City Council Special Meeting · Monday, March 29, 2021 · 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 60 minutes and may be extended if needed. Please note, Executive Sessions are closed to the public. Action, if needed, would occur during the open session of a Council meeting

3494 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ i council president hunts call the march

0:01 ↗ 29th special counsel study session to

0:04 ↗ order

0:05 ↗ due to the governor's proclamation 20-28

0:07 ↗ relating to the coven 19

0:09 ↗ emergency and open public meetings this

0:11 ↗ meeting will be held entirely remotely

0:13 ↗ there are multiple public comment

0:15 ↗ opportunities at tonight's meeting

0:16 ↗ there is a general public comment

0:18 ↗ opportunity at the beginning of the

0:19 ↗ meeting or you can make comments after

0:21 ↗ the presentation

0:22 ↗ and counsel question and answer period

0:25 ↗ on tonight's agenda item

0:26 ↗ and i will also share a summary of any

0:28 ↗ comments that have been emailed

0:29 ↗ regarding tonight's agenda items

0:32 ↗ i will now take a roll call of the

0:34 ↗ council members in attendance and please

0:35 ↗ stay here when i call your name

0:37 ↗ councilmember do you michelle here here

0:40 ↗ thank you councilman um

0:41 ↗ councilmember hall here

0:44 ↗ thanks councilmember martz here

0:48 ↗ thank you deputy council president ray

0:50 ↗ here

0:51 ↗ thank you and councilmember walsh here

0:55 ↗ thank you and councilmember goodman had

0:57 ↗ another meeting and so she

0:58 ↗ may be joining a few minutes late this

1:00 ↗ evening but she expects to be here

1:02 ↗ shortly

1:03 ↗ the first item on the agenda is public

1:06 ↗ comment

1:07 ↗ and if there's anyone on the call now

1:09 ↗ who would like to make a public comment

1:10 ↗ but did not sign up to speak please

1:12 ↗ raise your virtual hand um clerk

1:15 ↗ geezer is anybody on the line that

1:18 ↗ looks like they might be interested in

1:20 ↗ making a public comment

1:22 ↗ no no one signed up in advance and i

1:24 ↗ also don't see any members of the public

1:25 ↗ on the call at this time

1:27 ↗ okay thank you um and as a reminder

1:30 ↗ written comments can be submitted at any

1:32 ↗ time

1:32 ↗ to city council at issaquah.gov

1:36 ↗ and at this point i will summarize email

1:38 ↗ comments that we received

1:40 ↗ on our items this evening our one agenda

1:43 ↗ item this evening we received two

1:45 ↗ emails from community members on

1:46 ↗ tonight's agenda topics

1:49 ↗ one community member who emailed us

1:51 ↗ expressed

1:52 ↗ concern about if there were too many

1:56 ↗ piecemeal

1:57 ↗ items that would be put forward by

2:01 ↗ a council and indicated as well that one

2:04 ↗ council member or one city administrator

2:06 ↗ or mayor alone

2:07 ↗ should not be able to initiate a problem

2:09 ↗ a project so this was in response to

2:12 ↗ our topic this evening around how

2:15 ↗ council might advance

2:16 ↗ a agenda item uh then we had another

2:19 ↗ email

2:20 ↗ from a community member that commented

2:22 ↗ on mult

2:23 ↗ multiple um parts of our agenda this

2:25 ↗ evening

2:27 ↗ and this community member liked the idea

2:30 ↗ of the ability for council to set agenda

2:33 ↗ and agenda bills rather than

2:35 ↗ reacting to what the administrative

2:37 ↗ branch put forward thought it should be

2:39 ↗ that this should be able to be done by

2:41 ↗ one city council member without a

2:43 ↗ motion and a second i think just with

2:45 ↗ one motion

2:46 ↗ then also made comments um regarding

2:50 ↗ the item that is up for a discussion

2:52 ↗ this evening

2:53 ↗ around when council directs items to

2:56 ↗ commissions

2:57 ↗ or has questions for commissions um and

3:00 ↗ did indicate that this community member

3:02 ↗ thought their the material should be

3:04 ↗ more instructive on what's being asked

3:06 ↗ um and then had some additional comments

3:08 ↗ on other

3:10 ↗ items including on the on the

3:14 ↗ fund balance policy indicating other

3:16 ↗ topics that might be considered

3:18 ↗ within that future conversation that

3:21 ↗ summarizes the email

3:23 ↗ the two emails that we received from

3:24 ↗ community members on tonight's

3:27 ↗ agenda items

3:34 ↗ so with that we will move to our first

3:36 ↗ agenda topic which is id

3:37 ↗ 0 8 1 6 city council rules of procedure

3:41 ↗ and um i think because we do have

3:44 ↗ another public comment and

3:46 ↗ for the flow of the conversation if we

3:48 ↗ can have

3:49 ↗ um questions or an overview of the

3:51 ↗ materials and then

3:52 ↗ we can um go through questions and then

3:55 ↗ we can have deliberations going point by

3:57 ↗ point through the five

3:59 ↗ items that are in the packet for this

4:02 ↗ evening

4:02 ↗ that might be good

4:08 ↗ so um city administrator

4:11 ↗ bob from quits

4:14 ↗ uh did you want to

4:19 ↗ start us off with agenda bill

4:21 ↗ developments did you have any comments

4:23 ↗ that you

4:24 ↗ um could share with the city on that

4:26 ↗ topic

4:30 ↗ item number one council president is

4:31 ↗ that the one you're referring to in the

4:32 ↗ packet

4:34 ↗ yes that's the one and i'll i'll also

4:36 ↗ for context say that these are all

4:38 ↗ items that we identified during

4:42 ↗ the retreats that we thought um fall

4:45 ↗ under a broader umbrella of rules of

4:47 ↗ procedure but that we might consider as

4:49 ↗ a council

4:50 ↗ ways to address um concerns that were

4:53 ↗ voiced

4:53 ↗ by council during our exercises at the

4:55 ↗ retreat around rules of procedure and we

4:57 ↗ can go forward with

4:59 ↗ potential changes or if council has um

5:03 ↗ potential recommendations that weren't

5:04 ↗ covered then that would be a good time

5:06 ↗ to

5:06 ↗ talk through those as well but this is

5:08 ↗ all um rules of procedure

5:11 ↗ potential changes in response to the

5:12 ↗ concerns that we heard at

5:14 ↗ the retreat a few months or a month or

5:17 ↗ so ago

5:20 ↗ great thank you council president

5:21 ↗ members of the council good evening

5:24 ↗ item one of the council leadership asked

5:26 ↗ the administration to conduct a survey

5:28 ↗ of local communities

5:29 ↗ with the mayor council former government

5:30 ↗ to determine how those communities allow

5:32 ↗ members of the council to add items

5:35 ↗ for consideration for future council

5:36 ↗ agendas and you'll see

5:38 ↗ in your packet a on page 11

5:41 ↗ a table that was prepared by the city

5:43 ↗ clerk's office which includes redmond

5:45 ↗ renton

5:46 ↗ kent ctac and north bend and how those

5:49 ↗ communities

5:50 ↗ operate as far as allowing council

5:53 ↗ members to add items to an agenda

5:56 ↗ i've also mentioned

5:59 ↗ through the discussions with council

6:00 ↗ leadership a process that i was familiar

6:03 ↗ with in my years in evanston illinois

6:05 ↗ where there was a standing item on every

6:07 ↗ council meeting agenda

6:08 ↗ and if a council member wished to put

6:11 ↗ forward an item for future discussion

6:13 ↗ they could make a motion and have that

6:14 ↗ motion seconded

6:15 ↗ and then the staff would come back at a

6:17 ↗ future meeting with additional

6:18 ↗ information before that item

6:20 ↗ was just the work was done on that item

6:24 ↗ and then a question for consideration

6:26 ↗ about the complexity of the topic affect

6:28 ↗ the process

6:29 ↗ in my experience in working with city

6:31 ↗ councils over

6:32 ↗ my career the items that come before

6:36 ↗ council and individual council members

6:37 ↗ wish to

6:38 ↗ talk about uh run of all size and shape

6:41 ↗ so i think another issue for

6:44 ↗ consideration is just

6:45 ↗ do you create a process that's bigger

6:47 ↗ than the request

6:49 ↗ and sometimes that can occur i think

6:50 ↗ there's an appropriate sensitivity

6:53 ↗ to accounts workload there should be

6:55 ↗ staff workload created by these council

6:57 ↗ requests and

6:58 ↗ on behalf of your staff i'll say thank

6:59 ↗ you for that concern

7:01 ↗ uh but at the same time you know we want

7:03 ↗ to make sure that the council

7:05 ↗ uh discusses items uh that are of

7:07 ↗ importance to it

7:08 ↗ so um you know i think from the

7:10 ↗ administration standpoint while we're

7:12 ↗ we're certainly protective of staff's

7:14 ↗ time we also understand

7:16 ↗ uh it's important for the council to

7:17 ↗ have items that they feel are important

7:20 ↗ the current the council's current rules

7:21 ↗ has provisions i think every community

7:24 ↗ i'm familiar with and i've worked in

7:25 ↗ over the years has provisions

7:26 ↗ they're all slightly different and i

7:28 ↗ think really evolve around

7:30 ↗ you know what the culture of the council

7:32 ↗ has been over time

7:33 ↗ um you know and really to provide a

7:36 ↗ process that everybody understands and

7:37 ↗ everybody feels fair so i don't think

7:39 ↗ there's any

7:40 ↗ one process that makes sense i think

7:42 ↗ it's the process that you're most

7:43 ↗ comfortable with so

7:44 ↗ we have a lot of information uh that we

7:47 ↗ have provided

7:48 ↗ and council president certainly i'm here

7:49 ↗ to answer any questions

7:51 ↗ the city clerk at the deputy city clerk

7:52 ↗ are also on the call this evening

7:54 ↗ and they're here as well thank you city

7:58 ↗ administrator bob quits

7:59 ↗ we do have some questions um

8:01 ↗ councilmember hall has a question

8:04 ↗ thank you council president hunt uh this

8:06 ↗ is councilmember hall i have a

8:07 ↗ just two questions for the city

8:09 ↗ administrator the first is you described

8:12 ↗ a um a process that you're familiar with

8:14 ↗ back in illinois where

8:16 ↗ during good of the order you would bring

8:17 ↗ up an issue you'd like to come back at a

8:19 ↗ future meeting

8:20 ↗ get a second and then um city staff

8:24 ↗ would come

8:24 ↗ back with additional information before

8:27 ↗ more work was done on that

8:28 ↗ what kind of information is brought

8:30 ↗ forward is that kind of like a resource

8:34 ↗ rundown so to speak so staff would say

8:37 ↗ how much time it would take

8:39 ↗ to go through something like that and um

8:43 ↗ if the work plan needs to be changed or

8:45 ↗ anything like that or did they come back

8:47 ↗ right away with

8:48 ↗ the agenda bill sorry then

8:51 ↗ you know it's better it it it varied

8:54 ↗ depending again on the size of the

8:56 ↗ request

8:57 ↗ oftentimes a request that was known to

9:00 ↗ one or two council members was not known

9:01 ↗ to the rest of the council and so

9:03 ↗ you know staff would either get

9:04 ↗ information from the request and council

9:06 ↗ member

9:07 ↗ or do their own research and provide

9:09 ↗ additional information about that so the

9:11 ↗ full council at least had some context

9:13 ↗ as to what was was being asked and

9:15 ↗ requested

9:16 ↗ uh and then really it just depended on

9:18 ↗ what was being asked if it was an

9:20 ↗ ordinance

9:21 ↗ you know i think then the general

9:23 ↗ parameters were discussed the additional

9:25 ↗ work that we required was discussed

9:27 ↗ there was no one size that really fit

9:29 ↗ all

9:30 ↗ of those requests um you know i think

9:33 ↗ normally

9:34 ↗ when it came back to the council in my

9:36 ↗ experience either there was

9:38 ↗ you know general support or general

9:39 ↗ opposition or there wasn't usually a lot

9:41 ↗ of hemming and hawing i think

9:43 ↗ that you know people knew if it made

9:46 ↗ sense or didn't make sense with usually

9:47 ↗ a little bit more information

9:48 ↗ and i think first and foremost people

9:50 ↗ just wanted to be

9:52 ↗ familiar with the topic and when someone

9:54 ↗ brings something forward

9:55 ↗ you know sometimes you're not familiar

9:56 ↗ with the topic so once people had an

9:58 ↗ opportunity to understand

9:59 ↗ you know the parameters of what was

10:00 ↗ being requested perhaps talk with a

10:03 ↗ council member

10:04 ↗ or two the proposer for example in

10:06 ↗ getting more information

10:07 ↗ in my experience usually things fell

10:10 ↗ fell into place

10:11 ↗ and the staff you know either came back

10:13 ↗ at the next meeting or came back a month

10:14 ↗ later

10:15 ↗ even if the work wasn't completely done

10:17 ↗ you know usually then there was at least

10:19 ↗ a check-in

10:20 ↗ but in my experience if there was a

10:22 ↗ consensus

10:24 ↗ after that that initial full discussion

10:26 ↗ to move forward

10:27 ↗ you know it's always seemed to work

10:29 ↗ itself out okay

10:31 ↗ that's very interesting um and then my

10:33 ↗ second question um

10:35 ↗ is just on page 11 this table that uh

10:37 ↗ this great table that was put together

10:38 ↗ for us wondering if

10:40 ↗ um we already were able to hear back

10:42 ↗ from redmond i know we hadn't had a

10:44 ↗ response

10:45 ↗ by the 25th just wondering if we were

10:47 ↗ able to hear back by now

10:50 ↗ i'll ask the city clerk who i think is

10:52 ↗ on the line if she's

10:54 ↗ or the deputy city clerk yeah thank you

10:57 ↗ um

10:58 ↗ they had some staffing issues out last

11:00 ↗ week so no we did we

11:01 ↗ we haven't received any updates yet but

11:03 ↗ we'll share it

11:11 ↗ okay thank you are any additional

11:14 ↗ questions

11:15 ↗ on this first item which is um

11:18 ↗ regarding amendments to the agenda

11:20 ↗ setting section of the rules of

11:22 ↗ procedure

11:25 ↗ not seeing any questions

11:28 ↗ okay um so the next item

11:32 ↗ in within this agenda item is around

11:35 ↗ oh i'm sorry councilmember walsh has a

11:37 ↗ question

11:39 ↗ thanks sorry is there going to be a

11:40 ↗ presentation or are we just

11:42 ↗ kind of going through it

11:45 ↗ there isn't a presentation but i do

11:47 ↗ believe we could show

11:48 ↗ if it helps and it might help um we

11:50 ↗ could show the

11:52 ↗ agenda packet so you could read the

11:54 ↗ language um of each

11:56 ↗ part that we're on would that be

11:58 ↗ possible clerk easier to

12:00 ↗ put the agenda packet wording up

12:05 ↗ assuming councilmember walsh that would

12:07 ↗ that would help yeah i'm just trying to

12:09 ↗ understand

12:10 ↗ where we should whether we should wait

12:11 ↗ for questions or whether we're going

12:13 ↗ section by section

12:14 ↗ etc okay um so

12:18 ↗ from my perspective since this is a

12:20 ↗ retreat follow-up it is

12:21 ↗ more based on what we identified as

12:25 ↗ issues during the retreat so

12:27 ↗ uh that's kind of the structure that it

12:29 ↗ follows and

12:30 ↗ we can either i was thinking we could go

12:32 ↗ section by section four

12:34 ↗ questions and then um because we have

12:36 ↗ this public comment separated that way

12:38 ↗ call for public comment in case anybody

12:40 ↗ came on the line and then go

12:41 ↗ to the deliberations again section by

12:44 ↗ section so we can

12:45 ↗ have a consensus um recommendation or a

12:48 ↗ consensus

12:49 ↗ opinion come out of those discussions

12:51 ↗ for each item so that would be my

12:53 ↗ proposed way of going

12:54 ↗ through it

12:58 ↗ okay so i see a thumbs up um

13:02 ↗ i do think it's probably helpful to have

13:04 ↗ the

13:06 ↗ wording on the screen if that's possible

13:09 ↗ um i can pull that up thank you

13:13 ↗ uh and then councilmember demonshell has

13:15 ↗ a question

13:18 ↗ thanks and thanks for that clarification

13:20 ↗ because uh it's sort of a question and

13:22 ↗ sort of a comment so

13:24 ↗ um i was wondering uh

13:27 ↗ perhaps city administrator bob quits can

13:29 ↗ can talk to this

13:31 ↗ has is there a um another option which

13:34 ↗ would be

13:36 ↗ city council members uh proposing items

13:39 ↗ to council leadership and having those

13:43 ↗ vetted at the leadership meeting

13:47 ↗ i'm just i'm just throwing that out as

13:48 ↗ another possibility have you had any

13:50 ↗ experience with that

13:52 ↗ a model or is that

13:56 ↗ not a viable one again i

13:59 ↗ there is no such thing as a non-viable

14:01 ↗ one

14:02 ↗ i i i guess i will offer the

14:06 ↗ the experience that no one likes

14:09 ↗ surprises

14:10 ↗ and so the more the more you can do this

14:13 ↗ as the full group

14:14 ↗ the better because even with going to

14:16 ↗ council leadership

14:18 ↗ then you're only talking with three

14:20 ↗ depending on how it's approached if an

14:22 ↗ individual council member raises it at a

14:24 ↗ particular meeting and there's two or

14:26 ↗ three other council members there

14:27 ↗ um you know then that's four and then

14:30 ↗ all of a sudden you're

14:31 ↗ encountering potential open meeting

