Equity Board · Wednesday, October 22, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of September 3, 2025 meeting

5 min · packet pp.5–7

▶ Watch from 3:32 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 09-03-25 Equity Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Equity Board 6:00 PM Steelhead Room, 235 1st Ave. September 3, 2025 MINUTES SE, Issaquah

4. CHAIR REPORT

Opening Question

5 min · Lesley Millender-Irwin, Equity Board Chair

5. STAFF REPORT

Updates since the September 3, 2025 meeting

5 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst

6. AGENDA ITEMS

Equity Assessment RFP Review

Discussion · 30 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst · packet pp.9–18

Topics: Equity

▶ Watch from 14:37 Open packet at p.9 ↗

Staff report:

Issaquah Equity Visioning and Assessment Submit Proposals to: Advertisement Date: Attention:

Update on Equity Framework

Discussion · 15 min · Lesley Millender-Irwin, Karthik Kashinath, Quan Palmer, Chris Ziade - Equity Framework Subcommittee

Topics: Equity

▶ Watch from 44:37

7. OTHER BUSINESS / ANNOUNCEMENTS

Deferred Review of Equity Criteria for City Transportation Projects

5 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst · packet pp.19

Topics: TransportationEquity

▶ Watch from 11:16 Open packet at p.19 ↗

Staff report:

To: Equity Board From: The Administration Date: October 22, 2025 RE: Deferred Review of Equity Criteria for City Transportation Projects

2026 Issaquah Climate Action Plan Update and Equity Board Engagement

5 min · Gillian Straub, Management Analyst · packet pp.21–23

Topics: ClimateEquity

▶ Watch from 12:57 Open packet at p.21 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E. Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 Issaquahwa.gov

1839 segments .txt ↗

0:02 ↗ meeting of the equity board at 6:03 p.m.

0:06 ↗ And um we have a quorum this evening,

0:08 ↗ Julian.

0:09 ↗ >> Yes, we do.

0:10 ↗ >> Fantastic. Uh would you like to call the

0:13 ↗ role?

0:13 ↗ >> Yeah, I would love to.

0:15 ↗ >> Thank you.

0:15 ↗ >> All right. If you're present, please say

0:18 ↗ so. Um Leslie Millinder,

0:21 ↗ >> present.

0:22 ↗ >> Harsh.

0:23 ↗ >> Heather Youngs,

0:25 ↗ >> present.

0:28 ↗ Vicky Moody Pan here. Varnica.

0:32 ↗ Laura Gilmore. She has an excused

0:34 ↗ absence tonight. Um Chris Sadi

0:40 ↗ >> present.

0:41 ↗ >> Okay. Oscar Montana

0:43 ↗ >> present.

0:43 ↗ >> Juan Palmer,

0:45 ↗ Kelly Mun,

0:46 ↗ >> present.

0:47 ↗ >> Nisha Nair,

0:49 ↗ and Kunal. All right.

0:52 ↗ >> Great. Fantastic. And this is the part

0:55 ↗ of our meeting this evening where um we

0:57 ↗ are open for public comments. So do we

1:00 ↗ have any members of the public that

1:01 ↗ would like to speak at this evening's

1:03 ↗ meeting?

1:04 ↗ >> Yes. I am Victor and I am a member of

1:08 ↗ the community

1:10 ↗ for many years. is a sculpture artist

1:12 ↗ and

1:14 ↗ just someone who cares about um

1:18 ↗ transportation and the safety of the

1:20 ↗ kids getting back and forth with their

1:22 ↗ new hot rod electrical vehicles that are

1:26 ↗ speeding and having fun. [laughter]

1:30 ↗ So yeah, I'm just here to see if I can

1:33 ↗ help anyone here.

1:34 ↗ >> Perfect.

1:35 ↗ >> Wonderful. Thank you so much for joining

1:37 ↗ us, Victor. Thank you for that.

1:39 ↗ >> Victor, could I have your last name just

1:41 ↗ for the record?

1:42 ↗ >> White.

1:42 ↗ >> White. Okay.

1:43 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:44 ↗ >> Everybody calls me the moss man.

1:48 ↗ >> Let me stick around long.

1:50 ↗ [laughter]

1:55 ↗ >> Fantastic. All right. Our next um agenda

1:57 ↗ item would be the approval of the

1:58 ↗ minutes from the September 3rd, 2025

2:01 ↗ equity board meeting. So, they're inside

2:03 ↗ of your u meeting packets. If everyone

2:06 ↗ would like to take a moment to review

2:08 ↗ the minutes and let me know if you have

2:10 ↗ any comments, changes, additions

2:56 ↗ >> [clears throat]

3:04 ↗ >> Okay. Were there any comments or

3:06 ↗ corrections to the minutes of September

3:08 ↗ 3rd?

3:11 ↗ Okay. Looks like there are not. So, may

3:14 ↗ I ask for a motion uh to approve the

3:16 ↗ minutes of September 3rd, 2025 of the

3:18 ↗ equity board?

3:20 ↗ >> I can make a motion to approve.

3:22 ↗ >> Fantastic.

3:24 ↗ >> Second.

3:24 ↗ >> All right. Any discussion?

3:29 ↗ Okay. Guess we can um call for the vote

3:32 ↗ to approve the minutes.

3:35 ↗ >> I think if there's no discussion, I

3:36 ↗ think they're just approved by

3:37 ↗ >> Oh, just approved. Okay. I'm doing my

3:40 ↗ meetings at my meeting. Go ahead. You're

3:41 ↗ good. Okay.

3:46 ↗ >> All right. Fantastic. So, uh, the chair

3:49 ↗ report. So, uh, opening question. I

3:51 ↗ thought we could have a fun question

3:53 ↗ tonight, which is, if you could have any

3:55 ↗ supernatural power just for Halloween

3:58 ↗ night, what would it be?

4:01 ↗ So, if you could have any supernatural

4:03 ↗ power just for Halloween night, which I

4:06 ↗ do believe is next week, what would it

4:09 ↗ be? So, who' like to start?

4:16 ↗ And I think we should start with the

4:17 ↗ folks on Zoom.

4:20 ↗ >> Yeah, I'll go ahead. Um, probably

4:23 ↗ flying. I like flying and travel, so I

4:25 ↗ think it'd be perfect to kind of like

4:27 ↗ take that opportunity and just like jet

4:30 ↗ all around to different places, you

4:33 ↗ know, with the flight ability. And yeah,

4:37 ↗ >> that sounds fun.

4:39 ↗ [clears throat]

4:40 ↗ Awesome.

4:45 ↗ Let's see.

4:45 ↗ >> I'll go next.

4:49 ↗ >> Just piggy backing off of that. Yeah,

4:52 ↗ teleportation would be great. Um, skip

4:55 ↗ the lines, travel. Um, can go anywhere I

4:58 ↗ want.

5:05 ↗ >> What about Dale?

5:08 ↗ Oh my gosh, what a good qu. I I have to

5:10 ↗ agree with Chris. Immediately flying

5:13 ↗ came to mind. Um being able to zip

5:16 ↗ around, get to get to the next the next

5:19 ↗ house or the next neighborhood uh

5:22 ↗ quickly would be uh key.

5:25 ↗ [laughter]

5:33 ↗ Let's see. And we have Misha

5:38 ↗ So Nisha,

5:39 ↗ >> hi everyone. I'm sorry to be late.

5:43 ↗ >> No worries. So the question, the opening

5:46 ↗ question for tonight is, if you could

5:47 ↗ have any supernatural power just for

5:50 ↗ Halloween night, what would it be?

5:55 ↗ >> Oh, that's good.

6:00 ↗ I think also I think I think the travel

6:04 ↗ I think the ability to go from every

6:06 ↗ single house to get candy

6:09 ↗ in the world would be incredible.

6:12 ↗ >> Oh, that's sweet. In the world.

6:15 ↗ >> In the world. Go big or go home.

6:17 ↗ [laughter]

6:21 ↗ [clears throat]

6:22 ↗ >> Think we got all of our our zoomers. Um,

6:25 ↗ who wants to go next?

6:26 ↗ >> Uh oh. time travel. I would love to see

6:29 ↗ my family in the past and in the future.

6:31 ↗ >> You took my answer.

6:34 ↗ [snorts]

6:35 ↗ >> Very cool.

6:35 ↗ >> I'll go next. Um, I'm going to have to

6:39 ↗ say teleportation. That was the one that

6:41 ↗ I thought about today. That would be so

6:42 ↗ neat to go anywhere in minutes and then

6:45 ↗ come back and then go again. So, yes.

6:50 ↗ >> Very cool. I can go next.

6:52 ↗ >> Um, to be able to create whatever treat

6:55 ↗ anyone wants instantly.

6:57 ↗ Oh

6:58 ↗ >> yeah.

7:01 ↗ >> Um I would say something along the lines

7:04 ↗ like like the Flash being able to run

7:07 ↗ everywhere to see us get as much candy

7:09 ↗ and see [laughter] as many haunted

7:11 ↗ houses as I possibly could.

7:14 ↗ >> So Corfix was very kind. I would be

7:17 ↗ going the opposite direction. I was

7:18 ↗ thinking being invisible so I could

7:20 ↗ totally sneak up and scare people for

7:22 ↗ real. [laughter]

7:24 ↗ Real Halloween.

7:28 ↗ Victor, do you want to share?

7:29 ↗ >> Oh, I thought this was just for y'all.

7:32 ↗ >> Oh, you're here with us. So, if you

7:34 ↗ could have any supernatural power for

7:36 ↗ just for Halloween, what would it be?

7:39 ↗ >> Hercules. Hercules.

7:42 ↗ >> I [clears throat] would like

7:44 ↗ Hercules power. That way I could lift up

7:48 ↗ anything for one night and I would be

7:51 ↗ moving

7:53 ↗ a lot of things that are kind of

7:55 ↗ blocking the salmon from doing their

7:57 ↗ thing, blocking the people and doing

8:00 ↗ their thing just for one night just to

8:03 ↗ help out the nature and and people.

8:07 ↗ >> All right.

8:08 ↗ >> Very nice, Michael.

8:10 ↗ >> Well, thank you guys. I love all these

8:12 ↗ great responses.

8:14 ↗ Fantastic.

8:21 ↗ >> Jeff, I don't know who

8:22 ↗ >> I know who Jeff is. I

8:23 ↗ >> was gonna say

8:24 ↗ >> he might be uh a relative. [laughter]

8:28 ↗ Yeah. And he might be there with my uh

8:30 ↗ father. So, um, so, um, uh, Jeff Irwin,

8:35 ↗ the question, our opening question for

8:37 ↗ this evening is, if you could have any

8:40 ↗ supernatural power just for Halloween

8:41 ↗ night, what would it be?

8:45 ↗ >> Question.

8:46 ↗ >> Yeah, she's asking she's asking me that

8:48 ↗ question. It would be to breathe

8:49 ↗ underwater.

8:51 ↗ >> Cool.

8:52 ↗ >> I've scuba dived and it's like a whole

8:54 ↗ different world down there.

8:57 ↗ >> Okay. Very cool. And yet and yes, your

9:00 ↗ father is here. [laughter]

9:03 ↗ >> Hello, Les Father.

9:07 ↗ >> Hello.

9:07 ↗ >> We have a special guest, Les Millinder,

9:09 ↗ visiting from California.

9:14 ↗ >> Thank you guys. It's great answers.

