2026-10-13 - City Council Study Session

00:18Thank you. I'm calling this meeting to

00:20order. This is a Redmond City Council

00:22study session held on Tuesday, October

00:2413th, commencing at 7:07 p.m. All

00:28council members are in attendance. Mayor

00:30Bernie is not in attendance tonight. And

00:33there are five items on our agenda.

00:35Preparation for the 2027 legislative

00:37session. Redmond fire impact fee update,

00:41creation of a new department to support

00:44improved development services functions,

00:462027 regional boards and committees, and

00:49council talk time. The first item on the

00:52agenda is preparation for the upcoming

00:54legislative session. And introducing our

00:56conversation tonight will be Amy Sai,

00:58chief policy adviser. Welcome, Amy.

01:01>> Thank you, Council President. Is this

01:03There we go. um Amy side, chief policy

01:06adviser as you noted. And with me

01:07online, I have Briana Murray. Um and

01:11also Kyle Schroeder from Gordon Thomas

01:13Honeywell Government Relations, our

01:15amazing city um lobby team. Um so thank

01:19you Briana and Kyle. They will be here

01:21and available to answer any questions

01:22that they have expertise on. Um

01:25otherwise today it I will uh be walking

01:28you through the changes in response to

01:30the feedback that you had offered in

01:32September at our first study session on

01:34this topic. Uh am I screen sharing? Yes.

01:38So this is the first page of the

01:40legislative agenda. I will begin by

01:42noting that um a lot of the changes are

01:48cosmetic and technical and so what I

01:51have put in the packet for you are red

01:53lines of the substantive issues that

01:55might be of greater interest to you. Um,

01:57if you do a compar of this version and

01:59the last version, there is a lot of red

02:01lining because I took to heart council

02:03president's observation that over time

02:06the agenda has become tiny font um

02:09progressive lens focused and needs some

02:12you know streamlining and refinement.

02:14And so that's what this uh document

02:16reflects. And so the fonts are all one

02:19size bigger. Now, um, on the front page,

02:22we had discussed potentially adding an

02:24M, uh, multifamily tax property

02:26exemption item to the agenda because we

02:29were in some serious considerations

02:30about some gaps that happened during

02:32session. You will notice it in the copy

02:34that is in front of you, there is no MFT

02:36item and that is because upon further

02:39discussion um, internally um, and

02:42externally as well um, we believe that

02:45we'll have the flexibility to address it

02:47during session as needed. There is an

02:49MFTTE reference already on the regional

02:51page and so um this was not an item that

02:55we needed to highlight on the front page

02:57at this time. There's going to be a lot

02:59of priority housing issues coming

03:00through during session. So thank you for

03:02your patience. Thank you for your

03:03flexibility and your willingness to

03:05include it. Um so we are here on the

03:07front page left with the original three

03:10items which is the maintenance and

03:11operations center capital project the

03:14request that the overlay bicycle and

03:16pedestrian improvement project continue

03:18to be funded and as a reminder that was

03:20climate commitment act funding and the

03:22move ahead Washington package a number

03:24of years ago and as we reach final stage

03:26of that project um encouraging them to

03:29continue to keep that funded. And then

03:31the final item is the state grant

03:33programs where we do apply for state

03:35funding. We have benefited from our um

03:38wonderful delegation and the state

03:40legislature every year. And so this is a

03:42request that as we apply for grants to

03:44please um prioritize and fully fund

03:47these programs because they do support

03:49valuable projects. Now on the first

03:51draft we had highlighted Paraggo Park

03:53that is still on this page. One change

03:55that we have made here is we do have

03:57other state grants in the hopper and so

04:00this new edit is it still retains the

04:02pariggo park and adds in other

04:05transportation grants that we are

04:06currently applying for. We will receive

04:08rankings and our um where we stand on

04:11those grants later this fall.

04:15If there's no question on that uh figure

04:18out how to turn to the next page.

04:22Amy, I think we'll have you present the

04:24full agenda and then we'll take

04:25questions at the end. Okay. Thank you.

04:26We'll do.

04:31So, on the regional priorities page,

04:35there had been some uh conversation on

04:37the technologies item. You had been

04:40interested in emphasizing that it's

04:43urgent that these are up and cominging

04:44issues. Also, there was concern about

04:48data privacy surveillance. Um and then

04:51there was also a question about the

04:53vehicles miles traveled item and that

04:56centered around that conversation of

04:57privacy. So the main changes you see

05:00here are we added in the prioritizing

05:02swift action language to emphasize that

05:04priority. We added in the regulatory

05:07surveillance capability language to

05:09signal th the concerns you have related

05:11to surveillance and data privacy on that

05:13front. And then on the vehicle miles

05:16travel reduction that has been

05:17eliminated simply because vehicles miles

05:20vehicle miles traveled say that 10 times

05:22fast is an environmental

05:25feature that you all all fully support

05:27in ways like commute trip reduction you

05:29know multi-reional modal modes of

05:31transit and such. So it's already

05:33embedded and throughout your legislative

05:36agenda. And so not calling it out here

05:38because it was calling to mind things

05:40that really was not intended to call to

05:42mind.

05:44So turning to the next page, you also

05:47had questions about housing. Um and

05:50noting that Redmond is a significant

05:52percentage of renters. We have added in

05:54the percentage from the census estimates

05:56there. And also um some of this is

05:59streamlining. Um so there is some

06:02underlying and strikeout that is there

06:04to show you how the streamlining

06:06occurred. Most of it is just very

06:08technical but for instance here there

06:10was previous mention of condominiums

06:12which has been important in the past

06:14because of condominium liability reform

06:16and other things to encourage home

06:17ownership and housing stock. It's

06:20already subsumed under um home ownership

06:23in general. So, as a space-saving

06:25measure, we're talking the new language

06:27is about supporting the entire system

06:29that includes it does include

06:31condominiums, includes all homeowners.

06:33So, I wanted to highlight that change

06:34for you. And also you had been concerned

06:37about administrative fees and so um

06:40acknowledging that there

06:43for environmental sustainability. This

06:45is a correction that or an update that

06:49the uh net zero uh standards and uh and

06:53targets for the city of Redmond are 2040

06:55not 2030. And also there was language

06:59around clean energy supportive

07:01technologies. It's a little longer now.

07:04Um so trying not to add extra words but

07:07the reason for the highlighting here is

07:10to really emphasize that we are talking

07:12about things like battery energy storage

07:14systems that are very up and cominging

07:15and of great interest to the region to

07:18the country and so just being more

07:20direct in that wording it's um that it's

07:22we are talking about clean energy

07:24technologies

07:27on community vitality there is an uh

07:30addition to acknowledge and value the

07:32immigrant refugees and asylum seekers in

07:35our community. Um, it is put at the

07:37front of community vitality because you

07:40support uh immigrant, refugee, and

07:42asylum seekers in in many broad areas.

07:45And so, it it didn't really belong as a

07:47subset of any one particular ask. So,

07:49it's more of an overarching category of

07:51recognition and concern for vulnerable

07:54people in our community, including

07:55those.

07:57And finally, in the public safety and

07:59criminal justice, there are a few

08:00changes here. one is a new proposal um

08:04to add in state funding for legal

08:06services. And so this is in the same

08:08vein as public defense um indigent

08:11defense uh those who are in need and

08:13need legal advocates. Uh this was a

08:16request of council member Sony whom uh

08:18if you would like to speak to it at a

08:19later time. And then the last item on

08:22the addition here is the bottom sentence

08:26had been truncated in the last draft and

08:29so this puts that into your current

08:31draft. So treatment alternatives youth

08:33drug education awareness is not new. It

08:35is simply reinstated from your last

08:37year's agenda. And so that council

08:40president are all the changes.

08:43>> Wonderful. Uh thank you so much Amy and

08:45team. Um are you ready to take

08:46questions?

08:47>> Absolutely. Okay, council, let's open it

08:49up uh for questions and comments on the

08:51latest draft. Council member Foresight,

08:54>> thank you. Um looking at the housing

08:56section, I'm definitely interested in

08:58maintaining the um the different housing

09:00type, especially the condo since I know

09:02there's a lot of condo liability reform

09:05um bills that are likely to come

09:07forward. So, if it's not too much

09:09trouble to keep that, I would prefer we

09:11keep it because here when we talk about

09:13housing, we don't we haven't

09:15traditionally talked about condominiums

09:17because it hasn't been built because of

09:18the liability issues. So, if we can keep

09:21that, I would highly support um keeping

09:23that in that section. And then for the

09:27public safety section,

09:29um I'm just considering if we should add

09:32youth crisis response as well as in

09:35addition to the the drug drug drug

09:36education awareness. Um since we are in

09:40our budget seeking for u mental health

09:42crisis responder particularly for youth

09:44and that is becoming a large crisis

09:47point in our communities and with

09:50funding cuts for education um and

09:53knowing that those counselors are

09:55missing I think there are other areas

09:57where the state needs to step up and I

09:59think that is one of them.

10:03>> Thank you. Before um I take new

10:06questions and comments, um is there

10:08council feedback on either of the the

10:10two suggestions by council member

10:12Foresight to to reinstate essentially uh

10:15the direct call to condominium reform as

10:18as well as youth crisis response in the

10:20final paragraph? There comments, council

10:23vice president. Um that that was

10:26actually perfect because that's where I

10:28wanted to chime in was I I'm total

10:30agreement with that. um one to keep it

10:34top of mind that condominium as a

10:36homeownership option even though we're

10:39not currently building because of

10:40liability to keep that kind of fresh in

10:44folks minds that no this is still an

10:46option. Um especially since we're we're

10:49talking about missing middle housing um

10:51we're talking about inequalities

10:53inequities with home ownership

10:55opportunities um and this would be a

10:58solution. So, I'm I'm in total agreement

11:00to add that back in spec specifically

11:03the condominium. Um, also for uh public

11:07safety and criminal justice, I'd also

11:10like to see um some expanded beyond just

11:14treatment alternatives and youth drug

11:16education awareness uh and again in in

11:20agreement because we are looking for

11:21that juvenile M MHP. um this will help

11:24that position not um not fizzle out or

11:29not not go unnoticed that it it's going

11:32to call call that uh and especially

11:34being able to meet our younger community

11:37members where they're at and not waiting

11:39until after things go too far but to to

11:42help support where we can. Thank you,

11:46Council Vice President. I'm sorry. Could

11:47you restate um the request on the on the

11:51youth public safety piece

11:54>> um to have it include um youth

11:56counseling,

11:59mental health.

12:05Thank you. Uh we now have three

12:07proposals on the table. I I guess we're

12:09taking proposals. Um before we before

12:11Let's see what's all out there and then

12:13we'll we'll circle back. Uh who would

12:15like to go next?

12:16uh council member Sony and then council

12:18member Kitzer.

12:19>> Thank you so much and thank you so much

12:22for uh you know including the comments.

12:24Actually my comment is coming from the

12:26recent meeting with ARCH uh in part of

12:30their elected officials and then they

12:32were sharing the legislative priorities.

12:34So based on what ARCH has put together

12:36for the legislative priorities, I would

12:39recommend if we can add uh some explicit

12:43references for specialized state

12:46infrastructure and land securing

12:48programs like CHIP or maybe statebacked

12:51land acquisition programs and uh maybe

12:54you know for a state investment in

12:56operations, maintenance and supportive

12:58services, funding streams and not just

13:01the capital infrastructure dollars. This

13:03was like you know was I found was

13:05missing what ARCH has put together and

13:07we do not have it and it would be great

13:10to show like you know how Redmond is in

13:12alignment with uh with the arch

13:14legislative priorities as well.

13:15>> Yeah thank you for that uh suggestion

13:18council member Sony and since we're

13:20putting it all on all on the table it's

13:22definitely on the table. I also want to

13:24call um attention to the bottom of page

13:27two where um our agenda states that we

13:30support the legislative agenda of um

13:34ARCH and AWC which also have this in

13:37their agenda. So while it may not be

13:40something that um shows we can't all

13:43duplicate all of everything. This is one

13:45possib this is the function of this kind

13:47of box um to to reference the other

13:50agendas. But it's a point well taken.

13:52Thank you, Council Member Critzer.

13:55>> Thank you. And I would agree. I think um

13:59we and we might even uh the one thing we

14:02might take a look at actually is if

14:03there's any other legislative agendas

14:05that we typically sign on to like East

14:07Side Transportation Partnership or right

14:10salmon recovery council I know or two

14:12that I've been involved in that whether

14:14we want to kind of call that out as as

14:15part of partners um since we don't have

14:18like all those details in there but it's

14:20nice to say that that we support the

14:22things that they'll get from those

14:24groups. Um so we can keep ours a little

14:26more streamlined. Um my only comment

14:29would be which I appreciate all the

14:31feedback and and work that you've done

14:32on this. Um under community vitality

14:35where um there's the added sentence

14:37about um immigrants, refugees, and

14:40asylum seekers. I think the intention

14:43was really um making sure that we're

14:47actually calling out that the that we

14:49support the state taking action to be

14:51able to support the civil liberties and

14:54protections as well as um you know

14:56making sure that that we're also

14:58supporting any sort of tailored human

14:59services support for immigrants,

15:01refugees, and asylum seekers. Um so I'm

15:04not sure that the the current sentence

15:06works exactly right. I could and I'm

15:09happy to send some additional phrasing,

15:11but I think probably saying something if

15:13we wanted to open it like Reban values

15:15our diverse community um and supports

15:19state investments. You could do the

15:21human services and maybe adding a

15:22sentence that's further in that says

15:24something like Redmond encourages the

15:27state to partner with us to support uh

15:31immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers

15:34um uh at this time or or legislation

15:37that will protect the rights of of those

15:39folks. So I I I think that would be um

15:41because we I imagine that we saw last

15:44session and we'll see some more

15:45legislation that will be around uh the

15:48rights but also I think it is related to

15:50human services. So if there's a way we

15:52can kind of thread the needle on that I

15:54think that would be great and I'm happy

15:55to offer some additional language.