14:33 ↗ issues about

14:35 ↗ about it so um i you know my experiences

14:39 ↗ lay it out for everybody to hear however

14:41 ↗ you do it however many votes

14:42 ↗ it may take to move it forward that's

14:45 ↗ there's there's lots of ways to do that

14:47 ↗ but again this is trying to get everyone

14:49 ↗ to buy in the

14:50 ↗ yes this is something you want to talk

14:52 ↗ about or know it is something

14:58 ↗ thanks great thank you

15:04 ↗ okay um counsel do we have any further

15:07 ↗ questions on this

15:08 ↗ section one or can we move to section

15:10 ↗ two

15:12 ↗ one minute one second

15:16 ↗ okay i think we're done with questions

15:18 ↗ for section one so i think we can go to

15:21 ↗ section two

15:26 ↗ you okay um so during the retreat we

15:29 ↗ heard some concerns about

15:31 ↗ uh clarity of process or um

15:35 ↗ ambiguity of a process around study

15:38 ↗ sessions in particular in the

15:40 ↗ baby development and the

15:43 ↗ role of study sessions um so in

15:46 ↗ discussing this at leadership we

15:49 ↗ thought that one way we could improve

15:51 ↗ the clarity

15:52 ↗ potentially would be on um having

15:56 ↗ something like a liaison that might not

15:58 ↗ be the right word but something

16:00 ↗ um some sort of uh

16:03 ↗ council member that would be identified

16:05 ↗ that would um

16:07 ↗ form a opinion as to the next step of

16:10 ↗ whether this should come back to counsel

16:12 ↗ at a study session for example

16:14 ↗ or it's it's um there's a clear a b

16:18 ↗ that would come out of the discussion

16:19 ↗ and then it can go to a b that would be

16:21 ↗ just

16:22 ↗ decided at the pool council for example

16:24 ↗ and we also identified that

16:25 ↗ we thought this was partially a result

16:29 ↗ of moving

16:30 ↗ to the study sessions where we don't

16:32 ↗ have a

16:33 ↗ um we don't have a committee chair like

16:36 ↗ we formally had in committees who was

16:37 ↗ oftentimes the sort of liaison for a

16:40 ↗ bill and would be the one to speak to it

16:42 ↗ at council and would be

16:43 ↗ um and you would also have a vote coming

16:45 ↗ out of the committee that would

16:46 ↗ be the guidance for council at the full

16:48 ↗ committee on an agenda bill that had

16:50 ↗ gone through that

16:50 ↗ process um so

16:54 ↗ we uh identified a few suggestions for

16:56 ↗ this one and those are

16:58 ↗ below i think if we scroll down a little

17:00 ↗ bit

17:01 ↗ and um those suggestions would be

17:05 ↗ around basically having somebody

17:07 ↗ identified and i think there's sort of

17:09 ↗ two

17:10 ↗ two kinds of person that could be

17:12 ↗ identified it could either be

17:14 ↗ something on a theme basis or it could

17:16 ↗ be the chair of the meeting so that

17:19 ↗ would be more

17:20 ↗ random because we do have a random or a

17:23 ↗ rotating chair of the meetings and i see

17:26 ↗ that there's councilmember walsh has a

17:28 ↗ question

17:29 ↗ thank you um i'm not sure i understand

17:33 ↗ what

17:33 ↗ problem this solves i know it somewhat

17:36 ↗ mirrors

17:37 ↗ the concept that we had when we were

17:40 ↗ using committees but can you talk

17:41 ↗ through again

17:43 ↗ what the problem is associated with the

17:46 ↗ solution

17:49 ↗ yes and and also i will also say that

17:52 ↗ these were some of the suggestions that

17:55 ↗ came out of

17:56 ↗ leadership discussion but potentially

17:58 ↗ there are other ways to adjust the

18:00 ↗ problem

18:00 ↗ so the problem here is around ambiguity

18:04 ↗ of

18:05 ↗ a b development processes and

18:09 ↗ for example when is something

18:12 ↗ baked enough to go to the next phase um

18:16 ↗ how does council

18:17 ↗ fit into that process of the ab

18:19 ↗ development and

18:20 ↗ um would it help to have somebody who

18:23 ↗ in the study session is the one who um

18:26 ↗ or in the development of that a b is the

18:28 ↗ one who

18:30 ↗ would be uh able to

18:34 ↗ would be sort of closest to the bill

18:36 ↗ like a liaison

18:38 ↗ or like a chair of the committee

18:41 ↗ was previously

18:48 ↗ okay um do you want thoughts now

18:51 ↗ or just questions um i think we'll do if

18:55 ↗ it's okay i think we'll try to do

18:56 ↗ questions and then

18:57 ↗ we'll come back for all the thoughts in

18:59 ↗ order so i can

19:01 ↗ thanks so much okay

19:05 ↗ okay any

19:09 ↗ further questions on this one

19:12 ↗ and um clerk geezer i think we can

19:14 ↗ scroll down a little bit

19:23 ↗ oh thanks

19:26 ↗ oh and councilmember martz would you

19:29 ↗ like to

19:30 ↗ thank the president i i apologize i i

19:33 ↗ don't have the problem with my mute but

19:35 ↗ i have the problem with

19:36 ↗ sending a comment that i thought i sent

19:38 ↗ to everyone that in fact i just sent to

19:40 ↗ the clerk

19:40 ↗ which is not helpful uh so yeah i was um

19:43 ↗ the question

19:44 ↗ about liaisons um goes back to

19:48 ↗ um when i was council president actually

19:50 ↗ we worked out a definition of a liaison

19:52 ↗ and that's

19:53 ↗ that that definition is still out there

19:55 ↗ but we didn't uh

19:57 ↗ we didn't get around to adopting it um

20:00 ↗ and it was really around this idea of

20:01 ↗ head scratcher moments right

20:04 ↗ the idea was that any bill that was

20:07 ↗ coming before council should have

20:09 ↗ some council member who is

20:12 ↗ uh uh has a vested interest in resolving

20:16 ↗ it and it was because we had

20:18 ↗ we had had a couple of bills and i'm

20:19 ↗ thinking here uh

20:21 ↗ about the original uh chelsight bill

20:25 ↗ uh that came to us that did not have any

20:27 ↗ council support

20:28 ↗ and we didn't really know why it was

20:30 ↗ showing up

20:32 ↗ and uh that was awkward and it was in an

20:36 ↗ evening when we had our

20:37 ↗ our storied seven hour and 45 minute

20:39 ↗ council meeting

20:40 ↗ uh so it was part of that council member

20:43 ↗ michelle was there in the audience uh

20:46 ↗ so but also things like potential

20:49 ↗ amendments

20:50 ↗ uh on bills you know we have times when

20:53 ↗ there's late-breaking amendments

20:55 ↗ or questions that can come from the deus

20:59 ↗ and so you know the idea is really to

21:02 ↗ try to minimize head scratcher moments

21:04 ↗ where

21:04 ↗ the seven of us are sitting up there

21:06 ↗ saying uh what are we supposed to be

21:08 ↗ doing

21:09 ↗ and or you know somebody's got an

21:11 ↗ amendment and they

21:12 ↗ have to write it in crayon or whatever

21:14 ↗ um so i had i had been a big proponent

21:17 ↗ and continue to believe that

21:19 ↗ bill should have a liaison that's not

21:21 ↗ necessarily an advocate

21:22 ↗ but a point of contact that's that's on

21:25 ↗ the council side

21:26 ↗ even though we no longer have committees

21:28 ↗ uh it's still

21:30 ↗ uh it's very important to me that we

21:31 ↗ minimize head scratcher

21:33 ↗ moments um and i think this could be a

21:36 ↗ tool

21:36 ↗ for that i sorry i guess i'm blending

21:39 ↗ into advocacy sorry

21:40 ↗ but i did want to try to answer your

21:42 ↗ question thank you

21:46 ↗ thank you councilmember martz i think

21:47 ↗ that history was really helpful

21:53 ↗ okay i'm not seeing any other questions

21:56 ↗ on this one so we'll move to the third

21:57 ↗ one which is study sessions

21:59 ↗ um this is again suggestions to reduce

22:01 ↗ the ambiguity of the

22:02 ↗ ab development process and the role of

22:05 ↗ study sessions in that process and the

22:07 ↗ role of counsel and study sessions

22:08 ↗ within that process

22:10 ↗ um so on this one um

22:13 ↗ this was this was i believe that uh when

22:16 ↗ we did the retreat there was a post-it

22:18 ↗ um date around ab ambiguity i think that

22:21 ↗ was the one that had the most

22:22 ↗ um concern when we were identifying

22:25 ↗ concerns so

22:26 ↗ we had a couple different um we

22:28 ↗ identified a couple different potential

22:29 ↗ ways to

22:30 ↗ uh amend our rules of procedure for that

22:33 ↗ one so this

22:34 ↗ this is around um setting expectations

22:37 ↗ for

22:38 ↗ the uh how many touches for example an

22:41 ↗ ab would have

22:42 ↗ in the council study session or how to

22:44 ↗ determine if it should have another

22:46 ↗ touch with counsel in the study session

22:49 ↗ format before it comes back to counsel

22:51 ↗ for a vote in the ab format um

22:55 ↗ and then also a suggestion around

22:59 ↗ formalizing what i think we've started

23:01 ↗ doing which is around

23:03 ↗ uh that the chair would summarize the

23:06 ↗ direction of the conversation

23:09 ↗ after a study session item and then give

23:12 ↗ the opportunity for council to

23:14 ↗ correct or to amend the consensus

23:17 ↗ um and i think as over time that would

23:19 ↗ um

23:20 ↗ that would clarify the intent of counsel

23:23 ↗ so that's why that's

23:24 ↗ a suggestion for that and again um these

23:27 ↗ were our suggestions but there might be

23:29 ↗ other ones

23:30 ↗ i'll see if there's any questions on

23:32 ↗ this one

23:40 ↗ not seeing any questions on this one so

23:41 ↗ i think we can go to the next one which

23:43 ↗ is number four

23:46 ↗ and this one is around um

23:49 ↗ reducing ambiguity when counsel when the

23:52 ↗ next step after a study session

23:55 ↗ after an av is discussed in a study

23:56 ↗ session would be for it to go to one of

23:58 ↗ our boards or commissions

24:00 ↗ and this would be around um

24:03 ↗ codifying questions that council would

24:06 ↗ formulate questions for

24:08 ↗ the commission or the board if there are

24:10 ↗ specific things that we would like

24:12 ↗ feedback on um so this would try to

24:15 ↗ reduce some of the ambiguity when things

24:17 ↗ go from council to a commission

24:32 ↗ council member hall uh thanks this

24:34 ↗ councilmember hall just quick clarifying

24:36 ↗ questions so that

24:37 ↗ um these questions um that we would put

24:40 ↗ together the idea

24:41 ↗ would be behind it would be um

24:44 ↗ this would be like the initial guiding

24:47 ↗ questions in particular

24:48 ↗ we're of interest on council but as a

24:51 ↗ board of commission you obviously can

24:52 ↗ ask any questions you want and get any

24:54 ↗ information you want that you think will

24:57 ↗ help inform our decision

24:58 ↗ is that correct

25:02 ↗ um yes so i think that's correct on the

25:04 ↗ suggestion

25:05 ↗ and i i would add i was also thinking of

25:08 ↗ this as

25:10 ↗ similar or even part of the summary

25:13 ↗ that um council the chair would do

25:16 ↗ they would you know make sure to uh

25:19 ↗ agree on wording of any specific

25:21 ↗ questions that came out of the

25:22 ↗ discussion

25:23 ↗ that would go to a board or commission

25:24 ↗ if council had specific questions so

25:26 ↗ it's i think in my

25:28 ↗ in my mind anyway it was part of that

25:31 ↗ summarization that the chair

25:32 ↗ would do for an a b um and i see that

25:35 ↗ council member goodman has joined us so

25:37 ↗ welcome and um i see also that council

25:40 ↗ member goodman has a question

25:42 ↗ uh thank you councilmember goodman here

25:45 ↗ so on the um

25:48 ↗ council may choose to post questions for

25:49 ↗ board commission consideration

25:52 ↗ um so this is at a really high

25:56 ↗ level and my concern is um

26:00 ↗ is around details um and how this is

26:04 ↗ actually used

26:05 ↗ so um

26:08 ↗ i i guess my question is when do we

26:11 ↗ expect to

26:14 ↗ be providing questions for

26:17 ↗ boards and commissions um

26:21 ↗ and i can elaborate on my or i can wait

26:23 ↗ for the

26:25 ↗ answer because i do have a concern about

26:26 ↗ it and and

26:28 ↗ what question what and what are we

26:32 ↗ is it to reduce ambigu ambiguities for

26:35 ↗ when things go to boards and commissions

26:37 ↗ i'm just not quite sure what force

26:39 ↗ trying to accomplish

26:40 ↗ and when we would use it

26:46 ↗ thanks i i'll speak to

26:50 ↗ my intent since i wrote this and then if

26:52 ↗ there's

26:53 ↗ um comments from the administration from

26:55 ↗ city of ministry about quits that would

26:57 ↗ be great too

26:58 ↗ so from my perspective this was around

27:01 ↗ ambiguity when council has

27:05 ↗ indicated that it when the next step is

27:08 ↗ for

27:08 ↗ a agenda bill or a agenda bill concept

27:11 ↗ in development

27:12 ↗ that it would go to a border commission

27:15 ↗ to include

27:16 ↗ any specific questions or specific

27:19 ↗ things that we want that we as a council

27:22 ↗ would want that board or commission to

27:26 ↗ give us feedback on and potentially

27:31 ↗ to incorporate that in our rules of

27:33 ↗ procedure that we would identify those

27:34 ↗ or that the chair of the meeting would

27:36 ↗ identify those

27:37 ↗ things um so it is around reducing

27:39 ↗ ambiguity

27:40 ↗ and i think it would be part of the

27:42 ↗ summary so that summary itself would be

27:45 ↗ situation specific because some babies

27:47 ↗ don't also don't go to our boards and

27:49 ↗ commissions

27:52 ↗ um i don't know if city administrator

27:54 ↗ bob quits has anything to add

27:55 ↗ on that from uh from the

27:56 ↗ administration's perspective

28:05 ↗ not hearing anything so um okay

28:09 ↗ and then are we providing feedback at

28:11 ↗ the end

28:12 ↗ of all these um

28:16 ↗ yes uh so councilmember goodman because

28:19 ↗ we have a

28:19 ↗ um we did have a public comment period

28:22 ↗ indicated on the agenda so i wanted to

28:24 ↗ try to do that after we did the question

28:27 ↗ so i'm

28:27 ↗ trying to separate the questions and

28:29 ↗ then we'll do the deliberation on the

28:31 ↗ items after that

28:33 ↗ thanks okay um deputy council president

28:36 ↗ ray

28:38 ↗ would like to introduce number five

28:40 ↗ number five yeah

28:41 ↗ since uh thank you council president

28:43 ↗ this is chris ray

28:44 ↗ since i i am so i am prominently uh

28:47 ↗ identified in the uh in the suggestion i

28:49 ↗ thought i would introduce the topic and

28:51 ↗ so

28:52 ↗ if you do read through the rules and

28:53 ↗ procedures there are a number of

28:55 ↗ instances where the uh logical operand

28:59 ↗ is and

28:59 ↗ slash or one of them is the

29:03 ↗ and i'm not reading it so i might get it

29:04 ↗ wrong but i believe it is the mayor and

29:06 ↗ or

29:07 ↗ council president may uh put a agenda an

29:11 ↗ item on the agenda

29:12 ↗ and those are two very different um two

29:14 ↗ different very

29:15 ↗ very different things and and would say

29:17 ↗ they would have to both say yes for it

29:19 ↗ to go on

29:19 ↗ and or would say that either one of them

29:21 ↗ independently could

29:23 ↗ add them to it so so the rules um

29:25 ↗ because we use the end or

29:26 ↗ create some in my mind some ambiguity

29:28 ↗ and i would like us to take a look at

29:30 ↗ that

29:30 ↗ as we move forward

29:36 ↗ thank you um and this is council

29:39 ↗ president hans i will just add that this

29:40 ↗ was something that

29:42 ↗ came up when we last looked at our rules

29:44 ↗ of procedure but we didn't um

29:46 ↗ we didn't clarify all of those and or so

29:48 ↗ this is also

29:49 ↗ partly something that we looked at a

29:53 ↗ couple years ago now

29:55 ↗ um and i think it's a remaining work

29:57 ↗ item to to just provide that clarity

30:00 ↗ okay um don't see any questions on this

30:04 ↗ one the other

30:05 ↗ the last section which is the un which

30:08 ↗ is not numbered is around other items

30:10 ↗ for future

30:11 ↗ city council discussion and these are

30:13 ↗ things that have come up

30:14 ↗ either at the retreat or around the

30:16 ↗ retreat um

30:18 ↗ things that would be potential retreat

30:20 ↗ type topics for discussion

30:22 ↗ and i indicate them here mostly to make

30:25 ↗ sure that

30:26 ↗ we aren't losing sight of them or to

30:28 ↗ indicate that we aren't losing sight of

30:29 ↗ these

30:30 ↗ these um items and that we do

30:34 ↗ still have them on our uh radar

30:37 ↗ for future work um but wanted to take

30:40 ↗ this

30:40 ↗ one step at a time and be responsive to

30:44 ↗ especially the rules of procedure areas

30:46 ↗ of concern which i thought we could

30:48 ↗ address as

30:49 ↗ one item of

30:52 ↗ this evening

30:59 ↗ councilmember hall has a question

31:03 ↗ uh yeah thanks council president this is

31:04 ↗ councilmember hall um

31:06 ↗ i have a question on the other items is

31:08 ↗ now appropriate time

31:10 ↗ for that um one of them was number of

31:14 ↗ reading of ordinances

31:15 ↗ the city council wished to set a

31:16 ↗ standard for this haul august 30 2020.