9:18 ↗ >> All right, it looks like our next item

9:20 ↗ on the agenda is our staff report from

9:21 ↗ Jillian.

9:22 ↗ >> Thank you. All right, so I have a couple

9:24 ↗ of updates for you all. So, um I think

9:28 ↗ you'll recall that at our last meeting

9:30 ↗ there was a lot of prep for culture

9:31 ↗ fest. Um and then that happened that

9:34 ↗ week. Um council president, deputy

9:37 ↗ deputy council president D. Michelle had

9:39 ↗ interest in using that equity versus

9:41 ↗ equality um sign board at the farmers

9:43 ↗ market. It didn't end up happening

9:44 ↗ because of like space at the at the

9:47 ↗ booth. Um but I think there might be

9:48 ↗ interest in using it at future events.

9:50 ↗ So it's stored at city hall and I'll

9:52 ↗ make sure that Dale knows where that is

9:54 ↗ at. um for you all or if council wants

9:57 ↗ to use that um because I think that went

10:00 ↗ really well.

10:01 ↗ >> Thanks.

10:01 ↗ >> All right. Um so this meeting was

10:04 ↗ originally scheduled to be a joint

10:05 ↗ meeting with the transportation advisory

10:07 ↗ board. There are two purposes to this

10:08 ↗ meeting. The first was going to be to

10:11 ↗ discuss refining the equity

10:12 ↗ considerations in the city's

10:14 ↗ transportation projects and to discuss

10:17 ↗ the Isco climate action plan update with

10:19 ↗ the transportation advisory board. So

10:21 ↗ the transportation portion of this um is

10:24 ↗ going to be deferred until next year. Um

10:27 ↗ we we adopt an annual transportation

10:29 ↗ improvement plan or TIP. Um but it's

10:32 ↗ actually adopted uh every two years as

10:34 ↗ part of the larger capital improvements

10:36 ↗ plan which includes capital projects for

10:38 ↗ our parks facilities

10:40 ↗ um you know sewer, storm water, our

10:43 ↗ different utility projects. So, we

10:45 ↗ thought that if we were going to uh

10:46 ↗ potentially look at the equity

10:48 ↗ considerations, we should do it with all

10:50 ↗ city projects in mind and not just this

10:52 ↗ narrow set of um of transportation

10:55 ↗ projects. So, the next CIP will be the

10:57 ↗ 20 will kick off the CIP process in

11:01 ↗ 2027. So, next year we'll likely review

11:05 ↗ um some of the transportation some of

11:08 ↗ the equity criteria for the capital

11:10 ↗ improvement plan. So, that's been

11:11 ↗ deferred. it hasn't been um taken off

11:14 ↗ the list. There's a memo in the I think

11:16 ↗ maybe other business portion of your

11:18 ↗ agenda that explains that u from the

11:20 ↗ administration and I'm happy to answer

11:22 ↗ any questions about that. Um the IAAP

11:24 ↗ update was deferred until November 19th.

11:27 ↗ Um at that meeting uh the sustainability

11:30 ↗ program manager will come and provide an

11:32 ↗ update on where they're at with their

11:34 ↗ IAP update efforts. Um and they'll be

11:36 ↗ asking for one or two of you to join

11:38 ↗ their metrics committee to review um

11:41 ↗ selected metrics from the IAP plan for

11:43 ↗ equity in mind. Um this was removed from

11:46 ↗ the agenda just because it made more

11:47 ↗ sense to talk to equity board about

11:49 ↗ equity related items and talk to TAB

11:51 ↗ about the transportation portion of the

11:53 ↗ IAP. So that's why it's no longer a

11:56 ↗ joint meeting and just a regular meeting

11:58 ↗ um of the equity board. Are there any

12:00 ↗ questions? Yeah.

12:01 ↗ >> What is IP?

12:02 ↗ >> Oh the is climate action plan. Okay.

12:05 ↗ Sorry, [laughter and gasps]

12:07 ↗ >> I have a related comment.

12:09 ↗ >> Okay.

12:09 ↗ >> The um King County strategic climate

12:12 ↗ action plan was just approved by county

12:15 ↗ council

12:16 ↗ >> maybe yesterday and so I don't know if

12:18 ↗ there's an opportunity for the high cap

12:21 ↗ for them to explore aligning with that

12:24 ↗ regional impact.

12:25 ↗ >> Yeah, our sustainability division is

12:27 ↗ awesome and I'm sure they're already

12:29 ↗ aware, but I'll ping them and let them

12:30 ↗ know.

12:36 ↗ All right. And then you all see Dale

12:38 ↗ Murphy Crimp on the line. She uh she is

12:41 ↗ back in action. So she'll be your

12:43 ↗ liaison starting November 19th. Um and I

12:47 ↗ won't be your liaison anymore. Um I do

12:49 ↗ just want to say thank you. Um I'm been

12:51 ↗ a liazison for for an Isiqua border

12:54 ↗ commission and you all were really

12:55 ↗ patient um with me and I just I really

12:58 ↗ appreciate the opportunity to work with

12:59 ↗ you all and to work on equity items. I'm

13:01 ↗ sure I'll be back in front of you with

13:02 ↗ the equity assessment and any number of

13:04 ↗ other things, but you'll see Dale in

13:06 ↗ this chair starting in November.

13:08 ↗ >> We want to thank you for all of your

13:11 ↗ tireless work, your patience with uh a

13:14 ↗ lot of us newbies here and the guidance

13:17 ↗ and uh just the the the positive energy

13:21 ↗ that you've brought to the role. Um I

13:23 ↗ appreciate you and I want to thank you

13:24 ↗ very much for everything you've done.

13:26 ↗ So, thank you.

13:27 ↗ >> Thank you. Thanks a lot. You're here.

13:30 ↗ >> [laughter]

13:30 ↗ >> ask that question.

13:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

13:32 ↗ >> Um the the role as a liaison, but I'm

13:36 ↗ new to these types of meetings. What? I

13:40 ↗ don't know.

13:40 ↗ >> Yeah. So, our city advisory boards and

13:43 ↗ commissions advise the mayor and her

13:45 ↗ administration on different policies and

13:48 ↗ things like that and the liaison role

13:49 ↗ facilitates that advising. So brings

13:51 ↗ topics to to the board to consider,

13:54 ↗ responds to to board interest in

13:56 ↗ different topics, and does some like

13:58 ↗ administrative things like this is a

13:59 ↗ public meeting, so take a few minutes

14:00 ↗ and that kind of a thing.

14:02 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, speaking of the fact that Dale

14:05 ↗ will be back for the November 19th

14:07 ↗ meeting, you all have a request from her

14:09 ↗ to see which date works better for your

14:11 ↗ December meeting, either December 10th

14:13 ↗ or 17th. So if you haven't emailed her

14:15 ↗ already about what date works better for

14:17 ↗ you, um, you all won't be meeting on

14:19 ↗ December 3rd. So, just let her know

14:21 ↗ which date works best.

14:24 ↗ All right. And that is all I've got.

14:36 ↗ So, we're going to go to I guess our

14:37 ↗ next agenda item, and that's the um

14:39 ↗ equity assessment RP review.

14:42 ↗ >> Yes. And and this is me as well. All

14:44 ↗ right. [snorts]

14:46 ↗ Let me go ahead and share my screen.

14:49 ↗ Uh the RFP is in your pocket for those

14:52 ↗ of you who are in the room or the link

14:54 ↗ is there um for those of you joining.

14:59 ↗ Um and I'm here to to talk to you a

15:01 ↗ little bit about it and to get a little

15:02 ↗ bit of feedback from all of you on the

15:04 ↗ draft RFP. And then we'd also like for

15:06 ↗ one or two of you to serve on the

15:08 ↗ selection committee for consultants. So

15:10 ↗ I'd also like to understand um your

15:12 ↗ interest in doing that as we gear up for

15:14 ↗ that.

15:16 ↗ So, we'll have four questions to discuss

15:18 ↗ tonight. Um, it's just broken out this

15:19 ↗ way so that we can have a targeted

15:21 ↗ discussion on all of these. So, the

15:23 ↗ first question is, is the proposed

15:25 ↗ community engagement sufficient

15:27 ↗ considering both budget and need? And

15:28 ↗ we'll talk a little bit more about what

15:30 ↗ that means? If not, what is missing? Are

15:33 ↗ the proposed touch points with the

15:34 ↗ equity board the right ones? Are there

15:37 ↗ other places where this board thinks it

15:39 ↗ should be involved?

15:41 ↗ Okay. Um, and then

15:45 ↗ are the proposed deliverables the right

15:47 ↗ ones? If not, what's missing from our

15:49 ↗ deliverables list? And then are there

15:51 ↗ one or two of you who'd like to assist

15:53 ↗ with consultant selection? So, just for

15:56 ↗ a little bit of background, the last

15:57 ↗ touch point with you all on this um just

16:00 ↗ on the equity assessment as a whole was

16:02 ↗ actually in September 2024.

16:04 ↗ Um, I think you all remember that I was

16:06 ↗ in front of you a fair few times in the

16:08 ↗ last year with the Evans team. that

16:11 ↗ group was really focused on city boards

16:12 ↗ and commissions and taking a bite out of

16:14 ↗ some of the um some of the assessment

16:17 ↗ work there. Um this is the larger all

16:20 ↗ city programs evaluation that we're

16:22 ↗ talking about now. So when we last

16:24 ↗ talked about this RFP as a whole, some

16:27 ↗ of the some of the feedback that I had

16:28 ↗ gotten from you all was the importance

16:30 ↗ of data. Um where to point staff to it,

16:33 ↗ how to use it in evaluating our programs

16:35 ↗ for equity. Um, also I remember uh a lot

16:40 ↗ of importance on getting community

16:41 ↗ agreement on what the goals are are,

16:44 ↗ what equity means in Isiqua, noting that

16:46 ↗ sometimes there's confusion in these

16:48 ↗ conversations among staff, among other

16:50 ↗ boards and commissions, among community

16:52 ↗ members, among electeds. So really

16:53 ↗ getting everyone on the same page with

16:56 ↗ what equity is going to mean here for us

16:57 ↗ and what our goals are. Uh, and then you

17:00 ↗ all had a fair bit of interest in equity

17:02 ↗ board involvement. Also, you can shut

17:05 ↗ the door if you want to.

17:08 ↗ [laughter]

17:09 ↗ [clears throat]

17:11 ↗ >> Um, so you all had interest in

17:13 ↗ participating perhaps in some of the

17:14 ↗ community engagement. We really want to

17:16 ↗ lean into you all um some of the experts

17:18 ↗ in the community and people who care a

17:20 ↗ lot about this. So, this is one of the

17:21 ↗ places where I'm going to ask for your

17:22 ↗ feedback on the draft RFP. So, this was

17:25 ↗ drafted by the equity team over the

17:27 ↗ course of the summer. Um, that's that

17:28 ↗ internal staff team that works on equity

17:31 ↗ items. Um, and it was it probably went

17:34 ↗ to them four or five times just because

17:36 ↗ this is a little bit tricky to um,

17:38 ↗ navigate given the budget that we have

17:40 ↗ for this. So, we spent a lot of time

17:41 ↗ talking about what actually made it into

17:43 ↗ this RFP and how to get there with the

17:45 ↗ funds that we have. Um, it then went to

17:47 ↗ our staff leadership team and the mayor

17:50 ↗ for review and they've signed off on

17:52 ↗ what you see in front of you today. So,

17:54 ↗ you all are the last stop before um,

17:56 ↗ before publication.

