City Council Special Meeting · Tuesday, June 23, 2020 · City Council Digest

2. CLOSED SESSION

The purpose of this special meeting is to allow the City Council to recess into Executive Session to discuss pending/potential litigation per RCW take approximately 15 minutes. Please note, Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Action, if needed, would occur during the open session of a Council meeting

3580 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ thank you welcome everyone I would like

0:09 ↗ to call the June 23rd 2020 it's across

0:12 ↗ city council study session to order

0:15 ↗ before we move on to tonight's agenda

0:17 ↗ items I'd like to acknowledge our remote

0:20 ↗ meeting format on March 6 the mayor

0:23 ↗ issued an emergency proclamation

0:25 ↗ declaring a civil emergency in the city

0:27 ↗ due to the kovat 19 outbreak on March

0:30 ↗ 24th the governor issued proclamation 20

0:33 ↗ - 28 prohibiting meetings that fall

0:36 ↗ under the open public meetings Act the

0:38 ↗ proclamation has been extended through

0:40 ↗ July 1st tonight's meeting will be held

0:43 ↗ entirely remotely the meeting will be

0:45 ↗ recorded streamed live and available for

0:48 ↗ later viewing on the city's YouTube

0:49 ↗ channel a calling number was provided on

0:52 ↗ the meeting agenda for members of the

0:54 ↗ public who wish to call in by phone to

0:56 ↗ listen live to the meeting typically we

0:59 ↗ take public comments after each agenda

1:02 ↗ item at study sessions however due to

1:04 ↗ the additional logistics of the virtual

1:06 ↗ meeting we will be taking all comments

1:08 ↗ at the beginning of the meeting if there

1:11 ↗ was if there was anyone on the call now

1:13 ↗ who would like to make public comments

1:15 ↗ please press astrick 3 on your phone now

1:19 ↗ and we will call you call on you using

1:23 ↗ the first six digits of your phone

1:24 ↗ number shortly

1:29 ↗ council president hunt will also share a

1:31 ↗ summary of any comments that have been

1:33 ↗ emailed regarding tonight's agenda items

1:34 ↗ I will now take roll call of the council

1:38 ↗ members and attendants please stay here

1:40 ↗ when I call your name councilmember Dee

1:42 ↗ Michelle here councilmember Goodman here

1:47 ↗ counselor councilmember Hall appeared I

1:51 ↗ council president hon okay councilmember

1:55 ↗ marks here

1:57 ↗ the deputy council president ray here

2:00 ↗ and councilmember Walsh I believe is

2:04 ↗ excused from the meeting tonight in

2:08 ↗ addition the following city staff are

2:10 ↗ participating in tonight's meeting we

2:12 ↗ have city administrator wally buckets

2:14 ↗ deputy City Administrator Andrea Snyder

2:17 ↗ interim public works director Bob York

2:19 ↗ management analyst jean-paul

2:22 ↗ also with us cited our meeting is Sean

2:25 ↗ corn with HDR consulting and EDC brawn

2:28 ↗ with cascade water alliance other city

2:31 ↗ staff may also be in attendance and on

2:33 ↗ hand for questions for those members of

2:36 ↗ the public on the call we welcome you

2:38 ↗ and thank you for joining us and lastly

2:41 ↗ before we begin I'd like to reiterate

2:43 ↗ some meeting guidelines put all of our

2:46 ↗ meeting attendees please speak clearly

2:49 ↗ and pause frequently state your name

2:51 ↗ each time before speaking mute your

2:54 ↗ microphone when not speaking and if you

2:57 ↗ are also streaming the live video feed

2:59 ↗ please turn the sound off as there is a

3:02 ↗ delay for council members please

3:04 ↗ continue to use the chat to indicate

3:07 ↗ when you wish to speak identify yourself

3:09 ↗ before you ask a question or participate

3:12 ↗ in debate

3:14 ↗ now for the agenda we have three items

3:18 ↗ on our agenda at night the first is

3:19 ↗ public comment

3:20 ↗ the second is ID zero six three four

3:23 ↗ water system improvements and the third

3:25 ↗ is ID zero seven zero to city services

3:29 ↗ assessment relating to the development

3:31 ↗ services department and cost recovery so

3:36 ↗ I will ask the clerk if anyone has

3:38 ↗ signed up to speak or indicated a desire

3:40 ↗ to speak this evening

3:42 ↗ no no one had signed up in advance to

3:45 ↗ speak and there are no members of the

3:47 ↗ public on the call this evening okay

3:50 ↗ great thank you so I guess that means

3:55 ↗ that we move to the next item of our

3:58 ↗ agenda which is ID zero six three for

4:01 ↗ water system improvements presented by

4:04 ↗ interim Public Works engineering

4:06 ↗ director Bob York and also Seane corn

4:08 ↗ senior economists HDR engineering Thank

4:16 ↗ You councilmember Goodman and good

4:18 ↗ evening council members I trust

4:20 ↗ everybody can hear me yes we can okay um

4:24 ↗ tonight's topic

4:27 ↗ water supply options and

4:33 ↗ tonight as as mentioned was that is a

4:35 ↗ Seane corn from HDR engineering he's a

4:38 ↗ senior economist rate specialist and if

4:42 ↗ necessary yet see Braun is a the chief

4:47 ↗ economist and treasurer of cascading

4:49 ↗ water Alliance since we'll be talking

4:50 ↗ about a new option that involves cascade

4:55 ↗ I welcome ed to this meeting in case

4:58 ↗ there's questions

5:00 ↗ next next slide please purpose of

5:06 ↗ tonight's

5:07 ↗ I

5:09 ↗ to update the council with additional

5:11 ↗ information and revised alternatives

5:13 ↗ related to water supply and water rates

5:16 ↗ next slide

5:22 ↗ the direction the direction requested

5:25 ↗ tonight is to identify or advocate a

5:28 ↗ preferred path for water supply and

5:30 ↗ water rates based on the presentation

5:33 ↗ and and the other information provided

5:35 ↗ in your packet next

5:46 ↗ my intention tonight is to take a very

5:49 ↗ complex subject and hopefully he's

5:52 ↗ simplified and make it quite

5:53 ↗ understandable so those of you that

5:57 ↗ learn especially those that are new to

6:00 ↗ this topic which has been discussed

6:02 ↗ before in front of Council so I've

6:06 ↗ changed the slides up a little bit I'm

6:08 ↗ now first provide a background a brief

6:11 ↗ background then I'm going to tell you

6:14 ↗ the recommendation that we have then I'm

6:17 ↗ going to introduce all the options we

6:18 ↗ looked at and then

6:21 ↗ subsequently discuss the advantages and

6:23 ↗ disadvantages of each option talk about

6:26 ↗ the risks and contingencies as a

6:29 ↗ selected option then Sean will provide

6:33 ↗ the detailed rate analysis associated

6:35 ↗ with each option and review our

6:39 ↗ recommendation and request direction

6:41 ↗ next slide

6:45 ↗ just a brief background counsel in

6:49 ↗ October of last year

6:54 ↗ about the subject matter and

6:59 ↗ requested reanalysis of our water supply

7:02 ↗ options and also requested that we just

7:09 ↗ adopt the already adopted rates that

7:12 ↗ were scheduled to be implemented in 2020

7:15 ↗ without any additional rate increase so

7:18 ↗ since that time we've had plenty of time

7:22 ↗ to reevaluate the options there's new

7:24 ↗ cascade Water Alliance options or

7:27 ↗ revisions to existing options that have

7:29 ↗ been analyzed kovat has happened so

7:33 ↗ there's a priority to deal with the

7:36 ↗ financial consequences of kovat we have

7:42 ↗ additional demand data available from

7:43 ↗ our actual usage and since the water

7:45 ↗ system plan was adopted two years ago

7:48 ↗ and that

7:52 ↗ that on the peak day which is a very

7:54 ↗ important

7:56 ↗ drivers are demand

7:59 ↗ measure we've actually been flat the

8:03 ↗ last three years so we've taken that

8:05 ↗ into account in our in our updated

8:08 ↗ analysis so we've done this federal

8:11 ↗ reanalysis really from the ground up and

8:15 ↗ the reason we're bringing this to you

8:17 ↗ tonight is not only there is is there a

8:20 ↗ driver to address certain water water

8:21 ↗ quality issues but also to the clock is

8:25 ↗ ticking on adopting new twenty

8:27 ↗ twenty-one utility rates our current

8:31 ↗ rates are set to expire at the end of

8:34 ↗ this year so this is a timely matter for

8:37 ↗ that subject and we also need to

8:39 ↗ determine and ask council for council

8:42 ↗ direction on the water projects

8:43 ↗ necessary to meet our interim year or

8:46 ↗ our near-term improvements next slide so

8:54 ↗ here's the end of the story before the

8:57 ↗ in the middle of the story the

8:59 ↗ recommended option we have tonight

9:02 ↗ from the administration is too

9:07 ↗ with what we call discount in CWA water

9:10 ↗ first of all for this and all the other

9:14 ↗ options that we're going to present

9:15 ↗ tonight we've done some adjustments and

9:18 ↗ we can maintain next year's rates equal

9:23 ↗ to this year's rates in other words the

9:24 ↗ zero rate increase for 2021 and I'll

9:29 ↗ explain how we did got to that

9:32 ↗ ah

9:34 ↗ got to implement that shortly to get

9:38 ↗ discount at CWA water we have to shut

9:40 ↗ down one of our wells because the the

9:44 ↗ agreement with cascade would be

9:46 ↗ discounted water is only available if

9:49 ↗ you take some of your in to put in

9:50 ↗ supply offline and that's what we've

9:53 ↗ analyzed and have proceeded to evaluate

10:00 ↗ by the way cascade has a surplus of

10:02 ↗ water and more water available than they

10:07 ↗ can sell and therefore they're willing

10:12 ↗ to offer this because it has a a win-win

10:15 ↗ game for all seven members including

10:17 ↗ Issaquah

10:19 ↗ so we would proceed to shut down the

10:22 ↗ well

10:23 ↗ purchase a discount of water and

10:26 ↗ finalize an agreement with cascade to do

10:28 ↗ so we would also do some small

10:32 ↗ adjustments to our system which would be

10:34 ↗ mean additional water chemical feeds at

10:36 ↗ the under various wells of our remaining

10:39 ↗ service the Risdon wells and the Gillman

10:42 ↗ well for so that when we bring in new

10:46 ↗ water it will be compatible with our

10:50 ↗ current well supply

10:53 ↗ I'll go into that in future slides this

10:57 ↗ option would defer the centralized

11:00 ↗ treatment plant operational date to as

11:03 ↗ late as 2030 for

11:07 ↗ we feel like we can go that far out

11:09 ↗ because the discounted CWA water is

11:11 ↗ available until that date and if demands

11:15 ↗ increase we can also purchase additional

11:18 ↗ CWA water at the normal rate to match

11:22 ↗ demand so this gives us an X ability to

11:25 ↗ push the central treatment plan out -

11:28 ↗ too early to mid decade 2034 before it

11:33 ↗ have to be in service we need to monitor

11:35 ↗ the situation to make sure that our

11:38 ↗ assumptions are correct when it comes to

11:41 ↗ our demand or future demands next line

11:52 ↗ this slide is for quickly

11:56 ↗ clicks on this the Aswath water system

11:58 ↗ is it's for a system of our size with

12:01 ↗ some thirty four five thousand customers

12:04 ↗ some of our waters provided to some of

12:08 ↗ our citizens by Sammamish plateau water

12:10 ↗ district but this this is a this is a

12:14 ↗ very complex system serving three

12:17 ↗ different mountains elevation

12:20 ↗ adjustments of a rock ground a thousand

12:22 ↗ feet

12:23 ↗ from the valley floor to the upper zones

12:26 ↗ so I've taken the liberty of simplifying

12:29 ↗ this complex into a simplified block

12:33 ↗ diagram on the next page flight please

12:38 ↗ here's a very simplified schematic of

12:41 ↗ what our water system really looks like

12:44 ↗ for the purposes of explaining our

12:46 ↗ different options we have three supply

12:49 ↗ sources one as the Gulman wells we have

12:53 ↗ the Risdon wells and we have since the

12:56 ↗ early 2000s we have cascade water

12:57 ↗ Alliance supply that comes from Bellevue

13:00 ↗ through town and at various takeoff

13:04 ↗ points provide certain parts of the city

13:06 ↗ with them with purchased water and that

13:10 ↗ pipeline also sort of serves to provide

13:13 ↗ some image plateau water a certain

13:15 ↗ percentage of their water needs

13:18 ↗ so our Risdon wells and our Gilman wells

13:21 ↗ serve the valley floor squat Mountain

13:24 ↗ and currently they serve talis as well

13:27 ↗ as the cascade or the groundwater is a

13:32 ↗ less expensive source and purchase water

13:35 ↗ from cascade

13:38 ↗ Kaskade goes to the is aqua highlands

13:40 ↗ exclusively since 2015

13:44 ↗ also cascade water wilt through dull

13:47 ↗ abuse system sort of certain portions of

13:50 ↗ Cougar Mountain namely Montreux and Lake

13:54 ↗ Mont and also the South cough

13:56 ↗ neighborhood which we've acquired from

13:58 ↗ Bellevue in 2017 is er as part of our

14:01 ↗ system

14:03 ↗ so Bellevue water is really cascade

14:07 ↗ water that we pay valve unis delivered

14:12 ↗ to our customers through the Bellevue

14:14 ↗ system next slide

14:18 ↗ um I don't know if you can see this very

14:20 ↗ well but to give you a perspective on

14:23 ↗ where our wells are there there's the

14:25 ↗ Gillman wells in the central part of

14:28 ↗ town near the post office and the Risdon

14:31 ↗ wells are are located farther southeast

14:35 ↗ both very near i-90 the cascade water

14:39 ↗ Alliance what they call the Velveeta

14:41 ↗ pipeline is not shown on this map

14:43 ↗ but it precedes Ola

14:45 ↗ now Newports way from Bellevue and it

14:47 ↗ goes through town and turns and goes up

14:50 ↗ to the neighborhood that we're Sammamish

14:54 ↗ plateau where water is delivered to

14:57 ↗ smush plateau water district next slide

15:04 ↗ our four options there's a great number

15:07 ↗ of options but our analysis greatly

15:11 ↗ simplified and all the permutations in

15:13 ↗ the two four sets of options really that

15:18 ↗ got the same cost benefit and financial

15:22 ↗ implications number one is discussion

15:28 ↗ purposes is shut down all our wells and

15:31 ↗ convert all convert our whole supply to

15:33 ↗ cascade water Lance

15:37 ↗ would be the base case that we presented

15:40 ↗ in our water system plan and it's talked

15:42 ↗ about in the past that is rashid

15:44 ↗ promptly with

15:47 ↗ I'm citing and construction designing

15:50 ↗ construction of a centralized treatment

15:51 ↗ plant to serve the community

15:54 ↗ the third option and I'll go into why

15:57 ↗ this evolved to a another option is

16:02 ↗ centralized treatment by 2030

16:07 ↗ we feel that based on the the fact that

16:12 ↗ our demands haven't grown substantially

16:14 ↗ or peak day demands there's minimal if

16:18 ↗ any risk to push the central treatment

16:21 ↗ plan out farther and a prompt delivery

16:25 ↗ of of a major construction capital

16:27 ↗ project to do this we would keep the CWA

16:34 ↗ in the groundwater zone separate in

16:36 ↗ other words the Squawk mountain and the

16:40 ↗ valley floor would still be served with

16:41 ↗ groundwater can cascade water lines

16:45 ↗ would still serve the areas it still

16:47 ↗ serves we'd have to because of emerging

16:51 ↗ regulations put additional treatment in

16:53 ↗ at well five granular activated carbon

16:56 ↗ system for traces of peat fossa of

17:02 ↗ appeared to net

17:04 ↗ water source we already have regular

17:07 ↗ activated carbon treatment well for

17:10 ↗ which is despite an unexpected expense

17:13 ↗ has been very successful in maintaining

17:16 ↗ non detectable levels of pee fascist in

17:20 ↗ the water coming out of that system or

17:27 ↗ what necessary we shift the Tallis

17:31 ↗ neighborhood from from groundwater to

17:34 ↗ CWA to make sure we prolong the the

17:38 ↗ supply in the valley zone as long as

17:40 ↗ possible and our revised analysis shows

17:46 ↗ we better have a water treatment plan

17:49 ↗ online or we would our target would be

17:52 ↗ to have a water treatment plan online by

17:53 ↗ 2030 because that's the point in time

17:56 ↗ where the valley the growth in the

17:59 ↗ valley may cause us based on our

18:02 ↗ projections to need more water than the

18:04 ↗ Wells can deliver we'd monitor our

18:07 ↗ demands closely with this extension to

18:10 ↗ make sure that our thesis is correct

18:14 ↗ and then the option number for option

18:16 ↗ that turns out to be a recommended

18:18 ↗ option is to shut down well five which

18:23 ↗ is a well that has the traces of PFS in

18:26 ↗ it that we don't treat

18:29 ↗ we would purchase by by that action we

18:32 ↗ would it be entitled to discounted

18:35 ↗ cascade water Lance walk water based on

18:39 ↗ the surplus they currently have

18:42 ↗ this option would require us to blend

18:47 ↗ the water in the belly zone with cascade

18:50 ↗ water Alliance water and to do that we

18:54 ↗ implement some chemical feeds for pH

18:57 ↗ adjustment if there is Lin wells this

19:00 ↗ would also cause us to fluoridate the

19:04 ↗ entire belly zone and squat mountain

19:08 ↗ zone because of the fact that the

19:12 ↗ cascade water already has fluoride in it

19:14 ↗ and we would want to deliver a constant

19:20 ↗ concentration of fluoride throughout our

19:22 ↗ system

19:25 ↗ because the cascade

19:28 ↗ option

19:30 ↗ Kaskade is willing to extend this

19:34 ↗ opportunity as late as 2034 by which

19:38 ↗ time they're concerned that they have

19:40 ↗ aught of concern about the renegotiation

19:44 ↗ of renegotiation of their supply

19:47 ↗ contract with seattle demands in our

19:50 ↗ neighborhood our community and their

19:53 ↗ other member agencies may increase so

19:57 ↗ that's about as far out as we as cascade

20:00 ↗ wants to extend this opportunity

20:03 ↗ and again we weed monitor our demands

20:06 ↗ closely to make sure our undying

20:09 ↗ assumptions of conservative and

20:11 ↗ non-conservative are validated over time

20:17 ↗ next slide oh I see that question so

20:20 ↗ maybe I'll pause here and I can feel the

20:22 ↗ questions councilmember a thanks Bob

20:27 ↗ thanks for all this

20:28 ↗ I'm sorr as I understand what you're

20:31 ↗ saying we would be locked into this

20:32 ↗ discounted cascade water Alliance water

20:34 ↗ through 2030 for toddman maybe I'll call

20:40 ↗ and had to answer this but Mike it's not

20:43 ↗ it's it's any length of time up to 2030

20:47 ↗ for it it would be a negotiable and I

20:50 ↗ believe rescind a bowl a program it do

20:57 ↗ you want to get on to explain okay

21:00 ↗ listen to this

21:02 ↗ sure glad to essentially I think the

21:07 ↗ best approach for both of us because of

21:10 ↗ concerns about growing demands etc would

21:13 ↗ be something like every five years we

21:16 ↗ could do it as a ten year contract and

21:17 ↗ in five years review and and agree to an

21:20 ↗ extension and conceivably do that again

21:23 ↗ if if circumstances warranted for

21:25 ↗ everyone so in in short we are flexible

21:28 ↗ and will do what make sense we're not

21:34 ↗ trying to force this water on anyone

21:36 ↗ we're hoping to help solve a problem for

21:38 ↗ you

21:39 ↗ okay so I'm gonna just repeat what I

21:43 ↗ think I heard you say which is well we

21:47 ↗ can sign a contract with REITs they'll

21:49 ↗ be periodic renewals and renegotiations

21:51 ↗ of the rates the you know before the

21:56 ↗ rates would be set in terms of a level

21:58 ↗ of discounts so that would be protected

21:59 ↗ in the contract for you but the length

22:03 ↗ of the contract primarily the length of

22:06 ↗ the contract okay great thank you change

22:08 ↗ it and the quantity needed to change up

22:10 ↗ or down we could also work with that

22:12 ↗ okay super thank you next we're gonna

22:18 ↗ have councilmember Dee Michelle and then

22:20 ↗ council president hunt but before then I

22:22 ↗ just want to remind everyone um that

22:24 ↗ before speaking please identify

22:26 ↗ yourselves and if you're from an outside

22:31 ↗ organization please identify what

22:32 ↗ organization you're from just so we can

22:34 ↗ keep everybody straight thank you for