31:19 ↗ i'm sure my question was brilliant and

31:23 ↗ um very informative but i have no idea

31:26 ↗ what i was talking about there

31:27 ↗ so if someone could elaborate that would

31:31 ↗ be helpful for me

31:34 ↗ uh councilmember hall members of the

31:36 ↗ council let me give a try and i know the

31:38 ↗ city clerks are on the line as well

31:40 ↗ there was a item that the council was

31:42 ↗ considering which was an

31:43 ↗ ordinance i think there was a concern at

31:45 ↗ the time why

31:47 ↗ was only getting one touch instead of

31:48 ↗ two touches and i think at that point

31:51 ↗ there was the discussion that under

31:53 ↗ washington state law

31:54 ↗ uh ordinances only have to have one

31:57 ↗ reading or one

31:59 ↗ or one touch one consideration

32:02 ↗ in many communities in washington state

32:04 ↗ by local ordinance and elsewhere

32:06 ↗ they require two readings so it will be

32:09 ↗ introduced at one meeting and adopted at

32:10 ↗ a second meeting

32:12 ↗ under washington state law that's not

32:14 ↗ required uh but many communities

32:16 ↗ apparently have actually

32:18 ↗ mrsc just in the last week or so did an

32:20 ↗ article

32:21 ↗ on this very topic on ordinances

32:24 ↗ receiving first and second readings so

32:27 ↗ it's it's a it's a it's a transparency

32:29 ↗ issue

32:30 ↗ again something that upon my arrival in

32:33 ↗ issaquah was surprised

32:34 ↗ there was only one reading and speaking

32:36 ↗ with clerks they had worked in other

32:38 ↗ communities where there had been two

32:40 ↗ readings

32:40 ↗ there just has never been that in isquas

32:43 ↗ you raised the question

32:45 ↗ uh i think the clerks and i knew that

32:47 ↗ this was a larger issue and so we took

32:48 ↗ it down and

32:50 ↗ if the council cares to talk about it we

32:52 ↗ can talk about it more someday

32:55 ↗ all right thanks for refreshing my

32:56 ↗ memory

32:59 ↗ great thank you councilmember d michelle

33:02 ↗ uh

33:02 ↗ is it appropriate to ask a question

33:04 ↗ about the relationship

33:06 ↗ with non-profits that was listed under

33:08 ↗ other

33:10 ↗ okay um what you know

33:15 ↗ we have several relationships with

33:17 ↗ nonprofits i'm wondering

33:19 ↗ is the focus on our our financial

33:21 ↗ relationships or our governance

33:23 ↗ relationships or

33:25 ↗ our partnerships on projects or or all

33:28 ↗ of those things

33:29 ↗ could you just elaborate more on what

33:31 ↗ we're going to discuss

33:33 ↗ under that topic

33:37 ↗ uh i i certainly can council president

33:39 ↗ um

33:40 ↗ i i think uh councilmember d michelle

33:42 ↗ kind of summarized it we have lots of

33:44 ↗ different relationships

33:45 ↗ uh sometimes the council scrutinizes

33:47 ↗ those relationships more carefully with

33:49 ↗ some than

33:50 ↗ some organizations than others and so i

33:52 ↗ think some

33:53 ↗ there's been some concerns should there

33:54 ↗ be a uniformity in that scrutiny

33:57 ↗ um we give the money everybody fair game

34:00 ↗ about everything they do

34:01 ↗ um or not or is it just focused on the

34:04 ↗ service in which they're being funded so

34:08 ↗ i'd rather not get into all the specific

34:09 ↗ examples that i've seen over the last

34:11 ↗ several months but i think that there's

34:13 ↗ just a concern about uniformity and

34:14 ↗ consistency

34:15 ↗ and i think that's what put the item on

34:17 ↗ the on the list okay

34:19 ↗ thank you

34:23 ↗ great thank you

34:26 ↗ not seeing any further questions um

34:29 ↗ so and we can't ask questions as well

34:32 ↗ after the

34:34 ↗ after the comment period um clerk teaser

34:37 ↗ is anybody on the line

34:38 ↗ or indicating that they would wish to

34:39 ↗ make a comment for a public comment at

34:41 ↗ this time

34:44 ↗ i do see that we have one member of the

34:46 ↗ public on the line

34:47 ↗ so i'll ask if you're interested in

34:49 ↗ making comments tonight if you would

34:50 ↗ raise your hand by pressing star 3

34:54 ↗ that's star 3 if you're interested in

34:56 ↗ making verbal comments

34:59 ↗ just pause the moment here to see if

35:01 ↗ they'd like to speak

35:04 ↗ okay and while while they do that i can

35:06 ↗ also just quickly go through the rules

35:09 ↗ um for public comment when recognized

35:12 ↗ please unmute your microphone please

35:13 ↗ state your name

35:14 ↗ address and relationship to the city

35:16 ↗ please speak clearly and pause

35:18 ↗ frequently and please limit your

35:19 ↗ comments to five minutes and please

35:20 ↗ remove your microphone when

35:22 ↗ done

35:26 ↗ and i'm not seeing any uh indication

35:29 ↗ that there's a desire

35:30 ↗ to speak tonight okay

35:34 ↗ all right thank you well with that we

35:35 ↗ will close the public comment and we

35:37 ↗ will move into

35:38 ↗ the deliberations then and again any

35:41 ↗ time

35:42 ↗ comments can be emailed at any time to

35:43 ↗ city council at isquadwa.gov

35:46 ↗ all right so um now i think it would be

35:50 ↗ very helpful if we go through the items

35:53 ↗ in order so the one through five items

35:55 ↗ and then definitely looking also for

35:57 ↗ council's thoughts on

35:59 ↗ the um future items

36:04 ↗ piece as well so the first

36:07 ↗ one

36:10 ↗ is the um amendments to the agenda

36:13 ↗ setting

36:14 ↗ section of the rules of procedure so

36:15 ↗ this is the one where we do have several

36:17 ↗ options from different cities about how

36:18 ↗ they have

36:19 ↗ done this um and many potential

36:23 ↗ options for how we might change our

36:24 ↗ rules of procedure we do currently have

36:26 ↗ rules of procedure

36:28 ↗ on how to do this um and so this would

36:30 ↗ be a potential change that we would make

36:35 ↗ any council members wishing to start us

36:37 ↗ off councilmember washington

36:39 ↗ thanks so i think this comes up because

36:42 ↗ while we have

36:42 ↗ a procedure of you know call around

36:46 ↗ find two people that agree with you and

36:47 ↗ then present it to the administration

36:50 ↗ that just obviously isn't working for us

36:53 ↗ very well because it's

36:54 ↗ underutilized and at the meeting we

36:57 ↗ expressed

36:58 ↗ frustration um over the process so i'm

37:01 ↗ glad that we're looking at a solution

37:03 ↗ um i i mean i like the

37:07 ↗ idea of a form but i get

37:10 ↗ concerned that that basically becomes

37:12 ↗ one person presenting an idea

37:14 ↗ and it requires staff work

37:18 ↗ and it requires creating a

37:21 ↗ process and going through it i think

37:25 ↗ i i think the easier system to trial

37:29 ↗ out and see whether or not it works for

37:31 ↗ us

37:32 ↗ is suggestion number two where we have a

37:35 ↗ standing

37:36 ↗ agenda section where we talk about

37:38 ↗ future items

37:39 ↗ and where somebody can bring something

37:41 ↗ up and if there's

37:42 ↗ interest from other council members or

37:44 ↗ community members then

37:46 ↗ that becomes

37:50 ↗ enough interest to warrant um

37:54 ↗ uh staff time so i think that would be

37:56 ↗ my preference

37:58 ↗ thank you councilmember walsh um

38:02 ↗ do i understand correctly then that that

38:03 ↗ is like the evanston

38:05 ↗ um what was described happening in

38:07 ↗ evanston

38:08 ↗ okay thank you um councilmember hall

38:14 ↗ uh thank you council president this

38:15 ↗ councilmember hall uh i do

38:17 ↗ have um some thoughts

38:21 ↗ um you know back um

38:26 ↗ when we had a retreat i was thinking to

38:28 ↗ you know how

38:29 ↗ how what's the best way to go about

38:30 ↗ doing this what are the steps

38:32 ↗ what are the questions we should be

38:33 ↗ asking ourselves

38:35 ↗ and then one late night i went back to

38:38 ↗ reading

38:39 ↗ the association of washington city's

38:41 ↗ like new council member orientation

38:43 ↗ manual

38:45 ↗ and was reminded of the styles of

38:48 ↗ government at the city level so one

38:50 ↗ thing i'd just like

38:52 ↗ us to be mindful of too while we have

38:54 ↗ this conversation and i think it's good

38:55 ↗ conversation to have

38:57 ↗ is that you know we follow a mayor city

38:59 ↗ council form of government where

39:01 ↗ by design the mayor's responsibility is

39:04 ↗ to kind of set a vision for the city and

39:07 ↗ propose policies that are in line with

39:09 ↗ that vision and then the city council's

39:11 ↗ responsibility i'm saying this with just

39:13 ↗ one you're under my belt too

39:14 ↗ um his responsibility is to make sure

39:17 ↗ that that vision

39:18 ↗ you know is in line with what the

39:19 ↗ community's priorities are right

39:21 ↗ um so i guess you know just making sure

39:24 ↗ we're all mindful of that at least

39:26 ↗ that's how i'm seeing it too if anyone

39:27 ↗ else sees it differently i think this

39:29 ↗ would be a good space to have that

39:30 ↗ conversation too

39:31 ↗ um i like

39:34 ↗ the path that the ad hoc

39:38 ↗ committee the title 18 ad hoc committee

39:40 ↗ did actually

39:42 ↗ a few weeks ago where there were kind of

39:43 ↗ a list of guiding questions to answer

39:46 ↗ to answer as a council if we wanted to

39:48 ↗ consider something independently

39:50 ↗ um and i wrote down a couple questions

39:52 ↗ that we could be asking ourselves

39:54 ↗ if we did like a good of the order like

39:56 ↗ this

39:57 ↗ suggestion number two like um

40:00 ↗ what problem is this policy proposal

40:02 ↗ trying to solve

40:04 ↗ why now is the issue time sensitive are

40:07 ↗ there any consequences to delay i saw

40:09 ↗ that question

40:10 ↗ pop up in a couple of the forums too

40:12 ↗ that i thought that was an interesting

40:13 ↗ one

40:14 ↗ um how did this look how did this issue

40:16 ↗ come to your attention

40:18 ↗ uh was it through community engagement

40:19 ↗ was it through regional partnerships

40:21 ↗ etc etc and then you know are there

40:24 ↗ city resources available to respond and

40:27 ↗ support this request so

40:28 ↗ i actually kind of think whatever we do

40:32 ↗ we should kind of have a set of guiding

40:35 ↗ questions that help

40:36 ↗ get us to either yeah we should

40:39 ↗ amend our work plan and put this on here

40:41 ↗ because it's timely and it's important

40:43 ↗ um or maybe it's not timely and

40:47 ↗ important so we put off to the side or

40:48 ↗ maybe there's a third row that yeah this

40:49 ↗ is important but let's do it do it later

40:52 ↗ so those are my initial thoughts

40:55 ↗ thank you councilmember hall um so i i

40:58 ↗ am summarizing that i think as it's uh

41:01 ↗ similar to the evanston model but with

41:02 ↗ guiding questions is that correct

41:06 ↗ okay okay thank you councilmember

41:09 ↗ goodman

41:11 ↗ uh thank you council president hunt so

41:13 ↗ uh councilmember goodman here so i

41:16 ↗ may have missed this and i apologize so

41:17 ↗ i have a question before i have my

41:19 ↗ comment so with the item number

41:23 ↗ one with the forms that came

41:26 ↗ what specific problem are we trying to

41:32 ↗ solve

41:35 ↗ um so we did uh we had some discussion

41:39 ↗ um and i'll let city administrator bob

41:42 ↗ quits also summarize this from the

41:45 ↗ administration's perspective and i'll

41:47 ↗ say from my perspective

41:49 ↗ um there was a lot so there were

41:51 ↗ concerns identified at the retreat and

41:53 ↗ some of those concerns were around

41:55 ↗ um ambiguity of a b developments and

41:58 ↗ um one aspect of that seems to be

42:02 ↗ ambiguity around how council puts

42:05 ↗ forward

42:06 ↗ a potential agenda bill for adoption and

42:09 ↗ looking at that part of our rules of

42:11 ↗ procedure

42:11 ↗ so the problem we're trying to solve is

42:15 ↗ ambiguity of a b development and in

42:17 ↗ particular this part of our rules of

42:18 ↗ procedure

42:19 ↗ which already we do have as i i had

42:22 ↗ mentioned we do have a

42:24 ↗ section of our rules of procedure that

42:26 ↗ um gets at this but it seems that there

42:28 ↗ is

42:29 ↗ concern around that and i definitely

42:31 ↗ also

42:32 ↗ share that concern that we could be able

42:34 ↗ to do this in a more

42:35 ↗ straightforward way and city

42:38 ↗ administrator bob quits would you just

42:40 ↗ like to

42:41 ↗ add or maybe um maybe also summarize

42:44 ↗ uh a bit about the evanston um

42:47 ↗ model since that has come up a few times

42:51 ↗ um i don't so i don't

42:54 ↗ i talked to wally about it briefly um

42:57 ↗ the evanston model so i don't

42:58 ↗ i don't need to go into that unless

43:00 ↗ there's

43:02 ↗ something specific to my question

43:05 ↗ that he wants to answer um i don't wanna

43:08 ↗ i realize that i missed the first

43:10 ↗ 15 minutes so i'm trying not to take up

43:11 ↗ too much time

43:13 ↗ i'm still a little bit i'm i still don't

43:16 ↗ understand

43:17 ↗ so i know we use the word ambiguity a

43:20 ↗ lot

43:20 ↗ and i'm trying to figure out what

43:22 ↗ specific problem are we trying to solve

43:25 ↗ because we do have specific processes

43:27 ↗ they are laid out

43:28 ↗ and as councilmember walsh said we do

43:30 ↗ have the we do have specific processes

43:33 ↗ about how you

43:34 ↗ you know that you get other council

43:36 ↗ members so that we're not having

43:38 ↗ seven different people trying to get the

43:41 ↗ administration to do seven different

43:43 ↗ things all the time like you know

43:46 ↗ missiles shooting around

43:48 ↗ so um that is a process and

43:51 ↗ it does work because we've used it

43:55 ↗ i've used it a lot with council member

43:57 ↗ ray and council president hunt and with

43:59 ↗ other people

43:59 ↗ during my 10 years so i guess i would

44:02 ↗ need some examples to fight figure out

44:04 ↗ i just don't understand what's what

44:07 ↗ specific problem we're trying to solve

44:09 ↗ so um so

44:12 ↗ i would be happy to hear examples of why

44:15 ↗ something didn't work i realized we have

44:17 ↗ to call people these days and not meet

44:20 ↗ in person usually but that's we still

44:22 ↗ have phones so i don't know why getting

44:23 ↗ to other people

44:24 ↗ doesn't work um but i think i already

44:27 ↗ alluded to what my concern is

44:29 ↗ my concern is um

44:32 ↗ similar to what councilmember walsh said

44:35 ↗ in that is

44:36 ↗ you know i'm concerned about a form that

44:39 ↗ we could fill out and just

44:42 ↗ one person sets the administration down

44:44 ↗ a path of doing a bunch of work

44:46 ↗ um so if i miss part of that um and i

44:49 ↗ see someone shaking their head

44:51 ↗ but when i read when i looked at the

44:52 ↗ forms it looked like that was maybe a

44:55 ↗ potential so that would be my my concern

44:57 ↗ but i'm still interested in

44:59 ↗ some examples about how our process

45:02 ↗ that we have now isn't isn't working

45:07 ↗ what what specific problem thanks this

45:10 ↗ is council president hence

45:11 ↗ um so i i'm not familiar with all of the

45:15 ↗ cities that are in the list but i will

45:17 ↗ say on the c-tac one for example which

45:19 ↗ is one of the forms

45:20 ↗ they vote on it so they have the form

45:22 ↗ it's part of the packet

45:24 ↗ that goes with council that evening and

45:26 ↗ then they

45:27 ↗ um have the council member provides

45:29 ↗ information about the request

45:31 ↗ and then the staff provides information

45:33 ↗ about how much time it would take and

45:35 ↗ then the council votes on it so you

45:36 ↗ on votes on the development of the a b

45:38 ↗ that would return to council

45:40 ↗ so you would need to have at that time

45:42 ↗ for council members who indicate at

45:44 ↗ least the desire

45:44 ↗ to speak to the bill and i think

45:48 ↗ from my perspective those sorts of

45:50 ↗ options are the ones that

45:51 ↗ would make the most sense um and

45:56 ↗ from my perspective i don't i don't

45:58 ↗ think that

45:59 ↗ the process that's in i think it is

46:02 ↗ like i've said we do have a process but

46:04 ↗ i think there's potential for trying

46:06 ↗ something

46:07 ↗ different that might work better

46:10 ↗ might be more straightforward and i

46:12 ↗ think some of these options do provide

46:14 ↗ more transparency for one thing

46:18 ↗ like the the forum based ones you have

46:21 ↗ that

46:21 ↗ information with the packet and then

46:22 ↗ council votes on it

46:24 ↗ so that's an interesting way to do it

46:26 ↗ and then i think as long as we have the

46:28 ↗ information provided ahead of time the

46:30 ↗ evanston type

46:31 ↗ um good of the order or standing section

46:34 ↗ could also

46:35 ↗ do those sorts of could also provide

46:37 ↗ that

46:38 ↗ so it's looking at other ways of doing

46:42 ↗ the this that might

46:45 ↗ be more straightforward might in my

46:48 ↗ opinion have some other benefits as well

46:51 ↗ okay i'm still i'm again i'm still

46:54 ↗ looking at

46:54 ↗ some examples of some examples of

46:58 ↗ what was ambiguous that didn't why

47:00 ↗ something didn't work because it was

47:01 ↗ ambiguous

47:02 ↗ and what was not straight forward and

47:04 ↗ why we need to fix it but

47:06 ↗ anyway that's those are my comments from

47:08 ↗ now thank you

47:09 ↗ okay thank you um okay

47:12 ↗ so now we have councilmember d michelle

47:15 ↗ thank you this is councilmember d

47:18 ↗ michelle

47:19 ↗ um i looked at the forms and

47:23 ↗ i think one of the advantages of the

47:25 ↗ form

47:26 ↗ is that a castle member prepares that

47:29 ↗ and then

47:31 ↗ we could put that in the packet and

47:33 ↗ everybody can read it ahead of time

47:35 ↗ and come prepared and and know what