18:01 ↗ Okay, so overall we have $50,000. Um,

18:05 ↗ and what we want to do with that

18:07 ↗ $50,000, actually let me back up for a

18:09 ↗ second. We've talked about this project

18:10 ↗ in three phases. Goal setting, equity

18:13 ↗ program evaluation or assessment, and

18:16 ↗ then an equity action plan. We want to

18:18 ↗ get through all of phase one with this

18:20 ↗ $50,000 and take a bite out of phase

18:23 ↗ two. So really look at creating an

18:25 ↗ assessment tool that we can use to

18:27 ↗ evaluate our programs and have the

18:30 ↗ consultant do a pilot review of one or

18:32 ↗ two programs um so that we can uh we can

18:37 ↗ see how it works. We can build a little

18:38 ↗ bit of staff capacity to continue work

18:41 ↗ in phase two. Phase two won't likely be

18:43 ↗ complete at the end of this um at the

18:46 ↗ end of this um but we know that we want

18:49 ↗ to make progress and we know that we

18:50 ↗ want to do more than just visioning um

18:52 ↗ and goal setting. So that was really

18:54 ↗ important to staff.

18:56 ↗ So let me walk through the deliverables

18:58 ↗ a little bit. So phase one goal setting

19:01 ↗ is really focused on getting community

19:05 ↗ input on what equity means in ESQA. So

19:08 ↗ the deliverables I'll read them briefly

19:10 ↗ here because I want your feedback on uh

19:13 ↗ on the public touch points and on the

19:14 ↗ touch points with all of you. So we're

19:17 ↗ asking for one meeting with staff on a

19:20 ↗ staff developed community engagement

19:22 ↗ plan. This is something that I would

19:23 ↗ envision bringing to the equity board to

19:25 ↗ get you all get your sign off, get your

19:27 ↗ input on. Um, but we just know with our

19:30 ↗ budget that we probably can't have the

19:31 ↗ consultant design that plan. Rather,

19:34 ↗ we'd like to have them give give

19:35 ↗ feedback on it, make sure it works for

19:37 ↗ the their goals, um, and the work that

19:39 ↗ they are going to need to do. Um, but

19:41 ↗ really have staff take on the brunt of

19:42 ↗ that work. Um, we also would like one or

19:46 ↗ two facilitated meetings with community

19:48 ↗ leadership. We think this is where we

19:49 ↗ can get kind of the most bang for the

19:51 ↗ buck for the consultant knowing that

19:53 ↗ they can be the experts to facilitate

19:54 ↗ conversations with our council with all

19:57 ↗ of you with other community leaders on

20:00 ↗ what equity is and get us to those e

20:02 ↗ like getting get us to those really

20:04 ↗ broad equity goals. Um we don't think

20:06 ↗ that maybe staff is best equipped to to

20:09 ↗ do that.

20:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Uh so when you say equity goals

20:14 ↗ and community engagement, is it to um

20:19 ↗ to rise up and find out what people want

20:22 ↗ us to do with equity or is it to find

20:25 ↗ out where everybody is on equity?

20:28 ↗ >> It's to find out what they want us to do

20:30 ↗ with equity. Where should we be going

20:32 ↗ with equity essentially? Um, and I think

20:36 ↗ a part of this conversation and backing

20:38 ↗ up from the deliverables for just a

20:40 ↗ second, really the goal of phase one is

20:42 ↗ to understand what level of trade-off is

20:45 ↗ the community okay with in order to

20:47 ↗ reach our equity goals because some of

20:48 ↗ them will require tradeoff, right? Um,

20:51 ↗ so really having those conversations to

20:53 ↗ set a baseline knowledge. Um, and then

20:56 ↗ creating some some pretty broad goals.

20:58 ↗ Um phase two is more of that where is

21:01 ↗ everyone at compared to where we want to

21:03 ↗ be.

21:03 ↗ >> Okay.

21:05 ↗ >> Okay.

21:06 ↗ Um so following those a couple of

21:08 ↗ meetings with community leadership to

21:10 ↗ understand where we want to be

21:12 ↗ understanding our tolerance for some of

21:13 ↗ those tradeoffs. There's going to be a

21:15 ↗ summary report on those meetings. We are

21:18 ↗ going to ask the consultant to co-create

21:19 ↗ presentation m uh materials and then

21:22 ↗ we're going to ask um that they come

21:24 ↗ back to do a follow-up with the goal

21:26 ↗ setting findings because the consultant

21:28 ↗ won't be engaged in every part of the

21:30 ↗ public engagement. Some of that will be

21:32 ↗ undertaken by staff. We need to make

21:34 ↗ sure that we bring it all together um

21:36 ↗ for council for other elected leaders at

21:38 ↗ the end. So that's what that um fifth

21:39 ↗ bullet is really referring to. and then

21:42 ↗ we'd ask for their help in drafting the

21:44 ↗ communitydriven

21:46 ↗ uh goals and vision for equity work. I'm

21:49 ↗ going to pause here and see if there are

21:51 ↗ any questions about the phase one

21:52 ↗ deliverables just to clarify.

21:56 ↗ >> I have a question. Mhm.

21:58 ↗ >> So

21:59 ↗ you're saying the consultant would be

22:02 ↗ leading one or two meetings with

22:05 ↗ community leadership and then not seeing

22:08 ↗ what the bigger community engagement

22:11 ↗ plan is because it's I'm not it's not

22:13 ↗ been developed yet. And um

22:17 ↗ I think

22:19 ↗ in in previous like meetings and

22:21 ↗ conversations we've we've there's kind

22:24 ↗ of a sense that people are all over the

22:26 ↗ place in terms of their understanding of

22:28 ↗ equity.

22:31 ↗ So to get to like community consensus or

22:35 ↗ some sort of level of agreement around

22:37 ↗ goals could be really hard and

22:39 ↗ challenging. you know, if we have a, you

22:41 ↗ know, come y'all types, you know, those

22:43 ↗ types of community meetings. Yeah.

22:45 ↗ >> So,

22:47 ↗ >> um I'm I'm trying to think it might be

22:49 ↗ uh important to sequence the meetings.

22:53 ↗ So, I don't know whether the ones with

22:55 ↗ the consultant with like community

22:56 ↗ leaders should come first to start

22:59 ↗ >> framing out the shape of it, seeing how

23:02 ↗ they frame up equity before uh it goes

23:05 ↗ out to the broader community. Yeah, it's

23:07 ↗ just something because I think that

23:10 ↗ could take a while and um one of the my

23:13 ↗ takeaways from the um the fair or the

23:17 ↗ the culture best was that the youth

23:21 ↗ really have a great handle on what that

23:23 ↗ mean is and I'm not quite sure if our um

23:26 ↗ >> older you know adult population do. So

23:29 ↗ just

23:31 ↗ >> I mean I don't know if that belongs to

23:33 ↗ the RFP but just something to think

23:34 ↗ about with the community.

23:36 ↗ Yeah, I think we've been really focused

23:38 ↗ on getting to this RFP. We haven't

23:41 ↗ really turned our attention to the

23:43 ↗ engagement plan. Um, but that's

23:45 ↗ something that we know we'd like to

23:46 ↗ bring back.

23:50 ↗ >> One of the questions that I had was the

23:52 ↗ second bullet, which is um the one to

23:54 ↗ two meetings with community leadership.

23:56 ↗ Have we identified, I guess, our our our

23:59 ↗ leaders within the community that would

24:01 ↗ be invited into this process?

24:04 ↗ >> We haven't. We know it at minimum will

24:05 ↗ include city council. Um could you

24:08 ↗ nothing. Thank you. Um

24:11 ↗ [clears throat] but we haven't decided

24:12 ↗ how big to cast that net in part because

24:16 ↗ we need to

24:18 ↗ we need to make sure it is targeted

24:20 ↗ because there can be too big a groups

24:23 ↗ >> um to like you said to have productive

24:27 ↗ conversation. Um so at minimum council

24:31 ↗ um we know that there are organizations

24:33 ↗ that we also need to to bring into the

24:35 ↗ fold. Um

24:36 ↗ >> but that's probably an effect ultimately

24:38 ↗ how

24:39 ↗ >> phase one kind of is born out before we

24:42 ↗ move to phase two in that the feedback

24:44 ↗ from those individuals. I think it's

24:46 ↗ very important that we're very

24:49 ↗ thoughtful or council is very thoughtful

24:51 ↗ about um who these community leaders

24:54 ↗ are.

24:55 ↗ >> Okay.

24:59 ↗ Sorry, if I could add on to Leslie's

25:01 ↗ comment, um

25:05 ↗ I think the recruitment, the outreach

25:07 ↗ for these events is really undergoing

25:09 ↗ and we would want the voices who aren't

25:13 ↗ normally showing up in those rooms.

25:15 ↗ >> And so, yeah.

25:24 ↗ Anyone online have any questions about

25:26 ↗ the phase one deliverables?

25:32 ↗ >> Okay, awesome. Oh, yeah.

25:36 ↗ >> How much of the work that's done by the

25:37 ↗ board or other

25:39 ↗ related work that's done in the city

25:41 ↗ that could be leveraged for some of this

25:43 ↗ or it feels like some of this is

25:45 ↗ starting from scratch. Mhm.

25:47 ↗ >> Is there work that's already been done

25:49 ↗ by the board or um that could already be

25:53 ↗ used in in this process?

25:56 ↗ >> I'm not as certain about work that's

25:58 ↗ already been done by the board. I think

25:59 ↗ I might turn that back question back to

26:01 ↗ you all um once we kind of get there. Um

26:05 ↗ I think this is something that we've

26:06 ↗ been thinking about particularly that

26:08 ↗ recruitment and outreach question. I

26:09 ↗ know that's on our communications team

26:11 ↗ mind at all times and that's always the

26:14 ↗ ask right to make sure that folks who

26:16 ↗ haven't been at the table can be um so I

26:20 ↗ think it's there's I can't point to

26:22 ↗ anything definitively in terms of what

26:24 ↗ what we can build on yet but

26:40 ↗ Get back to my shared screen.

26:44 ↗ >> Would the council be observers or would

26:47 ↗ they be participants?

26:49 ↗ >> They would be decision makers

26:51 ↗ ultimately.

26:52 ↗ >> Okay.

26:53 ↗ >> Yeah.

26:59 ↗ Okay.

27:01 ↗ Um I guess decision makers, just to pick

27:04 ↗ up on Kelly's question. So,

27:09 ↗ it brings up a concern in my mind. Is

27:11 ↗ this a foregone conclusion in terms of

27:13 ↗ where they want this process to go if

27:16 ↗ they're and I understand that, you know,

27:18 ↗ they're quoteunquote writing the check.

27:19 ↗ So, therefore, but

27:22 ↗ um phase one seems like it should be an

27:25 ↗ open-ended process that's going in out

27:27 ↗ loud. participation,

27:28 ↗ um, hearing different voices, that level

27:31 ↗ of engagement that gets us to whatever

27:33 ↗ the natural end result's going to be.

27:37 ↗ >> And so if they're a decision maker, what

27:40 ↗ does that look like?

