City Council Special Meeting · Tuesday, September 24, 2019 · City Council Digest

2. AGENDA ITEMS

Proposed 2020 Budget: Mayor's Presentation The 2020 preliminary budget is available online: issaquahwa.gov/2020budget ID 0421

packet pp.3–44

Topics: Budget

▶ Watch from 0:58 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

Finance 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 PH: 425-837-3050 issaquahwa.gov

2083 segments .txt ↗

0:14 ↗ good evening and welcome to the Tuesday

0:17 ↗ September 24th councils study session we

0:22 ↗ were going to get started tonight

0:24 ↗ councilmember Goodman is excused I just

0:28 ↗ wanted to start with a reminder as

0:30 ↗ council president marts talked about in

0:33 ↗ our last study session this is a new

0:35 ↗ format this study session our study

0:39 ↗ sessions replace our former committee

0:42 ↗ meetings that we had and so the purpose

0:45 ↗ of tonight is the council will be

0:46 ↗ hearing presentations asking questions

0:50 ↗ giving feedback but there will be no

0:53 ↗ decisions made this evening and I will

0:56 ↗ take audience comment after each one of

0:58 ↗ our agenda items so with that I will we

1:03 ↗ will start with ID 0 5 to 0 which is the

1:06 ↗ classification and compensation study

1:09 ↗ and that's going to be presented by

1:12 ↗ Andrea Snyder our interim city

1:14 ↗ administrator and team and I'll let

1:17 ↗ Andrea take it from here and provide

1:19 ↗ introductions thank you so tonight we

1:26 ↗ are joined by the city's consultant team

1:28 ↗ that helped us with this classification

1:30 ↗ compensation study first I'd like to

1:33 ↗ introduce Noelle treat with the public

1:35 ↗ affairs firm strategies 360 and next to

1:40 ↗ him of course is lauren knox a member of

1:43 ↗ our HR department who was the project

1:45 ↗ manager from the city side and then we

1:48 ↗ have greg McNutt from the consulting

1:51 ↗ firm Milliman incorporated greg and his

1:55 ↗ partner who is not here this evening

1:58 ↗ they are the technical experts that who

2:03 ↗ conducted the classification

2:04 ↗ compensation study and also drafted the

2:07 ↗ study report that we'll be going over

2:09 ↗ this evening so with that I think I'll

2:12 ↗ kick it off to null good evening council

2:16 ↗ members it's nice to be here with you

2:17 ↗ tonight as Andrea mentioned I'm Noelle

2:20 ↗ treat I'm with

2:21 ↗ public affairs firm of strategies 360

2:24 ↗ I'm not sure how strategic it was to let

2:27 ↗ my item get agenda right after the

2:30 ↗ budget presentation but I'm gonna do my

2:32 ↗ best and I'm gonna be facilitating

2:34 ↗ tonight's presentation and then at

2:37 ↗ different points in time Lauren and Greg

2:38 ↗ will be jumping in to talk with you as

2:40 ↗ well just a little bit about my

2:43 ↗ background I've been with this firm just

2:45 ↗ a short time and before that I had about

2:47 ↗ 25 years in local government with city

2:49 ↗ manager for Mercer Island deputy

2:51 ↗ superintendent for Seattle Public

2:53 ↗ Schools and I've been a city and county

2:55 ↗ attorney as well and so through those

2:57 ↗ experiences I've had a lot of work in

2:59 ↗ different human resource issues

3:01 ↗ including helping organizations

3:02 ↗ implement class and comp studies so I

3:05 ↗ was pleased to be able to have this

3:06 ↗ opportunity to help your city move

3:08 ↗ forward with this study as well so why

3:11 ↗ don't we go ahead and we'll we'll jump

3:12 ↗ right in first why are we here the

3:16 ↗ purpose of tonight is to help provide

3:17 ↗ you with an understanding of the study

3:19 ↗ that's important because when you're

3:21 ↗ presented with the salary ordinance in

3:23 ↗ November that ordinance the proposal

3:26 ↗ right now would be to base that

3:26 ↗ ordinance on the outcome of the study as

3:29 ↗ well as some of the policy

3:31 ↗ recommendations that are being made to

3:33 ↗ help implement the study I think as

3:35 ↗ you've gathered the focus at this stage

3:37 ↗ is on salaries even though the study did

3:40 ↗ look in detail it benefits the plan is

3:42 ↗ to look at those and discuss those and

3:44 ↗ make any decisions about those in 2020

3:49 ↗ so first what is a class and comp study

3:53 ↗ class and comp studies generally have

3:56 ↗ two key components one is a detailed

3:58 ↗ review of job descriptions that's

4:01 ↗ important to help you determine

4:02 ↗ appropriate salary levels to help with

4:04 ↗ recruiting because you want the job to

4:06 ↗ reflect the skills and abilities you

4:08 ↗ really need and then also it's also

4:10 ↗ helpful in performance evaluations so

4:12 ↗ that you can evaluate employees against

4:14 ↗ the the job description

4:16 ↗ the written job description you have for

4:18 ↗ them and then that's followed by an

4:20 ↗ in-depth market analysis where you look

4:21 ↗ at salary and benefits to determine if

4:23 ↗ you are offering competitive wages and

4:26 ↗ benefits to your employees so why do you

4:31 ↗ do these studies class and comp studies

4:34 ↗ are considered a best

4:35 ↗ this the industry recommendation is

4:37 ↗ generally to do one about every five to

4:38 ↗ seven years and that's what typically

4:41 ↗ I've seen with cities and school

4:42 ↗ districts is anywhere from five to seven

4:44 ↗ years they'll they'll revise their class

4:46 ↗ and comp study and implement new salary

4:49 ↗ tables I think for Issaquah I believe it

4:51 ↗ has been about 20 years since you've

4:52 ↗ actually done one of these studies so

4:54 ↗ you it was due and of course they help

4:57 ↗ you set competitive salaries which leads

4:59 ↗ to improving your ability to attract and

5:02 ↗ retain high-quality employees it again

5:05 ↗ it helps ensure that position

5:06 ↗ descriptions match the work that

5:08 ↗ employees perform and the work you want

5:11 ↗ them to perform and then it helps

5:13 ↗ provide greater internal pay fairness so

5:18 ↗ just a few quick words at a high level

5:20 ↗ about the timeline for the study it

5:22 ↗ actually began I think over two and a

5:24 ↗ half years ago in 2017 started with

5:27 ↗ development of an underlying

5:29 ↗ compensation philosophy moved into the

5:32 ↗ Job Description review and revision then

5:35 ↗ into the salary and benefit market study

5:38 ↗ led up to developing a proposed

5:42 ↗ methodology to implement the study and

5:45 ↗ then of course will lead to you

5:47 ↗ considering a salary ordinance this fall

5:53 ↗ first so the first step is I mentioned

5:55 ↗ was developing the underlying philosophy

5:57 ↗ and I'm gonna turn that over to Lauren

5:59 ↗ she's gonna talk with you about this

6:00 ↗ slide and the next one she was involved

6:02 ↗ in both those processes and can speak

6:04 ↗ well to them okay I'm stealing Noel's

6:10 ↗ microphone so the philosophy statement

6:14 ↗ so some of our council members who have

6:16 ↗ been around for a couple years will

6:18 ↗ remember that we brought a philosophy

6:20 ↗ statement to you I think in late 2016 to

6:24 ↗ start to think about this process and at

6:28 ↗ that time we got good council feedback

6:31 ↗ on some high level goals that what you

6:34 ↗ wanted to see in that statement the

6:37 ↗ ultimate statement that you have in

6:38 ↗ front of you is reflective of a couple

6:41 ↗ of different things so first of all our

6:43 ↗ strategic plan and keeping that in

6:46 ↗ our goals and mission as a city as an

6:51 ↗ employer I think our ambition is to be

6:54 ↗ an employer of choice to be the place

6:56 ↗ that people come you know and think of a

6:59 ↗ high quality high performing work force

7:04 ↗ beyond that internal in the compensation

7:08 ↗ side and to get to that ambition of

7:10 ↗ being an employer of choice we put a

7:14 ↗ couple of statements in that philosophy

7:16 ↗ statement about competitive compensation

7:19 ↗ and benefits that are meant to reflect

7:22 ↗ what's happening in the market current

7:24 ↗ market practices equity internally and

7:29 ↗ also financial sustainability and making

7:33 ↗ sure we have a compensation practices

7:35 ↗ that we can carry forward over the long

7:40 ↗ term and that helped us get the quality

7:44 ↗ of workforce that we hope to see in

7:47 ↗ Issaquah and I think currently have step

7:52 ↗ two of this process so next step was to

8:04 ↗ look at job descriptions and do a pretty

8:08 ↗ thorough review of all the

8:09 ↗ classifications in the city that started

8:13 ↗ with employees so employees were asked

8:15 ↗ to fill out a position description

8:17 ↗ questionnaire and give us a lot of

8:19 ↗ information about the work that they

8:21 ↗ currently do those were then reviewed by

8:24 ↗ supervisors Human Resources conducted

8:27 ↗ interviews with our employees to you

8:30 ↗ know get further information about tasks

8:33 ↗ and ultimately resulted in job

8:38 ↗ descriptions that were rewritten by the

8:40 ↗ Human Resources team and again reviewed

8:43 ↗ with employees to ensure that what we

8:45 ↗ had written was accurate as to the jobs

8:47 ↗ that people perform there was beyond

8:52 ↗ the human resources touch we did have an

8:55 ↗ SLT advisory committee that sort of sat

9:00 ↗ as a body that ensured that citywide

9:03 ↗ there was a there was a look at how

9:07 ↗ classifications fall out citywide and it

9:10 ↗ looks like councilman Mara winter sign

9:12 ↗ you have a question I could have waited

9:13 ↗ yes thank you Laura did real quickly

9:15 ↗ what level of participation from

9:17 ↗ employees do we have is 100% is that you

9:19 ↗ strive for what happens yeah so I

9:22 ↗ couldn't say exactly but I think we were

9:26 ↗ close to a hundred percent on the

9:29 ↗ position description questionnaires I

9:30 ↗ don't have the exact number and then in

9:34 ↗ terms of interviews we also set the goal

9:36 ↗ to interview every single employee some

9:38 ↗ employees are interviewed in groups

9:40 ↗ there were I'm certain some that we

9:43 ↗ missed especially in pooled

9:45 ↗ classifications like I don't think we

9:47 ↗ talked to every single one of our police

9:49 ↗ officers for example but we did have

9:52 ↗ that goal to have that touch point with

9:54 ↗ everybody in the city where possible any

10:01 ↗ questions before I dive back in so if

10:06 ↗ the job descriptions were then written

10:08 ↗ based on what an employee does how does

10:12 ↗ that give us an opportunity to make sure

10:15 ↗ that the job descriptions and roles are

10:19 ↗ based on what we need and not just what

10:22 ↗ the current employee does in any future

10:25 ↗ hiring interns the administrator of

10:29 ↗ Snyder please thank you I'll I'll take a

10:32 ↗ first pass and then Lauren if you want

10:34 ↗ to fill in the blanks what was really

10:37 ↗ important in the focus of this study was

10:39 ↗ not it was making sure that we are

10:41 ↗ paying our employees fairly by market

10:45 ↗ rates or the work that they currently

10:47 ↗ are doing so this doesn't necessarily

10:49 ↗ that the intent of this study was not

10:52 ↗ necessarily to address what the future

10:54 ↗ needs are of any given department or

10:57 ↗ role certainly that's something that we

10:59 ↗ look to the managers and directors and

11:02 ↗ city leadership to determine

11:04 ↗ are we getting are we doing all the

11:06 ↗ tests that we need to accomplish is

11:08 ↗ there something else that we need to be

11:10 ↗ considering that's just not getting done

11:12 ↗ that's a different conversation this the

11:14 ↗ focus of this work was really to make

11:16 ↗ sure that for the work that our

11:18 ↗ employees are currently doing are we

11:20 ↗ paying market wages or what what their

11:24 ↗ peers would be paid in other

11:25 ↗ organizations I would add just one thing

11:29 ↗ to that which is that Andrea is

11:33 ↗ completely right that the focus of a

11:35 ↗ class comp study is on accurate and fair

11:38 ↗ pay and not you know a staffing analysis

11:40 ↗ or something similar to that however

11:43 ↗ there are a number of instances where we

11:46 ↗ worked with department directors to

11:48 ↗ create classifications that don't have

11:50 ↗ current incumbents that are kind of