47:38 ↗ where that council member is coming from

47:40 ↗ and then as you suggested

47:42 ↗ uh then under good of the order we could

47:44 ↗ decide whether

47:46 ↗ we've got a consensus that it needs to

47:47 ↗ move forward or not

47:49 ↗ uh what i didn't like about the seatac

47:51 ↗ questionnaire it looked like uh

47:53 ↗ you needed to prepare sort of a term

47:54 ↗ paper

47:56 ↗ to to i mean that i was looking through

47:59 ↗ the questions like oh my gosh how long

48:00 ↗ does this take

48:02 ↗ to put one of these together uh i really

48:04 ↗ like the questions that council member

48:06 ↗ hall

48:07 ↗ and you know the the title 18 group came

48:10 ↗ up with

48:10 ↗ is a more of a high level

48:14 ↗ discussion uh maybe we could prepare

48:16 ↗ like a letter of intent or i don't know

48:19 ↗ a memo

48:20 ↗ or something answering those five

48:22 ↗ questions

48:24 ↗ and submit it but i i do think that

48:27 ↗ the form gives us a lot more

48:30 ↗ transparency

48:31 ↗ because we would need to submit it early

48:34 ↗ it would go in the packet it would be

48:35 ↗ available to the public

48:36 ↗ it would be available to all of us we'd

48:39 ↗ have time to think it over

48:41 ↗ um as a new person on the council um

48:45 ↗ uh the me the calling of two other

48:48 ↗ council members and getting

48:50 ↗ that kind of permission i think was

48:53 ↗ it's not transparent in my mind it it

48:57 ↗ um it certainly seems that we could do

49:00 ↗ it

49:00 ↗ in a lot more open way so i would

49:03 ↗ i would like the idea of a form i did

49:05 ↗ not like to see tac form i would like

49:07 ↗ something that's

49:08 ↗ much more of a discussion than a check

49:11 ↗ off list and so forth

49:13 ↗ um but uh and then i i do like the idea

49:16 ↗ of bringing it

49:18 ↗ under good of the order and uh if there

49:20 ↗ isn't a consensus from a majority of the

49:22 ↗ council that moves forward then we

49:24 ↗ don't do it and uh because i don't think

49:27 ↗ we can

49:28 ↗ be chasing ideas from seven different

49:31 ↗ council members

49:33 ↗ without some indication

49:36 ↗ that it's going to go somewhere

49:38 ↗ otherwise got staff doing a lot of work

49:40 ↗ that never

49:41 ↗ ends up achieving anything so

49:44 ↗ those are my comments

49:48 ↗ thank you okay um

49:51 ↗ council deputy president right thank you

49:55 ↗ council president ray our

49:56 ↗ council president hunt wow freudian

49:59 ↗ there

50:00 ↗ um this is chris ray i was getting ahead

50:02 ↗ of myself

50:03 ↗ um i'm i'm kind of aligned very closely

50:05 ↗ with councilmember d michelle i like the

50:07 ↗ idea of a form i don't like the ctac

50:09 ↗ form it's a bit

50:12 ↗ verbose for me but i do like using a

50:14 ↗ form to capture what councilmember hall

50:16 ↗ talked about

50:17 ↗ which is what are the critical factors

50:19 ↗ that we need to consider when making a

50:20 ↗ determination

50:22 ↗ i also think that if you link the form

50:26 ↗ with a process that says the council

50:28 ↗ makes a

50:29 ↗ a collective determination on whether to

50:31 ↗ move forward then you can have one

50:33 ↗ person who has a

50:34 ↗ an interesting idea but it takes a

50:38 ↗ majority of people to say we're going to

50:39 ↗ move forward with this and i also like

50:41 ↗ the transparency of it i like that you

50:43 ↗ know

50:44 ↗ instead of three people kind of getting

50:45 ↗ together and saying you know i want to

50:47 ↗ do

50:47 ↗ um uh i don't know baby bumpers on uh

50:51 ↗ front street um you know and and pushing

50:54 ↗ it forward

50:54 ↗ um it really does get to see the light

50:56 ↗ of day before we start to invest staff

50:58 ↗ time

50:58 ↗ in in developing the the path forward so

51:02 ↗ um my summary is i like a form i like

51:06 ↗ the transparency of of uh council taking

51:09 ↗ some formal action on moving forward and

51:13 ↗ um and i think that council member d

51:16 ↗ michelle said everything else just

51:17 ↗ perfectly

51:18 ↗ so that's all i have to say about that

51:22 ↗ thanks councilman uh councilmember martz

51:25 ↗ thank you council president uh like

51:28 ↗ councilmember goodman i'm not sure

51:30 ↗ i understand what the problem is that

51:33 ↗ we're trying to solve

51:35 ↗ i suspect people are sort of beating

51:37 ↗ around the bush on what it is that

51:38 ↗ bugs them but i can't read it so uh

51:42 ↗ i'll just say a couple of points

51:45 ↗ uh respectfully to my fellow council

51:48 ↗ member when i hear someone say the mayor

51:50 ↗ sets the vision for the community

51:53 ↗ no the community sets the vision for the

51:55 ↗ community

51:56 ↗ our job is to unearth that

51:59 ↗ and then the our job is to fund it as

52:02 ↗ appropriate

52:02 ↗ and the administration's job is to

52:04 ↗ execute it

52:06 ↗ and uh that's the joy of being

52:09 ↗ in a strong mayor form of government

52:13 ↗ guiding questions around what we should

52:16 ↗ be doing yeah

52:16 ↗ we have it it's called a city strategic

52:18 ↗ plan and i love it

52:20 ↗ um so on this particular question in

52:24 ↗ front of us

52:25 ↗ i'm i'm a little bit of a mixed mind

52:28 ↗ we're lucky enough to have a surplus of

52:30 ↗ equanimity

52:31 ↗ on this council and hurray for that but

52:34 ↗ i'm always

52:35 ↗ wondering how a system would work if we

52:39 ↗ had one or two folks that had a really

52:41 ↗ different point of view

52:43 ↗ than the rest of the body and we

52:45 ↗ certainly all have our points of view

52:46 ↗ but we don't have anybody who's just

52:48 ↗ fundamentally like you're all going in

52:50 ↗ the wrong direction

52:51 ↗ and the community is allowed to elect

52:53 ↗ people like that and if you had that

52:55 ↗ i'm not sure which of these systems

52:58 ↗ would work well or not work well

53:00 ↗ um so that's why i'm a little hesitant

53:03 ↗ to change things that have

53:04 ↗ that have um to my mind generally worked

53:08 ↗ well

53:08 ↗ but i also do i mean i agree that uh

53:12 ↗ i like discussing things in public uh

53:14 ↗ apart from the obvious transparency

53:16 ↗ piece i like hearing what other council

53:18 ↗ members have to say

53:19 ↗ i i'm not sure on a given issue if i

53:22 ↗ want to show up and say

53:23 ↗ this is the problem this is what we

53:24 ↗ should do right i think it could be

53:26 ↗ beneficial to say this is the

53:28 ↗ problem and you know i think we as a

53:31 ↗ group should discuss it

53:34 ↗ and getting a second and then moving

53:36 ↗ forward

53:38 ↗ seems to be a way to engage

53:41 ↗ the other six of you uh in a public way

53:43 ↗ so if we were to do something if we were

53:45 ↗ to solve this problem but again i don't

53:47 ↗ know what the problem is

53:48 ↗ i would be more inclined around this

53:50 ↗ city of evanston model

53:52 ↗ than the city of seatac one i think the

53:55 ↗ form

53:56 ↗ has the potential again if you had uh

53:59 ↗ one or two council members that had a

54:01 ↗ differing way of looking at things i

54:03 ↗ think it would become

54:04 ↗ kind of a bit of a slog right

54:07 ↗ but if we all just get together and talk

54:09 ↗ about things and then i find out you

54:10 ↗ know if i come with an issue and it

54:11 ↗ turns out the other six of you

54:13 ↗ don't have a problem with it well then i

54:15 ↗ guess it's just me

54:16 ↗ so uh not sure there's a problem but if

54:18 ↗ if we did want to do something i would

54:20 ↗ be more inclined for the city of

54:21 ↗ evanston

54:22 ↗ future items model thank you

54:27 ↗ okay thank you and i think everybody

54:31 ↗ has um i think all of the council

54:34 ↗ members

54:34 ↗ oops i sent that um

54:38 ↗ i think all the council members have uh

54:40 ↗ weighed in so i will make

54:42 ↗ my comments at this time um

54:45 ↗ i i think that this is

54:48 ↗ that there are better ways to do uh

54:52 ↗ this process than what we have currently

54:54 ↗ which is why i think it's good to

54:56 ↗ look at the process that we have

54:57 ↗ currently i i agree that i don't think

54:59 ↗ there

55:00 ↗ is a lack of the ability right now for

55:03 ↗ council to

55:04 ↗ put forward an agenda item we do have a

55:06 ↗ procedure it does get used i don't think

55:08 ↗ that that's

55:09 ↗ the the problem i mean that's not the

55:12 ↗ problem

55:13 ↗ um but i do think there are better

55:15 ↗ potentially better ways that we could

55:17 ↗ try to do this so i think that um

55:21 ↗ it sounds like from my fellow council

55:22 ↗ members there's interest in

55:24 ↗ in a sort of standing item at which time

55:28 ↗ council would have a discussion

55:30 ↗ potentially put

55:31 ↗ information forward about what they

55:33 ↗ wanted to

55:34 ↗ achieve and then ultimately vote on the

55:37 ↗ item

55:38 ↗ um so i i also thought that that has a

55:41 ↗ couple advantages that sort of

55:44 ↗ model which would be something like the

55:46 ↗ what is used in evanston

55:48 ↗ um i think it is more consistent and

55:50 ↗ more transparent also

55:51 ↗ currently if you have three council

55:53 ↗ members who get together and put

55:54 ↗ together something

55:55 ↗ um you don't know that a majority of the

55:57 ↗ council would even want to

55:59 ↗ consider that so this also potentially

56:02 ↗ makes sure that

56:02 ↗ things that you at least have a majority

56:05 ↗ of the council that wants to at least

56:06 ↗ consider the bill

56:08 ↗ before doing staff time on the agenda

56:10 ↗ bill which i think is helpful

56:11 ↗ it also gives council more opportunity

56:14 ↗ to

56:15 ↗ comment earlier in that process or to

56:18 ↗ raise

56:18 ↗ questions that they might have earlier

56:20 ↗ in the process which i think is helpful

56:22 ↗ um and then

56:26 ↗ the other thing if we did go with

56:27 ↗ something like the

56:29 ↗ as long as you're providing information

56:30 ↗ ahead of time it also gives the

56:31 ↗ administration

56:32 ↗ um the opportunity to provide

56:35 ↗ information about how much staff time

56:37 ↗ etc it would be

56:38 ↗ um the other concerns that have been

56:39 ↗ raised around

56:41 ↗ delaying um other things and that could

56:44 ↗ all be factored into council's

56:46 ↗ decision of voting on whether or not to

56:48 ↗ continue

56:50 ↗ with an item so i think that that's a

56:52 ↗ more straightforward

56:53 ↗ process than what we have now it's more

56:55 ↗ transparent and it seems like

56:57 ↗ something that we should try to do

57:00 ↗ um from my perspective uh and then

57:03 ↗ let's see so we have council member

57:06 ↗ goodman has a question and comment

57:09 ↗ um thank you so i guess it's more of a

57:11 ↗ comment my request would be

57:13 ↗ if when this comes back um that

57:16 ↗ we specifically identify

57:20 ↗ what ambiguity it's all it solves

57:23 ↗ whatever the proposals are

57:26 ↗ and i have

57:30 ↗ also heard now that

57:33 ↗ it also makes the process better which

57:36 ↗ was not proposed in the

57:38 ↗ materials tonight it was to solve an

57:39 ↗ ambiguity so

57:41 ↗ certainly there i can't imagine people

57:44 ↗ opposing the idea that we can do things

57:46 ↗ better certainly i don't oppose that

57:48 ↗ but i would want to know specifically

57:51 ↗ why it's better

57:53 ↗ how it's better um because just

57:56 ↗ i'm i am um

57:59 ↗ i think my concern is similar to council

58:02 ↗ member marks

58:03 ↗ in that uh where it seems like we are

58:05 ↗ struggling to

58:07 ↗ i certainly am struggling to understand

58:09 ↗ why we're trying to make

58:10 ↗ so hard to make things be different and

58:13 ↗ maybe better

58:14 ↗ um and that we may be beating around the

58:16 ↗ bush so i would like some specificity

58:18 ↗ about what we're trying to accomplish

58:19 ↗ thanks and why

58:28 ↗ counsel deputy president right i want to

58:31 ↗ rewind a little bit to the origin of

58:34 ↗ of the things are on tonight's agenda

58:37 ↗ and it really came out of our january

58:39 ↗ 30th retreat

58:40 ↗ and one of the things that we heard

58:42 ↗ during the retreat was

58:43 ↗ i don't know how to get something on the

58:46 ↗ agenda that was

58:47 ↗ but that's what i heard from people

58:49 ↗ saying you know i don't know how to do

58:50 ↗ that

58:51 ↗ and saying well you get two other people

58:54 ↗ to go with you and then

58:55 ↗ you take it to the administration and

58:57 ↗ then you know

58:58 ↗ then something happens so there is some

59:00 ↗ ambiguity about how it

59:02 ↗ goes about and i i heard that on the

59:05 ↗ 30th and i don't know if anybody else

59:07 ↗ did but i heard that

59:08 ↗ and so what this is is an attempt to say

59:11 ↗ let's let's put a little more structure

59:13 ↗ around the process

59:14 ↗ you know be it something like the

59:16 ↗ evanston model be it something like the

59:18 ↗ seatac model

59:18 ↗ be it like a hybrid model but something

59:21 ↗ that's a little bit clearer and a little

59:22 ↗ bit more straightforward so everyone can

59:24 ↗ say yep that's exactly how we do it i've

59:26 ↗ seen it happen

59:26 ↗ and i know how to do it and and that's

59:29 ↗ where i think the question around

59:30 ↗ ambiguity is i don't think that's like

59:32 ↗ oh i just hated it when so-and-so did

59:34 ↗ this bill and they

59:36 ↗ snuck it in there and and you know it

59:38 ↗ was horrible i don't think there's

59:39 ↗ anything

59:42 ↗ that's not being said i think that

59:44 ↗ there's a complete lack of uh

59:46 ↗ understanding or and i've never seen it

59:48 ↗ happen so i don't know how it works kind

59:50 ↗ of discussion going on so

59:52 ↗ that's my recollection and that's why i

59:54 ↗ think that you know

59:55 ↗ trying to address this problem because i

59:56 ↗ think there if some if i have two or

59:59 ↗ three members say

1:00:00 ↗ i don't know exactly how this works then

1:00:02 ↗ i think that's a problem and i think

1:00:03 ↗ that's something we should talk about

1:00:12 ↗ thanks

1:00:15 ↗ does anybody else have any more comments

1:00:18 ↗ on this one

1:00:18 ↗ and then i will attempt to summarize

1:00:20 ↗ what i the

1:00:21 ↗ majority um direction from this okay

1:00:28 ↗ not seeing any other comments so i do

1:00:30 ↗ think there was

1:00:32 ↗ um a majority of council members

1:00:36 ↗ interested in trying

1:00:37 ↗ a standing agenda item where

1:00:40 ↗ a council member or up to three because

1:00:42 ↗ we can work in up to threes

1:00:44 ↗ um would have an item that would be put

1:00:47 ↗ forward for a vote

1:00:48 ↗ of the council and then um depending on

1:00:51 ↗ that vote that

1:00:52 ↗ that item would proceed um to an a b or

1:00:56 ↗ not uh so i think that that

1:01:00 ↗ there was an interest in that there was

1:01:02 ↗ not an interest in having a

1:01:04 ↗ very detailed form at all

1:01:07 ↗ um and so maybe either either some a

1:01:10 ↗ process where there's a little bit of

1:01:11 ↗ structure

1:01:13 ↗ but nothing overbearing

1:01:16 ↗ would be good and i think that

1:01:19 ↗ i think there's an interest in having

1:01:20 ↗ information that is provided with the

1:01:21 ↗ packet but again not

1:01:23 ↗ not a very detailed form more

1:01:27 ↗ something along the lines of a few

1:01:28 ↗ guiding information about how this

1:01:31 ↗ why this is necessary and that sort of

1:01:34 ↗ information

1:01:36 ↗ for council consideration um and then

1:01:39 ↗ there is a question that when this comes

1:01:42 ↗ back to council that there be

1:01:44 ↗ more um information provided about

1:01:48 ↗ why about the why

1:01:54 ↗ any council members have any um

1:01:56 ↗ additional

1:01:57 ↗ comments or uh questions on this one

1:01:59 ↗ before we go to number two

1:02:03 ↗ see anything okay so i do think um there

1:02:05 ↗ was a

1:02:06 ↗ at least a okay

1:02:09 ↗ see mystery bob quits

1:02:14 ↗ thank you council president just some

1:02:15 ↗ clarity from the expectation of staff

1:02:18 ↗ are you asking the staff to draft this

1:02:20 ↗ is council leadership going to draft

1:02:21 ↗ this

1:02:22 ↗ what's your pleasure um from my

1:02:25 ↗ perspective i

1:02:25 ↗ i think we do have a an indication that

1:02:29 ↗ there would be

1:02:30 ↗ an a b that would come out of this that

1:02:31 ↗ would change our rules or procedures so

1:02:33 ↗ i would like

1:02:34 ↗ that to be something that staff

1:02:37 ↗ looks into how we change our rules or

1:02:38 ↗ procedure to address that

1:02:42 ↗ all right thank you

1:02:47 ↗ okay great thank you

1:02:54 ↗ all right okay so that was that item

1:02:56 ↗ then for the second item

1:02:58 ↗ we have um

1:03:01 ↗ uh some some more suggestions on

1:03:04 ↗ improving clarity of

1:03:05 ↗ process um and there are

1:03:08 ↗ the suggestion is really around having a

1:03:11 ↗ council member liaison as councilmember

1:03:13 ↗ mark spoke to earlier this was something

1:03:14 ↗ that was

1:03:16 ↗ previously worked out but then

1:03:20 ↗ is not currently on very many of our

1:03:22 ↗ agenda

1:03:23 ↗ bills oftentimes the liaison is not on

1:03:26 ↗ there

1:03:26 ↗ and so this would potentially reduce

1:03:29 ↗ ambiguity if we have somebody

1:03:31 ↗ and hopefully would reduce those head

1:03:33 ↗ scratcher moments as councilmember mars

1:03:34 ↗ was speaking to earlier

1:03:36 ↗ um does anybody have any additional or

1:03:39 ↗ if anybody um either likes that

1:03:42 ↗ suggestion and has reasons why

1:03:44 ↗ or doesn't like that suggestion and has

1:03:45 ↗ a different suggestion

1:03:47 ↗ um or any other comments please indicate

1:03:50 ↗ okay councilmember walsh

