ standards to improve customer response service delivery. and accountability.

2:40:52 ↗ So these are all standards and processes, right? And so what I wonder is if

2:40:57 ↗ we could look at an implementation of ISO 18091, which is ISO 9001

2:41:03 ↗ for municipalities, and whether that might address all

2:41:09 ↗ three of those simultaneously. Okay.

2:41:14 ↗ We're going to switch to project. Council Member Goodman?

2:41:20 ↗ I'm just interested in moving CS2D up to tier 1,

2:41:26 ↗ which is set customer service standards to approve. Customer response, service delivery, and accountability.

2:41:32 ↗ Thank you. Council member

2:41:36 ↗ Hunt. So I would like to further discuss

2:41:43 ↗ that under the acquisition,

2:41:56 ↗ is to make a study and so I'd like to

2:42:02 ↗ put on the table pursuing one or both of the other ones so that we

2:42:07 ↗ have a more actionable. So they are not on the chart. They are which ones?

2:42:11 ↗ ES-2 and ES-3 actions two and three. Okay. And

2:42:14 ↗ Council

2:42:22 ↗ Member Walsh? Just to clarify, Mobility 2A, I assume that

2:42:28 ↗ that was pushed to C because we need the Mobility Master Plan first.

2:42:34 ↗ Is that correct? Sorry, can you repeat that?

2:42:40 ↗ Yeah MO2A.

2:42:42 ↗ MO2A,

2:42:51 ↗ yep. MO2A. Yep. So, that's the near term action. We

2:42:58 ↗ have something we're proposing via the CIP.

2:43:08 ↗ I think that's why it's showing up on C.

2:43:17 ↗ The actual funding of it is

2:43:23 ↗ tied in the TBD sales tax

2:43:29 ↗ and that is why it doesn't show as a start until 2021.

2:43:36 ↗ Lindsay, can I take pause for a second? I have now got one, two, three,

2:43:41 ↗ four, five, six, seven, eight listed that we want to be able to ask some

2:43:46 ↗ more questions on so you can scope it out. Can we, before we finish food

2:43:50 ↗ and get into the scoping, or get food and finish questions on scoping, can we

2:43:55 ↗ add to this list so we get a full list, we'll get food, and then

2:43:59 ↗ we will come back through and do scoping on each of these so that there's

2:44:03 ↗ a clear understanding. And Mariah, are you adding to the list of? I have a

2:44:07 ↗ question. Is it one of the ones? I've circled on the second page, I've circled

2:44:12 ↗ GD4A SE1D CSP ES2D MO2A

2:44:19 ↗ CS1A, IN1A, which had a, I got maybe taken off.

2:44:25 ↗ ES3, 2, ES3, 2, and 3, or is that ES2? It's B and C. B

2:44:31 ↗ and C. Okay, so I have those highlighted as ones the council would like to

2:44:36 ↗ ask some more questions about, so before we get to prioritization, they have a good

2:44:40 ↗ understanding. Is there anything else to add to that list? Yes. Okay, we're at it.

2:44:46 ↗ So I have a comment on SE1, the city permitting, but I'll wait until we

2:44:51 ↗ talk about that. I just had a question about MO3, develop a citywide

2:44:57 ↗ transit plan that includes lessons learned from case studies on station area planning. Okay.

2:45:03 ↗ And why, I just, I don't have a problem with that being in 2021, but

2:45:09 ↗ I'd just like to understand the C part of it. So my proposal

2:45:14 ↗ would be, if we have all of them out on the table now, is to

2:45:18 ↗ take a break, grab food, come back, and then we will go down this list

2:45:23 ↗ and go through the scoping of these. So before we go into our prioritization exercise,

2:45:29 ↗ you can decide whether or not you want to add some of these ones that

2:45:33 ↗ were Tier 2 and Tier 3 onto the list before you prioritize. One last quick

2:45:38 ↗ question, maybe it's not a quick question. Is there something that is not on the

2:45:43 ↗ list that Council wants to talk about tonight or just

2:45:49 ↗ the eight additional ones that we have here? Meaning, is there something

2:45:55 ↗ we are completely missing? Lindsay? Can we think about that while we eat? You can

2:45:59 ↗ think about that while you eat. Thank you. Okay, Council President Maritz. I'll just point

2:46:02 ↗ out that the idea of implementing a QMS system is not an item on the

2:46:07 ↗ list, but it would address three items on the list. The QMS system. The ISO.

2:46:12 ↗ Sorry, Quality Management System, the ISO 18091. The ISO standards. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you.

2:46:18 ↗ Okay. So the plan will be, Tina, tell us about dinner, how they get their

2:46:23 ↗ dinner. That's a good question. We're going to take a break. Over here, but it

2:46:26 ↗ needs to come over to the tables. We're going to take a break, probably move

2:46:30 ↗ to the first row here, the tables forward slightly so that Fantastic and a

2:46:36 ↗ question is Wes going to record our break or are we going to go off

2:46:40 ↗ camera for our dinner break? I think we need 15 minutes just to get the

2:46:46 ↗ food in and get the food and then we'll turn it back on. That would

2:46:48 ↗ be great. Thank you. I

2:46:54 ↗ worked under an ICES system.

2:47:05 ↗ I'm actually just...

3:13:19 ↗ So if I can get everybody back to the table with or without the food,

3:13:22 ↗ that would be great. So the staff has tracked

3:13:28 ↗ all of those ones that were brought up that were not originally shown as tier

3:13:32 ↗ one. And we'll go through these to have any scoping questions you have left about.

3:13:38 ↗ Why didn't that one make the list? Or what does that one really mean? Or

3:13:41 ↗ is it started or not started? So let's start with GD4A.