15:58>> Thank you. Council member Critzer. Uh

16:00Council Member Proria any comments?

16:04>> Um not right now. No.

16:06>> Okay. Thank you. Council member Parcy,

16:07any comments on the agenda? Okay, I'll

16:09go ahead and chime in. Uh for myself, um

16:13I

16:17am always so grateful for the progress

16:18that we make on this and over the years

16:20I've learned to kind of apply the filter

16:22of like how we will use this agenda, the

16:26words that are on the page and the

16:27values that are represented. This is a

16:29valuable exercise in and of itself. And

16:31then we go to Olympia and it has to um

16:35deliver on that. And so one of the um

16:38strategy kind of screens that I uh was

16:40applying to this year's particular

16:42budget is around some of the very

16:44specific progressive revenue tools that

16:46I believe are going to be in the omnibus

16:48package for consideration to um give new

16:52taxing authority to to cities. So, I did

16:55want to mention um on page two, the city

16:59budget sustainability, there is a uh uh

17:03language that speaks to our need for

17:06more tools. One that's not specifically

17:08called out here. I don't need it

17:10necessarily added, but I did want to

17:12just discuss with the council um ideas

17:15like the short-term rental tax. Um, in

17:18in my mind, I when I read uh the current

17:21language as is, this would um be

17:24supportive of tools like that and others

17:26that may come up um during the

17:28legislative session. And so um if anyone

17:30else has a different read on that, I

17:32would be happy to engage in that

17:34conversation. But um that's an example

17:36where I I feel like this paragraph is

17:38doing some work for us. I did have one

17:40suggestion on page three

17:44in the housing paragraph. So the first

17:47paragraph there is new language

17:50regarding the fees that um renters have

17:54been sharing with us are unpredictable

17:57and hard to define and hard to negotiate

18:00or navigate. Um and we now know and have

18:04heard that uh work is going to be done

18:06um in the legislature potentially to

18:08address this issue. We currently have it

18:10listed here as excessive administrative

18:13fees. And I would um I would be

18:16interested in having that reframed to

18:20unpredictable or or creating more

18:23predictability in the fees just because

18:25I want to be um clear that while we may

18:29be able to by by investigating the

18:31issue, we may be able to make the cost

18:34of housing more predictable, we don't

18:36yet know that it will absolutely lower

18:38the cost of housing. Um so the one

18:41suggestion of language change for this

18:44agenda I would offer is to change

18:46excessive to um unpredictable

18:50administrative fees.

18:53Okay. Uh council let's see uh there

18:56nothing else for the first round. So

18:57council member for go ahead.

18:59>> I just wanted to support that I when I

19:01read that um actually I got hung up on

19:04the word administrative fees because

19:06that can be viewed in so many different

19:07ways. So, I fully support uh removing

19:10excessive and changing the nuance of

19:13that language to really get at those uh

19:16what what we've been unlovingly

19:18referring to as junk fees.

19:21Thank you. Much appreciated.

19:24Okay. Um, I'm I'm tempted, Amy, and

19:28we'll get there in just a second, but

19:30um, Amarim, Briana, I'm tempted to

19:32actually use unanimous consent to kind

19:34of process some of these um that we may

19:37not have a lot of conversation about.

19:38I'll just ask Amarim, Briana, Kyle, is

19:41there anything in in the suggestions

19:43that were offered here tonight that

19:45would uh impact in a positive or

19:47negative or um unpredictable way um our

19:50ability for the agenda to perform in

19:52Olympia this year?

19:55I don't see any and I'm going to ask

19:57also Briana and Kyle if you're available

19:59to weigh in.

20:01Then I have one more.

20:02>> Yeah, I don't I don't see any concerns.

20:04I would reinforce that um the city has

20:08actively uh historically the city has

20:11actively supported funding for the

20:13housing trust fund that connecting

20:16housing infrastructure program and

20:18there's discussion around creating a

20:20third program um to offset the cost of

20:24impact fees for housing and and so I I

20:27do take the um direction in your housing

20:30statement um in support of local and

20:32state funding mechanisms s to give us

20:34the direction to support those programs.

20:37Um, and so I I feel like that was one

20:40item that we didn't loop back on. Um,

20:42and otherwise none of the others present

20:44any concerns.

20:47>> So, Council President, I have a couple

20:48clarification questions. Um, to Council

20:51Member Forsight, did you have any

20:52concerns about keeping the word

20:54administrative in that set if we had

20:57unpredictable administrative fees?

21:00>> I'm not sure. administrative gets at the

21:03heart of what what the community concern

21:06is. So, I don't know what other word at

21:08this exact moment. I think the way

21:10Council President Stewart um said it was

21:12was nice, but I don't recall the exact

21:15words. If you were able to restate uh I

21:17believe I said un unpredictable fees if

21:20if administrative helps the tool of our

21:23legislative agenda function better, I

21:25I'm could go either way. I think my

21:27concern with administrative is that it

21:29feels like it's on the um permitting

21:32side and not on the residential and and

21:34renter side. So that's that's my concern

21:36with that word.

21:40>> Okay, I see your point, Council Member

21:42Critzer. Um the first part of the

21:45sentence says this, excuse me, I am so

21:47sorry, Council Member Foresight. The

21:49full sentence reads, "This includes

21:50statewide consistency and strong tenant

21:52protections, including for unpredictable

21:55fees." Does that work, Amy? Any I do see

21:59other hands, but I'm just settling this

22:00particular issue. Okay. Any Anyone else

22:02want to weigh in on that particular

22:03issue? Council member Parsy.

22:06Um, I did some research on this topic to

22:09see how other jurisdictions have gone

22:11about this and I saw some really

22:14interesting ways such as defining

22:16appropriate and inappropriate fees um

22:19that allowed it to be determined by the

22:24legislative authority that defines what

22:26would be an appropriate versus

22:28inappropriate fee. So, um, besides

22:30unpredictable, um, appropriate versus

22:32inappropriate could also be a way to

22:34kind of get the point across.

22:43Um, thank you, Council Member Parsy.

22:45seeing a lot of pawn uh of of critical

22:48thinking going on around the table. I

22:50would say again for my part the um the

22:53function of this agenda is to make sure

22:55that our representatives in Olympia

22:57including Bana and team know where we

22:59stand. So if the state is going to take

23:01up this issue, this tool is

23:03communicating that yes, we we um are in

23:07favor of you working on this and working

23:08on a statewide solution. Uh does that

23:11does that help alleviate that a little

23:12bit? Okay, seeing head nods. Okay,

23:14great. I want to return to uh Council

23:16Member Sony. Um you had brought up the

23:20idea of including the reference to CHIP.

23:22Uh it's been talked about a couple ways

23:24here, but did you where are you where

23:27are you thinking about that now?

23:33Go ahead. Yeah, I just wanted to have a

23:35mention just to you know make sure that

23:38it is aligned but as you mentioned that

23:40this is also written you know in just

23:42one line because we can't have every

23:44single word here so I'll be fine with

23:46that if you don't want to but

23:50>> okay thank you Amy did you have a

23:52preference on how to make the tool work

23:54best

23:55>> um I think you know I think you both

23:57raised very good points because we do

23:59include the other um agendas by

24:02reference for that very season. Um, CHIP

24:04has come up for others and so this is

24:07the regional section. It's appropriate

24:09to put CHIP on that regional area if you

24:12would like to highlight it. Um, I think

24:14we expect that ARCH, AWC and others will

24:17do a lot of the heavy lifting in that

24:18space. And so this is a six of one half

24:22dozen of the other situation where you

24:24do elevate it to lend your support to

24:26those other efforts. Um it is also we

24:29tend to prioritize the ones that we are

24:31going to maybe spend more time and focus

24:32on ourselves and so really sorry to be

24:36unhelpful there. Um [laughter]

24:38>> yeah absolutely. Uh okay, Council Member

24:41Critzer.

24:42Yeah, I'd just say if we wanted to add a

24:44reference to CHIP and housing trust

24:47fund, we could probably do it at the end

24:48of the second sentence um about local

24:51and local state funding mechanisms or if

24:55we wanted to have something like achieve

24:56that goal such as we could just

24:58reference it if we if we had enough

25:00space to add a few few words in there so

25:03that we have the reference but we also

25:04have the deeper reference.

25:06>> Absolutely.

25:07>> That absolutely. So here's what I'll

25:09propose team. U we are coming up on our

25:11time for this item and I'm also hearing

25:14that it is in pretty good shape and the

25:16next time we see it um would be slated

25:18for adoption and then we would um get

25:21going shortly thereafter in Olympia. So

25:24um the full list of items that I have

25:26noted down are to um reinclude the very

25:31specific reference uh to condominiums

25:33and the youth crisis response as well as

25:36youth counseling. um add a word or two,

25:40a phrase or two that could um reinforce

25:43our support for CHIP and the housing

25:44trust fund. Um adding uh two other

25:49legislative agendas possibly to the

25:51reference including the East Side

25:53Transportation Partnership and the Rya 8

25:56Salmon Recovery Council. And on the

25:59community vitality piece to uh reframe

26:02slightly to really call on the state to

26:04do to do their part and in partnering

26:07with us uh to affirm um support for our

26:12neighbors. Is there anything on the list

26:14that a council member objects to or

26:16would like to see further refinement

26:18for?

26:20So, any objection to this list being

26:23integrated uh by Amy and Bana and then

26:26brought to us for the consent agenda.

26:30Any objection? Any objection? Looks like

26:34we've got it. Amy, thank you so much.

26:36This is really wonderful. Will you

26:37remind us when we're going to see this

26:38again?

26:39>> Um, November 2nd on consent.

26:41>> Perfect. That'll be Monday, November

26:432nd. Thank you so much, Kyle and Briana.

26:45We really appreciate you being with us.

26:46We'll see you soon. Bye-bye. Thank you,

26:49council.

26:51>> Thanks, team. Super appreciate that. So,

26:53the second item on our agenda tonight is

26:56the Redmond fire impact fee update. And

27:00I'll invite the team to make their way.

27:03This item tonight is going to be

27:05introduced by our deputy fire chief,

27:10Ami Virel. Did I say that correctly?

27:13Verel. Thank you. Well, welcome. Please,

27:16please join us.

28:04Okay. Good evening, council. Um, as

28:07council president, uh, and already said,

28:09I am fire deputy chief Ami Varel. Um,

28:12tonight we're here to discuss again the,

28:15uh, fire impact fee update. um the staff

28:18recommended schedule that we've provided

28:19to you in your materials and then uh the

28:22direction that we need from council this

28:23evening at the conclusion of the study

28:24session so that we can return at a later

28:27date um with a uh package with along

28:30with the rest of the other impact fee

28:32updates. Tonight I am joined by Nicole

28:34Kissum of NBS. She's here with me in

28:36person and then attending online is Joe

28:39Kan um who is also available. And then

28:42for any of the finance questions that

28:43may be related to capital investment

28:45strategy, Director Cochran has uh made

28:47herself available to be able to assist

28:49with that.

28:52So tonight's agenda um is really

28:54centered around what we're going to be

28:56asking council to decide at the

28:58conclusion of the study session. We're

28:59going to start by um addressing what the

29:02requested outcomes are, explain why the

29:04fee schedule needs to change. We're

29:06going to do a quick summary of what

29:08staff is recommending and then uh NBS

29:10here will walk through the technical

29:11basis to uh about the calculation

29:14process. Um some of the questions that

29:16have come up uh are around what the

29:18impact will be on development. So we'll

29:20show what the fees look like in practice

29:22and then we'll also discuss alternatives

29:24to adopting the staff recommendation

29:26that council has available to you and

29:28then we'll return back to the the

29:30council decision.

29:32So, what we're asking tonight is uh

29:35either to support the staff recommended

29:38fire impact fee schedule, which is

29:40included in your materials in the staff

29:41report, um or be able to provide clear

29:44direction on uh specific changes you'd

29:47actually like to make to that fee

29:49schedule, so that when we come back at

29:51the November 2nd committee of the whole,

29:53uh planning will be bringing forward to

29:55council the omnibus ordinance with all

29:57the approved amendments for um the RMC

30:00310. uh the park impact fees and the

30:03transportation indexing. Um and the

30:05intent again is to have that ordinance

30:07adopted on 1117 so that all the fees

30:10could go into effect on January 1st of

30:122027.

30:15So briefly um for council and for the um

30:19listening audience um the purpose is to

30:22go through why we have to update our

30:24impact fees. Now, the Redmond fire

30:26impact fee program has not had a

30:28comprehensive methodology update since

30:311999.

30:32Since then, the city has changed

30:34substantially, as we all know, and

30:35council has now adopted the 2025 to 2050

30:39fire functional plan, which finally

30:41provides the current long range capital

30:43framework that's required to do uh an

30:45update. Looks like we lost a monitor

30:47there, but we've got it everywhere else.

30:49Okay. Um, the update is also needed

30:52because state law now requires

30:54residential impact fee schedules to

30:56produce proportionally lower fees for

30:58smaller units and the existing fee

31:00schedule um is based on a per uh unit

31:04residential and that also needed to

31:05change. Do we need to pause for a

31:07technical? Okay. [laughter]

31:10>> Uh, we have lost a visual monitor. A

31:14monitor. We have lost visual on a

31:16monitor. I [laughter] don't know if

31:18staff are able to take a peek, but if

31:19not, we'll continue on. Thank you so

31:20much, Deputy Chief.