1:03:52 ↗ thanks so i've mostly been here in the

1:03:56 ↗ post um committee period i experienced

1:03:59 ↗ the committees for a very short period

1:04:01 ↗ of time

1:04:02 ↗ um and while i have seen head scratcher

1:04:05 ↗ moments

1:04:06 ↗ from my perspective most of those happen

1:04:09 ↗ because

1:04:11 ↗ the council was presented with

1:04:14 ↗ an ab from the administration

1:04:18 ↗ um without it going through

1:04:21 ↗ the right set of questions or without it

1:04:24 ↗ coming to

1:04:26 ↗ us for brainstorming before writing the

1:04:28 ↗ bill

1:04:29 ↗ um so things moving along the path too

1:04:32 ↗ quickly

1:04:33 ↗ from my perspective i'm not sure i

1:04:36 ↗ understand or see the benefit of having

1:04:38 ↗ a council member as liaison

1:04:40 ↗ to stop that from happening i feel like

1:04:43 ↗ the better

1:04:44 ↗ way to address that is to make sure that

1:04:47 ↗ ideas come to

1:04:48 ↗ us first as a brainstorm

1:04:52 ↗ rather than coming fully baked and i

1:04:55 ↗ feel like that answers the questions

1:04:57 ↗ there but

1:04:58 ↗ i'm open to hearing otherwise

1:05:02 ↗ okay thank you so councilmember walsh i

1:05:05 ↗ think that's more along the lines of

1:05:07 ↗ number three which is more suggestions

1:05:09 ↗ on uh expectations for

1:05:11 ↗ statisticians okay um councilmember

1:05:15 ↗ martz so earlier i said that if people

1:05:18 ↗ see a problem they should speak plainly

1:05:20 ↗ and i will follow my own

1:05:22 ↗ advice and say that in that seven hour

1:05:24 ↗ and 45 minute council meeting we were

1:05:26 ↗ presented with a bill

1:05:27 ↗ that none of the seven of us had had

1:05:29 ↗ anything to do with

1:05:30 ↗ um it had come from the administration

1:05:32 ↗ and hadn't had any engagement it wasn't

1:05:35 ↗ it wasn't from our current mayor um but

1:05:38 ↗ uh you know most bills come from the

1:05:41 ↗ administration

1:05:42 ↗ and if we and if we say that uh

1:05:45 ↗ there should be you know if a bill comes

1:05:47 ↗ from the council it should have a

1:05:49 ↗ certain level of support

1:05:50 ↗ there's a corollary that says that if a

1:05:52 ↗ bill is coming from the administration

1:05:53 ↗ at least somebody on council

1:05:55 ↗ should know that it's coming and have

1:05:57 ↗ some engagement in it

1:05:59 ↗ you know i missed committees i liked

1:06:01 ↗ committees i wish we had committees

1:06:02 ↗ still

1:06:03 ↗ this is a teeny tiny little version of

1:06:05 ↗ something like that

1:06:07 ↗ i would suggest this come back and the

1:06:10 ↗ mayor wrote a great definition of what a

1:06:12 ↗ liaison

1:06:13 ↗ role could look like on november 26

1:06:16 ↗ 2018 and i would revisit that definition

1:06:19 ↗ and bring it back for discussion

1:06:20 ↗ would be my suggestion thank you

1:06:25 ↗ thank you councilmember martz

1:06:31 ↗ do you have any additional comments a

1:06:34 ↗ question from councilmember it's

1:06:35 ↗ michelle and then we do have comments

1:06:40 ↗ um so if it's appropriate i'd like to

1:06:44 ↗ ask councilmember marks a question if

1:06:45 ↗ that's all right

1:06:46 ↗ um so uh like councilmember walsh i have

1:06:50 ↗ not been here at all for committees

1:06:51 ↗ although

1:06:52 ↗ i observed them as a citizen at one

1:06:54 ↗ point

1:06:55 ↗ and so i guess my question here is uh

1:06:59 ↗ as each as members were

1:07:03 ↗ assigned as a liaison to a bill would

1:07:06 ↗ that be related to the regional

1:07:08 ↗ committees were on would that be related

1:07:10 ↗ or would it just be a random

1:07:12 ↗ and you know how did that work when we

1:07:14 ↗ had committees

1:07:17 ↗ well um to answer that they were un

1:07:20 ↗ they were sort of unrelated if something

1:07:23 ↗ came out of

1:07:23 ↗ committee i think it was assumed that

1:07:27 ↗ uh whoever was the chair of the

1:07:29 ↗ committee would speak to it

1:07:30 ↗ and i think that was that was kind of a

1:07:32 ↗ little different than the liaison

1:07:34 ↗ that was just you know you would report

1:07:37 ↗ on your bills out of committee as part

1:07:38 ↗ of chairing a committee right as part of

1:07:40 ↗ the leadership

1:07:41 ↗ role if we had a liaison

1:07:44 ↗ i would have confidence that my council

1:07:47 ↗ leadership in

1:07:48 ↗ association with the mayor and the city

1:07:50 ↗ administrator could figure out who the

1:07:51 ↗ point

1:07:52 ↗ liaison person could be and contact that

1:07:54 ↗ person thank you

1:07:59 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman

1:08:04 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman here so

1:08:07 ↗ um

1:08:09 ↗ i was here when the liaison when we had

1:08:12 ↗ liaisons and

1:08:13 ↗ um the committees and i felt that

1:08:17 ↗ my perspective was that the liaison was

1:08:19 ↗ just

1:08:21 ↗ um i'm not sure it was ever fully

1:08:24 ↗ developed

1:08:25 ↗ and uh so i would would like to know

1:08:27 ↗ exactly what

1:08:29 ↗ role the liaison would play

1:08:32 ↗ because if it's just having the name at

1:08:34 ↗ the top of the page i don't know what

1:08:36 ↗ how what that accomplishes if the

1:08:39 ↗ liaison is supposed to be

1:08:41 ↗ a point person or um at one point it was

1:08:44 ↗ talked about that would be the person

1:08:45 ↗ who would

1:08:45 ↗ be the council member most knowledgeable

1:08:47 ↗ on that subject

1:08:49 ↗ um whether you're the committee chair or

1:08:52 ↗ whether you're not a committee chair and

1:08:53 ↗ it's just something you felt

1:08:54 ↗ passionate about um

1:08:57 ↗ but i could see having liaisons and

1:09:00 ↗ it not working because the names at the

1:09:03 ↗ top of the agenda bill

1:09:04 ↗ but all the questions just end up going

1:09:06 ↗ to the administration so i'm not sure

1:09:08 ↗ how that would work so i would like to

1:09:11 ↗ know specifically what the role would be

1:09:13 ↗ and how it would operate um and maybe

1:09:16 ↗ there

1:09:17 ↗ i mean we could try it but in my

1:09:20 ↗ 10 years it ends up to be a very

1:09:24 ↗ not um it would not be handled

1:09:28 ↗ the same by everybody so it would have

1:09:30 ↗ to be very very very

1:09:31 ↗ clearly the role would have to be

1:09:33 ↗ clearly delineated

1:09:35 ↗ and then there would be then people

1:09:37 ↗ would have to be for lack of a better

1:09:39 ↗ description held accountable

1:09:42 ↗ otherwise you've just got a name at the

1:09:44 ↗ top of the bill and

1:09:46 ↗ some people work really hard and other

1:09:48 ↗ liaisons

1:09:50 ↗ for whatever reason whether it's a light

1:09:53 ↗ bill or

1:09:54 ↗ whatever it just i just see issues with

1:09:56 ↗ it but

1:09:57 ↗ i'm happy to learn more about it thanks

1:10:02 ↗ okay thanks um and

1:10:07 ↗ this is council president hunt i think

1:10:08 ↗ that uh from my perspective

1:10:11 ↗ i agree i think we didn't have

1:10:14 ↗ at least in my time on council we didn't

1:10:16 ↗ have a time where we were

1:10:17 ↗ consistently always having uh liaison

1:10:20 ↗ and always

1:10:21 ↗ um having that person have

1:10:24 ↗ a a role i think we because we moved to

1:10:27 ↗ committees and i mean we moved from

1:10:29 ↗ committees to study sessions and and

1:10:30 ↗ currently we have liaison

1:10:32 ↗ listed on the agenda bills but it's not

1:10:34 ↗ usually filled in so

1:10:36 ↗ um i i can understand needing to have

1:10:39 ↗ more clarity around the role

1:10:41 ↗ but i also do you think it might help us

1:10:44 ↗ with uh avoiding some head scratcher

1:10:48 ↗ moments if we can do it correctly

1:10:50 ↗ um or if we can do it well

1:10:54 ↗ uh so then let's see deputy council

1:10:56 ↗ president ray

1:10:57 ↗ oh sorry never mind um

1:11:01 ↗ not seeing any other comments on this

1:11:03 ↗ one councilmember hall

1:11:06 ↗ uh thank you this is councilmember hall

1:11:07 ↗ i'm sorry

1:11:09 ↗ i guess i'm just not following on this

1:11:11 ↗ one i still don't

1:11:13 ↗ understand how a liaison would help

1:11:16 ↗ prevent

1:11:17 ↗ head scratching moments so maybe someone

1:11:21 ↗ that feels like they have a really good

1:11:22 ↗ grasp on that could

1:11:24 ↗ explain that a little differently i'm

1:11:27 ↗ just not grasping it

1:11:30 ↗ council member remarks

1:11:34 ↗ so i'll go back to this child site bill

1:11:36 ↗ right it was a bill

1:11:38 ↗ to basically

1:11:41 ↗ have a it wasn't even an ordinance it

1:11:44 ↗ was

1:11:45 ↗ i believe a resolution opposing the

1:11:48 ↗ placement

1:11:49 ↗ of shell sites in the city of issaquah

1:11:52 ↗ nobody was looking to place shell sites

1:11:55 ↗ in the city of issaquah but there was a

1:11:57 ↗ movement afoot

1:11:58 ↗ amongst mayors in uh parts of king

1:12:01 ↗ county

1:12:02 ↗ to preemptively make sure that there

1:12:04 ↗ were no tell sites

1:12:05 ↗ that would ever be placed anywhere

1:12:06 ↗ outside of perhaps seattle

1:12:09 ↗ we the council had not discussed shell

1:12:11 ↗ sites we had not discussed

1:12:15 ↗ heroin injection we hadn't discussed the

1:12:17 ↗ public health around the issues

1:12:19 ↗ that gel sites were to address and the

1:12:23 ↗ bill was a surprise

1:12:27 ↗ it certainly reflected some concerns in

1:12:30 ↗ the community about things that were

1:12:32 ↗ going on but it was

1:12:33 ↗ it was not ready to be discussed and it

1:12:36 ↗ also brought out

1:12:38 ↗ an immense response in the community

1:12:40 ↗ both for and against

1:12:41 ↗ passionately at a time when there was

1:12:44 ↗ zero chance that there was ever going to

1:12:46 ↗ be a child site put in the city of

1:12:47 ↗ issaquah

1:12:49 ↗ so if there had been some level of

1:12:50 ↗ communication at the council

1:12:53 ↗ if the administration had had to go out

1:12:55 ↗ to the council they probably would have

1:12:56 ↗ gotten seven people going

1:12:58 ↗ we don't know much about this and that

1:13:00 ↗ would have been educational in itself

1:13:02 ↗ right so uh

1:13:05 ↗ you know and it's a different

1:13:06 ↗ administration it's a different mayor

1:13:08 ↗ it's a different city administrator

1:13:09 ↗ several times over um so

1:13:12 ↗ but at the same time and there was

1:13:15 ↗ another bill just to give a second

1:13:16 ↗ example and i wish i could remember

1:13:18 ↗ exactly which bill it was

1:13:19 ↗ but there was a bill where somebody came

1:13:21 ↗ to me like an

1:13:22 ↗ hour before the uh

1:13:26 ↗ issue and i think it was oh boy i can't

1:13:29 ↗ even remember

1:13:30 ↗ um but uh somebody said oh

1:13:34 ↗ um i think it's a good idea but we need

1:13:35 ↗ to have an amendment right so i wrote up

1:13:37 ↗ an amendment and i handed it to the

1:13:39 ↗ clerk's office and i said i'm going to

1:13:40 ↗ make this motion

1:13:42 ↗ during the bill today and

1:13:45 ↗ because somebody you know another

1:13:47 ↗ council member is interested in hearing

1:13:49 ↗ this

1:13:49 ↗ played out in you know or discussed as a

1:13:52 ↗ group

1:13:52 ↗ but i felt a certain sense of uh

1:13:55 ↗ responsibility

1:13:56 ↗ to um help address it because this

1:13:59 ↗ person had come forward with this

1:14:01 ↗ concern and i think

1:14:02 ↗ if we see a bill you know stuff does

1:14:04 ↗ happen on the day of

1:14:06 ↗ right we've all seen uh conversations

1:14:08 ↗ that go on

1:14:09 ↗ and i think there's a value to having

1:14:10 ↗ somebody on the council side

1:14:12 ↗ that could be a point person you know

1:14:14 ↗ not if if you have concerns not not

1:14:17 ↗ necessarily to you know

1:14:18 ↗ all get behind it or whatever because

1:14:20 ↗ that's not the idea but

1:14:21 ↗ to have a point person that you can ask

1:14:23 ↗ questions of and that people might look

1:14:25 ↗ to

1:14:26 ↗ for potential amendments or you know

1:14:30 ↗ ways to help resolve the issue beyond

1:14:32 ↗ just information from the administration

1:14:34 ↗ so i hope that's helpful

1:14:35 ↗ thanks

1:14:40 ↗ thank you and um city administrator bob

1:14:42 ↗ quits would also like to comment

1:14:44 ↗ yes thank you council president members

1:14:46 ↗ of the council uh you know i think

1:14:48 ↗ council leadership plays a really good

1:14:50 ↗ role with a lot of this

1:14:52 ↗ i came from a community where there was

1:14:54 ↗ no function like that

1:14:56 ↗ and so keeping the council abreast of

1:14:58 ↗ surprises

1:14:59 ↗ was a was a full-time job it's less of a

1:15:01 ↗ full-time job here

1:15:02 ↗ quite honestly because of the review

1:15:04 ↗ that the agenda gets every week

1:15:06 ↗ so you know there in my sense there's no

1:15:09 ↗ right or wrong answer

1:15:10 ↗ here uh you know you always want to

1:15:12 ↗ minimize surprises to the greatest

1:15:14 ↗ extent possible

1:15:15 ↗ uh i think you've got some good systems

1:15:17 ↗ in place to do that

1:15:18 ↗ uh now um i think there's a commitment

1:15:21 ↗ uh

1:15:21 ↗ from all of you with city clerk to share

1:15:24 ↗ amendments that may come along i mean

1:15:25 ↗ over the course of a year and a half uh

1:15:27 ↗ i i regularly have seen that

1:15:29 ↗ uh but again i my my experience has been

1:15:32 ↗ the the council leadership does an

1:15:34 ↗ excellent job

1:15:35 ↗ but you all others rotate into those

1:15:37 ↗ meetings every few weeks

1:15:39 ↗ you know there's a lot of lead up pretty

1:15:41 ↗ much to everything and

1:15:42 ↗ you know certainly you can have rules

1:15:43 ↗ about anything you want to have rules

1:15:45 ↗ about but i think you've got some really

1:15:46 ↗ good current processes

1:15:48 ↗ that that serve you in this particular

1:15:50 ↗ area

1:15:52 ↗ okay thank you councilmember goodman

1:15:55 ↗ thank you councilmember goodman here

1:15:56 ↗ so for the child site um example um

1:16:00 ↗ remember it well and i think the problem

1:16:04 ↗ with that was that um

1:16:08 ↗ not a liaison problem it was a

1:16:11 ↗ uh despite concerns went forward anyway

1:16:15 ↗ problem um and so i'm not sure

1:16:19 ↗ so it seemed i'm not sure how a liaison

1:16:21 ↗ solves that uh leadership

1:16:22 ↗ knew about it um and uh

1:16:26 ↗ it was um knew it was coming

1:16:30 ↗ um and and then there's also a third

1:16:32 ↗ person in that meeting so that person

1:16:34 ↗ knew it was coming

1:16:35 ↗ and i distinctly recall again despite

1:16:37 ↗ concerns it came forward anyway

1:16:39 ↗ so it seems to me that the rules of

1:16:41 ↗ procedure should maybe

1:16:43 ↗ to solve that problem the addition

1:16:45 ↗ should be

1:16:47 ↗ strongly caution the administration to

1:16:49 ↗ bring forward agenda bills that

1:16:52 ↗ uh do not have clearly

1:16:55 ↗ do not have support um that i don't

1:16:58 ↗ think that liaison solves that issue

1:17:01 ↗ so um the um other

1:17:04 ↗ examples about having somebody be a

1:17:06 ↗ point person on day of

1:17:08 ↗ um i would be interested to know learn

1:17:12 ↗ more about how

1:17:13 ↗ a liaison person would help with that

1:17:16 ↗ because whoever that liaison is can only

1:17:20 ↗ talk to two other council members on the

1:17:22 ↗ day

1:17:22 ↗ of the meeting and if they've talked to

1:17:23 ↗ anybody else about that

1:17:26 ↗ agenda bill then uh the number that you

1:17:29 ↗ are allowed to talk to is reduced by the

1:17:31 ↗ number you've already talked

1:17:33 ↗ to so um anyway i'll be interested to

1:17:36 ↗ learn more about how liaison would

1:17:38 ↗ resolve

1:17:38 ↗ the whatever problems we're having thank

1:17:42 ↗ you

1:17:52 ↗ anybody else like to make a comment on

1:17:54 ↗ this one

1:18:00 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone um

1:18:03 ↗ so on this one i think we

1:18:06 ↗ in summary i think we have interest

1:18:10 ↗ in some sort of rule change that make

1:18:13 ↗ sure there is

1:18:15 ↗ some level of support

1:18:18 ↗ for agenda bills similar to

1:18:21 ↗ what we considered on the council

1:18:24 ↗ council putting forward abs having a

1:18:27 ↗ level of support

1:18:28 ↗ um that this would be sort of the other

1:18:30 ↗ piece of that if there's an

1:18:31 ↗ administration

1:18:32 ↗ um something coming from the

1:18:35 ↗ administration which almost all of our

1:18:36 ↗ agenda bills are

1:18:37 ↗ coming from the administration that

1:18:39 ↗ there would be some level of support

1:18:41 ↗ uh i think

1:18:44 ↗ um in my mind the liaison was that if

1:18:46 ↗ you didn't have a liaison

1:18:48 ↗ that's indicate indicative that there is

1:18:51 ↗ no

1:18:52 ↗ council person that is um

1:18:56 ↗ comfortable enough to serve as the

1:18:57 ↗ liaison for that bill so that's the

1:19:00 ↗ indication that there is not that

1:19:02 ↗ support um so that's what how i was

1:19:03 ↗ thinking of it but i agree that there

1:19:05 ↗ could be other ways

1:19:06 ↗ um to make sure we have that support

1:19:11 ↗ council any council members want to

1:19:14 ↗ help better formulate what we might do

1:19:16 ↗ as far as rules or procedure on this one

1:19:23 ↗ councilmember walsh i think that's very

1:19:26 ↗ much relates to

1:19:27 ↗ number three okay um i'm sorry i missed

1:19:31 ↗ deputy council president right yeah

1:19:33 ↗ yeah that's right it was a really a tie

1:19:35 ↗ um

1:19:36 ↗ thank you council president this chris

1:19:37 ↗ wright i i think

1:19:39 ↗ um for the next step i would like to see

1:19:41 ↗ very much the

1:19:42 ↗ definition that was um put together that

1:19:46 ↗ council mart's

1:19:47 ↗ uh council member martz alluded to

1:19:50 ↗ because

1:19:50 ↗ that might be there was some thought and

1:19:53 ↗ some

1:19:53 ↗ rationale behind putting that together