3:13:52 ↗ Any questions on GD4A? Which? Yes, Paul. Can I make a comment before we do

3:13:56 ↗ time into this? Sure. I'm glad we were able to take a break. I think

3:14:00 ↗ it's very helpful to kind of organize people's thoughts. And one of the things that

3:14:04 ↗ occurred to me during the break is, and maybe it's because we did

3:14:10 ↗ goal, I was around when we used to do goal setting. And this has a,

3:14:13 ↗ like, the of goal setting of those that used to be part of it because

3:14:18 ↗ the council members would propose a list of things to do

3:14:24 ↗ staff would scope them write up a little bit of cost this much take this

3:14:29 ↗ much time we get together like this and we would go through them all we

3:14:34 ↗ vote them and we decide which ones we're going to do which ones we weren't

3:14:37 ↗ going to do then staff would go away and start planning those into the budget

3:14:41 ↗ and adding them to the work plan It feels a lot like that. And at

3:14:47 ↗ those times, if you had proposed something and it didn't look like it was going

3:14:52 ↗ to make the list, OK, you're missing out. But I have to keep reminding myself,

3:14:58 ↗ even this is only 20. How many is this? Half. This is half? Half of

3:15:03 ↗ the actions. This is maybe half of the actions, and there's another half of the

3:15:06 ↗ actions that are in our strategic plan. And nobody's saying we're not doing any of

3:15:11 ↗ them. It's just a matter in what sequence. and there's various criteria that you have

3:15:17 ↗ used to propose them to do a certain way. So I'm reminding myself that, and

3:15:22 ↗ as we're going to look at these tier B or whatever, the later ones if

3:15:25 ↗ you want to call it, it's more like there's start in year one, start in

3:15:30 ↗ year two, you start in year three. There's kind of, to me this is all

3:15:34 ↗ about a sequencing question, and it's got to be a work plan that you guys

3:15:38 ↗ can get done. So it's important to me to look at this and not think,

3:15:44 ↗ okay, if I don't get it in this time, I'm going to lose. That ain't

3:15:47 ↗ happening. We're not saying we're not doing anything. It's just when's the best time to

3:15:51 ↗ do these things. Correct. Thank you. That is very clearly stated. So we have 2,

3:15:57 ↗ 4, 6, 8, 10. We have 12, 13 up there that at least

3:16:02 ↗ one of you has identified as not clearly understanding the scope of. So I'm just

3:16:08 ↗ going to... through them and if you have a question, great. Please flip your card

3:16:13 ↗ up and we'll get it answered. Otherwise, we're going to move on pretty quickly so

3:16:17 ↗ we can get you to the prioritization exercise. GD4A. So just as a

3:16:23 ↗ reminder, GD4A was about identifying and implementing code changes

3:16:29 ↗ to address neighborhood-based and community-wide gaps in amenities and services. I think we spent a

3:16:34 ↗ little bit of time talking about this one and how it may have some relationship

3:16:38 ↗ to some of the other based planning work specifically the

3:16:44 ↗ planning on neighborhood protections and then also for missing middle housing with

3:16:50 ↗ the potential that there is a piece in here that's a little bit different that's

3:16:53 ↗ also considering citywide services and not just neighborhood based work

3:17:00 ↗ I'm just going to do a check in with a couple of council members. I

3:17:03 ↗ had heard a proposal to combine these two and split the conversations into one year

3:17:09 ↗ and the code changes into another. Is that what you wanted to have up on

3:17:13 ↗ the board or no? Council Member Hunt? I think if it's

3:17:18 ↗ estimated to take about a year to do the conversations, then I think that would

3:17:22 ↗ be fine. suggestion wasn't so much specifically one year and the next. Just in terms

3:17:28 ↗ of order, I think it makes more sense to do the outreach first for both

3:17:32 ↗ because they're so related and then the implementation of the code change second. So just

3:17:37 ↗ to clarify, the outreach on the neighborhood-based engagement would be dependent on the neighborhood that

3:17:43 ↗ they're working with. So for the neighborhood protections, for example, the proposal was to start

3:17:48 ↗ with a pilot with one neighborhood and then proceed to do a couple of neighborhoods

3:17:52 ↗ per year after So it wasn't necessarily that all the neighborhoods would have engaged in

3:17:56 ↗ these. I'll reach in one year. Council Member Wray? Yeah, I think there are two

3:18:02 ↗ discrete things. I think they are, and they should stay two discrete things. And they

3:18:06 ↗ both run multi-years. I just think they run in parallel. I think we just can

3:18:09 ↗ start them at the same time. Okay, and they are both up here. So is

3:18:13 ↗ there anything else on the scope of those two, or should we move on to

3:18:16 ↗ SC1A? I just want to say something. Council Member Winsorne. I just want to

3:18:22 ↗ respond to what Chris just said. You just said, I think we can start them

3:18:26 ↗ at the same time. And I don't know that. I mean, that's not for me

3:18:31 ↗ to decide whether we can or not. It's do we want to direct them to

3:18:36 ↗ say, I want to prioritize it. I want you to start this earlier. I

3:18:42 ↗ think because, again, when I hear, I think we can do it at the same

3:18:45 ↗ time, it's like the other one's not out. It's just a matter of when it's

3:18:49 ↗ going to start. SE1D.

3:18:56 ↗ And David, if you just want to give, I don't know if we have to

3:18:59 ↗ read it, if you just want to jump in and talk about a little bit

3:19:03 ↗ around scope or we'll see if there's a question. Otherwise, we'll just move on. SE1D.

3:19:10 ↗ Any questions on that scope? There was a question about why it would be

3:19:16 ↗ limited to businesses and I don't know that necessarily necessarily needs to be limited in

3:19:21 ↗ businesses so we can take that direction and feedback if that was the interest. Is

3:19:27 ↗ it permitting through, it's not just issuing business licenses, it's

3:19:32 ↗ permitting for projects. Oh no, it's permitting. I think the actual intent was mostly about

3:19:35 ↗ permitting. To be clarified, it is about all permitting. Okay. All permitting.