27:43 ↗ >> I think without getting into the weeds

27:45 ↗ of a hasn't been created, when I think

27:47 ↗ about public participation, I really do

27:49 ↗ think about the I don't know if you all

27:50 ↗ are familiar with the AP2 scale. Um and

27:53 ↗ it kind of walks through different kinds

27:55 ↗ of public engagement, different tools

27:57 ↗ you can use and what level of engagement

28:00 ↗ beyond your electeds can you really um

28:03 ↗ zero in on. So in something like uh like

28:07 ↗ for example like an open house um that's

28:10 ↗ a little bit of back and forth but

28:12 ↗ mainly like the the people who are

28:14 ↗ making the decision are just answering

28:15 ↗ questions. Um they're mainly trying to

28:17 ↗ inform everyone who attends. I think

28:20 ↗ we'd like to structure this to be a

28:21 ↗ little bit more intensive on the on the

28:24 ↗ community engagement side of it to

28:26 ↗ elevate the the p people who are in the

28:29 ↗ room beside the elected officials. And

28:31 ↗ that takes some like some deafness,

28:33 ↗ right? To be able to say, "Council, I

28:35 ↗ know that you're decision makers. I know

28:37 ↗ that this is like this is going to be a

28:40 ↗ city project. Um, but we invited these

28:44 ↗ people in to provide input. We can't

28:46 ↗ just disregard it. They have to be

28:48 ↗ involved. that thing. So,

28:52 ↗ >> there's there's ways that you can

28:54 ↗ definitely do that and structure it and

28:56 ↗ message it. So,

28:57 ↗ >> okay.

28:58 ↗ >> And I think that's what it drives the

28:59 ↗ the importance of the community leaders

29:02 ↗ that are being um reached out to. And I

29:04 ↗ think Kelly and um Briti both are really

29:08 ↗ kind of touching on that because that's

29:09 ↗ what my concern is is that

29:12 ↗ >> different voices are heard and that

29:13 ↗ their feedback is, you know, as as

29:16 ↗ wholesome as it's going to be, it's

29:17 ↗ going to kind of be utilized by

29:19 ↗ ultimately by our decision makers. It

29:22 ↗ sounds like a touch point for me is

29:24 ↗ going to be to come back to you all with

29:26 ↗ who should some of those community

29:27 ↗ leaders be uh and how to best invite

29:31 ↗ them in if they haven't participated in

29:32 ↗ something like this before.

29:37 ↗ >> I still have a question. as um council

29:41 ↗ members, they are the decision makers

29:44 ↗ and in a room of people who are going to

29:47 ↗ be giving community engagement.

29:50 ↗ If they're part of that discussion,

29:55 ↗ then it biases the room immediately

29:58 ↗ because the more distance you are from

30:03 ↗ uh usually talking to power, thank you,

30:06 ↗ the less likely you are to say things.

30:08 ↗ So it really I'm just going to say that

30:10 ↗ straight out. They should be listening.

30:12 ↗ That's it. They because they're going to

30:14 ↗ decide anyway.

30:16 ↗ >> So they get to listen. They get to ask

30:18 ↗ questions. They get to clarify

30:20 ↗ >> is the way I see it.

30:21 ↗ >> Yeah. I think we want

30:24 ↗ >> Yeah. I think we want to try and leave

30:26 ↗ space in the RFP to both hear from

30:29 ↗ community leadership beyond elected

30:31 ↗ officials, but also make sure that

30:33 ↗ council is bought in enough, right? and

30:35 ↗ that they have their own deliberation

30:37 ↗ time, whatever that looks like, whether

30:38 ↗ it's coming or not, right? Um to make

30:41 ↗ sure that they are bought into the final

30:43 ↗ product, right? Um to these to these

30:46 ↗ equity goals.

30:47 ↗ >> So, we need to we need to leave space in

30:49 ↗ the RFP for both of them. Does that make

30:51 ↗ sense?

30:54 ↗ >> Yes.

30:58 ↗ They they're asking us to do this. This

31:01 ↗ is the engagement process. we're we're

31:04 ↗ all going to work together on. So, it's

31:06 ↗ not about them buying in. It's about

31:08 ↗ them being in the process. And the

31:11 ↗ process is they're asking for advice.

31:14 ↗ >> Because if the process is they get to

31:17 ↗ tell people, that's not community

31:19 ↗ engagement. That's telling people.

31:22 ↗ >> Yeah.

31:22 ↗ >> Right. That's I'm like,

31:24 ↗ >> I used to work in community engagement.

31:26 ↗ That's why this is sensitive.

31:27 ↗ [clears throat]

31:28 ↗ >> Okay. I think within this process, the

31:30 ↗ space that we're really holding is for

31:32 ↗ the community leaders that are coming in

31:35 ↗ and having these conversations.

31:38 ↗ Um, I think that I mean they ultimately

31:40 ↗ have the opportunity council to make the

31:43 ↗ decisions. I agree 100% with Kelly that

31:46 ↗ their their role is important, but the

31:49 ↗ listening aspect and making space for

31:51 ↗ all of the community leaders to really

31:54 ↗ get that information to make sure that

31:56 ↗ this this process is really going to

31:58 ↗ work. It's not going to be replicating

32:00 ↗ what we may have already gotten, but

32:02 ↗ it's it's new. It's different. And it's

32:05 ↗ going to be hearing all of these these

32:07 ↗ people that have not been involved

32:08 ↗ before and perhaps some that have been,

32:10 ↗ but just in a different way. And I I

32:13 ↗ know I participated in a focus group a

32:15 ↗ couple of weeks ago and an executive of

32:18 ↗ my company was there and I am convinced

32:20 ↗ that she affected the ability of people

32:23 ↗ to talk honestly, openly and just I mean

32:27 ↗ without feeling like they had to tow

32:29 ↗ some type of line. So that kind of

32:31 ↗ popped in my head when Kelly made her

32:32 ↗ comment. And it's not to be negative or

32:35 ↗ think that there's not a support from

32:37 ↗ city council. Yes. But it's that their

32:39 ↗ very presence can in fact

32:41 ↗ >> um inform

32:43 ↗ how people communicate how willing

32:47 ↗ willing to be open that they are. So I

32:49 ↗ think it's a consideration.

32:52 ↗ Let's return to this when we get to the

32:54 ↗ question about deliverables. In part

32:56 ↗ because when staff have talked about

32:57 ↗ this, our concern and our focus was

33:00 ↗ ensuring that the the consultant, the

33:01 ↗ subject matter experts could really be

33:03 ↗ there to facilitate a discussion with

33:05 ↗ city council. That's where we felt like

33:07 ↗ we needed some of their like expertise

33:10 ↗ and ability to have a third party do

33:13 ↗ that. So, I want to make sure I want to

33:15 ↗ look at that list of deliverables and

33:16 ↗ say that if we're adding more to this

33:18 ↗ list, where can we take away to make

33:20 ↗ sure that we can have maybe a separate

33:23 ↗ like keep those two groups separate city

33:25 ↗ council and other community leaders.

33:28 ↗ Yeah. So just want before you move on by

33:30 ↗ I the two takeaways I'm hearing is one

33:34 ↗ there's a lot of energy and interest in

33:37 ↗ the equity board to definitely hear what

33:40 ↗ the to to provide feedback on the

33:42 ↗ community engagement plan that you all

33:45 ↗ come up with and I think the

33:48 ↗ conversation that we've all been having

33:51 ↗ is something that should be part of your

33:54 ↗ evaluation in terms of how the the

33:58 ↗ consultant would design

34:01 ↗ and uh their component of the

34:04 ↗ engagement. How do they talk about it

34:06 ↗ with uh understanding power dynamics,

34:09 ↗ who hasn't been in the room, all of

34:11 ↗ those things should should be things

34:13 ↗ that uh are recognized as part of the

34:16 ↗ the points, you know, process.

34:20 ↗ >> Okay.

34:28 ↗ I'm just taking some notes to add that.

34:30 ↗ I don't know that that is a different

34:32 ↗ deliverable. I think that's more like as

34:34 ↗ we explain

34:37 ↗ >> through the right consult.

34:39 ↗ >> Yeah.

34:41 ↗ >> Okay.

34:43 ↗ >> Okay. That makes a lot of sense. Okay.

34:55 ↗ Okay. Um then moving on to explaining

34:59 ↗ phase two.

35:01 ↗ So after we have these really like quite

35:05 ↗ broad community goals around equity.

35:08 ↗ These are not specific enough to

35:09 ↗ necessarily be you know targeted right

35:12 ↗ at you know the parks and wreck uh

35:14 ↗ classes or IPD stops or anything else.

35:17 ↗ These are these are pretty broad.

35:18 ↗ There'll probably be a few of them just

35:20 ↗ to encompass all the different kinds of

35:21 ↗ things that the city does. Um, but it'll

35:24 ↗ tell us where we're going. The next step

35:26 ↗ is to evaluate a couple of programs

35:29 ↗ against those goals. And that'll

35:31 ↗ probably mean creating a couple of

35:32 ↗ smaller sub goals that are more tailored

35:34 ↗ to those areas. Just to give you a sense

35:36 ↗ of where we're going. So, in order to

35:38 ↗ get there, we'd like the consultant to

35:41 ↗ create an equity program evaluation

35:43 ↗ tool. They can adapt one that's already

35:46 ↗ existing. um but but they have to create

35:49 ↗ one in some way. We'd like them them to

35:52 ↗ evaluate two community programs using

35:54 ↗ the tool, provide us with

35:55 ↗ recommendations on how to refine it. Um

35:59 ↗ and then recommendations on how to build

36:00 ↗ staff capacity to use the tool because

36:02 ↗ that's ultimately the goal is we don't

36:03 ↗ want to have to like contract with

36:06 ↗ someone every time we want to do one of

36:07 ↗ these evaluations. We want to be able to

36:09 ↗ to bring it in house, especially knowing

36:10 ↗ that we might not have budget to do to

36:13 ↗ do a ton with this in future years.

36:14 ↗ getting the most out of it while we can.

36:17 ↗ Um, and then we'd like to involve the

36:20 ↗ equity board to provide feedback on the

36:22 ↗ proposed tool. So, before it's even

36:24 ↗ used, but once it's drafted,

36:26 ↗ come to you all and say, "This is what

36:28 ↗ we're proposing. How do you think this

36:30 ↗ will work?" Um, we'd like you all to

36:32 ↗ recommend some programs for evaluation.

36:34 ↗ I think that some of this will come up

36:36 ↗ in phase one as well, but we'd like to

36:38 ↗ get your input on of all the city

36:40 ↗ programs, uh, what would you prioritize?

36:43 ↗ Um, and we'd like the consultant to

36:45 ↗ return to you or maybe staff return to

36:47 ↗ you um, with the results of the

36:50 ↗ evaluation so you all can see how it was

36:53 ↗ used, what next steps are, that kind of

36:55 ↗ a thing. [snorts] We'd like them to

36:57 ↗ provide a written report um, and we'd

37:00 ↗ like them to present to city leadership,

37:02 ↗ and in this case we mean city council on

37:05 ↗ the report findings because this is when

37:06 ↗ we're narrowing in to city programs. um

37:09 ↗ and so that they can report to city

37:10 ↗ council and say this is what we came up

37:12 ↗ with and this is what we think the next

37:14 ↗ steps are for these programs but also

37:16 ↗ broadly for um for this work.

37:20 ↗ This is written as a phased RFP. So we

37:23 ↗ have the ability we'd like the ability

37:24 ↗ to revise the scope in phase two

37:26 ↗ depending on what phase one shows us

37:28 ↗ just because we think we maybe need a

37:30 ↗ little bit of that flexibility.