1:19:55 ↗ i'd like to understand that

1:19:57 ↗ so maybe we can um circulate that

1:20:00 ↗ to the council and then make a

1:20:02 ↗ determination

1:20:03 ↗ of how to move forward okay

1:20:08 ↗ i don't think there's any objection to

1:20:10 ↗ that definitely that seems like it would

1:20:11 ↗ be useful information

1:20:13 ↗ um and then i think i agree with

1:20:15 ↗ councilmember walsh i think we can also

1:20:17 ↗ go to the next

1:20:18 ↗ one and see if we have a reduction in

1:20:21 ↗ ambiguity coming out of the

1:20:23 ↗ the third section on our a b

1:20:26 ↗ and then um maybe go from there

1:20:30 ↗ i am not seeing anyone else so i don't

1:20:32 ↗ think we have a

1:20:33 ↗ strong direction from council on this

1:20:36 ↗ item but we'll move to number three

1:20:38 ↗ um okay so number three is regarding

1:20:41 ↗ expectation setting for

1:20:43 ↗ and as an a b is developed and the

1:20:46 ↗ check-in times

1:20:47 ↗ with study sessions um and

1:20:51 ↗ if this should be put into our rules or

1:20:53 ↗ procedure

1:20:54 ↗ around those expectations uh and then

1:20:56 ↗ also

1:20:57 ↗ the summarization by the chair at the

1:20:59 ↗ end of the item and if we should put

1:21:01 ↗ that into our rules and procedure to

1:21:03 ↗ sort of make sure that we always do it

1:21:05 ↗ um and i see

1:21:07 ↗ uh councilmember walsh did you want to

1:21:09 ↗ start with this one since

1:21:12 ↗ sure strong support i like the idea

1:21:15 ↗ um i i think this concept

1:21:19 ↗ was trialed out by our mayor with the

1:21:23 ↗ intention of moving forward on it

1:21:25 ↗ before covid and then covet happened

1:21:28 ↗ and so i just like to have something

1:21:31 ↗ enshrined that really um

1:21:35 ↗ works that as a process to make sure

1:21:38 ↗ that

1:21:39 ↗ ideas come to us we have that

1:21:42 ↗ set of that expectation

1:21:46 ↗ meeting before steph goes out and

1:21:49 ↗ writes the bill um and then that also

1:21:53 ↗ guarantees that there's at least some

1:21:56 ↗ level of support expressed at that

1:21:58 ↗ meeting before it comes back for a vote

1:22:01 ↗ which i think is a good process

1:22:08 ↗ okay thank you councilmember walsh so

1:22:10 ↗ that is mostly referring to

1:22:12 ↗ the first suggestion and number three

1:22:14 ↗ which was city council should have one

1:22:15 ↗ touch to set expectations before the ap

1:22:18 ↗ is developed and one touch with a b at a

1:22:20 ↗ predefined check-in

1:22:21 ↗ period um per city council direction

1:22:24 ↗ and to put that into our rules or

1:22:27 ↗ procedures so that it's

1:22:28 ↗ that it's clear um okay councilmember

1:22:32 ↗ goodman

1:22:33 ↗ i'm sorry we're under are we on number f

1:22:35 ↗ the other items

1:22:37 ↗ uh we're on number three so it's on page

1:22:41 ↗ seven

1:22:41 ↗ of 22. oh yeah yeah uh never mind sorry

1:22:45 ↗ okay um council member marks

1:22:48 ↗ uh thank you council president so

1:22:52 ↗ this would basically create a minimum to

1:22:54 ↗ touch

1:22:56 ↗ setup right so i would like to suggest

1:22:59 ↗ that the way that the sound

1:23:02 ↗ cities public issues committee handles

1:23:05 ↗ things is they

1:23:06 ↗ have an emergency clause

1:23:09 ↗ where requires a super majority so

1:23:14 ↗ i would like to suggest the possibility

1:23:15 ↗ that we have something similar that

1:23:17 ↗ requires like

1:23:18 ↗ five members such that if we had

1:23:22 ↗ something that absolutely was so timely

1:23:24 ↗ that it needed to be addressed

1:23:25 ↗ immediately

1:23:26 ↗ there's things that are beyond the

1:23:28 ↗ mayor's purview financially

1:23:30 ↗ but that aren't necessarily covered by

1:23:32 ↗ the city's emergency management

1:23:34 ↗ clause that could be that could require

1:23:36 ↗ one touches

1:23:38 ↗ and in which case it would it might be

1:23:39 ↗ good to have a mechanism

1:23:41 ↗ to accomplish that

1:23:44 ↗ i think you've had some remarks um i

1:23:48 ↗ uh this is council president hunts and

1:23:50 ↗ so i i wrote this

1:23:51 ↗ um and it's not very clear but i was

1:23:54 ↗ imagining

1:23:55 ↗ that if you had city council say on an a

1:23:58 ↗ b

1:23:58 ↗ and maybe also just a very simple topic

1:24:01 ↗ something smaller that we all

1:24:03 ↗ thought was non um not controversial

1:24:07 ↗ that we didn't feel need a second touch

1:24:09 ↗ that that could be

1:24:10 ↗ that could go directly so i think having

1:24:12 ↗ a predefined

1:24:13 ↗ check-in period or or not

1:24:16 ↗ um definitely i think that was part of

1:24:19 ↗ the intent but it's definitely also not

1:24:20 ↗ clear from what i wrote

1:24:22 ↗ council member d michelle

1:24:26 ↗ oh thanks i'll be really brief i yeah i

1:24:28 ↗ like all of these ideas i especially

1:24:30 ↗ like the idea of the

1:24:31 ↗ questions being formulated so that we

1:24:33 ↗ know exactly what we're

1:24:35 ↗ you know administration has defined

1:24:37 ↗ exactly what they need from us

1:24:39 ↗ uh sometimes we get those sometimes

1:24:40 ↗ they're very good sometimes we don't

1:24:43 ↗ and you know i i really like the idea

1:24:47 ↗ that we are responding to

1:24:48 ↗ an exact question um and the summary at

1:24:52 ↗ the end i think is excellent and i would

1:24:53 ↗ like to see that

1:24:54 ↗ in the rules i have really appreciated

1:24:57 ↗ uh the council president summarizing

1:24:59 ↗ at the end of these sessions so i'd like

1:25:02 ↗ all of us to do it and i would try to

1:25:04 ↗ remember myself to do that so

1:25:06 ↗ so uh yes i support i support everything

1:25:09 ↗ that's in

1:25:10 ↗ number three

1:25:13 ↗ okay thank you councilmember goodman

1:25:16 ↗ um thank you the second suggestion um in

1:25:20 ↗ number three

1:25:21 ↗ um absolutely agree that the study

1:25:23 ↗ session items should have questions

1:25:25 ↗ being asked of counsel um and

1:25:28 ↗ it for historical purposes it was that

1:25:31 ↗ they needed to be

1:25:33 ↗ policy questions um and that's

1:25:37 ↗ how we knew if it was appropriate for

1:25:39 ↗ study sessions um in terms of

1:25:41 ↗ summarizing

1:25:42 ↗ absolutely summarizing um is an

1:25:45 ↗ excellent idea

1:25:46 ↗ the only thing that i

1:25:49 ↗ don't think that i is

1:25:52 ↗ agree with let me see chair should

1:25:54 ↗ summarize the majority response

1:25:56 ↗ is that it places the obligation on the

1:25:59 ↗ chair

1:26:00 ↗ so um we're trying to be at a study

1:26:02 ↗ session the chair's trying to run the

1:26:04 ↗ meeting

1:26:05 ↗ and we have zero staff and

1:26:09 ↗ the i think it should be staff's

1:26:12 ↗ responsibility to take down all of the

1:26:13 ↗ comments

1:26:14 ↗ and and keep track of

1:26:18 ↗ what the council is saying

1:26:21 ↗ and to summarize and then for the

1:26:22 ↗ council to

1:26:24 ↗ um confirm that that's accurate

1:26:27 ↗ it's just a lot for a chair to do um and

1:26:31 ↗ and because we don't have any stuff

1:26:32 ↗ whatsoever i think it um

1:26:35 ↗ in i wouldn't like to see it go in the

1:26:37 ↗ rules that that's an obligation of the

1:26:38 ↗ chair

1:26:39 ↗ i think it's an unreasonable expectation

1:26:41 ↗ for

1:26:42 ↗ um what we do as council members we

1:26:44 ↗ don't have any staff

1:26:45 ↗ um but other but other than that i agree

1:26:48 ↗ it's just not

1:26:49 ↗ it's just who should do it thanks

1:26:53 ↗ okay thank you councilmember goodman um

1:26:58 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone else this is

1:27:00 ↗ council president hunt i will say

1:27:02 ↗ uh uh so i heard support for

1:27:05 ↗ the first item i don't think i heard any

1:27:08 ↗ um concerns about the first

1:27:10 ↗ suggestion under number three and then

1:27:12 ↗ the second one

1:27:13 ↗ um which is around the summarization at

1:27:16 ↗ study sessions

1:27:17 ↗ one of the reasons why i thought um

1:27:20 ↗ having a summary

1:27:23 ↗ and i was imagining that would be the

1:27:25 ↗ council chair

1:27:26 ↗ but um that could change i think that

1:27:30 ↗ that is important i think when we were

1:27:31 ↗ having committees we would

1:27:33 ↗ vote and sometimes there would be a

1:27:35 ↗ minority um

1:27:36 ↗ opinion coming out of that committee but

1:27:39 ↗ at the same time you would have a vote

1:27:40 ↗ and you have the chair

1:27:41 ↗ who would be able to speak to what the

1:27:43 ↗ decision was coming out of that

1:27:44 ↗ committee when it came to council and so

1:27:46 ↗ i think having

1:27:47 ↗ having something like that where we're

1:27:49 ↗ summarizing

1:27:50 ↗ the direction is really useful because

1:27:53 ↗ we don't have that same sort of

1:27:55 ↗ structure and ability to to actually

1:27:57 ↗ vote on that

1:27:59 ↗ item when we're in study sessions

1:28:00 ↗ because we don't take votes and study

1:28:02 ↗ sessions

1:28:03 ↗ so that's part of what i was thinking

1:28:05 ↗ about when i was

1:28:07 ↗ when i was thinking about this just for

1:28:08 ↗ some context

1:28:11 ↗ i don't have a strong i think if staff

1:28:14 ↗ uh were to do this summary i i think

1:28:17 ↗ that

1:28:18 ↗ could be um well i don't know i would

1:28:21 ↗ let

1:28:22 ↗ the administration speak to if that's

1:28:24 ↗ something but

1:28:25 ↗ i see there's also council members who

1:28:27 ↗ also wanted to comment on this

1:28:30 ↗ council member goodman did you have an

1:28:31 ↗ additional comment or was that your

1:28:33 ↗ earlier comment

1:28:36 ↗ um i think yes but i think we also have

1:28:40 ↗ uh city administrator bob kowitz and

1:28:42 ↗ then mart's and then me

1:28:44 ↗ oh okay i saw i saw you and then city

1:28:47 ↗ ministry bobcat so okay

1:28:49 ↗ um city administrator bob quits

1:28:52 ↗ thank you council president um as far as

1:28:54 ↗ number three the second bullet

1:28:56 ↗ um you know certainly staff can

1:28:58 ↗ summarize and

1:28:59 ↗ and have the leader of the study session

1:29:02 ↗ and the full council confirm

1:29:04 ↗ that that review i don't think that's a

1:29:05 ↗ big deal i'm more concerned about the

1:29:07 ↗ first bullet i'm not quite sure how you

1:29:09 ↗ operationalize that

1:29:12 ↗ you know is it every agenda bill that

1:29:14 ↗ comes before

1:29:16 ↗ the council would have to have two

1:29:18 ↗ visits at a study session

1:29:20 ↗ is it larger issues

1:29:23 ↗ um i i'm a little confused is there

1:29:26 ↗ are there specific examples uh that

1:29:29 ↗ haven't worked

1:29:30 ↗ that would guide because if we're gonna

1:29:31 ↗ have to put this to language and

1:29:34 ↗ the council's procedures i'm just trying

1:29:36 ↗ to figure out how we because i don't

1:29:37 ↗ think you intend every single agenda

1:29:39 ↗ bill

1:29:40 ↗ that comes before the council has two

1:29:42 ↗ touches at a study session i don't think

1:29:44 ↗ that's the intent

1:29:45 ↗ i think it's uh a certain category and

1:29:48 ↗ it would be helpful to have that that

1:29:50 ↗ category better defined

1:29:52 ↗ thanks

1:29:55 ↗ thank you city administrator bob quits

1:29:57 ↗ i'll speak to

1:29:59 ↗ what i was thinking of and then council

1:30:00 ↗ can uh weigh in

1:30:03 ↗ with with further thoughts and comments

1:30:06 ↗ i was thinking that uh we

1:30:10 ↗ would have i think it is important here

1:30:12 ↗ that there

1:30:13 ↗ is the one touch to set expectations

1:30:17 ↗ before the a b

1:30:18 ↗ i think there have been some agenda um

1:30:22 ↗ some agenda bills where it comes forward

1:30:24 ↗ as

1:30:25 ↗ more in the agenda bill state um and so

1:30:28 ↗ i think that was the

1:30:29 ↗ intent was to make sure that we have the

1:30:31 ↗ one expectation setting

1:30:33 ↗ um type study session before

1:30:36 ↗ we have an ab i think we've gotten good

1:30:38 ↗ um i've heard good

1:30:39 ↗ feedback from counsel when we have had

1:30:42 ↗ that earlier

1:30:43 ↗ discussion and then as far as requiring

1:30:46 ↗ two touches i didn't

1:30:48 ↗ mean to write this as though we would be

1:30:50 ↗ required to have two touches but just

1:30:51 ↗ that

1:30:52 ↗ if council for some items if council

1:30:55 ↗ were to

1:30:55 ↗ um indicate that there would be a second

1:30:59 ↗ uh check-in period that that would be

1:31:01 ↗ something that might come out of a study

1:31:02 ↗ session

1:31:04 ↗ so i agree that i don't think everything

1:31:06 ↗ needs two touches

1:31:08 ↗ and if i could follow up council

1:31:09 ↗ president so if for example things would

1:31:12 ↗ be on consent would not require this but

1:31:14 ↗ perhaps things on a regular agenda

1:31:16 ↗ would so things that are in consent that

1:31:19 ↗ would go to a study session

1:31:22 ↗ well many things on consent don't go to

1:31:24 ↗ study session i guess that's my point so

1:31:26 ↗ so this rule as far as

1:31:30 ↗ because their abs go on consent and the

1:31:32 ↗ regular agenda and so i'm just trying to

1:31:35 ↗ to parse through this so that the idea

1:31:37 ↗ would be those abs that might be on a

1:31:39 ↗ regular agenda

1:31:40 ↗ would would have these touches which is

1:31:43 ↗ which is in essence i think the practice

1:31:45 ↗ now or at least the

1:31:46 ↗ we strive for that to be the practice

1:31:47 ↗ now

1:31:49 ↗ um this is council president hunts again

1:31:51 ↗ i'll speak for myself and then my fellow

1:31:53 ↗ council members can weigh in

1:31:54 ↗ i think we do strive for that but i've

1:31:56 ↗ also heard concern and i think there was

1:31:58 ↗ also a lot of concern

1:32:00 ↗ that i've heard at the retreat around

1:32:02 ↗ the ambiguity of study sessions compared

1:32:04 ↗ to what we had with

1:32:05 ↗ committees and so this would be trying

1:32:08 ↗ to

1:32:10 ↗ trying to make that uniform um

1:32:13 ↗ and to if as you said if that's what the

1:32:16 ↗ current intent is to just

1:32:18 ↗ um put that into our potential rules and

1:32:21 ↗ potentially put that into our rules of

1:32:22 ↗ procedure

1:32:24 ↗ uh and then this is only for referring

1:32:27 ↗ to study sessions so

1:32:28 ↗ um it's it's specific to things that

1:32:30 ↗ would be going to a study session anyway

1:32:32 ↗ i don't think there's any

1:32:33 ↗ problem with things um on consent going

1:32:35 ↗ directly to

1:32:36 ↗ the consent calendar and i haven't heard

1:32:38 ↗ concerns about that

1:32:40 ↗ um

1:32:47 ↗ okay i'm not seeing any

1:32:51 ↗ comments oh sorry that's my remarks

1:32:56 ↗ thank you oh thank you yeah i mean i i

1:32:59 ↗ would just reiterate

1:33:00 ↗ that i i i think we should

1:33:03 ↗ generally say yeah on things that

1:33:07 ↗ uh are worth talking about that we

1:33:09 ↗ should probably have two touches

1:33:11 ↗ partially because we don't want to let

1:33:13 ↗ the public know that there's going to be

1:33:14 ↗ a conversation

1:33:16 ↗ and they can hear the first part of it

1:33:17 ↗ they can come talk to us at the

1:33:19 ↗ you know at the actual place where we

1:33:22 ↗ vote

1:33:23 ↗ on a bill um but then have a clear

1:33:25 ↗ mechanism for things that just require

1:33:27 ↗ one touch

1:33:28 ↗ that maybe you say obviously things that

1:33:31 ↗ are on the consent agenda

1:33:32 ↗ but some other mechanism where it's

1:33:34 ↗ important that we talk about it because

1:33:36 ↗ pile of money or whatever i don't want

1:33:38 ↗ to hamstring the administration when

1:33:40 ↗ there's something that is urgent

1:33:42 ↗ but i think we should have a general

1:33:44 ↗ policy of anything worth talking about

1:33:45 ↗ is worth talking about twice

1:33:47 ↗ first time to get the general lay of the

1:33:49 ↗ land and second time

1:33:51 ↗ uh so there's the public uh feel

1:33:52 ↗ strongly they have a chance to

1:33:54 ↗ contribute to it because the shocking

1:33:57 ↗ truth

1:33:57 ↗ is that a lot of the public doesn't read

1:33:59 ↗ the packet when it comes out on fridays

1:34:02 ↗ they hear about things after we talk

1:34:03 ↗ about them in council and have a chance

1:34:05 ↗ to

1:34:05 ↗ respond after thank you

1:34:09 ↗ thank you councilmember martin i

1:34:11 ↗ apologize for um

1:34:12 ↗ missing your comment in the chat

1:34:14 ↗ councilmember goodman

1:34:16 ↗ um thank you councilmember goodman here

1:34:18 ↗ um this isn't exactly earth shattering

1:34:21 ↗ information

1:34:21 ↗ but um and i know uh city administrator

1:34:24 ↗ bob quits already said that

1:34:26 ↗ um having a staff member be responsible

1:34:28 ↗ for notes and summarizing isn't a big

1:34:30 ↗ deal

1:34:31 ↗ for every committee that we did have a

1:34:33 ↗ staff person was involved was assigned

1:34:36 ↗ and they attended the meetings and they

1:34:37 ↗ took all the notes and wrote all the

1:34:38 ↗ questions

1:34:39 ↗ and um so uh i think it's a

1:34:42 ↗ it's a reasonable idea that we have a

1:34:46 ↗ staff member handle it and i say that

1:34:48 ↗ only for the council members who weren't

1:34:50 ↗ around

1:34:50 ↗ um uh for committees or very long

1:34:54 ↗ for committees that that's the way it

1:34:55 ↗ was before um and so

1:34:57 ↗ that's part of the reason that

1:35:01 ↗ my my hope is that this doesn't

1:35:05 ↗ become a study session

1:35:10 ↗ chair responsibility thanks

1:35:16 ↗ okay thank you

1:35:20 ↗ okay now i don't see any further

1:35:23 ↗ comments

1:35:23 ↗ um so

1:35:27 ↗ i think from council on this one i think

1:35:30 ↗ if we can

1:35:31 ↗ better clarify the first suggestion

1:35:35 ↗ which was around

1:35:36 ↗ the one touch um on an a b

1:35:39 ↗ that would go to a study session before

1:35:42 ↗ the a b

1:35:43 ↗ is developed so one one uh touch on