11:53 ↗ growth positions or looking towards the

11:55 ↗ future of what the department might need

11:58 ↗ that we don't currently have so there's

12:02 ↗ it is a mix with our incumbent employees

12:05 ↗ you know the focus is much more on

12:07 ↗ fairness but we we did at least want to

12:13 ↗ create that flexibility for our

12:15 ↗ organization and directors okay and I'm

12:24 ↗ actually going to now turn it over to

12:27 ↗ Greg for Milliman to talk about the

12:30 ↗ technical compensation market analysis

12:33 ↗ piece right good evening council members

12:37 ↗ thank you for having me here tonight my

12:39 ↗ name is Greg McNutt and my my colleague

12:43 ↗ Cody Nelson could not make it he has an

12:45 ↗ awful case of strep throat so we didn't

12:48 ↗ think you wanted him here

12:49 ↗ but what my Millman's role and I've been

12:54 ↗ with I should tell you a little bit

12:55 ↗ about myself I've been with Milman which

12:57 ↗ is a compensation benefits international

13:00 ↗ firm but based here in Seattle I've been

13:02 ↗ with them 17 years

13:04 ↗ next week but I've been doing this kind

13:07 ↗ of analysis for about three decades a

13:10 ↗ lot of our work has to do with both

13:12 ↗ public sector quasi quasi public sector

13:15 ↗ and private sectors so we get the

13:17 ↗ privilege

13:17 ↗ have seen a lot of what's going on in

13:19 ↗ the marketplace and it's as I think

13:21 ↗ we'll talk about later on that the

13:23 ↗ marketplace is evolving and it's not

13:24 ↗ just segment into only public sector or

13:27 ↗ private sector but employees and

13:30 ↗ potential employees are crossing

13:31 ↗ boundaries these days so our our ask in

13:35 ↗ this study was to then take what was

13:38 ↗ done from the classification analysis

13:40 ↗ take the job descriptions and do a

13:42 ↗ comprehensive review of salaries and

13:45 ↗ benefits to make sure that where you are

13:50 ↗ aligns with what your desired places and

13:54 ↗ if there are gaps make recommendations

13:56 ↗ on how to bridge those gaps so this this

14:01 ↗ market survey like you've liked you know

14:03 ↗ by now is a what we call a total

14:05 ↗ compensation analysis we looked at

14:07 ↗ salaries and all of the different

14:09 ↗ elements underneath the broad umbrella

14:12 ↗ of benefits we as a proper methodology

14:17 ↗ in terms of the approach what we want to

14:20 ↗ think about is okay who is your market

14:22 ↗ so we talked a lot with the city

14:25 ↗ leadership and Human Resources and

14:27 ↗ feedback about who is it that you're

14:30 ↗ competing with for talent and what other

14:32 ↗ cities and entities should be in that

14:35 ↗ survey because we didn't want to look at

14:38 ↗ just the broad spectrum we want to think

14:39 ↗ about the city of Issaquah and who you

14:42 ↗ define yourselves as and we needed to

14:45 ↗ also think about when you say the market

14:47 ↗ well what what is the market from a

14:49 ↗ competitive standpoint and since your

14:52 ↗ pay philosophy wants to talk about being

14:53 ↗ a competitive employer we landed on the

14:58 ↗ spot of using what opt ins and time is

15:01 ↗ called the market midpoint or median of

15:03 ↗ the market so it's the middle point as a

15:06 ↗ comparison space we also wanted to in

15:10 ↗ the end think about proper use of salary

15:13 ↗ ranges here and what's the best practice

15:15 ↗ and what's going to allow you to stay

15:18 ↗ competitive while also being fiscally

15:20 ↗ responsible at the same time and

15:23 ↗ thinking about some some future steps

15:26 ↗ which are going to be a I believe in in

15:29 ↗ the

15:29 ↗ commendations or the ordinance about 3%

15:33 ↗ step process and I'll explain what that

15:35 ↗ means in three percent in your steps and

15:38 ↗ finally benefits introduced into this

15:42 ↗ study so when we think about the overall

15:49 ↗ key findings and there are quite a few

15:51 ↗ here but on a large level we found that

15:55 ↗ when we aggregated all of the different

15:58 ↗ elements together all of the different

16:00 ↗ benefit elements and your salaries and

16:01 ↗ looked at the city as a whole

16:04 ↗ you're about 12% above that middle

16:08 ↗ market space now that's not that's not

16:13 ↗ egregious in my mind it's not way out

16:15 ↗ there but it is market leading so how

16:18 ↗ you get to that point is is from a what

16:21 ↗ we call payments and point how you get

16:23 ↗ to 12% above can be analyzed in

16:26 ↗ different ways one of those which is the

16:29 ↗ largest foundation from a cost

16:32 ↗ perspective winner Stein excuse me

16:34 ↗ pardon the interruption and if you're

16:36 ↗ gonna get this this information

16:37 ↗ information later on just say so

16:40 ↗ I saw that in the materials chopper

16:42 ↗ sound across the board do you have that

16:44 ↗ same number saved by Department but we

16:49 ↗ look at operations or engineering or

16:50 ↗ parks or we do we provided all the

16:53 ↗ background data to the human resources

16:55 ↗ department so behind in your report I

16:59 ↗ didn't see it in the report so it's it's

17:02 ↗ a good question it's it's cut by a

17:03 ↗ overall and by employee and and we can

17:07 ↗ provide it in in table format by

17:10 ↗ department as well yeah councilmember

17:12 ↗ winters sign I'll add you know we we

17:15 ↗ have certainly the aggregate data to be

17:18 ↗ able to pull that together but we don't

17:20 ↗ have that in either Millman's report or

17:23 ↗ in the city's materials at this time any

17:28 ↗ other questions at this time so a large

17:33 ↗ part of the overall cost to a total

17:36 ↗ compensation package is salaries

17:38 ↗ salaries are a fixed cost and they're

17:41 ↗ usually as a

17:42 ↗ and they are the largest unless unless

17:45 ↗ you're in a unique different kind of

17:46 ↗ situation so in the case of salaries

17:49 ↗ here at the city it's about 5% above the

17:54 ↗ middle of the market now that doesn't

17:57 ↗ mean every job and every person is five

17:59 ↗ percent above it means on aggregate so

18:03 ↗ altogether some are going to be higher

18:05 ↗ and some are going to be lower which is

18:06 ↗ naturally expected to be that way

18:10 ↗ and finally the majority of employees

18:13 ↗ now there are some outliers the majority

18:15 ↗ of employees are within and what we call

18:17 ↗ an appropriate range around that middle

18:19 ↗ market number and we typically think of

18:23 ↗ that as about 85 to 115 percent type of

18:26 ↗ a range around that if you will so the

18:30 ↗ good news is while not everybody's at

18:32 ↗ the same number they're all pretty much

18:35 ↗ gathered within an appropriate range so

18:42 ↗ what you're what we're recommending and

18:44 ↗ then sure we can have some discussion

18:45 ↗ about why this number but we as part of

18:49 ↗ this project took a look at the pay

18:52 ↗ scales and the salary ranges here at the

18:55 ↗ city and there are there are various

18:56 ↗ forms of them and we found that both

19:01 ↗ from a market perspective on on the

19:03 ↗ right amount then the number per step

19:06 ↗ and how it's organized that there are

19:08 ↗ opportunities to improve here so what

19:11 ↗ we're going to recommend is a salary

19:14 ↗ step system a table currently it's based

19:18 ↗ on a 5% increase per step and we're

19:21 ↗ recommending a 3% increase per step

19:24 ↗ which is align quite quite well with

19:28 ↗ what the rest of the market is doing and

19:30 ↗ then while there are no decisions as I

19:34 ↗ understand to be made on benefit changes

19:36 ↗ that will be addressed in 2020 20 our

19:41 ↗ role here is to give from the study

19:44 ↗ information and data for leadership and

19:48 ↗ counsel to make an informed decision

19:50 ↗ down the road on what

19:53 ↗ different benefit offerings are in

19:57 ↗ aggregate your the city is is is

20:01 ↗ competitive it's near the let's call the

20:03 ↗ 75th percentile the market or the third

20:05 ↗ or that approaching the fourth quartile

20:08 ↗ of the market so the benefits are a nice

20:13 ↗ competitive advantage here and I think

20:16 ↗ some discussion will have to be made

20:18 ↗ down the road about what the city wants

20:21 ↗ to offer employee demographics what

20:23 ↗ matters from payment standpoint and how

20:26 ↗ it all fits into a total compensation

20:28 ↗ package

20:29 ↗ councilmember Mart can you explain what

20:32 ↗ you mean by a salary step yes a salary

20:37 ↗ step is usually an increase to base

20:39 ↗ salary usually on an on an annualized

20:42 ↗ basis so at the end of the year you're

20:44 ↗ going to get your pay increase how most

20:46 ↗ people think about it - your salary so

20:49 ↗ it's a percentage increase add it on to

20:52 ↗ your current base salary sorry I have a

20:58 ↗ follow on so we're gonna be looking at

21:02 ↗ three percent and that's a lieu of

21:06 ↗ cost-of-living well how the city

21:09 ↗ determines the the rationale for what

21:12 ↗ you're going to base pay increases on we

21:16 ↗ didn't get into the mechanics of why

21:19 ↗ that is most organ is organizations

21:23 ↗ think of it as a tenure based type of

21:25 ↗ system so it's based on your seniority

21:28 ↗ in the job and it accounts for what the

21:33 ↗ rest of the market is actually providing

21:35 ↗ in terms of increases to salaries

21:40 ↗ whether you turn that Cola cost of labor

21:44 ↗ or just salary increase it is the award

21:48 ↗ given to the base salary of the

21:50 ↗ incumbent I was just going to add really

21:55 ↗ briefly so the city is currently on a

21:57 ↗ grade and step system which means that

22:00 ↗ we hire employees and at a certain

22:02 ↗ step every year typically you get a step

22:06 ↗ increase those increases are 5% they are

22:10 ↗ based on tenure but also there's some

22:12 ↗ performance elements to that as well

22:14 ↗ that is typical to what you'll see in

22:18 ↗ our surrounding jurisdictions not

22:21 ↗ typical in the private sector but

22:22 ↗ certainly typical of other cities to

22:24 ↗ have a step based system steps are

22:27 ↗ usually separate from any kind of cola

22:31 ↗ determination so most cities would do

22:34 ↗ you know you have your steps until

22:36 ↗ you're at the maximum of your range and

22:39 ↗ then any Cola increase would be on top

22:41 ↗ of that and this city traditionally has

22:45 ↗ operated in that way as well

22:47 ↗ what Greg's speaking to is some of the

22:51 ↗ you know public public and private

22:54 ↗ sector mix of offering a total increase

22:59 ↗ per year of about 3 percent is on

23:02 ↗ average so the recommendation from

23:06 ↗ Milliman is to then get us a little bit

23:08 ↗ closer to that market average if that

23:11 ↗ answers the question interim city

23:14 ↗ administrator Schneider and then

23:16 ↗ councilmember Walsh thank you by way of

23:19 ↗ example to help add on to what Lauren

23:24 ↗ was saying is the proposed budget for

23:28 ↗ 2020 that the mayor just transmitted

23:30 ↗ does include a 1% Cola in addition to 3%

23:37 ↗ steps

23:39 ↗ what's a member watch that was kind of

23:43 ↗ what I was gonna ask so then in 2020 if

23:46 ↗ we adopt this the comp plan and the

23:52 ↗ budget

23:53 ↗ our employees are non-represented

23:56 ↗ employees would see a 4 percent salary

24:00 ↗ increase annually whereas 4 which is the

24:05 ↗ combination of the cola and the salary

24:06 ↗ step whereas before it would have been 5

24:09 ↗ percent plus whatever the cola was which

24:12 ↗ it sounded like was closer to 2 percent

24:15 ↗ which would have been about seven am i

24:16 ↗ right okay you remember rape so I want

24:20 ↗ to go back to the classification part of

24:23 ↗ class and comp so I understand that you

24:26 ↗ did the job descriptions for all the

24:28 ↗ employees and then you took those job

24:31 ↗ descriptions and you compared them to

24:33 ↗ what to establish what what the relative

24:37 ↗ compensation ban should be for that

24:39 ↗ position you kind of talked about that

24:41 ↗ methodology for us sure I'll start off

24:44 ↗ and then I think Gregg will probably

24:46 ↗ want to chip in as well and so yes we

24:50 ↗ updated the job descriptions to ensure