37:33 ↗ All right. So I will pause there and see

37:36 ↗ if there are any questions if I can

37:38 ↗ clarify anything about the phase 2

37:39 ↗ deliverables.

37:47 ↗ >> Okay. Okay.

37:49 ↗ I don't want to speak too much. Um just

37:53 ↗ a couple

37:56 ↗ I my question is what do you cons like

37:58 ↗ what fits as a priority?

38:02 ↗ Some of that will be based on available

38:04 ↗ data frankly. Um and then probably the

38:09 ↗ level of like touch points with the

38:11 ↗ community like thinking about the things

38:12 ↗ that came through the equity framework

38:14 ↗ process with you all. Some of those were

38:17 ↗ more internally focused. I think we

38:18 ↗ could evaluate those but I think this is

38:20 ↗ really about how our programs and

38:22 ↗ services reach the community. So it

38:25 ↗ should probably be a little bit more

38:26 ↗ outwardly focused than that.

38:28 ↗ >> Okay. Um

38:30 ↗ would it be things like maintenance

38:33 ↗ parks, infrastructure or um summer

38:38 ↗ programs? Like just all of those things

38:40 ↗ to kind of fit. So some maybe ongoing

38:42 ↗ operational work as well as more

38:44 ↗ distinct

38:46 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think we we wanted two

38:49 ↗ programs to be evaluated so we could

38:51 ↗ have some level of contrast there so we

38:54 ↗ weren't evaluating two very similar

38:55 ↗ things but we can make sure that this

38:56 ↗ tool works for kind of different yeah

39:00 ↗ >> programs. And then my other

39:03 ↗ I'm just wondering about Brandy. So when

39:05 ↗ I think about evaluation that's usually

39:09 ↗ after something's done right you see how

39:11 ↗ well it worked things like that. And so

39:14 ↗ I just I think that

39:17 ↗ we also need to be thinking like

39:18 ↗ perspectively like not only recapping

39:23 ↗ what it was but making sure that the

39:26 ↗ report out of it is really clear on what

39:28 ↗ needs to happen next to move us forward.

39:31 ↗ >> Okay.

39:31 ↗ >> Yeah. just to me I know valuations from

39:35 ↗ a retrospective and so something that

39:37 ↗ feels a little bit more future looking

39:54 ↗ >> okay any other questions maybe folks

39:55 ↗ online or

39:58 ↗ in the room

40:01 ↗ Just a clarifying question what this

40:03 ↗ tool might look like.

40:05 ↗ >> I don't we don't know what this tool is

40:08 ↗ at the moment, but do we have a sense of

40:10 ↗ what that could look like? Are there

40:12 ↗ examples from other disciplines?

40:14 ↗ >> Uh there are examples from other cities.

40:16 ↗ So when I came to you all in September,

40:18 ↗ I provided a couple of examples. Two

40:20 ↗ from Minnesota, one from Oregon, and

40:24 ↗ then one from California, but I cannot

40:26 ↗ remember where. Um in California. and

40:29 ↗ they all look quite different in terms

40:31 ↗ of what they evaluate. Um, and I think

40:34 ↗ at that time we'd had this discussion

40:35 ↗ about what's the appropriate scope. Um,

40:38 ↗ and so we're we're really scoping it to

40:41 ↗ city programs and not wider like

40:44 ↗ community indicators, right? Um, so

40:47 ↗ there are tools out there that we might

40:48 ↗ be able to adapt. Um, it's just kind of

40:51 ↗ an opening question right now of what

40:53 ↗ will work well for a situ.

40:59 ↗ Okay, with that,

41:06 ↗ okay, so next step. So,

41:09 ↗ um,

41:11 ↗ we're here on the yellow dot, which is

41:13 ↗ you all reviewing

41:15 ↗ the RFP. Um, we'd like to, this might be

41:18 ↗ optimistic, we'd like to put it out in

41:20 ↗ November, uh, before the holidays, um,

41:24 ↗ to be open with our responses and like

41:26 ↗ to use December and January to select

41:28 ↗ consultants. Um, that leaves us with a

41:30 ↗ little bit of slack, but I think the the

41:32 ↗ ultimate goal is to really get a

41:33 ↗ consultant on board by the end of Q126.

41:37 ↗ Um, so I think that leaves a fair bit of

41:38 ↗ time for that. So

41:42 ↗ that's all of my presentation. Um let's

41:46 ↗ if it's okay with well maybe I can defer

41:48 ↗ to the chair and see what questions we'd

41:50 ↗ like to start with tonight. Um because

41:52 ↗ we have quite a few of them.

41:53 ↗ >> No, I think I think your questions as

41:55 ↗ prepared are are excellent

41:57 ↗ [clears throat] and a a good I guess

41:59 ↗ space for us to have some discussion on

42:02 ↗ some next steps.

42:04 ↗ >> Awesome. Okay. So then I' I'd ask all of

42:08 ↗ you what do you think of the proposed

42:09 ↗ community engagement considering both

42:11 ↗ budget and need? if not what is missing.

42:14 ↗ So what I have from our discussion

42:15 ↗ already is that we need to add a little

42:17 ↗ bit of that to the criteria to make sure

42:19 ↗ that the consultant is adept at working

42:21 ↗ with both elected leaders and community

42:25 ↗ leaders, but maybe folks who haven't

42:26 ↗ been brought in yet and can find and

42:28 ↗ recommend maybe ways to bring folks um

42:31 ↗ and who haven't been involved in the

42:33 ↗ past. Did I capture that? Okay.

42:37 ↗ >> Yeah. And I think their application

42:39 ↗ should be scored based on their

42:43 ↗ the level of expertise they show.

42:46 ↗ >> Oh yeah. Be added to the evaluation

42:48 ↗ criteria. Okay. Yeah.

42:57 ↗ >> What else on community engagement?

43:03 ↗ I think our discussions covered it in in

43:05 ↗ terms of where I think we want to focus

43:08 ↗ ultimately to make sure that we remove

43:10 ↗ as much uh influence or or bias that

43:14 ↗ could be exercised by our um decision

43:16 ↗ makers within uh the process because

43:19 ↗ that's going to affect ultimately what

43:21 ↗ we're going to get as part of phase one.

43:23 ↗ >> Okay.

43:29 ↗ Um, I wonder if the mode of engagement

43:32 ↗ should be not just maybe a meeting where

43:35 ↗ people have to show up and speak up

43:37 ↗ because maybe not everyone's comfortable

43:40 ↗ expressing their opinion in that format,

43:42 ↗ but maybe having a way to maybe send a

43:45 ↗ letter or write something

43:47 ↗ >> on on a on a website, something.

43:49 ↗ >> Yeah, that's definitely something we're

43:51 ↗ considering once we build like community

43:52 ↗ engagement plan is surveys. How can we

43:55 ↗ get it to people electronically, not

43:56 ↗ electronically? What are different

43:58 ↗ language needs? Like that'll be

44:00 ↗ something that we're we're talking about

44:02 ↗ for sure. Yeah.

44:04 ↗ >> Yeah. I think that was something we

44:06 ↗ talked about in our um our our chair

44:08 ↗ meeting which was u what are um new

44:11 ↗ communication methods that we can use to

44:12 ↗ increase you know just uh engagement

44:15 ↗ responsiveness. So, [clears throat]

44:21 ↗ >> all right. Question two is, are the

44:23 ↗ proposed touch points with the equity

44:25 ↗ board the right ones? Um, you'll recall

44:27 ↗ that most of the touch points are really

44:29 ↗ in phase two, although of course and

44:31 ↗ it's not in the RFP because that's not

44:33 ↗ quite the right place to put it, but we

44:35 ↗ bring that community engagement plan for

44:36 ↗ phase one to you all, but you all would

44:38 ↗ interact with the consultant really in

44:40 ↗ phase two.

44:45 ↗ Folks online, do you have any thoughts

44:47 ↗ on that one?

44:57 ↗ >> Okay, folks in the room,

45:02 ↗ >> sorry, maybe you already mentioned this,

45:04 ↗ but are we involved in choosing who this

45:07 ↗ consultant or company might be? Yeah,

45:09 ↗ we're gonna ask for one of one or two of

45:11 ↗ you to serve on the committee. Um, yeah.

45:15 ↗ So, you'll work with staff. Um,

45:18 ↗ yeah.

45:28 ↗ >> Oh, this is

45:29 ↗ >> Sorry. I know you're

45:34 ↗ like

45:36 ↗ it.

45:38 ↗ Sorry, I'm never sure how many to print

45:41 ↗ a big packet to [laughter]

45:43 ↗ to print

45:50 ↗ >> when the uh form is created for

45:55 ↗ evaluating consultants,

45:58 ↗ >> do we see it? Do we have feedback on it

46:01 ↗ or is that

46:03 ↗ >> independent?

46:04 ↗ >> I think

46:07 ↗ I think because it's going to follow the

46:08 ↗ criteria that's in the RFP, there

46:12 ↗ probably won't be a ton of room for

46:14 ↗ review, if that makes sense. So, if you

46:17 ↗ have any feedback on the criteria that

46:19 ↗ you'd like to give, it'd be good to give

46:20 ↗ it now.

46:27 ↗ And I can pull up that section if we

46:29 ↗ want just want to take a quick look at

46:30 ↗ it. Would that be helpful?

46:31 ↗ >> Yeah, that would be okay.

46:40 ↗ I have a question.

46:42 ↗ Since we have a the a small subcommittee

46:46 ↗ of the equity board working on updating

46:49 ↗ the equity framework, it appears to be a

46:52 ↗ bit of a interesting overlap between the

46:56 ↗ work that we're doing and what our to be

46:59 ↗ named at a later point consultant is

47:01 ↗ doing because they were using part of

47:03 ↗ our work product as far as the current

47:06 ↗ um equity framework that we're updating

47:09 ↗ now. So, and because my understanding is

47:12 ↗ that that group has set a March deadline

47:15 ↗ and the consultant might not be fully on

47:18 ↗ board till the end of Q1 that hopefully

47:20 ↗ these two things dovetail. Okay?

47:22 ↗ >> Or at least we can provide them with a

47:24 ↗ draft equity framework so they have a

47:26 ↗ sense of where the the kind of like the

47:28 ↗ pre pre-planning work that we're going

47:29 ↗ to staff to do before they do new

47:32 ↗ programs, before they site a project,

47:33 ↗ whatever it is. um that they can have a

47:35 ↗ sense of what that's actually going to

47:37 ↗ look like beyond like the question list

47:39 ↗ that we have right now.

47:42 ↗ >> Let me grab that criteria really quick.

47:50 ↗ Okay,

47:52 ↗ a good block of text. Okay, so criteria

47:57 ↗ one is responsiveness of the proposal um

48:00 ↗ and clearly understandable work to be

48:02 ↗ performed.

48:03 ↗ Um,

48:07 ↗ criteria two is demonstrating an

48:09 ↗ understanding of the budget.

48:13 ↗ Three is qualifications of the person

48:15 ↗ assigned to this project. Um, we're

48:17 ↗ looking for people who have worked or

48:19 ↗ firms who have worked with local

48:20 ↗ government clients who have equity

48:22 ↗ inclusion experience, experience working

48:24 ↗ with diverse groups, um, and public

48:26 ↗ engagement and facilitation expertise.