22:37 ↗ that

22:37 ↗ councilmember Dee Michelle

22:39 ↗ thank you and this is Scout celebrity

22:42 ↗ Michelle

22:43 ↗ so councilmember Hall and I learned last

22:46 ↗ fall when we were running for the

22:49 ↗ council that fluoridation is a

22:51 ↗ controversial issue among some parts of

22:54 ↗ our residents at least and so could you

22:59 ↗ just clarify for me it's my

23:01 ↗ understanding that the fluoridation is

23:03 ↗ already present in the water that's

23:06 ↗ coming from cascade water Alliance is

23:09 ↗ that correct and then do we do we add

23:13 ↗ let's talk about adding a chemical feed

23:17 ↗ do we then add more fluoride to

23:22 ↗ stabilize it or is it just the fluoride

23:26 ↗ that's already present in the Cascade

23:28 ↗ water Alliance water I can take a stab

23:32 ↗ at that

23:32 ↗ having seattle supplies been fluoridated

23:37 ↗ as right back we can I can - go ahead

23:41 ↗ I'm sorry yeah just an identify yourself

23:43 ↗ before a sink

23:44 ↗ Bob York deputy excuse me the interim

23:49 ↗ Public Works engineering director thank

23:52 ↗ you for reminding me

23:55 ↗ yes the regional supply

23:58 ↗ not only in Seattle but the other big

24:01 ↗ sources of water in the Puget Sound

24:04 ↗ region are I've been coronated for many

24:07 ↗ many years mr. Claus

24:11 ↗ groundwater has not been fluoridated so

24:13 ↗ if we were to mix these two waters the

24:17 ↗ goal of and just in round numbers the

24:20 ↗ the floor fluoride level in the regional

24:23 ↗ water is 0.7 milligrams per liter our

24:27 ↗ groundwater beads would adjust the

24:30 ↗ fareed level and the the groundwater to

24:33 ↗ be consistent with what's being coming

24:36 ↗ into the system from cascade so that

24:39 ↗ there'd be a uniform concentration of

24:41 ↗ 0.7 milligrams per litre throughout our

24:44 ↗ distribution system

24:47 ↗ Thanks

24:52 ↗ thank you thank you sign answer your

24:54 ↗ question sir yes I'll get a seat back

25:00 ↗ here later

25:02 ↗ what other chemicals are we adding than

25:05 ↗ it when we talk about chemical feeds the

25:09 ↗ only other chemical that we're proposing

25:10 ↗ to add is a pH adjustment that would be

25:15 ↗ sodium hydroxide something commonly used

25:18 ↗ throughout the again throughout the

25:20 ↗ region and the reason for that is to

25:22 ↗ raise the pH of the Risdon water so that

25:26 ↗ it's corrosive of the index is less and

25:29 ↗ therefore we wouldn't and not have

25:32 ↗ problems of lead and copper leaching

25:36 ↗ from at the point of connection to our

25:39 ↗ some of our neighborhoods that might

25:41 ↗ still have certain kinds of pipe you

25:44 ↗ remember the Flint Michigan issue this

25:47 ↗ is a very minor version of what we're

25:51 ↗ why we would add pH or just the pH to

25:55 ↗ avoid lead and copper issues in our

25:58 ↗ treated water at the point of the

26:00 ↗ consumer tap

26:05 ↗ Thank You Bonnie okay I don't see any

26:10 ↗ other questions right now so dr. York if

26:15 ↗ you want to continue one okay um thank

26:18 ↗ you

26:20 ↗ next slide

26:27 ↗ and this might seem like repetition but

26:30 ↗ here's a

26:32 ↗ the schematic of each of these options

26:37 ↗ shutting shutting down the Royals and

26:40 ↗ maintaining them maybe as emergency

26:42 ↗ standby because uh that would would mean

26:47 ↗ that all the water coming down the pipe

26:49 ↗ from Bellevue

26:51 ↗ from cascade is distributed throughout

26:54 ↗ our system

26:54 ↗ the only exception of that is it's still

26:57 ↗ cascade water but in the upper reaches

27:00 ↗ of Bellevue miss excuse me of Cougar

27:03 ↗ Mountain and South Cove the water

27:05 ↗ cascade water is wheeled through the

27:08 ↗ Bellevue system this would make us a

27:11 ↗ hundred percent reliant on a pipeline so

27:14 ↗ although we haven't worked out the

27:15 ↗ details we would be well-served to make

27:20 ↗ sure that we don't completely lose the

27:23 ↗ opportunity to use our wells not only in

27:27 ↗ the end launch in the long term we lose

27:30 ↗ our wells but there'd be an emergency

27:31 ↗ backup is what we're proposing next

27:35 ↗ slide

27:38 ↗ this is the

27:41 ↗ woman

27:42 ↗ water-treatment centralized water

27:44 ↗ treatment by 2025 it involves all our

27:48 ↗ supply sources going to a centralized

27:50 ↗ Tree on Planet as yet undetermined site

27:53 ↗ in a in the central Issaquah area the

27:58 ↗ water would be blunted and then

27:59 ↗ redistributed throughout our system as a

28:02 ↗ blend to all all neighborhoods

28:05 ↗ except for again the ones that can't be

28:09 ↗ served because they're so high up on

28:12 ↗ Cougar Mountain you need to Bellevue

28:13 ↗ system to serve those deliver water

28:16 ↗ through their system to the higher

28:19 ↗ elevation neighborhoods on Cougar

28:21 ↗ Mountain

28:23 ↗ nextslide

28:27 ↗ next two slides don't show the central

28:29 ↗ true

28:30 ↗ is forecast to be 10 years out but

28:32 ↗ that's the end goal of every option at

28:35 ↗ some point in the future so option 3 is

28:43 ↗ continuing to serve the groundwater zone

28:45 ↗ with the risen wells without any

28:47 ↗ additional adjustments to the risen

28:48 ↗ wells again we'd have to treat both well

28:51 ↗ for and well five and Gilman because of

28:55 ↗ the ball five has traces of PFS and well

28:59 ↗ for already has treatment

29:04 ↗ so that keeps them

29:07 ↗ separate from the casita CWA serve zones

29:10 ↗ like one thing to prolong this again is

29:13 ↗ send the talents neighborhood which can

29:16 ↗ it's already for it in by the way for we

29:20 ↗ for getting ready to run out of water

29:22 ↗ serving Tallis we shut off cows send CWA

29:28 ↗ water to Tallis and that would prolong

29:31 ↗ our our groundwater zone for a few more

29:35 ↗ years as turns out

29:39 ↗ please

29:42 ↗ this is option for discount CWA water we

29:46 ↗ would shut off the Gilman well we would

29:52 ↗ never relinquish our water rates and

29:54 ↗ we've talked to various

29:57 ↗ stakeholders to assure ourselves that

29:59 ↗ our water our Gillman supply water rate

30:03 ↗ would never be what they call

30:05 ↗ relinquished by doing some small amount

30:09 ↗ of paperwork while far it would continue

30:12 ↗ to be online well for

30:15 ↗ has treatment existing treatment that

30:18 ↗ works pretty well and we would add

30:22 ↗ chemical feeds to well for and the

30:25 ↗ Risdon wells as we previously discussed

30:27 ↗ and then through existing and improved

30:31 ↗ inter ties with cascade we'd serve a

30:34 ↗ blend of water to the various

30:37 ↗ neighborhoods fully compatible with all

30:40 ↗ water quality component requirements I

30:43 ↗ should note that by shutting down the

30:45 ↗ Gillman well five we serve take care of

30:48 ↗ the mill well five not be Foss problem

30:51 ↗ because we're not lowering that water to

30:54 ↗ the system and the government Wells very

30:58 ↗ fortuitously don't have any traces of

31:02 ↗ PFS every detected in those two well

31:05 ↗ sources next slide please

31:13 ↗ so to go to our more detailed analysis

31:18 ↗ our overarching goal would be to keep

31:21 ↗ the utility rates equal to zero of

31:24 ↗ council has a recommendation to Council

31:27 ↗ for 2021 our previous rate study also

31:32 ↗ done by John Cornyn who's on the

31:35 ↗ tonight's call didn't incorporate the

31:40 ↗ previous costs of the PFS issues we've

31:45 ↗ had to deal with so question we have a

31:49 ↗ question from Passover Hall on the

31:51 ↗ previous slide aqua

31:54 ↗ one giant if you want

31:59 ↗ Griner go ahead councilmember Hall Bob

32:01 ↗ Bob your exhibition yes thank you very

32:03 ↗ much this is councilmember Hall I had a

32:06 ↗ question about in these options when

32:15 ↗ hotter air flow goes check your map in

32:19 ↗ South Cove yes so there's there's always

32:23 ↗ water coming from Bellevue but I was

32:25 ↗ wondering if you could walk us through

32:28 ↗ why why two of the options have water

32:32 ↗ additional water flowing to Cougar

32:35 ↗ Mountain South Cove while the other two

32:37 ↗ options don't have that

32:40 ↗ okay here I probably just get by that in

32:43 ↗ my some of the options that we dimple

32:48 ↗ men

32:50 ↗ over the course of the next couple of

32:52 ↗ years as we continue to add water mains

32:56 ↗ and do our approve CIP eventually allow

33:00 ↗ us to

33:03 ↗ I'm surf South Cove

33:06 ↗ with the blend that we're talking about

33:08 ↗ so I'm gonna talk about that in a minute

33:11 ↗ council member so a few if you bear with

33:14 ↗ me maybe I can answer your question when

33:16 ↗ we go through the pros and cons I think

33:20 ↗ that's the nature your question but I'm

33:22 ↗ not sure

33:27 ↗ I'm happy to wait to find out this is

33:28 ↗ that call okay okay yeah let me get

33:31 ↗ that's the problem of her creditor this

33:34 ↗ say you may have just you may ask a

33:36 ↗ question that I probably have the answer

33:38 ↗ for coming up

33:39 ↗ councilmember hunt

33:41 ↗ you also member huh Thank You this is

33:44 ↗ council president hunch and I I just I

33:48 ↗ know that Bellevue is a cascade water

33:51 ↗ Alliance member City as well and so is

33:54 ↗ this also cascade water that would

33:57 ↗ that's coming from Bellevue it's the

33:59 ↗ same exact water that we get into this

34:03 ↗ require yes sir yeah it's a the same

34:08 ↗ original source and cascade water just

34:12 ↗ like we receive an Iskra

34:15 ↗ thank you

34:19 ↗ any other questions before I tried to

34:22 ↗ proceed ahead I

34:24 ↗ this is councilmember Goodman I have a

34:27 ↗ question follow-up to council president

34:28 ↗ hunt is that the service to that area

34:35 ↗ that South Cove area is that a contract

34:41 ↗ that we inherited for lack of a better

34:44 ↗ word when we incorporated that area um

34:47 ↗ yes um we

34:52 ↗ - willing agreements one for the

34:54 ↗ original development of those

34:57 ↗ neighborhoods like Montreux and then

35:00 ↗ when we took over water and sewer

35:04 ↗ service in South Cove we amended our

35:07 ↗ willing agreement with Bellevue to add

35:11 ↗ those had that provision of them sort of

35:16 ↗ continuing to serve

35:18 ↗ through their inner ties with with this

35:22 ↗ crowd through that service and Bellevue

35:26 ↗ there's a new master meter that actually

35:29 ↗ measures the amount of water that comes

35:30 ↗ from Bellevue to the sacra at that time

35:35 ↗ so it was it was a provision of the

35:39 ↗ Assumption agreement between his craw

35:41 ↗ and Bellevue that allowed us to server

35:44 ↗ South Cove neighbors

35:48 ↗ um okay I don't councilmember Goodman

35:52 ↗ here again I don't know that unless

35:55 ↗ other people do want to go down this

35:57 ↗ essential rabbit hole but I've got a

36:00 ↗ number of questions related to that so

36:02 ↗ you know when is the contract up is

36:03 ↗ there some opportunity or reason for us

36:06 ↗ to serve directly to reduce the sources

36:12 ↗ all that and maybe you have a quick

36:14 ↗ answer if you pop York here I have if

36:18 ↗ you bear with me through the pros and

36:21 ↗ cons of the different options I will at

36:23 ↗ least partially address that thank you

36:25 ↗ okay

36:28 ↗ so our goals again real quickly we had

36:34 ↗ the PFS issue who were our new new great

36:36 ↗ studying incorporates ed in the various

36:40 ↗ options we've had additional allocations

36:42 ↗ to pay for different city services from

36:45 ↗ the various utilities we incorporated

36:48 ↗ that and or updated rate analysis it

36:51 ↗ turns out one sustainability fund is

36:54 ↗ going away so that was a considered in

36:58 ↗ our updated analysis

37:02 ↗ our goal is to shotgun a library

37:07 ↗ financially viable utility meeting all

37:10 ↗ the reserve levels to that service

37:14 ↗ coverage and while we know it's

37:17 ↗ conservative we're still using the the

37:22 ↗ demand forecast in the 2018 adopted

37:25 ↗ water system plan

37:27 ↗ but this time we're considering that

37:30 ↗ could be conservative next slide

37:38 ↗ to achieve a zero rate for 2021 and and

37:42 ↗ a small an increase is possible for

37:44 ↗ future near-term years we've done the

37:51 ↗ following we've of course

37:55 ↗ plants a variable we have adjusted other

37:59 ↗ CIP projects one the two years out

38:02 ↗ because we felt that the there would be

38:04 ↗ a little detriment to a slight extension

38:07 ↗ of of scheduled rehabilitation of some

38:11 ↗ of our infrastructure but the one thing

38:13 ↗ we've maintained because your work had

38:15 ↗ been working on it six years and is the

38:18 ↗ spar water transmission main and pump

38:23 ↗ station project that would be a second

38:25 ↗ supply source to the Highlands right now

38:27 ↗ we're where we really only have a single

38:31 ↗ piping system up to the Highlands and

38:34 ↗ this would be a provide a lot of

38:35 ↗ resiliency in case there's a seismic

38:39 ↗ event or any number of other reasons so

38:41 ↗ we've kept that emerging project that's

38:44 ↗ scheduled for as are always next year on

38:47 ↗ inside our CIP but we've made other

38:50 ↗ changes your packet includes the list of

38:53 ↗ changes that we decided were reasonable

38:57 ↗ to implement next slide

39:01 ↗ you

39:03 ↗ um so mum go quickly through these the

39:08 ↗ cascade 100% Cascade option is a is the

39:12 ↗ most expensive both short-term and

39:15 ↗ long-term so it doesn't take advantage

39:19 ↗ of the short-term discounts available

39:20 ↗ but even when you consider that it's an

39:25 ↗ expensive option and and so we didn't

39:29 ↗ pick that one

39:31 ↗ - x-rayed

39:35 ↗ actually very competitive long term it's

39:37 ↗ our previous recommendation but if we do

39:40 ↗ a significant

39:43 ↗ capital investment along with the SPARC

39:45 ↗ project in the near term the near-term

39:48 ↗ rates are going to be substantially

39:52 ↗ higher than the options we're going to

39:54 ↗ talk about in a minute

39:55 ↗ next slide

39:58 ↗ so the reason we looked at the option 3

40:01 ↗ and option four is we wanted to answer

40:04 ↗ the question are there options that meet

40:05 ↗ the demand and water quality goals both

40:07 ↗ short-term and long-term with lower

40:09 ↗ short-term rates and still competitive

40:11 ↗ long-term rates and option 3 next slide

40:17 ↗ option three would do that it's a

40:20 ↗ competitive option we can meet our

40:24 ↗ demand growth over time and the after

40:29 ↗ 2021 zero rate increase the the

40:33 ↗ projected rate increases over the course

40:35 ↗ of the next few years during the seven

40:37 ↗ to eight percent range

40:39 ↗ still competitive long-term though as

40:41 ↗ Sean will show you in a minute

40:43 ↗ option next time please

40:46 ↗ option 4 is discount at CWA water you've

40:51 ↗ heard what that option

40:52 ↗ you know entails

40:58 ↗ the water treatment plants pushed out

41:01 ↗ into them lower than early to midnight

41:05 ↗ 2030s it also has very similar rate

41:09 ↗ increases adoption 3 and very

41:11 ↗ competitive long term

41:13 ↗ next slide please

41:19 ↗ there's some other the reason we picked

41:21 ↗ option 4 over option 3 is several

41:24 ↗ different secondary or other

41:27 ↗ considerations one is we're already

41:30 ↗ making our water supplies

41:33 ↗ in cascade and the wells compatible for

41:35 ↗ three of the four wells will meet our

41:39 ↗ pee fast requirements

41:43 ↗ allows the South Dakota neighborhood oh

41:45 ↗ here's the here's the one that may

41:48 ↗ partially answer your question

41:51 ↗ if we do this and with

41:54 ↗ couple years of water main improvements

41:56 ↗ that we're anticipating we can serve the

41:58 ↗ South Cove neighborhood with our

42:00 ↗ abundant supply rather than wheel it

42:03 ↗ through Bellevue to South Cove when I

42:08 ↗ say South Cove I mean all the other

42:09 ↗ neighborhoods out there Timberlake

42:12 ↗ Timberlake Lane etc

42:16 ↗ that has the advantage multiple

42:20 ↗ advantages one is higher pressure the

42:23 ↗ Bellevue pressure is less than

42:26 ↗ satisfactory to meet some of them

42:28 ↗ excuse me some of the buildings out

42:30 ↗ there number two we at least partially

42:34 ↗ can reduce our wheeling charges for dope

42:36 ↗ you to supply water to us and third

42:39 ↗ there's some aging infrastructure that

42:43 ↗ serves that neighborhood that not only

42:46 ↗ will we not have to upgrade if we do

42:50 ↗ this approach but there's some valuable

42:53 ↗ real estate associated with some of that

42:55 ↗ infrastructure that is could be a an

42:58 ↗ asset that we could consider in our

43:02 ↗ portfolio of things we can do also

43:08 ↗ while we receive discounted water we can

43:10 ↗ upgrade the Gulman wall house with later

43:14 ↗ then we wouldn't need otherwise need to

43:16 ↗ buy and instead of buying full purchase

43:18 ↗ at full price water we could upgrade the

43:20 ↗ gum on wall house with discounted water

43:22 ↗ something that's since the government

43:24 ↗ while houses built in the 1980s it's due

43:28 ↗ for a seismic retrofit and some other

43:30 ↗ improvements and again the real benefit

43:34 ↗ here is it pushes the water treatment

43:37 ↗ out how sort of balhoon past the horizon

43:42 ↗ where it has an impact on our current

43:44 ↗ rates so

43:48 ↗ it's a good thing to do if you want to

43:51 ↗ make sure our rates stay low in the near

43:54 ↗ term

43:55 ↗ nextslide

43:58 ↗ okay now Shawn we you can it's time for

44:02 ↗ Sean Curran to talk about the rate

44:04 ↗ analysis

44:06 ↗ t-bob good evening everybody this is

44:08 ↗ Sean corn and I started out with the

44:11 ↗ decently fun significant study that we

44:15 ↗ developed and presented to council

44:17 ↗ middle total last year in September in

44:19 ↗ October

44:22 ↗ can you just identify where you're from

44:23 ↗ please thank you I apologize yes I am

44:27 ↗ Sean corn with HDR engineering and I was

44:30 ↗ the project manager for the city's rate

44:32 ↗ study analysis thank you so as we

44:36 ↗ started with that rate study Bob

44:38 ↗ explained some of the different options

44:40 ↗ and the different variations between

44:43 ↗ those options we've updated and

44:45 ↗ developed each of these analyses based

44:48 ↗ on that revised capital plan with the

44:50 ↗ shift in the capital that he discussed

44:52 ↗ and then we built into these each of the

44:54 ↗ different operating and capital needs

44:56 ↗ that are necessary to reflect the

44:59 ↗ operation of the system under each of

45:00 ↗ the options as we went through this I

45:03 ↗ worked with Ed as did Bob at cascade

45:05 ↗ water alliance to develop those

45:07 ↗ purchased water

45:08 ↗ assumptions moving forward for the

45:10 ↗ discounted or the hundred percent

45:12 ↗ cascade of option as we went through

45:15 ↗ this there are a couple key financial

45:17 ↗ areas that I wanted to hit on to talk

45:20 ↗ about how this impacts the overall

45:22 ↗ projection of the customer bills over

45:25 ↗ this next 20 year time period next slide

45:28 ↗ please

45:33 ↗ so these are the same options Bob

45:35 ↗ described so we have our four options

45:37 ↗ based on 100% cascade water a treatment

45:41 ↗ plant by 2025 treatment plant by 2030

45:44 ↗ and then the discounted cascade water

45:47 ↗ option with the treatment plant as late

45:49 ↗ as 2030 for on the next slide they start

45:53 ↗ looking at some of those key financial

45:55 ↗ indicators that we look at as we develop

45:58 ↗ the rate study and I'm not going to

45:59 ↗ spend a lot of time on these you have

46:01 ↗ questions let me know this is a summary

46:03 ↗ of the poem comparison so the operation

46:06 ↗ and maintenance expenses that are

46:08 ↗ necessary under each of the options as

46:11 ↗ you look across the bar chart I want to