3:19:41 ↗ Anything else on that? We'll move to CS1A.

3:19:49 ↗ outreach strategies, scoping. When there are scoping questions on what this might mean.

3:19:58 ↗ If the desire was simply just to have it to be one of the ones

3:20:00 ↗ considered, we got it. It's up here. Okay. Going to move on to CS2D.

3:20:09 ↗ Customer service standards. Scoping or just having it on the list? Okay. ES3.

3:20:20 ↗ So I don't have those on my sheet, David. So those were, and I think

3:20:25 ↗ the comment was either one of them or potentially both, I guess. And those were

3:20:30 ↗ the actions that were to follow the prioritization and identification of the

3:20:36 ↗ land acquisitions to actually either identify a dedicated funding source or make the

3:20:42 ↗ acquisitions themselves. Okay, Council Member Ray, Council Member Hunt. Oh, sorry, Administrator Moon. I also

3:20:48 ↗ add, but it might help clarify a little bit, that our capital improvement plan

3:20:54 ↗ leaves out a multi-year approach to acquisition, again, dependent on when we have funding available.

3:21:00 ↗ But the Park Strategic Plan, as an example, has a project for

3:21:06 ↗ acquisition, and so you see that reflected in the capital improvement plan. But as David

3:21:10 ↗ said, I think the intent was to kind of look across all types of land

3:21:15 ↗ and get a sense of what the need might be, and then

3:21:19 ↗ from there and then go in and

3:21:25 ↗ acquire. And so that's why we have this sequencing the way that it was. Okay,

3:21:27 ↗ Council Member Wright. So I would welcome any guidance or insight from the

3:21:32 ↗ team around some of the things that are V's and C's if there's a sequencing

3:21:36 ↗ issue and that's why you have them as a university. So just sort of what

3:21:40 ↗ you just did. Yep. Because we just went through a couple and I don't know

3:21:43 ↗ if the reason that they were where they were was because of sequencing. So thank

3:21:48 ↗ you. Council Member Hunt. Okay. So, because they're not on the list, I'm just going

3:21:54 ↗ to read them so we know what they are. So, one is establish a dedicated

3:21:57 ↗ funding source for priority land acquisitions and access improvements. And then number two is

3:22:02 ↗ prioritize. So, actually not in the one that is recommended to

3:22:08 ↗ prioritize. Prioritize and proactively pursue strategic acquisitions that add inventory to fill missing

3:22:14 ↗ links for parks, trail, open space, critical areas, and natural resource protection. I would like

3:22:19 ↗ to, and when we were in the strategic planning process, I was trying to pair

3:22:24 ↗ studies and plans with an action because I don't want to be in a cycle

3:22:30 ↗ where we're studying and then things have changed and we study and things have changed

3:22:34 ↗ and we study. So I really don't want to be in that kind of a

3:22:39 ↗ process and I would like to study and to what end and I don't see

3:22:42 ↗ that we have the to what end. Especially since also the prioritization is in a

3:22:46 ↗ separate step that is nowhere I think the difficulty that we had with that action

3:22:51 ↗ item was it was both prioritized, as it was originally written, it was both prioritize

3:22:56 ↗ and pursue. And it was the pursue part that we thought needed some sequencing. And

3:23:01 ↗ then what about the sequencing for just the second one, which is sort of for

3:23:05 ↗ B, which is establish a dedicated funding source?

3:23:13 ↗ I think we may have contemplated needing to get on

3:23:19 ↗ just the feasibility of current funding

3:23:24 ↗ sources and the magnitude of the need by doing that assessment

3:23:30 ↗ across all different types of land that might be acquired, that funding sources

3:23:36 ↗ could be contingent upon what type of land, is it eligible for this type of

3:23:42 ↗ grant, for example, and then how much do we need to try So I think

3:23:48 ↗ again, the consideration was sequencing. I'll just comment. I'm not sure

3:23:54 ↗ we're fully clear, but there is, so from that C action, it does say prioritize

3:23:59 ↗ and pursue, and we did incorporate prioritize into the proposed action for A.

3:24:05 ↗ So there was a slight modification or combination that was in there. I'm going to

3:24:09 ↗ keep going down the list then.

3:24:22 ↗ The organization-wide asset management policy. Is there any more questions around scoping, sequencing on

3:24:28 ↗ that? MO2A. And Council Member Hunt, I just want to

3:24:34 ↗ say too, all these ones, we've actually put them up there with the description so

3:24:38 ↗ that people will be able to see that. Council Member Wintersign? I'm sorry, before you

3:24:40 ↗ move on. I was listening to that conversation earlier, and I had this

3:24:46 ↗ sidebar conversation with Beth a little bit. This is an infrastructure. It really

3:24:52 ↗ feels like an internal systems thing. It's about cost allocation and implementing a proper

3:24:57 ↗ kind of asset management financial policy and plan.

3:25:03 ↗ That's very much how the organization needs to operate in managing its finances

3:25:09 ↗ and forecasting and But it's in infrastructure.

3:25:16 ↗ So I'm interpreting this one as a

3:25:22 ↗ business process, rules, policies, system project.

3:25:30 ↗ I think that's correct, but I'm just letting everybody know. I think Fav would agree

3:25:33 ↗ with that characterization. Thank you. MO2A.

3:25:43 ↗ Long-term action plan for the smaller capital projects. Questions on that?

3:25:52 ↗ MO3 sorry MO2B.

3:25:58 ↗ Transit agencies partnerships, questions on that?

3:26:05 ↗ I'm going to keep going. We can go back if I'm going too fast. MO3A,

3:26:10 ↗ citywide transit plan, scoping questions. Just a question on

3:26:16 ↗ scoping and sequencing to put that into 2021. So

3:26:22 ↗ Deputy Council President, that was also sequencing, thinking about getting the mobility master plan done

3:26:27 ↗ first and then moving on to that. Okay, thank you.

