2026-09-22 - City Council

00:09Good evening and welcome to the Tuesday,

00:11September 22nd, 2026 study session of

00:15the Olympia City Council. For the

00:17record, we have a quorum with Council

00:19Member Gilman joining us remotely

00:21tonight. Council member Gilman, can you

00:23hear us?

00:27>> I can hear you loud and clear. Thank

00:28you.

00:29>> Great. and we can hear you. All right.

00:32So, we have uh quite a few business

00:34items tonight for our study session

00:36beginning with uh workers affordability

00:38and protections uh which will be

00:41presented to us by Stacy Ray, our

00:42assistant city manager, and she's joined

00:44by Jennica Machado, our economic

00:46development director. Stacy,

00:49>> thank you, Mayor. Uh council members,

00:51for the record, I'm Stacy Ray, assistant

00:53city manager. And Jennica and I are here

00:55tonight to speak to workers

00:56affordability and protections.

01:01Okay. So, for tonight's uh study session

01:04item, I'll provide a little bit of

01:05background, just a little bit about kind

01:07of the process we've been on to date and

01:09how we got here to the conversation

01:10tonight. I'll spend the bulk of the time

01:12this evening going through some research

01:14and data findings uh that come out of

01:16the last conversation that we had in

01:18terms of what you would like to see for

01:20additional conversation. Tonight we'll

01:22talk a little bit about uh just a sample

01:25of what we know some other cities are

01:27have done around this topic. Um I'll

01:30talk a little bit about what I heard

01:31from you in terms of your uh interests

01:34and hopes around community engagement,

01:36but primarily we'll open it up for

01:38conversation um amongst amongst you as

01:41council in terms of how you'd like to

01:43proceed.

01:47So, in terms of a little bit of

01:48background, uh, in terms of where we've

01:50been to date, uh, as a reminder, you

01:53know, this this conversation, um, has

01:56been happening for quite quite some

01:58time. Uh, I'm going to start in

02:00September of 2024, uh, when the finance

02:03committee was initially talking about a

02:05proposed process and timeline for taking

02:07up this issue. Um around October of

02:102024, full council opted to pause the

02:13process and move to further discussion

02:15in January to uh determine how it might

02:18fit into the annual work plan the

02:19following year. In January of 2025, we

02:22did add or you as a council chose to add

02:24this project um limited to scoping and

02:28research to the 2025 annual work plan

02:30that was based largely on staff capacity

02:32and availability at the time. Um, and

02:35then in uh July of 2025, as his

02:38citizen-led initiative was added to the

02:40November ballot, it was referred to as

02:42the workers Bill of Rights. And and at

02:45that point um or excuse me, we paused

02:48our work from a staff perspective. And

02:50then in November, the workers bill of

02:52rights initiative did fail to pass. In

02:54uh January of this year, this topic was

02:57brought back to the 2026 annual work

02:59plan. And following conversation um and

03:02direction from council um I was back

03:04here in July um to talk a little bit

03:07about you know again launching this

03:09process and what it might look like and

03:12was asked to come back to this study

03:14session for some further conversation

03:16after having done some initial research.

03:18So

03:19>> Stacy um I have just a a comment um on

03:22your timeline here. Um so uh October

03:262024 council pauses the process for

03:29further discussion in January and then

03:31you came back to us in July uh and we

03:34directed you to bring initial research

03:36to to a study session. That's you

03:39resuming the work that was paused back

03:42in October of 2024. So, I just wanted to

03:45provide some clarity to our community

03:47because there's questions about, well,

03:49why is our council still looking at this

03:51when the voters clearly said no uh to

03:54this initiative? So, this is us uh

03:56continuing that work that was paused

03:58back in October.

03:59>> Yeah, thank you for that clarification.

04:05So, I'll I'll preface the presentation

04:08tonight by um providing for

04:10consideration some uh prompts for

04:12tonight's conversation. So, really staff

04:15is seeking guidance on how you might

04:17want to proceed from here. What is the

04:20problem or what are the problems you'd

04:22like to see this work effort address?

04:24Because that will really help guide what

04:27future phases will look like, whether

04:29that's research or community engagement.

04:31And then what do you want to see result

04:33from this work effort? So what is it

04:36that you'd like staff, you know, for us

04:38to be able to um prepare or bring back

04:41that will um help you move the process

04:43forward in the way you'd like to. So I

04:45offer these upfront as kind of framing

04:48or a way to think about um the the data

04:51sets and the information information as

04:53we move through and then we'll come back

04:54for this as conversation towards the

04:56end.

05:02Um, so next we'll go ahead and walk

05:04through the compiled uh data points. Um,

05:07Jennico or I can answer questions uh to

05:10the extent that we can. Um, and we'll

05:12capture what we can't to be able to

05:14follow up if there's something we can't

05:16respond to in the moment. Um the the

05:20questions that I wanted to provide the

05:23research findings for to uh to be able

05:26to provide insight for you tonight were

05:28the questions that really guided the

05:29research that you'll see are what can we

05:31learn about lowwage earners in Olympia

05:33and what have other cities done to

05:35address workers affordability and

05:37protections. Those are kind of the two

05:39key questions that guided the scope for

05:40this work. And our scope for the

05:42research included looking at living wage

05:45thresholds for different Olympia

05:47demographic profiles. Really

05:49understanding the profile of which

05:50workers and industries are most likely

05:52to be affected in in other words, what

05:55are the low what are the low wage or low

05:57earning jobs in Olympia and identifying

06:00the scope and volume of impacted workers

06:03um by location

06:06of residents. So helping us understand

06:08where do those low wage earners live and

06:10where do they work and other factors

06:13that can affect affordability overall

06:16and which um both are some are internal

06:18local and some are external that are

06:20more out of our control and then um

06:24again some findings around kind of what

06:26what we can learn about other what other

06:27cities are doing.

06:33So, the other thing I'll just reiterate

06:35before we jump in is as staff, so you

06:37know, our intent with the data shared

06:39tonight is not to um uh tell a story,

06:43not to um analyze the data data or

06:46provide conclusions, but is to provide

06:49some of the information requested to

06:50help guide or inform your conversation

06:52tonight about how you'd like to proceed.

06:58So um these are the data sources that

07:01are referenced throughout the the

07:04PowerPoint slide deck that we'll be

07:05moving through. Just want to give an

07:07idea for this initial phase. We really

07:09relied on existing and readily available

07:12data sources. So most of these are

07:15probably familiar to you um and again

07:17are readily accessible. Um it's not

07:20nearly as extensive at what was

07:22initially included in a request for qual

07:24uh uh request for qualifications

07:28um that we had uh paused earlier in this

07:30process but is a lighter uh data

07:33compilation as requested to continue the

07:36conversation tonight. Um it's also not

07:39newly created or newly developed or

07:42researched data. It's gathered from

07:43multiple existing sources. um some of

07:46it's local, some of it state, and some

07:48of it's federal. So, we've done done the

07:50best to um combine a variety of sources

07:52here.

07:56A few notes about data limitations.

07:59Um the data I'm sharing tonight is not

08:01going to always be at the level of

08:02specificity that we might like to have.

08:05Um we've tried where we can. Um some of

08:08it is not maybe not as current as we

08:11might like it to have. For example, our

08:13census data is from 2023.

08:16Um,

08:17some of the other limitations are just

08:20knowing that like our community survey,

08:22not all data sets define what makes up a

08:24household. So, in a lot of cases, you'll

08:27see us refer to a household.

08:29We can't determine necessarily what the

08:31makeup of that is, if it's two roommates

08:34versus two adults and kids. So, in some

08:37cases, we don't we don't have that

08:38definition.

08:40um American Community Survey data is

08:42self-reported

08:44and in many cases you'll see that data

08:46on jobs is for the Olympia metropolitan

08:48statistical area or the MSA uh which

08:51includes Olympia, Lacy and Tumbwater and

08:53so in some cases that's that's as close

08:55as we can get to understanding the city

08:58and again it was um difficult in this

09:01round to find rigorous scientific or

09:04educational institution and data and

09:06research on other cities. it may exist.

09:09Um but we did um um not as maybe a deep

09:13deep dive to try to find rigorous um

09:17scientific data on the existing uh

09:20cities that have made these changes

09:22already.

09:28So we'll go ahead and move into the data

09:31sets around household income and

09:32affordability.

09:36The first being around living wage. So,

09:38how much must an individual earn to meet

09:41and we're using here MIT's livable wage

09:44definition.

09:48So, this slide shows how much a

09:49household needs to earn to make a living

09:51wage

09:53um for having no children, two children,

09:55and three children in Thirstston County.

09:58These figures do assume assume full-time

10:00employment. So, this doesn't take into

10:03account halftime employment. And as you

10:05can see, a single person with no

10:07children would need to earn over $54,000

10:10a year to be considered u a living wage.

10:14Note that for two adults, the per year

10:16amount is what each individual adult

10:19would need to earn to be above a living

10:20wage.

10:22And as we'll see later in the slide deck

10:24when we look at wages, a household with

10:26two working adults would surpass the

10:28living wage threshold in most cases,

10:30even with kids, regardless of job type.

10:32However, it's um much much more rare for

10:38a single adult with children to surpass

10:40the a single adult with children to

10:43surpass the threshold.

10:51So shown here is an example for a single

10:53adult with either no zero, one, two or

10:58three children. And um this is the

11:01estimate of what it costs to live

11:03reasonably after paying for essential

11:05items. What is notable here and I don't

11:08know if I have I think I have yeah there

11:12we go. Um is the highest two of the

11:17highest costs are attributed to child

11:19care and I'll move down slightly

11:22housing.

11:27And when you see the term civic in the

11:29lefth hand column, that refers to civic

11:31engagement or being involved with your

11:33community, taking care of your personal

11:34and mental well-being, um spending time

11:37doing activities with family or kids.

11:46I'm going to continue to move through,

11:47but please tell me to pause if you'd

11:49like me to pause longer.

11:54So next we'll move to household income

11:56and the Alice um measure. So what is

12:00Olympia's household income profile?

12:06So here we're looking at Alice

12:07households. Alice means asset limited

12:09income constrained and employed. Um this

12:12measurements provided by the United Way

12:14on an annual basis.

12:17The HH abbreviation at the bottom of the

12:20chart means household.

12:22So 30% of Olympia households live below

12:26the Alice threshold, 15% below the

12:29federal poverty line.

12:48Stacy, could you go back to that? I

12:50didn't understand this chart here. Um

12:53I'm listening and sort of trying and

12:54trying to read at the same time. So uh

12:57in the Could you literally just go on

13:00each one of these three bars here and

13:02just tell us what we're looking at?

13:05>> So what you're what you're looking at

13:07what the United Way identifies is what

13:09the definition is definition is for

13:11asset limited income constrained and

13:13employed. what the what the um threshold

13:17is to um meet that definition. Um and so

13:22they're talking about the far lefthand

13:24bar is households that are above that

13:26threshold in Olympia.

13:28The middle one is the households that

13:30are below the poverty threshold and the

13:33households below the Alice threshold. So

13:36poverty is the federal poverty line and

13:39so that's

13:41very low wages

13:43struggling immensely but Alice is meant

13:46to demonstrate that even though folks

13:48can be employed they can also still be

13:50struggling um to make ends meet and

13:53that's

13:55so that does that does that help?

13:58Yeah, I just think

14:00>> thanks. So, what is the total that we're

14:03looking at here? Because there could

14:04there possibly be some I'm guessing

14:06there's some double counting happening

14:08between the below poverty threshold and

14:11the below Alice threshold

14:15because then it doesn't add up to every

14:19you know I know we can't see every

14:20single person necessarily in our city

14:23for sure but it's just not I think of

14:26like well what about the population of

14:29Olympia? So this one just got me a

14:31little confused. Does that make sense? I

14:33believe it's household verse population

14:35number.

14:35>> Oh, got it.

14:43>> Go ahead.

14:44>> Um I believe that's household instead of

14:46population number.

14:47>> Okay, got it. And then total total

14:50household being

14:55>> I can add I can add those up. Yeah.

14:57Really quick total at hand. But

15:00>> thank you. That that is helpful though.

15:02Thanks. Okay.

15:11>> All right. Council member Madron,

15:12followed by Council Member Barrett.

15:14>> So, just to clarify, um, you know, uh,

15:17the question that the mayor prom about

15:19the the second two bars, we have the

15:21number of households below the poverty

15:23threshold threshold and then the

15:25households below the Alice threshold.

15:27Are the households below the Alice

15:29threshold above the poverty level but

15:32not yet but but still below Alice or

15:36does that include everyone below Alice

15:39and below the poverty level? Was that

15:41your question earlier?

15:45>> I I believe and we'll have to double

15:48check this but I don't think we're

15:49double counting here. I think we're

15:51talking about that.

15:56So, so the bar to the right is people

15:59above poverty level but below Alice.

16:02>> That's that's what I I

16:03>> Okay. Okay. Thanks.

16:04>> Again, what we will confirm, but that's

16:06what I believe.

16:09>> All right. Council member Baron.

16:10>> Yeah. My my question was a clarifying

16:13question as well. Well, it was it was

16:14along the same lines as Councilwoman

16:16Madron, but as I read this, so there are

16:19approximately 11,000 and some odd people

16:22who are um income constrained either

16:26through poverty or the the ALEC

16:29designation and there are 13 almost

16:3214,000 people in the city or households

16:35that are not

16:38just to summarize it in a Yeah, thank

16:41you. Mhm.

16:43>> Yeah, that's pretty succinct. Thanks.

16:46>> All right, back to you, Stacy.

16:47>> And I'll just reiterate, we we will do

16:49our best, but not having like

16:54not having been able to um d deep deep

16:58deep dive dive very deep into every

17:01metric. You know, we'll do our best and

17:02again, we'll collect the questions we

17:03can answer and follow up.

17:09Okay. So, um what you see here is US

17:12census data and again this is for our um

17:15MSA Olympia MSA area. So that that

17:17includes Olympia, Lacy and Tumbwater,

17:19but what you're looking at is household

17:21income distribution.

17:24So, um, and also just to note again, we

17:27don't have a definition of what makes up

17:30a household that's self that's

17:31self-reported, but, um, what the data

17:34does show here is about a quarter of

17:35households have income below the living

17:38wage threshold. Um, and just as a

17:40reminder, that was 54,000 a year for,

17:43uh, one adult with no kids.

18:01So this um graph shows a relative number

18:04of households by household age and

18:06household income.

18:09So again, we're looking at the Olympia

18:11MSA. So this is the Olympia, Lacy,

18:13Twater area from 2024, US Census, and

18:16American Community Survey data.

18:26The age group of 45 to 64 exhibits the

18:29highest median income househ median

18:32household income. So that's the age

18:33bracket of 45 to 64. While the largest

18:36number of households um while the

18:39largest number of households falls

18:41within the 25 to 44 years bracket, but

18:44age 25 to 42 has the heaviest presence

18:48of um residents below living wage

18:51income. So age 25 to 42.

19:04So next we'll talk a bit about rent and

19:06the cost of rent.

19:12So this is looking at the Olympia Lacy

19:14Twater area. Again,

19:16um looking at rent to income ratio.

19:20So Olympia has a third highest rent to

19:22income ratio among all surrounding metro

19:25regions. It's higher than Seattle and

19:26it's higher than Portland.

19:29On average, local renters are spending

19:30over 33% of their monthly income on rent

19:34when really it should be below 30%.

19:58So looking at historical rent cost data

20:01provided by the Washington Center for

20:03Real Estate Research through the first

20:04quarter of 2025,

20:07you can see how much faster monthly rent

20:10has grown recently. Now, this is for

20:12Thirstston County, um, not just Olympia,

20:15but but the spike began in about 2022

20:18and continues sharply.

20:25>> Council member Green has a question or

20:27comment.

20:28>> Thank you, Mayor Stacy. that uh jump in

20:322022. Do you know was there like a

20:34period of time where rent increases were

20:38either

20:40I feel like I'm remembering uh during

20:42COVID there was a period of time where

20:43rent increases were like capped or

20:45stopped. Was that sort of as far as you

20:47know was that like the release of that?

20:50>> I don't know if that's what it's what's

20:51impacting the data here. That's

20:53something that we can look into, but I

20:55think you are going to see a pattern

20:56where COVID is a frequent disruptor in

21:00the the data that we'll be sharing

21:02tonight. So,

21:04there's probably a nexus there. I'm just

21:06not exactly sure what it might be.

21:08>> Thank you.

21:20So we'll talk a little bit about some

21:22external factor impact impacts. So what

21:24else is what else is impacting

21:26affordability

21:28um that are not necessarily within our

21:30control.

21:33So first the CPI or the consumer price

21:36index. So, this graph, it's teeny teeny

21:39tiny and it's hard to see, but it starts

21:41in 1997 and goes through March of 2026.

21:46Um, the graph shows the change in the

21:49cost of all major goods and services

21:51just continuing to rise.

21:54The key point here is that the increase

21:57in in the increase in living costs were

21:59relatively stable um until 2020. So, as

22:03council member Green mentioned, that's

22:05kind of a theme here, but in 2020, in

22:082020,

22:10um, is when, uh, costs really

22:13significantly spiked and haven't stopped

22:15since.

22:25So this next is um this next slide is a

22:29compilation of consumer price indices uh

22:32tracking from 98 to 2026 and from uh

22:35data from the Federal Reserve which just

22:38shows um the cost bas essentially the

22:41cost of everything going up um really

22:44impacting individuals cost of living um

22:47and again you'll see really intense

22:49spikes after the COVID after 2020.

22:58Uh the red line if if it's difficult to

23:01see is is the rent or cost of housing.

23:13So our areas cost of living relative to

23:16other urban areas. So, we're looking at

23:19other metro areas. So, Olympia, Lacy,

23:21Tom Water. Um, you see we're right about

23:25in the middle here, but the average

23:27national score is 100. So, Olympia Lacy

23:30Town's at 114.4.

23:33Um

23:36out of there were 272 urban areas that

23:40are actually participated in this uh

23:42metric that you see here and Olympia is

23:45somewhat towards the middle among the

23:46Washington metro areas at fifth out of

23:49eight but 14 points higher than the

23:52national average.

24:06And then we'll look specifically at

24:08housing

24:09um cost of living.

24:12Um and Olympia rises to the fourth most

24:15expensive when looking at housing cost

24:17alone.

24:30So, next we'll just take a moment to

24:32reflect or look back again at our our

24:34own community survey results. So, how

24:36did our residents describe their

24:38financial stability?

24:42Um,

24:45so most Olympians say they're living

24:47comfortably or doing okay, but security

24:50that sense of security does rise sharply

24:52with income.

24:54So again, just a reminder, we talked

24:57about this at the time that we reviewed

24:59the survey, but we don't we don't know

25:01what makes up individual households. Um,

25:04however, what we know here from people's

25:06responses are that 75% of households

25:08making less than 50,000 a year describe

25:11their financial situation as just

25:13getting by or finding it difficult to

25:15get by.

25:24Renters are more likely to say they're

25:27just getting by or struggling. 59% of

25:30renters say they're just getting by or

25:33finding it difficult to get by. While

25:3525% of homeowners

25:38um say they're just getting by or

25:40finding it difficult to get by.

25:49>> Thank you, Council Member Vanderpool. I

25:52I know we probably don't have the data

25:53on this, but I'm curious about do we

25:55know um uh I guess if we were ever if we

26:00were to do a further analysis of this, I

26:02would ask about how long someone has

26:04been a homeowner because if someone had

26:05bought a home in the last year versus

26:07buying a home 10 years ago, they're

26:09that's going to be a significant

26:10difference in the in a mortgage.

26:12Similarly with renters, right? Have they

26:14have they recently moved here from

26:16Southern California or have they been in

26:18the market for a long time? Those make

26:20huge differences. So I I would be

26:22curious about how this data would skew

26:24over time is probably my question. I

26:27don't know if we if we h probably

26:29wouldn't have that information because

26:31this is a our own survey.

26:33>> We didn't have that. I think we did ask

26:35how long they had been a resident. Um I

26:39believe we did. So we can look at the

26:40crosstabs for that but I don't think we

26:42can determine when they purchased. We

26:44didn't ask that.

26:45>> Okay. Thank you.

26:55And then the last of the financial

26:58stability questions from our community

27:00survey asked about um what forms of

27:04financial hardship households had

27:06experienced in the past year. And so

27:09just noting here that the majority of

27:11Olympians had experienced at least one

27:13form of hardship with low-income

27:14households and renters noting hardships

27:16in paying for utilities, food or

27:18groceries, housing, and medical bills.

27:24And not unsurprisingly, those that make

27:26less than 50,000 a year um rated the

27:30most financial hardships.

27:42Okay, next we'll work we'll move into

27:44workforce and occupations.

27:50So, where do um Olympia workers live?

28:01Okay, so 2023 again is the most recent

28:04year available. Um

28:08uh so just to note that there are 59,000

28:11people who work in Olympia. Of those

28:1459,000 people who work here, 8,200

28:19live and work in Olympia.

28:23The data we have available can't tell us

28:25who the 8,000 workers are. Um, but we'll

28:29move into separate slides that will talk

28:31about um household income for Olympia

28:34households and average earnings for

28:36different Olympia occupations.

28:39What the data set doesn't tell us is why

28:43individuals who work in work in Olympia

28:46live or don't live in Olympia and what

28:48the factors are that influence that.

28:59This is another way to look at how many

29:01individuals come to Olympia for work and

29:03how many leave Olympia to go to work.

29:17And then if um Olympia workers don't

29:20live here, um this is where they're most

29:23often commuting from, including 8,254

29:28individuals who commute from Lacy and

29:30Tubwater. So within our MSA,

29:37>> Council Member Green,

29:39>> thank you, Mayor. Uh, is it safe to

29:42assume that the all other locations

29:43would include unincorporated thirsten

29:45county or would that be lumped in with

29:47Olympia, Lacy, Tumbwater somehow?

29:49>> It's include un it includes

29:51unincorporated thirsten county.

29:59>> Mayor Pro when

30:02>> uh Stacy a couple sides back you were

30:03saying uh workers. Um, I don't think

30:07that uh I think that includes

30:10people that people that work in retail,

30:12people that work in the computer, people

30:14that are remote workers. Okay.

30:16>> Yes.

30:17>> Um, okay, that's helpful. And will we

30:19get to a point where we can break that

30:21down more, the sectors of work?

30:22>> We'll see. We'll see some of that data.

30:24Yes.

30:25>> Okay, great.

30:38So this um chart shows where Olympia

30:43residents are employed.

30:46So these are individuals who live in

30:48Olympia and this chart shows where they

30:50work.

31:01So this is US Census or American

31:03Community Survey data. And um

31:08for some reason their threshold here for

31:11um

31:13low low earning is $3,333

31:17per month. So that's how we have this

31:19data set demonstrated. But um

31:22approximately 2,700 or 333% of the 8,200

31:27resident workers, so people who live and

31:30work in Olympia earn below $3,333

31:34per month.

31:41And it also doesn't indicate or tell us

31:44what portion of those jobs are full or

31:46part-time.

31:56Now we'll get to we'll talk a little bit

31:58about um the occupations in Olympia and

32:02what and what the affiliated wages are.

32:08So this is US census data that shows um

32:12Olympia resident employment by industry.

32:14So this these are all Olympia residents

32:17and where they're employed.

32:26There are about 25,000 Olympians in the

32:29workforce.

32:33So by far the most people are employed

32:36in public administration or healthc care

32:38occupations. So those are the top two

32:40highest bars.

32:43The red bars on this chart are where

32:46you're most likely to find lower wages

32:48or low earnings.

32:51Um, that's not to say there aren't

32:53potentially lower wages in the other

32:55occupation groups, but it's just meant

32:57to highlight what are largely lower wage

33:02occupations.

33:12So these are the most common. Oh,

33:15>> we have a question from council member

33:16Vanderpool.

33:18>> Is there I I would there be a way in the

33:21future to look at this type of uh

33:24industry based on whether or not they

33:26are employed by or they they have a

33:28they're in an industry that is unionized

33:30or non-unized. because uh if they're

33:33unionized, they're probably going to

33:35have certain levels of benefits and

33:37certain types of waging, right?

33:38Historically, and some of them are

33:41definitely not going to, right? Like

33:43retail trade is definitely not going to

33:45have it, but probably someone who works

33:47in healthcare will probably be under

33:49some level of collective bargaining. And

33:53so I'm I'll be curious looking at

33:56something like this from that

33:57perspective.

33:58>> Yeah.

33:59>> Yeah.

34:00>> Yeah. That's a good question. We'll

34:01we'll see what we once it might be

34:04available.

34:13So, next are the most common Olympia

34:16MSA. So, again, we're talking about the

34:17Olympia Lacy Twater area occupations

34:21with over 2,000 workers that are under

34:23the living wage threshold. So, we're

34:27talking about that $54,000 a year for

34:30one adult with no kids.

34:33Um,

34:35so these jobs uh

34:38these jobs do not provide, you know, in

34:41theory because individual employers can

34:43vary in their wages, but um enough for a

34:47single individual without kids to afford

34:49the cost of living in our Olympia MSA or

34:52Olympia Lacy Twater area.

34:55And again, that doesn't take into

34:57account that different employers may

34:58play different wages, but this is in

35:01general.

35:17So this chart is intended to show um

35:22again the limited number of occup

35:25occupations that could meet the wage

35:27threshold for one adult worker. So the

35:31dark shaded cells mean the occupation

35:34does not meet the wage threshold for

35:36that household scenario. So you're

35:38looking at in the first column the

35:41occupation

35:43and this does not necessarily I mean I

35:48know you're going to see the first one

35:49up there is air transportation workers.

35:50So I mean this is just like a list of

35:53occupations.

35:55Um but the next column is the mean

35:59annual wages and then it looks at um the

36:02living wage threshold for one adult with

36:05zero children, one child, two children,

36:07three children. And again, the dark

36:10shaded cells mean the occupation does

36:12not meet the wage threshold for that

36:14household scenario.

36:27So the options start to narrow fast with

36:30the more children that are in a family,

36:36particularly if it's a single adult.

36:38Part of the wage threshold does assume

36:41the cost of child care. So that wage

36:43threshold for three children goes up

36:45significantly to assume the cost of

36:47childare.

37:02So next are major Olympia MSA occupation

37:06groups. So data from the Bureau of Labor

37:09Statistics show the percent of

37:11employment by industry type and wage.