46:13 ↗ make it clear that we have 20 20 through

46:15 ↗ 20 25 and then I skip to 2030 2035 and

46:20 ↗ 2040 in increments so we can still read

46:22 ↗ the slides as we look at them here on

46:24 ↗ the screen so there aren't large jumps

46:27 ↗ in each of those five years but that's a

46:29 ↗ five-year increment and changes as you

46:32 ↗ see this you can see the first bar the

46:34 ↗ gray bar the hundred percent cascade you

46:37 ↗ see that rising as we get out to 2035

46:39 ↗ that's where we transition to the full

46:41 ↗ cost of Cascade Water Alliance and so

46:44 ↗ you see an uptick there above others in

46:47 ↗ the prior years as an example through

46:49 ↗ 2025 that just reflects the difference

46:52 ↗ in the ground water cost for the city

46:54 ↗ versus the discounted cascade water the

46:58 ↗ other options plan 2025 2030 or

47:01 ↗ discounted water with the client as

47:04 ↗ latest twenty thirty four you can see

47:05 ↗ are very relative to each other on these

47:08 ↗ scales as we go out over this 20-year

47:11 ↗ time period

47:13 ↗ on the next slide then I will talk about

47:16 ↗ the capital and what only part I wanted

47:19 ↗ to point out on this is the peaks you

47:21 ↗ see with the gray bar and the orange bar

47:23 ↗ that would be the 2025 treatment plant

47:26 ↗ and the 2030 treatment plant that three

47:30 ↗ to four year period is that funding of

47:32 ↗ the construction of the treatment plan

47:36 ↗ so you see those Peaks as we go through

47:39 ↗ that period the same peak would occur

47:42 ↗ with the discounted cash cascade water

47:44 ↗ option for it's just off the slide here

47:46 ↗ but it has the same trend as the gray

47:48 ↗ and orange bars so once we have the

47:52 ↗ timing of that plant built into each of

47:54 ↗ those then that drives where we we go

47:58 ↗ with those analyses yep we have a

48:02 ↗ question if you're done with this line

48:04 ↗ when you're done with this line I'm done

48:07 ↗ okay council member marks Thank You

48:09 ↗ councilmember Goodman this is

48:11 ↗ councilmember mark speaking I am a

48:13 ↗ question about the discounted cascade

48:17 ↗ water Alliance option as the in the

48:21 ↗ final column it's different here too for

48:24 ↗ any in the same capital costs as a

48:27 ↗ hundred percent cascade water Alliance

48:29 ↗ at twenty twenty-five treatment plant

48:32 ↗ but all of a sudden in 2030 it's got

48:34 ↗ much higher capital cost compared to

48:37 ↗ those other two options I understand why

48:39 ↗ the twenty thirty treatment plant is is

48:41 ↗ the highest of the multi ability

48:43 ↗ treatment plant

48:43 ↗ why is the wise option for higher cap

48:46 ↗ costs

48:47 ↗ yes this is Sean corn with HDR so I

48:50 ↗ assume you're referencing 2030 there the

48:52 ↗ blue bar on the far right that is the

48:55 ↗ first year of expenditures over the

48:58 ↗ three to four year period to start

49:00 ↗ funding the improvements needed under

49:02 ↗ construction and so that first year

49:05 ↗ includes some of the property purchases

49:08 ↗ as well as some of the initial design of

49:11 ↗ developing the central treatment plant

49:14 ↗ project so we have that first unit hit

49:16 ↗ so if you reference the gray bar in 2020

49:20 ↗ one option to the 2025 it's very similar

49:24 ↗ to that although in 2021 we have some

49:26 ↗ other capital in that year so it's just

49:28 ↗ the beginning of that process of for the

49:30 ↗ plant

49:35 ↗ okay thank you

49:38 ↗ that does explain it thank you very much

49:42 ↗ great I don't see any more questions so

49:45 ↗ you can continue next slide please

49:51 ↗ you

49:55 ↗ you

49:58 ↗ so here is the summary of the annual

50:02 ↗ rate adjustments so the percentages in

50:04 ↗ each of the years that Bob had

50:06 ↗ previously referenced this is looking

50:08 ↗ short term as I'll call it for 2021

50:10 ↗ through 2025 you can see there's nothing

50:13 ↗ in the 20 20 or 20 21 column that means

50:16 ↗ there were no projected rate adjustments

50:19 ↗ for those time periods and then you can

50:21 ↗ see the adjustments necessary for each

50:24 ↗ of the four options in 20 22 through

50:27 ↗ 2025 as was mentioned as we move to a

50:31 ↗ hundred percent cascade water or we

50:33 ↗ start funding the treatment plant by

50:35 ↗ 2025 we see those first two bars the

50:38 ↗ gray bar and the black bar jumping up

50:41 ↗ higher in those initial years that's

50:43 ↗ primarily driven by the need to fund onm

50:46 ↗ on the first option and then to fund the

50:49 ↗ requirements of funding the treatment

50:51 ↗ plant in the treatment plant options for

50:53 ↗ by 2025 options three and four stay

50:57 ↗ lower we don't have those same rate

50:59 ↗ adjustments because we don't need those

51:01 ↗ funding levels at that point in time so

51:04 ↗ they are able to stay low over this time

51:06 ↗ period on the next slide I have a

51:11 ↗ summary of what the overall average rate

51:14 ↗ would be so this is a summary of the

51:16 ↗ average single family by monthly bill it

51:20 ↗ assumes a three-quarter-inch meter and 6

51:23 ↗ CCF per month and so you can see in 2020

51:26 ↗ and 2021 in the data table or in the

51:29 ↗ bars there are no changes to the overall

51:32 ↗ level of the customer bill and then as

51:35 ↗ we implement those rate adjustments from

51:37 ↗ the prior slide you can see the 100%

51:40 ↗ cascade and the 2025 treatment plan

51:42 ↗ option ratcheting up over time and then

51:46 ↗ you see on the 2030 treatment plant the

51:48 ↗ orange bar or the discount of CWA in the

51:51 ↗ blue bar not going up as fast so we're

51:54 ↗ able to fund our capital needs over this

51:56 ↗ time period with lower rate adjustments

52:00 ↗ as part of this

52:03 ↗ go to the next slide one of the things I

52:05 ↗ wanted you you as a council to be able

52:08 ↗ to consider is not only the short term

52:11 ↗ but also the long term changes and so as

52:15 ↗ we look through this it was mentioned

52:17 ↗ how the different options relate to each

52:20 ↗ other and as you go down in five-year

52:22 ↗ increments you can see how the different

52:26 ↗ scenarios change and what it ends up

52:28 ↗ happening in 2040 the second third and

52:31 ↗ fourth option so treatment plant by 2025

52:35 ↗ treatment plant by 2030 and discounted

52:38 ↗ cascade water purchases and a treatment

52:40 ↗ plant by 2030 for all end up at very

52:44 ↗ similar spots what's interesting is that

52:46 ↗ second option with the early treatment

52:48 ↗ plant we actually get rates and revenues

52:51 ↗ up to a high enough level by funding

52:54 ↗ that treatment plant early that while it

52:56 ↗ doesn't coast it doesn't need to

52:58 ↗ increase as much in those out years and

53:00 ↗ so it becomes a very viable option under

53:02 ↗ that alternative as well although as Bob

53:05 ↗ mentioned there are other advantages

53:07 ↗ that were associated with that

53:09 ↗ discounted cascade water option 4 so on

53:14 ↗ the next slide I show you what those

53:15 ↗ different average customer bills look

53:18 ↗ like again a very similar chart where

53:21 ↗ I've got the first five years and then I

53:23 ↗ go to five year increments and really

53:26 ↗ when I put this together I jump to the

53:28 ↗ bottom right corner right what does 20

53:30 ↗ 40 looked like under each of these

53:32 ↗ options and you can see the three final

53:36 ↗ options are very similar within a couple

53:38 ↗ dollars of each other and then I went

53:40 ↗ back and looked at what did this happen

53:42 ↗ what happened over the first five years

53:44 ↗ and and how does that change and that's

53:46 ↗ one reason why we looked at option four

53:49 ↗ is it does minimize the rates in the

53:51 ↗ short term it's still very advantageous

53:54 ↗ in the long term as part of this and it

53:57 ↗ also provides you with some additional

53:59 ↗ benefits to think about with the

54:01 ↗ Southcoast service and a few of the

54:04 ↗ other options

54:06 ↗ was there a question on this slide yes

54:12 ↗ councilmember marks and then I have a

54:15 ↗ question we killed something remarks is

54:16 ↗ finished Thank You councilmember Goodman

54:18 ↗ this is councilman I provide speaking I

54:20 ↗ have two questions the first is are

54:24 ↗ these numbers corrected for inflation

54:28 ↗ yes so as we did this is Sean corn with

54:30 ↗ HDR yes built into the projections is an

54:35 ↗ inflationary factor so these do reflect

54:38 ↗ that increase in inflation over time and

54:40 ↗ my second question is kind of related

54:43 ↗ which is often times when you're trying

54:45 ↗ to compare near-term increases in costs

54:49 ↗ with long-term increases in cost you do

54:51 ↗ a net present value have we've done like

54:55 ↗ for instance if you had a case if you if

54:57 ↗ there's a case where you know all the

54:59 ↗ new increase happened in the second half

55:01 ↗ of the next 20 years but you could say

55:04 ↗ oh well I if I taken my money and I

55:06 ↗ would have gone and invested it in

55:07 ↗ something else for those first you know

55:10 ↗ 20 years and there's valid or whatever

55:12 ↗ ten years was valuing that do you have

55:14 ↗ the equivalent of a net present value to

55:16 ↗ compare these rather than just aggregate

55:19 ↗ increase we did not do a net present

55:24 ↗ value on these when we are looking at

55:25 ↗ the rate study we try and include those

55:29 ↗ inflationary impact both on the

55:30 ↗ operating and capital but if that's

55:32 ↗ something that's necessary then I can

55:34 ↗ work with mr. York to look through that

55:38 ↗ I I don't know if it's necessary but but

55:41 ↗ thank you councilmember Goodman here so

55:48 ↗ maybe it's just because I'm tired

55:51 ↗ because we had a really late night but

55:54 ↗ so the current slide run average

55:56 ↗ residential violently bill impacts can

55:59 ↗ you explain the difference between this

56:02 ↗ one and two slides back average

56:03 ↗ single-family bill

56:07 ↗ yes let me look real quickly

56:13 ↗ our slide was

56:19 ↗ so the difference this is Sean corn with

56:22 ↗ hgr oh thank you

56:26 ↗ so this these numbers should be the same

56:29 ↗ the first five years of that chart and

56:33 ↗ then on the slide we were just on two

56:36 ↗ slides back down

56:40 ↗ and that this slide through the first

56:43 ↗ six years 2020 through 2025 is the same

56:46 ↗ as a prior slide then I added in 2030

56:50 ↗ 2035 and 2040 for those next five year

56:53 ↗ increments to look long-term

56:56 ↗ okay councilmember Goodman here thank

57:00 ↗ you for that and it also says average

57:05 ↗ residential by monthly it gets the

57:08 ↗ titles different as well so that was a

57:10 ↗ little bit confusing I apologize I

57:12 ↗ understand cuz you know could this

57:15 ↗ average single-family and the second one

57:18 ↗ looks like it includes single-family and

57:20 ↗ multi-family but maybe not okay it is

57:24 ↗ the only single-family it's that average

57:26 ↗ residential bill for single-family

57:28 ↗ customers okay thank you

57:30 ↗ council president huh has a question

57:33 ↗ Thank You counsel for the hunt so this

57:37 ↗ is for a certain size of meter and I

57:41 ↗ know that the cost varies depending on

57:43 ↗ the meter

57:45 ↗ so can we can we extrapolate from this

57:49 ↗ this that the similar pattern would

57:52 ↗ follow for all the other customers at

57:55 ↗ different five meter

57:58 ↗ this is Sean with HDR yes that would be

58:00 ↗ a correct assumption it wouldn't be it

58:02 ↗ may not be the exact dollar amount or

58:04 ↗ percentage amount but it would be very

58:06 ↗ close okay thank you

58:13 ↗ councilmember Goodman here I see no

58:16 ↗ questions Shawn so you may please

58:18 ↗ continue okay on the next slide one of

58:24 ↗ the things we wanted to look at also

58:26 ↗ that we've been asked by counsel to

58:28 ↗ bring forward is what that average bill

58:30 ↗ looks like so you can see here the red

58:33 ↗ and blue hashed graph on the left is the

58:36 ↗ discounter cascade water for 2020 and

58:39 ↗ 2021 obviously no change in that bill

58:41 ↗ that's the eighty one dollars

58:42 ↗ approximately and then we looked at

58:45 ↗ Sammamish plateau City of Redmond City

58:48 ↗ of Bellevue city of Kirkland and city of

58:51 ↗ Renton and what's interesting is all of

58:54 ↗ these yourself included have what's

58:57 ↗ known as a Tier break structure so the

59:00 ↗ more you use the more you pay at certain

59:01 ↗ set levels each of you have different

59:04 ↗ tier sizes or the amount that's included

59:07 ↗ in each of those tiers and obviously

59:08 ↗ different pricing is part of that so but

59:12 ↗ what's right now where you're landing is

59:14 ↗ right about I'd call it in the middle

59:16 ↗ because we've got a couple that are

59:17 ↗ higher a couple that are lower and

59:19 ↗ you're almost exactly the same as what

59:22 ↗ Kirkland is right now based on that 12

59:25 ↗ CCF bi-monthly as part of that and so

59:28 ↗ this just gives you an idea of where you

59:31 ↗ sit today I always tell folks this isn't

59:34 ↗ is with inexact apples to apples

59:36 ↗ comparison because each of these

59:38 ↗ utilities may be looking at different

59:40 ↗ needs different renewal replacement

59:42 ↗ cycles but it does give you an idea of

59:44 ↗ what some of your other local entities

59:47 ↗ cascade participants are looking at for

59:50 ↗ their rate overall customer bills as

59:53 ↗ part of this and so those prior charts

59:57 ↗ give you an idea of what that overall

1:00:00 ↗ rate adjustment would look like and

1:00:02 ↗ again these agencies also have rate

1:00:05 ↗ studies in process or have completed

1:00:06 ↗ that would be adjusting their rates as

1:00:08 ↗ well but overall it reflects very

1:00:12 ↗ comparable to all the other agencies

1:00:16 ↗ okay councilmember Goodman here and

1:00:19 ↗ councilmember marks how's it question if

1:00:21 ↗ you're done with this slide

1:00:25 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

1:00:27 ↗ councilmember mark speaking my question

1:00:29 ↗ is what has Redman do differently from

1:00:32 ↗ everybody else

1:00:36 ↗ have so much lower rates than everybody

1:00:37 ↗ else

1:00:42 ↗ Bob you want to take a crack at that I

1:00:46 ↗ anticipated this question a little bit

1:00:48 ↗ and there's it's up two things one is

1:00:53 ↗ and I could have put the diagram up for

1:00:55 ↗ Redmond button it's it's a system that

1:00:58 ↗ both has groundwater in CWA water it's a

1:01:01 ↗ system that as it's actually the

1:01:07 ↗ twe supply source can feed the whole

1:01:10 ↗ town without any pumping on like

1:01:14 ↗ Issaquah and it's a much purer pump

1:01:21 ↗ stations reservoirs etc than then a miss

1:01:25 ↗ across Oh in part it's due to the and

1:01:28 ↗ and finally there's a economy and scale

1:01:30 ↗ and Redman some degree that would

1:01:32 ↗ influence the the rate and the rates a

1:01:36 ↗ charge but that's the short version

1:01:38 ↗ there's probably other aspects of what

1:01:43 ↗ Redman does that are also important but

1:01:45 ↗ that's that's what I was able to glean

1:01:48 ↗ from looking at their there and talking

1:01:51 ↗ to them and looking at their analysis

1:01:52 ↗ their water system plan the size so

1:01:56 ↗ that's a what confusing answer to me

1:01:59 ↗ because it looks like if we went keerthi

1:02:03 ↗ anyway that'd be our most expensive

1:02:05 ↗ option so it makes me feel like red

1:02:09 ↗ manages a better deal than we do and i

1:02:11 ↗ and i say that i never see it but that's

1:02:15 ↗ just my initial reaction to that answer

1:02:21 ↗ okay councilmember Goodman here I don't

1:02:25 ↗ see any other questions so schwimmen you

1:02:28 ↗ may continue okay and I think on the

1:02:32 ↗ next slide I turn it back over to Bob to

1:02:34 ↗ conclude the summary of a presentation

1:02:45 ↗ Thank You Sean next paint next slide

1:02:48 ↗ please

1:02:52 ↗ oh no Acura Sean sorry I apologize this

1:02:56 ↗ to Sean again so just to summarize all

1:02:59 ↗ of these options do reflect viable water

1:03:02 ↗ supply alternative and approaches for

1:03:04 ↗ the council to consider it does include

1:03:06 ↗ the council master plan component did

1:03:11 ↗ you lose the presentation

1:03:15 ↗ thank you

1:03:18 ↗ it does include the water master plan

1:03:20 ↗ results in recommendations so we're

1:03:21 ↗ looking at those demands as was

1:03:23 ↗ mentioned the last couple of years have

1:03:25 ↗ been lower demands we built the model

1:03:28 ↗ the cost to reflect what those projected

1:03:31 ↗ demands are as part of this and

1:03:33 ↗ evaluated that as we went through that

1:03:35 ↗ with the different options option for

1:03:38 ↗ the cascade discounted water approach

1:03:40 ↗ does minimize the financial impact to

1:03:43 ↗ customers it also minimizes the demand

1:03:46 ↗ risk in the sense that you would pay for

1:03:49 ↗ your typical or normal cascade water

1:03:52 ↗ purchases to serve all of your areas and

1:03:56 ↗ then the difference from wild five being

1:03:58 ↗ shut down would be at that discounted

1:04:00 ↗ rate that you could take advantage of as

1:04:03 ↗ part of that so that gives us a little

1:04:05 ↗ additional security with shutting down

1:04:08 ↗ well five and maintaining that

1:04:10 ↗ sufficient supply for the demands that

1:04:13 ↗ may happen on the system and

1:04:14 ↗ specifically in the valley floor and

1:04:16 ↗ then finally this really gives you that

1:04:18 ↗ stepping stone to move forward with that

1:04:21 ↗ rate and capital funding plan for the

1:04:24 ↗ water utility into the future based on

1:04:27 ↗ the direction that you all provide us

1:04:31 ↗ and now I believe I can turn it over to

1:04:34 ↗ mr. York to complete this okay

1:04:38 ↗ councilmember Goodman here before we

1:04:40 ↗ turn it over to you I'm director York I

1:04:42 ↗ understand that ads from cascade water

1:04:45 ↗ has some additional information in

1:04:48 ↗ response to councilmember marks question

1:04:50 ↗ about yes thank you before joining

1:04:56 ↗ cascade I was their rate consultant for

1:04:58 ↗ a couple of decades one reason their

1:05:01 ↗ rates are lower is Redmond was a very

1:05:03 ↗ early adopter of capital replacement

1:05:05 ↗ funding yeah building into their annual

1:05:08 ↗ budget depreciation funding and moving

1:05:10 ↗ that into construction as a result they

1:05:12 ↗ have a very low debt profile but problem

1:05:17 ↗ Bob mentioned a couple of really good

1:05:19 ↗ points a simpler system and some

1:05:21 ↗ economies of scale the other major

1:05:23 ↗ difference though is Redmond app

1:05:25 ↗ actually operates two water enterprises

1:05:28 ↗ one is their original system the other

1:05:31 ↗ is an alpha novelty Hill development if

1:05:33 ↗ you looked at your parallel if the

1:05:36 ↗ Highlands were kept separate and and

1:05:38 ↗ charged differentially that would be

1:05:41 ↗ somewhat equivalent so they actually

1:05:43 ↗ have another rate firt for their novelty

1:05:46 ↗ Hill development that's quite a bit

1:05:47 ↗ higher than the base rate that they

1:05:50 ↗ apply for their prior retail systems so

1:05:54 ↗ they've separated costs and that's kept

1:05:56 ↗ the cost lower in the original service

1:05:58 ↗ area

1:06:03 ↗ that's a member Goodman here

1:06:05 ↗ councilmember Marx does that answer your

1:06:06 ↗ question thank you it does great okay

1:06:11 ↗ now we're turning it over to director

1:06:14 ↗ Newark well thank you and thank you ed

1:06:17 ↗ for value-adding answer to a question

1:06:20 ↗ then didn't gripping involve cascade Bob

1:06:25 ↗ York here near Public Works engineering

1:06:27 ↗ director let me finalize this by