48:28 ↗ So this is where I think we'll add in

48:30 ↗ that other thing um that you had

48:33 ↗ mentioned.

48:34 ↗ Um

48:37 ↗ and then criteria four is product

48:39 ↗ management and ability to meet the

48:40 ↗ timeline.

48:43 ↗ So, so one one thing I'm noting in the

48:47 ↗ review criteria um

48:51 ↗ so

48:54 ↗ I mean I think I like the way the the

48:56 ↗ points are distributed

48:58 ↗ >> I think so some of the project

49:00 ↗ management like the words used you know

49:03 ↗ critical path diagram QAQC

49:06 ↗ >> oh yeah it is

49:07 ↗ >> they're very technical okay and um

49:10 ↗ >> it might

49:12 ↗ discourage

49:14 ↗ >> some very capable presence.

49:16 ↗ >> Yeah.

49:17 ↗ >> So, I would be mindful of that. And um I

49:21 ↗ think there's just

49:24 ↗ [clears throat] being hopeless that the

49:26 ↗ process has been creating more barriers

49:28 ↗ to like smaller consultants who um

49:36 ↗ >> have more experience working with the

49:39 ↗ very people we're trying to serve.

49:41 ↗ >> Yeah. I mean I think that's the priority

49:43 ↗ versus having so much experience with

49:45 ↗ local government and things like that.

49:47 ↗ like I would definitely rely on the

49:51 ↗ experience with the populations versus

49:54 ↗ their experience working with local

49:56 ↗ government for example. So just kind of

49:59 ↗ >> staying true to the intent of this

50:01 ↗ somehow.

50:02 ↗ >> Okay.

50:07 ↗ >> And then aligned with sustainable and

50:09 ↗ equitable purchasing guidelines. you

50:12 ↗ know, like part of me is like who who's

50:15 ↗ got the luxury to do that? I don't know.

50:18 ↗ We're going to privilege certainly

50:20 ↗ consultants and you know, organizations,

50:22 ↗ companies.

50:24 ↗ >> Yeah, that was ultimately we went back

50:27 ↗ and forth a lot on and we ended up

50:29 ↗ landing on a place where that's not part

50:31 ↗ of the formal evaluation criteria.

50:34 ↗ >> That's a like tiebreaker almost. Um,

50:38 ↗ >> like we we have these criteria or we

50:40 ↗ have these guidelines. it would be

50:42 ↗ really nice to use them for an equity

50:44 ↗ based RFP proposal. How can we do it in

50:47 ↗ a way that isn't too burns burdensome?

50:51 ↗ So, but I'll review it again to make

50:53 ↗ sure that it's clear how it'll be used.

51:12 ↗ >> So,

51:13 ↗ >> yeah. [snorts] Um,

51:16 ↗ is it considered the lynch pin of the

51:18 ↗ project that we get quality community

51:21 ↗ engagement

51:23 ↗ or is that one step along the road?

51:28 ↗ >> We we made a very conscious decision to

51:31 ↗ not spend $50,000 on community

51:33 ↗ engagement, which I think we all know we

51:35 ↗ very well could have. Yes.

51:37 ↗ >> Right. So, we need good quality

51:38 ↗ engagement, but we need to be able to

51:40 ↗ evaluate programs out of this RFP as

51:43 ↗ well. So, I mean, it's it's both and

51:47 ↗ it's it's not the end all be all. I

51:50 ↗ don't think I don't think we have the

51:51 ↗ luxury of making it that.

51:55 ↗ >> I don't think that's what I'm asking.

51:57 ↗ And what I'm asking is

52:00 ↗ I'm looking at the re review criteria.

52:03 ↗ >> 30 points goes to the responsiveness of

52:05 ↗ the proposal and clearly understanding

52:07 ↗ the work.

52:09 ↗ is the work understanding

52:12 ↗ public engagement in Isaka and putting

52:16 ↗ in a framework where we can

52:20 ↗ improve and and our whole system can

52:22 ↗ rise up. Is that what this what we're

52:25 ↗ trying to accomplish? And if it is, do

52:28 ↗ we need more weight on their experience

52:32 ↗ with community engagement?

52:36 ↗ >> If I'm understanding you right, so let

52:38 ↗ me know if I'm not. I think we're

52:39 ↗ actually because we are going to be

52:42 ↗ asking staff to really develop that

52:44 ↗ community engagement plan and likely do

52:46 ↗ a lot of it, right? Design the survey,

52:48 ↗ figure out how to send out mailers, who

52:50 ↗ to send those to, what groups to engage

52:52 ↗ with. I I think that the community

52:55 ↗ engagement portion of it is really

52:57 ↗ limited to those few places where we're

52:59 ↗ going to ask the consultant to have that

53:01 ↗ face-to-face interaction in meetings or

53:04 ↗ whatever kind of setting that that looks

53:06 ↗ like.

53:09 ↗ So it's community engagement in service

53:12 ↗ of creating the tool and the goals.

53:20 ↗ So

53:23 ↗ how does the community engagement fit

53:25 ↗ into what you just said?

53:29 ↗ >> I think I'm getting

53:31 ↗ I mean I what I'm hearing you're saying

53:33 ↗ is that the majority of the work is not

53:35 ↗ the consultant. The majority of the work

53:36 ↗ is staff. What I'm trying to rise up is

53:41 ↗ that

53:42 ↗ with community engagement,

53:47 ↗ we all hear it in different ways,

53:50 ↗ >> right? We all process it in different

53:52 ↗ ways. And then it can the more it gets

53:56 ↗ dissected by people who are not involved

54:00 ↗ in at that level, it can completely

54:03 ↗ change. So I'm trying to sort out what

54:07 ↗ level what import what the community

54:10 ↗ says has on a process that has that is

54:15 ↗ basing it appears to me is basing all

54:18 ↗ this work on and that maybe it needs to

54:21 ↗ be a little more focused on the not more

54:24 ↗ community engagement just more

54:27 ↗ rising up that the consultants

54:30 ↗ experience with community engagement is

54:32 ↗ important. You see what I'm saying?

54:35 ↗ I do

54:37 ↗ I think I think staff was rightfully

54:41 ↗ nervous that this is not a lot of budget

54:45 ↗ to do almost like even just community

54:48 ↗ engagement on something like this with.

54:51 ↗ >> So that's why like I don't think

54:54 ↗ ideally we would have had more had the

54:58 ↗ consultant weigh in more and use their

55:00 ↗ expertise more to craft a community

55:02 ↗ engagement plan. Right. with the help of

55:04 ↗ staff, with the help of the equity

55:05 ↗ board,

55:07 ↗ but I think we distributed it a little

55:10 ↗ bit differently to make sure that the

55:11 ↗ consultant could really weigh in on the

55:13 ↗ creation of the tool um and really lead

55:16 ↗ that process.

55:19 ↗ >> So, let me just I'm kind of a processor,

55:22 ↗ so let me think for a second. [laughter]

55:24 ↗ >> Um

55:26 ↗ >> I think we're in agreement on that.

55:28 ↗ >> I think we say it differently, so I

55:29 ↗ think we're in agreement on that. I am

55:31 ↗ literally talking about the criteria for

55:33 ↗ picking the consultants and I don't

55:35 ↗ think I'm being clear.

55:36 ↗ >> Okay.

55:36 ↗ >> So I am saying that it looks very small.

55:40 ↗ >> It is part of a 100 points. It's all

55:44 ↗ rolled into a big category called

55:46 ↗ responsiveness of the proposal and

55:48 ↗ clearly understanding the work. That's

55:50 ↗ where the consultant is correct

55:52 ↗ >> or am I confused? So it also like the

55:55 ↗ community engagement that we are going

55:57 ↗ to ask the consultants to do is also

56:00 ↗ rolled into the qualifications of

56:02 ↗ persons assigned to the project. Their

56:04 ↗ ability to facilitate to work with

56:06 ↗ diverse groups also appears there in

56:09 ↗ that point category which to be fair

56:12 ↗ does include a lot of other things but

56:14 ↗ is also one of the one of the two

56:16 ↗ highest scored point categories. Would

56:19 ↗ you like are you asking for it to maybe

56:21 ↗ be called out separately? I think I'm

56:24 ↗ asking yes that may be what I'm asking

56:26 ↗ for is

56:30 ↗ >> if we build it and we don't build it to

56:32 ↗ the people

56:34 ↗ >> what's the point

56:35 ↗ >> okay

56:36 ↗ >> so I want to make sure the engagement

56:38 ↗ part is worthy and centered in this

56:42 ↗ >> right

56:48 ↗ >> kind of the the garbage in garbage out

56:50 ↗ if we have poor community engagement

56:53 ↗ that we are setting city goals on.

56:57 ↗ >> Yeah.

57:00 ↗ >> Unless we have that critical represented

57:04 ↗ community engagement.

57:05 ↗ >> Okay.

57:08 ↗ >> Okay.

57:10 ↗ >> I'll think about it a little bit more. I

57:12 ↗ don't know that it'll get called out as

57:14 ↗ its own criteria.

57:17 ↗ Um, I'm wondering if the way we think

57:18 ↗ about building the evaluation form and

57:20 ↗ like the questions we ask staff and EB

57:24 ↗ members to be looking out for

57:26 ↗ >> if that's where that's like best suited

57:28 ↗ to to make sure that we're reading the

57:30 ↗ proposals with an eye for

57:34 ↗ like quality and experience in community

57:36 ↗ engagement.

57:38 ↗ I think being more explicit in these

57:40 ↗ criteria like for the qualifications,

57:43 ↗ depth of experience in community looking

57:47 ↗ you know like

57:48 ↗ >> okay so that way people who are you know

57:51 ↗ whoever are reviewing the proposals are

57:54 ↗ clearly

57:55 ↗ looking at the application against the

57:58 ↗ qualifications of community engagement.

58:00 ↗ >> Okay.

58:01 ↗ >> And yeah

58:01 ↗ >> how they speak. the criteria a lot how

58:05 ↗ how skillfully they talk about community

58:07 ↗ engagement and it's like

58:14 ↗ it's kind of varied up there.

58:16 ↗ >> Okay.

58:23 ↗ >> Okay.

58:29 ↗ Okay. So, I have it to to really call it

58:31 ↗ out more in both criteria one um and

58:35 ↗ criteria three to really make it more

58:38 ↗ explicit there. Okay.

58:41 ↗ >> Thanks for your patience as

58:43 ↗ >> and your and your patience.

58:44 ↗ [clears throat]

58:46 ↗ >> All right. Um

58:50 ↗ what's the timeline like this plan to be

58:53 ↗ created?

58:55 ↗ uh for what for the consultant to like

58:58 ↗ evaluate the goal. I think

59:00 ↗ >> we'll see how long community engagement

59:02 ↗ takes. We haven't even the community

59:04 ↗ engagement plan yet. Um but I I mean I

59:08 ↗ think we are looking to certainly get

59:10 ↗ through community engagement in 2026. Um

59:15 ↗ and we would like to at least probably

59:17 ↗ start phase 2 in 26 if we can as well.

59:20 ↗ It'll be really instructive how long

59:22 ↗ this like solic solicitation takes, I

59:24 ↗ think.

59:33 ↗ All right. Um, okay. So, I think we left

59:37 ↗ off on question three. Are the proposed

59:40 ↗ liver bills the right one? If not, what

59:42 ↗ is missing?

