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

Staff (3)

Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor

Andrea Snyder, Interim City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, Deputy City Clerk

Excused

Stacy Goodman