1:06:31 ↗ reiterating our preferred our

1:06:35 ↗ recommended option it's shutting down

1:06:37 ↗ well five purchasing discount CWA water

1:06:41 ↗ to replace that lost capacity adding

1:06:46 ↗ some chemical feeds to make sure our

1:06:49 ↗ water is compatible with CWA or ground

1:06:52 ↗ water and make sure that any fluoride

1:06:56 ↗ concentrations in the same throughout

1:06:59 ↗ our entire system

1:07:04 ↗ the water tree implant could be pushed

1:07:07 ↗ out we're anticipating to the mid early

1:07:11 ↗ to mid 1930s although as Sean pointed

1:07:13 ↗ out our investment would begin the

1:07:16 ↗ summit before that and our results are

1:07:20 ↗ Missouri rate increase for 2021

1:07:24 ↗ comparable rate increases in the ensuing

1:07:28 ↗ years and and long-term rates that are

1:07:31 ↗ very similar to the other options that

1:07:33 ↗ make sense so next slide

1:07:38 ↗ um so

1:07:41 ↗ feedback so that we can take the next

1:07:44 ↗ steps which includes proceeding soon to

1:07:46 ↗ meet the emerging pas regulations that

1:07:49 ↗ are although the codes and delayed those

1:07:52 ↗ regulations they look like they're going

1:07:54 ↗ to be implemented in the next mid to

1:07:56 ↗ late next year we want to proceed with

1:08:00 ↗ the modest improvements necessary to

1:08:02 ↗ allow this facilitate the preferred

1:08:05 ↗ option to occur which means we need to

1:08:07 ↗ start design in the next month or two

1:08:09 ↗ next slide

1:08:14 ↗ so if option 4 or frankly whatever

1:08:18 ↗ option selected we take the next steps

1:08:21 ↗ Council action would be required to

1:08:23 ↗ finalize the rate study not only for

1:08:27 ↗ water but also sewer and stormwater

1:08:30 ↗ where we've also done analysis to try to

1:08:32 ↗ keep rates or and our recommendations

1:08:34 ↗ keep rates at zero for 2021 on the other

1:08:39 ↗ utilities and we'd come back to council

1:08:43 ↗ to authorize funding for the short term

1:08:47 ↗ water improvements that are needed to

1:08:49 ↗ implement option 4 and another action

1:08:53 ↗ item would be to finalize our agreement

1:08:55 ↗ with cascade water Alliance 2 to allow

1:08:59 ↗ the short term water option to proceed

1:09:01 ↗ contractually if there's another site

1:09:04 ↗ please go to it

1:09:07 ↗ so that summarizes my presentation

1:09:10 ↗ tonight thank you and we look for any

1:09:12 ↗ feedback questions and and

1:09:15 ↗ recommendation from from counsel thanks

1:09:21 ↗ you all so we're good here we have a

1:09:23 ↗ couple of questions first is Kelsey

1:09:28 ↗ liberal arts and then council member

1:09:30 ↗ Hall where we go to the questions I just

1:09:32 ↗ wanted to clarify the thing the next

1:09:34 ↗ steps are an option for just to make it

1:09:38 ↗ clear for later viewers who might be

1:09:42 ↗ watching this and also for all of us

1:09:45 ↗ here is that its direction on which

1:09:47 ↗ option we're not actually authorizing

1:09:51 ↗ anything tonight

1:09:53 ↗ just gives it would just gives the

1:09:54 ↗ administration the feedback that they

1:09:56 ↗ need to go forth and take the next steps

1:09:59 ↗ they need to take now we will go to

1:10:03 ↗ councilmember marks Thank You

1:10:07 ↗ councilmember Goodman this is

1:10:08 ↗ councilmember mark speaking so I want to

1:10:10 ↗ make sure I understood something that I

1:10:12 ↗ heard earlier and it has to do with

1:10:19 ↗ response our potential response down the

1:10:22 ↗ road to changes in pricing estate water

1:10:25 ↗ lines did I hear that one of the options

1:10:28 ↗ that we would have would be like a

1:10:31 ↗ 10-year contract with maybe a five-year

1:10:34 ↗ runway so you do it like a 10-year

1:10:37 ↗ contract and after five years you

1:10:39 ↗ evaluate where you're at and maybe do

1:10:42 ↗ another five years and then do another

1:10:44 ↗ five years and and so you keep

1:10:46 ↗ potentially keep like a five-year runway

1:10:49 ↗ in response to changing rates is that

1:10:51 ↗ did I understand that correctly or not

1:10:53 ↗ correctly thank you

1:10:58 ↗ yes this is Etsy bread cascade I think

1:11:02 ↗ that's exactly what works best promote

1:11:04 ↗ both agencies so I think that's what we

1:11:06 ↗ would work towards the length of the

1:11:08 ↗ runway is really related to the time you

1:11:11 ↗ need to implement and execute your

1:11:14 ↗ project so five years seems to make

1:11:16 ↗ sense so something like 20-25 would be

1:11:19 ↗ the first window we could extend five

1:11:21 ↗ years and if we're successful on other

1:11:24 ↗ fronts and extending our Seattle supply

1:11:26 ↗ contract we may have ability to extend

1:11:29 ↗ further than that which may benefit you

1:11:31 ↗ as well

1:11:33 ↗ thank you very much councilmember Hall

1:11:38 ↗ thankee councilmember Goodman quick

1:11:42 ↗ comment and then a couple questions I

1:11:44 ↗ guess just first to say I'm largely

1:11:48 ↗ supportive of how option for has been

1:11:51 ↗ presented to us and thank you very much

1:11:53 ↗ for all the really detailed information

1:11:54 ↗ I appreciate it I had a couple questions

1:12:01 ↗ what were they

1:12:05 ↗ one of them was

1:12:11 ↗ you know option 4

1:12:13 ↗ us to delay you know building this new

1:12:18 ↗ water treatment plant and I see obvious

1:12:21 ↗ you know near-term Capitol benefits to

1:12:24 ↗ that but are there other benefits to

1:12:27 ↗ waiting on a water treatment plant in

1:12:30 ↗ terms of technology and improvements in

1:12:32 ↗ technology around chemicals or anything

1:12:34 ↗ like that or is water treatment pretty

1:12:37 ↗ much as good as it's gonna get

1:12:41 ↗ Bob York Public Works interim director

1:12:45 ↗ having been in the treatment business

1:12:48 ↗ since the 1970s there's always an

1:12:51 ↗ opportunity for better technology to

1:12:52 ↗ come around we're confident they even

1:12:55 ↗ with existing technology we can meet the

1:12:58 ↗ broader treatment requirements but

1:13:00 ↗ there's an innovation occurring all the

1:13:02 ↗ time so waiting allows more opportunity

1:13:07 ↗ for innovative and may be cost

1:13:09 ↗ competitive or cost reducing solutions

1:13:12 ↗ to occur so that's a good that's another

1:13:17 ↗ advantage of some of the extensions of

1:13:20 ↗ building water treatment out to the out

1:13:23 ↗ years thanks thank you in Keppler

1:13:29 ↗ Goodman if I may I just have one yes

1:13:31 ↗ sure thank you very much this is Zack

1:13:34 ↗ hall again my other question was when we

1:13:37 ↗ were talking about South Cove earlier

1:13:39 ↗ you mentioned something about

1:13:40 ↗ infrastructure allows infrastructure

1:13:45 ↗ shut down or and you know South Cove has

1:13:48 ↗ very aged water mains and infrastructure

1:13:52 ↗ in the neighborhood but there's a lot of

1:13:54 ↗ work going on right now as we speak so I

1:13:57 ↗ was just one I was hoping you could

1:13:58 ↗ speak to what you meant by that because

1:14:00 ↗ I thought a lot of the lines were being

1:14:02 ↗ replaced right now there's a lot of

1:14:05 ↗ activity in South Cove

1:14:06 ↗ related to water and sewer and even

1:14:10 ↗ other projects the infrastructure we

1:14:15 ↗ inherited from Bellevue includes a

1:14:18 ↗ a reservoir an aging reservoir built

1:14:21 ↗ around 1980 on the hillside near the

1:14:25 ↗ Montreux entrance that reservoir hasn't

1:14:31 ↗ been rehabilitated since it was built so

1:14:34 ↗ if we connect the South Cove community

1:14:38 ↗ through campus for through

1:14:39 ↗ infrastructure to the valley floor zone

1:14:44 ↗ another reservoir the Westside reservoir

1:14:48 ↗ can serve the various storage needs of

1:14:50 ↗ the South Cove neighborhood allowing a

1:14:52 ↗ reservoir that has many operational

1:14:56 ↗ problems and potential structural

1:14:59 ↗ upgrades to be taking out a service I

1:15:03 ↗ won't go into the numerous details of

1:15:06 ↗ operational challenges we face with that

1:15:08 ↗ reservoir but it's on a dead end so

1:15:11 ↗ water quality is always a consideration

1:15:14 ↗ secondly that personal that that sits on

1:15:17 ↗ is a multi acre review parcel so there's

1:15:21 ↗ an intrinsic value associated with that

1:15:24 ↗ site that may or may not be of the

1:15:27 ↗ future interest so

1:15:29 ↗ that's the that's what I was alluding to

1:15:32 ↗ with the opportunity there not only a

1:15:36 ↗ cost avoidance top-grade a reservoir

1:15:38 ↗ that's really past this useful life but

1:15:42 ↗ also the intrinsic land value that now

1:15:45 ↗ is owned by the city of Issaquah there's

1:15:47 ↗ all of this transaction

1:15:53 ↗ you

1:15:55 ↗ council member help anything else

1:16:01 ↗ Thank You counselor governor this is a

1:16:03 ↗ call just to ask real quick is and thank

1:16:07 ↗ you for that clarification I didn't

1:16:08 ↗ realize the reservoir pit played into

1:16:10 ↗ that picture but would the potential

1:16:14 ↗ utilization of that opportunity only

1:16:19 ↗ exists an option for

1:16:22 ↗ and then I'll be done councilmember

1:16:24 ↗ Goodman Bob York here

1:16:28 ↗ it exists an option

1:16:33 ↗ - as well anything anything that allows

1:16:37 ↗ the blending of water and X and in 2023

1:16:40 ↗ the extension of our system out to the

1:16:44 ↗ South Dakota neighborhood would had the

1:16:46 ↗ same benefit with regards that reservoir

1:16:50 ↗ so in the case of

1:16:54 ↗ the monitoring plan option of course it

1:16:56 ↗ wouldn't be online till 2025 based on

1:16:58 ↗ our revised forecast for how long it

1:17:00 ↗ might take to acquire the land and build

1:17:02 ↗ the water treatment plant but

1:17:04 ↗ essentially at at some point the same

1:17:07 ↗ opportunity exists the question then is

1:17:10 ↗ how long do we can we wait before we up

1:17:13 ↗ the upgraded reservoir and a rough

1:17:15 ↗ estimate of that upgrade could be

1:17:17 ↗ approaching a million dollars so it's a

1:17:19 ↗ big resident by Issaquah standards it's

1:17:21 ↗ a big reservoir thanks okay

1:17:26 ↗ councilmember Goodman here next we have

1:17:29 ↗ councilmember Rey he has a question

1:17:31 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman first I

1:17:34 ↗ just wanted to say thank you to Bob York

1:17:37 ↗ and and and the team for doing this

1:17:41 ↗ analysis we asked last year that you go

1:17:45 ↗ back and be creative and I think you did

1:17:48 ↗ I have to tell you I really like option

1:17:50 ↗ number four and and councilmember March

1:17:53 ↗ talked about the discounting and you

1:17:56 ↗ know net present value and so if you

1:17:58 ↗ look at the real value to the citizens

1:18:00 ↗ of deferring that water treatment plant

1:18:03 ↗ until the out years it's actually fairly

1:18:05 ↗ significant and you know we go all the

1:18:08 ↗ way out to 2035 and the rates are about

1:18:10 ↗ the same but it allows us so many years

1:18:13 ↗ here of being able to to stage in the

1:18:18 ↗ increases in rates and I think that has

1:18:20 ↗ some benefit I guess the one thing I

1:18:22 ↗ wanted to ask you to look at is could we

1:18:28 ↗ escalate the rates a little faster than

1:18:30 ↗ what would be necessary so that we can

1:18:31 ↗ flatten that curb build up some reserves

1:18:34 ↗ during the the early years of option 4

1:18:38 ↗ I'm not sure that that's what we want to

1:18:40 ↗ do but I just want you to look at it and

1:18:41 ↗ see what that would look like and and

1:18:43 ↗ instead of having a sort of an upswing

1:18:47 ↗ in the curve at the end it more of a

1:18:49 ↗ flatter curve on those rates for options

1:18:50 ↗ for Shaun probably has the answer

1:18:55 ↗ because we anticipated that question oh

1:18:58 ↗ yeah yes absolutely Shawn corn with HDR

1:19:01 ↗ yeah when you look at the long term rate

1:19:05 ↗ adjustment plan or transition plan we we

1:19:08 ↗ kind of build up and then we drop down

1:19:09 ↗ and then we build up again and so

1:19:11 ↗ absolutely we could increase that

1:19:14 ↗ midpoint period there right you know

1:19:17 ↗ around 20 20 25 26 and 27 we could bump

1:19:24 ↗ those up a little bit they're relatively

1:19:26 ↗ nominal there or percentage I think in

1:19:29 ↗ those years and so we could bump those

1:19:31 ↗ up and then try and bite that down in

1:19:34 ↗ those out here so that's definitely

1:19:35 ↗ something we could look at as part of

1:19:37 ↗ the process and agree thank you very

1:19:39 ↗ much

1:19:42 ↗ okay next we have question from council

1:19:46 ↗ president hunt and then will be killed

1:19:49 ↗ movers d michelle i love i kills in the

1:19:51 ↗ remarks um thank you this is council

1:19:55 ↗ president hunt i I wanted to briefly

1:19:59 ↗ summarize one comment that we received

1:20:03 ↗ from a member of the public who who

1:20:05 ↗ wrote to City Council about this item so

1:20:08 ↗ this member of the public wrote to us

1:20:10 ↗ that the information was presented

1:20:13 ↗ really nicely and that also had a number

1:20:16 ↗ of questions which I believe we covered

1:20:18 ↗ including about the growth rate that was

1:20:20 ↗ used to ascertain the demand and also

1:20:24 ↗ the water from Bellevue the water that's

1:20:28 ↗ being wheeled in from Bellevue and about

1:20:31 ↗ the varying regional rates which we we

1:20:34 ↗ discussed earlier so that's that was the

1:20:39 ↗ one email that we received on this topic

1:20:41 ↗ then my comments on this are firstly I

1:20:45 ↗ am at this time supportive of options

1:20:48 ↗ for I think it's really important right

1:20:51 ↗ now with all of the devastating economic

1:20:55 ↗ effects of covin 19 that we try to keep

1:20:57 ↗ our rate down in the near term

1:21:01 ↗ especially because that's really

1:21:05 ↗ important for folks to not have a big

1:21:08 ↗ rate increase rate right now I also

1:21:11 ↗ think that the other options that were

1:21:13 ↗ presented were compelling the other

1:21:15 ↗ reasons for that option port we're

1:21:17 ↗ compelling and I appreciate like

1:21:19 ↗ councilmember Ray said I appreciate that

1:21:22 ↗ you came back to us with these options

1:21:24 ↗ they are different than what we've seen

1:21:25 ↗ before and I appreciate going back to

1:21:28 ↗ the drawing board and and thinking

1:21:29 ↗ through some more options

1:21:34 ↗ one note I think for for messaging when

1:21:39 ↗ we have something like chemical feeds I

1:21:40 ↗ think it's important that we be clear

1:21:44 ↗ about what we mean we talked about how

1:21:46 ↗ in response to councilmember Z

1:21:47 ↗ Michelle's question we talked about how

1:21:49 ↗ that meant things like adjusting the pH

1:21:51 ↗ but it's important I think to to be

1:21:55 ↗ clear about what that means in the

1:21:58 ↗ future and then I also every time we

1:22:04 ↗ talk about water rates I want to mention

1:22:08 ↗ that we do have an affordable program

1:22:10 ↗ for seniors for water discount when I

1:22:14 ↗ was on the cascade water alliance

1:22:16 ↗ there was a affordability study that was

1:22:19 ↗ commissioned for member cities and it

1:22:21 ↗ was found that our city had a very low

1:22:23 ↗ rate of use of that program and so to

1:22:26 ↗ the extent that so we've since tried to

1:22:28 ↗ promote it and we do have that program

1:22:30 ↗ and there's information about that on

1:22:33 ↗ the city website thanks so let's

1:22:38 ↗ remember Dee Michelle

1:22:42 ↗ Thank You this is Kelsey birdie Michelle

1:22:44 ↗ and I will be very brief because I agree

1:22:48 ↗ with all that's been said before and so

1:22:52 ↗ I don't know that there's any need to

1:22:53 ↗ repeat it I think there is much to

1:22:56 ↗ commend option number four I will say

1:23:00 ↗ again an agree with council president

1:23:02 ↗ Hunt that when where there is a segment

1:23:06 ↗ of people in Issaquah who are concerned

1:23:09 ↗ about what goes into the water and so I

1:23:11 ↗ think we need to be very clear and

1:23:15 ↗ transparent about that and message that

1:23:17 ↗ well so that we don't have

1:23:20 ↗ misinformation floating around out there

1:23:24 ↗ and maybe we can address that more

1:23:26 ↗ appropriately when it comes back to the

1:23:27 ↗ council for or adoption for a formal

1:23:32 ↗ adoption but at this point I support

1:23:35 ↗ moving forward with option number four

1:23:38 ↗ so thank you very much and also I will

1:23:41 ↗ agree with everyone that the materials

1:23:44 ↗ were very well prepared and presented so

1:23:47 ↗ thank you

1:23:49 ↗ thank you that councilmember burns Thank

1:23:53 ↗ You councilmember Goodman this is

1:23:54 ↗ councilmember Mart speaking I wanna plus

1:23:57 ↗ one how clearly the information was

1:23:59 ↗ today it feels like the last time we did

1:24:01 ↗ this we spent like I don't know six

1:24:03 ↗ hours eight hours something like that

1:24:06 ↗ getting back to basics on water and how

1:24:09 ↗ we do water you know I showed up this

1:24:12 ↗ evening probably feeling a little

1:24:15 ↗ pugnacious and I can kind of plastic and

1:24:17 ↗ was gonna argue for option two just on

1:24:20 ↗ the control your destiny sort of thing

1:24:23 ↗ having seen cities that have had water

1:24:25 ↗ problems but I now find myself in

1:24:28 ↗ support of option 4 and it's really

1:24:30 ↗ about that runway that we discussed it's

1:24:33 ↗ really about the ability a five-year

1:24:35 ↗ time horizon is long enough time that

1:24:38 ↗ you can react to changes in the market I

1:24:41 ↗ compare that to our King County waste

1:24:44 ↗ system which it's more like a 22

1:24:47 ↗ question mark here effort to try to

1:24:52 ↗ change how you do waste but a 5 year

1:24:54 ↗ time horizon is short enough that that

1:24:56 ↗ we can react in if there are changes in

1:24:59 ↗ the marketplace and changes in water

1:25:01 ↗ demand in Kent County that makes this

1:25:03 ↗ option harder for us we can go build

1:25:05 ↗ something so have you gotten that

1:25:08 ↗ information I'm now supportive of the

1:25:10 ↗ administration recommendation as we move

1:25:13 ↗ forward thank you thank you

1:25:17 ↗ councilmember Goodman here I think

1:25:18 ↗ everybody's had an opportunity please

1:25:20 ↗ raise your hand if you haven't I don't

1:25:23 ↗ have anything new or different or more

1:25:26 ↗ interesting to say I agree with my

1:25:28 ↗ almost all become comments that fellow

1:25:31 ↗ council members have made and having a

1:25:35 ↗ suppressed councilmember marks and I

1:25:37 ↗ have sat through many of these I agree

1:25:40 ↗ I'm a much appreciative for what I

1:25:44 ↗ consider to be a very well done clear

1:25:47 ↗ straightforward presentation director

1:25:51 ↗ York and City Administrator Bob quits do

1:25:54 ↗ you have what you need from the council

1:25:56 ↗ on this matter

1:26:03 ↗ yeah councilmember Goodman members of

1:26:07 ↗ the council good evening I think we're

1:26:09 ↗ fine we will come back at future

1:26:11 ↗ meetings as was described with various

1:26:14 ↗ actions to implement moving forward I

1:26:17 ↗ want to thank Bob for his diligent work

1:26:21 ↗ on this coming in after many years of

1:26:26 ↗ Sheldon Lindy our director to giving a

1:26:28 ↗ fresh look to this with the direction to

1:26:32 ↗ you know see what else we can do so Bob

1:26:34 ↗ thank you very much and Andrew Schneider

1:26:36 ↗ with Fe City Administrator thank you as

1:26:38 ↗ well for your leadership in getting

1:26:41 ↗ through this so Thank You councilmember

1:26:43 ↗ Goodman work receptacle great and thank

1:26:45 ↗ you to uh to our guests for showing up

1:26:48 ↗ today I really appreciate it

1:26:50 ↗ Sean and wits is out there anybody else

1:26:54 ↗ thank you very much okay we're gonna

1:26:56 ↗ move on to our next agenda item ID 0-7

1:27:01 ↗ through C assessment development

1:27:06 ↗ department cost recovery and presented

1:27:11 ↗ by Andrea Snyder our deputy City