24:53 ↗ that what we sent to Milliman for the

24:56 ↗ compensation study review was accurate

24:58 ↗ as to what employees are currently doing

25:04 ↗ Milliman then takes those descriptions

25:07 ↗ and Gregg do you wanna jump in here we

25:10 ↗ want to make sure that I often say

25:13 ↗ having having your house in order first

25:15 ↗ before you can do the the salary study

25:17 ↗ or the compensation study the the reason

25:21 ↗ why is if you don't know what you're

25:23 ↗ studying in terms of job content you may

25:26 ↗ turn around bad data back to you which

25:29 ↗ is the last thing anyone needs here so

25:31 ↗ we want to make sure we understand what

25:33 ↗ the job does in terms of its

25:36 ↗ responsibilities its retry required

25:38 ↗ skills education and so forth once

25:42 ↗ that's all clear to us then we can take

25:45 ↗ it from lauren and move it into the the

25:48 ↗ study phase of the how much compensation

25:51 ↗ is paid to similar types of jobs in the

25:54 ↗ marketplace that in turn drives us for a

25:57 ↗ recommendation of which pay grade the

26:00 ↗ job should be in now did you find

26:02 ↗ situations where we called something a

26:04 ↗ horse and when you read through this job

26:07 ↗ description it sounded more like a cow

26:10 ↗ and then how did you rationalize those

26:13 ↗ and do you have crosswalks on that stuff

26:15 ↗ I wouldn't want to call any of our

26:17 ↗ police cows but

26:23 ↗ yeah certainly there were instances

26:26 ↗ where the you know jobs change overtime

26:29 ↗ tasks that people do change overtime and

26:32 ↗ where the current description did not

26:34 ↗ match the tasks that people were

26:36 ↗ performing and so we did make

26:39 ↗ recommendations so then change the

26:41 ↗ descriptions for some employees many you

26:46 ↗ know a senior engineer tends to be a

26:49 ↗ senior engineer kind of thing but there

26:51 ↗ are others that are a little bit more

26:53 ↗ unique to Issaquah so certainly we did

26:55 ↗ that work and then you know when Greg

26:58 ↗ and Milliman take that out to the market

27:01 ↗ they're creating a summary of sort of

27:04 ↗ what the job content is what's the level

27:07 ↗ of responsibility for our sister

27:11 ↗ organizations and to then match to and

27:14 ↗ for us to also use some published survey

27:17 ↗ data to be able to match those jobs

27:20 ↗ accurately great thank you

27:22 ↗ mm-hmm so if there any aren't any other

27:28 ↗ questions on this portion the slides and

27:30 ↗ we've got some some more to follow up

27:32 ↗ here all right so once you've got the

27:38 ↗ key findings from the study the next

27:39 ↗ question of course becomes how do you

27:41 ↗ how do you implement the study what

27:42 ↗ decisions what policy decisions do you

27:44 ↗ make about that and your senior

27:46 ↗ leadership team has carefully weighed a

27:49 ↗ number of different factors some of the

27:51 ↗ key factors they look at or displayed on

27:53 ↗ this slide and they've developed a

27:55 ↗ proposed method methodology for how to

27:57 ↗ implement the study's findings one of

28:02 ↗ the fundamental components of that of

28:03 ↗ course in line with the recommendation

28:05 ↗ from Milliman and what you see as best

28:07 ↗ market practices is to set the city's

28:10 ↗ salary target range at 85 to 115 percent

28:14 ↗ of that market midpoint and again this

28:17 ↗ has been mentioned but currently this

28:19 ↗ the proposed methodology for

28:20 ↗ implementation is only applicable to

28:23 ↗ non-represented employees as you know

28:25 ↗ salaries are a mandatory subject of

28:27 ↗ bargaining and while the study and the

28:31 ↗ methodology recommend a

28:32 ↗ we'll be used to inform bargaining there

28:34 ↗ won't be changes to Union salaries until

28:37 ↗ those contracts are negotiated in the

28:38 ↗ future but certainly this information

28:40 ↗ will inform those negotiations though

28:44 ↗ the target salary range 85 to 115 but

28:49 ↗ then you also have to make some

28:51 ↗ decisions about how do you align current

28:53 ↗ city salaries to that target range and

28:56 ↗ the senior leadership team worked this

28:59 ↗ through they were some difficult

29:00 ↗ decisions involved obviously anytime

29:02 ↗ you're looking at potential salary

29:04 ↗ reductions or freezes those have real

29:06 ↗ impacts on your staff and also adds some

29:09 ↗ of the senior leadership team are in

29:10 ↗ these categories of employees who are

29:12 ↗ going to be impacted so they worked

29:14 ↗ through that carefully and they've come

29:16 ↗ forward with the following

29:17 ↗ recommendation to help align city

29:20 ↗ salaries with this target market range

29:23 ↗ and so just to summarize those those

29:26 ↗ salaries that are below the range will

29:27 ↗ be moved up to the bottom step of the

29:29 ↗ new ranges for those above that top step

29:32 ↗ so in other words above 115 percent of

29:35 ↗ the market midpoint those employees

29:38 ↗ salaries would be frozen for the handful

29:41 ↗ of employees who are above a hundred and

29:44 ↗ twenty five percent of the midpoint the

29:46 ↗ proposal there is to reduce those

29:48 ↗ salaries down to 125 percent of the

29:50 ↗ market midpoint just a moment accounts a

29:53 ↗ member rayve so I'm gonna rewind just a

29:57 ↗ tiny bit so we're going to three percent

29:59 ↗ steps how many steps in our scale or in

30:01 ↗ our table it's 11 steps 10 steps and so

30:07 ↗ are we setting the midpoint based on

30:09 ↗ this of that table at step 5 six-six-six

30:15 ↗ yeah so if you just mathematically you

30:19 ↗ know if you have an 85 to 115 percent

30:21 ↗ range that's 30% so broken out into

30:25 ↗ about 11 steps and then 6 is the

30:27 ↗ midpoint yes

30:28 ↗ great thank you and then to help

30:32 ↗ mitigate the impact of those reductions

30:35 ↗ at least to some degree on the proposal

30:37 ↗ is to phase in those reductions with

30:39 ↗ half occurring this July and the other

30:42 ↗ half occurring next January and then

30:45 ↗ finally the REC

30:46 ↗ datian is to move to the 3% step table

30:51 ↗ interim administrator Schneider thank

30:56 ↗ you I just want to interject at this

30:58 ↗ point that you know thank you to know

31:01 ↗ for going over this these these

31:03 ↗ conversations were not easy to have with

31:06 ↗ the senior leadership team this you know

31:09 ↗ as we talk about salary freezes as we

31:12 ↗ talk about salary reductions this is

31:16 ↗ this is difficult we understand that it

31:18 ↗ affects the lives of our employees our

31:20 ↗ employees by the way when we talk about

31:22 ↗ those who are making over 125 percent of

31:25 ↗ midpoint that doesn't necessarily mean

31:27 ↗ the highest-paid employees right so

31:30 ↗ while there are members of the senior

31:32 ↗ leadership team who are affected it just

31:34 ↗ means that you're 125 percent over the

31:37 ↗ market for that position so it could be

31:38 ↗ that these individuals are making even

31:41 ↗ less than area and median income right

31:44 ↗ so knowing that these decisions that

31:47 ↗ we've been making and the discussions

31:50 ↗ we've been having affect people's lives

31:52 ↗ they affect their households and

31:54 ↗ families and how they pay the bills and

31:55 ↗ I just I wanted to take that moment and

31:58 ↗ pause because it is something that we

32:00 ↗ considered very carefully and we had to

32:02 ↗ balance values in terms of the values

32:05 ↗ that Noel presented at the beginning of

32:07 ↗ the presentation about we want to be

32:10 ↗ financially sustainable yes we want to

32:12 ↗ be responsible stewards of the public

32:14 ↗ funds and we also want to be an employer

32:17 ↗ of choice and to treat our employees

32:19 ↗ well and so weighing all of these values

32:22 ↗ this was the recommendation that came

32:24 ↗ out of the senior leadership team and it

32:27 ↗ was a very difficult series of

32:28 ↗ discussions we didn't take it lightly

32:30 ↗ and I just wanted to make sure to make

32:33 ↗ that point across Thank You president

32:40 ↗ Martin sir does this policy affect mayor

32:44 ↗ city administrator and City deputy

32:46 ↗ administrator salaries I can answer that

32:50 ↗ when

32:53 ↗ it we did not serve a mayor salaries and

32:57 ↗ the classification and compensation

32:58 ↗ study I believe I would have to go back

33:05 ↗ but I believe that's a separate process

33:07 ↗ we did survey for city administrator and

33:12 ↗ deputy City Administrator and those

33:13 ↗ results are included in the report that

33:16 ↗ you'll see hmm

33:18 ↗ thank you other questions right now go

33:23 ↗ ahead thank you thank thank you then

33:27 ↗ financial impact if you implement the

33:31 ↗ study with the proposed methodology that

33:34 ↗ I just described the financial impact

33:36 ↗ for this next year would be just over a

33:38 ↗ hundred and fifty thousand dollars

33:39 ↗ that's driven by adjustments for the

33:42 ↗ positions that were below market it's

33:45 ↗ driven by placing employees on the new

33:47 ↗ salary schedule which has will affect

33:49 ↗ salaries to a degree and then also

33:52 ↗ increased employer taxes that the city

33:54 ↗ has to pay as a result of some of those

33:56 ↗ modified salaries what this doesn't

33:59 ↗ include is the financial benefit of

34:03 ↗ shifting from the 5% table to the 3%

34:06 ↗ table so that's that's not factored into

34:08 ↗ this number that impact is that in the

34:15 ↗ favorable or in the is it we paying an

34:17 ↗ extra 50 or 150 back this this is a cost

34:21 ↗ this is a new cost because because

34:24 ↗ you've got you know several employees in

34:27 ↗ those in those two buckets the the

34:28 ↗ purple in the orange there on the left

34:30 ↗ with increased salaries as a result of

34:32 ↗ implementing the plan there is there is

34:34 ↗ an increase in that cost along with an

34:37 ↗ increase in taxes that the city has to

34:39 ↗ pay but what's not in that number is the

34:41 ↗ savings you'll see especially over time

34:44 ↗ from a shift to a table that only has 3%

34:47 ↗ steps as opposed to the current five

34:49 ↗ councilmember watch does this also

34:52 ↗ represent than the cost savings from

34:55 ↗ those employees that are over the 125

34:59 ↗ that are going to be so cost reductions

35:03 ↗ it does so because we've phased in the

35:10 ↗ reductions over you know we're doing

35:13 ↗ half of an annual amount for half of

35:16 ↗ 2020 the 2020 impact is actually only a

35:19 ↗ quarter of that full amount so that

35:23 ↗ would be a bigger impact in 2021 and a

35:25 ↗ bigger savings the city from the

35:27 ↗ reductions the the other thing that I

35:34 ↗ just wanted to explain in a little bit

35:37 ↗ more detail in reference to council one

35:39 ↗ council member Mart's question was

35:42 ↗ because we're on a step system if

35:45 ↗ employees salaries are between steps in

35:48 ↗ the new range we need to place them on a

35:51 ↗ new step which results in small

35:53 ↗ increases for most employees anywhere

35:57 ↗ from you know a hundred dollars to three

36:00 ↗ percent essentially alright then one

36:09 ↗ other thing we wanted to be sure to

36:10 ↗ highlight for you is that and you've

36:12 ↗ gathered this from earlier parts of the

36:14 ↗ presentation there has been employee

36:15 ↗ communication throughout this process

36:17 ↗ which is important informing employees

36:20 ↗ about the study occurred when the study

36:23 ↗ was launched and then of course during

36:27 ↗ the process of job descriptions

36:28 ↗ employees were engaged in that in terms

36:31 ↗ of employees who are who are proposed to

36:33 ↗ be affected by a freeze or salary

36:35 ↗ reduction supervisors have met

36:37 ↗ personally with each of those employees

36:39 ↗ to let them know how this proposal would

36:41 ↗ affect them all non-represented

36:44 ↗ employees are receiving an individual

36:47 ↗ letter about the proposal and how it

36:50 ↗ might affect their salary going forward

36:52 ↗ and then finally after council action

36:55 ↗ final action an additional letter will

36:58 ↗ be provided to each employee to inform

36:59 ↗ them of the outcome and how their salary