59:44 ↗ I think we touched on this a little bit

59:46 ↗ throughout our conversations as well.

59:50 ↗ Ask a quick clarification on Brian.

59:55 ↗ Do

59:55 ↗ >> is there a quick way to see where the

59:57 ↗ touch points are right now for the

1:00:00 ↗ board?

1:00:00 ↗ >> Yeah. So, where it's formalized in the

1:00:02 ↗ RFG, which is what a consultant is going

1:00:05 ↗ to be looking at. We're definitely going

1:00:06 ↗ to staff is going to come back to you

1:00:08 ↗ all with that community engagement plan

1:00:09 ↗ like we've talked about to review um the

1:00:12 ↗ consultants with one or two of you. Um

1:00:15 ↗ but we'd like the consultant to work

1:00:16 ↗ with you all. Um, we've identified two

1:00:19 ↗ meetings is what we've kind of set

1:00:20 ↗ aside, I think, with the equity board.

1:00:23 ↗ One to actually, I don't know why I'm

1:00:25 ↗ trying to say it, uh, from memory, it's

1:00:27 ↗ right here. So, we'd like you to provide

1:00:30 ↗ feedback on that draft tool before it

1:00:32 ↗ ever goes out and evaluates a program.

1:00:34 ↗ And at that same meeting, recommend

1:00:36 ↗ programs for evaluation. That'll

1:00:38 ↗ accompany staff recommendations as well.

1:00:41 ↗ Um, and then we'd like the consultant to

1:00:44 ↗ return to you all with the results of

1:00:46 ↗ the evaluation and of the tool. Um,

1:00:49 ↗ because it's not just like, hey, how are

1:00:51 ↗ our WCK programs doing? I think we'd

1:00:52 ↗ like them to return to you all with

1:00:54 ↗ here's where the tool worked well,

1:00:56 ↗ here's where it didn't, here's where

1:00:57 ↗ we'd recommend changing it, that kind of

1:00:59 ↗ a thing.

1:01:01 ↗ >> So, those are the two touch points that

1:01:03 ↗ we've outlined for the consultant to

1:01:04 ↗ have with you all.

1:01:05 ↗ >> Got it. Okay. So after those two

1:01:08 ↗ meetings with the board, there's an

1:01:09 ↗ opportunity to revise the tool and take

1:01:12 ↗ the feedback from us and and the work

1:01:15 ↗ that they've done.

1:01:16 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:01:18 ↗ >> That's our that's our hope is that we

1:01:19 ↗ can we can do that. It might be staff

1:01:21 ↗ that reworks the tool, right? Like it

1:01:23 ↗ might just be that they make the

1:01:24 ↗ recommendations for how to change it and

1:01:26 ↗ we we actually rework it. Um, we'll see.

1:01:29 ↗ But

1:01:45 ↗ how do you all feel about those touch

1:01:46 ↗ points?

1:01:48 ↗ >> I don't know why it's flickering.

1:01:52 ↗ Okay.

1:01:53 ↗ >> Yeah, it looks good.

1:01:54 ↗ >> Okay. Awesome. folks online, you're

1:01:57 ↗ you're still with us.

1:02:00 ↗ >> Yeah. Okay.

1:02:02 ↗ >> I had a question real quick if it was

1:02:04 ↗ possible. Um I didn't have that project

1:02:08 ↗ proposal or I couldn't access it in my

1:02:10 ↗ emails. I wasn't sure if that or the

1:02:12 ↗ PowerPoint if it could be possible for

1:02:14 ↗ it to be sent out or shared just to kind

1:02:17 ↗ of review it because I'm myself

1:02:19 ↗ sometimes a slow processor. So I'm like

1:02:22 ↗ I know I can make sense of this. Um but

1:02:26 ↗ um might be helpful just to kind of like

1:02:28 ↗ review and then like kind of let it

1:02:30 ↗ percolate a little bit.

1:02:32 ↗ >> No problem. How about I'll send it out

1:02:34 ↗ again after the meeting along with the

1:02:35 ↗ PowerPoint which I know is not in your

1:02:37 ↗ packet. Um and maybe just give you all

1:02:39 ↗ like a week or a week and a half to get

1:02:41 ↗ any feedback to me. How does that sound?

1:02:44 ↗ >> Thank you so much.

1:02:45 ↗ >> Great.

1:02:46 ↗ >> Awesome.

1:02:48 ↗ >> Okay. It sounds like the touch points

1:02:50 ↗ with the board are okay. Um, and we're

1:02:53 ↗ on to the last question. Are there one

1:02:56 ↗ or two of you um who would like to

1:02:58 ↗ assist with evaluation and selection of

1:02:59 ↗ a consultant? That'll probably happen in

1:03:02 ↗ like December to January um of this year

1:03:06 ↗ of 25 and 26.

1:03:10 ↗ And that'll involve Okay, sorry. Let me

1:03:12 ↗ um so that'll involve reading all of the

1:03:14 ↗ proposals that come in um and then

1:03:17 ↗ scoring them against the criteria that

1:03:18 ↗ we talked about, discussing it with

1:03:21 ↗ everyone. um likely selecting one or two

1:03:24 ↗ if there are kind of two people that

1:03:26 ↗ stand out or two firms that stand out um

1:03:29 ↗ bringing them through maybe an interview

1:03:31 ↗ process. Um I think for something with

1:03:33 ↗ this much engagement we want to talk to

1:03:35 ↗ that to those people and see how how we

1:03:38 ↗ match and how they'll do um evaluate

1:03:41 ↗ those interviews and make a

1:03:42 ↗ recommendation. So that's what's

1:03:44 ↗ involved there. Um okay the preview is

1:03:47 ↗ interested. Okay.

1:03:50 ↗ Is anyone else interested in in

1:03:54 ↗ reviewing or sorry in assisting with

1:03:56 ↗ selection of the consultant?

1:04:00 ↗ >> I will if no one else wants to.

1:04:02 ↗ >> Okay. Okay.

1:04:06 ↗ Okay. So, I have Kelly and Preview down.

1:04:08 ↗ If you all take the next week and a half

1:04:10 ↗ and you read it and you're like, I'm

1:04:12 ↗ dying to be a part of this, then I'll

1:04:13 ↗ kind of triangulate with the people who

1:04:15 ↗ are involved

1:04:15 ↗ >> and I can I'll step away if somebody

1:04:17 ↗ else wants to.

1:04:18 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. I Okay, awesome.

1:04:23 ↗ Okay,

1:04:24 ↗ that is all I had for you all. Thank

1:04:27 ↗ you. Um I'll be revising this. Um the

1:04:30 ↗ version you all that I'll send out to

1:04:31 ↗ you all will be the same that's in your

1:04:33 ↗ packet. Um so I'll make some of the

1:04:35 ↗ changes that we made today. Um but it'll

1:04:38 ↗ just be a little bit of the version. Um

1:04:42 ↗ and then yeah, hopefully publication

1:04:44 ↗ soon and I'll be back in front of you

1:04:46 ↗ all. That's all I've got.

1:04:48 ↗ >> All right.

1:04:50 ↗ >> Excited you're doing it.

1:04:51 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:04:53 ↗ Thank [laughter] you.

1:04:56 ↗ >> All right.

1:04:57 ↗ >> Perfect. That was great discussion on

1:04:58 ↗ that item

1:05:01 ↗ for

1:05:02 ↗ >> Yeah. I just I thank you for letting me

1:05:05 ↗ sit in the meeting and see the process

1:05:08 ↗ of how

1:05:10 ↗ responsible members in the community

1:05:12 ↗ have resolved. I I don't sometimes I I

1:05:16 ↗ don't look at consultants.

1:05:19 ↗ I look at the peers in the community,

1:05:23 ↗ people that are out there as mentors or

1:05:28 ↗ as

1:05:29 ↗ um philanthropists that are funding

1:05:33 ↗ their own I guess campaign to make a

1:05:37 ↗ difference in their community. So when I

1:05:40 ↗ when I hear the term consultant,

1:05:43 ↗ I I kind of get PTSD

1:05:47 ↗ >> because

1:05:48 ↗ many many millions and millions of

1:05:52 ↗ dollars have gone to consulting with no

1:05:54 ↗ results and no resolve and then it gets

1:05:58 ↗ passed on to the next generation. And

1:06:00 ↗ the same thing at the same time

1:06:03 ↗ [clears throat] the consulting firms get

1:06:06 ↗ fat and the community gets too skinny.

1:06:10 ↗ So I'm I'm saying just as a as an

1:06:16 ↗ observer uh and I'm very critical. I'm

1:06:19 ↗ an artist. I dissect everything and how

1:06:23 ↗ things work. And what I've seen so far

1:06:26 ↗ is uh you guys are tighter than a tick

1:06:29 ↗ on a coonail's back. [laughter] Okay, I

1:06:32 ↗ put it bluntly. Now, this is awesome for

1:06:36 ↗ for me to experience this when I was

1:06:39 ↗ getting a little bit PTSD on saltine

1:06:42 ↗ firms and seeing what's going on in

1:06:45 ↗ North Bend and Snamami and Ball City and

1:06:49 ↗ and the outskirts and in Isakloth.

1:06:52 ↗ Um,

1:06:54 ↗ seeing people who genuinely care and are

1:06:58 ↗ real has been very helpful to me. So,

1:07:01 ↗ thank you.

1:07:02 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:07:03 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:07:04 ↗ Thank you.

1:07:14 ↗ >> Hey, it looks like our next agenda item

1:07:16 ↗ is an update on the equity framework. Um

1:07:20 ↗ uh I am in uh the the good company about

1:07:22 ↗ everyone in this room but um with the

1:07:25 ↗ subcommittee members for the updating of

1:07:28 ↗ the equity framework and that's myself

1:07:30 ↗ uh Caric Quan Chris that are uh working

1:07:34 ↗ on the updating of the framework. So I

1:07:36 ↗ just wanted to go over at a high level

1:07:39 ↗ um what we've done uh thus far. So um I

1:07:43 ↗ just introduced uh you all to who the

1:07:46 ↗ subcommittee members are. So, we've had

1:07:48 ↗ two meetings and um first meeting was on

1:07:51 ↗ October 6th. The second one was um

1:07:53 ↗ yesterday on the 21st. Um we have

1:07:56 ↗ regularly scheduled meetings every other

1:07:59 ↗ other Monday at 7:00 p.m. on um Google

1:08:02 ↗ Meet. And we've determined that the

1:08:04 ↗ points of contact in terms of reporting

1:08:06 ↗ out what we've done as a subcommittee um

1:08:09 ↗ would be myself and Caric. Um our

1:08:12 ↗ deadline to present the revised equity

1:08:14 ↗ framework to the full equity board for

1:08:16 ↗ your review and approval is in March of

1:08:18 ↗ 2026.