1:27:13 ↗ Administrator and I believe also Jean

1:27:15 ↗ Paul our management analysts welcome

1:27:19 ↗ great thank you so much councilmember

1:27:21 ↗ Goodman good evening members of City

1:27:23 ↗ Council and members of the public who

1:27:26 ↗ are viewing from home I am the deputy

1:27:28 ↗ City Administrator Andrea Snyder and

1:27:32 ↗ we're going to be talking about the

1:27:34 ↗ citywide services assessment and

1:27:36 ↗ providing you an update to that work I

1:27:39 ↗ will be providing the first part of the

1:27:42 ↗ presentation and then I'll turn it over

1:27:43 ↗ to the city's management analyst Jean

1:27:46 ↗ Paul for the second part of the

1:27:48 ↗ presentation which is that cost recovery

1:27:50 ↗ study Keith Niven who's the city's

1:27:53 ↗ development services director is also on

1:27:55 ↗ hand to answer any questions that we

1:27:57 ↗ have

1:27:59 ↗ next slide please

1:28:02 ↗ the purpose of the presentation and

1:28:05 ↗ discussion tonight is really like I said

1:28:07 ↗ to provide that update on the citywide

1:28:09 ↗ services assessment work that we've been

1:28:11 ↗ doing particularly with particularly

1:28:13 ↗ with developments with the development

1:28:15 ↗ services department or DSP we're going

1:28:19 ↗ to talk about those Department

1:28:21 ↗ improvements that we've been working on

1:28:22 ↗ and that we've identified and that cost

1:28:25 ↗ recovery study and that study was to

1:28:26 ↗ determine really how well our permitting

1:28:29 ↗ cost and other developments related

1:28:31 ↗ revenue specific to DSD really cover the

1:28:35 ↗ cost of providing those services and

1:28:38 ↗ then also we wish to receive City

1:28:42 ↗ Council feedback and direction on the

1:28:45 ↗ department staffing item that I'll bring

1:28:47 ↗ up a little bit later in the

1:28:48 ↗ presentation as well as the cost

1:28:50 ↗ recovery target that council has set

1:28:52 ↗ previously and determining whether

1:28:54 ↗ council wants to revisit that target

1:28:57 ↗ next slide please

1:29:01 ↗ great so the 20/20 adopted budget

1:29:05 ↗ included two hundred and fifty thousand

1:29:07 ↗ dollars for the citywide services

1:29:09 ↗ assessment we started to begin some of

1:29:12 ↗ that work in setting the stage for it

1:29:14 ↗ and then post kovat 19 and after that

1:29:17 ↗ hit we brought most of that work

1:29:20 ↗ in-house and that work is being

1:29:21 ↗ performed by staff where jean comes in a

1:29:25 ↗ little bit later and we wanted to do two

1:29:29 ↗ things as it relates to development

1:29:31 ↗ services address the dissatisfaction

1:29:34 ↗ with service we'd heard input from the

1:29:37 ↗ community and others including staff

1:29:40 ↗ that they were not happy with the way

1:29:42 ↗ that things were going we'll talk about

1:29:43 ↗ that a little bit and then also to

1:29:46 ↗ examine again how well are our revenues

1:29:49 ↗ that we take in through permitting fees

1:29:51 ↗ how well are they recovering those costs

1:29:53 ↗ and before we transition to the next

1:29:55 ↗ slide and talk about VSD improvements I

1:29:59 ↗ wanted to just pause and say that the

1:30:03 ↗ city of Issaquah is really committed to

1:30:05 ↗ continuous improvement and as such we're

1:30:08 ↗ always looking for ways to improve and

1:30:11 ↗ we're always looking for feedback on how

1:30:12 ↗ we can improve and so the next couple of

1:30:14 ↗ slides where we talk about some of the

1:30:16 ↗ themes and problems that we've

1:30:18 ↗ identified and the needs that we've

1:30:19 ↗ identified those things are really not

1:30:21 ↗ meant to be exhaustive but rather a

1:30:24 ↗ place to start and a place to start

1:30:25 ↗ making progress so with that said next

1:30:28 ↗ slide please

1:30:31 ↗ you

1:30:33 ↗ so as I said before we took a look at

1:30:36 ↗ some of the feedback that we've been

1:30:38 ↗ hearing from the community some feedback

1:30:40 ↗ from City Council members applicants and

1:30:43 ↗ customers and employees and we had a few

1:30:48 ↗ pretty difficult discussions lots of

1:30:50 ↗ very detailed discussions about what's

1:30:53 ↗ not working what what needs to improve

1:30:55 ↗ and several themes emerged and so rather

1:30:58 ↗ than get into the details this evening

1:31:00 ↗ I'd really like to stick to some of the

1:31:01 ↗ themes of things that we heard and

1:31:03 ↗ address those so the first thing that we

1:31:06 ↗ heard first theme is that there's not a

1:31:09 ↗ clear understanding of who the customer

1:31:11 ↗ is and especially when the desires of

1:31:15 ↗ the community and the desires of the

1:31:17 ↗ developer or the permit applicant

1:31:19 ↗ conflict as I sometimes do and so

1:31:22 ↗ there's confusion about which of those

1:31:27 ↗ needs and needs should be prioritized

1:31:29 ↗ and that's one of the problems that we

1:31:32 ↗ identified second we identified the need

1:31:37 ↗ for the clarification of the city code

1:31:38 ↗ you know many of the council members are

1:31:40 ↗ familiar with the work on on title 18

1:31:42 ↗ and a few of our other chapters we're

1:31:45 ↗ hoping that that clarification and

1:31:47 ↗ simplification of city code would

1:31:49 ↗ provide for faster and more consistent

1:31:52 ↗ interpretation by staff so that we meet

1:31:55 ↗ the community's goals the code is there

1:31:57 ↗ so that we can meet community's goals

1:32:00 ↗ and implement those goals and when that

1:32:02 ↗ is not clear it makes it very difficult

1:32:04 ↗ to do that also a clear and simple city

1:32:08 ↗ code provides better communication to

1:32:10 ↗ the public and better predictability to

1:32:12 ↗ them of what they can expect as they

1:32:14 ↗ apply for permits or as their neighbors

1:32:16 ↗ apply for permits third we need to

1:32:22 ↗ create or in other cases improve

1:32:25 ↗ processes and standardize them to

1:32:28 ↗ enhance predictability and consistency

1:32:30 ↗ for the public while also increasing the

1:32:33 ↗ efficiency of staff

1:32:36 ↗ or theme is improvements to department

1:32:39 ↗ culture and in order to improve staff

1:32:42 ↗ morale and development services is the

1:32:45 ↗ department that has in recent years

1:32:47 ↗ experienced a lot of turnover and you

1:32:52 ↗ can probably conclude that part of the

1:32:55 ↗ department culture problems are really

1:32:57 ↗ influenced by the other themes that

1:32:58 ↗ we've already discussed it's hard to

1:32:59 ↗ have a healthy strong department culture

1:33:03 ↗ and strong morale when some of these

1:33:05 ↗ other things are lacking but there's a

1:33:06 ↗ few other things we need to specifically

1:33:07 ↗ address in employee morale here as well

1:33:10 ↗ and then five changes to the

1:33:14 ↗ organizational chart in position were

1:33:16 ↗ something that came up as a need to

1:33:19 ↗ ensure the right people were in the

1:33:20 ↗ right position and also increase some of

1:33:23 ↗ the in-house capacity next slide please

1:33:32 ↗ so some of the some of the first efforts

1:33:36 ↗ coming out of these themes improvements

1:33:39 ↗ that we can make that would help address

1:33:40 ↗ these needs first is to change the name

1:33:44 ↗ to Community Planning and Development

1:33:46 ↗ instead of development services

1:33:48 ↗ department and this name change really

1:33:51 ↗ puts the community first where it

1:33:53 ↗ belongs and it also helps to clarify for

1:33:57 ↗ staff and anybody else that the

1:33:58 ↗ community is to come first I'm over any

1:34:01 ↗ individual applicant the name change

1:34:04 ↗ will be implemented following the study

1:34:06 ↗ session for the purpose of clarity

1:34:08 ↗ tonight we wanted to keep with the old

1:34:11 ↗ nomenclature and use DSD but moving

1:34:14 ↗ forward we'd like the name to be changed

1:34:17 ↗ we also are working we will be working

1:34:21 ↗ to revise the mission statement for the

1:34:23 ↗ department each department has its own

1:34:24 ↗ mission statement in addition to the

1:34:26 ↗ city's mission statement and again the

1:34:29 ↗ goal of that is to further clarify the

1:34:32 ↗ services and the priorities of serving

1:34:35 ↗ the community first

1:34:37 ↗ that has yet to be to be done a good

1:34:41 ↗ question councilmember Goodman here saw

1:34:47 ↗ the change and the name changed a

1:34:49 ↗ Community Planning and Development um

1:34:52 ↗ would the parks department still do its

1:34:58 ↗ own planning so can you speak to that a

1:35:03 ↗ little bit because if I'm an on council

1:35:07 ↗ member who doesn't you know probably

1:35:11 ↗ know as much about the city structure as

1:35:15 ↗ a councilman for city employee would I

1:35:17 ↗ might think that community planning and

1:35:20 ↗ development also heads up parks planning

1:35:23 ↗ you Thank You councilmember Goodman this

1:35:26 ↗ is Andrea Snyder again thank you for

1:35:29 ↗ that question the planning function that

1:35:32 ↗ occurs for parks is very specific to two

1:35:36 ↗ parks and creating those plans the

1:35:39 ↗ community planning function of

1:35:40 ↗ development services or the new

1:35:42 ↗ department that will be named is still

1:35:45 ↗ looking at the comprehensive plan or

1:35:48 ↗ these long-range plans that are a bit

1:35:50 ↗ more overarching and and would not be

1:35:54 ↗ taking on the entirety of the planning

1:35:56 ↗ functions that occur across the city

1:35:58 ↗ okay that planning functions for parks

1:36:01 ↗ specifically for parks would stay within

1:36:03 ↗ the parks department okay um I think it

1:36:07 ↗ might get a little bit confusing though

1:36:09 ↗ we'll see um all right thank you that's

1:36:12 ↗ all okay thank you

1:36:15 ↗ so the second improvement that I'd like

1:36:20 ↗ to talk about tonight is updating the

1:36:23 ↗ land use code building codes and codes

1:36:25 ↗ for enforcement this work was underway

1:36:30 ↗ some of it we started last year but this

1:36:33 ↗ work is underway and those updates have

1:36:36 ↗ been stalled and delayed due to Kovach

1:36:39 ↗ 19

1:36:40 ↗ third process improvement so in addition

1:36:44 ↗ to the codes of themselves the processes

1:36:45 ↗ that we have need to be improved and I

1:36:48 ↗ just like to highlight just a couple as

1:36:51 ↗ examples for you this evening

1:36:53 ↗ the first is incomplete permit

1:36:56 ↗ application so work is underway to stop

1:36:59 ↗ accepting incomplete permit applications

1:37:02 ↗ and to develop criteria to help

1:37:05 ↗ determine what is sufficient for a

1:37:07 ↗ complete application now from a common

1:37:10 ↗ sense perspective you might think why do

1:37:12 ↗ we why would we accept incomplete permit

1:37:16 ↗ applications that doesn't seem to make

1:37:17 ↗ any sense on the face of it and part of

1:37:20 ↗ it is in order to try to serve this

1:37:24 ↗ customer who's got a permit maybe they

1:37:27 ↗ don't have everything that they need but

1:37:29 ↗ they're really looking for staff

1:37:31 ↗ feedback or they're looking for some

1:37:32 ↗ interpretations of what they're trying

1:37:34 ↗ to do and and we're trying to meet those

1:37:38 ↗ customer needs well the problem is that

1:37:40 ↗ if we don't have all the information

1:37:42 ↗ that we need to really provide that

1:37:45 ↗ feedback to the applicant then the

1:37:48 ↗ process becomes longer it becomes less

1:37:51 ↗ predictable for the applicant and it

1:37:53 ↗ becomes much more iterative as the more

1:37:56 ↗ staff learn and the more information

1:37:58 ↗ they get on a certain project from the

1:38:00 ↗ applicant that changes the context of

1:38:03 ↗ their interpretation of what they see it

1:38:05 ↗ might include other codes that need to

1:38:07 ↗ be applied etc so accepting incomplete

1:38:09 ↗ applications from a desire to be really

1:38:13 ↗ responsive is actually making things

1:38:18 ↗ much less predictable and has been much

1:38:20 ↗ more frustrating for our customers in

1:38:22 ↗ most cases so we also need to determine

1:38:25 ↗ and this is something we're working on

1:38:27 ↗ right now what what are the criteria to

1:38:29 ↗ determine whether an application is

1:38:31 ↗ sufficient

1:38:31 ↗ what is that information that we need to

1:38:34 ↗ be able to provide responses to our

1:38:36 ↗ permit applicants that are that are

1:38:41 ↗ complete

1:38:43 ↗ um another process improvement is really

1:38:48 ↗ looking at maximizing the customer and

1:38:50 ↗ staff time by reducing drop-ins and

1:38:53 ↗ encouraging applicants to schedule

1:38:55 ↗ appointments so we have we have very

1:39:00 ↗ much an open-door policy which is great

1:39:02 ↗ we always want to like I said be

1:39:04 ↗ responsive to our customers and our

1:39:07 ↗ applicants but sometimes people walk in

1:39:10 ↗ wanting answers to questions that are a

1:39:12 ↗ little complicated and need a little bit

1:39:14 ↗ more research and we need a little bit

1:39:15 ↗ of more time to make sure that we're

1:39:16 ↗ giving them all the information that

1:39:18 ↗ they're looking for and so the city is

1:39:20 ↗ currently testing software for this

1:39:22 ↗ purpose so that so that customers or

1:39:26 ↗ members of the public can schedule an

1:39:28 ↗ appointment and very easily and quickly

1:39:31 ↗ and be able to set aside the time so

1:39:35 ↗ that they can get their questions

1:39:36 ↗ answered this the software will also

1:39:40 ↗ help enhance services for the public

1:39:42 ↗ during the pandemic

1:39:47 ↗ just a couple examples of process

1:39:48 ↗ improvement there are others that we've

1:39:51 ↗ identified through this process that

1:39:53 ↗ need to be improved but I just wanted to

1:39:55 ↗ give you some examples of what we're

1:39:58 ↗ looking at so forth improving the

1:40:02 ↗ department culture and this is something

1:40:04 ↗ that is very important and we have not

1:40:09 ↗ made as much progress on that as some of

1:40:12 ↗ the other items on this list we had

1:40:15 ↗ started - we have scheduled monthly

1:40:18 ↗ meetings with staff to really discover

1:40:20 ↗ from them how what are these things that

1:40:22 ↗ we need to be doing to improve

1:40:24 ↗ department culture and to get their

1:40:26 ↗ ideas and once again kovat 19 hit and

1:40:30 ↗ that really put a halt on those

1:40:32 ↗ discussions as other priorities rose to

1:40:36 ↗ the surface so that's something that we

1:40:38 ↗ are ready to pick up that work again and

1:40:39 ↗ we'll beginning again soon and then

1:40:43 ↗ number five we wanted to examine the

1:40:48 ↗ current authorized position positions in

1:40:51 ↗ relation to the current needs and that's

1:40:53 ↗ to really better ensure again that the

1:40:56 ↗ right people in the right positions and

1:40:57 ↗ so this is one of the first things that

1:40:59 ↗ we wanted to take a look at so when the

1:41:02 ↗ layoffs were required due to reduced

1:41:05 ↗ revenues resulting from the pandemic the

1:41:08 ↗ administration prioritized planners and

1:41:11 ↗ other technical staff over managers so

1:41:14 ↗ as a result three managers in the

1:41:16 ↗ department were laid off and we're going

1:41:20 ↗ to talk a little bit more about that

1:41:21 ↗ organizational chart - to address this

1:41:25 ↗ issue of aligning the position with the

1:41:28 ↗ current needs I thought it caused there

1:41:30 ↗ and make sure there aren't any question

1:41:34 ↗ um councilmember Goodman here I'm not

1:41:38 ↗ seeing any questions you can continue

1:41:41 ↗ okay

1:41:42 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman so like

1:41:45 ↗ I said this list of improvements is not

1:41:47 ↗ meant to be exhausted we are committed

1:41:50 ↗ to continuous improvement but this is

1:41:52 ↗ again just a starting place for us so if

1:41:55 ↗ we could proceed to the next slide

1:41:56 ↗ please

1:41:59 ↗ thank you so here's a piece of the new

1:42:06 ↗ org chart the full chart is in the

1:42:08 ↗ packet on page 82 but it was a little

1:42:12 ↗ bit too much information to put on this

1:42:13 ↗ slide so we'll just talk about the

1:42:15 ↗ divisions that we would have with the

1:42:20 ↗ new organization so again this chart

1:42:22 ↗ reflects four of well it reflects the

1:42:26 ↗ layoffs that occurred in May including

1:42:29 ↗ the permit center manager the long-range

1:42:32 ↗ planning manager and the project manager

1:42:35 ↗ and we believe these layoffs served to

1:42:40 ↗ better align the department functions

1:42:42 ↗ with the current needs and also we

1:42:46 ↗ brought in some additional

1:42:48 ↗ administrative staff into DST from the

1:42:51 ↗ former centralized Support Services

1:42:53 ↗ office with that resulted in the loss of

1:42:57 ↗ the Support Services Manager position so

1:42:59 ↗ this org chart does reflect the layoffs

1:43:01 ↗ that occurred previously divisions

1:43:05 ↗ within DSD consisted of the permit

1:43:08 ↗ center current land use planning which

1:43:11 ↗ also included engineering building and

1:43:14 ↗ long-range planning and the divisions of

1:43:18 ↗ the department now are as you can see

1:43:20 ↗ administrative services again because we

1:43:22 ↗ brought in that additional

1:43:23 ↗ administrative services function when

1:43:26 ↗ when that function decentralized across

1:43:28 ↗ the organization building which now

1:43:31 ↗ includes the permit center

1:43:34 ↗ planning which is that current land use

1:43:37 ↗ or current planning function and from

1:43:40 ↗ that we have separated out engineering

1:43:42 ↗ and these divisions that you see here on

1:43:46 ↗ this slide I think better segment

1:43:50 ↗ Department operations by function and

1:43:53 ↗ are certainly more reflective of what's

1:43:56 ↗ being in many other cities

1:43:58 ↗ and I'd like to talk specifically about

1:44:01 ↗ engineering a little bit more making

1:44:04 ↗ engineering its own division really

1:44:06 ↗ reduces the direct reports to the

1:44:08 ↗ planning manager and allows her more

1:44:10 ↗ time to focus on current planning needs

1:44:12 ↗ which include that permitting function

1:44:14 ↗ the new we are asking for council

1:44:18 ↗ feedback on a new engineering manager

1:44:20 ↗ position this evening and we believe the

1:44:23 ↗ engineering manager position would

1:44:25 ↗ strengthen the engineering team within

1:44:27 ↗ this department and provide enhanced

1:44:30 ↗ technical capacity and oversight as more

1:44:33 ↗ engineering services are brought in

1:44:35 ↗ House and Council may recall that

1:44:37 ↗ earlier this year we had talked about

1:44:39 ↗ the engineering consultant services that

1:44:42 ↗ the city uses of our h2 and we have

1:44:46 ↗ reduced to their contract to bring more

1:44:48 ↗ of those engineering services than how

1:44:50 ↗ in order to save money and we think that

1:44:53 ↗ we can provide those services well and

1:44:56 ↗ also save money for for the general

1:45:00 ↗ public so bringing an engineering

1:45:02 ↗ manager on at a time that we're bringing

1:45:04 ↗ in additional engineering resources

1:45:07 ↗ in-house versus consulting out would

1:45:09 ↗ again help strengthen that technical

1:45:11 ↗ capacity and oversight within this

1:45:13 ↗ department

1:45:15 ↗ so this org chart as you see it here and

1:45:18 ↗ in a more complete form on page 82 of

1:45:21 ↗ your packet is was used to guide the

1:45:25 ↗ future looking portions of the cost

1:45:27 ↗ recovery study which Jean Paul is going

1:45:31 ↗ to get into and provide more information

1:45:33 ↗ on in a little bit but at this point if

1:45:37 ↗ we could have the next slide please I'd

1:45:39 ↗ like to pause for questions and feedback

1:45:42 ↗ and specifically looking for feedback on

1:45:44 ↗ the engineering manager position

1:45:49 ↗ you

1:45:52 ↗ you

1:45:54 ↗ getting comments or feedback

1:46:00 ↗ [Music]