37:02 ↗ will be impacted by the council's final

37:03 ↗ decision in November alright so that

37:10 ↗ brings us to timing and next steps as I

37:12 ↗ mentioned earlier the key step for

37:16 ↗ council

37:16 ↗ is to adopt a salary ordinance in

37:18 ↗ November along with the budget as

37:20 ↗ mentioned then if it's will be discussed

37:23 ↗ and considered in 2020 and then I'll

37:26 ↗ also note that there are some related

37:28 ↗ city personnel policy updates that will

37:31 ↗ probably be coming your way as well some

37:32 ↗ of your policies deal with

37:33 ↗ classification and compensation but

37:36 ↗ there's also some things that you might

37:37 ↗ want to look at in terms of revising

37:39 ↗ your policies to set the stage for

37:41 ↗ better attracting and retaining

37:43 ↗ employees over time so you'll see that

37:45 ↗ probably next year as well I have a

37:49 ↗ question on the review of the city

37:52 ↗ benefits package that's happening in

37:54 ↗ 2020 so at this time do employees of the

37:58 ↗ city receive an overall an overview of

38:01 ↗ what their total compensation is it's a

38:06 ↗ great question and we don't typically

38:09 ↗ provide that to employees and sometimes

38:11 ↗ as a recruiting tool through sure we'll

38:14 ↗ provide that information but we don't

38:16 ↗ provide a dollar eyes you know your

38:19 ↗ total salary plus benefits the total

38:22 ↗ compensation package is this amount okay

38:26 ↗ is that something that's being thought

38:28 ↗ about for the future as you go forward

38:30 ↗ into 2020 with the benefits review that

38:33 ↗ is a great question I think that's

38:35 ↗ something we could look at Andrea looks

38:37 ↗ like she has from city administrator

38:40 ↗ Schneider I I so to answer the total

38:45 ↗ compensation number we don't provide

38:48 ↗ that in a report but it is in the pay

38:50 ↗ stub that an employee receives what the

38:52 ↗ total value is of their benefits that

38:55 ↗ they receive per pay period that's

38:57 ↗ something that employees do receive

38:59 ↗ information about and forgive me I

39:02 ↗ missed your second question know that

39:04 ↗ that answered it I sometimes it's

39:07 ↗ helpful when you you get a sheet in

39:10 ↗ front of you that talks about your total

39:12 ↗ compensation so that's why I was asking

39:14 ↗ the question thank you for the answer

39:17 ↗ your questions right now Oh

39:21 ↗ councilmember Rey two questions why are

39:25 ↗ we deferring the benefits discussion

39:27 ↗ until 2020 when this is really a

39:29 ↗ compensation study interim city

39:36 ↗ administrator it's really a question of

39:40 ↗ timing so we have received this

39:44 ↗ information fairly late in the year

39:47 ↗ especially as it gets close to open

39:50 ↗ enrollment for our benefits for

39:52 ↗ employees that's happening right about

39:55 ↗ now as well as setting the budget and so

39:59 ↗ we received the information late at this

40:02 ↗ time by the time we received the

40:04 ↗ information the only thing that we could

40:06 ↗ implement in the 2020 proposed budget

40:10 ↗ was salary the salary part of the

40:13 ↗ compensation and that's why we're

40:14 ↗ looking to the remainder of the

40:18 ↗ compensation as a 2020 work items yeah

40:20 ↗ I'm not sure this is a question or our

40:21 ↗ statement I think it's more of a

40:23 ↗ statement since are based on what you

40:25 ↗ said our benefits are generous above

40:30 ↗ market 75th percentile we are tagging

40:35 ↗ compensation which is just salary

40:37 ↗ compensation to midpoint so when we

40:40 ↗ factor in the higher value of our

40:43 ↗ benefits our total comp is going to be

40:44 ↗ above midpoint and since we're adjusting

40:47 ↗ people up in this so I just want us to

40:52 ↗ know that we're not talking about total

40:54 ↗ compensation being tagged at midpoint to

40:56 ↗ the market we're talking about a total

40:58 ↗ compensation for being tagged to

41:00 ↗ something above midpoint when we look at

41:02 ↗ benefits and salary I would like to note

41:06 ↗ a couple of things in reference to that

41:08 ↗ that I think are helpful dat'll data

41:10 ↗ points for counsel

41:12 ↗ first of all especially since the city

41:15 ↗ went self-insured with medical benefits

41:17 ↗ we do a review of our plans every year

41:20 ↗ to ensure that those funds are fiscally

41:25 ↗ sustainable and have made a number of

41:28 ↗ changes to our medical package in recent

41:31 ↗ years to reflect changes in the market

41:36 ↗ outside of the classification and

41:38 ↗ compensation study

41:40 ↗ the data that Millman had actually you

41:44 ↗ know did not even fully represent that

41:47 ↗ picture so they council is aware that we

41:50 ↗ moved to a two hundred and fifty dollar

41:52 ↗ deductible plan this year the Millman

41:55 ↗ study included our zero dollar

41:56 ↗ deductible plan so that change is not

41:59 ↗ captured in this data another thing I'd

42:02 ↗ just like to point out is you know as

42:05 ↗ you look through you'll see things like

42:06 ↗ that retirement benefits are high 75th

42:10 ↗ percentile and that's driven a lot by

42:12 ↗ our pers requirement which is a state

42:15 ↗ mandated requirement so while I

42:17 ↗ certainly hear council member raised

42:19 ↗ question I just want council to be aware

42:21 ↗ that those are things that we're looking

42:23 ↗ at on a regular basis outside of the

42:26 ↗ context of a classification and

42:28 ↗ compensation study what's a member Walsh

42:32 ↗ will we be able to have the conversation

42:35 ↗ or have any sense of where we're going

42:38 ↗ with reviewing the benefits package

42:40 ↗ before we start in on the larger

42:44 ↗ conversations with our representative

42:47 ↗ please because I know we have several of

42:48 ↗ those conversations happening next year

42:52 ↗ is that going to be able to be included

42:54 ↗ or is the timing off on those no

42:58 ↗ certainly there's a number of different

43:02 ↗ ways that we can address that with our

43:05 ↗ bargaining units and I don't want to go

43:07 ↗ into a whole lot of detail in an open

43:09 ↗ session but certainly if we have changes

43:14 ↗ that we know we want to implement in

43:16 ↗ 2021 we'll make sure those are on the

43:18 ↗ table if we're if we have some

43:21 ↗ uncertainty and our benefits we can do

43:23 ↗ things like have a benefits opener in a

43:25 ↗ contract to say you know we're we're

43:30 ↗ confident with our benefits through 2020

43:33 ↗ but in 2021 we want an opener that kind

43:35 ↗ of thing so that there are other tools

43:37 ↗ is all I'm saying that yeah I have a one

43:46 ↗ one more question just in regard to the

43:51 ↗ to seven year this may be for our

43:54 ↗ consultants in regard to the five to

43:56 ↗ seven year window in terms of looking at

43:59 ↗ class comp again so it sounds like

44:02 ↗ that's the industry standard the

44:05 ↗ seven-year side of things seems like a

44:07 ↗ long time so I just wanted to get a

44:11 ↗ little more information in regard to

44:13 ↗ that it sounds like my question I think

44:18 ↗ seven just as a independent person here

44:22 ↗ I think seven is a little bit of a

44:23 ↗ stretch because things can change in

44:25 ↗ terms of the what jobs are being asked

44:27 ↗ to do the content of them as well as

44:30 ↗ what's going on in the marketplace

44:32 ↗ certainly this has been a study that's

44:35 ↗ been a long time in the making

44:37 ↗ having been a couple of decades and I

44:40 ↗ would I would encourage the city to

44:42 ↗ think about you know on the side of five

44:46 ↗ years probably seven is getting out

44:49 ↗ there okay not unheard of but and yeah

44:55 ↗ just again more information so council

45:00 ↗ is also aware the you know every time we

45:02 ↗ bargain we do a total compensation

45:04 ↗ review for each of our unions so those

45:07 ↗ are being reviewed on you know two-year

45:09 ↗ to three-year cycle we also do review

45:15 ↗ positions as they come vacant so there's

45:18 ↗ there's some mechanism there to while

45:22 ↗ we're recruiting for a position ensure

45:23 ↗ that the job description is accurate if

45:26 ↗ the salary appears to be way out of line

45:28 ↗ you know that's something we can deal

45:30 ↗ with on a occasional basis outside of a

45:35 ↗ full classification and compensation

45:37 ↗ study thank you yeah and just just

45:41 ↗ quickly on that point some of the type

45:44 ↗ of personnel policy changes that you

45:46 ↗ might make address some of those things

45:47 ↗ about reclass

45:49 ↗ on a different cycle if you're

45:51 ↗ determined to be out of market for

45:53 ↗ particular positions along with

45:54 ↗ codifying a set city schedule five or

45:57 ↗ seven years whatever you decide it to be

45:58 ↗ to do these these larger studies so

46:01 ↗ that's the type of thing you're gonna

46:02 ↗ see I think in some of those proposed

46:04 ↗ policies

46:06 ↗ all right I think that brings us to the

46:09 ↗ end for a final counsel input as you

46:11 ↗ noted in your council memo there were

46:14 ↗ three options listed option one is to

46:17 ↗ adopt the salary ordinance with the

46:19 ↗ implementation methodology that was set

46:23 ↗ out

46:24 ↗ that's the administration's recommended

46:26 ↗ option it syncs up salaries with market

46:29 ↗ it balances financial stewardship and so

46:32 ↗ that's that's recommended for Council

46:34 ↗ the second was to to not make changes

46:37 ↗ essentially carry forward your existing

46:39 ↗ sorry ordinance in some form that would

46:42 ↗ keep you out of sync with the market it

46:44 ↗ would keep you on that 5% salary table

46:46 ↗ and then the third option was input on

46:49 ↗ other adjustments council might want to

46:51 ↗ have the administration look at deputy

46:58 ↗ administrator moon that's I Snyder I'm

47:06 ↗ sorry

47:08 ↗ so just to be clear while these are the

47:10 ↗ options that have been put forward to

47:12 ↗ you in your memo and tonight's

47:14 ↗ presentation there is there can be no

47:18 ↗ council action on these tonight so we're

47:20 ↗ not asking for action what we are asking

47:22 ↗ for is discussion and guidance if

47:25 ↗ council wants to make changes or other

47:30 ↗ adjustments then we'd like to have that

47:33 ↗ information now so that we can be doing

47:35 ↗ that for the budget process and make

47:38 ↗ that have the time to make the changes

47:39 ↗ that we need to do again not asking for

47:42 ↗ a decision but if there's certain

47:43 ↗ guidance that you need us to go and

47:45 ↗ crunch numbers for or something for you

47:47 ↗ that would be helpful for us also option

47:50 ↗ 2 if you want to maintain the current

47:53 ↗ salary structure again that's just going

47:54 ↗ to take some time for us to plug it into

47:57 ↗ our software system and change what's

47:59 ↗ been what's been inputted in the

48:02 ↗ proposed budget so that's the type of

48:04 ↗ discussion that we're hoping to have

48:05 ↗ from you tonight or if there's

48:06 ↗ additional information that you need

48:08 ↗ before you can make a decision whether

48:12 ↗ to adopt or not adopt also would like to

48:15 ↗ know what information you need so thank

48:17 ↗ you councilmember winter Stein

48:19 ↗ thank you can you go back for slides

48:22 ↗ this looks dope

48:24 ↗ sorry no one go back forward one sorry

48:28 ↗ you answered the question earlier this

48:31 ↗ is if we did nothing versus the

48:34 ↗ recommended change is this as an

48:36 ↗ additional cost this adds to this you

48:40 ↗ also explained how if we adopt the 3%

48:43 ↗ step how that changes the going forward

48:45 ↗ projection I would like to see those

48:47 ↗ numbers as well so in other words it's

48:54 ↗ one thing to look at it as what impact

48:56 ↗ it is has on one year but as a policy

48:58 ↗ shift like this give me a better idea of

49:00 ↗ what it means out and outgoing years oh

49:04 ↗ I actually do have one more question

49:08 ↗ Greg I think it's for you it's got to be

49:13 ↗ pretty tough to find matches and job

49:15 ↗ descriptions between what was compiled

49:17 ↗ as part of this effort here and then