37:14Uh again this is the Olympia MSA area.

37:18shows the concentration of employment

37:20and mean hourly wage. You're not going

37:22to see wages here that make over $30 an

37:25hour. So, it's isolated to those that

37:27are $30 an hour or less.

37:32The highest concentration of jobs are

37:34those in um

37:39office and administrative support,

37:43food preparation,

37:45and serving.

37:47um sales, transportation, healthc care

37:51and so on.

38:11So this table shows um

38:16many of the examples for occupations in

38:19the Olympia MSA. So the Olympia Lacy

38:22Twater area for entrylevel wages versus

38:25experienced worker wages.

38:28The yellow highlighted occupation and

38:30wages indicate they're above the living

38:32wage threshold for one adult with no

38:36kids.

38:39So what's significant here is that

38:43no entrylevel job shown here offers a

38:47wage above the threshold.

38:51But with experience, many occupations

38:54can eventually offer wages above the

38:57threshold. However, we know and we've

39:00you've discussed as a council before,

39:02not everyone has the ability to advance

39:05to more experienced level work.

39:18Council member Vanderpole,

39:19>> I also want to mention that part to that

39:21point about advancement is that, you

39:24know, if you're looking at one company,

39:26you only have so many positions in the

39:28advanced top part of that company,

39:30right? It's just not possible to have

39:33everyone be at the 90%. Right? That is I

39:37think that's a that's a tightening part

39:38of the the pyramid in some ways when

39:40we're talking about this. is that uh

39:43sometimes those positions are filled and

39:46then it takes a long time for them to

39:47become open again

39:50>> and so that does have that compounding

39:51interest especially with depends on

39:53which industry but that does happen a

39:56lot and it's kind of a hard thing to

39:59look at in stats but it's something that

40:00I'm reminded of quite often.

40:14So that that concludes the data sets,

40:16the charts and tables and graphs. And so

40:19next we'll move into a sample of what

40:22we've learned again at this first blush

40:24about what other cities have done.

40:28Um this is a first look. Uh and again

40:31it's it's it's largely based on what was

40:33readily available.

40:37So there's a variety of data sources

40:39that led to the following content on the

40:42slides. Um

40:45you know rigorous and scientific

40:47research maybe perhaps it's just new is

40:51just not as easily or accessible

40:54available. Um

40:57and again this is a sample. Um there's

41:00just there's not it's this is not an

41:02exhaustive list. Um, and we also haven't

41:07really had the ability to go deep into

41:10some of these sources. So, you're seeing

41:11again, I just want to reiterate a first

41:13blush. Um,

41:19so some of what's captured from other

41:21cities. Um, Seattle's done a fair amount

41:24of work in this arena. Um, creating an

41:27office of labor standards in 2015.

41:30Um, eight cities noted here, including

41:33CEKEC and Seattle, have laws to ensure

41:35workers have predictable schedules, more

41:38opportunities for existing employees to

41:40work, and sufficient periods of rest.

41:44Oregon has adopted a statewide fair

41:46scheduling law

41:48and um a lot of other worker protection

41:51laws are are targeted to certain

41:53industries

41:55or or as we'll see um

41:58it might be certain employer sizes.

42:05So, in citing San Francisco as one

42:08example, um what some research has found

42:12is that raising the minimum wage oh well

42:14actually I'll get to it in a second did

42:16not impact job volume. So maybe if there

42:19had been concerns about the reduction in

42:22job jobs or job availability,

42:25it helped reduce turnover for employees

42:27that had more economic security.

42:30Uh however, this one was undertaken

42:33regionally. So it did include Berkeley,

42:35Oakland and surrounding urban centers

42:38and um calculations suggested that the

42:41increase in wages would have modest or

42:44negligible impacts on reducing the

42:46poverty rate.

42:49>> Yes, Council Member Madron,

42:52>> for this study um done regionally, was

42:55it a statewide minimum wage and they

42:58just did a regional study? Did these did

43:00these cities do a joint minimum wage

43:04increase and that was studied?

43:06>> The the changes to wage were done

43:09regionally. So Berkeley, Oakland, and

43:13the that surrounding area.

43:16>> Okay. So all those cities decided on

43:18kind of like the same package of of uh

43:21worker changes together.

43:23>> That's my that's my that's my

43:25understanding.

43:26>> Okay. Thank you,

43:28>> Stacy. Do we know how um when they say

43:31it did not impact job volume, do we know

43:35what the uh parameters in terms of time,

43:39how they determine that? So, was it five

43:43years after they implemented it the

43:45change?

43:47>> I don't know. We'd have to look into it.

43:49>> Okay.

43:58So for Seattle,

44:00uh this is some information about what

44:02Seattle's done. Higher minimum wage,

44:05gig worker protections,

44:08secure scheduling for employers with 500

44:11plus employees globally,

44:14and targeted protections for coffee,

44:16food, and retail workers.

44:31There is some work that's been done by

44:33the University of Washington on

44:35Seattle's changes that show that

44:37benefits um have reduc reduced turnover

44:41both um better for employees and

44:43employers. But we'd have to do some

44:45additional work to pull more information

44:47on that.

44:58Mayor Promlin.

45:00>> Oh. Uh, Cece, can we just hang out here

45:02for a second? I don't have any

45:04questions. I'm just reading it.

45:05>> Yep.

45:10>> These are a lot of big categories of

45:13things that we've heard um from uh labor

45:16groups. So, I'm just curious

45:19Mhm.

45:36And what did you uh what did you say

45:38just now about how

45:41how this turned out? Is there was um

45:44there was more that you were saying that

45:46was not on here?

45:47>> Yeah. the University of Washington um

45:49has done some research around Seattle

45:52and just my own just cursory review was

45:55showing that there were some realized

45:57benefits for reducing employee turnover.

46:01>> Oh, sure. Thanks.

46:05Oh, do you mind have a followup?

46:07>> Go ahead.

46:08>> Are you saying overall or was it

46:10specific to any or one of these things?

46:13>> Just overall.

46:14>> Okay.

46:17I'm assuming all of this was implemented

46:20after they had an office of municipal

46:22labor standards because how did they

46:25when I when I look at this I look at

46:28engagement with all of variety of

46:30sectors and industries on how you can

46:32come to some sort of conclusion on what

46:34to uh adopt to code. Yeah, I believe so

46:38because they have a there's a pretty

46:42significant role in terms of um ensuring

46:46the labor standard practices are

46:49followed.

46:50>> Okay. Thank you. Yes, council member

46:52Baron.

46:52>> Thank you. I'm I'm familiar with that

46:54issue actually and actually no,

46:57>> they most of these regulations were

47:00established before they had an office of

47:02labor labor standards. The Office of

47:05Labor Standards was established when

47:06they established regulation on gig

47:08workers, which is a relatively recent

47:13um

47:14uh uh uh uh

47:19the expansion and and a robust office of

47:23labor standards was u established to

47:26regulate gig workers in in the city of

47:28Seattle. Uh so for what it's worth, I

47:31I'm just familiar with that.

47:36City Manager Bernie, I was just doing a

47:39little side research. So, um, the Office

47:41of Labor Standards and the minimum wage

47:43went into effect at the same time. I

47:46think some of these followons happened

47:48after that, after the Office of Labor

47:49Standards. So, I think the minimum wage

47:51certainly happened, but I think some of

47:52the gig worker, some of the other

47:53targeted protections came after that

47:56office was formed. for what it's worth.

48:07>> So, we'll talk a little bit about

48:08Bellingham. So, Bellingham has a minimum

48:12wage requirement that sets hourly wages

48:14$2 above the state floor requirement on

48:17a continuous basis. There is a carveout

48:20for city workers. So, this does not

48:22apply to city workers and it was

48:24implemented in phases.

48:26So I don't have ri rigorous research on

48:30the outcomes of Bellingham, but we do

48:34have some

48:36I I guess could be called anecdotal the

48:39outcomes reported by the news the local

48:41newspaper. Um so workers within city

48:45limits received a guaranteed wage floor

48:48that stays $2 above the baseline

48:50Washington state minimum wage. Um, and

48:53it has helped offset rising everyday

48:56expenses. I don't Bellingham is

48:59interesting because if you if we're to

49:01go back through our slide decks again,

49:03they consistently had a higher cost of

49:05living, higher rent. They were

49:07consistently higher than Olympia amongst

49:10the data sets that we shared.

49:13Um impacts on local businesses have been

49:16noted as um menu price increases, you

49:20know, retail shops raising prices to

49:22absorb the payroll costs, reduced hours

49:25and staffing. Um certain local

49:28businesses changed which state they

49:30stayed open to manage their labor

49:32expenses, and some might have cut back

49:34on some extra services just to manage

49:37their profit margins. So maybe they

49:39didn't host. Uh one example was not

49:42hosting live local music or you know

49:45other things that may have generated

49:47extra hours or extra cost

49:51but again that's not through rigorous

49:54scientific

49:56a rigorous scientific study.

50:00So we'll end with a table that looks at

50:02minimum wage hourly rates in Washington

50:05because there's again several ways in

50:07which this has been done. Um there's not

50:10an

50:11There's not a lengthy list of

50:13communities. Um, but there are some

50:15themes here in terms of either looking

50:17at specific industries, looking at a

50:19tiered approach, um, or a targeted

50:22approach,

50:34>> council member Vanderpool. So the I

50:36think that I will I'll mention this

50:38about the the tiered thing as an

50:40interesting um

50:43in grad school I I studied um how

50:46healthcare systems work in different

50:47countries and one of the most

50:49interesting things I discovered about

50:50the German health care system is that uh

50:53larger employers are are required to

50:55give health care to their employees like

50:58100%.

50:59while and also pay into a a national

51:03fund that pays for the healthcare of the

51:06smaller employees. I bring this up

51:09because we don't have a large large

51:12industries like some of these areas do,

51:14but there's always been the the the um I

51:17guess like almost like a a wage UBI

51:19where the larger employer pays off the

51:22offset so that the smaller employer who

51:24can't afford the higher minimum wage.

51:27There's a balancing there because one of

51:29the problems with the smaller employers,

51:31they may not have the capital for the

51:32higher minimum wage, but the bigger guy

51:35does, right? So Safeway definitely has

51:37more capital to pay its employees a

51:39higher wage while a smaller grocery

51:41store may not have that capital. And so

51:44it is it's a thing that I' I've never

51:46seen applied under a tiered system, but

51:49it's something that I've always had an

51:51interest in is is considering how do you

51:55uh ensure that a portion of that wage

51:59increase that the smaller employer has

52:01to pay is is covered to match so that

52:04anyone at any job gets that same livable

52:08wage. You get what I'm saying?

52:11So,

52:15let's say you want to raise the minimum

52:17wage uh uh by $10, right? And uh if the

52:23larger employer can pay that a lot

52:26easier than the smaller employer, now

52:29the way the German health care system

52:31works is that it says that the larger

52:33employer has to pay into a fund that

52:36helps pay for the smaller employer's

52:38employees wage. So, five of those

52:41dollars are in are taxes that cover that

52:44that that increase while the larger

52:47employer pays the full $10. So the idea

52:50here is to create is to use taxes to

52:53balance the wage difference between uh

52:56for the smaller employer that can't

52:58cover that cost difference so that every

53:00single person gets that $10 increase.

53:02It's essentially like a universal basic

53:04income but it's applied to wages is the

53:07idea.

53:11Thank you, Mayor Promlin.

53:12>> Has that idea been implemented in the

53:14states?

53:15>> Uh, no, it has not, but it's something

53:18that I've had an interest in for many

53:20years. And you know that these are still

53:22people in any in in any way there. You

53:26know, just because it's a just because

53:28it's a a thing that occurs in a

53:30different country doesn't mean it's

53:31something we can't do in the United

53:32States, right? Um, we a lot of our ideas

53:35are exported to the world and vice

53:36versa.

53:39Yes, just a question. Thank you.

53:45>> All right, back to you, Stacy.

53:47>> Okay,

53:51so a few considerations drawn from what

53:54the what we saw with the other

53:56communities. I mean, one is in terms of

53:58the San Francisco example, that was a

54:01use of regional implementation.

54:04Um, other cities and regions have

54:07targeted employers with 500 plus. You

54:10know, I've looked at employer size.

54:12Other cities or regions have targeted

54:14specific industries.

54:16Um, and just noting that, you know, city

54:20of Seattle is the one that we saw that

54:22had an office of labor and standards,

54:24but we're quite a bit smaller than that.

54:33So my last slide is I want to reflect

54:38back what I heard from you during the

54:40last conversation around community

54:41engagement. Um because I think

54:46you had some guidance for me in terms of

54:49if we were to go out and talk to the

54:51community or talk to stakeholder groups

54:53or interested um groups in the

54:56community, what what might be important

54:57to you?

54:59So these are some of the key points that

55:01I heard. Um you know engage with groups

55:04that have already participated or

55:06commented on this process. Include

55:08perspectives from different industries

55:09and sectors. And you provided with me

55:12with some examples of that.

55:15Um include perspectives from different

55:17employer sizes.

55:20Include workers not traditionally or as

55:22easily represented and explore

55:24incentives or reduce barriers to

55:26participation.

55:27understand the positive impacts

55:31um of what particularly an increase in

55:34minimum wage or predictable scheduling

55:36might mean for workers and the local

55:38economy.

55:39And to rightsize the engagement for what

55:44your interests and objectives are and

55:46what our staff and resource capacity

55:48are.

55:57Um, so that being said, I'll come back

56:00to the considerations that I offer for

56:03tonight. Um,

56:06we came back at this point to provide

56:08some initial data and some research to

56:10help seed a conversation. And my

56:12questions for us are how might you want

56:15to proceed? um what are the problem or

56:19problems you'd like to see this work

56:20effort addressed that helps with scoping

56:23and developing a next phase in terms of

56:26what that might look like and in

56:28particular what would you want to see

56:30result from any additional work here is

56:33it something

56:36is it is it another phase of research is

56:38it questions to be answered is it um

56:41conversation with community or is it

56:43something for consideration and action

56:45the specificity I have, the better I can

56:49move forward.

56:51So, thank you.

56:53>> All right. Thank you, Stacy. Um,

56:57I know that this is, uh, a lot of work

57:00on on top of, you know, a lot of the

57:03things that you're doing, uh, including

57:04the jungle transition plan especially,

57:07that takes up a lot of time. Um, I know

57:09that this is, um, work that, um, we put

57:14on pause, um, and there's clearly very

57:18limited research out there. So, we

57:20appreciate you, uh, doing as much

57:22digging in as you can to get what you

57:23can to put it in front of us tonight,

57:26um, for a discussion. So, um, council

57:29members, uh, you heard Stacy. We need to

57:32make sure that any feedback we give

57:34tonight is clear, um, and with clear

57:37direction.

57:38Um, Council Member Gilman,

57:46you're on mute.

57:50>> Oh, the famous Zoom slogan there. Um I

57:54I'm just going to comment uh following

57:57the three questions that Stacy asked. Um

58:00how to proceed. I would I would advocate

58:04that we lead with low-wage workers and

58:06we ask impacted folks that rather than

58:09continuing to start by asking bosses and

58:12landlords what will help workers and

58:13renters that we ask workers and renters

58:16and their advocates um what would help.

58:19So that that's my my my first suggestion

58:21for how to proceed. Um, in terms of the

58:24problems that I I hope that we might

58:26address, I I think it's it's really

58:29clear that there's an affordability

58:31crisis and it was described in several

58:33different ways across those slides. So,

58:35what can we do to lessen the impacts

58:37locally?

58:39And and more narrowly, how do we make

58:41room for lower wealth people and

58:44children to live and work in Olympia?

58:47And and then third, what do I want to

58:49see in results? what what I want to um

58:54to be able to wrestle with is the

58:56affirmative case for taking action to

58:59benefit individuals, families, and

59:02school outcomes. Um to to have a better

59:05understanding of what might be the

59:07positive impacts as as and I I'm

59:10thinking about Marijuani of Kato, Japan.

59:14In our preparing for an exchange, we

59:16traded questions with each other and the

59:20question they asked us to address next

59:22week in a joint meeting is what are we

59:25doing so that young families with

59:27children will live in our city and I I

59:29think that that should guide this work.

59:32So I will yield.

59:38>> Thank you, Council Member Gilman.

59:41Additional comments. Council member

59:43Vanderpool,

59:44>> I'll just go down to three. Um, how

59:47might you want to proceed? Um, you know,

59:51uh,

59:53I wonder if you know about the idea of,

59:56uh,

59:58do we do do we have staff continue to do

1:00:01this or do we hire uh, another firm that

1:00:04that does affordability and labor? I

1:00:07think that's a question. And I I think

1:00:08that Stacy is doing a wonderful job with

1:00:10this and I think Jennica's also doing a

1:00:11wonderful job with this. But I I I

1:00:13wonder about uh whether the further

1:00:16information is. That said, I think that

1:00:19getting uh the data that we work with

1:00:21will have to be qualitative and

1:00:22quantitative because the da the the the

1:00:25stats will tell you, you know, a certain

1:00:28approach, a certain height, but you but

1:00:30talking to folks and experiences. Um I

1:00:33think about talking to um the cost

1:00:36barriers to like if you ask someone who

1:00:39is a um in a traditional trade who who

1:00:44has a traditional union job with certain

1:00:47benefits that has been around for a long

1:00:50time. uh your you know your traditional

1:00:52like um uh home building trades and then

1:00:57you ask someone who's works in like as a

1:00:59grocery worker and in an unrepresented

1:01:02position not just someone who with UFCW

1:01:04but someone who's a non uh who has

1:01:06multiple jobs and you asked yourself

1:01:09what are the gaps and the pain that

1:01:11they're feeling is the question between

1:01:13those two a traditional trade and one

1:01:16that uh has become the norm for time in

1:01:19the city right the one that has grown

1:01:21over time. Those minimum wage jobs,

1:01:23people have multiple jobs, those people

1:01:25that uh uh we see travel a lot too. You

1:01:29know, wondering about that a lot is is

1:01:31the folks that work here but live

1:01:34further away, right? I I I have seen

1:01:36that at my own job at the state. I've

1:01:38seen people do that in the hospital

1:01:40system. Is it a choice or is it because

1:01:42they need they want to raise kids or

1:01:44other other factors? And without

1:01:47interviewing those people and getting

1:01:48down to that detail, it's hard for us to

1:01:50really guess on what that is. So, um I

1:01:54guess comparing those differences, the

1:01:56the benefits, the wages, the services

1:01:58provided by the employer versus ones who

1:02:00are not right is is a is a real

1:02:03question. Um and I said like so to what

1:02:07is the problem?

1:02:09Uh I guess thinking about that

1:02:12foundation of wages, benefits, services,

1:02:14and opportunities.

1:02:16um for folks that are just below that

1:02:18poverty that that people below the Alice

1:02:21is like I think it was about 39% right

1:02:24that's a huge portion of folks in the

1:02:26community some of them are just below it

1:02:28or like 10,000 below it or so but that

1:02:31affects someone's ability to have child

1:02:34care right you know that goes into a

1:02:36factor of like whether or not they want

1:02:37to have a kid or not right if their

1:02:39wages are just below it they they see

1:02:41how much that costs and that becomes a

1:02:43factor and that affects us as a city and

1:02:45it affects our school district as they

1:02:48like as as has been spoken a lot a lot

1:02:50about. So

1:02:53I would like to know like because as a

1:02:55city we've we've done a lot of policy

1:02:57around affordability on one hand which

1:03:00is um great work around housing

1:03:03affordability and food systems planning

1:03:06which I appreciate and on the other hand

1:03:08there's the other factor of it wages

1:03:09benefits services that you get from your

1:03:11employer and I think about where where

1:03:13where in where in that other category

1:03:16are are not a standard in the city and

1:03:19what can we do in those other categories

1:03:22and asking the gap that has formed

1:03:24between the two different uh uh economic

1:03:28levels. Um and then what do you want to

1:03:32see as a result of the work I guess is

1:03:34again is the standards in in living

1:03:36conditions. Um, and I I wonder

1:03:41um I've said this in the past as a as a

1:03:44is do we do one package or do we come up

1:03:47with something that's like an action

1:03:49plan that goes over it over time and is

1:03:51and works through it and and reassesses

1:03:55the issue of folks that are just below

1:03:57it, right? Um, and how does that fit

1:04:01into the other work we're doing? So, I

1:04:03mean that's the that that comes around

1:04:04to the idea again going back around is

1:04:06is this something that that is is going

1:04:09to live in the assistant city manager's

1:04:12office and in Jenica's office or is it

1:04:14going to go to is is it something that

1:04:16requires hiring another staff member in

1:04:18the future because it may the results of

1:04:20the study or an analysis may end up

1:04:23being that you're going to need

1:04:25something for long-term

1:04:28work. Um, but so that's my that's my

1:04:30feedback.

1:04:34>> All right. Thank you. Additional

1:04:37comments,

1:04:41>> Council Member Barrett.

1:04:44>> Thank you, Mayor. Um, I I have quite a

1:04:47few thoughts on this. Um, I I agree we

1:04:51need to focus on lowwage workers,

1:04:54particularly the minimum wage workers.

1:04:57Um I believe that that there um

1:05:02there are um

1:05:05there's a significant portion of the

1:05:06workforce that is um oh

1:05:11trapped kind of in the low wage cycle

1:05:13and um and uh because affordability is

1:05:20such a growing problem

1:05:24um I see

1:05:28big problems throughout our community um

1:05:31in

1:05:33uh these workers not being able to um

1:05:37spend money in the community and uh I

1:05:40see uh the small businesses struggling

1:05:44not because of the wages they're paying

1:05:47their employees but because people

1:05:49aren't being able to buy the commodities

1:05:51that they're selling. um whether it's

1:05:56coffee shops and pastry stops and

1:05:58bookstores and retail. Um so um

1:06:03in having a vision for the city, I I

1:06:05would like to see a city that people

1:06:07have greater ability to and greater

1:06:11purchasing power. Let let me just put it

1:06:13that way.

1:06:14Um I I do believe that there are certain

1:06:18sectors that are impacted

1:06:22um particularly uh heavily and those are

1:06:27like the health care sector.

1:06:30Um we have we are we're a major health

1:06:33care center in uh this part of the

1:06:36state. We have two hospitals. We have

1:06:39several nursing care centers and um

1:06:42there's a tremendous home health care

1:06:45industry and and group homes and these

1:06:48workers are primarily

1:06:50minimum wage workers in well a big piece

1:06:54of it and I think the data that Stacy's

1:06:57pulled together is kind of supports

1:07:00that.

1:07:02Um so I I I think we need to take a

1:07:05special look at health care, the health

1:07:08care sector and how we can um position

1:07:11ourselves to

1:07:13um support those workers and um

1:07:18uh and and that sector to be robust.

1:07:23Um

1:07:25uh

1:07:28the uh

1:07:31one of the big struggles people have

1:07:33right now uh

1:07:36uh is frankly costs cost cost

1:07:41you know gas food. there's kind of this

1:07:45um to some extent this is beyond our

1:07:48control to uh control cost but it is not

1:07:54beyond our control to um respond to it.

1:07:59And so, um,

1:08:02is there something we can do, um, to

1:08:06acknowledge cost and and adjust our pol

1:08:09city policies to address cost

1:08:14and affordability.

1:08:17Um,

1:08:19I think of things that we benefit that

1:08:23benefit our citizens like free bus

1:08:25service. Free bus service. I always

1:08:28remind people of this because this is

1:08:29such a sweet community amenity that is

1:08:32unique to Olympia.

1:08:34And um if people want to um

1:08:39um oh expand lower costs, this is a this

1:08:44is one way to do it. And are are there

1:08:46other things that the city can do that

1:08:48are reasonable through the food security

1:08:51policy that we'll be looking at to

1:08:54make uh Olympia more affordable? That I

1:08:57think is very important as well.

1:09:01Uh but um

1:09:05what whatever we do, let's let's do

1:09:07something. Let's not um make this a

1:09:13oh kind of a

1:09:16let's let's make this a meaningless

1:09:18process or a meaningful process you know

1:09:22is is the one thing that I beseech

1:09:25everyone

1:09:26um

1:09:28wages aren't meeting expenses and um

1:09:33uh

1:09:34uh one idea that I that I had which is

1:09:37kind inconsistent with this process and

1:09:40I've talked to the mayor about it,

1:09:41talked to the city manager about is, you

1:09:43know, just perhaps drafting an ordinance

1:09:47that does some things after talking to

1:09:50stakeholders and and just going around

1:09:52meeting with the stakeholders about the

1:09:53ordinance and what should be in it or

1:09:55out of it. um as a means of pushing a

1:10:01process as opposed to

1:10:03uh processing and then drafting

1:10:06something after the fact that may or not

1:10:09may or may not move any place. I I think

1:10:12it's kind of doing the process in

1:10:15reverse of what we've t typically

1:10:18thought about. But those are my

1:10:20thoughts. Thank you.

1:10:23>> Thank you uh Council Member Barrett. And

1:10:25just to piggyback off of that comment,

1:10:28that's you're taking an approach that is

1:10:31similar to um sort of what state

1:10:34government would do, right? Which is

1:10:36have a bill and then have people testify

1:10:39and support or against and go through a

1:10:41process of amendments and so on and so

1:10:43on.

1:10:45>> Yes, that's that's correct.

1:10:46>> Okay. um uh shop it around as

1:10:50stakeholders

1:10:51all all around all around and then have

1:10:55an open public hearing process about the

1:10:58ordinance itself, you know. So, um it's

1:11:02not the way things have been done since

1:11:05I've been on the council necessarily,

1:11:06but it it's an approach that might be uh

1:11:09workable.

1:11:11>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Maj.

1:11:16Well, thanks for the initial research

1:11:19that you guys have been working on. Um,

1:11:22one other thing that really struck me

1:11:24was um, you know, based on the number of

1:11:27workers we have in the city, how few of

1:11:29them live here in the city. Um and it

1:11:34makes me think that we need some

1:11:35engagement with regional partners on

1:11:38this um in terms of um you know where we

1:11:42might uh coordinate with the other local

1:11:45governments uh around uh around this

1:11:49body of work. Um it's obviously an issue

1:11:53that is much larger than our one

1:11:55community. Um

1:11:58and with that said, it's also um the

1:12:02work around worker protections is also

1:12:04just one part of the piece of the work

1:12:07around affordability as well. Um you

1:12:09know, we have work going on around

1:12:10affordable housing, affordable

1:12:12transportation. We've been in

1:12:14discussions with the school district

1:12:15around child care. We're taking up work

1:12:17around food systems. So, there's many

1:12:20things that go into this. Um so it's

1:12:23it's not uh you know it's it's it's not

1:12:26the only place that we should be looking

1:12:29around affordability challenges. Um

1:12:33uh that you mentioned in um engagement

1:12:36objectives uh around uh sectorbased

1:12:39conversations. I'm still very interested

1:12:41in that. And just looking at the list

1:12:43that you have here, childare,

1:12:45healthcare, nonprofit, elder care, you

1:12:47know, I'm also thinking retail, food

1:12:50service, grocery. Um, and I'm thinking

1:12:53about the targeted protections um that

1:12:56we've seen come out in other cities

1:12:58where there's a a recognized problem in

1:13:01particular sectors that need to be

1:13:03addressed. I think one of the challenges

1:13:04with the workers bill of rights that we

1:13:06saw is they applied to everybody and

1:13:08there's just so much nuance um among the

1:13:11different sectors uh different uh needs

1:13:14different uh union representation um you

1:13:17know and different needs of the workers

1:13:19different needs of the employers all all

1:13:20of that. So um I'm very interested in um

1:13:24targeted protections and having

1:13:26sectorbased conversations around that.

1:13:29Um I'm also interested to uh think more

1:13:34on the tiered aspect based on number of

1:13:38employees and um uh revenue. Um that was

1:13:43another one of the challenges with the

1:13:44workers bill of rights is you know some

1:13:46of us thought that it didn't quite land

1:13:48right on what is a large medium small

1:13:50business um employer I should say. Um,

1:13:55and um, I'm also curious, um, you know,

1:13:59hearing that Oregon has statewide fair

1:14:01scheduling laws, I'm curious what we

1:14:04have here in Washington that is in place

1:14:07or potentially underway. Um, you know,

1:14:10it's possible that there's some stuff

1:14:12that legislators are working on that

1:14:14address some of the concerns that we

1:14:16hear from folks. Um, and I also just uh

1:14:20want to recognize that, you know, costs

1:14:22costs are really up across the board and

1:14:25they're up for everyone. Um, they're up

1:14:27for individuals in our community who are

1:14:28struggling to remain here um who are,

1:14:32you know, going through that decision-m

1:14:34on whether or not to have a family. And

1:14:35they're also really up for um, you know,

1:14:38businesses and nonprofits, employers as

1:14:40well. And so, um, you know, I do think

1:14:42it's important that we're engaging both

1:14:44sides, um, of this, uh, of these

1:14:48challenges. Um, you know, we know that

1:14:51these, uh, are disproportionately felt

1:14:53by the our local businesses that we

1:14:56cherish. Um, our small nonprofits that

1:14:58don't have the ability to raise prices

1:15:01to make ends meet. Um, and so, um, that

1:15:04for that reason, I think it's important

1:15:05that, yes, we should be engaging with

1:15:07our low-wage workers in our community.

1:15:10Um and uh we should be engaging with our

1:15:13regional part partners knowing that many

1:15:15of those low wage workers you know live

1:15:18elsewhere um or maybe they work

1:15:20elsewhere and live in Olympia. Um I

1:15:22think it's just um you know

1:15:25a a broad uh you know market ecosystem

1:15:28there. Um and then of course engaging

1:15:31with you know our um

1:15:34sorry I kind of lost my train of thought

1:15:36there but engaging with our regional

1:15:37partners because it is across uh a a

1:15:40wider area and I would be concerned

1:15:42about um uh having impacts in our

1:15:46community that it's it's when it's easy

1:15:49to just move ac move across a a

1:15:53jurisdictional boundary and not have

1:15:55those same kind of uh benefits for

1:15:57workers in Nice.

1:16:05>> Okay. Thank you, Council Member Madron.

1:16:07Um, I just want to check in with staff

1:16:09and see how you doing in terms of

1:16:11feeling like you're getting what you

1:16:13need

1:16:14before we proceed.

1:16:18>> Um, I think I think so. I mean, what

1:16:22what I'm hearing so far are continued

1:16:25areas of interest. I guess if I could

1:16:27like reflect back. So I think these are

1:16:29like um questions and um and areas of

1:16:34interest for further engagement is what

1:16:36I'm hearing thus far or research.

1:16:40>> Great. Thank you. Uh council member

1:16:42Green.

1:16:44>> Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, I did skip the mayor

1:16:46prom. Mayor prom win followed by council

1:16:49member Green.

1:16:50>> Appreciate the recognition. Thank you so

1:16:52much for this um for this presentation.

1:16:54and it was uh you know kept saying

1:16:56cursory it's just a blush and it's also

1:16:58a lot of work you know we're we're

1:17:00asking a lot of tough questions it's a

1:17:01lot of work and people are really

1:17:02invested in it all across the board all

1:17:04income levels folks that know about this

1:17:07are um are tuning into it so it's also

1:17:09you know high pressure in a lot of ways

1:17:11too so I can really appreciate that uh

1:17:14for me I'll keep it simple and then I'd

1:17:16love to hear from you too if you're like

1:17:19you know that's too vague just let me

1:17:20know my thoughts aren't much different

1:17:22from council member midron and I do

1:17:23appre appreciate some of what my other

1:17:25council colleagues have brought up. Uh,

1:17:27how might I want to proceed? Just going

1:17:30through this line of questions right

1:17:31here. I really I really see this this

1:17:35work as um

1:17:38uh like o overall affordability. This is

1:17:42uh this is one part of it and and a

1:17:44really important part. Um and focusing

1:17:47on folks that uh are possibly the most

1:17:51marginalized here. though I would like

1:17:53to roll this into our only strong

1:17:55efforts. Maybe it's the uh you know the

1:17:57the first the first um priority uh or or

1:18:02phase of it. Uh I think that that also

1:18:05helps us around the framing of not only

1:18:08how are we talking about it, how are we

1:18:10explaining it to people, but also how

1:18:12are we approaching it the body of work

1:18:15is that really seeing it as uh Olympia

1:18:18strong, right? And and the intention of

1:18:19Olympia Strong is uh to to lift

1:18:23everyone. Um some issues uh with this

1:18:28work in the past not of uh both of you

1:18:30are doing but um this topic I would say

1:18:33is that it was quite divisive. Um and uh

1:18:37there for some folks it felt punitive in

1:18:40some ways uh that we were you know

1:18:42taking from one one group and then

1:18:44giving to the giving to the other or uh

1:18:47um and and I think uh for for some

1:18:50businesses especially um our our small

1:18:54mom and pops that we like so much or

1:18:56small businesses in in town. It's

1:18:58there's so many factors as we know that

1:19:00goes into why the cost of living is so

1:19:03high and um and it felt and it felt for

1:19:07me at one point that uh uh we would be

1:19:12um we would be asking them to to sort of

1:19:15bear the brunt of all of that to just

1:19:16fix it by by raising the minimum wage

1:19:19and I don't think that's fair. Um so uh

1:19:23I would like to proceed with um uh

1:19:27making sure that we have an intentional

1:19:29effort uh on uh centering voices and and

1:19:33making sure we hear from uh the most

1:19:36marginalized people, the people that are

1:19:37impacted the most uh by this um and and

1:19:42still still talking to um still talking

1:19:46to everyone else, right? but without

1:19:48losing that um emphasis. And I know

1:19:50that's been um uh a concern um for folks

1:19:54in the past that will we only talk to

1:19:56business owners or we only talk to

1:19:58people that um that have have more

1:20:01privilege. Uh so talk to everyone and

1:20:03and definitely center the voices of

1:20:05people that are most marginalized.

1:20:07Um and I would like to see it be the the

1:20:10first phase of strong. Um what are the

1:20:12problems I'd like to see? Oh,

1:20:14affordability. I really think that um we

1:20:17shouldn't try to for me the goal is

1:20:20lowering the overall cost um and

1:20:23expenses of living, not trying to, you

1:20:26know, inject more money into the minimum

1:20:28wage. I just think it's in the long

1:20:30term, it's something that, you know, we

1:20:31raise it and then we'll need to raise it

1:20:32again and it just keeps going. But I I

1:20:34just don't think it gets to the root of

1:20:36the issues. And so, how do we um yeah,

1:20:39how do we uh lower overall expenses? and

1:20:41and that's also a way of of lifting

1:20:44everyone too, right? Um, I also do

1:20:48recognize that we, this body has done,

1:20:51you know, we're a very ambitious council

1:20:53and uh um I don't think I need to tell

1:20:57staff that, but we are a very ambitious

1:20:59council and we uh we have done a number

1:21:03of things that uh I think if we wait to

1:21:06see it how it plays out, we will see

1:21:08some I mean the hope is that we'll see

1:21:10some positive returns here. We have done

1:21:12a number of things in the area of tenant

1:21:14protections. Um we are uh working on our

1:21:17uh food systems plan. I know it's not to

1:21:19den yet, but um it's it's big deal

1:21:22things that we've been doing. We've uh

1:21:23been um I I guess I I would just sort of

1:21:27uh categorize as more of a partner to

1:21:29our conservation districts. And I think

1:21:31there's uh there's some some wins

1:21:33that'll play out there. um our transport

1:21:37or our uh inner city transit is uh is a

1:21:41free bus. It's you know that's not every

1:21:43community has it. So I yeah I would like

1:21:46to see how some of these things are

1:21:48going to play out. Um

1:21:51what do you want to see? Oh uh I think I

1:21:55covered kind of what I want to see from

1:21:57from the result of this work. What I

1:21:58don't want to see is something that

1:22:00looks ex uh very close to the initiative

1:22:03that failed originally um for for the

1:22:06reason that it did fail. Um and uh yeah,

1:22:10so I wouldn't want us to I wouldn't want

1:22:12us to be working backwards.

1:22:14Do either of you have any questions? Is

1:22:16that helpful?

1:22:20>> I I Yeah, I think I understand. I'm

1:22:22gonna I'm I'm listening to everyone and

1:22:25then I'm gonna reflect back what I

1:22:26thought I heard because I'm gonna

1:22:27probably need some clarification like

1:22:30towards the left or right here from

1:22:31everyone I think.

1:22:33>> Okay,

1:22:33>> I figured as much. That's why I asked

1:22:35earlier. How you doing?

1:22:37>> All right, Council Member Green.

1:22:40>> Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

1:22:42>> Um I'm at a similar place as uh as Mayor

1:22:45Promwin and Council Member Madron. Um

1:22:48and and while several of my colleagues

1:22:49were very kind to give you like an

1:22:51answer to each question, uh I'm going to

1:22:53be a little more broad because I feel

1:22:55like my where I'm sitting with this um

1:22:58is applicable to all of these. Um I feel

1:23:01like what I what I saw in this data and

1:23:04um and a lot of what we have heard uh is

1:23:08to me there's two um segments of this

1:23:11work and one is what can we do

1:23:13individually as a city and to me things

1:23:15like uh uh some of the workers

1:23:18protections uh you know we saw a lot of

1:23:20commonality in there in terms of uh a

1:23:22lot of really targeted work around

1:23:23particular uh sectors around particular

1:23:26industries uh and and while we don't

1:23:28have hard data uh it seems some of

1:23:30that's uh hopefully been really

1:23:32successful and certainly not had um

1:23:35types of negative impacts that have led

1:23:37anybody to to roll that back or change

1:23:39their mind. And I think

1:23:42when I think about what could we do you

1:23:44know within the boundaries of Olympia

1:23:46recognizing that so many of uh you know

1:23:48so many of the workers in this community

1:23:50are um I'll call them transient in the

1:23:53sense of you know a lot uh live here and

1:23:55work elsewhere or live elsewhere and

1:23:57work here. And so, um, to me that really

1:24:00plays into this conversation of, um,

1:24:04what can we do within the city that

1:24:06would really have impact recognizing

1:24:08that, um, yeah, all all of that. So, so

1:24:11to me there's that local piece of the

1:24:12work and I would love I feel like the um

1:24:15um slide you had on engagement and what

1:24:17you've heard from this council on

1:24:18engagement to me is uh you know that

1:24:21great let's do that engagement and talk

1:24:23about what are some of those um

1:24:26protections or ways that we can support

1:24:29um the second arm for me though so I

1:24:31feel like there's that city level work

1:24:33uh I feel like and I and I you know felt

1:24:35this way about the workers bill of

1:24:37rights I don't think we can have a wage

1:24:39conversation that is just Olympian I

1:24:41think it has to be regional and I don't

1:24:43know what that body is or what the right

1:24:45avenue is but in the same way uh you

1:24:47know we saw that in your example of San

1:24:49Francisco. I think that um was just a a

1:24:52really difficult um thing to to wrap my

1:24:56head around in a community where um even

1:24:59a lot of local businesses have um um

1:25:03branches is the only word that comes to

1:25:05mind, you know, but have facilities in

1:25:06multiple cities or in the county or and

1:25:09I just think that has to be a regional

1:25:11conversation because our our

1:25:12affordability issues are regional, our

1:25:14cost of, you know, our housing issues

1:25:16are regional. uh and and we do all of

1:25:18this other regional. So to me there

1:25:20there's those two pieces. There's the

1:25:21citywide piece which I think you have a

1:25:22great roadmap for the engagement and

1:25:25then there's the the regional piece

1:25:26which I think is where we need to talk

1:25:28wages. Um just as a sidebar too one one

1:25:32of the things that strikes me I mean

1:25:34state employment is not what it once was

1:25:36in Olympia but we still saw on that

1:25:38slide that it's still the largest

1:25:40employer within Olympia. It's what 19%

1:25:4220%. Um, and one question that I felt

1:25:45like um, I still don't have a great

1:25:47answer to is when we do this kind of

1:25:48work, whether as a city or as a region,

1:25:50does that apply to state workers? I

1:25:52mean, is this work that would leave out

1:25:54a chunk? Because I know there are uh,

1:25:56segments of state workers that are also

1:25:58not meeting those living wage standards.

1:26:00Um, so how do we do this work in a way

1:26:03that we're sure includes that group? Um,

1:26:06because otherwise, yeah, we're just

1:26:08leaving out one of our our largest

1:26:10sectors. Um,

1:26:13just checking my notes to make sure I

1:26:14covered everything that was

1:26:22Yeah. And and then the other one and I

1:26:23think to council member uh Madron's

1:26:26point is uh you know um the

1:26:30affordability issues are not uh we saw

1:26:33in those slides it's housing and

1:26:35utilities. I don't think that surprised

1:26:36anybody. Um, and so while I know uh

1:26:40affordability targeted at workers uh or

1:26:43or these protections, like it it just

1:26:46feels like just this one piece. And so I

1:26:47think it's just important context too to

1:26:49continually focus continue to focus on

1:26:53this is not the uh the a single

1:26:56solution, right? Raising raising wages

1:26:58is not a single solution. Increasing

1:26:59like it's it's a piece of it. And so how

1:27:01do we continue to work with the other

1:27:04levers as well? recognizing that I I

1:27:06feel just feel like all of affordability

1:27:08can't be put on this one thing

1:27:10particularly again because in this

1:27:11instance and I think it's totally

1:27:12appropriate we're talking about workers

1:27:13but affordability is hitting uh many

1:27:16many people who don't work who are on

1:27:18fixed incomes whatever that is and so um

1:27:20I just want to kind of lift that up as

1:27:22well that while we're talking about this

1:27:24which would impact people who uh who can

1:27:27and are able to and choose to work um

1:27:30there's a whole other segment of the

1:27:32community when we talk about

1:27:32affordability that would not be um

1:27:34necess necessarily benefited by this

1:27:36type of work.

1:27:41>> Thank you. Um and to pile on.

1:27:47Um so, uh for starters, uh I'm going to

1:27:51go I am going to go question by question

1:27:54with the hopes that you're at least

1:27:57clear on where I stand. Um so, how might

1:28:02you want to proceed? Um,

1:28:05so I would like to see us identify and

1:28:08engage the low-wage workers in our

1:28:11community and center them. Um, I do

1:28:16um it does concern me when I hear

1:28:19language that is sort of like just

1:28:22prioritize them and leave everyone else

1:28:24out. We always center the marginalized,

1:28:27but it doesn't mean ignoring everyone

1:28:29else. And so

1:28:32all industries should be engaged in this

1:28:35process along with lowwage workers while

1:28:38we center them. Um

1:28:41I um clearly there is uh an

1:28:45affordability crisis. Um we see the cost

1:28:48of rent, food, child care and energy. um

1:28:51at least at the national level. Uh we

1:28:54could see uh a dramatic increase over

1:28:57the years and certainly that impacts us

1:28:59locally. That's what I took away from

1:29:01what you were presenting today. Um

1:29:05so I I I would also like to see us

1:29:08target industries

1:29:10um because I um it does concern me uh

1:29:14that we would do sort of any sort of

1:29:16blanket policy. Um as we said before

1:29:19that the community already um said no to

1:29:23such a proposal before um and uh target

1:29:27those industries um specifically in the

1:29:30context of who are those low-wage

1:29:32workers within those industries. Um and

1:29:36then also um recognizing the fact that

1:29:40um

1:29:42it's important for us not to um

1:29:47get too much into

1:29:50um the ins and outs of some of the much

1:29:54broader uh policies. Um I think that

1:29:58regionally um it makes sense to at least

1:30:01engage our um counterparts. However, I

1:30:05will say um that I would be lying if I

1:30:08sat here and and told you um that I

1:30:11haven't had conversations already with

1:30:14our surrounding communities who were

1:30:17very concerned about the initiative um

1:30:20that was here in Olympia um and were

1:30:24pretty vocal with me about um their

1:30:26concerns about Olympia passing it. Um,

1:30:29and so I, you know, I I don't want to be

1:30:33under any illusion that just because we

1:30:35share this information, suddenly they're

1:30:37going to be jumping on board and want to

1:30:40engage with us, uh, in this way. Um, and

1:30:43so I would just caution us to um

1:30:46recognize that it's information sharing

1:30:48that we can do, but it's not necessarily

1:30:50a guarantee that they are going to be

1:30:52willing to join us. Um I do think there

1:30:55is the case to be made that there are

1:30:57regional impacts um and that businesses

1:31:00uh certainly we don't want to have a

1:31:02migration of our businesses going to

1:31:04other communities because we acted

1:31:06alone. Um and I think those impacts are

1:31:10real. Um

1:31:16so um what do I want to see as a result

1:31:19of this work? Um, I would love to see us

1:31:23um, as I said, engage um,

1:31:28low-wage workers, target specific

1:31:31industries, establish an engagement

1:31:33timeline, so we can talk about who's

1:31:38going to be at the table, who's not at

1:31:41the table, but if we keep doing this for

1:31:45six months, a year of you coming back

1:31:48with more research, and then we do

1:31:50another round of more research. It's

1:31:52sort of like a when's the end. Um, and

1:31:55so

1:31:57let's establish a very clear engagement

1:32:00timeline so that we know, okay, this is

1:32:03when this is going to wrap. Um, let's

1:32:06have some um

1:32:09maybe even something for people to react

1:32:11to. I'm not totally against uh Council

1:32:14Member Barren's idea or proposal. Um

1:32:18that those we are engaging have

1:32:19something to react to. Um and maybe that

1:32:23even looks like multiple draft

1:32:24ordinances and we see what wins at the

1:32:27end of the day, right? Um so for me, I I

1:32:31would like to see something very clear

1:32:33um and strong in that way. Um,

1:32:39I think communications around this is

1:32:41really important. One of my concerns is

1:32:44is I don't want this to be presented as

1:32:48um it was kind of mentioned earlier a

1:32:49little bit I think uh by Council Member

1:32:51Green that this is somehow like a a

1:32:53savior or that it's um

1:32:57it's going to make this dramatic change

1:33:00in people's lives. Um, so we already

1:33:03talked about the cost of rent, food,

1:33:05child care, energy, all of it being up

1:33:08affecting people here in our community.

1:33:10And if we did something, for example,

1:33:12like Bellingham did and just went $2

1:33:15over the minimum wage indefinitely, I'm

1:33:18not that doesn't give me hope that it

1:33:21suddenly uh it might lighten the burden,

1:33:23but it doesn't remove the burden. Um, so

1:33:27how are we framing this and talking

1:33:30about this? who is our audience? Um, and

1:33:33be very clear about what it is that

1:33:35we're doing and what we are not doing.

1:33:37Um,

1:33:39so, um, those are just my initial

1:33:42thoughts. Um, and I'm open to hearing

1:33:46more. I hope we can get to a a shared

1:33:48vision at least by majority of us

1:33:50tonight. Um, so that we can give some

1:33:53uh, clear uh, direction to Stacy. Um and

1:33:57I also just want to say um I agree with

1:34:00the mayor prom when it comes to Olympia

1:34:02Strong. This was something that I said

1:34:04from the very beginning is is that I do

1:34:06see it as um sort of within the scope or

1:34:10the purview of our economic resiliency

1:34:12plan um and opportunity plan um but I

1:34:17don't think it necessarily only lives

1:34:19there. I think it's a both and.

1:34:22So,

1:34:25all right. Yes, Stacey.

1:34:29>> Okay. I think we might be a little

1:34:31iterative here because I'm going to come

1:34:33back at you with what I thought I heard

1:34:35and then we'll go from there. So, um and

1:34:39Jay or Jennica, please like let me know

1:34:42what you're hearing as well. But so, I

1:34:45think I'm hearing um a lot of interest

1:34:47in commu continued engagement. Um, and I

1:34:51think, um, I'm hearing that for the

1:34:54majority it sounds like an affordability

1:34:57conversation and not necessarily limited

1:35:00to a wage conversation. Um, I think what

1:35:04I'm hearing is um

1:35:06is it's more about the um

1:35:10um there's there's there's majority

1:35:14interest in the cost side of things. Um

1:35:16although council member Gilman did speak

1:35:19to kind of the um how he described the

1:35:25wages benefits

1:35:27employ uh and services and opportunities

1:35:29provided by employers. Um,

1:35:33I think that you're asking for an

1:35:36engagement process that centers low-wage

1:35:38earners and workers, but is cross-

1:35:40sector, so it's comprehensive,

1:35:43um, and not necessarily

1:35:46uh, solution-ledd, but I've heard a lot

1:35:48of interest in the different quote

1:35:50unquote levers that we have in terms of

1:35:53impacting affordability.

1:35:55I heard a desire for both qualitative

1:35:57and quantitative data.

1:36:01And I think what I thought I heard was

1:36:04um an interest in wanting to see perhaps

1:36:07scenarios or options come out of that

1:36:10engagement process that look at things

1:36:12like targeted industries.

1:36:15um what support is the support that

1:36:18helps the most impacted workers and um

1:36:22and maybe tiered approaches.

1:36:25Um

1:36:28and I think what I heard from Council

1:36:30Member Baron and maybe within others

1:36:32comments was to come back with something

1:36:35substantive that you could potentially

1:36:37take action on. However, I also heard a

1:36:40lot of conversation or and I'm not about

1:36:44to continue to have this conversation at

1:36:46a regional level. So, I'm

1:36:51this is taking shape as a pretty

1:36:52intensive and broadly scoped engagement

1:36:55process and I just want to ask for

1:36:59clarification or additional feedback.

1:37:04>> Yes. Um I did not see who was first.

1:37:07Council member Madron followed by

1:37:08Council Member Vanderpole.

1:37:11>> I don't know that the ask is to engage

1:37:15around general affordability. I think

1:37:18it's just a recognition that

1:37:20affordability is a very broad complex

1:37:23topic and a lot of the factors are

1:37:25outside of our control and we have many

1:37:28things that we're working on as a city

1:37:29that address affordability. I do think

1:37:31we want this to be scoped to worker

1:37:34protections. Um

1:37:37And within that, I think it's, you know,

1:37:40we understand that people are struggling

1:37:42to afford to live in our community. Um,

1:37:46and I'm I'm curious what brings people

1:37:48stability um through in their in their

1:37:51employment. Um, uh, so that I I I don't

1:37:55know if that resonates with with other

1:37:57folks as well, but I think if the scope

1:38:00just goes out to general affordability,

1:38:02it becomes well, for one, conversations

1:38:04we've already had with our community and

1:38:06through various engagement efforts, um,

1:38:08but also just completely unwieldy. So,

1:38:11um, so I do think it needs to be limited

1:38:14to, um, to what workers are needing, um,

1:38:19and also listening more broadly than

1:38:21that as well. um in terms of you know

1:38:23what is uh actually um going to keep

1:38:27employers around as well. Um and so um

1:38:31so hopefully that provides a little bit

1:38:32of clarity. I'm very hesitant that the

1:38:35next step of this is something substant

1:38:38substantive

1:38:39that we react to and get reactions from

1:38:42because I think that that's what led to

1:38:44a lot of the divisiveness that we saw

1:38:45before is that there was something very

1:38:48substantive to react to and people

1:38:50reacted very strongly including members

1:38:52of this council. Um, and so I do think

1:38:55there needs to be iterative steps built

1:38:57in like is this on the right track and

1:39:00and and kind of uh, you know, shaped

1:39:03together. Um, but I would be worried

1:39:05that if it's just like, well, what about

1:39:07this? And then like everyone yells at us

1:39:09and then we're like, oh, okay, well, how

1:39:11about that? You know, so, uh, so, but I

1:39:15do think you're on the right track in

1:39:17terms of, you know, thinking about some

1:39:19of those targeted approaches. Um, you

1:39:21know, we we did a lot of this um in the

1:39:23tenant protection space, like looking at

1:39:25what other cities had worked on

1:39:27previously and thinking about uh what is

1:39:30needed for our community and kind of

1:39:32building off of uh work that we we we've

1:39:35already seen other folks work on. So

1:39:38hopefully that provides a little bit

1:39:40more clarity and hopefully others are in

1:39:43general agreement with me.

1:39:48>> Thank you. Uh, Council Member Vanderpool

1:39:50followed by Council Member Green.

1:39:52>> Um, I'm in general agreement. I do think

1:39:55that it that about a lot of that. I

1:39:57think that, um,

1:39:59I do have some questions about the

1:40:01regional part of it. Um, I do think that

1:40:06regional study may help inform some of

1:40:10it. Um, I am aware that every time we've

1:40:12ever tried to do regional policy in any

1:40:15of the other spaces, sometimes a city

1:40:18will pass something and another city

1:40:19will take a couple years to pass that

1:40:21thing or may never pass that thing. Um,

1:40:25that that becomes a difficulty because

1:40:28of the this the independence of each

1:40:31city and and that those those

1:40:33differences. But I do think because so

1:40:35much of the people travel between work

1:40:38one place and live somewhere else, there

1:40:41has to have some sort there has to at

1:40:43one point try to answer that question of

1:40:45why someone works here and then lives

1:40:48outside in the county somewhere or

1:40:50wherever. And I think that that that

1:40:53those people have to be asked at one

1:40:55point why what we have to have a clear

1:40:57understanding of why. Um

1:41:00uh but I am so I'd be very interested to

1:41:04see what where that goes. But I also

1:41:05think that if we're looking at regional,

1:41:06I'm also curious about staff support

1:41:08along that line because uh um uh council

1:41:13member Jones talked about scope and not

1:41:15trying to get outside the scope because

1:41:16if you do, you know, she always reminds

1:41:18me of scope creep because if we end up

1:41:20going she reminds you of scope creep

1:41:22often. Um and uh the

1:41:28staff support along this right is is a

1:41:31timeline gets extended the further out

1:41:33we go the bigger the area and uh we may

1:41:37have a couple staff members that are

1:41:38working on this but the other cities may

1:41:40not and so there's that that question of

1:41:42of of staff support from the other

1:41:44cities and so on so forth. I will say

1:41:46that

1:41:48even if it's not a part of this initial

1:41:50work, I do think that we do we may need

1:41:53to have that conversation about

1:41:54modifying the one plan to ensure that

1:41:56part of this is in there because there

1:41:58was a debate with this council in the

1:42:00past. Olympia Strong, sorry, not one

1:42:02plan. Thank you. uh Olympia strong and

1:42:06making sure that that is uh uh um in

1:42:09there more clearly because that was uh

1:42:12two years ago there was a bit of a

1:42:14division on the council and is it in

1:42:16there is it not in there and so on so

1:42:18forth. So um I do think that that needs

1:42:21to be clear for us all and that will be

1:42:24coming back to us I think a future study

1:42:27session right like in a month or so. um

1:42:32wine communities coming not so strong.

1:42:35Yeah. Anyway, but those are my kind of

1:42:38my thoughts.

1:42:41>> Council member Green.

1:42:42>> Thank you, Mayor. Um I just want to

1:42:44refine um a little bit what because I it

1:42:48sounds to me like there's some uh you

1:42:49know one of our sticking points is still

1:42:51kind of what's the regional play and I

1:42:53guess for me what uh

1:42:56to refine my comments was uh I think

1:42:59there are pieces we can move forward

1:43:00with just as a city and that's what I

1:43:02feel like the scope of this is uh and

1:43:04the and the wage piece I don't um expect

1:43:07that uh Stacy and Jennica you two alone

1:43:11or or us as a council are going to be

1:43:13able to um do that. I just feel like

1:43:16that needs to be more of a um

1:43:21I don't entirely want to say separate

1:43:22effort, but any I I just I I put those

1:43:24two things in kind of two different

1:43:25boxes is that I don't see the regional

1:43:26part as part of what you're being asked

1:43:28to do specifically. I think that is our

1:43:30job to figure out how we move those wage

1:43:33conversations forward. And I know there

1:43:34are um conversations that happen a lot

1:43:38across the community around uh around

1:43:40Alice around um um low-wage worker like

1:43:45there's I feel like there are other

1:43:47avenues that we just need to think a

1:43:48little more through how we um tap into

1:43:51those or leverage those and leverage

1:43:52work and relationships and conversations

1:43:54that are already happening on the wage

1:43:56side. So for me, I'm very much in favor

1:43:57of us moving forward, you know, with

1:43:59engagement on some of these other

1:44:00pieces. And I think um you know to

1:44:02council member Madron's question around

1:44:04substance substantive gosh that is a

1:44:06tricky one. Okay. Um, you know, I I

1:44:10think um I think I I can see a

1:44:13distinction between something

1:44:14substantive in the sense of we would put

1:44:16an ordinance forward versus when we're

1:44:18engaging with some of these groups

1:44:20saying here would be three, you know,

1:44:23theoretical uh tactics that other

1:44:26communities have seen work uh and use

1:44:28those as a basis for conversation versus

1:44:30tell us what you want to see. So, I

1:44:32think that's how I think about it is is

1:44:34there um sort of formed things that

1:44:37could be uh given to kind of lead those

1:44:39conversations or open some of those

1:44:41doors. So, I don't necessarily see it as

1:44:43we're going to put something forward,

1:44:44but um as a tool in those conversations,

1:44:50>> Council Member Gilman,

1:44:54>> thank you, Mayor Payne. Um, I I really

1:44:58appreciate everybody's uh engagement and

1:45:01and and comments today. I I think that

1:45:05continuing the broad affordability work

1:45:08under the OIE strong plan and under

1:45:11Jennica's leadership makes a lot of

1:45:13sense and I I agree that this

1:45:15conversation today I hope it leads more

1:45:17specifically around worker protections

1:45:20and I appreciate what I heard both about

1:45:24some broad support for consulting

1:45:26workers and their advocates as well as

1:45:29consulting u employers and and their

1:45:32advocates.

1:45:33Um and and I I also agree with the idea

1:45:36of uh looking at particular industries

1:45:40and worker protections that might bring

1:45:42stability that might be targeted

1:45:44protections to recognize issues and

1:45:47needs. I am so really grateful for the

1:45:50conversation today and I appreciate um

1:45:53the way that you reflected back uh what

1:45:56we've done. Stacy, thanks.

1:46:00>> Thank you, Council Member Gilman.

1:46:01Council member Madron.

1:46:03>> Yeah. Um, appreciate what council member

1:46:06Green was just saying. Um, and it

1:46:08reminds me again of how we brought the

1:46:10tenant protections work forward with in

1:46:12instead of having an ordinance for

1:46:14everyone to react to, we looked at what

1:46:16have other cities done and brought those

1:46:18ideas forward to focus groups um, and

1:46:21had folks react to them both in terms of

1:46:24tenants of does this feel like it'd be

1:46:25supportive for you and in terms of

1:46:28landlords of like, okay, what are what

1:46:29what what are we not seeing here? Um,

1:46:32and so I in terms of that kind of an

1:46:35approach, I'm very supportive of that. I

1:46:36just I'm just get nervous when you start

1:46:38putting an ordinance on paper and say,

1:46:39"Hey, we could vote on this. What do you

1:46:41think?" That's where we start to get

1:46:42crossways. And I also appreciate what

1:46:45council member Green said in terms of,

1:46:47you know, there are parts of us that are

1:46:49the big regional piece. And yes, I agree

1:46:52it has to do with uh wages. Um and then

1:46:54there are the parts that we can move

1:46:56forward independently as a city and

1:46:58those are the more targeted um

1:47:00approaches that bring stability around

1:47:02scheduling and hours and things like

1:47:04that. Um, uh, I think that there's that

1:47:08those are things that we could work on

1:47:11independently. Um, and you know, there's

1:47:14potentially a longer term conversation

1:47:16around the regional effort. So hopefully

1:47:19we're hopefully we're like honing in on

1:47:21a a scope of work that sounds

1:47:24manageable.

1:47:28>> So I see this as a community and

1:47:31councilled process. And what I mean by

1:47:33that is when it comes to us with

1:47:35council, um we

1:47:39do have parameters around this process.

1:47:42Um we don't want to see a regurgitation

1:47:45in what was in the initiative.

1:47:48Um

1:47:50we know that therefore that means that

1:47:53you can't go to these focus groups

1:47:55asking them about predictive scheduling

1:47:57citywide, right? Just as an example. And

1:48:01so that does mean um while they might be

1:48:04the don'ts um we are putting some

1:48:06parameters around it. And so when we're

1:48:08doing that engagement um it is within a

1:48:12certain uh pool if you will of topics um

1:48:16if that makes sense. And so you can go

1:48:18here but you can't go here. Um, and so I

1:48:21do think that with our the guidance that

1:48:24we're giving tonight, we have to

1:48:25acknowledge that while we don't

1:48:27necessarily want to uh maybe provide

1:48:30draft ordinances, um, we do need to give

1:48:34some clear direction as to what is going

1:48:36to be acceptable to us um, in those

1:48:40initial conversations because if you let

1:48:42people talk and think that anything is

1:48:45possible, um, you're going to have a

1:48:47very a lot of very upset people at the

1:48:49end into the process. Um, and so I think

1:48:52we just need to be clear um that um if

1:48:55we're focusing on worker protections for

1:48:58targeted industry for low wage workers

1:49:02um and that is our scope then that is

1:49:05what it is. Uh and we're not going

1:49:09anywhere else. Um am I right in in

1:49:13paraphrasing that assessment? Okay. Um,

1:49:16Council Member Vanderpool, followed by

1:49:17Council Member Barrett. I also think

1:49:20that as we're doing the the next level

1:49:22of qualitative and quantitative

1:49:24research, you may find you may find have

1:49:27findings for stuff that may not be a

1:49:29part of this but may inform

1:49:32the Olympia Strong into the future as we

1:49:34go into that because I do think that

1:49:36there'll be surprises because I often

1:49:39get surprised when I when when this

1:49:41whole thing was going on last year about

1:49:43what I was hearing from some employees

1:49:45in the community. I was like, I can't

1:49:46believe I don't know anyone who was who

1:49:48who, you know, I I like they didn't like

1:49:50predictive scheduling was really being

1:49:52pushed by certain groups because it was

1:49:55like they were dealing with some pretty

1:50:00pretty out there

1:50:04um

1:50:06do we need to take a Okay. Uh uh

1:50:10situations, right? I'm just saying

1:50:13anyway to to round it up. I think that

1:50:14we will end up um

1:50:18uh learning more along the way and I

1:50:20think that information should be brought

1:50:22back to the council so that we know in

1:50:25the future as we do this that there may

1:50:27be other issues that that are unresolved

1:50:30for folks that are not in that are

1:50:32falling in between the data. So yeah,

1:50:35thank you.

1:50:39>> Yeah, thank you mayor. Um, one thing I

1:50:41do want to say about this, any issue we

1:50:45take up does have re regional

1:50:48ramifications and we shouldn't say that

1:50:51things like predictive scheduling are

1:50:53something we we can address and it won't

1:50:55have regional ramifications whereas low

1:50:58wage or wage issues are something we

1:51:02that do have regional ramifications. I I

1:51:05uh I think all of these issues have

1:51:07regional ramifications if if if we

1:51:09choose to look at them. What we can do

1:51:11is we can affect what goes on in the

1:51:13city of Olympia. Um just in the ben to

1:51:16to the benefit of the our our task

1:51:20tonight, I think um the suggestion that

1:51:22scope to worker protections is very

1:51:24good. That that's something we should

1:51:27do. I think we should scope to lowwage

1:51:29workers too. Low wage workers too. I

1:51:32just because it's been a little vague

1:51:33about whether we should do that or not.

1:51:35I think that's really important. Um and

1:51:39um the only thing we can do is

1:51:42effectuate in our city. You know, uh all

1:51:45of these issues are going to have a

1:51:47regional impact

1:51:49regardless of what they are. And so, um

1:51:52we shouldn't assume that some do and

1:51:55some don't. They all have regional

1:51:56impact. Um and and that's all I I just

1:52:00wanted to make sure that uh from from my

1:52:03point of view the low low wage worker

1:52:05issue is important and it's u we we have

1:52:10got to do whatever we can for the for

1:52:12the very poorest workers in the

1:52:14community and they should be a a a

1:52:18paramount paramount um part of this

1:52:22process in my view.

1:52:26>> Thank you. Um, can I do a temperature

1:52:28check with members on how they feel

1:52:30about that particular point around

1:52:33lowwage workers because I hear a lot of

1:52:35support for worker protections? But

1:52:39>> yes,

1:52:40>> I don't think I heard anybody say they

1:52:43don't want this to be focused on

1:52:45low-wage workers. Um, I think there's

1:52:48concerns about the regional impacts of

1:52:50addressing minimum wage being very

1:52:53different from the regional impacts of

1:52:55things of things around predictive

1:52:57scheduling. But when I think about doing

1:52:59targeted worker protections in targeted

1:53:01sectors, it is focused on impacts to

1:53:04lowwage workers. Um, when it comes to

1:53:06scheduling, when it comes to ensuring

1:53:08that hours are offered to existing

1:53:10employees before hiring new ones, those

1:53:12kinds of things. Um, I think the focus

1:53:14is around lowwage workers. That that's

1:53:18that's how I've interpreted this whole

1:53:20body of work.

1:53:24>> Yes. Uh, Council Member Vanderpool.

1:53:27>> Um, I want to do a kind of definitional

1:53:30check here. What we mean by low age?

1:53:33When I when I think of that, I when I

1:53:35looked at the data, I thought of the the

1:53:36the Alice group, the 39% of folks that

1:53:41and that's where I would say when we're

1:53:43saying because we always sometimes we

1:53:44have to redefine what affordable is half

1:53:46the time because people, oh, affordable

1:53:48means this, it means that, right? Um,

1:53:50uh, uh, when I think about that, I think

1:53:53of that 39% and below, the people that

1:53:55are in in the the federal poverty, but

1:53:58also the people that are in that like

1:54:00gray area where they can't afford child

1:54:02care, but they they may be able to they

1:54:04may be fine on rent, but they can't

1:54:05afford childare, right? Um, that those

1:54:09areas too. Um, that's my that's the

1:54:12group I'm thinking of, and I think that

1:54:14it is part of that. Um, you know,

1:54:16ultimately in my mind, you know, a

1:54:20success is being able to uh empower

1:54:24people enough to not

1:54:27empower folks that are not unionized and

1:54:30not in a position where they have that

1:54:32collective bargaining or that's that

1:54:34that historical support to be able to be

1:54:37empowered in their own lives, right?

1:54:39Because as soon as someone is able to

1:54:41form a union, uh, then they're able to,

1:54:46you know, they they can get themselves

1:54:48in a place where they can bargain and

1:54:52get all these these things that we're

1:54:54talking about. Um, and so to me, it is

1:54:59the wages and it is also these benefits.

1:55:03Um, it may come at different speeds, but

1:55:05I will take whatever I can get honestly.

1:55:08But I do think to me the definition

1:55:10getting back to that is is all those

1:55:13folks in the Alice group. So

1:55:17>> all right. Thank you. May I prom?

1:55:21>> Yeah. Um

1:55:24I uh

1:55:27I'm I guess I'm fine with this being a

1:55:29standalone

1:55:30um project and not I would like to see

1:55:33it in Ollie Strong. Honestly, whether

1:55:35it's standalone or it's in Ollie strong,

1:55:37I feel like it's part of it anyways. It

1:55:39it makes Olympia stronger and it is I

1:55:42mean there there's so much overlap. Um

1:55:44but you know, I guess I won't quibble

1:55:46over the two. I Yeah, the uh I I worry

1:55:49that we're getting a little too granular

1:55:51about uh which group is is covered. Um I

1:55:55mean we've in so many you know different

1:55:57words and different ways this council uh

1:56:01really cares for when we're seeing all

1:56:03of this data um that's being presented

1:56:05to us. Every single one of us have said

1:56:08let's make sure that the people that are

1:56:09most negatively impacted are talked to

1:56:12engaged and and we can try as much as we

1:56:16can um uh within within our roles to to

1:56:21impact positive change. and I would

1:56:23trust uh the two of you or the the the

1:56:25team that's working on it to use use the

1:56:28data to help tell tell that story of who

1:56:30those people are. Um I had already seen

1:56:33that in the data sets you have. I mean

1:56:34you have one that's literally like here

1:56:36are the blue bars, here are the red

1:56:38bars, the red bars not doing so well,

1:56:40you know, and um and then Robert had

1:56:42mentioned Alice, but I just keep that up

1:56:44to you. I think the central point is

1:56:47people that are the most negatively

1:56:49impacted. Um and then I just uh I also

1:56:55similarly you know I've been hearing

1:56:57about well you know what about you know

1:57:00we always want Olympia to be a place

1:57:02where people can uh live work and play.

1:57:04We always say that's the ideal. Okay.

1:57:07Some sometimes you want to live in Lacy

1:57:09cuz you grew up there or you found this

1:57:11slamming house and you don't want to

1:57:12have to move up all your things and move

1:57:14to your job in Olympia when it's a quick

1:57:16bus or car ride away, you know, or or

1:57:19whatever the reason is. Maybe you want

1:57:20to I mean, you never know. The the point

1:57:24is

1:57:26uh letting letting the numbers tell us

1:57:28and in an ideal state. I'm not sure if

1:57:30we'll get there by the end of that

1:57:31project, but it would be great if we got

1:57:33closer. We want people to have

1:57:38what they have the the resources in

1:57:41order to make many different choices.

1:57:43We're not trying to make everybody live

1:57:45here, you know? I mean, we already have

1:57:47a housing issue, okay? So, we we

1:57:50actually we can't really be doing that.

1:57:51So, I just uh I say that because we are

1:57:55uh I know the mayor has a very watchful

1:57:57eye, but we we we have two business

1:57:59items still and we've been on this one

1:58:01for two hours and uh people are, you

1:58:04know, patiently waiting and you're

1:58:05hoping for us to wrap up and I I worry

1:58:08that we'll just keep getting, you know,

1:58:09we'll get more and more granular. So, uh

1:58:12it's um I've been sitting here thinking

1:58:14about that. We also have bit of dose of

1:58:17reality while we go in this project, you

1:58:19know, is um we want things to be better

1:58:22for folks. So, what can we change? What

1:58:25are those levers that we can pull? We

1:58:26can't make people do anything really as

1:58:29far as where they're going to decide to

1:58:31live or what job opportunities.

1:58:33Something that would be really uh

1:58:35helpful though is to just uh if you're

1:58:37able to bring it back, you know, the

1:58:39next time you bring things back is uh is

1:58:41to just see high level like who works

1:58:44remotely. I think that's super telling.

1:58:46Um, yeah. So, anyways,

1:58:50um, so I'm g I'm trying to give you a

1:58:52little grace into, you know, it's a big

1:58:54project. It's a mammoth of a project.

1:58:59>> Thank you, Mayor Prom. You saved me time

1:59:01on the words that I was going to say

1:59:02that we still have two other business

1:59:04items. So, uh, city manager Bernie and

1:59:07we are going to have to move on.

1:59:08>> Okay. Thank you. And I think this is in

1:59:10the vein of moving on. I think um what

1:59:12Stacy heard was a lot of alignment and I

1:59:15think we got some refinement on the

1:59:16second round and my suggestion might be

1:59:18similar to how Stacy has managed us

1:59:20before is is to let us take this away.

1:59:23Let Stacy take everything that she

1:59:24heard, develop a scope between her and

1:59:26Jennica and then we come back to the

1:59:28council and do a check-in on that scope

1:59:30before she then before she then launches

1:59:32the next body of work. I think that's

1:59:34been pretty successful in the past.

1:59:35might be a good way for us to proceed.

1:59:40>> Great. Um, and do you have a sense on

1:59:43how long it will take you to flush out a

1:59:45scope?

1:59:47>> Oh, I have a much clearer idea now.

1:59:50Thank you. Of where we go. So, I don't

1:59:53think this will take long at all.

1:59:55>> Okay, great.

1:59:58All right. So, um, with that, unless

2:00:01there's anything burning that you need

2:00:03to comment or ask about right now, we're

2:00:06going to conclude our discussion on

2:00:07workers affordability and protections

2:00:09for tonight. Thank you both uh so much

2:00:12for all of your work uh on this item.

2:00:14Um, at this time, we are going to take a

2:00:18uh fivem minute recess and we'll come

2:00:21back uh to begin with item 2B on our

2:00:24agenda, the artisian commons discussion.

2:11:56All right, council members, why don't we

2:11:58uh make our way back to our seats so we

2:12:00can uh get get on with it.

2:12:33Okay. Uh, welcome back. Um, I have a

2:12:37request uh to amend the agenda for this

2:12:41evening. Um, so swapping items 2B and 2

2:12:45C. So, um, we will, uh, I, so the mayor

2:12:51does not make a motion, so I'm going to

2:12:53ask the mayor prom to make a motion to

2:12:56swap the items out. Sorry to put you on

2:12:58the spot. Um, and we typically do not

2:13:01make motions for a study session, but,

2:13:03uh, considering we're making this

2:13:05change, we should. Go ahead.

2:13:09>> All right. Uh,

2:13:12I'd move to um switch item 2 C in place

2:13:17of item 2B or or switch them around for

2:13:20tonight's agenda.

2:13:22>> So moved.

2:13:23>> Second.

2:13:25All right. All those in favor of the

2:13:27motion signify by saying I.

2:13:29>> I.

2:13:32>> Thank you. Motion passes. All right. So,

2:13:34we are going to continue with what is

2:13:36now item 2B on our agenda, which is the

2:13:39Inspire Olympia cultural access program

2:13:41improvements and updates. And we have uh

2:13:44Jennica Machado, our economic

2:13:45development director back. It's the

2:13:47Jennica show tonight um who is

2:13:50presenting and she's joining us um with

2:13:54uh Molly Wilmouth is

2:13:57>> she's on online.

2:13:58>> Oh, she's online. Okay, great.

2:14:00>> Good evening.

2:14:01>> Good evening. Great. We can hear you.

2:14:04Right. Thank you. Yes. Um, good evening.

2:14:06Jenna Mashado, economic development

2:14:07director here presenting for Inspire

2:14:09Olympia tonight. Uh, while Molly Wilmoff

2:14:12is the programs coordinator for cultural

2:14:14access in public schools or CAPS. Um,

2:14:17and she'll be presenting later in the

2:14:18presentation and joining remotely.

2:14:21Inspire program staff. Mary Grace and

2:14:22Amelia are also here to help answer

2:14:24questions as we move forward through the

2:14:26presentation.

2:14:28This slideshow uh in order is the

2:14:31meetings that led up to tonight. In May,

2:14:34the Cultural Access Advisory Board or

2:14:36CAB sent its annual funding

2:14:38recommendations to the Community

2:14:39Livability and Public Safety Committee

2:14:41or CLIPS. City Council reviewed and

2:14:43approved the recommendations on June

2:14:4516th. Council and Clips have provided

2:14:48feedback on the grant award process. In

2:14:50July and August, the CAB developed

2:14:52program improvements to respond to the

2:14:54feedback. Clips reviewed them on August

2:14:5726, supported some, and provided

2:15:00additional feedback on others. Tonight,

2:15:02we are bringing all of the information

2:15:04back to council for discussion. As

2:15:06there's a lot of information in this

2:15:08presentation, I will pause at the end of

2:15:09each section for discussion, questions,

2:15:11and feedback. These slides you will see

2:15:15um presented are slightly different than

2:15:17the ones that were in your initial

2:15:18packet. So, there is a new handout on

2:15:21the table for you. Um and you'll see the

2:15:23updated slides up here for uh they were

2:15:26updated for clarity and readability.

2:15:29So tonight's uh briefing has two parts

2:15:32shown in the two boxes on the slide. The

2:15:34box on the left shows the process

2:15:36improvements to the current program

2:15:38including two administrative

2:15:39improvements uh updates to the program

2:15:42to the budget section of the application

2:15:44and the program granting timeline. There

2:15:47are also two policy updates, how grant

2:15:49review panelists are selected and

2:15:51location-based eligibility. The box on

2:15:53the right is a new program development,

2:15:56a proposal for competitive grants for

2:15:57organizations that provide cultural

2:15:59access programs in Olympia public

2:16:01schools.

2:16:03We will take these four topics one at a

2:16:05time and the first is process

2:16:06improvements in the program granting

2:16:08timeline.

2:16:11The CAB recommended three minor changes

2:16:13to the budget section of the grant

2:16:15application listed on the right. The

2:16:17clips committee supported the following.

2:16:20Add the applicant's ELTAC funding

2:16:22request.

2:16:31>> Oh.

2:16:43Okay. So, uh

2:16:46the following one, uh one was add the

2:16:48applicant's ELTAC funding request to the

2:16:50Inspire grant application to improve

2:16:52transparency around how an organization

2:16:55uses each funding source differently if

2:16:57they receive both.

2:16:59Two was to ask applicants how they would

2:17:01adjust their program plans if they do

2:17:03not receive full funding. and three,

2:17:06make the instructions for the budget

2:17:08form more clear. Are there any uh

2:17:10questions or feedback or concerns with

2:17:13this section of information?

2:17:17All right.

2:17:21>> Sure. Council member Barrett,

2:17:24>> your mic. Yeah.

2:17:25>> Um clarify instructions for com

2:17:29completing the application. Um

2:17:32and and this may be later on. One of the

2:17:34questions I had was double and triple

2:17:36and quadruple funding of nonprofits

2:17:39from multiple cities. Is that is that

2:17:41addressed later?

2:17:44>> Could uh what quadruple funding from

2:17:49other

2:17:49>> various city funding sources

2:17:51>> for ELTAC or um

2:17:54>> no for um for in for Inspire grants? I

2:17:59don't believe other cities locally have

2:18:01an Inspire grant program or a cultural

2:18:04access uh grant program.

2:18:07>> Yeah, go ahead.

2:18:08>> Okay. Sorry.

2:18:10>> Yes. City manager Bernie.

2:18:13>> I think one of the questions that was

2:18:15asked um of the council was around this

2:18:17um making sure that organizations had

2:18:19different scopes of work between Eltac

2:18:21and Inspire. That is one of the things

2:18:23that's addressed here by adding this um

2:18:26request at the budget form to see if

2:18:27they're applying for ELTAC. That way the

2:18:30same staff that manages Inspire are

2:18:32managing ELTAC and they can do this

2:18:34cross check to make sure that the same

2:18:36projects not getting funded twice that

2:18:38they're different scopes of work if

2:18:39they're applying for different funding

2:18:40sources. So I think that's partly to

2:18:42address some of what we heard and that

2:18:44specific question.

2:18:50>> Okay. So the next administrative

2:18:52improvement is the program granting

2:18:54timeline. This slide has two parts. The

2:18:56objective on the left and the input and

2:18:58direction from clips on the right. The

2:19:00objective comes from council and clips

2:19:02feedback. We heard that more time is

2:19:03needed to review the advisory board's

2:19:05award recommendations, more time to make

2:19:07adjustments if needed, and more

2:19:09opportunities for clips to weigh in on

2:19:11the process during the year. Clips

2:19:13provided three main pieces of feedback

2:19:15to incorporate. uh send the grant award

2:19:18recommendations directly to council each

2:19:20spring without Eclipse review first.

2:19:22This change alone gives council a few

2:19:24more weeks for review in exchange and

2:19:27add an annual process review with clips

2:19:29so the committee can help shape the

2:19:31program before each application cycle

2:19:34and create an option that gives council

2:19:36two months for their uh review of the

2:19:38recommendation which includes time to

2:19:40adjust the awards if needed. The next

2:19:43slide, the next two slides show two

2:19:45timeline options. Option one is the

2:19:47initial cap recommendation and option

2:19:49two is based on the clips direction.

2:20:06So this is option one, the cab's initial

2:20:08recommendation. A quick guide to reading

2:20:11the chart. Each colored bar is a step in

2:20:13the process. Clips reviews in the purple

2:20:15box at the top. The application window

2:20:18is in dark blue. Application review is

2:20:21in teal and contracting in orange.

2:20:23Purple denotes a council meeting. The

2:20:26two red callout boxes show what changes

2:20:29from how things work today. The call out

2:20:32on the left is a new annual clips

2:20:34check-in each August before the

2:20:36application window opens. Setting aside

2:20:38these three months gives clips time to

2:20:40either send items on to council or

2:20:42return them to CAB uh for more work

2:20:45before they go into the next year's

2:20:47application. Guidelines would then be

2:20:49rel released mid November. You will also

2:20:52see a January clips briefing to review

2:20:54candidates for the application review

2:20:56panels and we'll cover that later in

2:20:58this presentation. The call out on the

2:21:00right shows the funding recommendations

2:21:02going directly to council, giving

2:21:04council about three weeks for review

2:21:06before approving the awards in early

2:21:08June. The application window at 9 weeks

2:21:11and the application review period at 6

2:21:13weeks stays the same to how it is now in

2:21:16this cap recommendation.

2:21:18>> Janica, we have a question or comment

2:21:20from council member Gilman.

2:21:25Council

2:21:29member Gilman.

2:21:32>> Yes.

2:21:33I I don't have a comment or question at

2:21:35this time. I'm sorry if my hand is

2:21:37raised. I don't see it here.

2:21:40>> Okay. Thank you.

2:21:52Okay. Option two uh responds to CLI's

2:21:55feedback to work and additional

2:21:57application review time for council.

2:21:59Option two provides eight weeks of

2:22:01council review each spring. The chart

2:22:03reads the same way and the red call outs

2:22:05show what is different. It keeps the CAB

2:22:07recommendation to add an annual clips

2:22:09check-in. It shortens the application

2:22:11window from 9 weeks to six and the

2:22:14review window from six 6 weeks to four

2:22:16shown in the gray. Because those steps

2:22:19finish sooner, funding recommendations

2:22:21go directly to council in the first week

2:22:22of April. That allows 8 to 8 to nine

2:22:25weeks for council review before early

2:22:28June council action.

2:22:32>> Any questions or concerns around

2:22:34timeline or feedback?

2:22:38Um I guess the one question I have about

2:22:40the application window um did you

2:22:43consider the impacts to to those maybe

2:22:46who are applying for the first time and

2:22:48maybe don't know anything about it and

2:22:51so is is it feasible for them to to meet

2:22:55the deadlines given the the change?

2:23:13using submittable.

2:23:15Um people could start to prep and we are

2:23:18available as staff to help them with

2:23:19that through that whole process. uh if

2:23:22this was the desired way to move

2:23:24forward, I think there might be some

2:23:26more um work we could do moving our uh

2:23:30info sessions that are usually held when

2:23:32the application is open. We could

2:23:33potentially do those in November,

2:23:36December um and then repeat them again

2:23:39when the window is open to to get some

2:23:41of those folks who might need more time.

2:23:44>> Okay. Thank you.

2:23:47Additional comments? Yes. Uh, council

2:23:49member Madron.

2:23:51>> Yeah, I'm looking at the orange uh

2:23:53section of between the cab

2:23:56recommendation and the timeline for

2:23:58extended council review. Um, and just

2:24:01noticing contracting legal review and

2:24:03phase one payment processing. Is is is

2:24:06is it is your thought that those things

2:24:07will be happening in tandem and that

2:24:09payments will still generally go out

2:24:11along the same timeline?

2:24:15>> The goal is that payments would start to

2:24:16go out July 1. Um depending on the year,

2:24:20comprehensive contracts are larger, so

2:24:22they have the legal review versus just

2:24:23clerk's review. So that also takes some

2:24:25time. Um and then that broad window for

2:24:28council review, as we discussed in

2:24:31different times, there might be a year

2:24:33where you all say we we vote yes and

2:24:36contracting can actually start in that

2:24:38light orange band. So that's sort of the

2:24:41implied

2:24:43start there. So as soon as council says

2:24:45yes, we start contracting.

2:24:46>> Okay. Um, and that that just moves it

2:24:48forward.

2:24:49>> And I and I also presume that if you see

2:24:51somebody wanting to do an event or

2:24:53something on July 2nd, they would be

2:24:54like at the top of the stack for

2:24:56processing. Okay. Thank you.

2:25:02>> All right. Back to you.

2:25:04>> Um, for for this uh is there any um

2:25:07interest in option one versus option two

2:25:10or more discussion on something else?

2:25:16I would speak up in favor of option two.

2:25:18I really appreciated seeing this. I know

2:25:19it was a big conversation in clips

2:25:22around uh uh

2:25:26you know having such limited time for

2:25:27the eventuality that council for

2:25:29whatever reason uh wanted more

2:25:30information or didn't want to approve

2:25:31it. So I just appreciate uh that

2:25:33extended option because uh yeah it just

2:25:36feels like it's not going to get us as

2:25:37tied up.

2:25:40Mayor Pro time when

2:25:43>> uh same. Um you'll hear me be a little

2:25:47well, who knows, but probably a little

2:25:49quieter for for this one. I understand

2:25:51you all have been doing a lot of work on

2:25:53this um from from our Eclipse meeting to

2:25:57to now. And so I'm uh generally going to

2:26:00be in favor of all of the things to to

2:26:04enhance the process. And I really

2:26:05appreciate all of the work. And one of

2:26:07those things is the option two with

2:26:09extended council review.

2:26:13>> Yes, council member Madron.

2:26:15>> Yeah, I also support option two. Um and

2:26:17just generally, you know, I'm very

2:26:20supportive of this coming straight to

2:26:22council instead of taking a stop at

2:26:23clips first. I think clips is a really

2:26:25important role to play in terms of

2:26:28policy and adaptive management of the

2:26:30program, but the additional stop in

2:26:32clips is felt excessive to me. And then

2:26:34having the extended timeline for council

2:26:36review without having that stop uh in

2:26:39clips just gives gives us more time uh

2:26:41to consider it and it doesn't kind of

2:26:43push us into a pinch point of you know

2:26:46make a decision now or or else you know

2:26:48the whole the whole timeline's out of

2:26:50whack. So appreciate the extra work

2:26:52staff has done on this.

2:26:57>> Yes. Additional comments.

2:27:01Um, in that case, I'm just going to ask

2:27:03I need a which option do you support

2:27:06from each of the members? Council member

2:27:08Vanderpool.

2:27:10>> Two.

2:27:11>> All right. Thank you.

2:27:15Council Council Member Barrett says two.

2:27:18Option two. Council member Gilman, do

2:27:20you have a preference?

2:27:26>> Two.

2:27:27>> All right. Thank you. Um and of course I

2:27:31support option two.

2:27:33>> All right. Thank you so much.

2:27:35>> Um moving on to the next topic uh is a

2:27:38discussion on how to select grant review

2:27:40panelists each year. This slide

2:27:45this slide shows how review panels work

2:27:47today and the key concern that was

2:27:49raised. Uh so each spring two to three

2:27:53review panels read and score Inspire

2:27:54Olympia applications. Each panel has

2:27:57five to seven people depending on

2:27:58application volume that year and it's a

2:28:00mix of CAB members and community

2:28:02volunteers. The CAB is a nine member

2:28:04board so up to a dozen additional

2:28:06reviewers are recruited from the

2:28:07community.

2:28:09Um currently the CAB and program staff

2:28:12recruit and select these volunteers. The

2:28:14CAB develops the funding recommendations

2:28:16that go to council and based on the

2:28:18panels um that are based on the panel's

2:28:21average scores. The key concern shown at

2:28:24the bottom is that council does not vet

2:28:25the community volunteer review panelists

2:28:27at this time. So, we looked at options

2:28:29that would let council uh council review

2:28:31the panelists or expand the cab and to

2:28:34consider whether the review process

2:28:36could be simplified

2:28:39to address this. These options were

2:28:41developed for consideration. CAB

2:28:43recommended and uh clips supported

2:28:45creating a system for year- round

2:28:47recruitment of volunteers having a CAB

2:28:50subcommittee work with program staff to

2:28:52identify candidates and below are two

2:28:55options that were identified for the

2:28:57final selection of panelists. One we

2:28:59have on the left is the CAB

2:29:00recommendation which is a member of

2:29:03clips joins the CAB subcommittee to

2:29:05select panelists. However, this

2:29:07recommendation was not widely supported

2:29:09at clips. Option two on the right came

2:29:12from for f further discussion with

2:29:13council members. This option has clips

2:29:16review the candidate list each January

2:29:18before the review panels are finalized.

2:29:22Clips also asked us to simplify the

2:29:24application review process and possibly

2:29:26shorten review time. Pro program staff

2:29:28are working with the cab on this uh with

2:29:31the goal of bringing recommendations to

2:29:32you around this topic next year. So

2:29:35that's the conclusion of review

2:29:38panelists. Are there any questions, uh,

2:29:40thoughts, opinions?

2:29:42>> Council member Madron.

2:29:45>> Um, I'm supportive of option two, uh,

2:29:47for the main reason that we're already

2:29:49on so many committees as council

2:29:51members. Um, and this way it has a stop

2:29:53and is vetted by, uh, three of us on

2:29:56council rather than having one council

2:29:58member need to take their time to commit

2:30:00to an additional um, set of meetings.

2:30:05>> Very considerate.

2:30:08Anybody else?

2:30:12All right.

2:30:15All right. We're seeing a lot of support

2:30:17for option two.

2:30:26>> Your mic. Uh J.

2:30:28>> Thank you.

2:30:29>> Uh our next topic is the program's

2:30:31location-based eligibility requirement.

2:30:33This is about organizations whose

2:30:35address is outside of Olympia city

2:30:37limits and assessing how those

2:30:39organizations qualify for funding.

2:30:43The slide shows the key concern that was

2:30:45raised on the left and the input

2:30:46provided. Um it will show.

2:30:55>> Okay.

2:30:58Uh so the key concern um was asking the

2:31:02question are essentially is the current

2:31:05eligibility definition too broad

2:31:09and there was discussion to consider a

2:31:11cap on the total funding that goes each

2:31:13year to organizations outside city

2:31:15limits suggested at 10% and next to

2:31:18consider raising the program threshold

2:31:20from 51% to 75.

2:31:25Uh option one is the CAB recommendation

2:31:28which is no change to the current

2:31:29eligibility requirement outlined on the

2:31:31slide. Today an organization qualifies

2:31:34in one of two ways. Its official address

2:31:37is inside Olympia city limits or if it's

2:31:39located outside Olympia but does the

2:31:42majority or 51% of its programming in

2:31:45Olympia or primarily for Olympia

2:31:48community members or Olympia school

2:31:50district students.

2:31:52Option two shows how eligibility could

2:31:55be revised based on CLI's feedback and

2:31:58the new language is in red. This

2:32:01replaces the majority of 51% threshold

2:32:05with 75% or more of programming to be

2:32:07held in Olympia or 75% or more of the

2:32:11participants are Olympia community

2:32:13members. This also adds a cap for total

2:32:16funding for organizations located

2:32:18outside of Olympia at 10%.

2:32:22This side brings all of the options

2:32:24together kind of as a checklist. Several

2:32:26can be combined like a mix mix and match

2:32:29menu. Uh setting a higher threshold for

2:32:32programming held within the city limits

2:32:34at 75% applying that same threshold to

2:32:38programming held outside um of Olympia

2:32:41for Olympia participants. There's the

2:32:43option of not providing funding for

2:32:45organizations located outside of

2:32:46Olympia. um capping the amount available

2:32:49to organizations outside at 10% um and

2:32:53funding Olympia based organizations

2:32:55first or making no changes at all. And

2:32:59so happy to take questions and feedback.

2:33:04>> All right. Uh Council Member Green.

2:33:08>> Yeah, thank you for this uh menu.

2:33:12Um I just wanted to share a little uh I

2:33:14I'm a big fan of the the 75% thresholds

2:33:18both for programming or for um people

2:33:21that they serve. Um a lot of the

2:33:23discussion that that we had in clips and

2:33:25and where I just kept coming back to was

2:33:28um you know majority was just too slim.

2:33:31Um and I think the I recognize that it's

2:33:35not just Olympia residents who pay into

2:33:38this fund but it's definitely a majority

2:33:39of Olympia residents. And so those are

2:33:41the folks who voted to say we want this

2:33:43to build up programming in our

2:33:44community. Um but I think the other

2:33:46thing that it does uh is I think there's

2:33:49you know long term there's an incentive

2:33:50piece to this of if you're thinking of

2:33:52starting an arts or cultural

2:33:54organization and you have options of of

2:33:56within our community to start it. Uh you

2:33:59know I I would like those organizations

2:34:01to start here in Olympia. Um, but the

2:34:04other piece, and I I don't see it up

2:34:05here, but I would just encourage us, and

2:34:07maybe it's implicit, but I would

2:34:09encourage us to consider being explicit

2:34:10of making it clear that uh at least for

2:34:13me, CAB could uh ask for an exception to

2:34:17that. There could be somebody who for

2:34:19whatever reason just doesn't like I

2:34:21would hate to to rule out somebody on a

2:34:22technicality. Um, and so I feel like if

2:34:24CAB is looking at those applications and

2:34:26says, "Hey, this this organization

2:34:29simply cannot be an Olympia or misses

2:34:31this criteria for this, but this is why

2:34:33we think they should be funded." I feel

2:34:34like that option should be there, which

2:34:36would would just catch those ones that

2:34:38might fall through our our rigid

2:34:41structures.

2:34:44um is do you have any feedback regarding

2:34:47a cap um for like the 10% cap or funding

2:34:51for Olympia based organizations first?

2:34:54>> Yeah, I'm I would prefer the 10% cap. Um

2:34:59they're again recognizing there would

2:35:01still be an avenue for um an ask to

2:35:04exception to that. I I think funding

2:35:06Olympia organizations first is fine. I

2:35:09just think um and I think several of us

2:35:12in clips talked about this like this

2:35:13funding uh is increasing in demand every

2:35:16year. It will continue to increase um

2:35:18and so um

2:35:21yeah I don't know do we need Yeah, I

2:35:23guess I'm neutral on that.

2:35:28>> Okay, Council Member Madron followed by

2:35:30Mayor Prom.

2:35:32>> Could you go back one slide?

2:35:36uh go forward one slide there. That's

2:35:39the one that I support right there. It's

2:35:41a little bit easier than telling you

2:35:43which boxes to check up there. And just

2:35:45to give the rest of the council some

2:35:47context on this, you know, as the

2:35:49program has um gained more awareness and

2:35:52it will continue to grow more popular,

2:35:54the goal of this is just to set some

2:35:57guard rails in place before it becomes a

2:35:59problem and suddenly, you know, we're

2:36:02we're having to spend eight weeks as a

2:36:04council with the rec recommendations. Um

2:36:07so um so that's that's the purpose of

2:36:10this here and we're going to see

2:36:12something later in this presentation I

2:36:14believe around um specific programs for

2:36:17Olympia school district students that

2:36:21will be able to qualify for a different

2:36:24area of inspire Olympia because they

2:36:27specifically support Olympia school

2:36:28district students. So an organization

2:36:30may be outside of city limits but

2:36:32there's a specific nexus to field trips

2:36:35and things like that. So, um, just stay

2:36:38tuned for that part of the presentation

2:36:40and know that that is, uh, included

2:36:42elsewhere. But I just wanted to go back

2:36:44to this slide because I think this is

2:36:46where we were really circling up as a

2:36:48committee in terms of the the full

2:36:50recommendation.

2:36:53>> Thank you, Mayor Prom.

2:36:56>> I I concur. Uh, yeah. So, I'd be in

2:36:59favor of 75%

2:37:01um with a with a cap as a maximum. So, I

2:37:04don't think we should be trying to reach

2:37:0610%. Um, and then I I think maybe it's

2:37:09implied, but yeah, absolutely we want to

2:37:10fund Olympia programs first and and I

2:37:13wouldn't want it to be a situation

2:37:14where, you know, I don't think the CAB

2:37:16does either, but I don't want to be

2:37:18asking seeing exceptions every single

2:37:20time. I I want to stay pretty firm to

2:37:22this for all of the for all of the

2:37:25reasons mentioned. Thanks.

2:37:28>> Um, I support option two. Um, I have a

2:37:32question. When we talk about um funding

2:37:35Olympia

2:37:37first, are we talking about

2:37:38organizations or Olympia residents?

2:37:42>> Or organizations.

2:37:44>> Okay. Um

2:37:48Okay.

2:37:52All right. Fine. Yeah. Council member

2:37:55Green,

2:37:56>> I just want to retract my answer about

2:37:58being neutral on the Olympia first. I'm

2:38:00actually not necessarily supportive of

2:38:01that because I would rather fund um an

2:38:03organization who meets this criteria and

2:38:05has a really strong high-scoring

2:38:07application over an Olympia based

2:38:09organization that has a poor scoring

2:38:11application.

2:38:17>> Fair point. Yes, mayor protime win.

2:38:20>> Yeah, I I agree. I mean, you got to do

2:38:24well and so these are helping us sort,

2:38:27you know, you got a bunch of A+es and

2:38:29then you got to sort through them. Um,

2:38:31yeah, if you're great that you're

2:38:33Olympia organization, but like yeah,

2:38:35like you have to score well, of course.

2:38:42Additional comments.

2:38:45Just checking in on uh Council Member

2:38:47Gilman.

2:38:51So I heard option two support from

2:38:54majority of council just making sure

2:38:55that there is is there disscent this is

2:38:58your opportunity to express it

2:39:02>> no disscent just concurring

2:39:04>> okay thanks

2:39:07Clark 75% 10% it all sounds fine with me

2:39:13>> great thank you

2:39:16>> so just to clarify I'm hearing option

2:39:18two and it has the 10% cap but we do not

2:39:20need to incorporate the Olympia first

2:39:22into that. Okay.

2:39:25All right. Our last topic highlighted

2:39:27here is an exciting Oh, no, I skipped

2:39:31ahead. No, I didn't. This is it. Okay.

2:39:33Our last topic highlighted here is an

2:39:35exciting new opportunity, a competitive

2:39:37funding pathway for cultural access in

2:39:39public schools or CAPS. Molly Wilmoth,

2:39:42our CAPS coordinator, will walk you

2:39:44through this proposal and she's joining

2:39:45virtually.

2:39:48>> Hello all. Um, thank you council and

2:39:51colleagues. I'm excited to be talking

2:39:53about the cultural access and public

2:39:55schools program. So, we're going to

2:39:57first cover just general background and

2:40:00the current approach for the CAPS

2:40:01program and then get into some of these

2:40:03policy considerations.

2:40:08So, uh, first you just have up there the

2:40:11authorities, the RCW, and then the

2:40:13resolution that you all as council

2:40:15passed in June of this year. Um, so the

2:40:18RCW states, "A program created under the

2:40:21cultural access chapter must develop and

2:40:23provide a public school cultural access

2:40:25program, which you all agree and adopted

2:40:29um to distribute funds eligible and

2:40:32qualified organizations to annually

2:40:34allocate funding for cultural access in

2:40:36Olympia public schools. Um, also two of

2:40:40the five Inspire Olympia funding goals

2:40:43are directly related to the work that's

2:40:45happening with cultural access in public

2:40:47schools, expand access to youth

2:40:49education programs in arts, culture,

2:40:52heritage, and science, as well as

2:40:54increase access to these programs and

2:40:56reduce barriers to participation,

2:40:58especially for historically underserved

2:40:59populations, which what better way to do

2:41:02that than through programming in public

2:41:04schools. So to talk a little bit about

2:41:07what we are doing for the 202627 funding

2:41:10cycle. Uh the CAPS program is set up as

2:41:13an allocation meaning we reimburse

2:41:16organizations. So 11 Inspire Olympia

2:41:19funded organizations can be reimbursed

2:41:21up to $10,000 for providing free field

2:41:24trips for OSD students. Another 15

2:41:28Inspire Olympia funded organizations can

2:41:30be reimbursed up to $450 for free

2:41:33inschool programming at OSD schools. And

2:41:37then we maintain an interlocal agreement

2:41:39with OSD transportation to reimburse OSD

2:41:42for the busing to inspire Olympia funded

2:41:45organizations.

2:41:49And then this is just a call out on the

2:41:51approved CAPS program budget and then

2:41:54kind of the projections looking ahead.

2:41:56Um again, council approved this in June

2:41:58this year. Um we have the transportation

2:42:01reimbursement there at the top gradually

2:42:04increasing as the program strengthens.

2:42:06So hopefully we'll be seeing a lot more

2:42:09bus trips. And then also you can see

2:42:12that second line, the school day

2:42:13programming and field trip award amounts

2:42:16set at 155,000

2:42:19for this year and increasing slowly over

2:42:22time.

2:42:26And I'll just pause really quickly. Are

2:42:28there any questions about uh the CAPS

2:42:30program as it currently stands before we

2:42:32talk about new policy considerations?

2:42:35>> Thank you, Molly. Yes, there is. We have

2:42:37a question or comment from council

2:42:39member Baron. Thank you, Molly. Um, I I

2:42:42just had a question uh because I I'm

2:42:45somewhat new to this and I'm I want to

2:42:47make sure I understand the program. So,

2:42:50uh we on the council approved a series

2:42:54of Inspire grants,

2:42:56you know, various various figures,

2:42:5937,000, 50,000, whatever.

2:43:03separately we um approved a series of

2:43:07lodging tax grants or or the city

2:43:11separately makes these grants uh through

2:43:14a process

2:43:16similar amounts of money. So

2:43:20I just wanted to ask is this CAPS

2:43:23funding over and above the Inspire grant

2:43:25and the lodging grants that we do or is

2:43:29it or is it or is it incorporated within

2:43:32those those allocations?

2:43:35>> It is above and beyond the ELTAC and

2:43:38then the other Inspire Olympia funding

2:43:40although we do include it in those

2:43:42organizations contracts. Um, and again,

2:43:46it's set up as a reimbursement

2:43:48opportunity, but it has really specific

2:43:50guidelines. So, it's essentially for any

2:43:54of the programming that is directly for

2:43:57public school students in terms of field

2:44:00trips or inschool programming. And then

2:44:02for the other inspire Olympia grants,

2:44:05that's outlined as other outcomes. So,

2:44:08it's like a separate uh fund

2:44:11essentially. They are getting funded for

2:44:12different outcomes.

2:44:14It's almost like um we're looking at it

2:44:16as two separate audiences. The Inspire

2:44:19Olympia funding is really thinking about

2:44:21public programming access whereas the

2:44:24CAPS program is thinking about the

2:44:25audience being Olympia school district

2:44:27students.

2:44:30>> Thank you. That answers my question, but

2:44:32it's a surprise to me that um we have

2:44:36organizations that can come for funding

2:44:39to the city four four different ways.

2:44:42and um there's no disclosure to each

2:44:45other that that funding goes on and that

2:44:49I think is a problem frankly.

2:44:54Thank you.

2:44:56>> Thank thank you council member Barrett.

2:44:58Uh council member Madron.

2:45:01>> Yeah. Um on an earlier slide there is

2:45:04required disclosure around uh whether or

2:45:07not an organization is receiving or

2:45:08going to seek ELTAC funding. And when it

2:45:11comes to the Inspire awards, um, you

2:45:13know, we've got our our staff who who

2:45:16see all of the applications come in so

2:45:18that it's just kind of an automatic

2:45:20disclosure that they see if somebody's

2:45:22applied to multiple funding sources. So,

2:45:24that's one of the things that we've

2:45:25intentionally built into the application

2:45:27process is disclosure if somebody's also

2:45:30seeking Eltech.

2:45:32>> Thank you. I I think that's great. Um, I

2:45:35would just note that um, ELTAC because

2:45:37it has uh, funding requirements around

2:45:40bringing heads and beds, people 50 plus

2:45:42miles away, things that are funded

2:45:44through caps at the schools would not be

2:45:46eligible for ELAC funding

2:45:53>> unless they applied for the grant under

2:45:55other circumstances.

2:46:02Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean by

2:46:04that, Council Member Barrett.

2:46:05>> Well, well, each of these programs have

2:46:07different criteria in which you can

2:46:09apply for the the grant funding. And

2:46:12what I see happening with these

2:46:13organizations is you go to lodging tax

2:46:17and apply for a certain criteria. You go

2:46:21to the Inspire Grant, you you you apply

2:46:24for a certain criteria. Then you go to

2:46:26uh CAPS, you say, "Well, we're serving

2:46:30uh students." And then, you know, you

2:46:33just wanted a general appropriation from

2:46:35the city and suddenly, you know, you're

2:46:39you're uh accessing four different pots

2:46:41of money.

2:46:43Hey, it's a worthy organization. I'm not

2:46:46saying that it's not, but it it really

2:46:50adds up. And um I think that there's

2:46:55kind of been a little a little less

2:46:57disclosure about the big picture of all

2:46:59of this historically. And uh so the more

2:47:03disclosure we can do, not just to staff

2:47:06and to us, but to the public, I think

2:47:08that's really important that the public

2:47:10knows

2:47:12um how much public money is going into

2:47:14some of these organizations and whatnot.

2:47:18>> Okay. Sure. Sure. I I I also think that

2:47:20it's important

2:47:22when analyzing the viability of a

2:47:26nonprofit organization to know is it

2:47:29just the public that's funding these

2:47:32organizations?

2:47:34Are they solely dependent on public

2:47:36funding? because

2:47:39um I want to see robust nonprofits that

2:47:43are healthy and have different um

2:47:48revenue streams to

2:47:50uh to know that they're really healthy

2:47:52organizations that are viable and that

2:47:55they're not strictly dependent on public

2:47:58funding for for their mission. Um it's

2:48:03it's just something I think is good

2:48:04management for the organization itself.

2:48:06Sure.

2:48:10Um, the way I would understand it is

2:48:12that they would they would be receiving

2:48:14funding for what it is that they're

2:48:16asking to receive the funding for.

2:48:18Whether or not they're able to sustain

2:48:20their organization, I think is is

2:48:22something else. And that's kind of on

2:48:24them. Uh, if they rely on grants to keep

2:48:28afloat. Um, but I hear you. Yeah.

2:48:33Um, additional comments. Did you have a

2:48:35comment, Council Member Green?

2:48:37>> I did, but I've seen both Jay and

2:48:39Jennica raise their hand. I'd love to

2:48:41hear from them first.

2:48:42>> Sure.

2:48:43>> First,

2:48:44>> I was just going to mention um ELTAC is

2:48:46also reimbursement based and so the

2:48:49activities that are funded, we see

2:48:51directly what um the funding supported.

2:48:58Uh the well Amelia and Kelly know this

2:49:01well, but uh the Eltech, you're not the

2:49:03only one that has these thoughts. Uh so

2:49:05hopefully you could feel encouraged in

2:49:07that way or comforted. Um but uh the the

2:49:10ELTAC uh application, the scoring

2:49:13criteria, it does ask um you know, we

2:49:16ask it in a very kind way, but we're we

2:49:18also don't want you to be completely um

2:49:21dependent on ELTAC funding. That's not

2:49:23sustainable. So we do ask that and we do

2:49:25await that. um and you're not given uh

2:49:28uh you're giving a much lower priority

2:49:30if that's the case. um as well a couple

2:49:34years ago now uh maybe a few uh there

2:49:37was uh council interest in well you know

2:49:41we don't want folks to sort of double

2:49:42dip between Inspire and and LTAC and so

2:49:46uh we had staff take uh quite a look

2:49:48into that and so uh the the RCWs do

2:49:52require it for very specific things and

2:49:54so they can apply to both. We do see

2:49:57that. I'm not gonna say we don't, but we

2:49:59also, it's not the case with every

2:50:01single organization and as was

2:50:03mentioned, it is for a very specific

2:50:05thing that they're trying to do. Um, so

2:50:08if that's helpful,

2:50:14>> additional comments, Council Member

2:50:15Green.

2:50:16>> Sure. Um, yeah, I'm all for disclosure

2:50:19and and I I mean, there's definitely

2:50:20validity to what you're saying and I

2:50:22want to push back on the notion that

2:50:24it's inherently problematic. Um because

2:50:27I think about it in the case of like

2:50:28like let's say I love trees and I start

2:50:30a tree museum downtown. Inspire should

2:50:33be there to help me uh you know kind of

2:50:35build some capacity, get that

2:50:36organization up and going and then when

2:50:38I'm at a place where uh I can I can get

2:50:40my programming out into the schools or

2:50:42the kids to my museum, right? That's a

2:50:44that's a whole different thing and

2:50:45that's valid. And then I get I'm doing

2:50:47so well that I want to host a tree

2:50:49festival downtown which brings people

2:50:51into our community and I'm bringing

2:50:52people up from Portland to hear about

2:50:54our forest because they're way better

2:50:55than Portland's forest. Uh you know so

2:50:57to me those are all like you know it's

2:50:58why these different pots kind of have

2:50:59their unique niche and so it's not to

2:51:02say that there's not room for for an

2:51:03organization certainly to become too

2:51:05dependent or uh or to have risks

2:51:08associated with all that funding. I just

2:51:10think um you know philosophically I

2:51:13don't see it as a as a problem.

2:51:16Yeah,

2:51:18mayor. This was this is something I've

2:51:19been thinking a lot about because um the

2:51:23city of Olympia had a wonderful museum

2:51:25for a long time. It was the the Lord

2:51:28Mansion Museum. It was called the

2:51:30Washington State History Museum or the

2:51:32the the State Capital Museum is what it

2:51:34was called. And I've talked to a lot of

2:51:36people who were very heavily involved in

2:51:38that. And they had 20 to 25,000 visitors

2:51:41a year that visited that museum.

2:51:44But that museum, it had free housing.

2:51:48The mansion, the Lord mansion's still

2:51:49there, and there's a debate on what to

2:51:51do with that property right now. Um,

2:51:55that museum was over 95% dependent on

2:51:59state funding. So, when that money was

2:52:01pulled, plop, that that museum fell flat

2:52:04on its face,

2:52:06a big tragedy in the community because

2:52:08it was mainly an a museum about Olympia.

2:52:12And I raised this because I don't think

2:52:15it the city should uh be kind of the the

2:52:20sole funding source for any any any

2:52:24entity. Uh and I support these entities.

2:52:27I I I write personal checks to these

2:52:29entities, by the way, a lot of them.

2:52:32Um but it's important that um because

2:52:36one tugs at our heartstrings that we're

2:52:38not going oh we should fund this we

2:52:43should be 95% of the funding for this

2:52:46organization and that there's this this

2:52:50kind of uh sh well there's this this

2:52:54strategy that that these that these uh

2:52:57organizations employ to say well we can

2:53:00get this pot and this pot and this

2:53:01thought as long as we write the GRA

2:53:03grant appropriately, you know, because

2:53:06in some of these cases regarding kids

2:53:09from schools, you know, see see I think

2:53:13people think that the funding that

2:53:15they're getting for inspire grants are

2:53:17paying for CAPS programming. I I the

2:53:22public I'm talking about the public.

2:53:24People look at these and they think,

2:53:26"Oh, um they do great work. kids kids

2:53:31from the schools come you know but

2:53:33actually it's a separate grant you know

2:53:37and uh so I I think as we look at these

2:53:42these these institutions and what

2:53:45responsibility we have to help them grow

2:53:47and prosper and succeed we also have to

2:53:51ask the question what is the limit of

2:53:53the financial support we can afford to

2:53:56give and you know other groups they they

2:53:59they're going to want to help on capital

2:54:00funding. You know, I mean,

2:54:03nothing is on our on our burner, but I

2:54:06can see this coming down the pipeline

2:54:08that that as we, you know, look at

2:54:11spaces that that people want to move

2:54:13into, you know, the city's going to be

2:54:15asked to to be a partner in those in

2:54:19those spaces too. What obligation do we

2:54:21have for the success of the daily

2:54:26operation of those of those

2:54:28institutions?

2:54:30when we head down that path of providing

2:54:33capital support and facilities support

2:54:36as an example. Uh I I know the time is

2:54:39late and I I just really wanted to make

2:54:42these points and I hope people think

2:54:43about these issues because I think about

2:54:45them a lot and I it makes me

2:54:48uncomfortable when we have organizations

2:54:50that I I I don't personally see them as

2:54:54four different pots of money. I see them

2:54:55as one pot of money. Uh but you know we

2:54:59budget them this way. But some of these

2:55:02organizations are racking up a quite a

2:55:04large amount of public funding by

2:55:09getting a dab here and a dab here and a

2:55:11dab here and a dab here. Now it's

2:55:13suddenly four different pots of money

2:55:15that they're getting that uh that if you

2:55:18don't ask the questions, you don't

2:55:20realize how much public funding is going

2:55:23into into an entity. Thank you for the

2:55:27time.

2:55:28>> Thank you, uh, Council Member Baron.

2:55:30Although I will say I understand there

2:55:32could be some confusion, but it is all

2:55:34Inspire Olympia. So, um, but they go

2:55:39there's different allocations, but it's

2:55:40all it is all under the same program.

2:55:43So, um, okay. Um, Molly, take it away.

2:55:49Thanks for your patience.

2:55:51>> Absolutely. Thank you for the

2:55:53discussion. um that is really helpful

2:55:55context um all of these considerations.

2:55:58So the next um element that we're moving

2:56:01into is the policy side. So we're going

2:56:06to be talking about the different

2:56:07funding options. Um as I mentioned in

2:56:10the background component, we have

2:56:12proceeded with CAPS funding as

2:56:14reimbursement and we are now looking at

2:56:17moving that into a process of

2:56:20competitive grants. Um when we

2:56:23originally brought this forward with the

2:56:25CAB recommendation, we had thought about

2:56:27putting the competitive grant process in

2:56:29with an additional panel review. Um

2:56:32there are benefits to having the

2:56:34competitive grant process. It would

2:56:36allow incentivizing new programs by

2:56:38organizations by promising that money

2:56:41upfront so that they can really do that

2:56:43beginning base work to get ready for the

2:56:46school year. Um, it would make sure that

2:56:50the funding is programbased.

2:56:52Um, so looking specifically at what they

2:56:55are planning on doing in Olympia public

2:56:57schools. Um, and then it removes that

2:57:00extra need for invoicing. Um, that is

2:57:02taking up a lot of additional time, but

2:57:04it does require a specific application

2:57:06and review process. Um, after we brought

2:57:09this to clips and got some feedback from

2:57:12council, we thought of a different

2:57:14approach, a competitive grant process

2:57:16with panel review, but with OSD

2:57:18educators. Um, it would allow us to

2:57:21ensure that it is evaluated for student

2:57:23impact specifically for our Olympia

2:57:26students. And then it really utilizes

2:57:28the partnership that we've developed

2:57:29with Olympia School District for that

2:57:32review process.

2:57:36So those are those are two options that

2:57:38we are bringing to you all.

2:57:46>> I thought I saw a hand. Council member

2:57:49Madron.

2:57:50>> Yeah. Just to kick off the discussion on

2:57:51these two options. Um I uh believe what

2:57:54we were circling up around uh in the

2:57:57Eclipse committee is option number two

2:58:00um to have um uh educators uh be the

2:58:03review panel um rather than run it

2:58:06through the same reviewers that are

2:58:07going through the other Inspire grants.

2:58:09Um uh and and part of that has to do

2:58:11with just like you know the capacity

2:58:13needed to do it. Um and another part of

2:58:15it was just you know uh potentially need

2:58:18to needing to bring on other reviewers

2:58:20that are then vetted by the clips

2:58:22committee and it just seemed to be

2:58:23adding additional layers of process. Um

2:58:25but uh I think we were heading towards

2:58:27having educators uh who are you know uh

2:58:30pretty close to student needs. Um uh so

2:58:33option two was um is the is the uh one

2:58:37that I support.

2:58:40>> Okay, thanks for that. um question. Um I

2:58:44have a question. I I hear what you're

2:58:46saying about educators. That makes

2:58:47sense. But what did any um were there

2:58:50any concerns around conflict of interest

2:58:52that came up?

2:58:53>> Yeah. Uh we did talk about that and it

2:58:56would be um a matter of um uh educators

2:59:00that are not intending to seek the

2:59:01funding themselves uh would be permitted

2:59:04to serve on a review panel.

2:59:05>> Okay. Thank you.

2:59:09>> Uh yes. And I council member Gilman, I

2:59:11see your hand. So, city manager Bernie

2:59:13followed by council member Gilman.

2:59:15>> Yeah. The other thing I wanted to add is

2:59:16we left educators a little broad here.

2:59:18The team did because it it doesn't have

2:59:20to be teachers, right? It could be

2:59:21administration. It could be other

2:59:23members of OSD educators within that

2:59:25group. Um, so overcome some of the areas

2:59:28of conflict. So, if some had to back

2:59:29out, you'd have others to draw from to

2:59:31help to help do that work.

2:59:35>> Thanks, Council Member Gilman.

2:59:38Thank you for this work. Thanks for the

2:59:41clip's recommendation. I I really think

2:59:43it's a great idea to consult educators

2:59:46so that we're um we're aiming the impact

2:59:49of this program uh towards those

2:59:52educational goals as well as you know

2:59:54generally making the kids' life better.

2:59:57Thank you.

3:00:00>> Thank you. Um

3:00:03I support option two.

3:00:06All right, I'm seeing twos around the

3:00:08table.

3:00:10>> All right, thank you.

3:00:12>> Fantastic.

3:00:13>> Molly, please continue.

3:00:16>> Thank you. Um, so moving ahead with that

3:00:19competitive grant process, another

3:00:21consideration we have are the award

3:00:24amounts. So, um, as you saw earlier, you

3:00:27all had approved that $155,000

3:00:30to go out to organizations to support

3:00:34public school students. Um, so the two

3:00:37options that we have been considering,

3:00:39uh, what we are doing this year is we

3:00:41are funding organizations equally. Of

3:00:43course, that provides equal access to

3:00:45all of our organizations, but that ends

3:00:47up being a little less across the board.

3:00:50Um, and then with our reimbursement

3:00:52model, funds may not be fully utilized.

3:00:56Um, especially because the size of

3:00:58organizations and the capacity of the

3:01:00organizations might not be able to

3:01:02utilize fully that $10,000 that we

3:01:05allocated. Um, for the second option,

3:01:09CAB had a recommendation of a funding

3:01:11range of between 2,000 and 50,000. Um,

3:01:15this would allow the funding to be

3:01:17explicitly projectbased.

3:01:19um or programbased

3:01:21and it would be unlikely that all of the

3:01:24orgs would receive full funding um per

3:01:27their request, but it would be

3:01:29considered in terms of the programs and

3:01:32projects and their impact or potential

3:01:35impact on public school students.

3:01:39Um, we had the opportunity to talk about

3:01:41this a little bit at clips, but um, we

3:01:43didn't come to any sort of a full

3:01:46resolution on the amount.

3:01:51>> Okay. Thank you, Molly.

3:01:54>> Sure. Uh, Council Member Barrett,

3:01:56followed by Council Member

3:01:57>> Madron. Thank you. Um, Molly, earlier on

3:02:02an earlier slide, I thought it said that

3:02:04the the grants were limited to $10,000,

3:02:07but I so I'm misunderstanding something

3:02:09here. What is the difference between

3:02:11that earlier slide that said they were

3:02:13$10,000 grants and

3:02:16uh a $50,000 grant uh recommended under

3:02:21this funding range? Or is there a

3:02:23difference?

3:02:23>> Great question. Yes, great question. Um,

3:02:26for this year we were doing the $10,000

3:02:29amount for any organization that is

3:02:31funded funded by Inspire Olympia. Um,

3:02:34any organization that is providing field

3:02:37trip programming for public school

3:02:39students in Olympia. Um, and that is set

3:02:42up to be reimbursable. Um, so

3:02:44organizations may or may not use that

3:02:46full 10,000 and it is not specific to a

3:02:50particular program or project. So with

3:02:53this new award amount, this would be

3:02:56based on a competitive grant process

3:02:59wherein they would ask for a certain

3:03:01amount within a range depending on the

3:03:03specific program or project that they

3:03:06are putting forward for this fund.

3:03:14I I I

3:03:16guess I still don't understand the

3:03:18difference.

3:03:20This would be like an update to the

3:03:22policy essentially like moving from what

3:03:24we have been doing for this year to

3:03:27potentially making an adjustment to how

3:03:30we approach that with the 10,000 to

3:03:32making it more programsp specific. So

3:03:34instead having variable amounts.

3:03:39>> So we would be changing the policy from

3:03:4210,000 to 2,000 to 50,000

3:03:45is what it says. Yeah. I um

3:03:52uh I I do want to say I'm not

3:03:55necessarily comfortable with, you know,

3:03:57blowing this cap off, you know. I mean,

3:04:01that's a quite a quite a quite a change

3:04:04from saying, "Look, this organization

3:04:07get a$10,000." It feels like there's

3:04:09some organization that's going to get

3:04:11$50,000 that's going to be a big subsidy

3:04:14to that organization. and we haven't

3:04:16seen a list of organizations receiving

3:04:20funding or or anything. So, it

3:04:24I don't know the change in this policy

3:04:26makes me a little uncomfortable,

3:04:28frankly.

3:04:31>> Okay, I see a few hands and everybody I

3:04:34think is buzzing right now. Uh, Council

3:04:36Member Madron followed by Council Member

3:04:38Green.

3:04:39Um,

3:04:42so what the reason that count uh the

3:04:44clips didn't come to a recommendation on

3:04:46this wasn't necessarily because of

3:04:47disagreement among us. It really was

3:04:49just cuz we were getting very tired. It

3:04:51was a late night. Um, and um I I and and

3:04:56council member Baron, I wouldn't worry

3:04:58about any disagreeing with CAB on any of

3:05:01the recommendations. We've done that

3:05:02several times uh uh through clips. Um,

3:05:05and it's more about we have an advisory

3:05:07body that makes recommendations to us

3:05:08and then we take those recommendations

3:05:10and we shape them further. Um, I'm

3:05:13supportive of funding a range because if

3:05:16everybody equally gets $10,000 but not

3:05:18everybody spends it, that leaves money

3:05:20on the table, right? But I agree with

3:05:22you that I think that the range is

3:05:23pretty um broad. Um, and I'm curious to

3:05:27hear um, you know, it's a big jump

3:05:30between 2,000 and $50,000, right? So I'm

3:05:33curious to hear from Molly um uh you

3:05:36know uh if what the discussion was on

3:05:38CAB for such a broad range.

3:05:43>> Absolutely. Um so to to that point there

3:05:47are a number of organizations that have

3:05:49greater capacity to be able to serve our

3:05:52public school students. There are a

3:05:54number of organizations that are already

3:05:56well equipped to do that. Um provide

3:05:59field trip opportunities for thousands

3:06:00of students. So, this would be a chance

3:06:03for them to maybe not only do that field

3:06:06trip opportunity, but to expand even

3:06:08further. So, let's say um one

3:06:11organization has been working

3:06:12specifically with all fourth graders in

3:06:15Olympia school district. If the fund is

3:06:18slightly bigger and they have the

3:06:19capacity, they could apply to serve,

3:06:21let's say, all of the fourth graders and

3:06:23all of the seventh graders in the school

3:06:25district. So, um that was kind of the

3:06:27discussion. This leaves a little bit

3:06:29more wiggle room for organizations to

3:06:32bring forward proposals of new programs

3:06:34and projects and existing ones to seek

3:06:37that funding. And then having those

3:06:39educators look at the potential impact

3:06:42of those proposed programs then would

3:06:44decide on where that amount would fall.

3:06:48Um, and part of the process we would

3:06:50imagine would be those organizations

3:06:52providing

3:06:54descriptions of what they would do if

3:06:56less funding was available. So, you

3:06:59know, dream big, propose several

3:07:01different projects and programs and then

3:07:03potentially cut back based on what the

3:07:05educators deemed potentially most

3:07:07impactful for school students. So,

3:07:09that's why the range was set so large by

3:07:12CAB.

3:07:16>> Thank you, Molly. Council member Green.

3:07:19>> Yeah, I just want to reinforce something

3:07:21to to make sure because I'm I'm not

3:07:22concerned about this because right now

3:07:25today, if I'm understanding, CAPS is not

3:07:28a competitive process in and of itself.

3:07:30Uh any organization that gets Inspire uh

3:07:33can just do this and then say, "Okay,

3:07:35I'd also like some CAPS reimbursement."

3:07:37Is that correct? But in this new model,

3:07:39it's now competitive applications

3:07:41specifically for CAPS funding. So, while

3:07:44the the total is higher, I'm not as

3:07:46worried because they're they're going to

3:07:48give specifics around programming and

3:07:51and and why it could cost $50,000,

3:07:53whereas right now they're they're not

3:07:55really giving anything specific as to

3:07:57what they would do in the schools.

3:07:58They're just saying, "We did this. Can

3:08:00we get reimbursed for it?" Is that

3:08:01correct understanding?

3:08:04>> Yes. So, right now it's field trips uh

3:08:07specifically. So, organizations doing

3:08:10field trips um received an equal piece

3:08:14of that $155,000

3:08:16um of the $10,000 and that was just an

3:08:19addition to their work. Um and then also

3:08:23the $450 inschool program. So, that also

3:08:26is why this range is so large, 2,000 to

3:08:3050,000. 2,000 might be just an inschool

3:08:33program where uh a box and a teaching

3:08:36curriculum is developed and delivered to

3:08:39schools whereas $50,000 like Molly said

3:08:42might be reaching thousands of students

3:08:45across multiple grade levels. So it's

3:08:48the difference in that and each

3:08:49application would be evaluated on their

3:08:52impact to students.

3:08:57>> All right. Thank you Ameilia. uh mayor

3:08:59prom win.

3:09:00>> I'll be quick. I think Amelia really hit

3:09:02the nail on the head here. Uh because I

3:09:04think just seeing it on this slide of

3:09:062,000 to 50,000 it look it just looks

3:09:08weird right a little bit right that

3:09:10we're just talking about CA cab grant

3:09:13overall. Um but just want to underscore

3:09:16some of the things that you said is that

3:09:18it's bringing the 450 of uh inschool

3:09:21programs to up to 2,000. So there's

3:09:25still a range even within that. they

3:09:27might not even need 2,000. They might

3:09:29need a 200 bucks or something. Um, and

3:09:32then also bringing the up to again up to

3:09:3510. So, it's not as if people have

3:09:37requested and gotten exactly 10 and then

3:09:40didn't use it all and saved it, you

3:09:41know. So, uh, but it's up to 10 to um

3:09:44moving the ceiling to 50,000, but then

3:09:47overall the pot of CAPS funding is still

3:09:51155,000.

3:09:54So, um it's not we're not giving Yeah,

3:09:57we're not giving away more money

3:09:59necessarily. Um though, we're trying to

3:10:02make sure that uh we're being flexible.

3:10:04My understanding is flexible to more

3:10:06situations and they're still still going

3:10:08to be their applications are still going

3:10:09to be scrutinized.

3:10:14>> Um I support option two here. Um I'm

3:10:19seeing more twos. Um it's very simply

3:10:22from simple for me. I wrote down

3:10:24equality and equity. These are the

3:10:26differences between these two options.

3:10:29Um option two is the equitable approach.

3:10:34Additional thoughts.

3:10:38All right.

3:10:46Great. So, just to confirm, do we do we

3:10:49feel comfortable with that 2,00 to

3:10:5150,000? Okay.

3:10:53>> Yes.

3:10:53>> Seeing nods.

3:10:54>> Thanks.

3:10:56>> Thank you. Excellent. Um, okay. Rolling

3:11:00on. Um, you all just talked a while ago

3:11:04about location eligibility for Inspire

3:11:07Olympia. So, this could potentially look

3:11:10slightly differently for CAPS. Um, some

3:11:14of the options that you have, you could

3:11:16keep the CAPS location eligibility the

3:11:18same as what you just decided for all of

3:11:20Inspire Olympia, the 75% 75% and 10%

3:11:24with the, you know, programming within

3:11:27Olympia city limits or programming

3:11:29specifically for Olympia community

3:11:33members with that 10% cap. Um the other

3:11:37option, it's one that CAB recommended

3:11:40was to maintain that current eligibility

3:11:43for organizations who serve Olympia

3:11:45school district. So kind of that

3:11:47primarily for with that simple majority,

3:11:51but there's a lot of wiggle room in here

3:11:53and what we were hearing in the clips

3:11:55discussion was that we really want to

3:11:57ensure that there's highquality

3:11:58programming opportunities for Olympia

3:12:01School District students. Um, so we are

3:12:04pretty open on this location eligibility

3:12:07discussion.

3:12:12>> One thing I will say is um in our

3:12:15discussion with clips, it did come up

3:12:16that with the adjustments to the Inspire

3:12:19Olympia location eligibility that would

3:12:22be removing um several organizations

3:12:26from eligibility that do consistently

3:12:28serve Olympia school district students.

3:12:31uh several of which serve thousands of

3:12:33Olympia school district students.

3:12:39>> Okay, thank you. Uh Mayor Prom W

3:12:42followed by Council Member Madron.

3:12:46>> Uh hey Molly. Um great presentation.

3:12:50Uh that's twice now I've heard from you

3:12:52where you've had to wait for a very long

3:12:54time and somehow you still bring the

3:12:56same enthusiasm. I appreciate that. That

3:12:58helps me kind of wake up a little bit.

3:13:00uh for for this for CAPS I feel uh

3:13:06differently um than for the rest of

3:13:08Inspire here. Um I'm happy so long as

3:13:11it's OSD students, you know,

3:13:14experiencing the thing, right? And

3:13:16whether it's the field trip outside or

3:13:18it's the the inschool program, it would

3:13:21be specific to OSD. Um and uh yeah, of

3:13:24course, we want Olympia students to go

3:13:26out. We want them to go on I mean even

3:13:28something as a regional thing like the

3:13:30Billy Frank Jr. Nquali wildlife trail.

3:13:33We want them to we want them to go out

3:13:34and see things. We want them to go to

3:13:35the maker space etc. So um yeah as long

3:13:39as it's OSD students I'm I'm good. I

3:13:41don't feel like we need to put um big

3:13:43constraints on on location.

3:13:48>> Thank you. Uh council member Madron. Uh

3:13:51just to clarify, Mr. Prom, was that

3:13:53support for option two or just generally

3:13:55not having location eligibility.

3:14:01>> Correct. You always know it's something

3:14:02a little different. It's the end the

3:14:04bottom. I don't feel like we need to

3:14:05have a location. We just need OSD

3:14:07students in in the seat.

3:14:09>> Okay. Yeah. And and that's what I was

3:14:11wondering too is um you know if the bene

3:14:13if we're just looking to benefit OSD

3:14:15students, we've already hit that um you

3:14:18know, well, I guess it's hard to say

3:14:20it's majority Olympia um you know uh

3:14:22residents because not everybody who is

3:14:24in the OSD district uh is uh an Olympia

3:14:28school resident, but they're all part of

3:14:29our community. Um so I I would be I

3:14:32would I would be fine with not having

3:14:34location eligibility criteria tied to

3:14:36this as long as the benefit is for OSD

3:14:38students. Uh, but I'm seeing Amelia make

3:14:41a face at me and so I want to understand

3:14:45why.

3:14:47>> If you don't have any location

3:14:49eligibility, you then do open the doors

3:14:51for things that are very far away to

3:14:55come

3:14:55>> and then that could complicate the

3:14:57application process in terms of the

3:14:59number. Okay. Well, then I like option

3:15:00two.

3:15:04>> Thanks, Amelia. Uh, mayor prom win

3:15:06followed by I thought I saw a hand over.

3:15:09Oh, two's up. Okay. All right. Mayor

3:15:11prom win.

3:15:17All right. So, I'm hearing support for

3:15:19option two by majority.

3:15:25Excellent.

3:15:27Thank you all and thank you for the

3:15:29face, Amelia. And

3:15:32um the final the final component is um

3:15:36CAP's funding priorities. And we

3:15:38actually did have a pretty great

3:15:39discussion about this at the clips

3:15:41level. Um CAB brought forward the idea

3:15:46of adopting funding priorities as we go

3:15:49through this CAPS competitive funding

3:15:50process. um over so I've been in my role

3:15:55for about a year now and done a fair

3:15:57amount of outreach and engagement with

3:16:01the audiences that are involved here. So

3:16:04specifically students, teachers,

3:16:06administrators, school district staff.

3:16:09Um, and we even held some elementary and

3:16:12secondary teacher focus groups to really

3:16:15get to the heart of um, what types of

3:16:19programming would have the biggest

3:16:21impact on Olympia school district

3:16:23students. Um, included in your packets

3:16:27there was a summary of those teacher

3:16:30focus groups. Uh, just so you can kind

3:16:32of see that discussion and where that

3:16:34led. Um but based on all of that

3:16:38engagement and input, we realized that

3:16:40there are several different priorities

3:16:42that we were considering. Um CAB had the

3:16:46recommendation of thinking about

3:16:49elementary visual arts, inschool

3:16:51experiences, and STEM teacher

3:16:54professional development. So having

3:16:56these types of funding priorities would

3:16:58incentivize organizations to create

3:17:00programs that would be really high

3:17:02impact for OSD students. Um, and it

3:17:05would be responsive to those identified

3:17:07needs. Um, which of course requires

3:17:10ongoing engagement year after year to

3:17:12ensure that those are still the

3:17:14priorities. And we would prioritize

3:17:16those through the competitive process by

3:17:18adding um

3:17:21adding into the rubric a point for those

3:17:24priorities being touched upon. Um in the

3:17:28clips discussion the funding priority of

3:17:31STEM teacher pro professional

3:17:33development was removed um because I

3:17:37think the priority is that we want

3:17:39funding to go directly to that student

3:17:42experience. So um maintaining elementary

3:17:45visual arts and inschool experiences as

3:17:49the funding priorities for this coming

3:17:51year of CAPS funding.

3:17:57Thank you, Molly. Uh, Council Member

3:17:58Madron.

3:18:00>> Yeah, as Molly said, this is one that we

3:18:02did dig in a little bit on with clips.

3:18:04Um, and the conversation that we have

3:18:06was around uh intent of the voters uh

3:18:09for the Inspire program, which included,

3:18:12um, you know, the the visual arts in

3:18:14school experience and stuff, but it

3:18:16didn't include professional development

3:18:18for teachers, uh, which is one of the

3:18:19reasons that we, uh, suggested pulling

3:18:22that component out. So, uh, what you're

3:18:24hearing from me is support for absent.

3:18:29>> All right. Additional comments.

3:18:33>> Two. Two. More deuces.

3:18:37All right.

3:18:39Seeing lots of twos. Support for option

3:18:41two by majority.

3:18:42>> Mayor Payne.

3:18:44>> Council member Gilman.

3:18:46>> Thank you. I I was just I wanted to ask

3:18:49whether there's um there's a plan for

3:18:52when um when that criteria or those

3:18:55categories might be reconsidered. Is is

3:18:57there a timeline set for that?

3:18:58Otherwise, I'm in support of option two.

3:19:02>> Thank you.

3:19:04>> Go ahead. Uh go ahead, Molly.

3:19:07>> Yes, absolutely. um we would have to

3:19:10consider what that timeline looks like.

3:19:12And of course, you know, it's

3:19:14complicated with uh how the school year

3:19:16is set up and like how our guidelines

3:19:18need to come out. So, um the hope would

3:19:21be that we would be able to con have a

3:19:24convening of educators to be able to

3:19:27look at those funding priorities for

3:19:28then the next funding year. So this

3:19:31decision would actually be for um 2027

3:19:362028 and be incorporated into the

3:19:38guidelines then.

3:19:43>> Okay. Thank you. Um ma uh geez it's

3:19:46getting late. Council member Madron.

3:19:50>> Yeah. And another thing um council

3:19:52member Gilman is that there's going to

3:19:53be an annual stop in the clips committee

3:19:56uh for reviewing the inspire program

3:19:58overall. So, um I think it's I think

3:20:01it's important that we don't constantly

3:20:03change the program every time it comes

3:20:05ahead of us. But, um uh and what Molly

3:20:08was just saying is for the 2728 um

3:20:10school year. Um and then we will have

3:20:13that annual stop in clips to just kind

3:20:15of evaluate how we're doing.

3:20:20>> Thank you. Um yeah, and I'm hearing

3:20:23mostly support for option two, if not

3:20:26unanimous.

3:20:30Fabulous. Thank you so much. This was

3:20:33what I had for you all tonight and

3:20:35looking forward to a year of CAPS

3:20:37programming.

3:20:39>> Thank you so much, Molly. We appreciate

3:20:41it.

3:20:47All right. And does that conclude the

3:20:49entire presentation? Okay. Well, um

3:20:53again, thank you to Molly and um I want

3:20:56to express my uh gratitude to our uh to

3:21:00my colleagues that are on clips. Um and

3:21:03also to Ameilia, Mary Grace, and

3:21:05Jennica. I really appreciate that this

3:21:08item came before us with some solid uh

3:21:11recommendations that are very detailed

3:21:13and specific and didn't require a whole

3:21:16lot of back and forth. Um, so thank you

3:21:19for that work to make it nice and smooth

3:21:21for tonight, Council Member Madron.

3:21:24>> And also a big thanks to our cultural

3:21:25access advisory board who has also done

3:21:28substantial work to help respond to

3:21:31council concerns and bring forward the

3:21:33recommendations for us to react to.

3:21:34>> Yes, thank you. Very important. Thank

3:21:36you for catching that. All right. Um,

3:21:40any additional comments?

3:21:43All right. Thank you very much.

3:21:46Okay. So we are going to move on to our

3:21:49final item for tonight, item 2 C on our

3:21:52agenda, which is the Artisian Commons

3:21:56discussion, uh, which is led by our

3:21:59economic development director, Jennica

3:22:01Machado.

3:22:12>> Yep, no worries. When you're ready.

3:22:15>> Thank you.

3:22:16Um, all right. Good evening, Jennica

3:22:19Mashado, economic development director.

3:22:22Um, thank you for the opportunity to

3:22:24update you this evening on Artisian

3:22:26Commons.

3:22:28Uh, I'll cover four areas this evening.

3:22:30Site background and constraints, our

3:22:33community engagement process, the

3:22:35results of the engagement, which will be

3:22:36the bulk of the discussion, and finally

3:22:38potential next steps.

3:22:41Uh, a brief history. The Artisian

3:22:43Commons opened in May of 2014 with

3:22:47public art, food trucks, seating in the

3:22:49loo. Between 2014 and 2018, the site

3:22:52became increasingly difficult to manage

3:22:55with ongoing vandalism, substance use,

3:22:57and safety incidences affecting the

3:22:58public and city staff. In 2018, the city

3:23:01closed the commons to public access

3:23:03while preserving access to the well

3:23:05itself. In 20 from 2018 through this

3:23:09year, the site has remained closed and

3:23:11inactive while the well has continued to

3:23:13be accessible. This year, the city

3:23:15launched renewed engagement uh to help

3:23:17identify potential next steps for the

3:23:19site.

3:23:21Uh before turning to community input,

3:23:23I'd like to cover some of the

3:23:24constraints that apply here regardless

3:23:27of which concept moves forward. These

3:23:29were identified through discussion with

3:23:31city staff, including our drinking water

3:23:33quality staff and public works.

3:23:35Department of Health has shared that no

3:23:37new sources of potential contamination

3:23:39may be placed within a 100 foot radius

3:23:42of the well or the sanitary control

3:23:44area. This includes fertilizers,

3:23:47pesticides, herbicides, and any

3:23:48biological contamination uh sources such

3:23:51as a portaotty or new sewer lines.

3:23:54Landscaping when within the radius needs

3:23:56to be intentional as well. Trees may be

3:23:58acceptable, but fertilizer would not.

3:24:00And depending on the tree um type, roots

3:24:03seeking water could damage the well

3:24:05casing over time. Certain degrees of

3:24:08ground disturbance near the well may

3:24:10risk damaging the casing and

3:24:11contaminating the water source. Addition

3:24:14additionally, no storage tank uh

3:24:16portable portable water or non-potable

3:24:18water would be approved. Essentially,

3:24:20what we learned was that if the well is

3:24:22damaged or contaminated, the department

3:24:23of health would require city to restrict

3:24:26access and the department of ecology may

3:24:28require it to be decommissioned. So if

3:24:30the wall breaks, it likely cannot be

3:24:32replaced.

3:24:35Both focus groups and city staff raised

3:24:37additional practical considerations that

3:24:39while not regulatory constraints were

3:24:42discussed as important while considering

3:24:43future design concepts, such as the site

3:24:46has poor sight lines and currently

3:24:48offers no shelter from the elements.

3:24:50Focus group participants cautioned

3:24:52against trying to make the site be

3:24:54everything to everybody and encouraged

3:24:56identifying a primary use or audience

3:24:59first. The site's proximity to downtown

3:25:02nightlife also came up with potential

3:25:04spillover activity to the site at night.

3:25:06And focus group participants noted

3:25:08downtown service and housing landscape

3:25:11today differs from the 2014 to 2018

3:25:14timeline with more supportive services

3:25:16available now.

3:25:18We heard very consistent feedback across

3:25:21all the engagement avenues about the

3:25:22need to uh replace or remove the current

3:25:25temporary fence as soon as possible.

3:25:28This is a theme that comes up a few

3:25:30times in the in the presentation.

3:25:33So turning to how staff gathered the

3:25:35input, I held two stakeholder focus

3:25:37groups on the 17th and 20th in August.

3:25:40Participants included downtown business

3:25:42owners, community and neighborhood

3:25:43advocates, downtown workers, community

3:25:46organization representatives, and city

3:25:48staff from drinking water, police, and

3:25:50parks. I also held one-on-one meetings,

3:25:52including with three businesses that

3:25:54directly surround the site. And we

3:25:56conducted a city-wide community survey,

3:25:58which re received 436 respondents. Uh

3:26:02staff also reviewed community input

3:26:05gathered outside this formal process. a

3:26:07listening session uh council member

3:26:09Gilman hosted at the well and a social

3:26:11media outreach conducted by a member of

3:26:13the Southwest Washington Neighborhood

3:26:15Association. And I appreciate the

3:26:16additional engagement efforts that were

3:26:18done.

3:26:20Some site priorities.

3:26:22So we asked regardless of what the site

3:26:24becomes, which priorities matter most to

3:26:27you with up to three selections allowed.

3:26:31The clear top priority was maintaining

3:26:33access to the well, followed by ensuring

3:26:35the site remains publicly accessible.

3:26:37The next priorities were essentially

3:26:39tied, including cleanliness and regular

3:26:41upkeep, keeping the site publicly owned,

3:26:44and safety.

3:26:46This aligns closely with the focus

3:26:47groups and one-on- ons where

3:26:49participants name the same priorities

3:26:51with additional discussion focusing on

3:26:53beautifification and adding greenery.

3:26:56The next survey question asked, "What

3:26:58would what would most improve residents

3:27:01sensus safety?" The top response was

3:27:04community organization or neighborhoods

3:27:06based stewardship, followed by having a

3:27:08consistent daytime presence. Consistent

3:27:10lighting was with the site closed

3:27:12overnight was third. Other writin

3:27:14responses were received, but no single

3:27:16theme rose to the top like those three.

3:27:19This lines up with the focus groups

3:27:21where participants repeatedly favored

3:27:22on-site presence. City staff noted that

3:27:25sites prior operating model was very

3:27:27staff intensive and discussed how a

3:27:29third-party steward has more tools

3:27:31available to them to manage the site.

3:27:35Uh this question was designed to

3:27:37understand how many concepts would be

3:27:39broadly supported so respondents could

3:27:42select all the ideas they could get

3:27:43behind. So this wasn't this question

3:27:45wasn't trying to understand what's the

3:27:47single thing you want the most but how

3:27:49many things can you live with and be

3:27:51okay with. Um, three concepts emerged

3:27:54clearly ahead of the rest and very close

3:27:56to one another. A plaza mixeduse space,

3:27:58a park, and an event and programming

3:28:00space. Selling to a community

3:28:02organization, converting to a parking

3:28:04lot, and selling to a private developer

3:28:06um received a very small number of

3:28:08votes. Both focus groups converged on

3:28:11these same three ideas as having the

3:28:13broadest appeal and participants

3:28:15specifically discussed blending the

3:28:17mixeduse plaza and event and programming

3:28:20concepts seeing them as complimentary.

3:28:23So we did also ask for the p uh

3:28:25preferred concept. Which idea do people

3:28:29most want the city to explore? The

3:28:31mixuse plaza received the most votes at

3:28:33145, but the top three remained really

3:28:36closely aligned again with a park and

3:28:39event programming space. Together, these

3:28:42three account for the majority of the

3:28:44responses. This is consistent again with

3:28:46the focus group uh where the preference

3:28:48converged on the same three with the

3:28:50plaza and event programming space being

3:28:53more favored.

3:28:55>> Jennica,

3:28:56>> yep.

3:28:56>> Can you help me understand? So those top

3:28:59three

3:29:00items and then I think of the one of the

3:29:03first slides you showed about not

3:29:05everything for everyone.

3:29:08>> So can you help me understand I mean

3:29:11what is meant by that when I think about

3:29:13a park or event programming space or

3:29:15mixeduse plaza. Um

3:29:19>> so that that comment came up during the

3:29:20focus group that discussion um was as

3:29:23we're thinking about different

3:29:25priorities and different potential

3:29:26future uses uh somebody had thrown up

3:29:31maybe it's family friendly, maybe it's a

3:29:33park, maybe it could have amenities like

3:29:36that. And then discussion was around

3:29:38well it is next to like geographically

3:29:41downtown some of the bars. Maybe this

3:29:44doesn't have great sightelines. Does

3:29:46this one site need to be um offering all

3:29:51these different things or can we focus

3:29:53on uh one specific use or the plaza

3:29:58mixuse or the event and programming

3:30:00space if that's helpful?

3:30:03>> Sure. Maybe I'm just being a little too

3:30:05literal because I still see these as

3:30:07kind of general but um sure. Okay.

3:30:10>> Thanks.

3:30:14Um, so given consistent feedback about

3:30:16wanting the temporary fence down as soon

3:30:18as possible and recognizing any of the

3:30:20top three concepts may take real time

3:30:22and resources to design and build, uh,

3:30:24we asked whether the community would

3:30:26support some interim use of the site

3:30:28while permanent design work proceeds.

3:30:30Here we saw the response no and not sure

3:30:33really closely split. Uh, nearly 38%

3:30:36said no. Uh but when we look at are

3:30:40people uh outright opposed to it, 62%

3:30:43are either not sure or open to this. Uh

3:30:47so of the 77 respondents who described a

3:30:50preferred interim use because that was

3:30:52another kind of like write if you're

3:30:54supportive of this, write in what type

3:30:56of ideas you might have. Uh common

3:30:58themes were pop-up markets, food trucks,

3:31:00and parking. Uh many simply reiterated

3:31:04wanting the fence removed regardless of

3:31:05what follows. Our focus groups and

3:31:08one-on- ons generally favored interim

3:31:10use. A focus group suggested pop-up

3:31:12events and markets to start piloting

3:31:14what activation could look like even

3:31:16while we have the current fence in

3:31:18place. Another focus group suggested

3:31:20that although not a first choice, they'd

3:31:23be open to a parking lot if this meant

3:31:24that something would happen at the site

3:31:27and if the um temporary fence well and

3:31:30if the ensuring that the permanent use

3:31:32was not a parking lot.

3:31:36>> Council member Vanderpool. So, I guess

3:31:39about the temporary situation, a while

3:31:41ago, um gosh, when was this? Like in the

3:31:44spring, um there was a small business

3:31:47downtown that had reached out, had

3:31:49reached out to me, my fault for wearing

3:31:51my council jacket into the store. Uh

3:31:56every time I do that, I have to send a

3:31:57new email. And I think you spoke with

3:31:59them about activation either in that

3:32:02space or adjacent to that space around

3:32:05arts. Arts walk falls right around the

3:32:07corner.

3:32:08Uh,

3:32:11and that was about temporary usage.

3:32:15Where

3:32:17where are we with that?

3:32:20>> Uh, I believe we'd need more internal

3:32:21discussion about how to operationalize

3:32:23that.

3:32:25>> Okay. Um,

3:32:28side I guess side question is were we

3:32:31able to find a space for those folks?

3:32:34Um,

3:32:35I believe I remember which instance

3:32:37you're talking about. I think we let

3:32:39them know at the time that we weren't

3:32:40able to accommodate the use of the site

3:32:42at that time.

3:32:43>> Okay. Because they asked like way early

3:32:46in the year

3:32:47>> if there was a space, a parking lot that

3:32:49we would own to use to just temporary

3:32:52and uh that just reminded me of that.

3:32:55And Arts Walk's right around the corner.

3:32:56So, okay.

3:32:58Thank you.

3:32:59>> All right.

3:33:03Um, as I've blended the focus group

3:33:05one-on-one and survey feedback together,

3:33:07I also wanted to take a minute to

3:33:08directly show the overlap between the

3:33:10feedback and most um Oh, no. Oh, right.

3:33:13In beyond the structured questions,

3:33:15we've received substantial open-ended um

3:33:18written input, and staff wanted those

3:33:20themes directly represented here given

3:33:22the time community members put into

3:33:24sharing them. The most frequent theme

3:33:26was interest in vendors, markets, and

3:33:28popups, uh, followed by food trucks, and

3:33:31food carts. Skate features or a pump

3:33:34track and taking down the fence were

3:33:35also raised. Also, police presence and

3:33:38cameras and on-site homelessness

3:33:40services.

3:33:44As I blended the focus group and

3:33:46one-on-one survey feedback together in

3:33:48this presentation, I wanted to take a

3:33:50minute to directly show the overlap

3:33:51between the feedback in in that most of

3:33:54the areas told a really consistent story

3:33:56from what I heard in the survey, what I

3:33:58heard in one-on- ones, and what I heard

3:34:00in the um focus groups really converged

3:34:03around the same the same themes and the

3:34:06same priorities. Um so the same three

3:34:09topics, concepts came up. well access as

3:34:12a top priority, a preference to keep the

3:34:14site in public hands, interest in a

3:34:16community organization or thirdparty

3:34:18operator model, and honoring the

3:34:20cultural significance of this site to

3:34:22the Squawken Island tribe.

3:34:25Across all engagement strategies, we saw

3:34:27mixed opinions on if there should be a

3:34:29permanent fence and if there should be

3:34:31scheduled hours like having the site

3:34:33closed at night. on the focus groups.

3:34:36One of the focus groups provided the

3:34:37suggestion that an improved fence could

3:34:39be installed with the possibility of

3:34:41removing it down the line if site use

3:34:44and behavior at the site changed.

3:34:48Uh beyond name naming favored concepts,

3:34:50focus group participants and one-on-one

3:34:52stakeholders spoke at length about what

3:34:54conditions would help any of the top

3:34:56concepts succeed. The feedback again was

3:34:59consistent and fell into two categories,

3:35:01operating model and design and

3:35:02partnership. On operating model, a

3:35:05third-party operation was favored both

3:35:07in the focus groups and survey with

3:35:09participants noting that the third party

3:35:11operators generally have more tools

3:35:13available for management. They offered

3:35:16that whoever manages the site should be

3:35:18trained and supported with deescalation

3:35:20and overdose response training and

3:35:22suggested continued city support.

3:35:24Additionally, they suggested a clear

3:35:26posted safety plan with expectations and

3:35:28consequences spelled up out front. Uh on

3:35:31the design and partnership category,

3:35:33participants discussed developing a

3:35:35partnership with neighboring businesses

3:35:36and identifying vendors that would be

3:35:38additive to the downtown landscape. Uh

3:35:41more broadly, focus groups and

3:35:43one-on-one surfaced far more discussion

3:35:45on beautifification and greening the

3:35:47space than the survey alone captured.

3:35:49One focus group stressed the importance

3:35:51of a sustaining a sustainable funding

3:35:53plan to maintain the site long term and

3:35:56stakeholders described different visions

3:35:58for vendor space ranging from permanent

3:36:00non-permanent seasonal without full

3:36:02agreement and consistent with earlier

3:36:04slides there was continued uh there was

3:36:06continued emphasis for the need for

3:36:08weather protection and gathering

3:36:10infrastructure.

3:36:12So, what's risen to the top? Again, the

3:36:15same three concepts, mixeduse event

3:36:17programming space in a park, uh, and a

3:36:21support around blending the plaza and

3:36:23event programming concepts. Staff also

3:36:25held an internal discussion with park

3:36:27arts and recreation department about the

3:36:29park concept. That department has

3:36:31expressed reservations about advancing a

3:36:33park concept uh, for the site at this

3:36:36time, citing management and maintenance

3:36:38capacity concerns. A few other pieces of

3:36:41feedback were consistent across every

3:36:43form of engagement. Uh getting the fence

3:36:45down as soon as possible, a consistent

3:36:47daytime presence to help address

3:36:49feelings of safety, and a third party

3:36:51management model.

3:36:54So next steps, uh when assessing the

3:36:57next steps for all the top concepts,

3:36:59they essentially have the same immediate

3:37:01next step. For the mixeduse plaza and

3:37:03event and programming concepts, that

3:37:05step would be hiring a design consultant

3:37:07for concept design. and for the park a

3:37:09landscape architect for design concept.

3:37:11Uh in every case that work would include

3:37:14a site feasibility analysis, multiple

3:37:16concept design options and

3:37:18identification and cost estimates for

3:37:20subsequent project phases. The city

3:37:22currently has funding available for this

3:37:24step. Uh staff anticipates that this

3:37:27next phase could be um completed for

3:37:29under 35,000.

3:37:33>> Thank you. Uh Council Member Vanderpole.

3:37:37Um,

3:37:38as we if we do go that way of have

3:37:40hiring a design team to look at this,

3:37:44uh, I think that, uh, allowing the

3:37:48public to to kind of share at some of

3:37:51their design elements would probably be

3:37:54a good idea. I just attended an event

3:37:56where we did that exact thing and it

3:38:00really kind of drawled out what uh it

3:38:02gave people uh an idea of what the

3:38:05limits of the physical space is, right?

3:38:08Uh because as it some of the comments

3:38:10said that it it we have to be uh

3:38:13cautious about putting too many things

3:38:15in one space at a time, right? And uh

3:38:18allowing people to know uh what options

3:38:21they have with that. And I also do think

3:38:23when we do talk to um when we do look at

3:38:27that there are lots of uh in the Pacific

3:38:30Northwest cities have done this. I was

3:38:32just in Portland a couple months ago and

3:38:34it was it's almost the same amount of

3:38:36space and several neighborhoods they've

3:38:38done this and they're they seem to be

3:38:41doing very well, right? Uh and very

3:38:43friendly even with a closable fence,

3:38:46right? So I do think that we don't have

3:38:47to reinvent the wheel about this because

3:38:49people have done this already. So, yeah.

3:38:54>> Thank you, uh, Council Member Gilman,

3:38:56followed by Council Member Barrett.

3:39:00>> Thank you, Mayor Payne. Um, I really,

3:39:03really appreciate the the outreach and

3:39:06the analysis that Jennica's provided us.

3:39:10And, um, so I I'm excited that we're

3:39:12going to move, you know, continue to

3:39:14move on this. I'm I'm very much in the

3:39:16get down the chain link fence as a

3:39:19priority um camp and um something I

3:39:23wanted to raise from the people I've

3:39:25interacted with is is to really put a a

3:39:28a big emphasis on access to the well and

3:39:33um we um by by the new fencing we put

3:39:38for additional secure parking on the

3:39:40south end of this parcel uh we made

3:39:43essentially a narrow alley for vehicles

3:39:45to come in for people to fill their

3:39:48water bottles. And um I I just want to

3:39:51make sure that improving and maintaining

3:39:53that access to the wellhead is part of

3:39:56it. And the um the aha that I had um in

3:40:00the focus group and in the conversations

3:40:02that I've had with folks is that the

3:40:04city owns the entire Lshape um that that

3:40:08half of a block except for the crypt.

3:40:12And and that means the commons or the

3:40:15food trucks or whatever it is doesn't

3:40:17necessarily have to be between those two

3:40:19blank cinder block walls, but somewhere

3:40:22on that parcel. And and key to that

3:40:24understanding is the fact that the place

3:40:26where the bench and the well head is now

3:40:29is not the actual location of the well.

3:40:31Our our our team piped it over from the

3:40:34wellhead which is about halfway down the

3:40:36the back wall of the crypt. Um, so I I

3:40:40urge us not to be rigid in thinking

3:40:42about the same little plaza physical

3:40:46space that we tried a few years ago and

3:40:49to really work to make sure that there's

3:40:51easy access in and out to uh gather

3:40:54water. Thank you.

3:40:57>> Well said. Thank you, Council Member

3:40:58Gilman. Uh, Council Member Barrett,

3:41:00followed by Council Member Green.

3:41:03>> Thank you. Um,

3:41:05you know, one of the things that wasn't

3:41:07covered in this presentation was that it

3:41:10wasn't that long ago that there was a

3:41:12major renovation of this space that

3:41:14resulted in the current Wellhead and oh

3:41:19uh

3:41:21murals in in in that space and uh and

3:41:24open space and um the community

3:41:28experienced a really bad experience

3:41:30there. it uh you know we haven't gone

3:41:33into this at all but it became a

3:41:37oh kind of a massive gathering space for

3:41:40for people who didn't have any place to

3:41:41go and um we put in this bathroom for

3:41:46the community and there was bad things

3:41:49that were going on in that bathroom and

3:41:52um there was a very successful

3:41:55restaurant across the street Rambling

3:41:57Jacks and you know it closed He he he

3:42:01closed that restaurant and he believes

3:42:04that it was that park that um that led

3:42:07to the demise of his very successful

3:42:09business. Very um it was a very popular

3:42:12restaurant in town. The the owner of

3:42:14that restaurant believes that that was

3:42:18integral part to making people feel

3:42:20unsafe in that on that street and um

3:42:25causing difficulties at his restaurant.

3:42:28So, what I'm really interested in is um

3:42:32I think this presentation probably could

3:42:34have made been made before they did the

3:42:36last renovation. You know, I mean, the

3:42:38the different ideas. There's there's

3:42:40nothing new here compared to what what

3:42:43we're doing in so many ways.

3:42:46I what I really kind of want to focus on

3:42:47is how are we going to make this a

3:42:49success and not um just re um revisit

3:42:54the problems that we have already had in

3:42:56that space when we take down the fence,

3:42:59you know, so to speak, because that

3:43:01fence went up for a reason. And um if

3:43:05you visit the park there, and I I

3:43:07visited it many times, it um it it's

3:43:10more of a controlled space now. And so

3:43:13there on a smaller version the same

3:43:15things that are happening as happened

3:43:17when it was open but it's more

3:43:20controlled and whatnot. And um as long

3:43:23as a park, I guess park rangers can

3:43:25come, but um uh Jennica, can you talk

3:43:30about what strategies we have that and

3:43:34the cost involved in

3:43:37um in reimagining that space in in a way

3:43:42that we won't just return it to what it

3:43:46was, you know, prior to when we put up

3:43:48the fence.

3:43:48>> Yeah. Thank you. Um that was a big part

3:43:50of the discussion. Uh and I would say

3:43:54that's part of where we saw mixed

3:43:55feedback. Uh there were a lot of people

3:43:58who said we'd like this to be

3:44:00permanently fenced. We'd like there to

3:44:01be scheduled hours where this is closed

3:44:04at night. Uh part of the question about

3:44:07safety. Uh people would like to have

3:44:10some type of presence, maybe vendor

3:44:12presence. And so that's where we talked

3:44:13about the plaza mixed use is if there

3:44:16are um vendors on site, you have a

3:44:18permanent presence, you have a reason

3:44:20people are coming in with additional

3:44:21foot traffic. Um and so that that was

3:44:24definitely part of this the discussion

3:44:25in which people thought that some of

3:44:27those strategies would help um kind of

3:44:30avoid some of the things that happened

3:44:32last time. But it was in no way uh I

3:44:35would say like uh as consistent in

3:44:38feedback as we saw about some other

3:44:40concepts and priorities. Other people

3:44:42would like the fence to come down

3:44:43permanently. Um and so that that was a

3:44:47place where we had mixed feedback.

3:44:50>> And in in your presentation

3:44:53you referred to uh third party operator

3:44:57third party operator. And I that was

3:44:59just a little vague. What would that

3:45:00look like? Uh, I mean, what are a couple

3:45:04of models of what that might look like?

3:45:06>> Uh, it could be a nonprofit, um, or a

3:45:09community organization. Uh, I've talked

3:45:12to no organizations, so do I don't want

3:45:14to put out any like names, but um, that

3:45:17would be a model that we could look at,

3:45:19>> but but we would have to contract as a

3:45:21city with those that that that

3:45:23organization to manage that site or it

3:45:26could be a commercial type type of

3:45:27thing, I guess. But in either case,

3:45:30there would be a considerable expense to

3:45:32the city

3:45:33uh either to the parks department or to

3:45:36um the general fund. I guess I I I I

3:45:40just want to have an understanding of

3:45:42that that that people understand that

3:45:45that that it's a budget impact and

3:45:47whatnot. And I'd like to get a sense of

3:45:50is that bigger than a bread box or

3:45:52smaller than one, you I mean, are we

3:45:54talking about a quarter of a million

3:45:55dollars a year or are we talking about

3:45:58less, more? You know, I I these are

3:46:01these are really important questions

3:46:04when we make this decision in my view to

3:46:07anticipate the the budget impact.

3:46:10>> Uh I I think that's would be something

3:46:11we'd be able to look more into if we

3:46:14have a certain direction that council is

3:46:16interested in exploring more. Um, I

3:46:19think that there are different models in

3:46:21which this could look depending like

3:46:24what type of commerce do we have, what I

3:46:27think it could look a few different

3:46:28ways. And so I think that's something

3:46:29that we need to spend additional

3:46:30information gathering um for that that

3:46:33type of feedback.

3:46:37>> Thank you,

3:46:39>> Council Member Green, followed by

3:46:41Council Member Vanderpool.

3:46:44>> Thanks, Jennica. I want to talk about

3:46:45bathrooms.

3:46:47Um, so, uh, you know, one of your early

3:46:50slides talked about the risks to the

3:46:52well and certainly that, uh, you know,

3:46:54came up as a as a really top priority

3:46:56for folks was protecting that well,

3:46:57protecting access to that well. Um, and

3:47:01I love all of these concepts and maybe

3:47:03this would be uh later in the design

3:47:05phase, but was there any early

3:47:07discussion about I mean any public space

3:47:09like that, food trucks, event space,

3:47:11vendor space, like you have to have

3:47:13bathrooms and we wouldn't want to put

3:47:14that burden on the neighboring

3:47:16businesses to say, "Hey, we couldn't put

3:47:18a bathroom out here because uh we're

3:47:20protecting the well, so sorry." So I

3:47:23mean just was there any discussion

3:47:25around options for that or ways to make

3:47:27it uh you know a truly kind of

3:47:29comfortable space if we're talking about

3:47:30public

3:47:31>> activities?

3:47:32>> Um we did we did have parks represented

3:47:36in one of the focus groups in which they

3:47:38shared that uh there will likely be

3:47:41fixes to the L that is currently there

3:47:44um to where there may be a workable

3:47:46bathroom on site.

3:47:48>> Okay. Can you help me? Uh uh I'm not a

3:47:54great space visualizer. Um so from the

3:47:58well to like the sidewalk on fourth,

3:48:01fifth, whatever that is about where in

3:48:03the in the commons uh you know uh

3:48:06between the cinder blocks like where is

3:48:08100 feet? I mean is the L at about 100

3:48:09feet or is there any flexibility? So I I

3:48:12I looked at that today actually. Um and

3:48:14the whole site is within 100 feet and so

3:48:18um the not being able to have

3:48:20portaotties would um go for putting it

3:48:25anywhere on the commons.

3:48:27>> Thanks.

3:48:32>> All right. Additional comments.

3:48:34Oh yes, Council Member Vanderpool.

3:48:38>> Uh I didn't realize we were at the end

3:48:39of the slide when I commented earlier. I

3:48:40was just coming on that slide, but a lot

3:48:43of what you were saying in this

3:48:44presentation, I heard even from meeting

3:48:47with folks over this last year and and

3:48:50whatnot. So, I'm going to say a few

3:48:52things that I also heard as kind of

3:48:54duplicated information. Food trucks came

3:48:56up. I'm glad that council member Gilman

3:48:58said the food trucks don't always have

3:48:59to be in the space if we're talking

3:49:01about spatial constraints. Like there's

3:49:03there is that back area, that parking

3:49:05lot, right? Um well, access is the

3:49:08highest thing I heard. Also, um whether

3:49:11or not we take down the fence or replace

3:49:13it with a more friendlier fence, I think

3:49:15an idea uh uh was uh access from 4th

3:49:19Avenue rather than just from the back

3:49:22could make the well access seem

3:49:25friendlier to folks, right? There's no

3:49:27clear signage. I heard that from a lot

3:49:30of folks. There's there is not a if you

3:49:33even have a fence, even if you had a

3:49:35path that goes directly from the well

3:49:37along the um the crypt on that backside,

3:49:42lighting is part of that. People, you

3:49:44know, want to make it needs to be a

3:49:46friendly and pres presentable signage.

3:49:50However we go about that, um I did hear,

3:49:54you know, uh some of the ideas were

3:49:56about the well focus. Some folks were,

3:49:59is this pet friendly with pet works next

3:50:01door? Family friendly came up a lot

3:50:03because there is no all age

3:50:07familyfriendly space. It's all

3:50:09surrounded by bars. Um, uh, all season

3:50:13covering was a thought that came up

3:50:15because if you wanted to be active all

3:50:17year round, you have to have that

3:50:20flexibility. Um, one of the things about

3:50:23it being semifed and only having one

3:50:26entrance like in that path, if we

3:50:28created a path and then you had one

3:50:29entrance, is uh having that friendlier

3:50:33fence around it. Um, is do you have the

3:50:36bathroom inside the fenced area where

3:50:38there are people or do you have it

3:50:40accessible from the street? Right?

3:50:42because that was a concern is that

3:50:43people want to have access to a

3:50:44bathroom, but there is a concern about

3:50:48uh it getting vandalized if it's only

3:50:52accessible from the street rather than

3:50:54inside an area. Um, which would require

3:50:57the bathroom probably having to shift

3:51:00probably the entrance to it. Um,

3:51:03lighting came up a lot. Some folks

3:51:05mentioned that um because they were also

3:51:07in the focus groups about how the crypt

3:51:09has had concerns about lighting only the

3:51:12way it's set up is because they don't

3:51:14want lighting on the side of their

3:51:16building is a concern. But there needs

3:51:18to be lighting in there. It needs to be

3:51:20adequate lighting all the way around

3:51:22because if you needed to be friendly and

3:51:24we have different seasons around here

3:51:26that that came up quite a bit. So that

3:51:28the hours uh activities the festival

3:51:32thing was interesting because some

3:51:34people imagined it being a small stage

3:51:36some people imagine a bigger stage and I

3:51:38think that

3:51:39we have to be very careful about the

3:51:41space limits of that. Um and security

3:51:44did bring get brought up quite a bit.

3:51:46Um,

3:51:48I would be

3:51:50interested in uh, someone also mentioned

3:51:54comparing it to the craft district in a

3:51:56lot of ways in friendly friendliness,

3:51:57but

3:51:59we had a a kind of back and forth about

3:52:01whether or not that craft district is

3:52:02that's private versus public, right? um

3:52:05and that like semi- relationship between

3:52:08us and uh neighborhood association or

3:52:10the ODA about that relationship and uh

3:52:13um having standard hours but also

3:52:15allowing those organizations have keys

3:52:17to use the space for special events at

3:52:19different times was also part of the

3:52:21conversation. Um so um that was a lot of

3:52:26the the the thoughts also if it was a

3:52:29park it it would have the no camping

3:52:31park rules, right? So the park ranger

3:52:34would have to come by and check on it.

3:52:36That is a that is a reality of that

3:52:38versus private security. Um and then

3:52:42trespassing someone from a space that's

3:52:44open is is difficult, right? Especially

3:52:46in a very uh uh public area. So um

3:52:53of course, yeah, that's that's just

3:52:56that's a few of the thoughts I heard.

3:52:58And so there is a lot of overlap there.

3:53:03Yes, Mayor Prom.

3:53:07>> Um, I really appreciate the engagement

3:53:10efforts. Very thorough. I do think that

3:53:12we learn some new things here and um,

3:53:15it's always worth hearing if um, some of

3:53:18those uh, desires or concerns from the

3:53:22past are still present today. So, just

3:53:24really appreciate this work. Um, a

3:53:26couple of things I wanted to bring up

3:53:28that, uh, you likely heard, but I

3:53:31didn't, uh, quite hear come through yet,

3:53:33is I really don't want to have anything

3:53:37in that space that would compete with

3:53:39something that already exists within

3:53:41that area. So, you know, people get so

3:53:43excited about food trucks and then also

3:53:46there's restaurants downtown that could

3:53:47use more business already. you know,

3:53:49that lunchtime crowd has really gone

3:53:51away for the most part for people that

3:53:53uh that was that was really their bread

3:53:55and butter um and main main part of

3:53:58their uh ma main part of their

3:54:00restaurant. Now switching to remote

3:54:02work, it's just different. And so um and

3:54:06we also we already have some food trucks

3:54:08downtown, so I'm actually not jazzed on

3:54:10that. And I love food. Um, and then, uh,

3:54:14also, uh, same reason. Well, I actually

3:54:18have a couple more reasons for this one,

3:54:19but same reason where, you know, it's

3:54:20surrounded by bars. It's obviously a

3:54:22hard area to, uh, to program or figure

3:54:25out next steps with. It's surrounded,

3:54:27it's surrounded by bars, and so I

3:54:28wouldn't want like a beer garden. It

3:54:30would compete with the bars. Um

3:54:32uh but then also is that um there's a

3:54:36part of it where there's um I mean it

3:54:40sounds bad but you know undesirable

3:54:42activities happening. Well it's also

3:54:44next to a bunch of bars. So uh I I do um

3:54:49think about it uh really realistically

3:54:52and things like lighting and uh

3:54:55environmental factors can absolutely

3:54:57help that. But, um, I re I really think

3:55:01of something that for now that does I'm

3:55:05in a favor of taking uh taking the

3:55:08fences down too, but easing into that.

3:55:10You know, I I would like it to close,

3:55:12especially if it's going to be an event

3:55:14space. Like, it should close. I don't I

3:55:16don't imagine that we're probably going

3:55:18to have erect a building that is

3:55:20completely covered. I mean, it would

3:55:22just take so much uh money for that and

3:55:25I think it would be a hard thing to

3:55:26prioritize. So, um, a and also there is

3:55:31a restroom there. It's support Linlu and

3:55:34I and bless everyone that needs that

3:55:37maintains it and I know it was made with

3:55:40good intent and also

3:55:43people are fearful of using it, you

3:55:45know. So, just say that it's it's just a

3:55:48reality. Um, yeah. So, uh, no competing

3:55:52uh with surrounding areas. Um, we uh we

3:55:57also in in that area we we actually have

3:55:59a number of venues in that area too. And

3:56:01so I I think about that. Um it's also

3:56:06very expensive to get a stage and then

3:56:08you're going to need some equipment and

3:56:10then you're outside, you know, it's um

3:56:14I sound a little negative, don't I? Um

3:56:17but I yeah I just uh it it's just tough

3:56:20you know and uh oh also I'm seeing these

3:56:24uh very thoughtful uh parks department

3:56:26reservations and I just want to um plus

3:56:30one them that is you know the parks

3:56:33department I think they're often uh one

3:56:35of the more popular departments right

3:56:37because like who doesn't like parks

3:56:38parks arts and recreation and it's

3:56:41probably hard for them to say hey you

3:56:42know actually there were some not so

3:56:45great uh safety concerns, like really

3:56:47tough things that happened before, and

3:56:48then on top of that, a lot of resources

3:56:51putting into u what was supposed to be a

3:56:54great small community park at the

3:56:56commons. And so I would,

3:57:00it pains me a little bit, but I would

3:57:01not be in favor of putting a parks

3:57:02there. We got to we got to learn and and

3:57:05move on. And I and I don't think we can

3:57:07uh I would it would feel wrong to

3:57:10subject staff to that again. I mean,

3:57:12there were some really

3:57:15terrible things that had happened, you

3:57:16know, unless you want to put an escape

3:57:18park that'll regulate itself, I think.

3:57:20Um, but uh yeah, so I just

3:57:24um

3:57:26you know, I love to say yes to things,

3:57:28but I'm just hoping that this is helpful

3:57:29in kind of narrowing it a bit. And then

3:57:32I didn't quite understand at that last

3:57:34slide where the three different options.

3:57:36Were you saying that we it would be

3:57:39about 30 or 35 grand to have um someone

3:57:43come in and do any one of those things?

3:57:46You weren't saying all of it.

3:57:48>> Okay.

3:57:54>> Sorry. um Plaza mixed use and event and

3:57:57programming as one of the focus groups

3:57:59talked about um you know has an

3:58:01opportunity to potentially be blended

3:58:03together and um so a a next step of

3:58:06hiring a design consultant to do site

3:58:09feasibility analysis, multiple concept

3:58:11designs and um costing out next phases

3:58:15could be done for a blended approach of

3:58:18both of those or just one of them and

3:58:20that would be under the $35,000 mark.

3:58:23>> Oh, okay. for the the plaza and then

3:58:26event programming.

3:58:27>> Yeah, if you wanted to look at that mix

3:58:30blending both of those together.

3:58:32>> Oh, okay. That that would be something

3:58:34that I'm more in favor of. Um

3:58:38yeah, I

3:58:41yeah, I'd be be interested in what that

3:58:43exactly that plaza and mixed use looks

3:58:45like, but anyways, open to that.

3:58:48>> Thank you,

3:58:51>> Council Member Madron.

3:58:54Um, Jennica, I want to get clear on what

3:58:57it is that you need from us um in this

3:59:00conversation. Uh, because I see next

3:59:02steps and three different options. Are

3:59:04we looking at narrowing down those

3:59:06options? Okay. Yes. Okay. Um,

3:59:09well, when it comes to that, I mean, I

3:59:11think there's a lot of opportunity for

3:59:13Plaza mixuse space to incorporate events

3:59:17and programming as a mixeduse. Um, and I

3:59:20those bullets underneath both of them

3:59:22look pretty similar to me. So, um, I you

3:59:25know, you've heard a lot from my

3:59:27colleagues and there's a lot that's been

3:59:28said that I agree with. Um

3:59:32I I I I just want to kind of echo what I

3:59:34heard council member Barren say earlier

3:59:36like you know I wasn't out on council

3:59:38when the first round of this happens but

3:59:40it feels like a little bit of a deja vu

3:59:42from a community experience community

3:59:43member experience of remembering like

3:59:45getting painted and there was food

3:59:47trucks and there was a lot of hope

3:59:48around the space and there are some

3:59:51challenges that are you know you you

3:59:53know this because you've been doing all

3:59:55the engagement around this but there are

3:59:57challenges that need to be addressed

3:59:58that I think some of them can be

4:00:00addressed with design. Some of them are

4:00:01going to have to be addressed with

4:00:03people in the space. Um whether that is

4:00:05community members experiencing a vendor,

4:00:08you know, staff of the city or a third

4:00:10party that we work with. Um so um also

4:00:14you know the um uh bathrooms was

4:00:17mentioned and the Portland Lou has come

4:00:19up and you know that's been something

4:00:21that the city installed for the

4:00:23community to have a publicly available

4:00:24bathroom and it has been completely

4:00:26abused to the point where it's not

4:00:28accessible to people a lot of the time

4:00:30because it is broken. Um so that is that

4:00:34is part of it and I'm mostly giving

4:00:36voice to this because we often have a

4:00:37sign up. I don't know if it's there

4:00:38right now or if it's even working right

4:00:40now, but for the longest time, okay,

4:00:42this there's still a sign up and then

4:00:44people, you know, get mad at the city

4:00:46because the bathroom's not working. But

4:00:47honestly, it is so expensive to maintain

4:00:50that because people continuously abuse

4:00:53it and break it. So, this is not really

4:00:56feedback for you. It's more just putting

4:00:57that out there so people understand the

4:00:59challenges that we deal with with

4:01:01managing this space. Like, yes, we want

4:01:03there to be a public restroom and and

4:01:05and the public needs to treat it well.

4:01:07Um, all that aside, you know, I'll just

4:01:09say a plus one. Um, on a lot of the

4:01:12things I've heard from my colleagues, a

4:01:14lot of reservations from me in terms of

4:01:16like, you know,

4:01:18are we going to are we going to figure

4:01:19it out this time? Um, and crack that nut

4:01:22so that we can have a nice activated

4:01:24space that is enjoyable to the public,

4:01:26that feels like a good place to be in.

4:01:29I'm a person who goes down there to get

4:01:31my water frequently. Um, and uh, you mo

4:01:34most of the time it's fine, but

4:01:35sometimes it it doesn't feel good to go

4:01:37down there into that space just to get

4:01:39water. Um, and another thing that I saw

4:01:42come up in your survey data is, you

4:01:44know, um, you know, acknowledgement of

4:01:46the importance of that area for the

4:01:47Squawk Island tribe. Um, have you had

4:01:50any conversations with anyone at the

4:01:52>> No, not this time.

4:01:54>> Okay. Well, you know, some engagement

4:01:55with them um, as this moves forward. um

4:01:58you know it is part of the uh land

4:02:01acknowledgement that they provided for

4:02:03us as a city talking about artisian

4:02:05waters. Um so I do think that would be

4:02:08important. Um and the hour is late so

4:02:10that's all I got to say.

4:02:14>> Thank you council member Barrett.

4:02:16>> Yeah just to give you feedback

4:02:19I say please go slow. You know, I I

4:02:24uh I know there are people that would

4:02:26love to see something happen there right

4:02:28away, but I'm I'm fearful that um we we

4:02:32could do a big investment and not make

4:02:34much progress. I uh I I'm one of the

4:02:39people who who've gone to get artisian

4:02:42wellwater there over the years. Uh when

4:02:45I was younger, I used to do it more,

4:02:47frankly, than I do today.

4:02:49uh and uh just having a simple artisian

4:02:55well that people can go get their water

4:02:57I think is good enough actually because

4:03:00that's what the community has uh has

4:03:03experienced there if we can have the

4:03:05added benefit of a plaza mixeduse

4:03:09strategy not so much the others for for

4:03:13me personally

4:03:15um on a go slow

4:03:17um ability to um make make some

4:03:21improvements there. Um I I have no

4:03:25problem with food food trucks, but I

4:03:27also share Councilwoman Yen's concern.

4:03:30We do have great restaurants that are

4:03:33struggling. I try to patronize as many

4:03:35of them as I can, but um so I want I

4:03:39want to have a sensitivity to those as

4:03:41well, but I I for my feedback that

4:03:44that's it. Thank you.

4:03:45>> Thank you.

4:03:49Um, I support a plaza mixeduse and event

4:03:53program combination. Um, I do think that

4:03:57we need to think about this um, in the

4:04:02sense of uh, Chief, I know you're uh,

4:04:05you've got enough on your plate, but I

4:04:07think of SEPTA, the crime prevention

4:04:10through environmental design and being

4:04:13proactive. Um, I think, uh, as much as I

4:04:16love our community and all of its

4:04:18people, um, including our visitors, I

4:04:22think we would be mistaken to assume

4:04:25that there would be no loitering that

4:04:27would happen in this space, um, by

4:04:30taking down the fence um, and just

4:04:32having free access at all hours. Um, I

4:04:37think it needs to be a managed uh, site.

4:04:40Um, I think there are ways to do that in

4:04:43a way that is uh considerate of being

4:04:46proactive when it comes to crime

4:04:47prevention and also doing it in a way

4:04:50that is that makes it fun. Um, so in in

4:04:56the way that it's designed. So I think

4:04:58about all of the artists in our

4:05:00community, right?

4:05:02um who have the potential of maybe even

4:05:06being part of what ends up being there,

4:05:09right? Um you know, as you're working

4:05:13with a with a vendor or consultant to to

4:05:16do the work. Um so I know that this was

4:05:19uh something that council member

4:05:21Vanderpool had brought up before about

4:05:23um you know, other places having a fence

4:05:26that is essentially um it's a work of

4:05:30art. It's not just a a chainlength

4:05:32fence. Um, and I think that's a a great

4:05:36concept. Um, I think it has a practical

4:05:39purpose, but also um a purpose that

4:05:42speaks to who we are as a community when

4:05:44it comes to the arts. Um, so that's

4:05:49that's where I'm at with it. Um, and and

4:05:52I do feel good about where we might go

4:05:54from here because I think that we've

4:05:56been at it for some time now. Um, but I

4:06:01at the same time would caution against

4:06:03removing the fence immediately because I

4:06:07just I don't think that that would

4:06:10do us any favors right now.

4:06:13Yes, council member Vanderpool.

4:06:16I I want to say just top I do think

4:06:19hybrid between the two is a good idea

4:06:20because we don't we

4:06:23you know uh there will be times where it

4:06:26will be used for programming but we want

4:06:28it to if it's going to be open every day

4:06:30you know we don't want to set it expect

4:06:32we don't want it just to be closed like

4:06:34half the year and only be open during

4:06:36festivals right um but I do think after

4:06:39that $35,000

4:06:41uh work their needs or in that work

4:06:44process There does like I mentioned the

4:06:48whole share idea off the top like having

4:06:50community members come to city hall or

4:06:52even at the space with a bunch of

4:06:55different concepts from other places and

4:06:57just like you know like roll out the the

4:06:59the a print out and let people kind of

4:07:02play around with it a little bit right

4:07:05because you'll suddenly start coming up

4:07:07with interesting ways to go about it. I

4:07:09do think that if if it there may be some

4:07:11things that are permanent like a fence

4:07:14structure, but then there may be

4:07:16possibilities of having a toolbox of

4:07:18things that change around over time that

4:07:20draw people that back over time, right?

4:07:24So, um I think that as long as the

4:07:27community is involved in that process

4:07:28continually, then I think it'll be

4:07:31probably successful. And I I agree, eyes

4:07:33on the street is a is the is the thing

4:07:37that is is a lot of crime prevention and

4:07:40it's a part of design. So, um, and I and

4:07:43I think that, and I did say before, um,

4:07:46that if there's a fence, I still think

4:07:49that having a some sort of path when the

4:07:52fence is even closed so that you can get

4:07:54to it from multiple angles is just

4:07:56because I know people who won't go past

4:07:59there at certain hours because it's like

4:08:00dark back there and they have to go back

4:08:02behind like an alleyway vibe and they

4:08:04would rather be able to get to it from

4:08:06walking on Fourth A. So,

4:08:09yeah.

4:08:11Thank you.

4:08:13>> Thank you. And of course the well um

4:08:17should be centered in this. So

4:08:20um any further discussion? We're four

4:08:23hours in so I hope not.

4:08:27>> I guess just to sum up what I've heard.

4:08:30Um and so I'll go ahead and start taking

4:08:32next steps to explore the blended

4:08:34mixeduse um plaza option and the event

4:08:37and programming space. Uh, and then I'll

4:08:39also be looking into management and

4:08:41maintenance plans um to kind of get to

4:08:44some of the information council member

4:08:46Barrett was talking about. Uh, and that

4:08:48it it sounds like there is general

4:08:52support for including the fence in any

4:08:54kind of future design concepts.

4:08:58>> Okay.

4:08:59>> Does that sound right to everyone?

4:09:01Council member Gilman, I can't see you,

4:09:03so I just want to check in.

4:09:06It all sounds good to me and I think

4:09:08it's just about time to brush my teeth.

4:09:11>> Okay.

4:09:13>> Right on. All right. You have what you

4:09:16need.

4:09:17>> Thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

4:09:19>> Thank you so much, Jennica, for all your

4:09:20work and well done tonight. Um, all

4:09:23right. So, with no further business

4:09:25before the Olympia City Council, we're

4:09:27adjourned.