3:26:33 ↗ Can I back up just for a minute? We already passed this one, but

3:26:40 ↗ the MO2A, the near-term action plan, smaller capital improvements

3:26:46 ↗ starting in 2021. Could you just speak to CEP? Because the verb

3:26:52 ↗ there is implement, we're going to lay out a local funding strategy. So I think

3:26:58 ↗ we feel like we have developed an idea. We're going to bring that

3:27:04 ↗ idea forward as part of the CIP and the ongoing conversation about the transportation benefit

3:27:09 ↗ district. And shown as starting in 2021 because our

3:27:15 ↗ proposal is to utilize some of the proceeds from that sales tax to do those

3:27:20 ↗ projects. And the verb is implement, so you need the money to do more. Correct.

3:27:24 ↗ So sequencing. Okay, now you made me lose my place, Mariah. Am I at ES1C?

3:27:25 ↗ ES1C. I'm

3:27:31 ↗ sorry. Council

3:27:37 ↗ President Martz. So I just want to point out, so there's ES1C sort of on

3:27:41 ↗ its own, right, which is Aligned Environmental Management Approaches and Implement Training and Education

3:27:47 ↗ Activities. And then there's this idea that I had as part of a QMS. Can

3:27:52 ↗ I take a second to explain? Because I realize that there may be people who

3:27:55 ↗ don't know what a QMS is. Okay. So a quality management system is, it's sort

3:28:01 ↗ of centered around ISO 9000, which is sort of the broad,

3:28:07 ↗ broad standard and ISO 1809-1 is specific for government organizations. But it's the idea

3:28:13 ↗ that you sort of say what you do and do what you say and you

3:28:17 ↗ document everything, all your processes. So basically in each

3:28:23 ↗ area you identify focuses. So you'd have an economic development focus and you'd have a

3:28:27 ↗ DSD focus and you would have a parks focus and you would have an IBD

3:28:32 ↗ focus and you would go through and you would build your customer model overall process

3:28:37 ↗ of how your city works and then you have your specific processes underneath it and

3:28:40 ↗ then the crux of it is you do an audit at the end you hire

3:28:44 ↗ someone to come in and basically check that you're doing it the way you say

3:28:47 ↗ you're doing it and then if all that works then you're certified with it so

3:28:52 ↗ I have no idea how much it would cost I note that those three items

3:28:55 ↗ you put them together that's ninety three thousand to two hundred

3:29:01 ↗ fifteen thousand dollars this is this would be expensive but so I just I'll I

3:29:05 ↗ don't know because I suggested it today. CFS had literally no time to look into

3:29:08 ↗ it, but I did want to explain what I was suggesting. Thank you. And they

3:29:13 ↗ are bucketed together there because it came up in comments that they all had that

3:29:18 ↗ same look and feel. Any other scope questions on that? I

3:29:24 ↗ wanted to comment on ISO 900 because I actually have some strong feelings. It's a

3:29:28 ↗ million dollars worth of work to do with a city this size, so it's a

3:29:31 ↗ huge undertaking. studies have shown with ISO 900 about half of the organizations get certified

3:29:37 ↗ actually perform better and about half the organizations get certified perform worse so there's no

3:29:43 ↗ there's no correlation between ISO 900 certification and a high-performing organization

3:29:50 ↗ okay so we got through our list so I would I wouldn't I don't know

3:29:54 ↗ that I would think that's what we want to do okay hang on hang on

3:29:59 ↗ We have the, maybe, maybe. Let me jump

3:30:05 ↗ in here for one second. We currently have them listed all three separately. And if

3:30:09 ↗ you're feeling as you walk around and prioritize that they are linked for you, we

3:30:12 ↗ will find a way for you to do that. And yes,

3:30:19 ↗ I would just say that if an organization is going in, it's ISO 9000, not

3:30:23 ↗ 900. If an organization is going in merely because they are contractually required to be

3:30:28 ↗ an ISO 9000 organization, there are ways to minimally do it and just basically put

3:30:34 ↗ out a cocktail napkin and say this is our process. But if an organization is

3:30:37 ↗ looking to actually effect change, so I would question whether the effectivity

3:30:44 ↗ relates back to why people are doing it. We're going to have to arm wrestle.

3:30:46 ↗ Okay, so we can do that at social time after. Anybody interested in learning the

3:30:52 ↗ merits, the pros, cons, and concerns about ISO systems can join us at the gas

3:30:58 ↗ lamp after. Okay, we are moving into the next part, which is? Make a clarification.

3:31:03 ↗ Sure. So on the sheets, we have those individually listed as well as combined. Well,

3:31:08 ↗ thank you. So that is the option. Thank you. And then I wanted to rewind,

3:31:11 ↗ if I could, real quick, just back to the I-M1A, the infrastructure. clarify with the

3:31:16 ↗ operating departments so there is the financial piece but I believe that there's also some

3:31:22 ↗ inventory and condition assessment work in some areas that is still needed so it's not

3:31:27 ↗ that's correct okay so it's not purely to just clarify Paul's comment it's not truly

3:31:32 ↗ a financial planning and policy exercise there are there is some additional work first steps

3:31:41 ↗ I think we're ready to move into the prioritization exercise and I wonder if you

3:31:47 ↗ want to explain how that's going to work. Sure, so we are, so multi.