1:46:03 ↗ I guess I guess I don't know how you

1:46:06 ↗ take silence Oh president council

1:46:09 ↗ president hunt and then council member

1:46:13 ↗ TV show oh now they're just flooding

1:46:16 ↗ it's that box no I think council

1:46:18 ↗ president thank you

1:46:21 ↗ so this counts president hunt I am

1:46:25 ↗ having trouble giving you feedback I did

1:46:29 ↗ review the materials I I guess I was

1:46:33 ↗ like more information about about why

1:46:40 ↗ this was decided to be the position that

1:46:42 ↗ was added and you mentioned that this is

1:46:44 ↗ a similar similar structure that other

1:46:49 ↗ cities use but I guess in addition to

1:46:54 ↗ that I'm sure there are reasons why

1:46:55 ↗ other cities and our city has decided to

1:46:58 ↗ reorganize in this way and so I guess my

1:47:01 ↗ comment is I'm having a little bit of

1:47:03 ↗ trouble formulating without more

1:47:05 ↗ understanding of the reasons why this is

1:47:07 ↗ the position that's necessary especially

1:47:11 ↗ especially given our current

1:47:13 ↗ circumstances with the revenue

1:47:15 ↗ reductions that you mentioned thank you

1:47:20 ↗ president Han fishes Andrea Schneider

1:47:22 ↗ again I there's a couple of reasons and

1:47:26 ↗ I think I probably touched over them

1:47:28 ↗ maybe a little bit too briefly in my

1:47:31 ↗ materials in presentation but one is

1:47:34 ↗ that the current land use planning

1:47:37 ↗ manager has

1:47:41 ↗ frankly too many direct reports for her

1:47:43 ↗ to be able to really supervise and

1:47:46 ↗ provide that oversight well she also and

1:47:49 ↗ in is a planner by trade and that's

1:47:51 ↗ really what the position of a current

1:47:54 ↗ planning manager is and therefore she's

1:47:56 ↗ not no fault of her own she has the

1:48:00 ↗ qualification to that position but she's

1:48:03 ↗ not trained engineer and in order to

1:48:07 ↗ provide that oversight staff has in the

1:48:11 ↗ past been consulting with Public Works

1:48:14 ↗ engineering to be able to weigh in more

1:48:16 ↗ on an engineering and technical

1:48:18 ↗ technical advice and that was difficult

1:48:22 ↗ for both departments and we

1:48:30 ↗ it's from talking to staff and

1:48:34 ↗ understanding how the processes have

1:48:35 ↗ been working I believe we really need to

1:48:38 ↗ deepen our engineering bench especially

1:48:40 ↗ as we bring in more of those outside

1:48:43 ↗ services to be inside and so having a

1:48:46 ↗ manager that can oversee that and

1:48:49 ↗ provide that technical advice and be

1:48:53 ↗ able to provide some of that technical

1:48:54 ↗ decision-making based off of engineering

1:48:57 ↗ principles and not planning principles

1:48:59 ↗ or design principle is something that we

1:49:02 ↗ are lacking in this city so those are

1:49:06 ↗ those are really the main reasons I hope

1:49:08 ↗ that answers your question

1:49:13 ↗ you

1:49:15 ↗ that is your question yes it provides

1:49:20 ↗ more information so thank you that was a

1:49:24 ↗ soft yes okay

1:49:26 ↗ councilmember Paul

1:49:32 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

1:49:34 ↗ that call my question was pretty much

1:49:37 ↗ the same and honestly I wish maybe I'd

1:49:42 ↗ emailed this beforehand I did I did read

1:49:44 ↗ the materials but as a newer

1:49:47 ↗ councilmember I'm struggling to kind of

1:49:50 ↗ understand what the difference is

1:49:52 ↗ between all these departments and what

1:49:54 ↗ all the managers do within development

1:49:57 ↗ services between engineering planning

1:50:00 ↗ and building you you know coming in as a

1:50:03 ↗ former community member

1:50:05 ↗ now a council member those all sound the

1:50:07 ↗ same to me so maybe just we can either

1:50:13 ↗ connect offline if that makes more sense

1:50:14 ↗ or if you think it's kind of shorter and

1:50:17 ↗ you can go through that now and that

1:50:19 ↗ makes sense that would be great

1:50:20 ↗ otherwise I do want to get to supporting

1:50:23 ↗ it if

1:50:26 ↗ you know other cities are adopting this

1:50:28 ↗ kind of structure and if administration

1:50:31 ↗ really believes that this would help

1:50:32 ↗ free up in the planning department but I

1:50:35 ↗ again I just need to know a little bit

1:50:37 ↗ more about what each service does Thank

1:50:41 ↗ You councilmember Hall I'd be happy to

1:50:43 ↗ address that on a high level on this on

1:50:47 ↗ this meeting and then if we need to

1:50:49 ↗ follow up I'd be happy to do so this is

1:50:52 ↗ Andrea Snyder again so so we talked

1:50:56 ↗ about the land use and current planning

1:51:00 ↗ so they are that person is looking at

1:51:03 ↗ how does those land use policies and I'm

1:51:06 ↗ going to go with the most common one of

1:51:08 ↗ Zoning so if there's a permit

1:51:11 ↗ application that comes in and somebody

1:51:14 ↗ wants to build let's say multifamily

1:51:18 ↗ within a certain area we need to assess

1:51:20 ↗ whether or not that's even allowed by

1:51:23 ↗ the city zoning and are those land uses

1:51:26 ↗ in the land use policy is that in

1:51:28 ↗ alignment with what that applicant wants

1:51:30 ↗ to do there's also design guidelines

1:51:32 ↗ that the planning and current planning

1:51:35 ↗ team would apply to the project

1:51:37 ↗ so there's youth there is design those

1:51:40 ↗ types of things would be within land use

1:51:42 ↗ engineering would be very different it

1:51:45 ↗ would be how how does this project fit

1:51:49 ↗ within perhaps a critical area such as a

1:51:53 ↗ sloped environment how does the project

1:51:56 ↗ fit within a transportation context and

1:52:00 ↗ the roadways and so those are applying

1:52:02 ↗ different standards to our engineering

1:52:03 ↗ standards which are different than the

1:52:07 ↗ youth or the design much more specific

1:52:11 ↗ in in terms of what would be feasible

1:52:15 ↗ from an engineering standpoint or what

1:52:16 ↗ would work within the physical

1:52:18 ↗ environment there does that does that

1:52:20 ↗ begin to start to help building would be

1:52:23 ↗ a little bit different in that building

1:52:25 ↗ would be looking at the actual structure

1:52:27 ↗ that's taking place so does the actual

1:52:29 ↗ structure is it safe does it comply with

1:52:32 ↗ the building code which is really again

1:52:34 ↗ focused on the safety and the structural

1:52:37 ↗ integrity of the building which is

1:52:39 ↗ different

1:52:40 ↗ how we use the building or what the

1:52:42 ↗ building looks like that's land-use so

1:52:45 ↗ that's that's a very high-level summary

1:52:49 ↗ I hope that helps

1:52:56 ↗ remember huh

1:52:58 ↗ anything else is that called here yeah

1:53:01 ↗ just to say yeah that does help any to

1:53:03 ↗ me that reads like start to finish from

1:53:06 ↗ beginning of a project conception land

1:53:09 ↗ use all the way to what does the

1:53:10 ↗ building look like separating it out by

1:53:13 ↗ thinking of the narrative I think

1:53:18 ↗ would give me a point where this makes

1:53:20 ↗ sense this kind of model makes sense all

1:53:24 ↗ right

1:53:25 ↗ councilmember Dee Michelle Thank You

1:53:29 ↗ this was councilmember team Michelle and

1:53:31 ↗ like councilmember Hall I'm feeling a

1:53:34 ↗ little bit like an outsider of coming in

1:53:37 ↗ here but I saw just some general

1:53:41 ↗ observations and maybe a question about

1:53:43 ↗ how we can realistically look at the at

1:53:46 ↗ this group I moved here 35 years ago and

1:53:50 ↗ I think for the last 35 years I have

1:53:53 ↗ heard people complaining about the

1:53:56 ↗ planning development department and how

1:53:59 ↗ hard it is to get things done and how

1:54:01 ↗ long it takes and that would be through

1:54:05 ↗ five different administrations and many

1:54:08 ↗ different directors for that that group

1:54:11 ↗ and I also worked at King County and

1:54:14 ↗ when I worked there I would hear stories

1:54:15 ↗ all the time about how slow it was to

1:54:18 ↗ get permits and how hard it was to get

1:54:20 ↗ through the planning department at King

1:54:22 ↗ County and then my my dear sister worked

1:54:27 ↗ in the planning department in Spokane

1:54:28 ↗ for 20-25 years and I heard many stories

1:54:33 ↗ again about the different was so

1:54:35 ↗ difficult so I am wondering if

1:54:37 ↗ realistically what is our what is what

1:54:40 ↗ is that we are trying to achieve here

1:54:41 ↗ are we trying to achieve a no conflict

1:54:44 ↗ zone where everybody is very happy when

1:54:47 ↗ they leave which is great I love

1:54:49 ↗ customer service and I think some of the

1:54:52 ↗ proposed changes are excellent but it

1:54:55 ↗ does feel as though the planning and

1:54:57 ↗ development departments in cities are

1:55:00 ↗ always sort of a point of contention for

1:55:03 ↗ the public and for developers and so I

1:55:07 ↗ just want to be realistic we'll see

1:55:09 ↗ people who are working in that

1:55:11 ↗ department in terms of what is our what

1:55:15 ↗ exactly are we trying to achieve in

1:55:16 ↗ terms of our out facing to the public

1:55:19 ↗ and and then again in facing toward the

1:55:21 ↗ council and the and the leadership of

1:55:24 ↗ the city in terms of perhaps

1:55:26 ↗ communications and things just what is

1:55:29 ↗ our end goal here and how realistic is

1:55:31 ↗ it when

1:55:32 ↗ apparently conflict is sort of built

1:55:36 ↗ into the planning or development

1:55:38 ↗ departments in cities

1:55:39 ↗ that's my those are my general

1:55:42 ↗ observations because I don't feel like

1:55:44 ↗ I've been an insider long it long enough

1:55:47 ↗ to really to know the two sides of every

1:55:53 ↗ story that you really need to hear about

1:55:55 ↗ specific situations so well respectfully

1:56:01 ↗ councilmember Z Michele I don't think

1:56:03 ↗ it's I think you hit the nail on the

1:56:04 ↗ head I don't think you're so much of an

1:56:06 ↗ outsider here the I think you have great

1:56:10 ↗ observations meant of the Planning

1:56:12 ↗ Department in any city or county or

1:56:15 ↗ jurisdiction they are the regulator's

1:56:17 ↗ and that means that sometimes you have

1:56:23 ↗ to tell people no or you have to stay

1:56:25 ↗ within certain regulations and that's

1:56:28 ↗ that's difficult so the goal is not for

1:56:31 ↗ a hundred percent customer satisfaction

1:56:34 ↗ I think that would be that would be an

1:56:38 ↗ unrealistic goal to meet instead though

1:56:42 ↗ I think we can do better in terms of

1:56:44 ↗ predictability I think we can do better

1:56:48 ↗ in terms of consistency applied across

1:56:50 ↗ projects and we're also looking to make

1:56:53 ↗ sure that the community is is as a whole

1:56:59 ↗ is saying that yes the development that

1:57:02 ↗ is occurring within our city is the

1:57:04 ↗ development that we want to see and it's

1:57:06 ↗ it's in accordance to the vision that

1:57:08 ↗ we've set for it and to the policies

1:57:10 ↗ that you know we have been commenting on

1:57:13 ↗ and been approving and in many places

1:57:15 ↗ there's some there's some conflict and

1:57:17 ↗ discord with that and I think that we

1:57:19 ↗ can do better I know that the department

1:57:22 ↗ and talking with staff and leadership of

1:57:24 ↗ that department agree so I think we are

1:57:29 ↗ looking to improve those outcomes that's

1:57:32 ↗ the goal

1:57:34 ↗ and councilmember Goodman if I can jump

1:57:37 ↗ in and just amplify on the issue of

1:57:40 ↗ consistency in all the communities I

1:57:42 ↗ have worked in not unlike councilmember

1:57:45 ↗ D Michele's observation

1:57:47 ↗ there's always frustration on some level

1:57:49 ↗ because of the issue being a regulator

1:57:51 ↗ different people have different visions

1:57:52 ↗ of what the community should be but at

1:57:54 ↗ the end of the day we need to be

1:57:56 ↗ consistent and we need to have senior

1:57:58 ↗ managers who have the skills and the

1:58:01 ↗ time to be consistent and I think in my

1:58:04 ↗ observation and working with DSD here in

1:58:07 ↗ Issaquah that's been a problem is that

1:58:09 ↗ you have not had managers who have been

1:58:12 ↗ in the right seats sometimes and you've

1:58:15 ↗ not had them at the time that they need

1:58:17 ↗ to do the work that they need to do and

1:58:20 ↗ provide that consistency so part of this

1:58:22 ↗ rework with the reorganization is to

1:58:25 ↗ provide the time to make sure that those

1:58:28 ↗ managers hopefully have the skills and

1:58:30 ↗ abilities that are needed at the time

1:58:34 ↗ you

1:58:36 ↗ does that answer your question

1:58:37 ↗ councilmember dee Michelle that comment

1:58:40 ↗ is very appreciated and that helps me a

1:58:44 ↗ lot to understand where we're trying to

1:58:46 ↗ get to you so yes thank you very much

1:58:48 ↗ okay good I killed something remarks

1:58:51 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

1:58:53 ↗ councilmember Mart speaking deputies

1:58:58 ↗ it's deputy City Administrator Snyder

1:59:00 ↗ help me understand the engineering

1:59:02 ↗ function if we look citywide at what

1:59:07 ↗ engineering is done at the city how does

1:59:11 ↗ creating this new division where does

1:59:16 ↗ that engineering work and function come

1:59:20 ↗ from and sort of how does it how does

1:59:24 ↗ this snapshot change how engineering is

1:59:27 ↗ done by the city in total

1:59:31 ↗ and Thank You councilmember March this

1:59:34 ↗ is Andrea Snyder so so I think perhaps

1:59:39 ↗ we can best talk about it through an

1:59:41 ↗ example of a project we as council knows

1:59:46 ↗ we have a Public Works engineering

1:59:48 ↗ department and that's for our civil

1:59:52 ↗ engineering projects our capital

1:59:54 ↗ improvement projects related to

1:59:55 ↗ transportation and utilities with in the

1:59:59 ↗ development services department we have

2:00:01 ↗ an engineering function that focuses on

2:00:05 ↗ the engineering aspects of a privately

2:00:09 ↗ run development project so if we have a

2:00:14 ↗ development that goes in that that

2:00:17 ↗ development needs to for example install

2:00:21 ↗ a pump station that is something that's

2:00:25 ↗ paid for by the private development our

2:00:28 ↗ engineering function within development

2:00:31 ↗ services would review while consulting

2:00:34 ↗ others but would review does this

2:00:36 ↗ compensation meet to the needs of that

2:00:39 ↗ of that are according to our engineering

2:00:42 ↗ standards how does this fit within our

2:00:45 ↗ other infrastructure and they would help

2:00:46 ↗ coordinate those conversations and

2:00:48 ↗ consult with other aspects the

2:00:51 ↗ engineering function and within this

2:00:53 ↗ department would also be looking at

2:00:55 ↗ let's talk about sidewalks so if new

2:00:58 ↗ sidewalks need to put in to be put in on

2:01:01 ↗ Newport for example that previously did

2:01:04 ↗ not exist

2:01:05 ↗ how do those sidewalks meet with the

2:01:08 ↗ city standards for what sidewalks should

2:01:11 ↗ look like how do they meet within a DA

2:01:13 ↗ regulations for the slope of that

2:01:15 ↗ sidewalk because this is new sidewalks

2:01:17 ↗ so we have to make sure that it's

2:01:19 ↗ meeting all of those standards so that's

2:01:21 ↗ what the the engineering function would

2:01:24 ↗ be reviewing as aspects of those

2:01:26 ↗ projects that are really not related to

2:01:28 ↗ publicly led civic infrastructure so

2:01:31 ↗ much as utilities and transportation

2:01:33 ↗ that's what occurs within public works

2:01:35 ↗ engineering

2:01:36 ↗ so that's that's really the current

2:01:38 ↗ situation what we're talking about by

2:01:40 ↗ bringing our h2 services than how those

2:01:43 ↗ are h2 services are currently managed by

2:01:46 ↗ the department by the development

2:01:48 ↗ services department and it would keep

2:01:51 ↗ that function within this department but

2:01:54 ↗ really bring the talent and house and so

2:01:57 ↗ we would have more staff on hand with

2:01:59 ↗ the technical capabilities to review

2:02:02 ↗ those projects and the engineering

2:02:04 ↗ component of those projects

2:02:07 ↗ to your question telephone remarks

2:02:11 ↗ you

2:02:14 ↗ okay sorry I had muted myself to be

2:02:17 ↗ polite that I couldn't beat admit yes it

2:02:20 ↗ does thank you

2:02:22 ↗ okay councilmember Goodman here seeing

2:02:23 ↗ no other questions I think we can move

2:02:27 ↗ on

2:02:29 ↗ for comment

2:02:34 ↗ at councilmember Goodman f5 maze this is

2:02:39 ↗ Andrea again really what I'm hoping for

2:02:42 ↗ feedback is an understanding from

2:02:44 ↗ Council as Hart's our next steps so our

2:02:48 ↗ next steps for this process is to kind

2:02:52 ↗ of continue marching along with the

2:02:54 ↗ themes that we've uncovered and the

2:02:56 ↗ improvements that we've discussed and

2:02:57 ↗ that were included with your memo and

2:03:00 ↗ also to really look at that engineering

2:03:03 ↗ manager position and we'd like to come

2:03:06 ↗ back to council seeking approval and

2:03:08 ↗ authorization for that position and we

2:03:10 ↗ would need Council's authorization for

2:03:12 ↗ it because it's a new position for us so

2:03:14 ↗ that's something that that I'm hoping to

2:03:18 ↗ get some feedback on Jean Paul is and

2:03:21 ↗ I've heard from some of you and I

2:03:22 ↗ appreciate that thank you the more

2:03:24 ↗ information will come I believe with

2:03:26 ↗ Jean Paul's presentation on the cost

2:03:27 ↗ recovery study as again his future

2:03:30 ↗ looking portions of his study included

2:03:34 ↗ that position just to see what it would

2:03:35 ↗ look like so council would have a better

2:03:37 ↗ financial understanding and picture if

2:03:39 ↗ we were to hire and and fill that

2:03:44 ↗ position

2:03:46 ↗ okay councilmember got me here so you're

2:03:48 ↗ specifically so this is the time that

2:03:50 ↗ you're looking for specific feedback on

2:03:53 ↗ the administration's intent unless you

2:03:58 ↗ hear what other wise to bring forward a

2:04:00 ↗ new position engineering manager and

2:04:03 ↗ Development Services Department which is

2:04:05 ↗ going to be renamed so now is the time

2:04:08 ↗ to if there is specific feedback or

2:04:12 ↗ other than what you've already heard

2:04:13 ↗ works probably more specifically would

2:04:17 ↗ be specific concerns you would want to

2:04:20 ↗ hear about that now

2:04:21 ↗ Thank You councilmember better than meth

2:04:23 ↗ correct great council president hon

2:04:27 ↗ thank you this is council president hunt

2:04:29 ↗ I I if I look at the org chart the

2:04:34 ↗ complete for chart I can see that there

2:04:36 ↗ are I think around nine direct reports

2:04:40 ↗ that would report to that manager and

2:04:42 ↗ then there are other similar numbers of

2:04:44 ↗ direct reports to the other managers so

2:04:46 ↗ from a from a cheer

2:04:48 ↗ you know this many people to this

2:04:50 ↗ manager perspective I think that that

2:04:54 ↗ makes sense but I guess my ask of the

2:04:58 ↗ administration for when we have to

2:05:01 ↗ formally decide on this I would like

2:05:03 ↗ information about how this organization

2:05:06 ↗ of of individuals within the department

2:05:09 ↗ which now has the engineering as a

2:05:11 ↗ separate group that would need its own

2:05:13 ↗ manager how that organization benefits

2:05:16 ↗ the the community in terms of the

2:05:20 ↗ customer experience and also the

2:05:22 ↗ community experience when they're

2:05:24 ↗ interacting with the department and then

2:05:26 ↗ also the experience of individuals

2:05:29 ↗ within the department the city employees

2:05:33 ↗ so I just need a clearer understanding

2:05:35 ↗ of the benefits of creating that new

2:05:38 ↗ position from that organizational

2:05:40 ↗ perspective and you did provide more

2:05:41 ↗ information I appreciate that but it's a

2:05:44 ↗ very clear understanding would be good

2:05:46 ↗ for that final decision Thanks

2:05:49 ↗ councilmember T Michelle just very

2:05:52 ↗ briefly I like the idea of moving ahead

2:05:55 ↗ with with bringing forth that position

2:05:59 ↗ so I would I would look forward to

2:06:02 ↗ having that brought forward

2:06:06 ↗ you

2:06:08 ↗ anybody else I'm waiting to be last

2:06:14 ↗ councilmember Goodman here so I I guess

2:06:18 ↗ the only thing that I'm not clear about

2:06:19 ↗ if I go back to the nine or so years

2:06:23 ↗ nine and a half is that and I I'm

2:06:27 ↗ speaking very generally so this may not

2:06:29 ↗ be perfectly accurate it seems like

2:06:32 ↗ we've gone in-house to a lot of not

2:06:36 ↗ in-house and now we're bringing some of

2:06:38 ↗ that back in-house and I think I recall

2:06:43 ↗ very generally and maybe killed him in

2:06:45 ↗ remarks can correct me at the time we've

2:06:47 ↗ been on we're on land and Shore together

2:06:50 ↗ over the years

2:06:50 ↗ that part of the rationale is efficiency

2:06:54 ↗ for both argument you know whichever way

2:06:57 ↗ efficiency cost savings you know if you

2:07:00 ↗ do contracts and you're not paying

2:07:01 ↗ employees if you have employees you're

2:07:03 ↗ not paying contracts I'm a little clear

2:07:05 ↗ on how I'm in addition to the other

2:07:07 ↗ questions about how this benefits the

2:07:09 ↗ public and maybe it fits under that list

2:07:11 ↗ of how this benefits the public I think

2:07:13 ↗ I'd like to be a little bit more

2:07:15 ↗ comfortable that we're not just you know

2:07:17 ↗ we just keep flipping back and forth