31:21>> Yep. Absolutely. Okay. So, um, these are

31:25the fees that we're recommending that

31:26are up on the board. Um, they are

31:28basically to adopt all of the fees that

31:30were calculated by NBS with the

31:32exception of the licensed assisted

31:33living and nursing care facility. Um, as

31:36you guys got a chance to be able to see

31:37at the committee of the whole, we

31:39recognize that that's a very high fee,

31:40but it's based on the demand that that

31:42particular land use category generates.

31:44Um, discussing it with staff, it was

31:46decided that we might be able to propose

31:48a much lower fee so that the demand is

31:50still reflected in the impact fees, but

31:52it doesn't have the disproportionate or

31:54the high the high cost um associated

31:55with that development. So, the

31:57recommendation is that we propose $3,000

32:00per license bed and have that limited to

32:02the um licensed care facilities while

32:05treating independent senior housing as

32:07just a standard residential. Um so, it

32:10wouldn't apply to that. So, at this

32:13point, do we want to take a minute or

32:16are we good?

32:19>> Okay.

32:19>> Oh, I'm so sorry. We are having

32:21additional technical difficulties. We'll

32:23take just a brief pause. Okay.

32:27I'll turn your mic on and then when you

32:29want me to advance the slide, just give

32:31me a signal and I'll push the

32:34>> I don't know. Oh, I think that's the

32:35release to pull the

32:39>> There you go.

33:49Thank you so much for everyone's

33:51patience. We're just playing a little

33:52musical chairs to

33:55make sure all the council members and

33:57guests have access to a microphone.

34:34Thank you all for your flexibility.

34:46Take your time, Chris. And then probably

34:47after this item, um, we could take a

34:49recess if that's helpful, too.

34:53>> All right, Deputy Chief, if you're ready

34:55to continue. Thank you.

34:57>> I am. I just want to make sure before I

34:59advance on this slide, this is what we

35:00were talking about. This is the staff

35:02recommended, uh, fire impact fee

35:04schedule. And if we're good on this,

35:06then I'm going to turn it over to

35:07Nicole, and then she's going to start

35:08walking through the methodology of the

35:10calculation for that.

35:12>> All right. Good evening, everybody. Um

35:15yes, I'm here to

35:18help establish the road map for

35:21um how the fees were calculated or the

35:24consultants that did the calc the actual

35:25calculation of the fees. And in this

35:28case, we used a sys what's called a

35:30system plan approach. That's an industry

35:32term. We look at fire response as an

35:35integrated system over a certain

35:38geography. And the four main steps in

35:41our calculation process are first to

35:44identify um the fire station's apparatus

35:48and equipment within the system.

35:51Estimate how many calls that system

35:53needs to serve in 2050.

35:57Calculate the capital cost of serving a

36:00single annual call, which is a cost per

36:02call for service per year average. And

36:06then in order to allocate those costs to

36:09different types of development, we use

36:11um proportionality by expected calls for

36:14each type of development.

36:18>> Did you want to make this comment?

36:21>> Okay.

36:23So what kind of costs are included? So

36:26you've got both uh depreciated costs of

36:29the existing stations

36:31and apparatus and then also uh the added

36:35planned station projects apparatus and

36:38equipment from the adopted functional

36:40plan. So we're looking at about 131

36:43million uh used in the calculation.

36:48And on the next slide, um, you can see

36:50that we're dividing that amount by 2050

36:54projected call volume to establish that

36:57cost per call per year. That's the level

36:59of service, $6,882.15

37:04per call.

37:06So you can see here that calls call

37:09volume is expected to increase from the

37:11from the baseline year that we studied

37:1312,000 calls per year to you know almost

37:1619,000 or a little over 19,000 calls per

37:19year. That's a 54% increase in call

37:21volume projected increase in call call

37:23volume driven by uh development.

37:27So the way that we got to those

37:29projections um came from from looking at

37:32a sample of calls and also uh in

37:35coordination with the planning

37:37department to look at projections

37:40existing and future development

37:41projections by by development type.

37:45So then with that cost per call we need

37:48to figure out that's just the average

37:49cost per call. So we need to figure out

37:51how to assign that cost to different

37:53types of development in the city. And so

37:56that's where we use a calls per unit per

37:58year factor in order to in order to um

38:03allocate costs proportionally and

38:06understand how much demand each type of

38:08development generates on the system. So

38:11for example in that table up there

38:13residential units generate.18

38:15calls per year whereas the senior and

38:18assisted living uh land use category

38:20would generate far more demand on the

38:23system 2.37 calls per bed. So this all

38:26comes from a statistically valid sample

38:28of calls that we looked at. Um and

38:34that's that's how we differentiate how

38:36much each land use category pays in

38:38impact fees.

38:42Okay, sorry, my mic does work. Um, so

38:46council had asked us to translate these

38:49proposed rates into some development

38:51examples to be able to see how these

38:52costs um actually look when we apply

38:54them to uh specific types. So this slide

38:57actually shows the current um impact

38:59fees that would be charged to these type

39:01of sample developments. um and also then

39:05show what the MBS methodology calculated

39:08fee that um that we are proposing.

39:10Again, on the senior and assisted living

39:12facility, you can see that what it would

39:14calculate out to would be is um uh about

39:17$1.6 million for a 100 bed unit. And

39:20again, that's why we highlighted in red

39:22is that staff recognized that that's a a

39:24pretty large number and it'd be pretty

39:25substantial and could definitely

39:27influence and impact the development of

39:28those types of um facilities. So, one

39:32key takeaway when it comes to impact

39:33fees is that while all this is the

39:35legally maximum amount, we again are not

39:38proposing that we adopt that number.

39:40We're we're asking for some policy

39:41discretion and recommending that maybe

39:43it goes down to a lower level at about

39:44$3,000 a bed. But I wanted to pause

39:47there just again so that you could see

39:49that um there's a recognition that

39:51there's a a large difference between

39:52what um each of these land use

39:54categories are currently paying in

39:56impact fees and what the adoption of the

39:58new impact fees would look like in

40:00dollars.

40:03The other thing that we wanted to do was

40:05provide council with well where would

40:06Redmond lie in context with other um

40:09jurisdictions. And so to make sure the

40:11fees were reasonable, um we selected

40:13four different neighboring cities um and

40:16you can see that there's a wide range

40:18between the different jurisdictions

40:20because there's um kind of slight

40:21differences in the methodologies that

40:23they use or the basis that they elect to

40:25use. All of them are within the statute

40:27by the state of uh uh Washington. Um but

40:30they also make different policy choices

40:32as well. So what I wanted to flag was

40:34that the red is the highest value in

40:37that land use category. Green is the

40:39lowest and you can see that Redmond is

40:40neither the highest proposed fee and nei

40:43it's not the lowest either. So we sit

40:45within the baseline of our of these

40:47other jurisdictions that are that are

40:48close to us.

40:53So council has a few choices tonight.

40:55Again council can adopt. Do we want to

40:59pause? Are we good?

41:01Please continue and maybe at the end

41:02we'll we'll play musical chairs again.

41:05>> Okay. Um so this evening council can

41:07adopt the staff recommendation. Uh

41:09council can choose to adopt maybe a

41:11lower rate. Uh council can direct uh

41:14staff to do a phase in um but each of

41:17those different choices will have a

41:19different impact. So [snorts] the MBA uh

41:22s calculated rates are proposed to

41:25generate about 37.3

41:27million through 2050. The staff

41:30recommendation, however, generates

41:32approximately 33.5. That's because of

41:35lowering the um impact fee for the um

41:38senior um the assisted living

41:40facilities. Now, every time we lower a

41:42percentage of any of those rates,

41:44there's obviously uh less revenue that

41:46is collected from the impact fees. And

41:48so, this table just shows that if staff

41:50chose to implement only 90% of the total

41:52impact fee value across all categories,

41:55you reduce revenue by 3.5 million. If

41:57you decide to cut further to 75%, you

41:59reduce revenue by 8 million. And if you

42:01decided to implement 50% of the proposed

42:04rates, um you would uh basically cut the

42:07projected impact fee revenue in half. So

42:09that's not one necessarily one of the

42:10options, but just to kind of show what

42:12the impact is of um of adjusting what

42:14those rates are.

42:16So what we're asking again council to do

42:18and then we'll we'll go for questions

42:20here is um either proceed option A with

42:22the staff recommended schedule. um it

42:25will be bundled with the other impact

42:26fee updates in that combined ordinance

42:28that will be brought back to council for

42:30consideration in um November. Or option

42:33B tonight, direct um us to make some

42:36specific changes before we return in

42:37November. If council wants changes,

42:40staff will need to know whether that

42:41means a specific land use rate you'd

42:43like to alter, a percentage reduction, a

42:45phase schedule, or another defined

42:47adjustment. Um and then with that, we

42:49can actually then bring an updated fee

42:51schedule forward. And if there has to be

42:53a resolution to go along with it for an

42:55adoption, um we'll bring that with the

42:57the rest of the information. Um we can

42:59return sooner if that's what council

43:01would like. I've already reserved some

43:02time um on the PSHs committee uh next

43:05week. Is that fast? Otherwise, it would

43:07be again on November 2nd. So with that,

43:11we'd like to start talking about this.

43:14Wonderful. And thank you both so much

43:15for your presentation. um in unusual

43:18circumstances as well. Uh Chris is

43:21[clears throat] hard at work and we

43:22really we really we really do appreciate

43:24uh his effort. So, thank you so much.

43:27Council members, um that concludes the

43:30presentation from staff. We have a few

43:31things to think about. Um so, I'll go

43:33ahead and open up the conversation.

43:36Council member Kitser,

43:40>> thank you. um really appreciate the the

43:43work on this um and the study and um and

43:45thinking through um you know what making

43:49sure that we're being data driven and

43:50how we look at at these rates. Um and I

43:54also just want to express my

43:55appreciation for the um the follow-up uh

43:59report or report that you gave to us um

44:02to address some of the questions that

44:03came up for us and that came up as part

44:05of the um engagement with stakeholders.

44:08um it was really helpful to be able to

44:10look at that. Um and it sounds like

44:13maybe we're moving forward on our

44:15technical issues. So, thank you so much.

44:17Um [laughter]

44:19um I think uh for for my part, I am I

44:26appreciate where we're trying to go with

44:27this. Um I also am sitting with um some

44:32a lot of recent conversations that have

44:34been going on around development in our

44:36area and the challenges that our

44:39development community is just facing and

44:41being able to keep projects going

44:42forward because of um just the rising

44:45costs and making things pencil out and

44:47being able to borrow uh to make projects

44:50move forward. And uh and I had brought

44:52this up I think as as one of my

44:54questions when we were thinking about

44:55this is kind of how do we make sure that

44:57we're we're collecting but if if a

44:59project doesn't no projects get built we

45:01don't collect any revenue there. So um

45:04kind of thinking about the balance there

45:06and looking at like the comparative

45:07cities. I think um I am interested in

45:12being able to look at what is kind of

45:13the right level. One of the things you

45:15noted that council could have as an

45:16option would also be doing a phased in

45:19approach. Um, and I think I lean towards

45:21wanting to get some more options around

45:23that phased in approach. Um, in

45:26particular, because um, what I

45:28appreciate about this is we're looking

45:30at what we need to pay for in the future

45:34and how we get the the funding to be

45:37able to do so from the rising costs that

45:40we will have from having more

45:42development in our area. Um, so I'm

45:44wondering how we look at that to know to

45:47make sure that we do get the funding for

45:50those things when those things are

45:51needed, but potentially not um, uh, go

45:55so quickly to it at this moment and look

45:58at what that kind of phased um, approach

46:00might look like um, towards that. So,

46:04um, I don't have an exact number on

46:07there, but I would be interested as we

46:08continue this conversation and in having

46:11getting some of your thoughts on what

46:14that that phased piece would look like.

46:16It was noted in in here that we could

46:18look at that, but kind of what the

46:19details might look like for a graduated

46:22introduction.

46:24>> Thank you. Um, Council Member Forsight

46:26and then Council Vice President.

46:30>> Thank you. Um, I think Council Member

46:31Kitzer laid it out very nicely. I would

46:34tend to agree with pretty much all of

46:36those comments. Um, and just add that we

46:39are seeing um, developers talking about

46:42slowdown. We're seeing market conditions

46:44slowing down. We're seeing the interest

46:45rates causing a lot of chaos within that

46:48development community and within the

46:50ability for people to be able to

46:52purchase a home. Um, and those costs

46:54just get added on to those purchase

46:56costs. So, I think a phased approach

46:58would be my preferred um method as well,

47:01knowing that we are looking at this as a

47:03future um way to recover that money and

47:07pay and pay for these things. Um and

47:09seeing where we're at in conjunction

47:11with the other cities is very helpful.

47:14Um so, I I truly appreciate all the work

47:16that's gone into this presentation and

47:18the thoughtfulness around our questions.

47:20Um but I'm I'm leaning more towards a

47:22phased approach as well. Thank you.