1:08:20 ↗ Um so thus far we've reviewed and

1:08:23 ↗ discussed the previous equity board

1:08:24 ↗ feedback on the framework from September

1:08:28 ↗ uh 2025 as well as January 2025. Um the

1:08:32 ↗ subcommittee is currently gathering

1:08:34 ↗ information using a spreadsheet. Thank

1:08:36 ↗ you very much Chris for your amazing

1:08:38 ↗ work on that document. So, we're using a

1:08:40 ↗ spreadsheet to identify questions city

1:08:43 ↗ staff would consider as part of their

1:08:45 ↗ use of the equity framework. And we kind

1:08:47 ↗ of drill down into four areas, which is

1:08:50 ↗ types of inequity, um internal versus,

1:08:54 ↗ um external processes, um desired

1:08:56 ↗ incomes, and then outcomes, excuse me,

1:08:59 ↗ and then uh qualitative versus

1:09:01 ↗ quantitative. So our overall goal is um

1:09:05 ↗ with using this particular spreadsheet

1:09:07 ↗ is to develop these questions to

1:09:10 ↗ maximize the usability of the framework

1:09:12 ↗ by city staff. We had a lot of

1:09:14 ↗ conversation during our first meeting on

1:09:16 ↗ the 6th about making sure that um we're

1:09:19 ↗ not just feeding a document, but we're

1:09:21 ↗ creating a document that's going to have

1:09:22 ↗ a high level of usability and utility

1:09:25 ↗ for the city departments that really

1:09:27 ↗ want to interject equity in their

1:09:30 ↗ deliberations and their work, whatever

1:09:32 ↗ that might be.

1:09:35 ↗ So, um did anyone else have anything

1:09:38 ↗ that you'd like to add on the

1:09:39 ↗ subcommittee that I did not cover?

1:09:45 ↗ Um maybe maybe one thing to add is yeah

1:09:48 ↗ thank you.

1:09:49 ↗ >> Um I mean you already captured some of

1:09:51 ↗ this which is we're trying to respond to

1:09:52 ↗ some of the feedback around the

1:09:54 ↗ framework is a bunch of really great

1:09:56 ↗ questions but it's not easy to use by

1:10:00 ↗ various different departments. So I

1:10:03 ↗ think we've subsected two or three areas

1:10:05 ↗ that we wanted to focus on as well which

1:10:08 ↗ trying to see if I've got the notes here

1:10:10 ↗ but um

1:10:14 ↗ one is we're trying to do we don't know

1:10:16 ↗ yet if this might be the final outcome

1:10:18 ↗ but we might create a workflow that

1:10:20 ↗ helps guide people through the series of

1:10:23 ↗ questions so it doesn't turn out to be

1:10:25 ↗ another long list of questions that

1:10:27 ↗ everyone needs to go through. And then

1:10:30 ↗ um I think we're also if if time permits

1:10:34 ↗ and I think if we have enough momentum

1:10:36 ↗ we'll try to provide some guidelines

1:10:38 ↗ around data as well. So how to how to

1:10:41 ↗ gather data, how to use it, how to

1:10:42 ↗ distill it, what do you do if you don't

1:10:44 ↗ have any data, other ways to find

1:10:46 ↗ proxies, other clever techniques to use

1:10:49 ↗ otherwise etc.

1:10:51 ↗ >> So yeah,

1:10:52 ↗ >> absolutely.

1:10:53 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:10:57 ↗ >> I have to go. Um, I don't want to miss

1:11:00 ↗ this last.

1:11:01 ↗ >> No, don't do that.

1:11:03 ↗ >> But thank you for letting us in.

1:11:05 ↗ >> Thank you for joining us. Good night.

1:11:07 ↗ >> Is there a way I can get one get in

1:11:10 ↗ touch with you folks? How do I get in

1:11:13 ↗ touch and see if through follow through

1:11:14 ↗ with this?

1:11:15 ↗ >> Yeah, I can write down I don't have a

1:11:17 ↗ business card on me. Um, but I can write

1:11:20 ↗ down my contact info and I'll share some

1:11:22 ↗ information on how to stay

1:11:25 ↗ >> connected to the equity board.

1:11:28 ↗ Oh, yeah. Is that okay?

1:11:31 ↗ >> Um, I know you're interested in

1:11:33 ↗ transportation, too. So, it's going to

1:11:34 ↗ be some fun.

1:11:38 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:11:39 ↗ >> All right. Have a good night.

1:11:41 ↗ >> You too. Take care.

1:11:44 ↗ Does anyone have any questions in terms

1:11:47 ↗ of what we've done thus far on the uh

1:11:49 ↗ framework

1:11:51 ↗ that we can chat about or any insights

1:11:54 ↗ as to what um I shared as far as our

1:11:56 ↗ current work.

1:12:02 ↗ Okay.

1:12:04 ↗ Just a just a reminder that the

1:12:06 ↗ subcommittee will come back to every

1:12:07 ↗ meeting you all have just to make sure

1:12:09 ↗ that um they're touching base and you

1:12:12 ↗ all are praised of what they're doing

1:12:14 ↗ and so they can ask you questions about

1:12:16 ↗ what they should do next if they've got

1:12:17 ↗ any.

1:12:21 ↗ >> Just a clarifying question at some point

1:12:23 ↗ maybe maybe not in the next few weeks

1:12:25 ↗ but I say I guess we're only meeting

1:12:28 ↗ once a month. um either in November or

1:12:31 ↗ in December, would it make sense for the

1:12:33 ↗ subcommittee to kind of show some of the

1:12:35 ↗ preliminary work so we can kind of get

1:12:37 ↗ feedback with bit of show and tell?

1:12:40 ↗ >> I have to imagine this board would be

1:12:42 ↗ very interested in that.

1:12:44 ↗ [clears throat and laughter]

1:12:46 ↗ >> That's an excellent question. Would that

1:12:47 ↗ be something um that we could probably

1:12:50 ↗ do and maybe we should talk to the other

1:12:52 ↗ committee members to see if in uh

1:12:55 ↗ November if you think we'd be ready to

1:12:58 ↗ kind of do a prelim show of our work?

1:13:02 ↗ >> November is a little bit of a funky

1:13:04 ↗ meeting. It's a joint meeting with human

1:13:05 ↗ services. So you guys will probably meet

1:13:08 ↗ anyway on just ED items, but you might

1:13:11 ↗ have a little bit more time and space at

1:13:12 ↗ the December meeting. So,

1:13:16 ↗ >> I like that. Okay. December it is.

1:13:19 ↗ >> I think Dale,

1:13:23 ↗ >> that's what I was going to say.

1:13:24 ↗ December. December would be probably a

1:13:26 ↗ better fit.

1:13:28 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:13:29 ↗ >> Good deal. Thanks, Dale.

1:13:39 ↗ >> It looks like our next item, we're at

1:13:41 ↗ number seven. Um, other business

1:13:42 ↗ announcements. Jillian.

1:13:44 ↗ >> Yeah. So, this is what I covered in my

1:13:46 ↗ like staff report. Um, so these are the

1:13:48 ↗ two memos. Um, the first one is about

1:13:51 ↗ the transportation projects equity

1:13:52 ↗ criteria and selecting them. So, give

1:13:54 ↗ that a read through and happy to answer

1:13:56 ↗ any questions that you all have as you

1:13:58 ↗ read through it. Um, you can always

1:14:00 ↗ reach out. And then the second one is

1:14:02 ↗ the Isiqua climate action plan update

1:14:04 ↗ and equity board engagement. So, that'll

1:14:07 ↗ come back to you all in November. So,

1:14:09 ↗ you'll have an opportunity to really dig

1:14:10 ↗ in on that at that time. And that's all

1:14:13 ↗ I have for other business, but I think

1:14:15 ↗ maybe there was another item. Okay.

1:14:19 ↗ >> Yes. Um, actually, let me pull it up.

1:14:22 ↗ So, thank you, Kelly, for reminding um I

1:14:26 ↗ guess us to talk about this, but um I

1:14:29 ↗ think last week King County launched a

1:14:33 ↗ stop hate topline.

1:14:35 ↗ And um I think it's a particular not

1:14:39 ↗ only the topic but uh as one of our work

1:14:41 ↗ plan items maybe two or three years ago

1:14:45 ↗ we really wanted to uh create an

1:14:47 ↗ opportunity. We talked about it within

1:14:49 ↗ Isiqua. How do we lift up uh incidences

1:14:53 ↗ of hate that or bias that have been

1:14:56 ↗ showing up in our community and um

1:15:00 ↗ especially those things that fall short

1:15:02 ↗ of a kind. and it didn't feel

1:15:05 ↗ appropriate to like direct or ask you

1:15:08 ↗ know is police to like field all of

1:15:10 ↗ those calls and incidences and uh we

1:15:13 ↗ were looking at what other um resources

1:15:16 ↗ were available for this and at the time

1:15:18 ↗ there wasn't really anything that was

1:15:20 ↗ functioning very well and so there is

1:15:22 ↗ now a stop hate hotline that was

1:15:24 ↗ launched um and so I sent Jillian and

1:15:28 ↗ Dale the information so maybe rather

1:15:31 ↗ than me saying it out loud we could

1:15:33 ↗ probably to circulate it. Actually, I'll

1:15:35 ↗ say it out loud in case anyone wants to

1:15:37 ↗ review the notes, but the the phone

1:15:39 ↗ number is 833

1:15:41 ↗ stop

1:15:43 ↗ H as the letter H,

1:15:46 ↗ the number eight, and the number one,

1:15:50 ↗ which is so 8337867481.

1:15:55 ↗ It's a toll-free hotline, non-emergency.

1:15:58 ↗ And uh I talked to the the the office

1:16:02 ↗ that is running this hotline. And what I

1:16:05 ↗ learned was that it's anonymous. And so

1:16:07 ↗ they're not going to ask for names of

1:16:10 ↗ people. Uh they they would want the

1:16:12 ↗ details. They'll they'll capture some

1:16:14 ↗ details about what the incident is. And

1:16:17 ↗ they are very interested in getting some

1:16:19 ↗ geographical information. So, an

1:16:22 ↗ intersection, an address, a zip code,

1:16:25 ↗ whatever, you know, whoever's calling is

1:16:27 ↗ comfortable to provide

1:16:30 ↗ um because they want to see where

1:16:31 ↗ patterns are emerging, which locations

1:16:33 ↗ across the county, and so they can start

1:16:37 ↗ understanding where these incidences

1:16:39 ↗ are. They don't have to be crime. It

1:16:41 ↗ could be someone, you know, yelling,

1:16:43 ↗ something hateful, slurs, you know,

1:16:46 ↗ things like that. and you just want a

1:16:47 ↗ place to announce it, you know, to to

1:16:49 ↗ notify someone because the the idea is

1:16:53 ↗ that these things may escalate and

1:16:54 ↗ become more. And I know in Isla there

1:16:57 ↗ has been some issues that have come up

1:16:59 ↗ and so it seems like um something that

1:17:02 ↗ we would want to circulate and so um

1:17:06 ↗ just wanting to make everyone aware.

1:17:07 ↗ Thanks, Kelly. Thank you. Okay.

1:17:10 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:17:18 ↗ Okay. Well, if there is no other

1:17:20 ↗ business in front of the equity board

1:17:22 ↗ this evening, I think we can call this

1:17:24 ↗ meeting, we can adjourn this meeting at

1:17:27 ↗ 7:21 p.m.

1:17:30 ↗ Okay, one minute behind our agenda. Well

1:17:33 ↗ done.

1:17:38 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you everyone on Zoom.

1:17:41 ↗ The great.

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 (12)

Lesley Millender-Irwin

Karthik Kashinath, Vice-Chair

Heather Youngs

Priti Mody-Pan

Varnika Dokka

Lorna Gilmour

Chris Ziade

Oscar Montano

Quan Palmer

Kelly Munn - Alternate

Nisha Nair - Alternate

Kunal Srivastava* - Alternate

Staff (1)

Gillian Straub, Management Analyst