2:07:18 ↗ trying to find the perfect formula other

2:07:23 ↗ than that I like that this is a from

2:07:26 ↗ what I'm hearing it was an eternal

2:07:29 ↗ department driven process and that you

2:07:35 ↗ listened to not only what the employees

2:07:38 ↗ have to say but also the process

2:07:42 ↗ involved very honest feedback about the

2:07:47 ↗ experience and I think all of that is

2:07:48 ↗ very important I would hope that one of

2:07:51 ↗ the outcomes that we're looking at what

2:07:54 ↗ success looks like is that um that

2:07:58 ↗ employees one of them one of the

2:08:01 ↗ outcomes in is that the employees feel

2:08:04 ↗ good about their jobs and and the job

2:08:06 ↗ that they do and the job they do for our

2:08:08 ↗ community and that their product their

2:08:10 ↗ work and you know my sense is from all

2:08:14 ↗ the comments that you know some struggle

2:08:17 ↗ with that a bit you know for all the

2:08:19 ↗ reasons that we talked about and

2:08:22 ↗ I think that's unfortunate you know

2:08:23 ↗ people deserve to be feel proud of their

2:08:26 ↗ work and so I hope that this is this

2:08:28 ↗ leads to a leads everybody to a better

2:08:32 ↗ place those are my comments

2:08:35 ↗ anybody else

2:08:39 ↗ all right give me one Thank You

2:08:44 ↗ councilmember Goodman and other members

2:08:45 ↗ of City Council I appreciate that

2:08:47 ↗ feedback and those questions we can

2:08:49 ↗ certainly get you that in additional

2:08:51 ↗ information when we return to council

2:08:53 ↗ now I'd like to introduce Jean Paul the

2:08:55 ↗ city's management analyst to go over the

2:08:57 ↗ cost recovery study and the results

2:08:59 ↗ Keith thank you and good evening as

2:09:04 ↗ deputy City Administrator Snyder

2:09:06 ↗ mentioned I'm Jean Paul I'm the manager

2:09:08 ↗ analyst from the Executive Office and

2:09:09 ↗ I'm hoping tisha can bring the slides

2:09:11 ↗ back up so we can continue with the

2:09:13 ↗ presentation

2:09:22 ↗ okay just some brief background the last

2:09:25 ↗ time cost recovery was examined was in

2:09:27 ↗ 2016 and that work was performed by the

2:09:29 ↗ FCS group using data from 2015 at the

2:09:33 ↗ conclusion of that study the City

2:09:35 ↗ Council took action in January of 2017

2:09:37 ↗ and when they did so they adopted a new

2:09:40 ↗ fee schedule set the cost recovery

2:09:42 ↗ target at 80% and excluded five

2:09:44 ↗ positions from that cost recovery with

2:09:47 ↗ the justification that those positions

2:09:48 ↗ were performing work outside of the

2:09:50 ↗ permitting function next slide please

2:09:56 ↗ because the last significant adjustment

2:09:58 ↗ was 2017 we looked at data from 2017

2:10:01 ↗ through 2019 and this slide presents the

2:10:04 ↗ high-level summary of cost recoveries

2:10:07 ↗ for that three-year period as you can

2:10:09 ↗ see both revenues decreased and

2:10:11 ↗ expenditures increased each year which

2:10:13 ↗ caused the overall cost recovery to fall

2:10:15 ↗ from one hundred and thirty nine percent

2:10:16 ↗ to seventy three percent but 2019 was

2:10:19 ↗ the only year that did not meet that 80

2:10:21 ↗ percent target and I'll provide a little

2:10:23 ↗ more detail on both the revenues and

2:10:25 ↗ expenditures on the following slides

2:10:27 ↗ slide please

2:10:30 ↗ here you can see the revenues from the

2:10:32 ↗ previous side broken down into six

2:10:34 ↗ categories over all these categories

2:10:36 ↗ identify the revenues that DSD collects

2:10:38 ↗ that can offset general fund

2:10:40 ↗ expenditures in the department there are

2:10:42 ↗ of course other revenues like impact and

2:10:44 ↗ mitigation fees or pass throughs to

2:10:46 ↗ other agencies that they collect but are

2:10:49 ↗ not considered as part of this study

2:10:51 ↗ overall the majority of DSD revenues

2:10:53 ↗ come from three activities building

2:10:55 ↗ permits planning and yet landing land

2:10:57 ↗ use excuse me and then site work in

2:10:59 ↗ engineering which W city administrator

2:11:02 ↗ Snyder kind of described in the

2:11:04 ↗ organization of the new department going

2:11:06 ↗ forward building permits which are based

2:11:08 ↗ on the project's valuation generates the

2:11:10 ↗ most revenues as you can see from the

2:11:12 ↗ slide next slide please

2:11:16 ↗ there were two predominant trends in the

2:11:18 ↗ revenues first there's a great deal of

2:11:20 ↗ volatility based on the permits for

2:11:22 ↗ large projects in the three years we

2:11:25 ↗ looked at the building planning and

2:11:27 ↗ engineering fees from the top five

2:11:28 ↗ biggest projects ranged anywhere from

2:11:30 ↗ thirty four to fifty five percent of

2:11:32 ↗ those revenues and the staff report

2:11:34 ↗ contains a table identifies those

2:11:36 ↗ projects and breaks them out in a little

2:11:38 ↗ greater detail the second trend which is

2:11:41 ↗ also connected to large projects is

2:11:43 ↗ there's a decline in the fees connected

2:11:45 ↗ to expedited permit review while the

2:11:48 ↗ revenues from expedited permit review

2:11:50 ↗ themselves only really fell from 2018 to

2:11:52 ↗ 2019 there wasn't more to find decrease

2:11:55 ↗ in the administrative fee connected to

2:11:57 ↗ that next slide please

2:12:02 ↗ when we look at revenues outside of the

2:12:04 ↗ narrow three-year window it does help

2:12:05 ↗ provide some context and when we do that

2:12:08 ↗ it shows essentially 2017 was an

2:12:10 ↗ atypical year in the large value of

2:12:13 ↗ revenues and that 2018 and 2019 appear

2:12:16 ↗ to be within the more normal range of a

2:12:18 ↗ four to five million dollar of revenues

2:12:20 ↗ those categories

2:12:23 ↗ this is last file on revenues and I'll

2:12:25 ↗ pause here see if there any questions

2:12:26 ↗ before I move on to expenditures

2:12:35 ↗ I'm not seeing anything okay next slide

2:12:38 ↗ please

2:12:40 ↗ next I'll briefly cover the revenue or

2:12:43 ↗ correction expenditures and then some of

2:12:44 ↗ the trends behind B increases so there

2:12:47 ↗ are five main categories of expenditures

2:12:49 ↗ each year personnel

2:12:51 ↗ supplies professional services other

2:12:54 ↗ services and charges which include

2:12:55 ↗ travel training and insurance charges

2:12:57 ↗ for the department and then finally cost

2:12:59 ↗ allocation to other city service funds

2:13:02 ↗ just a few notes on this table

2:13:04 ↗ the total personnel costs are shown in

2:13:07 ↗ the first row and then the five excluded

2:13:10 ↗ positions are identified as negative

2:13:11 ↗ numbers in the second row

2:13:15 ↗ services are the large largest portion

2:13:19 ↗ of expenditures after salaries and

2:13:21 ↗ benefits those totals are a blend of

2:13:24 ↗ both expedited reviews which are backed

2:13:27 ↗ by revenues and then the other

2:13:28 ↗ consultant needs for the department more

2:13:31 ↗ details are provided in the staff report

2:13:33 ↗ to show how some of those professional

2:13:34 ↗ service dollars are used there's a lot

2:13:36 ↗ of valid volatility in that expenditure

2:13:39 ↗ line just due to the expedited reviews

2:13:41 ↗ themselves

2:13:43 ↗ next we exclude the long-range planning

2:13:45 ↗ professional services from the cost

2:13:46 ↗ recovery calculations we felt the same

2:13:50 ↗ justification for excluding those

2:13:52 ↗ employee positions applied here so the

2:13:54 ↗ professional services for long-range

2:13:56 ↗ planning which predominately does apply

2:13:59 ↗ to policy work are shown as negatives

2:14:02 ↗ there and then finally from this table

2:14:05 ↗ you can see the impact of the creation

2:14:07 ↗ of the IT fund in 2017 the expenditures

2:14:10 ↗ for supplies and expense supplies and

2:14:13 ↗ equipment and then other services and

2:14:15 ↗ charges were significantly higher than

2:14:17 ↗ in 2018 with cost allocation being low

2:14:21 ↗ and then increasing in 2018 so the

2:14:25 ↗ overall net change from 2017 and 2018 of

2:14:28 ↗ the increases for IT was about $400,000

2:14:32 ↗ and that cost was not considered as part

2:14:35 ↗ of the last V study essentially so that

2:14:39 ↗ that is a reason for expenditures

2:14:41 ↗ increasing significantly

2:14:43 ↗ okay gene we have a question from

2:14:46 ↗ councilman Marais

2:14:51 ↗ and getting off mute always a challenge

2:14:54 ↗ that's why I'm a bit perplexed so when I

2:14:57 ↗ look at revenues from twenty seventeen

2:15:00 ↗ eighteen and nineteen I see seventeen

2:15:03 ↗ being the highest revenue eighteen canid

2:15:05 ↗ midpoint and nineteen low but when I

2:15:07 ↗ look at expenditures they're completely

2:15:10 ↗ inverted so how do you explain that we

2:15:12 ↗ had our greatest revenue with our lowest

2:15:16 ↗ expenditures it doesn't seem you would

2:15:18 ↗ seem that they would move in the same

2:15:19 ↗ direction

2:15:22 ↗ thank you for your question this is

2:15:24 ↗ jean-paul again I would say there is a

2:15:27 ↗ little bit of disconnect between

2:15:28 ↗ revenues and expenditures just in the

2:15:30 ↗ timing of when revenues are received and

2:15:33 ↗ when expenditures are paid out so it's

2:15:37 ↗ not necessarily the same calendar year

2:15:38 ↗ that a expense for an expedited review

2:15:42 ↗ happens and the revenue happens as well

2:15:44 ↗ because some of that revenues received

2:15:46 ↗ upfront and the rest is received from

2:15:49 ↗ when the actual permit is issued so in

2:15:51 ↗ between there might be an expenditure

2:15:52 ↗ that doesn't necessarily match up

2:15:57 ↗ outside of that like I said that there

2:15:59 ↗ is considerable volatility just with

2:16:01 ↗ those large projects and it's hard to

2:16:02 ↗ necessarily nail down explicitly why it

2:16:07 ↗ was so high in 2017 and it would just

2:16:10 ↗ seem to me that if we were trying to do

2:16:13 ↗ cost recovery we would need to do a

2:16:15 ↗ better job of matching our our outlays

2:16:20 ↗ to our revenue sources and so if there's

2:16:22 ↗ a timing delay we should should be able

2:16:24 ↗ to account for that some way so that we

2:16:27 ↗ can say we compare apples to apples

2:16:29 ↗ right now we're pair of our comparing

2:16:31 ↗ apples to giraffes and so it's it's hard

2:16:34 ↗ to find meaning in the numbers in terms

2:16:36 ↗ of a cost recovery

2:16:39 ↗ and and I would say I struggled the the

2:16:42 ↗ same thing you're seeing in terms of

2:16:44 ↗ trying to find that apples to apples

2:16:45 ↗ comparison and this is the best that I

2:16:49 ↗ could produce and I'm certainly able to

2:16:51 ↗ take another look if there's something

2:16:52 ↗ specifically you'd hope me to examine

2:16:55 ↗ but this is kind of what the numbers are

2:16:58 ↗ telling me right now

2:17:02 ↗ okay that's great thanks gene

2:17:05 ↗ okay Eugene it looks like you can go

2:17:07 ↗ ahead I don't see any other questions

2:17:08 ↗ right now okay thank you

2:17:11 ↗ next slide please

2:17:13 ↗ I believe I covered kind of these points

2:17:16 ↗ just with the numbers on the the

2:17:17 ↗ previous slide but as I mentioned the

2:17:20 ↗ information technology cost allocation

2:17:22 ↗ was a significant cost that wasn't

2:17:24 ↗ considered in the previous study and

2:17:25 ↗ then just the overall volatility and

2:17:27 ↗ cost and the professional services next

2:17:30 ↗ slide please

2:17:32 ↗ so to provide some context of the cost

2:17:34 ↗ recovery discussion this table

2:17:36 ↗ summarizes how some pure cities set

2:17:38 ↗ their goals both in 2017 and now in 2020

2:17:42 ↗ as you can see most cities have

2:17:44 ↗ increased their targets since 2017 but

2:17:47 ↗ some have either decreased or simply

2:17:49 ↗ stopped setting a target as well for the

2:17:52 ↗ cities with ranges depicted they

2:17:53 ↗ generally have different targets within

2:17:56 ↗ the department for the different

2:17:57 ↗ functions so for example Kirkland set a

2:18:00 ↗ target of 80 percent for their planning

2:18:02 ↗ division and 91 percent for their

2:18:04 ↗ building divisions

2:18:06 ↗ next slide please

2:18:10 ↗ so to create a framework to help

2:18:13 ↗ the changes to the department which were

2:18:15 ↗ described earlier might affect cost

2:18:17 ↗ recovery we created this 2021 budget

2:18:19 ↗ scenario and this is really just a rough

2:18:21 ↗ estimate to inform the discussion it's

2:18:23 ↗ certainly not meant to preview or

2:18:25 ↗ replace the upcoming budget process but

2:18:28 ↗ the takeaway from the scenario is the

2:18:29 ↗ department could recover between 50 to

2:18:31 ↗ 75 percent of costs just depending on

2:18:33 ↗ those revenues from large projects being

2:18:36 ↗ volatile and based on the range of those

2:18:39 ↗ revenues ESD would need to collect an

2:18:41 ↗ additional two hundred nine thousand

2:18:43 ↗ 1.25 million in order to achieve the the

2:18:46 ↗ 80 percent cost recovery target

2:18:53 ↗ next slide please

2:18:56 ↗ so this slide contains a number of

2:18:58 ↗ questions around the bend

2:19:00 ↗ soare ability to adjust the cost

2:19:02 ↗ recovery target and we've occluded it

2:19:04 ↗ here some tonight so you can use it if

2:19:05 ↗ you desire for your policy to set

2:19:08 ↗ discussion kind of following the the

2:19:09 ↗ presentation

2:19:13 ↗ slide please

2:19:18 ↗ in terms of next steps based on

2:19:20 ↗ the direction you give us this evening

2:19:22 ↗ we will examine any fees for adjustment

2:19:24 ↗ the plan to return this summer with the

2:19:27 ↗ results and be able to inform the 2021

2:19:30 ↗ budget with those results

2:19:33 ↗ next slide please

2:19:38 ↗ so this is the the final slide we've

2:19:41 ↗ already provided some direction in terms

2:19:43 ↗ of the Department improvements and the

2:19:45 ↗ staffing requests it's really the second

2:19:48 ↗ half of the slide is is the focus for

2:19:50 ↗ the direction needed now the three

2:19:53 ↗ simplest outcomes are listed here

2:19:55 ↗ essentially option one is maintain the

2:19:58 ↗ eighty percent target and we would look

2:20:01 ↗ at fees to adjust in order to achieve

2:20:03 ↗ that kind of when I talk about with that

2:20:05 ↗ 2021 budget scenario in terms of the gap

2:20:08 ↗ we might need to cover to make sure we

2:20:11 ↗ recover 80% the option two would be

2:20:14 ↗ accept the forecasted cost recovery for

2:20:17 ↗ 2021 would really make no changes to

2:20:19 ↗ fees except the typical CPI adjustments

2:20:22 ↗ CPI right now is about 1.3 percent so

2:20:25 ↗ that's relatively small adjustment just

2:20:27 ↗ for the Consumer Price Index and then

2:20:30 ↗ finally the the other option is you

2:20:32 ↗ could provide it another target entirely

2:20:34 ↗ and we would obviously adjust fees as

2:20:37 ↗ required for that so that concludes my

2:20:40 ↗ presentation of happy answer any

2:20:42 ↗ questions if there are otherwise it's

2:20:44 ↗ open for direction Thank You Jean

2:20:50 ↗ oK you've got some questions to answer

2:20:53 ↗ here or at least to provide some

2:20:56 ↗ feedback

2:20:57 ↗ um council president hon

2:21:01 ↗ you

2:21:03 ↗ Thank You this is council president I

2:21:05 ↗ have a question so in our city and if we

2:21:09 ↗ maintain the target and then in other

2:21:12 ↗ cities that do have targets do they

2:21:14 ↗ change the rate what how often do they

2:21:17 ↗ adjust rates to try to hit that target

2:21:23 ↗ and the reason I are asking the question

2:21:25 ↗ is it seems that one disruptive thing

2:21:29 ↗ that could happen if you change those

2:21:31 ↗ rates too much could be that you have

2:21:34 ↗ variable and unpredictable rates for

2:21:36 ↗ different services that the city is

2:21:38 ↗ providing so I'm trying to understand

2:21:41 ↗ what that looks like to actually achieve

2:21:42 ↗ the target over time

2:21:47 ↗ and thank you cats

2:21:49 ↗ take first crack at answering and then

2:21:51 ↗ maybe I might try and loop in director

2:21:53 ↗ Keith Niven if he might have some

2:21:55 ↗ additional information but essentially

2:21:57 ↗ when we conducted the study back in 2016

2:22:01 ↗ and brought the results in 2017 the

2:22:03 ↗ recommendation at that point was to

2:22:05 ↗ essentially every two years take another

2:22:07 ↗ look at yet cost recovery and adjust

2:22:09 ↗ those fees so that as you describe you

2:22:11 ↗ you kind of have the ability to examine

2:22:13 ↗ did you do what you hope to do and if

2:22:15 ↗ not to adjust it in terms of cities

2:22:19 ↗ outside of Issaquah it's fairly common

2:22:21 ↗ for FCS to perform this work I've seen

2:22:25 ↗ it kind of throughout the number of

2:22:26 ↗ cities that I looked at but I don't know

2:22:29 ↗ in terms of what interval those other

2:22:31 ↗ cities perform those studies so on that

2:22:34 ↗ part of the question I might hope if

2:22:35 ↗ director Navin has any additional

2:22:37 ↗ feedback he might be able to help there

2:22:46 ↗ good evening city council chief Niven

2:22:49 ↗ director of development services so when

2:22:53 ↗ we did the fee study in 2017 and you

2:22:57 ↗ know the information that we knew was

2:22:58 ↗ that the planning function of

2:23:00 ↗ development services was not even close

2:23:03 ↗ to reaching a target that we felt was

2:23:07 ↗ acceptable for cost recovery so the main

2:23:10 ↗ focus of the adjustment in fees in 2017

2:23:13 ↗ was to really bring the planning fees

2:23:16 ↗ ought to closer to matching the

2:23:20 ↗ operating costs for the planning

2:23:22 ↗ function of the department the building

2:23:24 ↗ component of the department has always

2:23:27 ↗ performed at or above the target that

2:23:31 ↗ the council expected for cos recovery

2:23:33 ↗ and so we're we're left I think is with

2:23:38 ↗ really doing a deeper dive on the

2:23:40 ↗ engineering fees as well as talking you

2:23:45 ↗ know Jean and I talked about approaches

2:23:48 ↗ that the council wanted us to examine

2:23:50 ↗ fees we could look at all the fees or we

2:23:53 ↗ could just target the ones where we know

2:23:55 ↗ that the city staff are providing

2:23:57 ↗ services without recovering any costs

2:24:00 ↗ and there are another of tasks that

2:24:03 ↗ currently were asked to do that fall

2:24:05 ↗ into that range so we could start by

2:24:07 ↗ looking at those kind of big areas where

2:24:10 ↗ we know that we're not recovering fees

2:24:12 ↗ and bring back a list for the council to

2:24:16 ↗ consider that would be I think targeted

2:24:19 ↗ rather than looking at going back and

2:24:21 ↗ doing the complete fee study for the

2:24:23 ↗ entire department

2:24:26 ↗ I think that would be the simpler and

2:24:27 ↗ probably more efficient process for us

2:24:31 ↗ to follow if the council wanted us to go

2:24:33 ↗ that direction

2:24:36 ↗ okay thank you

2:24:45 ↗ councilmember Dee Michelle

2:24:49 ↗ oh thank you just wondering as we looked

2:24:55 ↗ at you know I generally support the idea

2:24:59 ↗ of recovering as much as we can but now

2:25:03 ↗ we're in a whole new world with the cold

2:25:05 ↗ edge impacts and the economy we really

2:25:10 ↗ don't even know but it's not looking

2:25:12 ↗ good so I'm just wondering there's been

2:25:16 ↗ any thought about how the rate of

2:25:20 ↗ recovery cost recovery would impact the

2:25:26 ↗ violent development in Issaquah and of

2:25:29 ↗ course part of that coveri period for

2:25:33 ↗ its qua would be getting our

2:25:35 ↗ construction

2:25:37 ↗ back up and running as well so director

2:25:41 ↗ Niven maybe I wonder if you would have

2:25:43 ↗ any comments about that

2:25:48 ↗ how how we might be impacting teacher

2:25:53 ↗ recovery if we decide to do an 80 90 or

2:25:57 ↗ 100 percent cause recovery

2:26:03 ↗ so that's a great question and and it's

2:26:07 ↗ there's a disproportionate answer I

2:26:09 ↗ think the smaller projects the you know

2:26:14 ↗ the home improvement projects that

2:26:16 ↗ people like to do you know when we

2:26:19 ↗ increase our fees you know cost of

2:26:23 ↗ service is is you know when staff time

2:26:26 ↗ is generally a hundred yeah I use a

2:26:29 ↗ hundred dollars an hour to estimate you

2:26:32 ↗ know what staff time costs and because

2:26:35 ↗ our codes are so complex and this kind

2:26:37 ↗ of dovetails back into something deputy

2:26:40 ↗ City Administrator Snyder said earlier

2:26:42 ↗ because our codes are so complicated it

2:26:45 ↗ takes quite a bit of staff time to

2:26:46 ↗ actually process a permit and so if you

2:26:50 ↗ are trying to convey those direct costs

2:26:55 ↗ backed of each applicant the smaller the

2:26:57 ↗ applicant the more painful that tends to

2:26:59 ↗ be so our bigger projects like Costco's

2:27:03 ↗ new office building the bigger apartment

2:27:06 ↗ projects that have been permitted over

2:27:08 ↗ the past few years our permit fees are a

2:27:11 ↗ drop in the bucket for them it's it's

2:27:13 ↗ background costs given all the

2:27:15 ↗ construction costs and land costs that

2:27:17 ↗ they have so it really it really impacts

2:27:21 ↗ the small person and so that's part of

2:27:23 ↗ you know trying to think this through

2:27:26 ↗ all the way is making sure that if we do

2:27:29 ↗ increase fees how do we do it in a way

2:27:33 ↗ that doesn't adversely impact the

2:27:35 ↗ smaller businesses and the residents of

2:27:37 ↗ our community

2:27:42 ↗ thank you

2:27:46 ↗ that's your question councilmember Dean

2:27:48 ↗ Michelle

2:27:50 ↗ it didn't be thank you okay anybody else

2:27:55 ↗ can't remember hallmarks ray

2:27:59 ↗ [Music]