1:35:47 ↗ something that ultimately is envisioned

1:35:48 ↗ to be a regular business a b that would

1:35:50 ↗ go to a study session before we're

1:35:52 ↗ actually looking at a b

1:35:53 ↗ i think that was that was really my

1:35:55 ↗ intent um and then you would have the

1:35:57 ↗ second touch either at

1:35:59 ↗ when you have the a b or potentially a

1:36:02 ↗ second study session if it's

1:36:03 ↗ if it's that um if that's necessary

1:36:07 ↗ so i think if i can clarify that um

1:36:10 ↗ wording

1:36:11 ↗ i think that council seems like seems

1:36:13 ↗ like that would be beneficial

1:36:15 ↗ um for council and then

1:36:19 ↗ on the the summarization um

1:36:22 ↗ i personally am i think that having the

1:36:25 ↗ staff

1:36:26 ↗ do the summarization is personally i

1:36:28 ↗ think that would be

1:36:29 ↗ a fine way to do it i would um

1:36:32 ↗ my preference though would be that it is

1:36:34 ↗ at the meeting so that we can

1:36:36 ↗ all make sure to um say if we think we

1:36:42 ↗ have something to add or that we thought

1:36:44 ↗ something wasn't

1:36:45 ↗ um quite in the summary the way we

1:36:48 ↗ we heard it and then council could have

1:36:50 ↗ a discussion if we needed to but we

1:36:52 ↗ would have it at that moment rather than

1:36:54 ↗ um you know having the notes come later

1:36:57 ↗ for example

1:37:02 ↗ so anybody have any corrections or

1:37:04 ↗ additions to that as the summary

1:37:06 ↗ for three

1:37:10 ↗ and council member hall question uh yeah

1:37:13 ↗ thank you this councilman hall just a

1:37:14 ↗ quick clarifying question so with the

1:37:16 ↗ idea view we have a study session

1:37:18 ↗ uh give initial um

1:37:21 ↗ direction set expectations and then it

1:37:24 ↗ could either come back

1:37:26 ↗ as an agenda bill at a future study

1:37:28 ↗ session or a

1:37:29 ↗ um like an informational update during a

1:37:32 ↗ regular meeting

1:37:34 ↗ or are we talking about only having it

1:37:36 ↗ come back to study sessions

1:37:41 ↗ this is council member hunt i i envision

1:37:44 ↗ this as

1:37:45 ↗ that you would have a study session

1:37:48 ↗ item that is but we're not reading the a

1:37:52 ↗ b

1:37:52 ↗ in that study session we set

1:37:53 ↗ expectations for what the a b would

1:37:55 ↗ become

1:37:55 ↗ and then depending on the complexity of

1:37:58 ↗ the topic

1:37:59 ↗ it would either become an ab that we see

1:38:02 ↗ at a regular

1:38:02 ↗ meeting and we vote on or it would come

1:38:05 ↗ back to a study session

1:38:06 ↗ for another touch at a study session

1:38:09 ↗ okay so that would be

1:38:11 ↗ an expectation that we would set at that

1:38:12 ↗ initial study session whether or not we

1:38:14 ↗ want

1:38:14 ↗ it to come back again or if it's good to

1:38:18 ↗ go to be put on

1:38:19 ↗ an agenda for a regular meeting exactly

1:38:23 ↗ yes

1:38:23 ↗ and and additionally i think there are

1:38:25 ↗ the concerns that

1:38:27 ↗ councilmember martz mentions around

1:38:29 ↗ there could potentially be something

1:38:31 ↗ where it's clear that we need to act on

1:38:33 ↗ it right away and there isn't

1:38:35 ↗ um yeah so

1:38:38 ↗ some additional factors there but yes

1:38:41 ↗ okay

1:38:41 ↗ so it's fair to say it's pretty much at

1:38:43 ↗ the council's um

1:38:44 ↗ direction there

1:38:52 ↗ right i think with the with the caveats

1:38:55 ↗ that

1:38:55 ↗ um with the caveats that council member

1:38:58 ↗ remarks

1:38:58 ↗ talked about um and city administrator

1:39:01 ↗ bob coats would like to make a comment

1:39:04 ↗ well you know i i think that this is all

1:39:07 ↗ being done

1:39:08 ↗ in a matter of collegiality and trying

1:39:10 ↗ to move issues forward i think though at

1:39:11 ↗ the end of the day that the mayor

1:39:13 ↗ if any mayor wishes to put an item on an

1:39:15 ↗ agenda for any reason

1:39:17 ↗ a mayor can do that so i i think if this

1:39:20 ↗ is the direction the council wants to go

1:39:21 ↗ and i think these are

1:39:23 ↗ general direction items but ultimately

1:39:26 ↗ any mayor can place an item before the

1:39:28 ↗ council the council's not happy to post

1:39:30 ↗ it down

1:39:31 ↗ but i don't i don't think that a mayor

1:39:33 ↗ can be limited

1:39:34 ↗ by these by these rules the item could

1:39:37 ↗ not then be placed on an agenda in the

1:39:39 ↗ future it would just be i think

1:39:41 ↗ in the nature of trying to get

1:39:42 ↗ collaboration to get consensus

1:39:44 ↗ moving forward but there might be times

1:39:46 ↗ where there isn't consensus

1:39:49 ↗ thank you city ministry about quits i

1:39:50 ↗ would just add that i think the other

1:39:52 ↗ reason is to um is to

1:39:56 ↗ set some clear

1:39:59 ↗ checkpoints for abs because i think that

1:40:01 ↗ that um

1:40:02 ↗ within the study session format i think

1:40:04 ↗ that hasn't

1:40:06 ↗ that is one of the sources of a b

1:40:08 ↗ process ambiguity that came out of

1:40:10 ↗ our retreat discussions that we're

1:40:12 ↗ trying to address here

1:40:14 ↗ um councilmember goodman has a comment

1:40:17 ↗ ah thank you councilmember goodman here

1:40:19 ↗ um the way it's

1:40:23 ↗ written council should have one touch to

1:40:24 ↗ set expectations before the agenda bill

1:40:27 ↗ is developed

1:40:28 ↗ um it seems to me like we're going to be

1:40:31 ↗ adding a lot of things to

1:40:35 ↗ meetings i'm not quite exactly sure

1:40:40 ↗ how that's gonna work

1:40:43 ↗ so i'll be looking for more information

1:40:45 ↗ about that

1:40:47 ↗ and i'll wait for number four because

1:40:50 ↗ a bullet under there

1:40:54 ↗ anyway i i see similarities

1:40:58 ↗ but i'm just concerned about how many

1:41:02 ↗ expectational agenda items are going to

1:41:06 ↗ be coming to us before an

1:41:07 ↗ a b is developed so that's that's just

1:41:11 ↗ my comment thanks thank you

1:41:13 ↗ councilmember goodman again i think this

1:41:15 ↗ is really trying to

1:41:17 ↗ um it's really trying to put into our

1:41:21 ↗ our um documentation what is

1:41:24 ↗ what the administration is trying to do

1:41:26 ↗ anyways so these are

1:41:27 ↗ it was meant to refer to things that

1:41:29 ↗ were already going to study session not

1:41:31 ↗ to um

1:41:32 ↗ additional items not to consent agenda

1:41:35 ↗ items for example but

1:41:36 ↗ i think from my perspective that was

1:41:39 ↗ part of the intent

1:41:40 ↗ of the study sessions was that council

1:41:42 ↗ would have would have a

1:41:44 ↗ touch with agenda bill topics before

1:41:47 ↗ we see the agenda bill so

1:41:50 ↗ i think that i think that that is a good

1:41:53 ↗ expectation setting

1:41:54 ↗ um but i see some see

1:41:59 ↗ we may not all have that opinion

1:42:05 ↗ um okay so on this one

1:42:10 ↗ trying to summarize direction on this

1:42:12 ↗ one i think that we

1:42:14 ↗ do want to have a summary of the um

1:42:17 ↗ we do want to have a summary of the

1:42:19 ↗ study session topics

1:42:21 ↗ after each topic whether that's staff or

1:42:23 ↗ the chair

1:42:24 ↗ i um i think we've heard it from at

1:42:28 ↗ least one council member that they

1:42:29 ↗ prefer e-staff which i think would be

1:42:30 ↗ fine

1:42:31 ↗ um and then on the

1:42:34 ↗ uh expectations around study session and

1:42:37 ↗ a b

1:42:38 ↗ development i don't think we have a

1:42:39 ↗ consensus but um i

1:42:41 ↗ did hear i i think i heard an interest

1:42:44 ↗ in seeing a version of this that was

1:42:45 ↗ more clear and that wouldn't add

1:42:47 ↗ additional items to any sort of study

1:42:50 ↗ session process so not adding consent

1:42:52 ↗ agenda items and not adding things that

1:42:54 ↗ wouldn't normally go to a study session

1:42:56 ↗ but just being more clear on what

1:42:59 ↗ council

1:43:00 ↗ thinks the process would be and again

1:43:02 ↗ also taking into consideration

1:43:04 ↗ what city administrator bob quit said

1:43:06 ↗ around

1:43:08 ↗ the mayor's purview in this as well

1:43:15 ↗ so i think we can write up a different

1:43:17 ↗ version of this

1:43:19 ↗ if that is if that sounds okay to cancel

1:43:28 ↗ okay um i'm not seeing any other

1:43:30 ↗ comments i will

1:43:31 ↗ throw out at this moment just as

1:43:35 ↗ a question open-ended and i think if

1:43:39 ↗ there are other suggestions for reducing

1:43:41 ↗ the process

1:43:41 ↗ ambiguity around abs um

1:43:45 ↗ please do let let us know because this

1:43:48 ↗ was one of

1:43:49 ↗ the i think it was the number one item

1:43:52 ↗ that came out of our retreat and so

1:43:54 ↗ we're trying to think of ways that we

1:43:55 ↗ could

1:43:56 ↗ address that so if there are other

1:43:57 ↗ suggestions for this please do

1:43:59 ↗ um let me or deputy council president

1:44:02 ↗ ray know

1:44:03 ↗ or we can continue to work on this um so

1:44:06 ↗ i'll move to number

1:44:07 ↗ four at this point i'm not seeing any

1:44:09 ↗ other comments on this one so um this is

1:44:11 ↗ around

1:44:13 ↗ another suggestion which is um when

1:44:15 ↗ appropriate if council were to

1:44:18 ↗ want to pose questions for boards or

1:44:19 ↗ commit commission

1:44:21 ↗ consideration again this was trying to

1:44:24 ↗ uh

1:44:24 ↗ mostly trying to put into

1:44:27 ↗ our to document what i think is already

1:44:30 ↗ the best practice

1:44:31 ↗ and which council already sometimes does

1:44:34 ↗ um

1:44:35 ↗ but just to put that into just to

1:44:37 ↗ document that

1:44:39 ↗ um

1:44:42 ↗ council member goodman thank you

1:44:44 ↗ councilmember goodman here

1:44:46 ↗ um so i will give you a specific example

1:44:49 ↗ um but i but my high level

1:44:52 ↗ um comment is i think we have to be

1:44:56 ↗ careful and mindful that

1:45:00 ↗ uh we don't put the cart before the

1:45:03 ↗ horse and what i mean by that is we're

1:45:04 ↗ not

1:45:06 ↗ um sending um

1:45:11 ↗ that we're not um well let me give you

1:45:14 ↗ the example and then you'll know what

1:45:16 ↗ i'm talking about

1:45:17 ↗ um so i've heard from a couple of uh

1:45:19 ↗ different

1:45:20 ↗ um commission members um on the ev

1:45:24 ↗ charging

1:45:25 ↗ ordinance uh that they're um that they

1:45:29 ↗ that ppc and um the environmental

1:45:33 ↗ um committee heard that uh they felt

1:45:36 ↗ that it was the council already knew

1:45:38 ↗ what it was going to do

1:45:40 ↗ um because of all of the very specific

1:45:42 ↗ comments

1:45:43 ↗ that were made at the prior i think two

1:45:46 ↗ work sessions

1:45:48 ↗ um and so the comment was i'm not sure

1:45:52 ↗ it matters what we do because the

1:45:54 ↗ council has already made up their mind

1:45:56 ↗ so my concern um is and those were exact

1:46:00 ↗ words

1:46:01 ↗ and my concern is that um

1:46:04 ↗ or my comment would be if we kept

1:46:08 ↗ um our

1:46:12 ↗ questions about something that was going

1:46:15 ↗ to be for board and commission

1:46:16 ↗ consideration

1:46:18 ↗ at a high level then i don't have any

1:46:20 ↗ concerns

1:46:22 ↗ but when we are getting involved at

1:46:26 ↗ i think at the point in the process that

1:46:28 ↗ should be

1:46:29 ↗ the border commission's role then i

1:46:32 ↗ think that would

1:46:33 ↗ that's that's that's where the con where

1:46:35 ↗ my concern is

1:46:37 ↗ um and the reason it

1:46:42 ↗ kind of i made that comment before about

1:46:45 ↗ number three and four

1:46:46 ↗ together um the reason i said that is

1:46:50 ↗ because i'm not

1:46:51 ↗ number three i would want to make sure

1:46:54 ↗ that

1:46:56 ↗ i'm not saying this very well at all but

1:46:57 ↗ my concern is that we don't get into a

1:47:00 ↗ that our process doesn't become that we

1:47:02 ↗ have

1:47:03 ↗ so many that we have our agenda bills

1:47:05 ↗ coming for us before us

1:47:07 ↗ before they go out to the public process

1:47:09 ↗ and we are weighing in

1:47:11 ↗ and uh

1:47:14 ↗ in such a way that signals to the

1:47:18 ↗ community and signals to

1:47:20 ↗ boards and commissions that we already

1:47:22 ↗ know what we're

1:47:23 ↗ going to do um the ev charging code

1:47:26 ↗ when we were kind of vetting that before

1:47:29 ↗ before it went to boards and commissions

1:47:31 ↗ you know we made comments and i'm and

1:47:33 ↗ i'm

1:47:34 ↗ saying we because i you know it doesn't

1:47:37 ↗ matter who

1:47:39 ↗ and i don't even remember but we did

1:47:40 ↗ make comments like i would support

1:47:42 ↗ x i think i would support this i would

1:47:45 ↗ support that

1:47:46 ↗ to me that is inappropriate

1:47:49 ↗ before we send things to boards and

1:47:50 ↗ commissions i think if we want to submit

1:47:52 ↗ questions to boards and commissions

1:47:56 ↗ it needs to be very high level otherwise

1:48:00 ↗ we are i think we are

1:48:04 ↗ sort of short cutting the process

1:48:07 ↗ board certain commissions are supposed

1:48:08 ↗ to be an important part of the public

1:48:10 ↗ process

1:48:11 ↗ and we should be hearing what they want

1:48:13 ↗ that they hear the public wants

1:48:15 ↗ before we make um before we say

1:48:19 ↗ before we make comments like that that

1:48:21 ↗ signals that

1:48:22 ↗ we already know what we want to do um so

1:48:24 ↗ that's

1:48:25 ↗ that's my concern with four thanks

1:48:29 ↗ um okay thank you councilmember

1:48:32 ↗ walsh thanks um

1:48:36 ↗ i agree with the concepts that

1:48:38 ↗ councilmember goodman was presenting i

1:48:39 ↗ don't want

1:48:40 ↗ to um

1:48:43 ↗ suggest a solution to

1:48:46 ↗ a border commission in creating that

1:48:50 ↗ early conversation before it goes to

1:48:52 ↗ them

1:48:52 ↗ but i do think it's important to be able

1:48:56 ↗ to if we can keep the questions at that

1:48:59 ↗ high level

1:49:00 ↗ to be able to define

1:49:03 ↗ for the board and commission what

1:49:09 ↗ successful information coming out of

1:49:12 ↗ that would be

1:49:13 ↗ what would answer our questions so that

1:49:16 ↗ we don't have to punt something back

1:49:17 ↗ because that never feels good somebody

1:49:19 ↗ who was on a commission before

1:49:21 ↗ it doesn't feel good for um

1:49:24 ↗ a decision to be made or a

1:49:27 ↗ recommendation be made by the board

1:49:29 ↗ and then have it come to counsel and

1:49:31 ↗ counsel go well

1:49:32 ↗ what about all 5 10 15 of these things

1:49:35 ↗ and then reverse the decision so i see

1:49:38 ↗ this as a

1:49:40 ↗ good way for council to be able to say

1:49:43 ↗ if we were talking about the ev thing to

1:49:45 ↗ say

1:49:46 ↗ hey i want to know what

1:49:49 ↗ kind of um cost this is going to look

1:49:52 ↗ like i want to make sure that there's

1:49:54 ↗ the chance to

1:49:56 ↗ hear from these types of people and

1:49:58 ↗ maybe

1:49:59 ↗ i want to understand

1:50:02 ↗ what we think the unintended consequence

1:50:06 ↗ or you know something

1:50:07 ↗ i'm not preparing the ideas but i want

1:50:10 ↗ to be able to

1:50:11 ↗ ask those questions so that the board

1:50:13 ↗ can feel like

1:50:15 ↗ they are answering our questions and

1:50:18 ↗ aren't just

1:50:19 ↗ aren't necessarily taking it and

1:50:20 ↗ steering it in

1:50:22 ↗ a different direction that isn't going

1:50:24 ↗ to

1:50:26 ↗ never mind it's too late i'm not

1:50:28 ↗ speaking clearly but

1:50:30 ↗ i think i've probably gotten my half of

1:50:32 ↗ my point across

1:50:34 ↗ thank you councilmember walsh um

1:50:38 ↗ councilman rumors thank you council

1:50:41 ↗ president this is councilmember marks

1:50:43 ↗ yeah i mean i point well taken from

1:50:45 ↗ council member goodman

1:50:47 ↗ i think that for the entirety of the

1:50:50 ↗ last

1:50:51 ↗ 11 plus years you know i have looked to

1:50:54 ↗ the expertise

1:50:56 ↗ from commissions

1:50:59 ↗ and i think that maybe we do need to

1:51:03 ↗ practice a little bit more hygiene

1:51:05 ↗ about uh you know when we decide we need

1:51:08 ↗ more information but boy oh boy

1:51:10 ↗ every single year there's been times

1:51:12 ↗ where we said up this needs to go back

1:51:14 ↗ because there's additional technical

1:51:15 ↗ information and those

1:51:17 ↗ commissions uh will often

1:51:21 ↗ especially now that we no longer have

1:51:23 ↗ committees or subcommittees

1:51:25 ↗ um you know they can dive in in a way

1:51:27 ↗ that that we can't so i super value

1:51:30 ↗ their input i'm excited uh about

1:51:34 ↗ maybe streamlining that a little better

1:51:36 ↗ so that we can get the best input

1:51:38 ↗ possible from those folks we won't

1:51:41 ↗ always do

1:51:42 ↗ what they want but i want to hear their

1:51:44 ↗ thoughts

1:51:45 ↗ on a lot of these issues thank you

1:51:50 ↗ thank you councilman remarts

1:51:52 ↗ councilmember hall and then we have

1:51:53 ↗ council member goodman

1:51:57 ↗ uh thanks this is councilmember hall

1:52:00 ↗ and just to add to this conversation i

1:52:01 ↗ think that that's an important one

1:52:03 ↗ um to make sure that our you know boards

1:52:05 ↗ and commissions um feel that they're

1:52:06 ↗ being valued because the information

1:52:08 ↗ that they provide

1:52:09 ↗ is truly invaluable to our decision

1:52:11 ↗ making um but i

1:52:12 ↗ also would hate for us to miss out on

1:52:15 ↗ opportunities

1:52:17 ↗ for specific policy questions

1:52:20 ↗ or ideas to be flushed out and

1:52:23 ↗ dove deeper into by boards and

1:52:25 ↗ commissions based on

1:52:27 ↗ our own lived experience or regional

1:52:29 ↗ assignments about what's going on in the

1:52:31 ↗ region if

1:52:32 ↗ what about this idea what do we think of

1:52:34 ↗ this let's make sure

1:52:35 ↗ the commission has a conversation about