49:19 ↗ what may or may not be available

49:20 ↗ publicly from other jurisdictions that's

49:23 ↗ a science in and of itself because is

49:27 ↗ this are they really talking about the

49:28 ↗ same thing does that task the same task

49:30 ↗ is that deliverable the same deliverable

49:32 ↗ is this really the same Department give

49:35 ↗ me if you could just give me a

49:36 ↗ high-level about that that is a

49:39 ↗ challenging task and a lot of what we're

49:42 ↗ doing here is based upon probably some

49:45 ↗ human assessment of whether I think

49:47 ↗ these are the same job or not could you

49:48 ↗ talk - sure that's that's actually a

49:50 ↗ wonderful question because there is

49:52 ↗ smart and science to it and some of it

49:55 ↗ is learning to read and and also follow

49:58 ↗ up questions through an interview

50:00 ↗ process with either the employee or that

50:02 ↗ were the supervisor but our experience I

50:06 ↗ think most compensation consultants

50:08 ↗ would tell you there's there's it's hard

50:11 ↗ to find a purely 100% match out there so

50:15 ↗ what we strive for is thinking about the

50:17 ↗ the essence of the job and the and the

50:20 ↗ requirements of it so what we strive for

50:23 ↗ and and we did document in our full

50:26 ↗ report that we strive for a certain

50:28 ↗ percentage

50:29 ↗ and even that is a little bit of an art

50:32 ↗ that we look for at least an 80 to 90

50:35 ↗ percent what we assess as match so it

50:39 ↗ might be you know a certain like a

50:41 ↗ granny smith apple versus a gala but

50:44 ↗ we're not talking to apples and oranges

50:46 ↗ that's I know that's some art talk there

50:50 ↗ but the way a lot of public institutions

50:55 ↗ cities counties and so forth is they

50:59 ↗ tend to bucket types of jobs in similar

51:02 ↗ types of groupings and classifications

51:04 ↗ so it's it's pretty remarkable that you

51:07 ↗ can go from one entity to the other and

51:10 ↗ find similar types of jobs another piece

51:15 ↗ of the art is thinking about now it

51:17 ↗ might not be the 100% match but we also

51:21 ↗ want to think about attraction and

51:24 ↗ retention of similar types of jobs and

51:26 ↗ well that might not be exactly the same

51:29 ↗ as a city down the road you could

51:32 ↗ probably run a risk factor of losing

51:35 ↗ somebody into that other job because the

51:37 ↗ person has the the traits the skills and

51:40 ↗ responsibilities to do that another job

51:43 ↗ that perhaps a different pay rate so

51:45 ↗ we're trying to get as close as we can

51:47 ↗ but it's not always perfect oh albeit

51:53 ↗ it's all humans in the loop thank you

51:58 ↗ other questions at this time

52:05 ↗ anything else well I have some guidance

52:10 ↗ okay where's your so going to we're

52:14 ↗ going to go to public comment and come

52:16 ↗ back and have some time for discussion

52:19 ↗ okay so at this point if there is anyone

52:22 ↗ from the audience that would like to

52:24 ↗ come and speak to all of us this evening

52:27 ↗ anybody in the audience that would like

52:30 ↗ to come and give public comment that's

52:34 ↗ one more time anyone from the audience

52:35 ↗ that would like to come forward and give

52:37 ↗ public comment okay great so we'll go

52:41 ↗ back and we'll start with councilmember

52:44 ↗ Rey and have discussion so um nice job

52:49 ↗ great work very comprehensive well

52:52 ↗ overdue so those are all for sure I'm

52:55 ↗ really reticent to make compensation

52:57 ↗ changes without understanding the total

53:00 ↗ compensation the value of the total

53:01 ↗ compensation package and then Lauren and

53:04 ↗ I believe what you said is correct

53:05 ↗ because in a two half year study period

53:08 ↗ I would be shocked if things didn't

53:09 ↗ change so we're working I think in we're

53:13 ↗ being asked to make a decision that's

53:15 ↗ actually going to adjust people's pay

53:18 ↗ without complete information since we

53:20 ↗ this is a total compensation package so

53:23 ↗ you know just me personally I'm really

53:24 ↗ reticent to say we're gonna adjust your

53:27 ↗ pay up or down and then oh we got some

53:30 ↗ new information coming in next year and

53:31 ↗ then how do we factor that in so I don't

53:34 ↗ know how we're going to deal with that

53:36 ↗ given the time frame but I'm I'm don't

53:40 ↗ want to mess with people's pay twice

53:48 ↗ what's a member winner Stein thank you

53:51 ↗ my guidance would be to proceed with an

53:54 ↗ agenda bill as you propose here and as

53:57 ↗ but I do want to respond to what Chris

53:59 ↗ said because I think it may it's a fair

54:01 ↗ point and I have those considerations on

54:03 ↗ complex issues from time to time as well

54:05 ↗ so do we really we want to do this once

54:08 ↗ what should we or is twice okay but I

54:12 ↗ was actually thinking about that before

54:13 ↗ Chris asked that question and I got to a

54:16 ↗ place which was it's not gonna be

54:20 ↗ perfect I'm gonna have to deal with the

54:21 ↗ best information and the options in

54:23 ↗ front of me today so as you were talking

54:26 ↗ Chris I'm thinking I you know I'm I'm

54:28 ↗ willing to consider this as a salary

54:30 ↗ comport component or only recognizing

54:34 ↗ that the rest of the picture will have

54:36 ↗ to be adjusted in the future but I

54:37 ↗ appreciate very much Chris for

54:39 ↗ articulating that and giving me a chance

54:41 ↗ to respond that way let's remember well

54:46 ↗ so I also have concerns toward that idea

54:51 ↗ but at the same time I am recognizing

54:56 ↗ that this was timed to come right after

55:00 ↗ the budget presentation and we are

55:03 ↗ facing a shortfall and I am in

55:07 ↗ particular interested in making not just

55:14 ↗ temporary freeze changes but also

55:18 ↗ directional changes so that we don't

55:20 ↗ continue to face budget issues when

55:23 ↗ we're talking about our operations

55:25 ↗ budget people and salaries are a big

55:29 ↗ portion of that and so to recognize that

55:32 ↗ we are stewards of the public dollar and

55:36 ↗ need to have a direction as this I do

55:41 ↗ appreciate that even though we may not

55:45 ↗ be able to get all of the benefits

55:47 ↗ information that we're willing to act on

55:51 ↗ salary at this point so that it can be

55:54 ↗ included

55:55 ↗ rather than delay at another year so my

56:00 ↗ direction would also be to move forward

56:02 ↗ as suggested it's a member hunt my

56:11 ↗ guidance is that we've heard that best

56:14 ↗ practice is to do this sort of study

56:17 ↗ every more on the five-year scale rather

56:21 ↗ than seven-year I noticed in the guiding

56:23 ↗ principles that it says with regular

56:26 ↗ audits approximately every five to seven

56:30 ↗ years and that's in our guiding

56:31 ↗ principles so not only does it not only

56:34 ↗ is it guiding but it's also

56:35 ↗ approximately and it's also five to

56:36 ↗ seven I think we can try to put it in as

56:40 ↗ a guiding principle to go for that five

56:42 ↗ and I think the positions are changing

56:45 ↗ jobs roles are changing with new

56:47 ↗ technologies and that's just the nature

56:50 ↗ of market so I would like to make sure

56:53 ↗ that we at least strive for the five

56:56 ↗ years and then as far as what other

57:01 ↗ information I would just in the final

57:04 ↗ presentation like to make it clear that

57:05 ↗ the the rules as far as the adjustments

57:10 ↗ up and down is applying to everyone

57:13 ↗ because that's my understanding and I

57:15 ↗ think that would be important in the

57:16 ↗ final agenda bill that comes forward is

57:19 ↗ that for all the jobs if you're above

57:21 ↗ this percent you have this and if you're

57:23 ↗ below this percent you have this and

57:25 ↗ it's regardless of the job council

57:30 ↗ president marts thank you I appreciate

57:33 ↗ Chris's point and I appreciate the idea

57:36 ↗ of measuring twice and cutting once but

57:39 ↗ I'm okay with doing this separately

57:42 ↗ because there it's really to me a

57:44 ↗ fundamentally different process salary

57:47 ↗ is for better or worse about being in a

57:51 ↗ free market and understanding the market

57:55 ↗ and understanding what it takes to hire

57:58 ↗ good people but also being extremely

58:00 ↗ careful with the taxpayers money

58:04 ↗ benefits is a different animal to me

58:06 ↗ because benefits have to do me more

58:11 ↗ philosophically about a

58:13 ↗ core set of things that every employee

58:16 ↗ should have on their employer or from a

58:19 ↗ federal government however you want to

58:21 ↗ call it but you know so to me it's a

58:26 ↗ it's a it's a very different process

58:27 ↗ it's very personal around salaries and

58:30 ↗ this is gonna affect some people

58:32 ↗ positively and affect some people

58:34 ↗ negatively but benefits is really a more

58:38 ↗ philosophical conversation and gets at

58:40 ↗ what we as a people consider basic sort

58:47 ↗ of almost a basic human rights but the

58:50 ↗ basic functions that go into being

58:52 ↗ employed and in the 21st century in the

58:55 ↗ United States so sorry to go

58:57 ↗ philosophical but a punch line is it's

58:59 ↗ different animal and I'm okay they're

59:01 ↗ having it separate thank you so I first

59:08 ↗ of all it's it's been 20 years since we

59:12 ↗ had a class in comp study which is a

59:14 ↗ very very long time to wait it's really

59:18 ↗ important to keep current with this kind

59:21 ↗ of information and so I am really

59:23 ↗ focused on the question that I asked

59:26 ↗ about trying to keep this in the the

59:28 ↗ five year or at least five to seven year

59:30 ↗ but I think the five year range I would

59:33 ↗ I would say that I'd like to see this go

59:36 ↗ forward into an agenda bill I it every

59:40 ↗ time you go through class and comp

59:42 ↗ studies it's painful it's tough when

59:45 ↗ we're dealing with having to adjust

59:47 ↗ salaries I wouldn't want to wait just

59:52 ↗ for me because that is only going to

59:56 ↗ start to snowball and I think that going

59:59 ↗ forward making the adjustments now is

1:00:02 ↗ really important I was the first person

1:00:05 ↗ to ask about total comp but wanted to

1:00:07 ↗ kind of go back to my initial question

1:00:09 ↗ i I to see this as a little bit

1:00:12 ↗ differently when we in my past when we

1:00:16 ↗ work on class and comp we are very

1:00:18 ↗ focused on salary

1:00:21 ↗ and comparable salaries across where

1:00:24 ↗ competition would be going forward into

1:00:28 ↗ benefit negotiations is a very very

1:00:32 ↗ different process and so I would want to

1:00:37 ↗ see the class and comp looked at and

1:00:39 ↗ then be able to go forward there on the

1:00:42 ↗ benefits side of things part of the

1:00:44 ↗ reason that I asked that question is

1:00:46 ↗ that we do have these really robust

1:00:49 ↗ wonderful benefits and that's that you

1:00:51 ↗ know big part of that you know comes out

1:00:53 ↗ during negotiation and what what the

1:00:56 ↗ city is able to provide for all of the

1:00:59 ↗ employees which is a great package

1:01:01 ↗ sometimes being able to see those

1:01:03 ↗ coupled as an employee I think can be

1:01:06 ↗ can be great because it gives people a

1:01:10 ↗ better understanding of what those

1:01:13 ↗ benefits are worth but I would not need

1:01:15 ↗ to have those completely coupled I think

1:01:18 ↗ that going forward with this cloud class

1:01:22 ↗ and comp study taking the information

1:01:24 ↗ that we have and doing adjustments now

1:01:27 ↗ would be really important so with that

1:01:34 ↗ I'll turn this over to interim city

1:01:39 ↗ administrator Snyder and is there

1:01:42 ↗ anything else that you need from Council

1:01:47 ↗ at this time no but I would like to just

1:01:50 ↗ reiterate what I've been hearing from

1:01:52 ↗ the majority of council what I've heard

1:01:54 ↗ is to move forward with option the first

1:01:59 ↗ option to move forward with an agenda

1:02:01 ↗ bill to adopt a salary schedule as

1:02:05 ↗ recommended and I also heard several

1:02:08 ↗ comments about trying to make sure that

1:02:13 ↗ we strive for five I like the way that