3:31:53 ↗ Is that me? No, no, no. I think you should go. Then

3:31:59 ↗ I'll be happy to facilitate. No, I think you should go for it. Okay, great,

3:32:04 ↗ here I go. All right. We have a number of dots, a

3:32:10 ↗ very few for each of you. Again, this is just to

3:32:16 ↗ sort of help us. We've gotten some feedback through the conversation, but this is really

3:32:22 ↗ meant to be uncomfortable and have you help us discern what's highest

3:32:27 ↗ priorities perhaps. So we also are gonna

3:32:33 ↗ use this of course, looking at individual results and aggregate results to identify where we

3:32:39 ↗ have individual priorities or common interests. And we will use

3:32:45 ↗ this as a data point as we then walk away and contemplate

3:32:52 ↗ what we can incorporate into the preliminary budget. So

3:32:59 ↗ we are giving you two green dots and five blue dots.

3:33:10 ↗ Seven. What? Seven. Cooler doesn't get eight. They were cut. They got

3:33:16 ↗ eight. We didn't use the ISO 9000. There's

3:33:21 ↗ seven. I can badly give my dog. Wait, wait, wait. Wait. People are

3:33:27 ↗ seeing seven, and there should have been five. Okay, please. Honor me.

3:33:34 ↗ That ain't gonna happen. Y'all swore an oath. Just return your dots. Crumple up two

3:33:38 ↗ of your blue. You should have two green and five blue.

3:33:44 ↗ Thank you. Two green, five only. I only swore that I hold the Constitution.

3:33:52 ↗ I'm done. I'm watching you. This is pressure. Yeah, we can do that.

3:33:59 ↗ So what we would like you to do, and you may want to spend just

3:34:02 ↗ a little time here at the table if you need to, is we're going to

3:34:06 ↗ ask you to do the impossible. Your two green dots would indicate

3:34:12 ↗ perhaps your two highest priorities. And then you get the five blue

3:34:18 ↗ ones for other priorities. I think you would go.

3:34:26 ↗ OK. One number box. But I don't think we had that rule, so I think

3:34:32 ↗ you could, yeah. Put all five of my blue dots in one place. You can

3:34:36 ↗ weight your vote. We used to do, that's how I did it. Yeah, this is

3:34:41 ↗ seeming familiar. Okay, hang on a sec. I got some cards in there. Council Member

3:34:45 ↗ Goodman, Council Member Hunt. So there was some identification

3:34:51 ↗ of items on the list that are ongoing. So for example, we've got this mobility

3:34:56 ↗ master plan that we've been working on for a while. What happens

3:35:02 ↗ if? Good question. I got you. What happens to the things that are still ongoing?

3:35:08 ↗ I think we may need to have a conversation with council, whether it's tonight or

3:35:13 ↗ during budget, about whether or not those things just have to continue because

3:35:21 ↗ something in our critical services bucket is reliant on them. Or because we're going to

3:35:26 ↗ assume that utilize your dots for new things and that your old

3:35:32 ↗ priorities are still consistent. We're going to have to pose those questions.

3:35:39 ↗ I would also say that staff is going to make an argument too on some

3:35:43 ↗ potential action items that we think

3:35:50 ↗ may not be able to be stopped, right? But I think we have to look

3:35:54 ↗ at it in the context of what's available in the budget still. We may or

3:36:00 ↗ may not take this as a signal that you desire for us to shift direction,

3:36:05 ↗ but we're going to have to pose those questions back to you when we see

3:36:10 ↗ these results or as we're going through budget deliberations. Council Member Hunt.

3:36:18 ↗ So I'm wondering, I think that maybe ES3B and C are the only ones that

3:36:23 ↗ are on here in some form. So I wondered if we could,

3:36:29 ↗ just for comparing them in this setting, if there is like a

3:36:35 ↗ ballpark amount. That's a good question. Yeah.

3:36:49 ↗ Maybe while they discuss for a second, maybe there's another question. I

3:36:55 ↗ appreciate Council Member Goodman's questions we as staff have had that conversation too about

3:37:01 ↗ what we will do with this with this data when we get it back

3:37:08 ↗ we're gonna have to look at it with a few different lenses what are the

3:37:11 ↗ cost implications for keeping these things and do we already have it in the base

3:37:15 ↗ budget there's a bunch of different ways we're gonna have to look at it

3:37:23 ↗ I'm not seeing any more questions, but I'm seeing a lot of people studying less.

3:37:28 ↗ So I'm assuming you're not all ready to jump up there and do your dots.

3:37:34 ↗ So take your time. You don't have a lot of dots. Oh, I think this

3:37:38 ↗ is getting up. OK, wait. Can I pose one more question? Sorry. I saw

3:37:44 ↗ a little bit of anxiety on faces about

3:37:51 ↗ utilizing more than one dot on any of the items. Do we have consensus? I

3:37:57 ↗ think this is where I'm happy to entertain whatever rule you want to self-impose. Can

3:38:02 ↗ we give that to the ad hoc committee? We have an ad hoc committee to

3:38:06 ↗ sign that. Yeah, what are your thoughts as a group of seven?

3:38:12 ↗ Well, there's a down. So that's a, you should do one per? Yes.

3:38:18 ↗ Yes. All right. Anyone else feel... Does anyone feel differently and wants to advocate the

3:38:23 ↗ counterpoint? What was the question? Weighted or no. Whether or not you can use more

3:38:27 ↗ than one dot on an action item. I think no. No? Okay, so I think

3:38:32 ↗ the answer is no. Not seeing any other counterpoint here. So if someone comes up

3:38:37 ↗ with eight dots, you know somebody broke the rules? Maybe more than one rule.

3:38:43 ↗ Likely. Okay, so take the time you need to look at it.

3:38:51 ↗ We'll

3:38:51 ↗ come

3:39:00 ↗ in and then we'll summarize it. We had them on both walls, folks. Oh, okay.

3:39:06 ↗ But we, that's right, sorry. So we have, we have,

3:39:21 ↗ I don't, it doesn't pop up when I, you're too, you have another experience. That's

3:39:24 ↗ why I'm so unresponsive. Like, hours later, I'm like,

3:39:32 ↗ oh, jeez. It's just, it's just like, dream of a dream. There's two

3:39:36 ↗ projects

3:39:40 ↗ here.