2:28:00 ↗ No okay

2:28:07 ↗ so I'm I'm having trouble for a number

2:28:11 ↗ of reasons wrapping my head around

2:28:16 ↗ changing the target so I guess at this

2:28:22 ↗ point I'm kind of focused on number one

2:28:24 ↗ maintaining the hey be eighty percent

2:28:25 ↗ target and here's why number one I think

2:28:32 ↗ there are other important things that we

2:28:36 ↗ need to be doing and typically when you

2:28:37 ↗ get involved in that in a different

2:28:41 ↗ whenever we're involved in changing this

2:28:44 ↗ percentage or changing something about

2:28:46 ↗ cost recovery it ends up to be a long

2:28:49 ↗ and more involved effort than we think

2:28:52 ↗ it's going to be I'm much more

2:28:55 ↗ interested in spending our resources and

2:28:58 ↗ our time on time eighteen upgrade than I

2:29:01 ↗ am you know changing you know looking at

2:29:03 ↗ a eighty ninety percent versus eighty

2:29:05 ↗ percent I think we're within the range

2:29:08 ↗ of other cities I I'm concerned about

2:29:15 ↗ lower cost recovery for a purpose such

2:29:19 ↗ as stimulating or facilitating

2:29:22 ↗ development

2:29:23 ↗ I don't think guard that's what our

2:29:24 ↗ community I have not heard anything in

2:29:27 ↗ eight years the community says do

2:29:30 ↗ something to create more development

2:29:32 ↗ please because I just haven't had enough

2:29:34 ↗ I we actually hear that you all know we

2:29:37 ↗ hear the exact opposite and we just get

2:29:39 ↗ railed on for it which is the reason

2:29:41 ↗ that we have the moratorium now that so

2:29:44 ↗ said if they're worse one of the

2:29:46 ↗ questions and the materials here was if

2:29:50 ↗ there was a reason to change a fee for a

2:29:54 ↗ specific strategic priority so either

2:29:59 ↗ waving at are reducing it and one

2:30:01 ↗ example and I think we already do this

2:30:02 ↗ anyway at least in somewhere is

2:30:05 ↗ affordable housing or something else

2:30:07 ↗ that we think is really important really

2:30:09 ↗ important and that the community has

2:30:11 ↗ identified as a strategic priority and

2:30:14 ↗ it is a priority

2:30:17 ↗ and I don't also I think also that we

2:30:20 ↗ can't really afford during this time to

2:30:23 ↗ waive fees or reduce the amount of

2:30:26 ↗ recovery I think that that is completely

2:30:28 ↗ counterproductive all the meetings that

2:30:32 ↗ we've been having over the last two or

2:30:33 ↗ three months have been you know hair on

2:30:35 ↗ fire and that is taking us in the wrong

2:30:37 ↗ direction but I think for specific

2:30:41 ↗ strategic priorities if we want to vary

2:30:44 ↗ or waive or reduce that would be one

2:30:46 ↗ thing and as Keith mentioned and he also

2:30:52 ↗ member day should pretty Michelle I

2:30:54 ↗ think alluded to it again I'm tired from

2:30:57 ↗ yesterday the you know we don't want to

2:31:00 ↗ make things more difficult for residents

2:31:06 ↗ to do small projects on their home what

2:31:08 ↗ for businesses to do small projects and

2:31:10 ↗ so you know I meant what I said the last

2:31:15 ↗ couple meetings we talked about this is

2:31:17 ↗ that I don't want I want to make things

2:31:20 ↗ reasonably less I'm a realist owners for

2:31:23 ↗ businesses and residents to do you know

2:31:27 ↗ reasonably small things I don't want to

2:31:28 ↗ make it more onerous so for those two

2:31:30 ↗ things I could consider changing up the

2:31:34 ↗ structure but it's not a huge priority

2:31:37 ↗ for me I think we have a lot of other

2:31:38 ↗ things to worry about

2:31:39 ↗ and so at some at this point right now I

2:31:41 ↗ think I would be in favor of maintaining

2:31:43 ↗ the 80 percent target and adjusting the

2:31:45 ↗ police to achieve that that I could be

2:31:48 ↗ talks you know into different ideas but

2:31:51 ↗ that's those are my comments right now

2:31:54 ↗ councilmember Ray sorry kind of a

2:31:59 ↗ late-breaking question hi

2:32:00 ↗ Chris Rae so we've got information in

2:32:04 ↗ the table that shows the recovery rate

2:32:07 ↗ from other municipalities do we have

2:32:10 ↗ data on the on the peas that other

2:32:13 ↗ municipalities charge for various

2:32:15 ↗ services how do our fees not a recovery

2:32:18 ↗ rate but how do our fees compare to

2:32:20 ↗ other municipalities are we less

2:32:22 ↗ expensive more expensive about the same

2:32:24 ↗ any data on that

2:32:29 ↗ this is jean-paul so I think at this

2:32:33 ↗ point we were trying to keep it more of

2:32:35 ↗ a philosophical discussion around the

2:32:37 ↗ cost recovery target if the direction is

2:32:39 ↗ to adjust fees themselves then when we

2:32:42 ↗ identify those specific fees we kind of

2:32:45 ↗ compare them to other municipalities

2:32:47 ↗ nearby and see how they it could be

2:32:49 ↗ adjusted but still kind of remain within

2:32:52 ↗ the range of what's comparable to nearby

2:32:55 ↗ cities but for this portion of the study

2:32:58 ↗ we didn't do it in depth comparison in

2:33:00 ↗ terms of the fees themselves just the

2:33:02 ↗ cost recovery target

2:33:07 ↗ I guess that's okay but it makes it

2:33:10 ↗ really hard for me to have a meaningful

2:33:15 ↗ discussion but about adjusting our cost

2:33:18 ↗ recovery target down which is kind of

2:33:21 ↗ one of the things that's being kicked

2:33:23 ↗ around when I don't really know how we

2:33:26 ↗ are doing in terms of our peace rate of

2:33:30 ↗ revenue so I'm still having a hard time

2:33:33 ↗ really to be honest with you at wrapping

2:33:35 ↗ my brain around how come our revenue

2:33:37 ↗ went way down and our costs went way up

2:33:40 ↗ and and I can't I can't rationalize that

2:33:43 ↗ and I understand the timing thing Gina

2:33:45 ↗ that sort of makes some some sense but I

2:33:48 ↗ but for me to get to what's the right

2:33:51 ↗ thing to do and to go to a council

2:33:53 ↗ member D Michele's point about you know

2:33:56 ↗ what's the impact on businesses I have

2:33:58 ↗ no idea because if you know Farr rates

2:34:00 ↗ are 10% of redmond then that's a

2:34:02 ↗ different discussion and I'm not saying

2:34:04 ↗ they are but it's have a meaningful

2:34:08 ↗ discussion for me around recovery rates

2:34:11 ↗ I have to have some better information

2:34:13 ↗ on how how we're performing because it

2:34:16 ↗ doesn't seem like we're performing very

2:34:17 ↗ well

2:34:19 ↗ councilmember Goodman if I may yes go

2:34:22 ↗ ahead thank you I'd like to address part

2:34:26 ↗ of your question count deputy council

2:34:28 ↗ president Ray one of the reasons why we

2:34:31 ↗ didn't bring a comparison of Issaquah

2:34:35 ↗ permitting fees versus Redmond or

2:34:39 ↗ Bellevue or any of our peer cities is

2:34:41 ↗ because every city structures it a

2:34:44 ↗ little bit differently and so much like

2:34:48 ↗ our earlier presentation on water

2:34:50 ↗ systems and how water systems and the

2:34:53 ↗ capital infrastructure looks very

2:34:55 ↗ different between the different cities

2:34:57 ↗ also do the permitting fees now one of

2:35:01 ↗ the options is that we could come back

2:35:03 ↗ to you with information and looking at a

2:35:06 ↗ specific project and how much that

2:35:09 ↗ project may require in terms of

2:35:13 ↗ development fees or permitting fees

2:35:14 ↗ across a couple of jurisdictions that's

2:35:16 ↗ a possibility but in terms of specific

2:35:19 ↗ fees and what those fees cover and

2:35:23 ↗ comparing those across jurisdictions

2:35:26 ↗ that's actually pretty difficult to do

2:35:28 ↗ because it would be like comparing

2:35:30 ↗ apples and giraffes to use your earlier

2:35:32 ↗ phrase so but so it's a I guess I would

2:35:37 ↗ ask a council what types of information

2:35:40 ↗ you would like us to come back to if you

2:35:42 ↗ was a few with if you would like us to

2:35:44 ↗ do so

2:35:49 ↗ I believe I skipped councilmember marks

2:35:53 ↗ accidentally I did not this is not some

2:35:59 ↗ member Goodman council member much

2:36:01 ↗ speaking so first off I will plus one

2:36:05 ↗ council member ray on needing to know

2:36:08 ↗ absolute values before we would take

2:36:11 ↗ action that also speaks to our

2:36:14 ↗ efficiency organizationally so as I hear

2:36:18 ↗ people talk about this maybe I'm maybe

2:36:21 ↗ I'm a little bit different but you know

2:36:24 ↗ I if I could wave a magic wand I would

2:36:26 ↗ probably go to a hundred percent cost

2:36:28 ↗ recovery and then I would take that 20

2:36:30 ↗ percent difference between the 80 and

2:36:32 ↗ 100 and use that for code

2:36:34 ↗ standardization and simplification and

2:36:36 ↗ so we go back to the community and say

2:36:39 ↗ you know what we're going to full cost

2:36:42 ↗ recovery but we have a specific some of

2:36:46 ↗ this is going to specifically be used to

2:36:48 ↗ both simplify our codes and see weathers

2:36:50 ↗ regional standardization that would make

2:36:52 ↗ sense that would make it easier I guess

2:36:55 ↗ the standardization wouldn't make as

2:36:56 ↗ we'd be as big of a deal for small for

2:36:59 ↗ for residential applications but

2:37:01 ↗ certainly for commercial that would that

2:37:04 ↗ would I would imagine represent the

2:37:06 ↗ largest share of the fees paid it would

2:37:10 ↗ it would be a big deal so I can see

2:37:12 ↗ doing something like that I'm I'm it

2:37:15 ↗ matters to me that Bellevue and Redmond

2:37:17 ↗ are both a hundred percent and that

2:37:20 ↗ looks like Renton went to hundred

2:37:22 ↗ percent as well so I don't think we

2:37:24 ↗ would be doing anything that would be

2:37:28 ↗ out of the ordinary for our region this

2:37:31 ↗ is a this is a great place to to develop

2:37:35 ↗ and but but I would focus some of that

2:37:37 ↗ money specifically I'm making things

2:37:40 ↗ easier going forward for further

2:37:42 ↗ development with codes Thank You mr.

2:37:46 ↗ president

2:37:49 ↗ Thank You council president hunt I

2:37:53 ↗ firstly just wanted to mention that we

2:37:56 ↗ did receive one comments from a resident

2:37:59 ↗ by email on this item and that comment

2:38:03 ↗ focused on making a framework to look at

2:38:06 ↗ the problem that we're trying to address

2:38:08 ↗ with this question and then potential

2:38:12 ↗ actions and solutions as well as a

2:38:14 ↗ history of the department so so that was

2:38:17 ↗ the summary of the one correspondence we

2:38:20 ↗ received on this I when I listening to

2:38:25 ↗ the other comments I think for me it

2:38:27 ↗ does

2:38:29 ↗ and it does make a lot of sense if we

2:38:32 ↗ can so to the the person who's doing a

2:38:35 ↗ home improvement project I don't think

2:38:37 ↗ it really matters if are caught they

2:38:40 ↗ don't see the cost recovery side so

2:38:44 ↗ optimally we would have a very high cost

2:38:47 ↗ recovery for the department so that we

2:38:51 ↗ could we could have that income for the

2:38:57 ↗ city but then we would also have low

2:39:00 ↗ actual prices that the customer is

2:39:02 ↗ seeing because we would be able to

2:39:04 ↗ implement the code review more

2:39:07 ↗ efficiently and it sounded to me from

2:39:10 ↗ the earlier comments that were made that

2:39:13 ↗ we might be able to achieve that because

2:39:14 ↗ if we simplified our code we might be

2:39:16 ↗ able to have higher cost recovery less

2:39:18 ↗ time spent on those items but still a

2:39:20 ↗ lower rate at the end of the day and so

2:39:24 ↗ if that's possible and if we want to

2:39:27 ↗ make sure that people do have a

2:39:30 ↗ streamlined process for getting their

2:39:32 ↗ permitting and getting their home

2:39:34 ↗ improvement projects done as well as a

2:39:36 ↗ low cost at the end of the day or

2:39:38 ↗ relatively low or reasonable cost at the

2:39:41 ↗ end of the day that seems like a good

2:39:45 ↗ good action to at least explore because

2:39:49 ↗ if we think about it from what problem

2:39:51 ↗ we're trying to solve I think that that

2:39:53 ↗ I think that that might work but that's

2:39:56 ↗ it's not fully explored here but I would

2:39:59 ↗ like to explore that more there are

2:40:06 ↗ comments from anybody one

2:40:14 ↗ I don't remember how many folks were

2:40:17 ↗ part of the last cost recovery action

2:40:23 ↗ that we took so it might be interesting

2:40:27 ↗ if folks want to look at real numbers to

2:40:29 ↗ send out Jean to send out I mean if you

2:40:31 ↗ guys are interested to send out the the

2:40:35 ↗ information that provided the actual

2:40:37 ↗ numbers comparing the cities just to get

2:40:40 ↗ an idea like maybe the last agenda

2:40:43 ↗ packet because you can see like if

2:40:45 ↗ bellevue was at 85 you can see what they

2:40:47 ↗ were charging and now that they're at

2:40:48 ↗ 100 so so there is there were tables

2:40:51 ↗ that were provided so that's a least

2:40:53 ↗ interesting it's relevant and it may not

2:40:56 ↗ be completely up-to-date so that's one

2:41:00 ↗ thought that I had so

2:41:05 ↗ anyway I'm not super passionate about

2:41:09 ↗ spending a whole lot of time on this

2:41:11 ↗ because I I am ice but that's just me I

2:41:15 ↗ mean I I hear all of the ideas and I

2:41:18 ↗ appreciate all of the ideas I have very

2:41:22 ↗ little confidence that were ever going

2:41:24 ↗ to in the near future end up in that

2:41:26 ↗ ideal spot that we're talking about and

2:41:28 ↗ with all the other things that we have

2:41:30 ↗ going on that's kind of money that's

2:41:32 ↗ kind of my reason council president hon

2:41:34 ↗ oh wait council member de Michele I

2:41:37 ↗ think you're next

2:41:40 ↗ you

2:41:43 ↗ sorry took me a while there I agree to

2:41:47 ↗ you in spirit councilmember Goodman that

2:41:50 ↗ we should spend a long long discussion

2:41:55 ↗ but I did want to say that I do like the

2:41:58 ↗ idea of having a kind of sliding scale

2:42:01 ↗ and I'm just

2:42:02 ↗ I'd like to incentivize affordable

2:42:05 ↗ housing and I'd like to give our smaller

2:42:08 ↗ projects or home remodeling projects or

2:42:12 ↗ those kinds of things a break so I'm I'm

2:42:15 ↗ thinking at 6,800 might be a way to

2:42:19 ↗ start but again I'm not sure that it's

2:42:23 ↗ worth our time to be discussing and

2:42:26 ↗ arguing over percentages here and

2:42:29 ↗ percentages there I would like more

2:42:32 ↗ information so perhaps the

2:42:35 ↗ administration can come back to us with

2:42:37 ↗ a more detailed information and a more

2:42:42 ↗ nuanced proposal or how we might proceed

2:42:47 ↗ with getting as much hot recovery as we

2:42:51 ↗ can from the larger entities and

2:42:55 ↗ incentivizing some of the other things

2:42:57 ↗ we'd like to see happen in mr. cross so

2:43:00 ↗ that's those are my comments Thank You

2:43:04 ↗ councilmember Goodman here I'm Keith

2:43:06 ↗ Nevin if you're still there could you if

2:43:09 ↗ you know off the top of your head can

2:43:11 ↗ you tell us what what we do in terms of

2:43:15 ↗ fees if anything to assent advice of

2:43:17 ↗ affordable housing

2:43:19 ↗ yes so right now the council has already

2:43:22 ↗ passed an ordinance to waive the

2:43:26 ↗ permitting fees for affordable housing

2:43:28 ↗ and we've included accessory dwelling

2:43:31 ↗ units in that affordable housing group

2:43:34 ↗ as well

2:43:37 ↗ thank you I just thought he owns

2:43:40 ↗ remember D Michelle would like to hear

2:43:42 ↗ that hand for the rest of us just knock

2:43:46 ↗ her brains a little bit so thank you

2:43:48 ↗ thank you and council president hunt

2:43:52 ↗ you're next thank you I forgot to

2:43:59 ↗ mention one thing that I meant to

2:44:02 ↗ mention last time so in the engineering

2:44:05 ↗ division in the breakdown of the cost

2:44:09 ↗ recovery by departments the engineering

2:44:11 ↗ division I think I think this was

2:44:12 ↗ pointed out but I was just looking at

2:44:14 ↗ the table it has even for cost recovery

2:44:16 ↗ with large projects has 42% cost

2:44:20 ↗ recovery so there's there is you know I

2:44:25 ↗ understand not wanting to get into

2:44:28 ↗ percentages you know I'm not I'm not

2:44:33 ↗ sure at some point that that is the most

2:44:37 ↗ important thing but at the same time if

2:44:40 ↗ there's a big difference between the

2:44:41 ↗ different departments and then as we

2:44:44 ↗ talked about earlier we're talking about

2:44:45 ↗ reorganizing engineering into its own

2:44:47 ↗ Department I think that better

2:44:50 ↗ understanding how we might recover costs

2:44:54 ↗ for that department at a rate that's

2:44:57 ↗ comparable to the other departments how

2:45:00 ↗ the reorganization might help with that

2:45:02 ↗ I think that would also help me better

2:45:05 ↗ understand both the rationale for the

2:45:07 ↗ engineering department change as well as

2:45:10 ↗ the as well as the target for the rates

2:45:14 ↗ I assume that if we assume that we have

2:45:17 ↗ a 80% target for all of the departments

2:45:20 ↗ then you would see changes to rates that

2:45:24 ↗ affect those departments that would be

2:45:25 ↗ different but I yeah not

2:45:32 ↗ it seems like you could also achieve 80%

2:45:34 ↗ overall if you averaged out big

2:45:36 ↗ differences which is kind of where we

2:45:38 ↗ are now and that that doesn't that also

2:45:40 ↗ seems

2:45:44 ↗ optimum to me

2:45:49 ↗ okay

2:45:52 ↗ any other comments or questions for Jean

2:45:55 ↗ Paul

2:45:59 ↗ and deputy City Administrator Andrea

2:46:04 ↗ Schneider has a comment and that I also

2:46:06 ↗ wanted to ask gene and Andrea if you if

2:46:10 ↗ you have what you need and or if you

2:46:13 ↗ need anything else rest

2:46:15 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

2:46:17 ↗ Andrea Snyder that's actually what I

2:46:19 ↗ wanted to speak to was just trying to

2:46:21 ↗ summarize the feedback that we had heard

2:46:23 ↗ from counsel today so we've heard we've

2:46:27 ↗ heard a couple of different things and

2:46:29 ↗ so I'm gonna pick through what I've

2:46:31 ↗ heard and please chime in if I have

2:46:33 ↗ heard you incorrectly or if I'm

2:46:35 ↗ summarizing incorrectly from missing

2:46:37 ↗ something so one of the comments that we

2:46:40 ↗ have heard is that the city could spend

2:46:43 ↗ a lot of time on this as we have done in

2:46:46 ↗ the past but there is a desire to avoid

2:46:48 ↗ that in relation to our other priorities

2:46:51 ↗ and so we don't want this to be

2:46:52 ↗ necessarily a long process and figuring

2:46:55 ↗ out what potentially a change to our

2:46:59 ↗ development fees could be we have also

2:47:04 ↗ heard the desire for a bit more

2:47:06 ↗ information there specifics that we can

2:47:08 ↗ provide from previous studies or a

2:47:12 ↗ better understanding of how our feeds

2:47:15 ↗ relate to other cities that might be

2:47:17 ↗ helpful for counsel we've also heard

2:47:20 ↗ that that there isn't a desire to

2:47:24 ↗ decrease the target at this point that

2:47:27 ↗ 80% goinggoing less than that is not

2:47:33 ↗ desirable at this point maybe it's 80%

2:47:35 ↗ or maybe we look at increasing it to a

2:47:38 ↗ hundred percent if that increase is

2:47:41 ↗ going to help the city accomplish other

2:47:43 ↗ priorities such as the code updates

2:47:48 ↗ okay that's that's what I've heard Am I

2:47:51 ↗ am I missing anything from that summary

2:47:54 ↗ of comments from Council

2:48:01 ↗ the only other thing I can think of and

2:48:04 ↗ I didn't hear anybody say yay or nay but

2:48:06 ↗ I remember Keith Niven spoke to maybe

2:48:09 ↗ some potentially some and these are my

2:48:12 ↗ words low-hanging fruit that we could

2:48:17 ↗ we can look at

2:48:20 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

2:48:24 ↗ Andrea Schneider again yes there may be

2:48:26 ↗ certain areas of development fees that

2:48:29 ↗ we charge that we could address our gaps

2:48:32 ↗ in terms of what are the services that

2:48:35 ↗ we provide how resource intensive are

2:48:38 ↗ those services and then are we really

2:48:42 ↗ are we really collecting revenues to

2:48:46 ↗ help pay for those particular services

2:48:48 ↗ and that might get to one of the

2:48:50 ↗ comments that excuse me council

2:48:52 ↗ president hunt I think I forgot to

2:48:53 ↗ mention which was this this look into

2:48:56 ↗ the data as far as the different

2:48:58 ↗ division of development services or

2:49:01 ↗ Community Planning and Development would

2:49:03 ↗ be as it relates that engineering

2:49:04 ↗ division and looking at those

2:49:06 ↗ engineering revenues and really thinking

2:49:08 ↗ about that by division as it relates to

2:49:11 ↗ the other recommendations for

2:49:12 ↗ improvement in the estate away

2:49:16 ↗ Thank You council president hunt

2:49:21 ↗ Thank You council president hunt thank

2:49:24 ↗ you for summarizing Andrea and I I

2:49:28 ↗ wanted to just add the one one thing

2:49:32 ↗ that I think we talked about a number of

2:49:35 ↗ us did which was looking at if we

2:49:38 ↗ exclude the code or focusing on

2:49:41 ↗ simplifying the code to make the amount

2:49:46 ↗ of effort that goes into the development

2:49:49 ↗ into the permit reviews etc to make that

2:49:53 ↗ lower as a way to reduce the overall

2:49:56 ↗ cost to the person applying for the

2:49:58 ↗ permit

2:50:01 ↗ well can you explain that again I'm not

2:50:07 ↗ following

2:50:08 ↗ so it's not it was in my attempts at

2:50:11 ↗ discounts president hunt

2:50:13 ↗ it was my attempt at summarizing what I

2:50:15 ↗ think a few of us were talking about in

2:50:18 ↗ terms of simplifying the code Title 18

2:50:22 ↗ etc to make it make code more time

2:50:28 ↗ efficient to review permits and to

2:50:31 ↗ implement the code so that we don't have

2:50:33 ↗ currently the what was mentioned earlier

2:50:36 ↗ that the small project applicants

2:50:38 ↗ actually basically have to pay more

2:50:41 ↗ because it's a one-time if there's not

2:50:43 ↗ the economy of scale and so ultimately

2:50:46 ↗ that that that impacts the smaller

2:50:49 ↗ projects more and so to look at

2:50:50 ↗ addressing that as the route as a sort

2:50:54 ↗ of core issue rather than looking at

2:50:55 ↗ adjusting the cons recovery fees

2:50:57 ↗ independently of that

2:51:00 ↗ sorry creepy-crawly um yes I I heard

2:51:06 ↗ Andrea addressed something that sounded

2:51:07 ↗ similar and so I was just making I was

2:51:11 ↗ just wanting to clarify

2:51:15 ↗ anyway that's good never mind thanks I

2:51:17 ↗ get it I got it before I I just didn't

2:51:21 ↗ understand it was the same thing you

2:51:22 ↗ were saying before Thanks um anything

2:51:26 ↗ else Jean Andrea Wally

2:51:33 ↗ in the next order of business would be

2:51:35 ↗ to adjourn our meeting I was gonna hear

2:51:38 ↗ an objection

2:51:41 ↗ Thank You councilmember Goodman this is

2:51:44 ↗ Andrea Snyder at the risk of

2:51:45 ↗ interrupting my boss the city

2:51:48 ↗ administrator as I see he may have a

2:51:50 ↗ comment but it seems that we need to

2:51:53 ↗ return with a little bit more

2:51:54 ↗ information so that we will figure out

2:51:58 ↗ time and a plan to do that and can

2:52:01 ↗ return to Council thank you all for your

2:52:04 ↗ second evening of hard work this week

2:52:09 ↗ city administrator Bach quits did you

2:52:11 ↗ have a comment

2:52:12 ↗ Andrea Vega okay okay we are adjourned

2:52:17 ↗ everyone have a nice evening

2:52:18 ↗ see you later bye

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)

Barbara de Michele

Stacy Goodman

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Staff (5)

Mary Lou Pauly, Mayor

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, Deputy City Clerk

Jeff Kray, Attorney

Excused

Lindsey Walsh