47:26Thank you, Council Vice President. Thank

47:28you. Um, thank you to my colleagues for

47:30the points that they made. Um, I was in

47:33my notes. I was looking at it in in

47:35other areas. Uh, it'll get referred to

47:37as rate smoothing. So that was the kind

47:40of the the correlation that I was seeing

47:41was okay. So if we can smooth this out

47:44with the savings that are are proposed

47:47in the possible new new department um to

47:51have those then disappear because of our

47:54new impact fees would would kind of be

47:57you know like well we're giving you this

47:59but we're taking away over here. And

48:01with that rate smoothing or a phased in

48:03approach, um that would definitely be

48:06helpful, especially with senior care

48:08when when we're jumping that high. Um

48:11thank you very much for the work that

48:13went in for um as council member for

48:16pointed out where the the neighboring

48:18jurisdictions where they were. Um I was

48:21surprised at at some of the numbers that

48:23I saw both up and down. I was quite

48:25surprised. And also thank you because uh

48:27back on September 15th I had raised um

48:30you know what was the state stakeholder

48:32feedback um that we had gotten in this

48:35and you were able to give some some

48:37background uh from the master builders

48:39meeting but then I appreciated having

48:42the notes in the matrix um from one

48:45Redmond government affairs which was

48:47September 24th. So, I appreciated that

48:49so that you know we would have a better

48:51feel not only from the conversations

48:53that we had but also what kind of got

48:56struck up inside of the conversation

48:58when you met with them. So, thank you

48:59very much for including that.

49:01>> Thank you. Hands over here, Council

49:03Member Parcy.

49:05Yeah, I um I'm open to a phase approach,

49:09but I I feel like one question that I

49:12have that I couldn't quite answer yet

49:14was um at what level do we reach cost

49:18recovery? Um would you be able to kind

49:21of explain that a little bit more so I

49:23can understand at what point would we

49:26reach cost recovery versus um not so we

49:30can kind of understand at what speed

49:32maybe we want to phase things in or kind

49:35of how we want to approach that phasing.

49:37>> Okay, that's a good one. Do you want me

49:38to go ahead and try to so because I

49:40think we have a bundle of questions that

49:41are around that. So

49:43>> please feel free to

49:44>> please feel free to address this

49:46question. I think the others were were

49:47more comments uh in support of a set of

49:50alternatives.

49:51>> Yeah. Okay. So, um after getting um some

49:55feedback and council president's email

49:57that had sent and I replied back to

49:58council with that, I actually did some

50:00very straightforward linear modeling.

50:02They weren't in time to be able to send

50:04all the spreadsheets to everybody

50:05because I don't want to overwhelm people

50:06with numbers, but I can give you some

50:07feedback. Um I replied back to council I

50:10think it was uh late last week and had

50:12indicated that in the fire functional

50:14plan we've identified you know several

50:16million dollars in capital improvement

50:17projects in the next six years and of

50:19those projects we identified what

50:21proportionate share of them would be

50:23eligible for impact fees and that

50:25proportionate share of impact fee is

50:27like $9 million. So, to your part of um

50:31recovery, implementing the fees in full

50:34as we staff is recommending would get us

50:36$8 million within the six-year period of

50:39the 9 million that we actually need. So,

50:41that's why staff's recommendation is is

50:43the full implementation. Now, to address

50:46the smoothing out, um if you recall from

50:48that email I sent to you, kind of a

50:50breakdown by land use, and again, it was

50:51just linear. It's just assuming the same

50:54rate of growth over 25 years per year

50:56and that everybody does it the same way.

50:58And you can see that in one year we

51:00would expect to collect about $1.3

51:03million and 1 million of that comes from

51:05just the residential land use category.

51:07So even though it has the lower demand

51:09factor, there's more of it that's coming

51:11into Redmond in there. And so if we were

51:13looking at a phased approach, um it

51:16might be that it's not all of the

51:17categories, but think about the one and

51:19what that impact would be. If we went

51:22with the full FA, if we did it all right

51:24now, then again, $8 million would be

51:27collected roughly. We get a linear

51:29projection by 2032.

51:31If you wanted to do a phase in that

51:33started at say 50% of the fee year 1,

51:36raise it to 75% of the fee, again,

51:39across the board, and then you do it up

51:41to 100% by year three, your um your

51:44collected revenue and impact fees goes

51:46down by a mill a million dollars. So

51:48then by 2032 you've only collected 7

51:51million of 8 million projected. If you

51:54wanted to further that to a fouryear and

51:57um Nicole had made a note that sometimes

51:58people go up as high as five to smooth

52:00it out um your revenue drops another

52:03million dollars. And so then by 2032

52:05you've only collected 6 million um again

52:078 million if you do the full by going

52:0925% of the fee 50% 75 and then 100% by

52:14year four. And again that's across the

52:15board of all land use categories. So

52:18somewhere in there could be a well maybe

52:20it's just one category, maybe it's not

52:22all of them and and whatnot. And that's

52:23why I wanted you also to see again that

52:25kind of proportionate share. Thank you

52:27council president for uh putting that up

52:30there. You can see again the um the

52:32distribution of the

52:35um in the summaries there.

52:37So on the table definitely this is what

52:40the this is what the revenue impacts

52:42would be.

52:44>> Thank you so much and thank you for the

52:45question council member Parcy. I'll I'll

52:47leave this on the screen just for a

52:48moment to to verify that we received it

52:51and also it uh the public can take a

52:54take a quick peek but we'll continue

52:55with the questions. Council member Proa.

53:00>> Thank you chair and thank you for the

53:02presentation. I want to say that I think

53:03this is a quite exceptionally organized

53:05presentation. So um kudos to you and

53:08kudos to the team. Uh you know it's a

53:11very delicate game that we have to play

53:13here. Uh it's rare that as council we

53:16have a decision to make uh with a

53:18complete sliding scale uh where on one

53:20side we're balancing revenue on the

53:22other side we're balancing development.

53:24My my question is you know if you look

53:27at this from the perspective of a

53:28developer um when they have to pay

53:30impact fees they don't care whether

53:32these impact fees are fire impact fees

53:34or transport impact fees or school

53:36impact fees or I think there's one other

53:38kind. um they just care about the amount

53:41of money they have to pay and whether

53:42they can get this project to pencil out,

53:44right? So, you know, I'm pretty sure our

53:46transportation impact fees in Redmond

53:48for multif family houses are

53:51more than double what um the proposed

53:54fire impact fee rate is for the average

53:56multif family house. Um so my question

53:59is I guess how do we compare to other

54:00jurisdictions not only on um these fire

54:03impact fees which are uh in some cases a

54:07small percentage of the total but on the

54:08overall um impact fees developers have

54:11to pay.

54:13>> I wouldn't have what the kind of the

54:15relationship is of all the rest of the

54:16other fees. I do know to your point that

54:19the fire portion from Redmond has been

54:21really low because again they haven't

54:22been updated since 1999. Um and so and I

54:26think that you know the feedback from

54:27the development community largely is

54:29centered around the fact that this is an

54:31abrupt change right you know it feels

54:33like we're making up for lost time which

54:35is not what we're doing we're just

54:36adjusting it based on the demand that we

54:38have and the actual capital needs that

54:39we've identified that are out there um

54:42how that relates to again I can't I

54:45don't have unfortunately comprehensive

54:46knowledge of everybody's impact fees to

54:48be able to do that comparison so um and

54:50I'm not sure if the planning department

54:51would have that but if that's important

54:52maybe that's I I would love to see that

54:55before before making a decision. Um to

54:57be honest, cuz this is just one one part

54:59of the pie,

55:00>> okay, for me.

55:01>> So, um help me uh make sure that we're

55:03getting you the right information. You

55:04want to see what the total impact fees

55:06per development. So, it includes the

55:08transportation, the parks, and the

55:09school impact fees combined with fire.

55:11And so, that total package related to

55:13our four jurisdictions maybe that we've

55:15already identified.

55:15>> Yes, that that would be that would be

55:17fantastic. Thank you.

55:20>> Thank you. And um

55:24that is a hefty amount of work for

55:26staff. So I'm hoping that someone has it

55:28at their fingertips already, but um I

55:31want to check is there are there other

55:33council members who would find that

55:34information valuable.

55:36I'm seeing head nods around the room.

55:38Oh, and maybe a hand raised.

55:41>> Uh interim director Allen, did you have

55:44your hand up?

55:46>> Thank you. Yes. I just want that you

55:47just did that. I was going to check

55:48whether other council members wanted

55:50that as well because that will require

55:52uh a large amount of staff work to bring

55:54that forward. So we'll um work with the

55:56fire department on other departments

55:58around that.

55:59>> Great. Thank you. So just modeling a

56:01process that um our budget chair will

56:03will model here shortly. But um are

56:06there other in council members who would

56:08be interested in having that same

56:10information in order to inform inform

56:13the decision in front of us?

56:15Can I see a show of hands who would like

56:17that information?

56:20Okay. So, at at this time, Council

56:22Member Proria, I I think there are some

56:23research questions that maybe you could

56:25take on. Um, but it it may not be as

56:28gerine to the to the question at hand.

56:31Okay. Uh, council member Sony, did you

56:32have the next question?

56:34Uh, I actually had the same question

56:37what uh, council member Pakria asked

56:40because I was also hoping to see that my

56:42I had another another question. It's

56:45like you know basically now that we are

56:47reducing the senior housing impact free

56:50from to to 3,000 per bed this is

56:53definitely like you know almost an 81%

56:56reduction. So how is this going to be um

57:01you know this shortfall is going to be

57:03justified like you know how is that like

57:05you know just want to ensure that if

57:07there are other other areas where is

57:10going to be redistributed

57:12or how we are planning to work with this

57:15shortfall.

57:18Um the shortfall is accommodated in the

57:22fact well first of all when we look at

57:24what we're predicting for assisted

57:26living it is one of the smallest uh

57:28growth numbers overall in terms of the

57:31population. So while that number is

57:33quite large per project there aren't

57:35that many projected in the next 25

57:37years. So, um, if you go to the staff

57:40recommended, um, uh, comparison, I'm

57:43sorry, that was the other slide that

57:46showed that it would be a shortfall

57:49between what NBS has calculated to what

57:51we're recommending of about $3.3 million

57:53difference,

57:56>> 3.8 million. So, that's what we're

57:59saying is that the 3.8 8 million is

58:01would be um again we would be able to

58:04legally collect up to that but we're

58:06saying that from a policy decision we

58:08would recommend that it would be better

58:09to uh to not do the full rate because

58:12while it's capable and legally allowed

58:15um that 3.3 million over a 25-year

58:18period um seems like it's a small cost

58:20in comparison to uh what the impact

58:22could be to the community of being of

58:24making that problematic for assisted

58:26living facilities to be built in in

58:28Redmond. So where does the money come

58:29from? the money comes from all the other

58:31funding sources that would have to be

58:32available if it turned out to be

58:33something that we would absolutely need.

58:35But we're recommending that and that's

58:37part of this um strategy is um when we

58:41don't collect the impact fee, the money

58:43comes from another source and that's

58:44what director Cochran is here to provide

58:46some details if we have some real

58:48concerns over that. Does that provide

58:50clarity, council member? Okay,

58:53>> thank you. I'll go ahead and chime in

58:55just a couple of my comments here on

58:57round one. Um, thank you so much for the

58:59presentation and bringing this back and

59:02uh for everyone, council members

59:04included, who have been um continuing on

59:06with the stakeholdering. We are talking

59:09tonight a lot about um this moment in

59:11time being particularly difficult and um

59:15we have long range uh goals to continue

59:18to build the housing that we need in our

59:21community and um I appreciate that we

59:23are talking about each um in its own

59:26context here today. Um I I asked staff

59:29for the information that was shared back

59:31to us on Friday to um start leading um

59:36start demonstrating for us some

59:37alternatives for graduated uh fee

59:41implementation because I began to get

59:44feedback um from uh members of the

59:47development community who actually do

59:49understand

59:51why we why the fees need to be updated

59:53now and why updating the fees will help

59:56us take care of projects that make

59:58Redmond a great place to live. It's an

1:00:00abrupt change now. And so the the

1:00:03primary like bucket of feedback in the

1:00:05last few days that I got on this subject

1:00:07was um yes, update your fees. Um help us

1:00:13have a predictable path toward full

1:00:16realization of those and then continue

1:00:19to update them with inflation on a

1:00:21predictable schedule. So, um, I I really

1:00:25appreciate the the pragmatism and that

1:00:27that partnership that that can exist.

1:00:29So, for my part, it's awesome to hear

1:00:31you say that you are holding time on a

1:00:33committee to to maybe come back and

1:00:35evaluate. I'm hearing some interest in

1:00:37some graduated um solutions. uh the

1:00:40three and fouryear options at 3 years at

1:00:445075 100 or the 4-year option at 2550 75

1:00:48and 100% of realization both seem to me

1:00:51um really reasonable and I would like to

1:00:53discuss more also because uh sitting

1:00:56where I do as a council member um this

1:00:58is one revenue uh source in the city and

1:01:02one revenue source for our capital plan

1:01:04um one of these alternatives for

1:01:07instance would only result in an 8% %

1:01:09reduction over 10 years in total

1:01:12collected amount. And um when we need to

1:01:16we do leverage debt and that number that

1:01:20is the gap between between those um two

1:01:24possibilities is completely reasonable

1:01:27for a debt financing conversation

1:01:30um in the future. So, uh, for my part, I

1:01:32will say I I echo the sentiment, uh, to

1:01:35have alternatives studied next week,

1:01:37particularly at the three and four-year

1:01:39mark. The next hand I saw was Council

1:01:41Member Forsythe.

1:01:44>> Thank you. Took me a second to remember

1:01:46my question. Um, just wanted to check in

1:01:48and see if there are any budget

1:01:50implications for the 2728 budget if we

1:01:53do a more phased approach and we

1:01:55continue this conversation. I think I'll

1:01:57uh ask director Cochran to be able to

1:02:01speak to that because that is her

1:02:04department.