3:39:47 ↗ Whoa. Yeah, we should have, we're doing great. No more going for people.

3:39:56 ↗ Council members,

3:40:01 ↗ council members, clarification.

3:40:06 ↗ Clarification

3:40:09 ↗ on MOC.

3:40:22 ↗ O2A, near-term, smaller capital projects,

3:40:28 ↗ mobility projects. I misspoke about the funding

3:40:34 ↗ plan. I'm mixing up too many things in the CIP in my head. The plan

3:40:40 ↗ is to utilize the school zone safety fund. That's the proposal, the

3:40:46 ↗ proposed funding source that staff will present in your CIP. the TBD sales tax.

3:40:53 ↗ So it will be school zone safety fund. Why we're

3:40:58 ↗ proposing to start that in 2021 is the CIP also shows

3:41:05 ↗ two particular projects designated for that funding source in 2020,

3:41:11 ↗ which is also on your CIP. So this is just a correction of which funding

3:41:15 ↗ source and why in 2021.

3:41:24 ↗ you

3:42:06 ↗ It's like hardware. Oh, yeah. I know. It does

3:42:10 ↗ that. So this is the emergency management guy. Oh, yeah. No, it just does. Ignore

3:42:15 ↗ alarms. I have to do that every half hour. You have to test your system.

3:42:17 ↗ Keep sticking along. It's in the market. It's hard for my cover. One of the

3:42:19 ↗ two. Yeah,

3:42:24 ↗ totally. Now it's incorporated.

3:42:39 ↗ Second person done? Sure. Very nice. They've done before you, what happened?

3:42:46 ↗ I don't have a process for you. At least. At least.

3:42:51 ↗ Yeah. But.

3:43:01 ↗ Just

3:43:11 ↗ go on to arm wrestling guys. Yeah. Yeah.

3:43:26 ↗ Yeah. Have a strategy. And let the council see

3:43:33 ↗ the impact of a strategy. And what you can do if you don't use your

3:43:39 ↗ money here, you can use what

3:43:45 ↗ you can do here. Yeah,

3:43:49 ↗ look how you can...

3:43:55 ↗ What is a disaster?

3:44:03 ↗ Any planning system. Oh yes, thank you. You really

3:44:07 ↗ should only

3:44:13 ↗ get an ERP if you have a business model that you can't accomplish what you

3:44:17 ↗ need to do. You're like a supply chain company. If you're fine and you're like,

3:44:23 ↗ you know, even better with an ERP

3:44:25 ↗ system.

3:44:33 ↗ Oh, nice. I am

3:44:37 ↗ surprised that I got so much support so far. I am

3:44:43 ↗ pleased. Which one? GD3A. Comprehensive

3:44:49 ↗ Infrastructure Master Plan for Central Issaquah.

3:45:08 ↗ We need these font sizes much larger. We need these font sizes much larger. At

3:45:15 ↗ least the labels. because then I can look at what they are down on my

3:45:20 ↗ thing. Younger eyes printed that, but I think I didn't. What's clear was not meeting.

3:45:25 ↗ E, S, A, yes, Z. So there

3:45:26 ↗ it's.

3:45:32 ↗ Yes we

3:45:43 ↗ could link that. Good.

3:46:00 ↗ cheering him on

3:46:21 ↗ There are seven of us. And there are those that say other. There are

3:46:27 ↗ seven of us and we each had seven dots. So 49

3:46:31 ↗ totes are made. And how many are

3:46:37 ↗ listed? Eight.

3:46:51 ↗ I did one.

3:47:07 ↗ I think it's interesting is number of green dots on these. I'm really regretting the

3:47:11 ↗ additional ones. There's multiple different options. Sometimes I'm sitting at

3:47:16 ↗ home at 10 o'clock at

3:47:25 ↗ night. Oh my God, there's so much to do. She dances to say, before I

3:47:30 ↗ get rid of it. That's well established by them. ISO 900.

3:47:40 ↗ She just

3:47:46 ↗ ripped

3:48:02 ↗ on it. Just... We couldn't hold up under the weight of the dot. A seething

3:48:06 ↗ mass. I'm already out of the drinks.

3:48:20 ↗ Okay, if you are making your way back to your seats, we're going to start

3:48:25 ↗ with a question and then do kind of a summary of how all the dots

3:48:29 ↗ landed. Okay.

3:48:37 ↗ So, I want to pose a question to you and give

3:48:42 ↗ you an opportunity. Our intent was to

3:48:48 ↗ try to maybe shake out what was a critical

3:48:54 ↗ priority. Have you placed your dots with that in mind? Yes.

3:49:18 ↗ We're going to go through and just read them out because I heard these aren't

3:49:22 ↗ people who have eyesight that's working as well as mine. And we're

3:49:28 ↗ going to talk about whether or not we need to parse through

3:49:34 ↗ of these votes. And then we're gonna talk about how,

3:49:40 ↗ just recap again how staff is going to utilize these.

3:49:47 ↗ That's all I can. She puts it on camera.

3:49:53 ↗ Alright, so we have MO1A

3:49:59 ↗ and B provide for timely and successful adoption

3:50:05 ↗ and analyze data to better understand regional travel behavior, define pass through traffic

3:50:10 ↗ policy objectives. There are three blue dots on that

3:50:16 ↗ one. M01C, develop and execute a long-term

3:50:22 ↗ funding approach for larger capital projects and ongoing sustainable management data

3:50:28 ↗ assets. Two blue, one green. GD2A, update codes and standards to

3:50:34 ↗ retain it. GD2A, conduct

3:50:41 ↗ a review of progress toward growth targets.

3:50:46 ↗ GD2E, proactively influence the next round of regional growth targets.

