← Back to City Council Digest

City Council Special Meeting Cancelled Auto captions

Friday, June 7, 2019

4:00 PM · 4h 3m · Pickering Room, City Hall NW, 1775 12th Ave. N.W.
Watch on YouTube ↗ Agenda PDF ↗ Minutes PDF Transcript .txt
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?
1:26:48 ↗ 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
2:30:51 ↗ 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
3:39:00 ↗ 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.
3:42:06 ↗ 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.
3:43:11 ↗ 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 (21)
Mariah Bettise (arrived at approx. 4:13 PM) Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor
Stacy Goodman
Victoria Hunt
Tola Marts (arrived at approx. 4:11 PM)
Chris Reh (arrived at approx. 4:13 PM)
Lindsey Walsh
Paul Winterstein
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