1:02:15 ↗ that rhymes so that will strive to do

1:02:19 ↗ this study

1:02:20 ↗ certainly more often 20 years I think we

1:02:23 ↗ all agree is a bit long so that's what

1:02:26 ↗ we have heard from majority of my

1:02:28 ↗ council and so that's what we will bring

1:02:30 ↗ back to you at a later time

1:02:33 ↗ I think salary ordinance is coming to

1:02:35 ↗ you through part of the budget so it

1:02:37 ↗ might be later October early November

1:02:41 ↗ councilmember winter Stein and I asked

1:02:43 ↗ for that additional information thank

1:02:45 ↗ you yes okay well with that I just

1:02:50 ↗ wanted to thank everyone who

1:02:52 ↗ participated I've been through a lot of

1:02:55 ↗ class and count myself it's always tough

1:02:57 ↗ it's a lot of work and so thank you to

1:03:01 ↗ the HR department and the consultants

1:03:05 ↗ and thank you for the presentation this

1:03:07 ↗ evening

1:03:13 ↗ okay go ahead interim City Administrator

1:03:18 ↗ Snyder I was just going to ask if it

1:03:25 ↗ would be possible to take a small recess

1:03:28 ↗ absolutely we'll take a five-minute

1:03:31 ↗ break thank you

1:03:47 ↗ you

1:09:14 ↗ you

1:10:27 ↗ and we are back we are going to now move

1:10:33 ↗ into IDs we are now going to move into

1:10:38 ↗ ID 0 5 6 8 the southeast 43rd signal

1:10:43 ↗ improvement funding options and this

1:10:46 ↗ will be presented by Andrea Snyder our

1:10:48 ↗ interim city administrator thank you and

1:10:51 ↗ I have a few friends in the audience

1:10:53 ↗ that I may need to phone so our Director

1:10:56 ↗ of Finance is here as well as our

1:10:57 ↗ Director of Public Works engineering so

1:10:59 ↗ they may need to come up and help as

1:11:02 ↗ well depending on the questions that

1:11:04 ↗ council asks so wanted to discuss with

1:11:09 ↗ you come back to Council regarding

1:11:10 ↗ southeast 43rd signal improvements

1:11:12 ↗ funding options the purpose of this

1:11:15 ↗ evening is to seek direction from

1:11:18 ↗ Council on whether to fund the southeast

1:11:22 ↗ signal improvement project solely with

1:11:26 ↗ existing debt capacity or a combination

1:11:29 ↗ of existing debt capacity plus revenues

1:11:32 ↗ from a new transportation capital

1:11:35 ↗ project funding stream that's yet to be

1:11:38 ↗ approved by voters that's the question

1:11:41 ↗ for this evening and a little bit of

1:11:47 ↗ background I know council is very

1:11:50 ↗ familiar with this project but for those

1:11:52 ↗ who are watching from home or perhaps a

1:11:56 ↗ few members here tonight we're not as

1:11:59 ↗ familiar highlight highlighted in the

1:12:02 ↗ purple area on the map that is the

1:12:05 ↗ project area for the signal improvements

1:12:08 ↗ the project would realign the entrances

1:12:10 ↗ to Providence point and forest trail and

1:12:12 ↗ install a new traffic signal at their

1:12:15 ↗ intersection with southeast 43rd it is

1:12:17 ↗ also in the adopted CIP for 2020 through

1:12:21 ↗ 2025 and also by way of background

1:12:29 ↗ council provided direction through the

1:12:32 ↗ adoption of the CIP budget to prioritize

1:12:35 ↗ this project in 2020

1:12:37 ↗ and what we heard through the council

1:12:39 ↗ deliberations for the capital

1:12:41 ↗ improvement project or CIP is to use

1:12:44 ↗ existing debt capacity and also to

1:12:48 ↗ consider using a voter approved revenue

1:12:50 ↗ as a secondary source of funding during

1:12:54 ↗ those CIP deliberations the

1:12:55 ↗ administration promised to return in the

1:12:57 ↗ early fall to discuss more of what that

1:13:00 ↗ that third bullet there looks like of

1:13:04 ↗ using voter approved revenue as a

1:13:06 ↗ secondary source of funding and to be

1:13:07 ↗ able to discuss that more fully with

1:13:09 ↗ Council so we promised to return in

1:13:11 ↗ early fall here we are that is what the

1:13:13 ↗ purpose of this meeting is to have a

1:13:15 ↗ more in-depth discussion since last time

1:13:18 ↗ or since last time we talked about this

1:13:20 ↗ during the CIP deliberations the

1:13:22 ↗ administration has moved forward on the

1:13:25 ↗ planning process to complete the project

1:13:27 ↗ in 2020 as directed we plan to return to

1:13:30 ↗ Council later this fall for example to

1:13:32 ↗ seek approval on an inner inner fund

1:13:34 ↗ loan that would cover the costs of

1:13:37 ↗ bidding the project and any other cost

1:13:39 ↗ the city would incur before bond

1:13:42 ↗ proceeds become available and we've also

1:13:46 ↗ gathered a bit more information to help

1:13:48 ↗ inform this conversation as to whether

1:13:50 ↗ or not council would like us to consider

1:13:53 ↗ using a voter approved revenue as a

1:13:57 ↗ secondary source of funding so let's

1:14:03 ↗ talk about timing

1:14:04 ↗ this timeline is available in the agenda

1:14:06 ↗ packet for this evening and what I want

1:14:10 ↗ to discuss is how all these pieces fit

1:14:12 ↗ together

1:14:13 ↗ so there's option one in green and

1:14:18 ↗ option two in orange there's a couple of

1:14:23 ↗ things to consider when we are talking

1:14:26 ↗ about how to fund southeast 43rd as I

1:14:29 ↗ intimated earlier we look to fund the

1:14:33 ↗ project primarily through bonds and in

1:14:37 ↗ order to issue bonds the city first has

1:14:39 ↗ to undergo a financial audit and that

1:14:43 ↗ audit is scheduled to take place October

1:14:45 ↗ through February so October 2019 through

1:14:47 ↗ February 2020

1:14:49 ↗ and then in order to issue those bonds

1:14:53 ↗ council needs to pass a bond ordinance

1:14:54 ↗ at the time of passing a bond ordinance

1:14:58 ↗ we need to disclose all of the revenue

1:15:01 ↗ sources that we would anticipate for the

1:15:03 ↗ projects that are to be funded by that

1:15:05 ↗ bond so because of that this is where

1:15:10 ↗ the differences come into play between

1:15:11 ↗ what you see in green option 1 to fund

1:15:14 ↗ using existing debt capacity an option 2

1:15:17 ↗ which is to use a combined source of

1:15:20 ↗ revenues existing may be using existing

1:15:23 ↗ existing debt capacity but also consider

1:15:26 ↗ a ballot measure to help pay as a

1:15:29 ↗ secondary source so where you see the

1:15:32 ↗ differences here is where the ballot

1:15:34 ↗ measure comes into play if we were to

1:15:36 ↗ move forward with option 1 existing debt

1:15:39 ↗ capacity only that would mean that

1:15:43 ↗ public engagement would start really

1:15:46 ↗ next year early next year January 2020

1:15:48 ↗ on what are the does community

1:15:52 ↗ engagement on whether or not we should

1:15:53 ↗ put forward a ballot measure also

1:15:55 ↗ community engagement on what are those

1:15:57 ↗ projects and have those council

1:15:59 ↗ discussions as well we would look to

1:16:02 ↗ form the ballot language typically in

1:16:05 ↗ June or July council would approve it

1:16:06 ↗ and July to submit to King County in

1:16:09 ↗ August and then of course the voters

1:16:12 ↗ would approve it if this is what we're

1:16:14 ↗ moving forward with the voters would

1:16:15 ↗ approve it in or vote on it rather in

1:16:18 ↗ November if we're looking at option 2

1:16:23 ↗ which is to consider funding southeast

1:16:26 ↗ 43rd using revenues from a voter

1:16:29 ↗ approved bond measure so it should one

1:16:31 ↗ be approved then that changes the

1:16:33 ↗ timeline a little bit because we would

1:16:35 ↗ need to disclose in the bond ordinance

1:16:38 ↗ and to the banks and investors that we

1:16:42 ↗ would anticipate any additional revenues

1:16:44 ↗ from a voter approved source that that

1:16:47 ↗ would need to be included in the bond

1:16:49 ↗ ordinance and in the information that we

1:16:51 ↗ put forward so that would mean our bond

1:16:54 ↗ counsel has advised that we would need

1:16:56 ↗ to adopt that ballot measure language at

1:16:59 ↗ the time that we issue the

1:17:02 ↗ excuse me that would council would adopt

1:17:04 ↗ the bond ordinance and so if that really

1:17:07 ↗ speeds up the timeline and changes the

1:17:08 ↗ timeline on engagement so that's what

1:17:10 ↗ that last column there is in orange and

1:17:12 ↗ it's showing that the engagement piece

1:17:15 ↗ would be occurring through October of

1:17:18 ↗ this year and January of 2020 right in

1:17:22 ↗ advance of when we would approve the

1:17:25 ↗ bond ordinance and so what that means is

1:17:29 ↗ if we were to use any voter approved

1:17:33 ↗ revenues or or want to put this on the

1:17:36 ↗ ballot then we would have to go through

1:17:41 ↗ this process of public engagement

1:17:43 ↗ council discussions etc now through

1:17:47 ↗ basically the end of the year or January

1:17:49 ↗ during a time when council is

1:17:51 ↗ deliberating budget during a time when

1:17:55 ↗ it's also a little difficult to engage

1:17:58 ↗ the community because there's holidays

1:18:00 ↗ it's getting to be holiday season and

1:18:03 ↗ that would also because because public

1:18:08 ↗ engagement is difficult to do after

1:18:12 ↗ ballot measures are passed we don't want

1:18:14 ↗ to be campaigning for any issue from the

1:18:18 ↗ city perspective so we're limited in the

1:18:21 ↗ conversations we can have with our

1:18:22 ↗ community the types of information that

1:18:24 ↗ we can put out certainly so public

1:18:27 ↗ engagement would be very minimal on this

1:18:32 ↗ topic February through really the vote

1:18:36 ↗ that would be put forward in November

1:18:39 ↗ and so you can see the differences in

1:18:41 ↗ the timelines with the conversations

1:18:44 ↗ that we can have with council and

1:18:45 ↗ certainly with the community if we were

1:18:47 ↗ to consider option two so those are the

1:18:49 ↗ main differences between these two

1:18:52 ↗ options

1:19:00 ↗ so financial impacts and looking at

1:19:03 ↗ these two options option one using

1:19:07 ↗ existing debt capacity only the 2020

1:19:12 ↗ proposed budget that you received today

1:19:14 ↗ is balanced while contemplating the cost

1:19:19 ↗ that we would be incurred in 2020 or

1:19:22 ↗ construction of this project southeast

1:19:26 ↗ forty third signal or option two if if a

1:19:33 ↗ secondary source of funding war to be

1:19:36 ↗ used if voters were to approve it and it

1:19:40 ↗ may provide some relief to the general

1:19:41 ↗ fund in the future but it doesn't really

1:19:43 ↗ change impacts on the 2020 budget and of

1:19:47 ↗ course as we know if we decide to put

1:19:50 ↗ forward a measure before voters of

1:19:51 ↗ course we don't know if it would be

1:19:54 ↗ approved so voter approval is definitely

1:19:56 ↗ not guaranteed at this point and we

1:20:00 ↗ haven't also decided if we're going to

1:20:02 ↗ put forth a ballot measure yet either

1:20:05 ↗ well is the impacts would be certainly

1:20:12 ↗ option one allows for more time for

1:20:15 ↗ council discussion option one allows for

1:20:18 ↗ more time for community engagement for

1:20:20 ↗ any ballot measure that council would

1:20:23 ↗ like to put forward and option two

1:20:29 ↗ conversation may be rushed and where

1:20:31 ↗ this comes into play in terms of

1:20:33 ↗ creating policy is that without the time

1:20:36 ↗ for equality conversations among council

1:20:39 ↗ without time as much time for public

1:20:41 ↗ engagement it may impact the policies

1:20:45 ↗ that's formed

1:20:50 ↗ a quick question about the time line

1:20:54 ↗ could you explain again why after the

1:20:57 ↗ language is approved why it wouldn't be

1:21:00 ↗ possible to do community engagement in

1:21:04 ↗ terms of awareness of what the ballot

1:21:07 ↗ would be and what the issue is and

1:21:09 ↗ what's covered and that kind of

1:21:12 ↗ engagement yes so I at the risk of

1:21:17 ↗ saying things that I I so what I have

1:21:22 ↗ been informed on is that four things

1:21:23 ↗ that we put forward as AZ ballot

1:21:27 ↗ measures that even if the city is to

1:21:30 ↗ repeat factual information that that can

1:21:34 ↗ be perceived as campaigning just as an

1:21:37 ↗ example and of course the city cannot

1:21:38 ↗ campaign for an issue that's put on the

1:21:41 ↗ ballot and be seen as doing so we can

1:21:43 ↗ only provide factual information and