3:50:53 ↗ GD2A, create a comprehensive infrastructure master plan, public and private,

3:51:00 ↗ development areas planned for growth to blue to green

3:51:05 ↗ gd4b develop code amendments to address missing middle and other housing

3:51:11 ↗ options to blue es1c align environmental management approaches

3:51:17 ↗ and implement training and education activities blue es3a complete

3:51:23 ↗ park streamside forest floodplain and critical area studies to provide a comprehensive view of land

3:51:28 ↗ acquisition goals and

3:51:33 ↗ citywide one blue one green

3:51:39 ↗ se 1a city vision to blue one green as e to a implement

3:51:45 ↗ and enhance the housing strategy work plan one blue one green

3:51:55 ↗ 3-2-C, determine if city property assets should be used for affordable housing needs, 1-green,

3:52:01 ↗ 1-blue. 3-3-B, adopt and implement the healthy community strategy,

3:52:07 ↗ 1-blue. 3-3-C, facilitate nonprofit organizations to locate or expand

3:52:13 ↗ to provide needed services locally, 1-blue. 3-3-C, create an equity

3:52:19 ↗ and cultural competency initiative for city staff, 1-blue. S2C,

3:52:25 ↗ evaluate the condition and performance of current city facilities and options for improving service delivery,

3:52:31 ↗ one blue. CS2E, update financial information to be accessible, clear,

3:52:37 ↗ and available on a regular basis, two green, one blue. IN1B, plan for and

3:52:43 ↗ budget operations and maintenance costs with all new capital, including both city-developed and dedicated,

3:52:49 ↗ one blue, one green. GD4A, identify

3:52:55 ↗ and implement code changes and activities to address neighborhood-based and community-wide gaps and amenities

3:53:01 ↗ and services. Three green. SE1D. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:05 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:07 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:10 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:12 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:16 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue.

3:53:21 ↗ Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue. Blue Building upon

3:53:24 ↗ a review of engagement efforts and updates to the City's Toolkit on Public Engagement. One

3:53:29 ↗ green. CS2D, Set Customer Service Standards to Improve Customer Response,

3:53:35 ↗ Service Delivery and Accountability. One green. ES3B, Establish a Dedicated Money

3:53:41 ↗ Source for Priority Land Acquisitions and Access Improvements. One green. And...

3:53:48 ↗ IMPLEMT-M02A, IMPLEMENT A NEAR-TERM ACTION PLAN TO COMPLETE SMALLER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS

3:53:54 ↗ TO MAXIMIZE EXISTING FUNDING OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. ONE BLUE. AND THE

3:54:00 ↗ COMBINED ES1C, CS2D, SE1D, NEW

3:54:05 ↗ ACTION OF IMPLEMENTING QUALITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS09000 TO

3:54:13 ↗ IMPROVE SYSTEMS AND ENHANCED SERVICES. THAT WAS ME.

3:54:20 ↗ Thank you. Yep, this was in edit.

3:54:26 ↗ Questions, comments? Council members want to

3:54:32 ↗ discuss these results? Emily, do you

3:54:38 ↗ want to talk about sort of how you're using this as a broad filter for

3:54:43 ↗ our planning? Yep, I will. So we certainly will about this

3:54:49 ↗ in tiers, so we'll take the ones that have one or more dots, examine those,

3:54:57 ↗ and look at implementation timeline resources needed,

3:55:03 ↗ sort of start to prioritize those for possible inclusion into preliminary budget.

3:55:11 ↗ If we have some difficulty fitting

3:55:18 ↗ of those in or if there's some conflict in resource deployment, then

3:55:24 ↗ we will articulate that as we bring forward the budget and we will

3:55:32 ↗ look particularly at the action items that you have given

3:55:38 ↗ multiple dots to as perhaps bigger priorities and the ones that got

3:55:43 ↗ green dots since those were top priorities. They're not all equal in

3:55:50 ↗ size, right? There's different budgets that would have to be allocated for these.

3:55:56 ↗ They affect different teams. And so again, we need to do that scan across all

3:56:01 ↗ of them and think about how we would go about the implementation. So that's the

3:56:06 ↗ next step of work for staff. I think also it may be helpful, just as

3:56:13 ↗ if council wants to provide any reaction to what you see here. any

3:56:19 ↗ discussion about, for example, items that have only a single dot?

3:56:32 ↗ I'll get to your first question about what you see here. Actually, I had this

3:56:35 ↗ feeling. I think, sorry, .

3:56:38 ↗ Sorry. Thank you. I'll let Paul .

3:56:48 ↗ when we were going through the front of this page, what struck me, we

3:56:54 ↗ were not even halfway through it. And I thought, my gosh, what a,

3:57:00 ↗ that's a great work plan just as we got halfway through it. These, adding these

3:57:05 ↗ items, even though some of them are continuation, but seeing them through

3:57:12 ↗ is critical. And I think some of the new ones that are in there fantastic

3:57:16 ↗ and I just thought my feeling was is there's really no way we can go

3:57:21 ↗ wrong here. These are critical to I think many in the council, I think they're

3:57:25 ↗ critical to many within the community. They're essential for the city's long-term health and benefit

3:57:30 ↗ for people here now are going to be here in the future. So I mean

3:57:34 ↗ I don't really think there's any winners or losers out of this exercise at all

3:57:38 ↗ and So anyway, that's what I wanted to share. We were like,

3:57:44 ↗ okay, you guys have done a planning and we're gonna try to, we're gonna give

3:57:48 ↗ you some feedback on we want you to shift some maybe the order and priorities

3:57:52 ↗ of things. But I just wanted to share, I don't see any winners and losers

3:57:55 ↗ in this. I think there's so many good things here. The city's gonna win no

3:57:58 ↗ matter, and I mean everybody in the city is gonna win no matter what. Thank

