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

Excused

Lindsey Walsh