1:21:44 ↗ that in some cases cities have are at a

1:21:50 ↗ risk with PDC guidelines if they even

1:21:54 ↗ repeat factual information so that's

1:21:56 ↗ that's part of the concern there is that

1:21:59 ↗ we would be proceeding with extra

1:22:02 ↗ caution to make sure that we are not in

1:22:04 ↗ violation of any of the regulations or

1:22:09 ↗ guidelines around campaigning and public

1:22:11 ↗ agencies okay

1:22:13 ↗ so then in both timelines there wouldn't

1:22:16 ↗ there would be minimal opportunity for

1:22:20 ↗ the city to provide information about

1:22:23 ↗ what the ballot measure is between when

1:22:27 ↗ the language is approved and when the

1:22:29 ↗ boat actually occurs so it really has to

1:22:32 ↗ be clear in the language because that's

1:22:34 ↗ really the only opportunity after the

1:22:40 ↗ the language is submitted yes and so and

1:22:45 ↗ having a longer time period for that

1:22:48 ↗ public engagement to make sure that if

1:22:50 ↗ we have a ballot measure that we are

1:22:54 ↗ making sure to have public engagement

1:22:57 ↗ around that to have the public help

1:22:58 ↗ inform us if that's something that they

1:23:00 ↗ are wanting to do also

1:23:02 ↗ the projects that the public would like

1:23:04 ↗ to see having more time to have those

1:23:06 ↗ conversations would also help raise

1:23:09 ↗ awareness of what those projects could

1:23:11 ↗ be and so the concern is is that if we

1:23:15 ↗ have a rush timeline that that may not

1:23:17 ↗ be as much of a quality conversation as

1:23:19 ↗ we would want to have with the public

1:23:20 ↗ for any ballot measure and some member

1:23:27 ↗ winner started thank you

1:23:29 ↗ I want to restate back to you what I

1:23:32 ↗ think I heard then I have two questions

1:23:34 ↗ this is what I heard his counsel gave

1:23:37 ↗ the direction and administration honored

1:23:39 ↗ that and is going forward and planning

1:23:41 ↗ to finish any design and construct this

1:23:44 ↗ project beginning in 2020 we are going

1:23:49 ↗ to have to borrow some money to have the

1:23:52 ↗ cash to get that done and our current

1:23:55 ↗ and the two options are just use

1:23:58 ↗ existing cash on hand that we expect to

1:24:00 ↗ get from the general fund or use that

1:24:03 ↗ and maybe this other source to pay off

1:24:07 ↗ our obligation for that loan we're gonna

1:24:08 ↗ get right could you go back to the the

1:24:12 ↗ schedule slide it would have been really

1:24:15 ↗ good on here because I don't think would

1:24:16 ↗ have change between the two option of

1:24:18 ↗ actually showing kind of our timeline

1:24:20 ↗ for construction if you put that on

1:24:23 ↗ there you would see that it's no

1:24:24 ↗ different between the two this is not a

1:24:27 ↗ question about whether we're doing in

1:24:28 ↗ the project or when we're doing the

1:24:30 ↗ project it's it's about when we apply

1:24:32 ↗ for a loan what are we putting up as the

1:24:35 ↗ source of money to pay that loan back so

1:24:38 ↗ Mike my question is I guess really I

1:24:41 ↗ only have one is my question is what

1:24:44 ↗ difference to our our application so if

1:24:48 ↗ I may call it that for the loan I'm

1:24:50 ↗ using layman's terms right how necessary

1:24:54 ↗ or more what improvement or what benefit

1:24:57 ↗ would the city gain if this additional

1:25:00 ↗ source of money was part of our loan

1:25:04 ↗ application and I don't know if F needs

1:25:08 ↗ to yes so I'm gonna take a first stab

1:25:12 ↗ and

1:25:12 ↗ our finance director needs to come and

1:25:15 ↗ fill in any extra holes but that's

1:25:18 ↗ really what this financial impact slide

1:25:20 ↗ is about so if we were to consider a

1:25:23 ↗ secondary source of funding then it may

1:25:26 ↗ provide some relief to the general fund

1:25:28 ↗ if that were something that were to pass

1:25:30 ↗ to voters okay so so that so I want to

1:25:34 ↗ make sure my question was understood to

1:25:36 ↗ those who are considering our loan

1:25:38 ↗ application ah what does it mean this is

1:25:41 ↗ a better application versus this

1:25:43 ↗ application general funds only are

1:25:45 ↗ general funds and some other funds does

1:25:47 ↗ it matter okay I'm gonna ask Beth to

1:25:52 ↗ come up here and help me answer that

1:25:54 ↗ question generally speaking it won't

1:26:03 ↗ matter once you issue the the debts we

1:26:09 ↗ are obligating The Full Faith and Credit

1:26:10 ↗ of the city to pay back those loans so

1:26:15 ↗ they're gonna want to know what the

1:26:17 ↗ source is but if it's the general fund

1:26:19 ↗ alone we're backing The Full Faith and

1:26:21 ↗ Credit of the general fund if it is the

1:26:24 ↗ sales tax they're gonna want to have

1:26:27 ↗ some confidence that there's enough room

1:26:29 ↗ in the sales tax that it would

1:26:30 ↗ accommodate it but in the end the

1:26:34 ↗ general fund is is enough backing to it

1:26:40 ↗ should not sway any of the lenders from

1:26:43 ↗ submitting bids for the pots so thank

1:26:46 ↗ you that was exactly my question now I

1:26:47 ↗ have a little follow-up would the actual

1:26:50 ↗ terms or cost maybe vary because of a

1:26:53 ↗ difference in those I don't believe so

1:26:57 ↗ I haven't asked the question it's an

1:27:00 ↗ interesting question I don't believe the

1:27:01 ↗ the biggest the biggest variable in the

1:27:04 ↗ interest rates is our bond rating and

1:27:07 ↗ they're gonna look at our bond rating

1:27:09 ↗ regardless of the funding source okay

1:27:12 ↗ thanks what's the member rate so option

1:27:18 ↗ two really isn't so much that it

1:27:20 ↗ provides general fund relief is it

1:27:22 ↗ provides for non transport

1:27:26 ↗ a capital improvement project more more

1:27:29 ↗ funding available for non transportation

1:27:32 ↗ capital improvement projects in the

1:27:34 ↗ outdoors is really what what the

1:27:36 ↗ trade-off here is so if we go with

1:27:39 ↗ option 1 we don't have to go through as

1:27:43 ↗ many hoops to have the funding sources

1:27:46 ↗ lined up for a bonding authority when we

1:27:51 ↗ issue the bond if we go for option 2

1:27:54 ↗ though the trade-off is we will be able

1:27:57 ↗ to do more non transportation capital

1:28:00 ↗ projects over the next 20 years or not

1:28:04 ↗ fair so it would be preserving

1:28:08 ↗ potentially preserving some of our

1:28:09 ↗ existing debt capacity to go with option

1:28:13 ↗ 2 so um you can say that that's non

1:28:16 ↗ transportation but overall we would have

1:28:19 ↗ we would be able to preserve some of our

1:28:21 ↗ existing debt capacity there so another

1:28:24 ↗ question I'll put put your hands on the

1:28:26 ↗ buzzer if we can buzz in on this one we

1:28:30 ↗ call the bonds later and reissue with

1:28:32 ↗ using a different funding source not to

1:28:36 ↗ my knowledge

1:28:36 ↗ that is not something so when you issue

1:28:39 ↗ the bonds there is a period of time

1:28:42 ↗ where you're eligible to do a refunding

1:28:44 ↗ but you don't change the funding source

1:28:47 ↗ to pay that back at that point it's

1:28:49 ↗ great thank you

1:28:50 ↗ it's a member hunt I am looking for

1:28:56 ↗ clarity I don't think that it's

1:28:58 ↗ necessarily the non transportation it

1:29:00 ↗ can be it could be other transportation

1:29:03 ↗ so it's just yeah general fund right so

1:29:10 ↗ that's correct okay

1:29:11 ↗ that's correct

1:29:16 ↗ okay other questions so we do have a few

1:29:24 ↗ more slides here just going over what

1:29:27 ↗ some of the community impacts might be

1:29:29 ↗ for either option community impacts for

1:29:34 ↗ option one would be that using existing

1:29:37 ↗ debt capacity only this is the previous

1:29:39 ↗ direction that we have received from

1:29:41 ↗ Council to use existing debt capacity

1:29:44 ↗ and that provides the most assurance to

1:29:46 ↗ the neighborhood that the project is

1:29:48 ↗ happening it allows more time to engage

1:29:52 ↗ the community on a possible ballot

1:29:54 ↗ measure if that's a direction the

1:29:55 ↗ council would like to go option two to

1:29:58 ↗ use voter approved revenues as a

1:30:00 ↗ secondary source of funding we have

1:30:02 ↗ heard from the neighbors interested in

1:30:05 ↗ this project that the project not be put

1:30:07 ↗ on a ballot and even though we're

1:30:08 ↗ suggesting that it's to be used as a

1:30:10 ↗ secondary source that's something that

1:30:13 ↗ might be just a little confusing for

1:30:15 ↗ folks to really understand and I think

1:30:17 ↗ that what we've heard from the neighbors

1:30:20 ↗ that have been engaged on this topic is

1:30:22 ↗ that they really want the city to

1:30:24 ↗ prioritize this project for 2020 and to

1:30:27 ↗ get it done and not subjected to a vote

1:30:30 ↗ and also of course community impacts is

1:30:34 ↗ that it does speed up other

1:30:36 ↗ conversations regarding a voter approved

1:30:38 ↗ measure

1:30:44 ↗ so here we are back at the these options

1:30:47 ↗ for council discussion and directions so

1:30:52 ↗ option one as we've stated this is the

1:30:55 ↗ recommended option from the

1:30:56 ↗ administration option two to use a

1:30:58 ↗ combined to use a combination of

1:31:01 ↗ existing deck capacity plus revenues

1:31:03 ↗ from a new transportation capital

1:31:05 ↗ project funding stream that's yet to be

1:31:07 ↗ approved is not the recommended option

1:31:10 ↗ for option one no immediate council

1:31:13 ↗ action is needed based on previous

1:31:16 ↗ guidance from the that we've received

1:31:18 ↗ from Council the 2020 proposed budget

1:31:20 ↗ presumes using the general fund for debt

1:31:23 ↗ payments on this project and we would

1:31:26 ↗ move forward with council discussions

1:31:28 ↗ and public engagement on a ballot

1:31:30 ↗ measure in 2020

1:31:31 ↗ should that be our direction then option

1:31:36 ↗ two we would be if that was the

1:31:40 ↗ preferred option among council here

1:31:41 ↗ tonight we would return to Council at

1:31:43 ↗ the earliest opportunity to engage in

1:31:46 ↗ discussions about a ballot measure and

1:31:48 ↗ corresponding transportation projects

1:31:51 ↗ for that measure additional council

1:31:54 ↗ meetings may be required to accommodate

1:31:56 ↗ these discussions as we do have a pretty

1:31:59 ↗ full agenda with our ballot excuse me

1:32:01 ↗ with our budget discussions through the

1:32:03 ↗ end of the year so we may need to have a

1:32:05 ↗ few additional council meetings to make

1:32:07 ↗ sure that we can have the discussion on

1:32:09 ↗ any ballot measure and also the

1:32:13 ↗ administration would begin conducting

1:32:15 ↗ public engagement on the possibility of

1:32:17 ↗ a ballot measure now through January

1:32:20 ↗ 2020 at this time I would open up for

1:32:27 ↗ more questions or we're hoping to

1:32:30 ↗ receive guidance from Council on which

1:32:32 ↗ is your preferred option to move forward

1:32:34 ↗ with I think we'll stick with the

1:32:37 ↗ technical questions for now then we'll

1:32:40 ↗ move on to audience comment then we'll

1:32:41 ↗ come back and and discuss are there

1:32:44 ↗ additional questions at this time as a

1:32:49 ↗ member hon we had earlier had a

1:32:51 ↗ conversation about it being a named

1:32:53 ↗ project

1:32:55 ↗ and then also the possibility of saying

1:32:58 ↗ how much and so I wondered if you could

1:33:02 ↗ explain then if we were to go with

1:33:05 ↗ option to how the recommendation would

1:33:09 ↗ be in terms of framing it because I do

1:33:13 ↗ think has the potential to be confusing

1:33:15 ↗ which is why I'm asking our bond counsel

1:33:18 ↗ has advised us that it would need to be

1:33:20 ↗ a named project which is one reason why

1:33:25 ↗ the ballot language and the bond

1:33:28 ↗ ordinance would need to go at the same

1:33:29 ↗ time but would it be named as a project

1:33:33 ↗ that is already that is funded also out

1:33:37 ↗ of the general fund or would you need to

1:33:39 ↗ get into that we would have to consult

1:33:43 ↗ with bond council but it would be among

1:33:45 ↗ the projects that are possibly funded by

1:33:47 ↗ it

1:33:48 ↗ I don't know that you want to want to

1:33:50 ↗ say it's funded by the general fund also