3:58:04 ↗ you. Council

3:58:10 ↗ President Marks? So, I'm a little, I, I wasn't clear that,

3:58:16 ↗ I thought the purpose of this was to just, we had a strong man

3:58:22 ↗ by the administration and we had some feedback from the council and that the purposes

3:58:27 ↗ of the dots were to indicate relative particular intensity of

3:58:32 ↗ interest. I did not realize that we were potentially condemning

3:58:38 ↗ those that did not get dots. Which is I think what you just said you're

3:58:43 ↗ gonna go you said you're gonna go look at the ones that have dots well

3:58:47 ↗ So yes, I did and let me clarify so that's that's an exercises look at

3:58:53 ↗ the ones that have dots We will still do what I said before the exercise

3:58:59 ↗ which is look at the things in particular that are continuation items that have some

3:59:05 ↗ criticality that I believe through

3:59:11 ↗ The comments that were made tonight, we got a little bit of input about items

3:59:15 ↗ that may not have received dots but are still important to council members. This is

3:59:20 ↗ just one point of input. So I did not mean to say that if something

3:59:24 ↗ didn't get a dot, it will not show up either as a proposed work plan

3:59:29 ↗ item or as a budget item, but we will provide some explanation, justification about

3:59:35 ↗ that. So taking off my council president hat and putting on my one of seven

3:59:40 ↗ hat, When I get to budget season, what I would love, and I would love

3:59:44 ↗ to know how the other six feel about it, I would love to see all

3:59:47 ↗ the stuff that you guys came in here as A's. the stuff that we've added

3:59:52 ↗ from the B column that got dots with it. And I'd love to see what

3:59:55 ↗ that is in the budget. And then I'd love to see, okay, if you dial

3:59:58 ↗ out the things that did not get dots, here's what it is. And if you

4:00:01 ↗ dial out, if you then dial, and then you say only the stuff that got

4:00:04 ↗ two or more dots, here's what it is. Only things that got three or more

4:00:06 ↗ dots, here's what it is. Or something to that effect to say, look, if we

4:00:10 ↗ did everything that we talked about on June 7th, like here's the price tag, here's

4:00:14 ↗ what a, price tag is. And again, I would like to hear how my fellow

4:00:18 ↗ council members feel about how we would use that information. Understood. I think that's a

4:00:23 ↗ great idea. I think we're going to have to do that also in the operating

4:00:27 ↗ budget. We're going to have to identify this is what could fit within the revenue

4:00:32 ↗ box that we have constructed. And then, as we always do with the preliminary budget,

4:00:38 ↗ then we ask you the question, how do you feel about that? Here's some other

4:00:41 ↗ stuff that we considered but didn't fit. to swap things. Council Member Rick.

4:00:47 ↗ I thought this was a marvelous exercise. I think it really gave everybody an opportunity

4:00:52 ↗ to, in a very individual and non-threatening way, to express what they thought

4:00:58 ↗ of all of these things was most important to them. And I liked the greens

4:01:03 ↗ because it's like if there was only one thing up here I could have, I

4:01:06 ↗ could put a green on it. And I thought that was a really compelling way

4:01:10 ↗ to express my views on things. Going forward, I think

4:01:17 ↗ Council President Martz's idea of let's use this in the spirit I think it was

4:01:23 ↗ intended to, which wasn't to kill things, but was to help us prioritize what's important

4:01:27 ↗ to this group of people as we look at what we think is important to

4:01:30 ↗ the people we represent. Thank you. Any other comments? Deputy Councilor President Petit.

4:01:38 ↗ Just to follow up, I really did like the way that we were able to

4:01:41 ↗ work on that exercise. I think that that was great, this last exercise. And thank

4:01:47 ↗ you, Council President Martz, for asking the question because that's what was in my mind

4:01:52 ↗ as well. I just wanted to make sure that things, there were all sorts of

4:01:56 ↗ things over there that are very important that have

4:02:01 ↗ dots. So I just want to make sure that those are all incorporated and I

4:02:05 ↗ actually like Council President Mart's idea of breaking those down during budget.

4:02:14 ↗ Any other comments? I see some people have written these down.

4:02:20 ↗ Would it also be helpful in advance of budget for us to publish a little

4:02:25 ↗ report of this? Okay, great. Interesting.

4:02:31 ↗ If we have no more questions about process, I wanted to thank you all for

4:02:36 ↗ participating in this workshop because it's the first one we've done with the strategic plan.

4:02:42 ↗ And I would guess that year one, when everything looks exciting and fun, is a

4:02:47 ↗ very hard year to do. So it's hard not to want to start everything at

4:02:53 ↗ once and commit ourselves to these. But you did an excellent job. You had excellent

4:02:57 ↗ questions. and I'm glad the exercise appeared to give you

4:03:04 ↗ what you were hoping for, which is an ability to express what is most important.

4:03:08 ↗ So great, thank you very much. This is awesome, it is only 810, unless somebody

4:03:13 ↗ wants to bring something up for good of the order. Okay, we're done.

4:03:20 ↗ Is that like adjourned? That's like adjourned. Good night, class. Awesome.

4:03:26 ↗ Yeah, I would like to report it like I said. And

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

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Staff (16)

Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor

Emily Moon, City Administrator

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Autumn Monahan, Assistant to the City Administrator

Christine Eggers, City Clerk

Scott Behrbaum, Police Chief

David Fujimoto, Sustainability Director

Beth Goldberg, Finance Director

Bret Heath, Public Works Operations Director

Sheldon Lynne, Public Works Engineering Director

Keith Niven, Economic & Development Services Director

John Traeger, Information Technology Director

Jeff Watling, Parks & Recreation Director

Susan Monsell, Budget Analyst

Gene Paul, Management Analyst

Megan Curtis Murphy, Sustainability Coordinator