1:02:08>> Good evening. Um so we uh forecasted

1:02:12very conservatively because we are you

1:02:14know just implementing new fees. We

1:02:17really um as much as we try it's

1:02:20difficult to project um development

1:02:22activity. Um and so we have say we have

1:02:25created our for ourselves a couple of um

1:02:28safety nets when it comes to this work.

1:02:32Um we have contingencies extra

1:02:34contingencies now available um within

1:02:37the CIP. Um and we can also look at um

1:02:41different tools that we have available

1:02:43timing of projects um things like that.

1:02:46But for 2728, I don't anticipate um any

1:02:51issues. The

1:02:54primary um hole plugger that I can um

1:02:59identify for you is um we have received

1:03:03far more 5814

1:03:07money than we've projected or budgeted

1:03:11for. And so if we needed an immediate

1:03:13fix, um that's where I would go is to

1:03:15recognize some more, um one-time money

1:03:19in 2728 and make sure that we could fill

1:03:21those gaps or we can ride the wave and

1:03:24see where it lands us and um make

1:03:26adjustments in the future if we need to.

1:03:28But I feel like we have um quite a few

1:03:30safety nets available.

1:03:34>> Thank you, Council Member Critzer.

1:03:38>> Thank you. Um following up on that, so

1:03:41just a a quick clarifying point and then

1:03:43I had a bit another question is um so

1:03:46are you saying that in the current

1:03:48budget it's assuming the full fee uh but

1:03:51you also have some mechanisms to fill

1:03:53the gap if we decided we didn't want to

1:03:55do the full fee?

1:03:56>> Yes, we um we had forecasted I believe

1:03:59it was $2 million a year for fire impact

1:04:02fees. Um what we did um and we've been

1:04:05working on for several years now is to

1:04:08build a mechanism for contingencies

1:04:10within the CIPs and we have kind of

1:04:12finally gotten there um this year. So we

1:04:15have some additional um reserves or

1:04:18contingencies that council's really been

1:04:20asking for in the past to make sure that

1:04:22we are mitigating risk but also creating

1:04:25some room for flexibility if

1:04:26opportunities arise. And so we've done

1:04:29that. Also, um the capital funding

1:04:32strategy, um fire the fire projects that

1:04:36will rely on fire impact fees is the MOC

1:04:40for kind of a new or expanded fleet um

1:04:44uh for shop for um fire as well as fire

1:04:48station uh 11. So those are the f first

1:04:51two projects that it is um those funding

1:04:54sources are scheduled

1:04:56um to go to and um

1:05:02we knew that um the fire impact fees not

1:05:06only was going to be a big increase um

1:05:08but also that you know the timing of

1:05:11when we first started developing their

1:05:13forecast they've been working great and

1:05:15they've got their file functional plan

1:05:17and the capital facilities plan is all

1:05:19adopted But while we were developing

1:05:21things, we still weren't sure if, you

1:05:22know, everything was going to come

1:05:24together. So, we have reserves, we have

1:05:26contingencies

1:05:28um built out specifically to help us um

1:05:31ensure that these projects can continue

1:05:33to move forward.

1:05:35>> Thank you. Um I guess I would just say

1:05:38um appreciate the comments from my

1:05:39colleagues. Um, and I'm also interested

1:05:43in being able to spend a little more

1:05:45time on some of the the scenarios that

1:05:47that you laid out. The 10-year one, I

1:05:50would love to be able to understand um

1:05:54what the what especially how you would

1:05:57see us mitigating should we want to

1:05:59pursue the the 10-year scenario on any

1:06:02um impacts from that. Um,

1:06:05I would not recommend a 10-year phase

1:06:08in. Um, four years is really where I am

1:06:12comfortable. Um, before things start to

1:06:15get really confusing or convoluted with

1:06:17the next round of fee studies or fee

1:06:19updates. So, four years um is

1:06:23predictable. Um, it allows us to do that

1:06:26phase in before too much time has gone

1:06:28by before we do another study.

1:06:31Hopefully, not

1:06:34Yeah. Um and so um 10 years is just um

1:06:40I don't think it's equitable um when it

1:06:43comes to the question about who should

1:06:47pay their growth because if development

1:06:50isn't paying and I'm not saying they

1:06:52need to pay for all it's policy decision

1:06:54but when development doesn't pay for

1:06:56development or the costs of development

1:06:59and the growth needed to support the

1:07:01development then residents that have

1:07:03lived here for a really long time and

1:07:06have paid their connection fees are

1:07:07paying again for those same things

1:07:10through fees and taxes that we impose.

1:07:13And so I think it's more fair to try to

1:07:15shift to what you believe is the right

1:07:19structure within um

1:07:22a 4-year term would be my

1:07:25recommendation.

1:07:30Thank you. Um I saw a hand over here.

1:07:32Council member Parkria and then Council

1:07:34Member Parsy.

1:07:37>> Thank you. Uh in response to my earlier

1:07:39question about all the different types

1:07:41of impact fees um and their estimates

1:07:43for different kinds of development,

1:07:45actually I I did some research and we do

1:07:47have a PDF online that talks about this.

1:07:50So I dropped the link to that in the

1:07:52chat. Uh, and given the the numbers in

1:07:54that PDF, um, I would actually be in

1:07:58favor of having a very steep phase in or

1:08:01no phase in at all because, you know, we

1:08:03have a pie and we are increasing like

1:08:07one slice of the pie in some cases by a

1:08:09major amount like for a 22 uh 50 foot

1:08:12home we're increasing the fire impact

1:08:14fees um by over 10x, right? But this is

1:08:18a really really small piece of the pie

1:08:20and and the overall increases in most

1:08:22cases are like less than 10% I believe

1:08:25um given the numbers in this chart. So I

1:08:27think a 2-year phase in or or no phase

1:08:30in at all is what I would be in favor

1:08:32of.

1:08:34>> Thank you. Council member Procria,

1:08:36Council Member Parsy,

1:08:39>> I also echo that I am comfortable moving

1:08:41forward with current staff

1:08:43recommendation at uh full cost. um we

1:08:47are investing in um development in many

1:08:50many ways in the city and I don't think

1:08:52this is the area that I would like to

1:08:54see us move forward with uh changing the

1:08:57cost basis for um supporting um

1:09:00development there's many avenues in

1:09:02which we're supporting development um

1:09:04even in our agenda later today um so I'm

1:09:07comfortable with moving forward with

1:09:08staff recommendation as this

1:09:12>> thank you as we uh come around I think

1:09:18maybe uh where we're headed is an

1:09:21additional conversation on this topic

1:09:23potentially as early as next week in

1:09:25committee. We don't seem we seem to be

1:09:28as a group um and I will ask for uh

1:09:32validation of this in just a moment but

1:09:34it does seem as a group there is

1:09:36interest in pursuing graduated um

1:09:39alternatives. I did not hear a um uh

1:09:44support for an option as was presented

1:09:46on slide 12 to to simply collect less.

1:09:49Um, so as we think about how what

1:09:52direction we might give to staff

1:09:54tonight, I'm hearing um interest in

1:09:58evaluating alternatives for as little as

1:10:012 to 10 years and um having a chance to

1:10:06understand what the impacts of those

1:10:08would be in that conversation.

1:10:11Did I capture the sentiment of that

1:10:13correctly, Council Member Proria?

1:10:16>> I think so. And also I would just um

1:10:18like to request that in the packet the

1:10:20um PDF link um that I that I dropped in

1:10:23the chat be added to um the items just

1:10:25so folks can see uh the comparison with

1:10:27all the impact fees. Um my my colleagues

1:10:29on council.

1:10:31>> Okay. If there's a staff member who's um

1:10:34in the meeting and could evaluate that,

1:10:36that'd be great.

1:10:39Other

1:10:41thoughts or consider uh council member

1:10:44Parsy? Um you mentioned as little as two

1:10:47years but I would just say at full cost

1:10:49recovery I'm okay with that too. So

1:10:51minimum at full cost recovery.

1:10:54>> Okay. So um

1:10:57evaluating alternatives against the

1:11:00staff presented at intervals of

1:11:05go ahead council member for do you have

1:11:07a suggestion? What I am trying to do

1:11:09here is give a reasonable number of

1:11:10alternatives um that we can evaluate

1:11:14next week and that staff can have the

1:11:15time to prepare that conversation uh

1:11:17because they'll have to have their

1:11:18packets essentially submitted tomorrow.

1:11:20It's a very quick turnaround. Council

1:11:22member for it is a very quick

1:11:23turnaround. Um I'm comfortable with the

1:11:25recommendation of the finance director

1:11:26at four years to see what that

1:11:28alternative looks like. I don't think we

1:11:30need I personally do not need to go all

1:11:32the way out to 10 years.

1:11:37Okay, Council Member Kitser,

1:11:40>> I I think I had been the one that

1:11:42brought up the 10 years. Um, I

1:11:44appreciated the information and and

1:11:46hearing the recommendation from uh uh

1:11:50Director Cochran. So, if we wanted to

1:11:53narrow the scope to talking through up

1:11:55to four years, I think that I would be

1:11:57fine with that as well. Um, and I just

1:12:00want to say on the record, um, the

1:12:02reason that I am concerned, I will say

1:12:04I'm sitting with a conversation that I I

1:12:07mentioned that council member Sony and I

1:12:08got to be a part of with the mayor and

1:12:10with most of the those who might develop

1:12:13in the Overlike neighborhood a few weeks

1:12:15ago. And essentially what we heard from

1:12:17them, just to put it in no uncertain

1:12:19terms, is that that lot most of them

1:12:21don't see a path to actually building

1:12:22any buildings there right now because

1:12:24the economics are so hard. Um so when

1:12:26we're talk and we're seeing in other

1:12:28cities in other places around the region

1:12:31where they are thinking about ways to be

1:12:33able to in this moment where we have

1:12:37very difficult e economic conditions

1:12:39find ways to be able to kickstart um

1:12:42projects that might be stalled. Um, and

1:12:45I think when we think about our city and

1:12:47even looking at our city's budget and as

1:12:49well as kind of our goals for housing is

1:12:52making sure that that we're seeing um

1:12:55housing be developed um so we can also

1:12:57address affordability issues by having

1:12:59enough supply. And so I just think um

1:13:03thinking about kind of this moment makes

1:13:06some sense to and and so I just want to

1:13:08be clear in terms of why I I do think

1:13:11it's worth us continuing this

1:13:13conversation and thinking about what the

1:13:14graduated versus kind of jumping to it

1:13:16right away does in this moment. Not that

1:13:19we don't want to recover the costs, but

1:13:21that we we do want to make sure that

1:13:23that we're thinking about the conditions

1:13:25in which we see development um continue,

1:13:28especially in our transit oriented areas

1:13:30in our city.

1:13:33>> Thank you, uh, Council Member Sony.

1:13:37>> Uh, yeah, thank you so much, Council

1:13:39Member Critzer, for bringing up the

1:13:41discussion. Um you know based on that

1:13:43discussion what have we heard and what

1:13:46we saw here today uh as a comparison

1:13:49with the different cities I do see like

1:13:50you know city of Isakqua has much much

1:13:53higher impact fee and um this is just

1:13:57making me think it's like you know to

1:13:58look into the different aspects as to

1:14:00like you know what is there there are

1:14:03multiple factors and I believe this

1:14:05would need like a deeper discussion for

1:14:08us specifically for our development

1:14:10projects.

1:14:11to uh you know I was I was actually

1:14:14planning to bring this later today in

1:14:16the discussions like you know I may want

1:14:18to see in the long run from our staff to

1:14:21bring up a kind of a quarterly report to

1:14:23see where we are because what are the

1:14:25different factors that is just making us

1:14:27being the least favorable or less

1:14:29favorable in terms of the development.

1:14:32So that is one part. The second part is

1:14:34like you going I I think what director

1:14:38Koshan has said four years I am you know

1:14:41this is something kind of a midway

1:14:43between uh taking it as an asis versus

1:14:46you know going with the four years

1:14:47approach. So I'm more inclined towards

1:14:49the four years approach but yes pointing

1:14:52out to council member Critzer's point

1:14:54because we did like you know these these

1:14:57kinds of a complaints uh from right from

1:15:00uh right from the developers. So I think

1:15:02we need to just do a little bit deeper

1:15:04study and I know may not have time for

1:15:06doing it to prepare your documentations

1:15:09for this thing. So I for now I would

1:15:11just recommend like you know four years.

1:15:13>> Yep. Well and I'd like to add so what I

1:15:16would be proposing to bring back is just

1:15:18a straight linear model like I we we

1:15:21won't be able to decide like is

1:15:23residential going to grow in this year

1:15:24and is it going to be this. So it would

1:15:26just be taking the total growth

1:15:27projected dividing it over the year

1:15:29renumbering. Like I said, I've already

1:15:31done a lot of that work as of last week.

1:15:33So, getting a four-year number so that

1:15:35you can look and see what the what the

1:15:37fee schedule would map out to be and

1:15:39then what the collected revenue is

1:15:41expected. Like I said, I already know

1:15:42what that's going to be. It's going to

1:15:43be 2 million short of what we already

1:15:44have projected if we adopt the staff

1:15:47recommendation. So, um and then think

1:15:50about that like over all the development

1:15:52then delta is only $2 million between

1:15:55these two options over a six-year

1:15:57period. So it really becomes like a a

1:16:00small change year-over-year

1:16:02by doing it phased in. You'd have to and

1:16:04if you stretched it out to 10 years when

1:16:06we looked at it, you know, to director

1:16:07Cochran's point, 10 years takes us out

1:16:10of this CIP and into the next CIP and we

1:16:12haven't even collected the, you know,

1:16:13the impact fees for the what the basis

1:16:15of this is. Um, and it it it cuts it in

1:16:18half. It turns it from 13 million

1:16:20expected to like six or seven million

1:16:21expected. So that's it's a that becomes

1:16:23in a bigger delta over a six-year

1:16:24period. So, there's like big numbers and

1:16:27then there's not that big of a number

1:16:28between it. So, um happy to do it. It

1:16:30wouldn't take much time to do it, but um

1:16:33again, a $2 million difference over a

1:16:35six-year period in that is that really

1:16:38easing the pain and suffering. I don't

1:16:40you know that I I won't judge other

1:16:42people's pain and suffering.

1:16:44>> Um appreciate that. C uh Director

1:16:47Cochran had a clarifying question and

1:16:48then I I maybe have a closing remark as

1:16:50we as we get going.

1:16:52>> Thank you. Um, I'm wondering if you are

1:16:54interested in the phasing in of all fees

1:16:57or the phasing in of the fees that are

1:16:58having the biggest impact, our biggest

1:17:01increase. Um,

1:17:04some of them are I mean

1:17:07kind of normal increases. Um, so it

1:17:11might be helpful if we could um if

1:17:13you're interested in just phasing in

1:17:15some of those fees that are increasing

1:17:16the most instead of all of them, um, we

1:17:19could look at that option for you. I

1:17:20just wasn't sure.

1:17:22You mean among the like customer classes

1:17:25or land use types? Okay. So I I believe

1:17:28that uh the deputy chief just just

1:17:31offered that for

1:17:33we we may need to look at it linear

1:17:36linear linearly.

1:17:38[laughter]

1:17:39Um but I I do hear your question and it

1:17:42is a policy question. Is is there

1:17:43council feedback on the question?

1:17:48>> Council vice president.

1:17:49>> Um because this is just coming up. I'm

1:17:51just exploring thoughts on this and

1:17:54whether or not there there could be any

1:17:56push back or questioning about equity

1:17:59and if if that's an equitable approach.

1:18:02Um I I I don't know, but that was

1:18:04immediately kind of the the thought that

1:18:06came up. Um and even though, you know,

1:18:09we're we're talking about a relatively

1:18:11small amount of the pie, as you were

1:18:14saying, you know, only a $2 million

1:18:16difference over six years. Um, and to my

1:18:21colleague, uh, uh, Council Member

1:18:23Proria, you know, overall in all of our

1:18:26our impact fees, it's it's a lesser

1:18:29amount. Um, and I think that sometimes

1:18:33it's, you know, where we can take a

1:18:36collaborative approach rather than a a a

1:18:40dictating

1:18:41sense of no, you will pay this. But I if

1:18:44it isn't going to be a considerable

1:18:47amount to to demonstrate, hey, no, we

1:18:51hear you, that that may be um worth that

1:18:55investment.

1:18:58Council

1:19:01member Critzer and then yeah, go ahead.

1:19:04>> I I appreciate my colleagues comments

1:19:06around whether there is a a

1:19:08consideration on like the the kind of

1:19:10fairness, but I would also say I guess

1:19:13my answer to your question would be if

1:19:15it wasn't very difficult for you to give

1:19:16us one alternative that at least let us

1:19:19kind of see what that scenario would

1:19:20look like. I'd be interested, but if

1:19:23it's a lot of extra work and it would

1:19:25just be easier to have the flat or the

1:19:27the same treatment, then I would be fine

1:19:30looking at that, but I would be I would

1:19:31be interested to be able to see what

1:19:33that scenario looks like. So, we could

1:19:34actually just like see it with the the

1:19:36numbers comparatively. So to help with

1:19:38that, um so the email that council

1:19:40president um had put up there, it showed

1:19:43each class uh land use category so that

1:19:47you could see what share it contributes

1:19:49to the annual impact fees. And I said of

1:19:51the 1.3 million collected, 1 million of

1:19:54it comes from residential. So if you're

1:19:56looking for levers, that would be like

1:19:58that's the largest lever is the

1:20:00residential. That's the key takeaway. Um

1:20:02it's also on the slide on your deck that

1:20:04says what the changes mean for

1:20:06development. That's the intent of

1:20:07comparing what they pay now to what they

1:20:09would be paying. And so, for example, if

1:20:11we were looking at that multif family

1:20:12residential, they're currently paying

1:20:14about 50,000 and they'd be paying

1:20:17186,000. And whereas a single family

1:20:19residential is only paying a per unit of

1:20:22$148, now they're going to pay per

1:20:24square foot up to $2,000. Um, you can

1:20:27see office buildings go from 20,000 to

1:20:3035,000. So that is to director Cochran's

1:20:32point that's one that's actually not

1:20:34that big of an increase on that

1:20:35particular land use category. Retail

1:20:38commercial you can see goes from 12 to

1:20:4090,000. So you might consider that maybe

1:20:42that's one of them too depending on um

1:20:44again policy goals. Manufacturing

1:20:47facilities go from 3,000 to 23 and then

1:20:50the hotel motel go from 18 to 71. We

1:20:54didn't really have um uh consistency on

1:20:56how we were charging for senior and

1:20:58assisted living. That's why we don't

1:21:00have a baseline for that. But we know

1:21:01that 1.6 million feels really high. Um

1:21:04and then in public schools, we weren't

1:21:06charging a fire impact fee for schools

1:21:08uh at all. And the proposal is is to

1:21:10collect now $96 per head um per student.

1:21:14So that's the point. I think you have

1:21:16some information to take a look at

1:21:17those. And then also with that email

1:21:18that I sent, you can see what would the

1:21:20um what your takeaway would be um to do

1:21:23it. So that's what I would say is I can

1:21:24do a linear and not try to throw every

1:21:26combination, but then you can use that

1:21:28with that graph to see which one of

1:21:30those levers actually changes the most

1:21:32and whether or not that's the lever you

1:21:33want to pull. That make sense?

1:21:36>> Thank you. So to recap, and I have a

1:21:39couple comments of my own, but to recap,

1:21:41it looks to me like we're headed toward

1:21:44a touching committee next week. The

1:21:46packet will include the alternative

1:21:48scenarios up to four years and um

1:21:53you will include the

1:21:56the visual to potentially uh adjust on

1:22:01residential or you'll leave that math to

1:22:03us as we prepare for uh as we synthesize

1:22:06the additional information on the

1:22:07alternatives.

1:22:08>> Yes. So,

1:22:10>> excuse me. Um, so at council, at the

1:22:14committee of the whole, um, if you guys

1:22:16aren't afraid of spreadsheets, I can

1:22:17provide the spreadsheet that shows the

1:22:19year-over-year calculation so you can

1:22:21see how the FA phase in and it's broken

1:22:23out by the land use category. You'll

1:22:25[snorts] be able to look at it and say,

1:22:27okay, we like this, or actually, let's

1:22:29just change that number um, and make

1:22:31that the one that we reduce and leave

1:22:33the rest of them there. And we can kind

1:22:34of piece them back together. Then what I

1:22:37would propose is that we leave from that

1:22:39discussion. Um and then we're able to

1:22:41then carry that final uh fee schedule

1:22:44and again we may have to establish a

1:22:46resolution that says we are phasing it

1:22:48in and here's the instructions that

1:22:49we're going to use that will get

1:22:50attached to the ordinance that will then

1:22:52come back to with the planning

1:22:54department on 112.

1:22:56Does that sound like that's a workable?

1:23:00>> Great.

1:23:02I really appreciate that and um look

1:23:05forward to engaging in the conversation

1:23:07with the with the alternatives and uh

1:23:10looking at all the information together

1:23:11again next week. Um and I do support

1:23:15that plan. I I also wanted to just uh

1:23:18offer a a couple of my comments. We went

1:23:20around a couple times. Um a lesson

1:23:23learned for me or just an observation

1:23:25about this process and this is something

1:23:27I did discuss with the the deputy chief

1:23:30a little bit last week. Um some of the

1:23:32policy questions that we're wrestling

1:23:34with tonight are actually about rate

1:23:36methodology and in this particular case

1:23:39um um and this is with absolute respect

1:23:42to the work done by the team on the rate

1:23:44methodology. Um as a policy maker I was

1:23:48absorbing this information and having

1:23:49these conversations in the past couple

1:23:51weeks uh feeling like we missed our

1:23:53moment on um the real policy choice

1:23:56which was the methodology. And so um

1:23:59here we are today. we're going to move

1:24:01forward and I believe that we're going

1:24:02to find a workable solution uh together

1:24:04next week. And also we have more rate uh

1:24:08studies coming our way in 2027. Um and I

1:24:11would really encourage our council to to

1:24:12kind of take the policy questions and

1:24:14the lessons of this um and be able to

1:24:16apply those questions early in the

1:24:18process as we're evaluating rate

1:24:20contracts for and rate studies um in the

1:24:23coming year. Also, I I really do um

1:24:26appreciate um all of the the concerns

1:24:31and comments by my colleagues about how

1:24:33difficult the environment is um at the

1:24:36moment to build. There is no one lever

1:24:39that is ultimately going to um break the

1:24:43break um the gridlock that we are facing

1:24:46and financing right now. But it is

1:24:49important to um to be aware of them and

1:24:52to do what we can. Now, these are

1:24:55long-term goals that we do have to to

1:24:57build housing um and to build housing

1:25:00where we need it most. Um, we also have

1:25:04a commitment to build the most deeply

1:25:06affordable housing and um, in the

1:25:09materials that were shared from from the

1:25:12the public meeting or the gathering held

1:25:14by by one Redmond, you know, um, there's

1:25:17language around how zero projects have

1:25:20broken ground this year. Um, but it is

1:25:22incorrect because we did break ground on

1:25:24330 units in in Over Lake, right? Um,

1:25:27and it is that the where we are able to

1:25:30work together the most. So, um, we we

1:25:33have to just continue to use all of our

1:25:35tools and be focused on the horizon. Um,

1:25:37and I think that we can do that and and

1:25:39do our part on this conversation next

1:25:41week. So, super appreciate that. Are

1:25:43there any final comments before we close

1:25:45this item and and take a brief recess?

1:25:50>> I just want to thank your time. Uh so I

1:25:53appreciate that very much and I just

1:25:54want to confirm that I'll be uh sending

1:25:56to you a full implementation which you

1:25:58already have um a 2-year phase in and a

1:26:01four-year phase in and we're going to

1:26:03limit it to those scenarios.

1:26:06>> I believe it was 2 three four a three in

1:26:09there as well. Okay.

1:26:12Does that sound correct? Seeing some

1:26:14thumbs up. Okay. Thank you so much.

1:26:16Really appreciate that. And and thank

1:26:18you council. And it looks like our tech

1:26:20is working. so we can also move back to

1:26:23our original seating. Thank you so much

1:26:25for your patience with us tonight. Uh

1:26:27with that, we will be in a brief recess

1:26:29until 8:43 p.m. Thank you.

1:26:43Heat.

1:26:46[music]

1:26:56Heat.

1:27:03[music]

1:27:24Hey, hey, hey. [music]

1:27:30Heat.

1:27:37[music]

1:27:46Heat. [music]

1:28:06>> [music]

1:28:08>> Heat. Heat.

1:28:41>> [music]

1:28:47[music]

1:29:03>> Hey, [music]

1:29:06hey, hey.

1:29:21>> [music]

1:29:29[music]

1:29:37[music]

1:29:54[music]

1:30:11[music]

1:31:28[music]

1:31:47[music]

1:32:15>> Heat.

1:32:29[music]

1:32:32Heat.

1:32:49>> [music]

1:32:58[music]

1:33:11[music]

1:33:29>> Heat. Heat.

1:33:33[music]

1:33:49Heat. Heat.

1:33:53[music]

1:34:31>> [music]

1:35:31[music]

1:35:32>> down.

1:35:34We get

1:36:26Hey, hey, hey.

1:37:01Thank you so much. And we are back in

1:37:03session. The third item on our agenda

1:37:06tonight is the creation of a new

1:37:08department to support improved

1:37:10development service functions. Jason

1:37:12Lynch, our acting director of

1:37:15development services will uh reintroduce

1:37:17this item. Welcome back.

1:37:20>> Thank you, Council President. Uh I'm

1:37:22joined tonight with uh Director Cochran,

1:37:24Chief Shepard, and Acting Director

1:37:26Stinger. Um this is the creation of the

1:37:28new department to support the improved

1:37:29development services function. Uh in

1:37:31your packets we provided agenda memo

1:37:33business case new department issues

1:37:35matrix department or charts and

1:37:37development services process of

1:37:38improvement report. We're asking council

1:37:41to approve the budget in the new in the

1:37:43new department including new FTEEs as

1:37:45part of the budget adoption at a future

1:37:46meeting. Confirm the department director

1:37:49and the new department at such time that

1:37:51the mayor appoints the director. At this

1:37:52time we're happy to answer any your

1:37:54questions.

1:37:56Great. Thank you so much. Um, and I do

1:37:58see we already have a hand. I will say,

1:38:00uh, council, in addition to the

1:38:02materials in the packet, once again,

1:38:03there was some additional follow-up via

1:38:05email last week. Um, we would like to

1:38:08really make sure we're getting to the

1:38:10biggest questions here tonight. Um, at

1:38:13this time, there is no additional time

1:38:15scheduled for this conversation.

1:38:16However, some contingency planning has

1:38:19gone on related to the possibility of uh

1:38:22a special meeting or the like to

1:38:24continue the conversation um next week

1:38:27if that's truly what the council needs

1:38:28to complete the conversation with staff.

1:38:31So, want to lay that out um before we

1:38:34get started here. So, once again, thank

1:38:35you so much. And council member Parsy,

1:38:37you had the first question.

1:38:40>> Thank you. So looking at the department

1:38:43structure, one of the areas that I asked

1:38:45earlier and I still am very interested

1:38:47in is that this is a very large

1:38:50organization

1:38:51um encompassing many different uh kind

1:38:54of pieces of our existing department.

1:38:56So, one of the general concerns that I

1:38:58have is that we are going too big too

1:39:01soon um with this and I don't fully

1:39:04understand yet um how some of the uh

1:39:08components proposed are addressing some

1:39:11of the issues identified in the report

1:39:14or the matrix. Um for example um capital

1:39:18division is one that really stood out

1:39:20for me given that this year um this kind

1:39:24of next few years we are embarking on

1:39:26some of our biggest capital projects

1:39:28like the MOC which we're investing

1:39:30roughly $250 million in we're investing

1:39:34in the teen center uh with again very

1:39:37large investments for the city and I do

1:39:40have some questions around uh kind of

1:39:43what percentage of the time from the

1:39:45current staff and capital division, for

1:39:47example, would be spent on these

1:39:49critical projects versus how they would

1:39:52be supported through um this proposed

1:39:54structure. I want to know kind of how um

1:39:59from the leadership perspective, the

1:40:01expertise, the experience for how that

1:40:04could look like. Um but I generally feel

1:40:07concerned and I would love to know h how

1:40:09and if we can potentially kind of hold

1:40:13off on some of the um proposed uh

1:40:15changes to understand better kind of how

1:40:18uh for example capital is supporting

1:40:20this.

1:40:23>> So I'll start with uh capital and then

1:40:25I'll turn it over to director stinger.

1:40:27Part of the relationship in the capital

1:40:28division is that they go through the

1:40:29permitting uh group with any other uh

1:40:32functional uh relationship within the

1:40:34city. So any capital project goes

1:40:36through permitting which there's a

1:40:37direct interaction with the development

1:40:39services center as a whole. So that's a

1:40:41direct correlation and kind of a team

1:40:42approach of getting those permits out in

1:40:44a Tommy matter and making it predictable

1:40:45for capital projects. So when capital

1:40:47builds a project like potentially the

1:40:49MOC, they go through the same permitting

1:40:51structure that we plan we do all the

1:40:52permit review, the plan review, the

1:40:54inspections and everything like for

1:40:55those capital projects. So there's a

1:40:57direct correlation in relationship to

1:40:58capital when they build projects related

1:41:00to getting permits within the city. Now

1:41:03go ahead.

1:41:04>> Um correlation I I understand

1:41:06correlation but in terms of how much of

1:41:08their time would be spent for permitting

1:41:10versus how much of their time would be

1:41:12spent kind of doing the development work

1:41:14that they're they would be otherwise

1:41:16doing say under um and it's it doesn't

1:41:19say which department they're at on are

1:41:21they under public works or kind of where

1:41:23is capital division right now? Capital

1:41:25division right now is under public

1:41:26works. The alignment and the

1:41:28relationship would be in a single

1:41:29department because it's a supporting

1:41:31mechanism. Their primary work would stay

1:41:33the same. The functional roles would

1:41:35stay the same. The reporting rights

1:41:36would change.

1:41:41>> I do feel concerned that if the entire

1:41:44kind of work is going to stay the same,

1:41:46I don't fully understand why this

1:41:49division would need to move to this new

1:41:51department. So I guess if you can help

1:41:53me understand what problem are we

1:41:55solving by moving capital division under

1:41:58um the proposed department that would be

1:42:00really helpful for me because I want to

1:42:02make sure that we don't um we don't

1:42:04distract our staff. We don't cause

1:42:06potential um randomization for them in

1:42:10such a critical period and I am okay

1:42:12with a phased approach to potentially

1:42:14bring them in later in the future. Um,

1:42:18but right now I don't see kind of a big

1:42:20problem being addressed with this move.

1:42:26>> All right, I'm on uh acting director

1:42:29Stinger speaking here. Um, so understand

1:42:33the question is around uh capacity of

1:42:37the current capital staff coming over to

1:42:41a new department

1:42:43um with some major projects on the line.

1:42:46So just capacity coming over. Is this

1:42:48the right time is what I'm understanding

1:42:51there. Um that I would have to work with

1:42:54director Lynch and then talk about

1:42:57capacity uh at their level with the new

1:43:00development services department coming

1:43:02in. I understand that the other ask was

1:43:04a phased if if if we can consider a

1:43:08phased approach. Um so that's something

1:43:10we can uh deliberate on later on there.

1:43:14What I can talk about is the nexus or

1:43:17the why um why capital. Um and I have a

1:43:22little u statement here on here. So uh

1:43:26capital project delivery is an central

1:43:28part of the proposed structure because

1:43:30the city must coordinate its own

1:43:32infrastructure investments with

1:43:34infrastructure being created through

1:43:37development, private development. A

1:43:40coordinated capital function can help

1:43:42align project scopes, engineering

1:43:44standards, schedules, funding,

1:43:46constructability, consultant resources,

1:43:49construction administration, and

1:43:51acceptance requirements. Can also help

1:43:54identify opportunities to coordinate

1:43:56public improvements with private

1:43:58development such as uh one of the one of

1:44:00the things we have on the CIP coming up

1:44:02is that uh Redmond Town Center

1:44:05connection project. um that is you know

1:44:07based off zoning there. So the city has

1:44:10to take a look at um where the

1:44:13development's going and then what

1:44:14infrastructure improvements are on

1:44:16there. So having a capital aligned with

1:44:18the division uh a department that is in

1:44:21embedded in development is a good uh

1:44:26marrying of of the two uh projects there

1:44:29that you can be proactive in in

1:44:32coordinating on there. So um

1:44:37as stated, capital project delivery

1:44:40would retain responsibility for managing

1:44:42project execution, budgets, schedules,

1:44:45contracts, and delivery risk within the

1:44:48delegated authority. And I'm going to

1:44:50add the city engineer would establish

1:44:52the applicable technical requirements

1:44:54while operations and maintenance

1:44:56representatives

1:44:57would provide input into the life cycle

1:45:00and performance acceptance. So as I see

1:45:03development services or this new

1:45:06department, you have to take a look at

1:45:09uh

1:45:10this section will look at the

1:45:12development cycle of of a project

1:45:14whereas public works uh what remains

1:45:18looks at the life cycle asset

1:45:19management. So from a development

1:45:23development side to a life cycle side.

1:45:27This section would primarily focus on

1:45:29all the development code standards and

1:45:32details and I'm going past the capital

1:45:34part but it'll tie in there as a nexus.

1:45:38Um whereas public works will look at the

1:45:41operations maintenance and then the

1:45:43adoption of you know essentially all

1:45:46infrastructure and development that goes

1:45:48through Redmond gets handed off to

1:45:51public works. Um, so there would be

1:45:54tie-ins and service level agreements to

1:45:57where we can continue that work and

1:45:58these working working relationships on

1:46:01there and I can get in and I have a a

1:46:03tiein that I can talk about all that

1:46:06there.

1:46:08>> Okay. I think um there may be follow-up

1:46:10questions on that topic, but let's go

1:46:11ahead and get some of the other topics.

1:46:14Uh, Council Member Proria and then

1:46:16Council Member Sony.

1:46:20>> Great. Thank you. And you know we just

1:46:22came out of a discussion where we are

1:46:25having conversations

1:46:27where a difference in phasing in between

1:46:300 years and four years um can be a

1:46:33multi-million dollar difference uh

1:46:35especially over the course of time. So

1:46:37if we consider like a $2 million

1:46:39difference over the course of 6 years

1:46:41that's over $300,000 a year uh which is

1:46:44the equivalent of a full-time employee

1:46:45for 6 years. Uh, and the reason why I

1:46:47bring that up is I'm just curious to get

1:46:51a scope of work for, let's say, a permit

1:46:55technician, um, one full-time employee

1:46:58in this department, what their

1:47:01throughput is in terms of permitting,

1:47:03um, on a yearly basis, right? Like if uh

1:47:07going back to the last discussion, if we

1:47:09were to go from four years to zero years

1:47:11and not have a phase in, but we say

1:47:13actually we are adding in a full-time

1:47:15employee who is only going to focus on

1:47:17permitting. How much more permitting can

1:47:19we get done?

1:47:22>> So you identified a permit technician.

1:47:24Roughly we're doing 10,000 slightly over

1:47:2710,000 permits are being generated.

1:47:29There are four permit technicians. So

1:47:30they're taking a quarter of that work

1:47:32per permit process. So roughly 2500

1:47:36permits per person.

1:47:39>> So we could say like a 20% speed up in

1:47:42permitting if we go from uh four to

1:47:44five.

1:47:45>> Well, I need to be clear that it it's

1:47:48also based on development coming in the

1:47:49door. So the average that we had last

1:47:51year was slightly over 10,000. It's

1:47:53roughly 2500 per person. So the theory

1:47:55being they could produce an additional

1:47:572500 permits if they were there. Yes.

1:48:00>> Thank you.

1:48:00>> Yes.

1:48:02>> Thank you. Uh, council member Sony.

1:48:05>> Thank you, chair. Um, for me the biggest

1:48:08question is on the change management.

1:48:11It's like I was reading in the matrix.

1:48:14It's like there has been lack of trust

1:48:17and some frictions between the different

1:48:19departments and now we are talking about

1:48:22bringing everything together as one

1:48:24department. I know that um there there

1:48:27there is a mention of the change

1:48:29management plan but I could not find any

1:48:32details about how we are going to

1:48:35monitor that and probably the different

1:48:37milestones or the SLAs for us to keep to

1:48:40ensure that whatever we are talking

1:48:42about we are talking about bringing the

1:48:43benefit but end of the day who is doing

1:48:46is our people our our staff so how are

1:48:50they going to adjust to that like I

1:48:52would like to see a detailed plan

1:48:55putting up some of these change

1:48:57managements, the trainings and some of

1:48:58these details together.

1:49:04I believe that you uh excuse me uh

1:49:07acting director Lynch, I believe you are

1:49:09doing an RFP right now um for a change

1:49:12management consultant to support this.

1:49:15Would you like to speak to that or did

1:49:16>> That is correct. We we have an RFP and

1:49:18we've going through final review process

1:49:20right now where they're outlining their

1:49:21entire format and the process that

1:49:23they're going to go through. So we have

1:49:24received uh presentations from each of

1:49:26the candidates and applicants to see the

1:49:28format in which they'll use. We're

1:49:29making final selections at this time.

1:49:31The key component what we're asking is

1:49:33that this is a timeline associated to

1:49:35this the Senate bill 5290 which is

1:49:38timeline. So what we're trying to do is

1:49:39by creating the new department is a

1:49:40shared understanding of the city's

1:49:42commitment for delivering permit

1:49:43services. That would be citywide. So

1:49:46when we say development services, we're

1:49:47not just talking just within development

1:49:49contractors. We're also talking about

1:49:51our own capital projects that go through

1:49:52the permitting process. So one, we're

1:49:54trying to ensure and predictability for

1:49:56the timeline and the service that we can

1:49:57give to the subcontractors that the city

1:49:59uses to help develop their own projects.

1:50:01So it's that shared vision of delivering

1:50:03it on a timeline that we can all meet

1:50:06that same expectation and transparency.

1:50:08The faster we can deliver a product, the

1:50:10more it saves the vendor, the homeowner,

1:50:13the contractor to get those permits out

1:50:16faster. So that's the shared vision

1:50:17vision. We do have a basis from the RFP

1:50:20which is a consultant. Um I can't share

1:50:23it at this time because it hasn't been

1:50:24publicly announced but I would be happy

1:50:25to share that with council as soon as

1:50:27that decision is selected.

1:50:30>> Does that help answer your question to

1:50:32some extent? Okay. Thank you. I saw a

1:50:34hand here and then here. So council

1:50:35member Kitzer and then the vice

1:50:36president.

1:50:39>> Thank you. Um and maybe this is a

1:50:42different way of approaching some of the

1:50:43questions from my colleagues especially

1:50:44around the the change in in structure.

1:50:47Um

1:50:49in so it seems like there are certain

1:50:54aspects that we're bringing together

1:50:55that will streamline in particular the

1:50:58development uh permitting process and

1:51:01and in some of the processing pieces but

1:51:04there are some some functions that we're

1:51:06separating. So for example like um in

1:51:09public works uh we see um which I

1:51:13appreciated having the structure of what

1:51:15will kind of be left in the existing

1:51:17departments you know we can see some of

1:51:19the um uh environmental planning and

1:51:23science pieces but then in the new

1:51:25department you would have some of

1:51:27natural resources and some of those

1:51:29other pieces that that go in there. So

1:51:31those are kind of split apart.

1:51:32Similarly, we see some of the um traffic

1:51:35engineering

1:51:37uh folks in one place and then we have

1:51:40um some of those uh in in the other

1:51:44department um transportation planning

1:51:46and engineering in the planning

1:51:48department. But there are some aspects

1:51:49to that that seem to be showing up in

1:51:51the new department. Can you just share a

1:51:53little bit more about how you envision

1:51:54that communication working if for those

1:51:58who were who are currently colllocated

1:52:00essentially to now be split and to

1:52:02mitigate in particular that that issue?