1:33:52 ↗ because that starts to get confusing but

1:33:58 ↗ so it would it would be a named project

1:34:02 ↗ but I don't know that you would say that

1:34:04 ↗ it's also funded by the general fund but

1:34:05 ↗ you know interested parties could also

1:34:07 ↗ see that it is funded by the general

1:34:09 ↗ fund okay and then the other part my

1:34:11 ↗ question is and councilmember winter

1:34:13 ↗ sign asks that the construction would be

1:34:15 ↗ such that it would also already be

1:34:18 ↗ happening by the time the bond or the

1:34:21 ↗ sorry by the time the ballot measure is

1:34:25 ↗ is it is at the voter so it would be

1:34:28 ↗ already under connect the rest either

1:34:30 ↗ way so that okay

1:34:32 ↗ which is which can also be confusing for

1:34:35 ↗ voters to approve on a project that is

1:34:39 ↗ already underway other questions

1:34:48 ↗ so I I have a question and trying to put

1:34:53 ↗ this in context we we are talking

1:34:56 ↗ tonight about whether to go forward with

1:34:59 ↗ option one or option two but in regard

1:35:03 ↗ to the general fund a question about we

1:35:07 ↗ definitely got a lot of information

1:35:09 ↗ today during the mayor's budget report

1:35:13 ↗ about different cuts that we would need

1:35:17 ↗ to be making an example as the utility

1:35:20 ↗ rates I'm wondering if it's possible to

1:35:23 ↗ get information about about the impact

1:35:29 ↗ on on the general fund between option

1:35:33 ↗ one and two and if and if it's possible

1:35:37 ↗ to get that information so for the

1:35:43 ↗ general fund in the 2020 budget we would

1:35:46 ↗ still need to because construction is

1:35:49 ↗ anticipated in 2020 we would still have

1:35:52 ↗ impacts to the budget in 2020 whether

1:35:55 ↗ option 1 or option 2 those impacts would

1:35:58 ↗ really be the same what we're talking

1:35:59 ↗ about is perhaps future impacts to the

1:36:02 ↗ general fund through a long term if and

1:36:06 ↗ that would be the difference between

1:36:08 ↗ option one and option two but in regards

1:36:10 ↗ to 2020 the the financial impact on the

1:36:14 ↗ general fund is really the same so

1:36:17 ↗ that's something that we can look into

1:36:20 ↗ for those future years but is that

1:36:25 ↗ information we don't have today for you

1:36:27 ↗ okay that would be helpful to me as as

1:36:29 ↗ where as we're moving forward it just a

1:36:32 ↗ lot of information coming forward today

1:36:34 ↗ in terms of different different tough

1:36:37 ↗ decisions that were having to look out

1:36:39 ↗ right now there questions okay at this

1:36:46 ↗ time I am going to open this up for

1:36:48 ↗ audience comment and if any members of

1:36:50 ↗ the audience would like to come forward

1:36:52 ↗ please do

1:37:01 ↗ hi Daphne Gann I live in Providence

1:37:05 ↗ point I would like to say whatever

1:37:08 ↗ option you choose I will go out of my

1:37:13 ↗ way to support your sales tax

1:37:17 ↗ proposition to raise money for other

1:37:20 ↗ projects I think it is a

1:37:22 ↗ well-thought-out project and I really

1:37:28 ↗ hope that it passes and I will do

1:37:30 ↗ everything I can

1:37:31 ↗ no matter which option you choose I just

1:37:33 ↗ want you to know that I a hundred

1:37:34 ↗ percent support you and the city in this

1:37:38 ↗ and thank you again thank you

1:37:43 ↗ anyone else thank you

1:37:56 ↗ rania Mufasa from Providence Point and

1:38:00 ↗ what I I to encourage option one and

1:38:04 ↗ really since roads are poorly supported

1:38:08 ↗ and rated in community surveys and in

1:38:12 ↗ other other things that have been done

1:38:15 ↗ option one with the ballot measure

1:38:18 ↗ supports additional needed

1:38:20 ↗ transportation projects so we can really

1:38:23 ↗ get a bigger bang for the buck so let's

1:38:28 ↗ go with option one and and I think then

1:38:31 ↗ Providence point people can support the

1:38:34 ↗ ballot measure the other projects that

1:38:36 ↗ will be on there can be you know high

1:38:40 ↗ impact ones Newport the pinch point or

1:38:44 ↗ whatever else things that are also very

1:38:47 ↗ critical to the city and good road

1:38:50 ↗ improvements thank you thank you

1:38:54 ↗ they're members of the audience that

1:38:56 ↗ would like to come and speak to Council

1:39:00 ↗ last one more time are any members of

1:39:03 ↗ the audience that would like to come

1:39:04 ↗ forward Hey

1:39:07 ↗ thank you thank you for those of you

1:39:10 ↗ that came in and spoke this evening and

1:39:12 ↗ so I'll turn this back to Council for

1:39:15 ↗ discussion councilmember winter Steiner

1:39:22 ↗ this is really a non-starter in my mind

1:39:25 ↗ it's a total non-starter it's option one

1:39:27 ↗ only and I feel strongly about that

1:39:30 ↗ because if it was our intent to actually

1:39:32 ↗ ask the voters to increase the sales tax

1:39:35 ↗ so that we can do transportation

1:39:36 ↗ projects we addressed that question when

1:39:40 ↗ we said go forward with option one

1:39:42 ↗ already

1:39:43 ↗ if it was our intent to do to do

1:39:46 ↗ additional projects save debt capacity

1:39:51 ↗ and do additional projects then we

1:39:54 ↗ wouldn't have been considering number

1:39:56 ↗ one we would have put you know we would

1:39:57 ↗ have put this project on that voter

1:40:01 ↗ approved list and we would be going down

1:40:03 ↗ a different path because that strategy

1:40:05 ↗ when we considered it was to save debt

1:40:07 ↗ capacity

1:40:08 ↗ for other purposes council gave

1:40:10 ↗ direction administration follow said no

1:40:12 ↗ let's use that capacity now let's

1:40:13 ↗ guarantee this project so it seems kind

1:40:16 ↗ of shifty to me that we even considered

1:40:18 ↗ like like no let's let's not save that

1:40:22 ↗ capacity and go only use sales tax but

1:40:25 ↗ maybe we can maybe we can get it started

1:40:28 ↗ with general funds and then maybe later

1:40:31 ↗ we can use some of that sales tax money

1:40:32 ↗ to fit to pay off the loan so I I'm

1:40:37 ↗ hopefully this heart this discussion can

1:40:39 ↗ just end tonight be cut because of that

1:40:42 ↗ so you know I want us to continue with

1:40:44 ↗ the recommendation I really appreciate

1:40:46 ↗ that I know you did exactly what was

1:40:48 ↗ asked of you to do in providing this and

1:40:50 ↗ again my only ask would have been is and

1:40:52 ↗ I think it seems to be well comprehended

1:40:54 ↗ that this is not nothing to do with

1:40:56 ↗ whether yes or no on the project or the

1:40:58 ↗ timing of the project it's just like

1:41:00 ↗ what funds you know would we use to pay

1:41:03 ↗ off the loan so I'm in support of the

1:41:06 ↗ recommendation thank you so I very much

1:41:12 ↗ appreciate the administration doing

1:41:15 ↗ exactly what we asked which was give us

1:41:17 ↗ the information we have a hard ask if we

1:41:20 ↗ can use some of the debt capacity let's

1:41:26 ↗ see if we can do that I think the answer

1:41:29 ↗ here is pretty clearly we could but it

1:41:33 ↗ causes a lot of problems with a sales

1:41:37 ↗ tax vote and so from my perspective I

1:41:42 ↗ support option 1 I think you've given

1:41:45 ↗ very clear reasonings why that is to our

1:41:49 ↗ benefit let's remember hunt I agree with

1:41:54 ↗ councilmember Walsh I also appreciate

1:41:56 ↗ having the two options because I think

1:41:59 ↗ we should consider the two options and

1:42:02 ↗ vet the two options and I I like having

1:42:07 ↗ options but in this case I think that we

1:42:11 ↗ have some compelling reasons to go with

1:42:14 ↗ option 1 and my opinion on this house as

1:42:18 ↗ changed over time as we've gotten more

1:42:20 ↗ information so I was one of the council

1:42:23 ↗ members that was interested in

1:42:24 ↗ understanding better how it would work

1:42:26 ↗ if it were to be on the ballot I think

1:42:29 ↗ it is potentially very confusing to have

1:42:32 ↗ a project that is being built and you

1:42:34 ↗ are looking at a ballot that has it

1:42:36 ↗ listed as something that's going to be

1:42:37 ↗ paid for potentially by future sales tax

1:42:40 ↗ so I think that that's has the potential

1:42:43 ↗ to be very confusing and detrimental to

1:42:45 ↗ that sales tax ballot measure and

1:42:49 ↗ additionally we haven't yet considered

1:42:51 ↗ or we haven't yet decided on that ballot

1:42:54 ↗ measure whereas we have as a council

1:42:57 ↗ indicated that we were interested at

1:42:59 ↗ going forward with this signal

1:43:01 ↗ improvement project so it seems options

1:43:04 ↗ who seems like a half-measure

1:43:06 ↗ on multiple accounts and option one

1:43:10 ↗ seems like the way to go forward if we

1:43:14 ↗ are proceeding with this separately

1:43:18 ↗ which is I think what counsel has

1:43:21 ↗ indicated we're interested in doing in

1:43:23 ↗ this case given the amount of need for

1:43:26 ↗ this improvement and then I also on the

1:43:29 ↗ timing I think it's really not about

1:43:34 ↗ needing more meetings or anything like

1:43:36 ↗ that I think that we could figure it out

1:43:39 ↗ it's really just it's really just that

1:43:44 ↗ we have said we want to go forward with

1:43:46 ↗ this improvement project separately and

1:43:49 ↗ so we should fund it separately and it

1:43:52 ↗ would cause all kinds of issues I think

1:43:54 ↗ to to complete it with option two that's

1:43:58 ↗ a member rate so clearly option one is

1:44:00 ↗ the is the best is the best way to go

1:44:02 ↗ thank you for exploring the options and

1:44:05 ↗ being creative about it and and bringing

1:44:07 ↗ that back it was really a an interesting

1:44:09 ↗ exercise and good policymaking where we

1:44:11 ↗ got to look at the data and we got to

1:44:14 ↗ weigh the facts and we can say you know

1:44:16 ↗ this is clearly the way to go but most

1:44:18 ↗ importantly it's pretty awesome that

1:44:20 ↗ we're gonna be building the light at

1:44:21 ↗ Providence point in 2020 so yay

1:44:26 ↗ found some member winter Stein president

1:44:34 ↗ Mart's option one please Hey

1:44:40 ↗ so I too very much appreciate all the

1:44:44 ↗ information that we were given so we

1:44:46 ↗ could have options I did I was

1:44:49 ↗ interested to a better understand option

1:44:52 ↗ two as I read through and we've talked

1:44:55 ↗ through this evening it just doesn't

1:44:57 ↗ seem like a workable number two does not

1:44:59 ↗ seem like a workable solution for a lot

1:45:03 ↗ of different reasons

1:45:05 ↗ community engagement being the premier

1:45:09 ↗ reason and and also that I think it

1:45:13 ↗ would be incredibly confusing and to the

1:45:17 ↗ community and I and I think that it

1:45:19 ↗ would not work well with us trying to

1:45:23 ↗ put together something on the ballot it

1:45:27 ↗ could be detrimental I I do I did hear a

1:45:32 ↗ lot of information tonight however

1:45:35 ↗ during the mayor's budget and and I I

1:45:38 ↗ would just like to get information on

1:45:41 ↗ that but I I think that we've we've got

1:45:44 ↗ a budget right now that includes the the

1:45:48 ↗ light at 43rd very happy about seeing

1:45:52 ↗ that moving forward so based on that I

1:45:56 ↗ would be focused on option one that's

1:46:03 ↗ the number winner Stein but I did have

1:46:05 ↗ something to say thanks for coming back

1:46:07 ↗ I wanted to thank the members of the

1:46:08 ↗ public tonight they expressed their

1:46:10 ↗ support for our fruits your intentions

1:46:11 ↗ as well thank you thank you

1:46:16 ↗ okay so interim city administrator

1:46:20 ↗ Snyder do you have what you need this

1:46:23 ↗ evening from Council yes I think our

1:46:26 ↗ direction is pretty clear we will move

1:46:29 ↗ forward as previously directed option

1:46:32 ↗ one so using existing debt capacity only

1:46:36 ↗ thank you very much

1:46:37 ↗ thank you well thank you for all of the

1:46:41 ↗ community members that came out this

1:46:44 ↗ evening that is the end of our of our

1:46:47 ↗ meeting so we are adjourned

1:46:50 ↗ thank you

1:47:02 ↗ you

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (6)

Mariah Bettise

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Paul Winterstein

Excused

Stacy Goodman