1:52:38 ↗ this

1:52:39 ↗ because if they come back and say that's

1:52:41 ↗ a terrible idea for issaquah and here's

1:52:43 ↗ why i

1:52:43 ↗ chunk it out that would be very

1:52:46 ↗ important information for me to want to

1:52:47 ↗ hear

1:52:48 ↗ when it comes back to a council meeting

1:52:50 ↗ so i don't know

1:52:52 ↗ this is a tough one maybe there's a

1:52:53 ↗ middle ground here i'm not sure though

1:53:00 ↗ thanks councilmember goodman uh thank

1:53:02 ↗ you councilmember goodman here

1:53:04 ↗ so as i um listen to my fellow council

1:53:06 ↗ members and

1:53:07 ↗ um doing some more thinking um

1:53:10 ↗ i again come to the question of you know

1:53:13 ↗ what problem are we trying to solve

1:53:15 ↗ and i'm not sure the problem is whether

1:53:18 ↗ uh whether the expectations of the

1:53:20 ↗ council are

1:53:21 ↗ getting to the boards and commissions

1:53:25 ↗ in time so that they can consider that

1:53:28 ↗ i'm wondering if the issue that is that

1:53:30 ↗ they are

1:53:31 ↗ not getting that maybe we need

1:53:36 ↗ more complete information before the

1:53:39 ↗ boards and commissions

1:53:41 ↗ um and that's a different issue

1:53:45 ↗ thank you

1:53:51 ↗ thank you um clarifying question for

1:53:55 ↗ councilmember goodman so that would be a

1:53:57 ↗ different issue but that would also be a

1:53:59 ↗ different

1:54:00 ↗ that wouldn't be a solution that would

1:54:01 ↗ be in our rules of procedure right that

1:54:04 ↗ would be

1:54:04 ↗ a separate process i imagine correct it

1:54:07 ↗ means

1:54:08 ↗ improving uh

1:54:11 ↗ improving what we present to boards and

1:54:14 ↗ commissions there have been a lot of

1:54:16 ↗ times in my tenure

1:54:17 ↗ where um it

1:54:21 ↗ um those

1:54:24 ↗ the information that the boards and

1:54:26 ↗ commissions received

1:54:28 ↗ was um

1:54:32 ↗ not full and complete

1:54:37 ↗ okay

1:54:40 ↗ okay i am not seeing any other comments

1:54:44 ↗ on this

1:54:45 ↗ i think there is an interest in having

1:54:49 ↗ a streamlined or documented

1:54:52 ↗ process around um around this further

1:54:56 ↗ although also uh also

1:54:59 ↗ interested in improving other aspects of

1:55:01 ↗ the

1:55:03 ↗ process that are not in the council

1:55:05 ↗ rules or procedure but i i think i heard

1:55:07 ↗ that there was interest in

1:55:09 ↗ working on a way to include in the

1:55:13 ↗ rules of procedure around study sessions

1:55:15 ↗ the

1:55:16 ↗ some guidance as far as um development

1:55:19 ↗ of

1:55:20 ↗ questions that would be given to

1:55:22 ↗ committees so that they would then be

1:55:23 ↗ able to

1:55:24 ↗ provide that information back to council

1:55:26 ↗ and be um

1:55:27 ↗ be that part of the decision making

1:55:30 ↗ process

1:55:31 ↗ so if that's if that is a correct

1:55:35 ↗ summary then i think

1:55:38 ↗ i'll i'll give a minute in case anybody

1:55:40 ↗ wants to add and we have a comment um

1:55:42 ↗ councilmember

1:55:43 ↗ sorry city administrator about quits

1:55:46 ↗ yes thank you council president hunt so

1:55:49 ↗ is it

1:55:50 ↗ the intent that the staff takes a stab

1:55:52 ↗ at this is the

1:55:53 ↗ council leadership wish to do that um

1:55:56 ↗ because i i think this is a hard one

1:56:02 ↗ council member d michelle would like to

1:56:05 ↗ comment

1:56:06 ↗ yeah um i haven't said anything so far i

1:56:09 ↗ was on the arts commission for

1:56:10 ↗ 12 years and i don't remember the city

1:56:14 ↗ council

1:56:14 ↗ ever asking us anything that we had to

1:56:18 ↗ respond to so

1:56:19 ↗ i haven't been participating because i

1:56:20 ↗ know it's different for

1:56:22 ↗ policy planning commission and

1:56:23 ↗ development commission and

1:56:26 ↗ others um you know we when we talk about

1:56:29 ↗ the

1:56:29 ↗ we were talking about equity and we're

1:56:31 ↗ saying we

1:56:32 ↗ we always involve our stakeholders in

1:56:35 ↗ our

1:56:36 ↗ deliberations and i'm wondering if this

1:56:38 ↗ is a good time to bring that principle

1:56:39 ↗ forward

1:56:40 ↗ and ask possibly ask the chairs of those

1:56:44 ↗ commissions

1:56:45 ↗ how they would like to handle questions

1:56:47 ↗ from the council

1:56:48 ↗ maybe get some feedback before we uh

1:56:51 ↗ start to formulate

1:56:53 ↗ a policy around this um

1:56:56 ↗ um i i think i would need more

1:56:58 ↗ information are they going to feel that

1:57:00 ↗ we're

1:57:00 ↗ um you know preempting their discussion

1:57:03 ↗ if we ask a question or

1:57:05 ↗ are or i know if on the arts commission

1:57:08 ↗ i would have welcomed a question

1:57:10 ↗ from the council so i'd like to hear

1:57:13 ↗ how they're feeling about that and and

1:57:16 ↗ if they

1:57:17 ↗ welcome questions how would they like

1:57:18 ↗ this formulated what's the process maybe

1:57:21 ↗ just get some actual feedback from the

1:57:23 ↗ people who are going to be at the other

1:57:25 ↗ end of those

1:57:26 ↗ questions

1:57:30 ↗ okay thank you um

1:57:33 ↗ councilmember hall followed by deputy

1:57:35 ↗ council president ray

1:57:37 ↗ uh yeah thanks this is councilmember

1:57:39 ↗ hall i just wanted to say that's an

1:57:41 ↗ excellent idea and i think a really good

1:57:43 ↗ takeaway from

1:57:44 ↗ our equity training that we just had

1:57:46 ↗ about you know how are we broadening the

1:57:48 ↗ circle

1:57:48 ↗ i just wanted to suggest maybe um you

1:57:51 ↗ know to take it out of the staffs plate

1:57:52 ↗ for now we could have the council

1:57:54 ↗ president and deputy council president

1:57:55 ↗ reach out to all the chairs of the

1:57:56 ↗ boards and commissions and

1:57:58 ↗ have that discussion and maybe bring it

1:58:01 ↗ back at the next

1:58:02 ↗ session we have on this topic

1:58:08 ↗ okay thank you uh deputy council

1:58:10 ↗ president right

1:58:11 ↗ um i love uh council member d michelle's

1:58:14 ↗ idea to engage with the

1:58:16 ↗ uh boards and commission chairs i think

1:58:18 ↗ that's that's just super

1:58:20 ↗ spot on um i was going to go slightly

1:58:22 ↗ different direction than

1:58:23 ↗ council member hall but to the same end

1:58:26 ↗ which is we've gotten a lot of

1:58:27 ↗ information not on this topic

1:58:28 ↗ but on all four of the topics we've

1:58:30 ↗ talked about

1:58:32 ↗ um i'd almost suggest that we

1:58:34 ↗ contemplate an

1:58:35 ↗ ad hoc who could just get together and

1:58:38 ↗ take the information that we've gotten

1:58:40 ↗ this evening

1:58:41 ↗ and and um come back with some different

1:58:45 ↗ points of

1:58:46 ↗ view on how we might address it or if

1:58:49 ↗ maybe some of these things shouldn't be

1:58:51 ↗ codified within the rules of procedure

1:58:53 ↗ and i think we have some

1:58:55 ↗ some members here who have some very

1:58:57 ↗ different

1:59:00 ↗ council and life experiences that would

1:59:02 ↗ be very valuable

1:59:03 ↗ to um get those different points of view

1:59:05 ↗ so as opposed to vowing it to leadership

1:59:07 ↗ who i

1:59:08 ↗ also think have diverse views but um i

1:59:11 ↗ there's uh there's a there's one thing

1:59:13 ↗ that the council president i have in

1:59:14 ↗ common in this tenure

1:59:16 ↗ and i would like to see um you know kind

1:59:19 ↗ of a cross section of the members here

1:59:21 ↗ with

1:59:22 ↗ um you know some medium 10 years some

1:59:24 ↗ heavy

1:59:25 ↗ senior tenure and some less senior

1:59:28 ↗ tenure

1:59:28 ↗ so it's just an idea for for y'all to

1:59:31 ↗ contemplate

1:59:36 ↗ thank you okay so we have a couple of

1:59:40 ↗ ways

1:59:41 ↗ forward i think i was seeing some uh

1:59:44 ↗ head nodding

1:59:45 ↗ when councilmember d michelle was

1:59:47 ↗ suggesting that we reach out to

1:59:49 ↗ committee

1:59:50 ↗ um committees on the uh commissions

1:59:54 ↗ and boards um and so i think especially

1:59:57 ↗ um

1:59:59 ↗ i think that one especially seemed like

2:00:00 ↗ there was

2:00:02 ↗ interest from council members

2:00:05 ↗ uh if there's not please indicate in the

2:00:07 ↗ chat

2:00:08 ↗ um and then i think as far as how we do

2:00:11 ↗ that

2:00:12 ↗ um i i think

2:00:15 ↗ i think we can probably figure that out

2:00:17 ↗ um figure out a way to get that feedback

2:00:20 ↗ back and then go forward from there and

2:00:22 ↗ use that information to make a decision

2:00:23 ↗ on this one so i think that was a good

2:00:25 ↗ suggestion

2:00:26 ↗ i think i was seeing um a positive

2:00:29 ↗ response to it

2:00:31 ↗ uh i think and then um

2:00:35 ↗ we have one more uh one more item and

2:00:38 ↗ because councilman

2:00:39 ↗ council deputy president rey's um

2:00:41 ↗ comment seems like it was more all

2:00:43 ↗ more across multiple um topics i think

2:00:47 ↗ not specific to that one is that right

2:00:50 ↗ okay so um so then we'll i'll revisit

2:00:54 ↗ that at the at the end um but the last

2:00:56 ↗ one if there's any

2:00:57 ↗ thoughts on the last one the last one

2:00:59 ↗ number five was really just around uh

2:01:01 ↗ clarifying the and ors

2:01:03 ↗ um i had in the in our rules of

2:01:05 ↗ procedure i i had mentioned before that

2:01:07 ↗ when

2:01:08 ↗ we looked at our rules of procedure

2:01:09 ↗ about two and a half years ago i think

2:01:12 ↗ now we did

2:01:13 ↗ identify that there were these andors

2:01:14 ↗ and that they were a source of

2:01:16 ↗ ambiguity and um i think this is more

2:01:18 ↗ just kind of a

2:01:20 ↗ um cleaning up or clarifying of those

2:01:24 ↗ that we could

2:01:24 ↗ do so if there's any objections to that

2:01:28 ↗ please let me know

2:01:35 ↗ not seeing any okay um is there

2:01:39 ↗ do council members think that it would

2:01:41 ↗ be good to have an ad hoc that would

2:01:42 ↗ meet

2:01:43 ↗ um to discuss the rules of procedure

2:01:46 ↗ changes

2:01:46 ↗ on maybe the more complicated ones like

2:01:50 ↗ uh the study session ambiguity of

2:01:52 ↗ process ones which were three

2:01:54 ↗ and four do council members is their

2:01:56 ↗ interest in

2:01:57 ↗ and going forward with the ad hoc on

2:02:00 ↗ that

2:02:00 ↗ i see councilmember walsh comment i

2:02:03 ↗ believe this is

2:02:04 ↗ that's the way that it was done last

2:02:06 ↗ time and it seemed to

2:02:08 ↗ work well so i i think it's a

2:02:11 ↗ decent idea to flush through some of

2:02:14 ↗ those concepts

2:02:16 ↗ okay one for a decent idea any other

2:02:19 ↗ council members

2:02:20 ↗ um either interested in serving on ad

2:02:23 ↗ hoc or

2:02:24 ↗ or thinking this is a good idea or not

2:02:27 ↗ you have any comments

2:02:33 ↗ oh uh councilmember hall and potentially

2:02:36 ↗ councilman robert d michelle

2:02:37 ↗ yeah and i think uh if councilmember

2:02:40 ↗ michelle wants to go first i think she

2:02:42 ↗ started talking right before i put my

2:02:43 ↗ comment in so i

2:02:46 ↗ yeah sorry i just i jumped the gun sorry

2:02:48 ↗ about that um

2:02:49 ↗ i think it's a great idea and uh i'd be

2:02:51 ↗ willing to search so

2:02:52 ↗ i'll just throw my hat in the ring okay

2:02:56 ↗ great um council member help

2:02:59 ↗ yeah all out oh this is councilmember

2:03:00 ↗ hall all i was going to add is i liked

2:03:03 ↗ the deputy council president's idea of

2:03:04 ↗ trying to get a good cross-section of

2:03:06 ↗ experience

2:03:07 ↗ um in council too so it sounds like

2:03:10 ↗ councilmember t michelle

2:03:11 ↗ um has selflessly offered herself up and

2:03:14 ↗ um

2:03:14 ↗ her and i are more than newbie council

2:03:16 ↗ members i'll let her take that role on

2:03:18 ↗ unless other council members think

2:03:20 ↗ differently about this cross-section

2:03:21 ↗ idea

2:03:23 ↗ thank you councilmember hall um i will

2:03:26 ↗ just say that i think uh

2:03:27 ↗ i also agree i think it's a fine idea

2:03:30 ↗ and i do think it's um how it was

2:03:32 ↗ basically done last time although i

2:03:34 ↗ think not not specifically with the

2:03:36 ↗ tenure in mind so um i think that that

2:03:38 ↗ is also

2:03:39 ↗ that would also be fine and maybe

2:03:41 ↗ offline we can determine who

2:03:43 ↗ the who which council members want

2:03:46 ↗ to serve on that if that seems fine to

2:03:49 ↗ counsel it this evening

2:03:56 ↗ okay let's see any not seeing any other

2:03:58 ↗ council members on this item and then

2:04:00 ↗ the last item is other items

2:04:01 ↗ um for future discussion and as i

2:04:04 ↗ mentioned i

2:04:05 ↗ i was not planning on discussing these

2:04:07 ↗ we don't have any information

2:04:09 ↗ prepared on any of those i mostly wanted

2:04:11 ↗ to make sure that we

2:04:15 ↗ were clear that we are tracking those

2:04:17 ↗ and that we

2:04:18 ↗ have them we haven't lost sight of them

2:04:22 ↗ and they are on the radar

2:04:23 ↗ they were not rules of procedure in my

2:04:25 ↗ mind

2:04:26 ↗ type questions but they have been raised

2:04:29 ↗ by council members and they were

2:04:31 ↗ concerned so i wanted to track them if

2:04:34 ↗ any council member has any comments on

2:04:36 ↗ those

2:04:38 ↗ please indicate

2:04:55 ↗ i'm not seeing anyone on any comments um

2:04:58 ↗ so i will

2:05:00 ↗ i will say two council members can come

2:05:02 ↗ forward with uh

2:05:04 ↗ further comments on those as well

2:05:10 ↗ okay um there is not

2:05:13 ↗ is there any any additional comment

2:05:18 ↗ so

2:05:21 ↗ just give one this evening

2:05:47 ↗ mr president

2:05:50 ↗ i think she's having i think we lost her

2:05:54 ↗ um city administrator bob quits you want

2:05:56 ↗ to make a comment

2:05:59 ↗ just to confirm the expectation of staff

2:06:02 ↗ that we're on hold

2:06:03 ↗ pending the meeting of this ad hoc is

2:06:05 ↗ that correct

2:06:06 ↗ on all the matters discussed this

2:06:07 ↗ evening i think that is correct and i

2:06:10 ↗ think that the ad hoc might include

2:06:11 ↗ staff too all right

2:06:15 ↗ so you'll let me know we will let you

2:06:17 ↗ know

2:06:18 ↗ uh the council president has texted to

2:06:20 ↗ say that her computer has shut down

2:06:22 ↗ so um i think we're

2:06:25 ↗ count deputy council president's all

2:06:27 ↗ years to take this home okay thank you i

2:06:30 ↗ avoid like

2:06:31 ↗ battlefield promotion there um um i

2:06:33 ↗ think that

2:06:34 ↗ that brings us to the end of the agenda

2:06:36 ↗ is there any other uh

2:06:38 ↗ comments this evening i see council

2:06:40 ↗ member hall has a

2:06:41 ↗ question uh yeah thank you this

2:06:43 ↗ councilmember hall

2:06:45 ↗ and just because um you had mentioned um

2:06:48 ↗ that staff might be part of this ad hoc

2:06:49 ↗ and so i was thinking we might

2:06:51 ↗ want to have a discussion on what that

2:06:52 ↗ might look like because i didn't i

2:06:54 ↗ didn't

2:06:54 ↗ that wasn't my assumption going out of

2:06:57 ↗ this meeting so maybe

2:06:59 ↗ if any other council members thought

2:07:02 ↗ strongly about what kind of staffer

2:07:04 ↗ would be a good addition to the ad hoc

2:07:10 ↗ claire gagers you have a comment

2:07:14 ↗ i just would add a thank you well let me

2:07:17 ↗ let me

2:07:20 ↗ let me let me jump in and and simply say

2:07:22 ↗ you know

2:07:23 ↗ i'll be happy to staff the ad hoc i

2:07:25 ↗ don't think the staff is meant to be a

2:07:26 ↗ member of the ad hoc i think we

2:07:28 ↗ will simply provide administrative

2:07:29 ↗ support for the ad hoc that

2:07:32 ↗ that i think is the role and so i think

2:07:34 ↗ between myself uh and the clerk's office

2:07:36 ↗ will cover it

2:07:38 ↗ my this is clerk eggers my only uh

2:07:40 ↗ comment to add would be that

2:07:42 ↗ um we would put together a simple agenda

2:07:44 ↗ bill for you

2:07:45 ↗ to take that action on what your ad

2:07:48 ↗ caught

2:07:48 ↗ what your ad hoc committee structure is

2:07:51 ↗ and when you would expect it to return

2:07:56 ↗ great thanks tina for the creation of

2:07:58 ↗ the ad hoc not regarding any of the

2:08:00 ↗ business of the ad hoc but

2:08:01 ↗ correct for the council's rules

2:08:03 ↗ ironically you need to now have an a b

2:08:06 ↗ to do that

2:08:06 ↗ so we will we'll we'll drop that for you

2:08:09 ↗ all right

2:08:10 ↗ right i'm going to hand the gavel back

2:08:12 ↗ to council president hunt

2:08:16 ↗ thank you council deputy president ray

2:08:18 ↗ and i apologize everyone

2:08:19 ↗ my computer restarted um

2:08:22 ↗ but i i did want to just say thank you

2:08:24 ↗ for the thoughtful conversation

2:08:26 ↗ um and following up on those retreat

2:08:28 ↗ items i really appreciate all of the

2:08:29 ↗ feedback and for your

2:08:30 ↗ thoughtful remarks this evening

2:08:32 ↗ definitely um

2:08:34 ↗ i definitely think there will be some

2:08:36 ↗ some good

2:08:37 ↗ um good items that come out of this

2:08:40 ↗ thank you

2:08:41 ↗ um so there is no

2:08:44 ↗ um there is no uh bit of the order on

2:08:48 ↗ tonight's agenda

2:08:49 ↗ so that means the last item is

2:08:51 ↗ adjournment

2:08:52 ↗ and um i will at this time

2:08:57 ↗ call for the adjournment of the meeting

2:08:58 ↗ but council members should stay on

2:09:00 ↗ because we will have an executive

2:09:02 ↗ session

2:09:05 ↗ council president can we take a five

2:09:06 ↗ minute break before we re re-uh convene

2:09:09 ↗ for the

2:09:09 ↗ executive session

2:09:14 ↗ or not can we take longer than can we

2:09:16 ↗ take longer than a five minute break

2:09:18 ↗ please at least ten

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 (7)

Barbara de Michele

Stacy Goodman

Zach Hall

Victoria Hunt

Tola Marts

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh