New Development Services Department

At a glance

Based on auto-generated captions; names, numbers and details may be misheard.

• What: The mayor's team proposes a new city department that would bring permitting, inspections, land use review and related development functions under one director, in response to a consultant (Matrix) study delivered in October 2025 and to state permitting mandates (captioned "House Bill 5290").
• Where it stands: the council held a Q&A-only special meeting on 2026-10-20 (no presentation, no vote). Several councilmembers said they back the direction; others want a smaller start or other options compared first. The mayor said she hopes for at least four councilmembers in support before the budget work proceeds.
• Next: the topic was scheduled to return in the council's budget discussions on Thursday, 2026-10-22; at the end of the meeting the council had not settled whether to spend that time on budget implications or on more questions to staff.

The proposal as discussed

• A unified department under one director so that one decision-maker can resolve cross-department conflicts; staff said public works decisions on development review currently escalate to the public works director, who is also pulled away by emergencies such as water main breaks.
• Public works would keep operations, maintenance and the asset management plan; the new department would not own infrastructure.
• Cross-department service level agreements (SLAs) would still be needed, with escalation paths and feedback loops. Staff said earlier reorganizations without SLAs caused friction. Marysville was cited as a comparable split.
• Upfront coordination of public and private projects (for example utility capacity before upzoning at Redmond Town Center) was presented as a benefit, tied to Redmond 2050 growth targets.
• Added positions were described as eight FTEs: director, deputy director, manager and administrative staff, not additional permit reviewers. Staff argued reviewers are under-supported without supervisors and administrative staff.
• Permit data: staff said the permitting software can produce granular reports on permit times now and in future, so results could be compared in later years.

October 13 study session

• Jason Lynch (acting director of development services) asked the council to approve the department and new positions as part of budget adoption and to confirm the director once the mayor appoints one. The issue was first before the full council at this study session (see 2026-10-13 - City Council Study Session); there was no vote.
• Parsi questioned moving the capital division (about 10 percent of development services work, with large projects such as the maintenance and operations center and the teen center under way), said the plan is too big too soon, and asked for a minimum viable team, permit safeguards for utility capacity, and projections if development declines. Chris Stenger explained the nexus with capital delivery and service level agreements (a signals team example).
• Nuevacamina worried about an org chart six levels deep; Lynch said decisions would be pushed to frontline staff and escalation would go to one director instead of four.
• Prakriya asked how much a permit technician adds (about 2,500 permits a year each, from roughly 10,000 permits and four technicians) and for a tech services role and a duplex permit walk-through; Lynch described a single master permit concept.
• Soni asked for a change-management plan and implementation scenarios; staff said a change-management consultant is being selected. Forsythe asked about AI tools; staff said AI would help with intake checklists, not plan review.
• Kritzer asked about eight new positions; Cochran said they are tied to state permit timelines (captioned "5290") and funded mostly by development fees. Fire inspections and staffing are subject to ongoing contract negotiations.
• Stuart said the council was kept in the dark on the study results and asked for quarterly reporting; the council agreed to a special meeting the following Tuesday (held October 20) rather than folding it into budget talks.

Cost

• One-time startup cost estimated at $2.5 million. Prakriya called it steep, noting it exceeds the annual cost of the eight FTEs. The finance director (captioned "Cochran"; see Cochran (Finance)) said it is a worst-case estimate that includes possible changes from fire negotiations and may not be needed if development revenue stays high; the mayor added that moving staff and office space is costly.
• A councilmember cited a figure of roughly $52 million and a team of over 100 positions for the overall reorganization; staff did not dispute or detail it in the captions, so treat it as unverified.

Concerns raised

• New silos and fragmentation elsewhere in the city; why not use SLAs and give authority to a new public works or planning director now being hired (Kritzer, Parsi).
• Size and added management layers; Parsi asked for a smaller, scoped start with a prioritized problem list, and for other options (including those used by other cities and lower-cost ones) to be evaluated first, comparing the plan to replacing a car when the problem is a flat tire.
• Process and trust: Nuevacamina said the council saw nothing for about four months after the team convened and asked who championed the plan and who dissented; the mayor described an iterative process with a facilitator and staff from planning, public works, fire, HR, finance and technology services. Council President Stewart said alternatives and analysis were not presented fully but she still considers it the right direction, asking for change-management updates.
• Support: Kritzer and Prakriya said they favor trying the new structure, with Prakriya wanting the ability to revert if it does not work.

Sources

• Meeting agenda
• Meeting video
• Meeting video
• 2026-10-20 - City Council Special Meeting

Discussion time

About 114 minutes across 2 meetings (from transcript timestamps; approximate).

Log

• 2026-10-29 - City Council Study Session Meeting - Supported for the adoption package (about $3.9 million and 8 new positions, plus $2.5 million startup from development reserves); councilmembers asked for regular reporting.
• 2026-10-20 - City Council Special Meeting — Q&A-only special meeting: SLAs, silos, size, $2.5 million startup estimate, how the plan was developed and data tracking; mixed councilmember views; no vote; budget discussion planned for Thursday.
• 2026-10-13 - City Council Study Session — Study session: staff asked the council to approve the department and positions with budget adoption; questions on capital division fit, six-level structure, change management, AI, fire staffing and cost; council agreed to a special meeting the following Tuesday.
• 2026-10-06 - City Council Business Meeting — Ryan Makinster, Todd Levitt, Johnathan Kirth, and John Hansen spoke during Items from the Audience in support of creating the new permitting department.