1:52:06>> Happy to um the easiest way to look at

1:52:08this is that anything that is related to

1:52:10like a plan review function or an

1:52:11inspection function is in the new

1:52:13department. anything that is like a um

1:52:18environmental study or any study that's

1:52:20led up to it is outside of the

1:52:22department. We have the engineering

1:52:24group which is creating the standards

1:52:25which is the policy. So what we're going

1:52:27to do is we're going to integrate

1:52:28managers from each of the work groups so

1:52:30that they're helping to train and create

1:52:32a philosophy of the creation of the

1:52:34engineering standard that comes from the

1:52:36city engineer. will then be trained all

1:52:38the way down through frontline staff all

1:52:40the way to the inspection staff to

1:52:41ensure that we're consistent in that

1:52:42application. So the intention is

1:52:45purposely to go to any group that

1:52:48effectively is involved in the review or

1:52:51inspection component would be in the new

1:52:53department.

1:52:54>> I guess the the question is kind of that

1:52:56seems like we're solving that problem,

1:52:58but we're creating a new problem that

1:53:00some transportation people are over here

1:53:01and some transportation people are over

1:53:03here. So for I guess going back to uh my

1:53:06colleague Council Member Parsecy's

1:53:08question, how do we make sure we're not

1:53:10uh creating a problem where for our own

1:53:12city transportation projects, we don't

1:53:14necessarily have everyone talking

1:53:16together or what's the method of

1:53:18communication to avoid creating a new

1:53:21silo?

1:53:23>> That is an excellent question and a and

1:53:25a concern um that folks have. So I'm

1:53:28going to give the example of uh your

1:53:31traffic operations or to going over to

1:53:34the new department. Um one of the

1:53:36connections that uh I can easily state

1:53:39that is we have a signals team and that

1:53:42signals team run by Michael Love who

1:53:44works for Tristan over there. Um, Hidemi

1:53:48Suru

1:53:49programs the signals as a as a signal

1:53:52engineer where Michael's team does the

1:53:54the work on there as as you heard

1:53:57service level agreements. Um

1:54:01we create a template of of a service

1:54:03level agreement and in these service

1:54:05level agreements talks about how one the

1:54:08responsibilities of where the where the

1:54:11new department lies where the public

1:54:13works functions are um where

1:54:17public works in this new department has

1:54:20an escalation matrix or you know duties

1:54:24that we have inside these as well as

1:54:26feedback loops. So if Admi receives

1:54:30information from let's say a technical

1:54:32update um that we have to program

1:54:35signals there that there are uh

1:54:38provisions built into these service

1:54:40level agreements where these these

1:54:43safety would take a priority over maybe

1:54:45development when it comes to the

1:54:48escalation matrix and the racy on that

1:54:51side and then how those two teams will

1:54:53work together after that. Um that is one

1:54:55of the easiest examples that I have. And

1:54:57you know another one uh that Jason

1:55:00alluded to is when you're talking about

1:55:02utility engineering um there's going to

1:55:05be aspects of that we operate and

1:55:08maintain in public works that will still

1:55:11need to uh the assistance in service

1:55:14level agreements where the development

1:55:17side engineers even though they're not

1:55:19in the development review. They're going

1:55:21to help us support, you know, water

1:55:23systems plans, systems modeling. We work

1:55:26together um to to build capital uh

1:55:30improvement projects together. And um

1:55:34the goal of these service level

1:55:36agreements

1:55:37uh is part of the goal of the the whole

1:55:41development services as well as public

1:55:43works is that you know current status

1:55:46when you looked at the matrix report

1:55:49there's always decisions that get

1:55:51escalated up to the top um due to past

1:55:55reorgs in in over 20 years. A lot of

1:55:59these uh issues came about because we

1:56:03didn't take the time to do a service

1:56:05level agreement or acknowledge that that

1:56:07needed to be done at this time. And that

1:56:10was one of the discussions where when we

1:56:12were in that room, you know, developing

1:56:14and looking at the matrix study and

1:56:16looking at a future state for Redmond is

1:56:18that, you know, we acknowledge that

1:56:22in order to prevent those things from

1:56:25escalating up to the top, you need

1:56:28service level agreement agreements and

1:56:31then that structure in there so that

1:56:33people at the at the lower levels can do

1:56:35their work. um which currently with

1:56:38without that we're left at this

1:56:41indecision at sometimes where we have a

1:56:43few departments on there. So

1:56:46long story short, it's it's a very

1:56:49in-depth uh service level agreement. Um,

1:56:53I can share what I created on our side

1:56:56as a template to get some of these

1:56:58discussions started and then as Jason

1:57:00stated when this change management

1:57:02professionals come in um that they can

1:57:06take that and we have we have a road

1:57:08ahead that nothing falls through the

1:57:11cracks um when when it comes to this

1:57:13reorg and that we're including folks um

1:57:17from from the levels that they get the

1:57:19input in there uh to provide provide in

1:57:22that service level agreement so we don't

1:57:24lose anything.

1:57:29>> Council Vice President, thank you,

1:57:31President. Um, I'd like to defer to

1:57:33Council Member uh uh Parsy. I looked

1:57:36like she had a follow-up based on that

1:57:38conversation and be glad to go after

1:57:39her.

1:57:40>> Okay, we're still going around for round

1:57:42one. Did you have a follow-up to

1:57:43something you immediately heard?

1:57:45>> No. Okay, I think it's yours, Council

1:57:47Vice President. Um, so I I understand

1:57:51the the desire to to streamline and make

1:57:54it having a single point of contact that

1:57:57is ultimately responsible for this. My

1:58:00concern um is actually tied into council

1:58:03member Parcy's first comment is that the

1:58:05concern about being too big too soon.

1:58:09And what what I mean by that is we're

1:58:11looking at an org chart that's six

1:58:12levels deep. We currently, to my

1:58:15knowledge, we don't have anything that's

1:58:16six levels deep. And even with looking

1:58:19at the future department structures for

1:58:22planning and public works, we're going

1:58:24into four and five deep. Um with the

1:58:28concern about creating unintentionally

1:58:31creating silos um

1:58:34is there a possibility I'm I'm seeing a

1:58:37possibility of of it getting slowed down

1:58:40because we now do have six levels deep.

1:58:46Has this been considered or discussed at

1:58:48all?

1:58:50>> So the service levels right now um when

1:58:52we look at development services as a

1:58:54whole the predominantly

1:58:56private development is about 90% of

1:58:59development services right now. The

1:59:00remaining 10% is us supporting capital

1:59:03on that side. What we have done is we

1:59:05have added those intricate roles that we

1:59:06have for service level agreements that

1:59:08we talked about and we've also added the

1:59:10subject matter experts in each of the

1:59:12areas that that help create the

1:59:14standards that we comply with on our

1:59:16plans. So what we're doing is we're

1:59:17putting those individuals in key

1:59:19component roles within the new

1:59:21organization that are going to help

1:59:22train citywide all the people. So they

1:59:25are in ensuring those same level of

1:59:27practice and standards that public works

1:59:28wants to attain and continue for

1:59:30protecting the city's infrastructure. So

1:59:32what we're doing is we're embedding

1:59:33those key people into the roles that are

1:59:36then training everyone in development

1:59:37services for that same thing. They

1:59:39create the standards, the engineered

1:59:41standards, then we implement them in

1:59:42development services. What we're doing

1:59:44is putting all of those players together

1:59:46so that there is a alignment related to

1:59:48the work that's being done. I don't see

1:59:50a potential silo being created. I see

1:59:53decisions being able to be made much

1:59:55faster than they had in the past. having

1:59:57those people in decision roles in the

1:59:59department.

2:00:00>> I'm looking at an added rung in the

2:00:02latter of chain of command.

2:00:04>> An added rung

2:00:05>> in a latter of chain of command. So, as

2:00:07as that decision is coming up, I'm

2:00:10seeing and my my perspective of it, and

2:00:12that's why I asked I'm curious to to

2:00:15help me better understand how we're not

2:00:18adding additional steps because by

2:00:21adding a six layer uh when when a

2:00:25decision is is being ran up a chain of

2:00:27command, that's one more person that it

2:00:29needs to go through. Well, right right

2:00:32now currently a decision to be made in

2:00:34the department right now goes through

2:00:36four directors. With the new department,

2:00:38it would go to one director. The

2:00:40director would then create the SOPs.

2:00:42>> I understand that, Mr. Lynch. I

2:00:43completely understand that. I'm talking

2:00:45about are we going to be creating uh

2:00:49additional steps to where it could be

2:00:52cleaner, it could be it could be more

2:00:55efficient like our and that's that's why

2:00:58I'm asking about the the necessity

2:01:01because uh with having six levels deep

2:01:04in an org chart, things start to to

2:01:07stall. they start to slow down because

2:01:09now you're you're waiting to be able to

2:01:11to move it further up or go back to

2:01:14theme to get more information.

2:01:18>> So the intent is to not have everything

2:01:20elevated throughout the organization.

2:01:22The intent is to have frontline staff

2:01:23being making the decisions. Right now

2:01:25the predominant decisions that are being

2:01:26made are from line staff. The only

2:01:28decisions that were not able to be made

2:01:30is when they were in conflict between

2:01:32the two departments and the and the

2:01:33directors in those two departments. So

2:01:35what we're saying is at this at this new

2:01:38proposal that we're doing that line

2:01:40staff would be informed and empowered to

2:01:42make those decisions because we would

2:01:43have already had those conversations. So

2:01:45there shouldn't be the need to elevate.

2:01:47What we're trying to do is create a

2:01:48common application for every permit type

2:01:51application that we've already vetted

2:01:52that in our SOPs ahead of time. So it

2:01:55wouldn't need to be escalated unless we

2:01:57had never addressed that situation in

2:01:59the city before which is very rare. So

2:02:02are we looking for a single point of

2:02:03contact to be making the decision?

2:02:06Because what I just heard was that front

2:02:08line are able to make the decision.

2:02:10front line is able to make the

2:02:11decisions. We want to empower frontline

2:02:13to make the decision. We are pushing the

2:02:14decision- making down in the

2:02:16organization because the faster we can

2:02:18make the decision and ensure that that

2:02:20decision is a credible valid code

2:02:22compliant decision which is being

2:02:24monitored by the manager, supervisors,

2:02:25the deputies and the acting director at

2:02:28this time is to ensure that those

2:02:29decisions are informed and there's SOPs

2:02:31to inform those decisions and that if

2:02:33there are any issues we identify those

2:02:35quickly to then push that recommendation

2:02:36down in the organization instead of

2:02:38having it to come all the way up to the

2:02:40top of the organization to make a

2:02:41decision. But one of the selling points

2:02:43on this was that it was going to be a

2:02:45single point decision maker. Right now

2:02:47we've got four directors that need to

2:02:49come together to make the decision. So

2:02:51it keeps getting pushed around. So we're

2:02:53we're bringing this together to make a

2:02:55single point decision maker.

2:02:57>> But what you just told me is that we're

2:02:59actually pushing that decision down to

2:03:01whereme can on the front line can make

2:03:02that decision.

2:03:03>> What I'm saying is the ultimate decision

2:03:04would reside with the director. What I'm

2:03:06saying is a director in that situation

2:03:08would want to p push those decisions

2:03:10down in the organization to frontline

2:03:11staff to be able to do that. They would

2:03:13need to ensure that they had the

2:03:14additional training and that they had

2:03:15the resources to make those decisions to

2:03:17ensure that they were the accurate

2:03:18decision. But ideally, we can process

2:03:20applications and permits faster if we're

2:03:22making the decision at the lowest level.

2:03:24So, if our permit staff and our plan

2:03:26review staff, which are subject matter

2:03:27experts in all the departments, are the

2:03:29subject matter experts, very rarely does

2:03:32something have to get elevated through

2:03:33the organization. when it does, that's

2:03:35when it was bogging down because it was

2:03:37multiple people that had to be

2:03:38consulted.

2:03:39>> For the record, I want to make sure that

2:03:41it's understood that I'm in support of

2:03:43the new department. I'm in support of

2:03:45streamlining. I just want to make sure

2:03:47that we're not being too hasty because

2:03:50we're just looking taking a look at this

2:03:52for the first time within the last 90

2:03:54days and this is a significant move and

2:03:57it seems a lot very fast. So I want to

2:03:59make sure that we we're doing this

2:04:01correctly, that we're doing this in the

2:04:03best possible way. So part of to help

2:04:05inform that is that after the matrix

2:04:07study was done, there was representation

2:04:10from um

2:04:13there was a creation from the exec's

2:04:15office, from HR, from finance, from the

2:04:19two people from the fire department,

2:04:21planning and public works all got

2:04:22together and sat in a room going over

2:04:24all of the documentations for the

2:04:26recommendation that you're looking at

2:04:27today to go through and brainstorm ideas

2:04:30of how we could do that. A consultant

2:04:31was brought in as well. So that was the

2:04:33step after matrix to put the

2:04:35recommendation before council now. So it

2:04:37has been heavily vetted throughout the

2:04:39organization from representation of all

2:04:40departments.

2:04:44>> Thank you. I see the additional hands.

2:04:46As I said, we're going to go all the way

2:04:48around the room and make sure everyone

2:04:49has a chance. So out of respect for your

2:04:51colleagues, um well, we will circle

2:04:53back. Thank you, Council Member

2:04:55Foresight.

2:04:56>> Thank you. And I appreciate the

2:04:57questions from my colleague. It answered

2:04:59a lot. um or at least the conversation

2:05:01helped inform a lot for me. Um and this

2:05:04question may end up throwing a wrench in

2:05:06the conversation. I hope not. Um but

2:05:08just thinking of that efficiency and

2:05:10looking at that efficiency conversation.

2:05:11I've had a lot of conversations recently

2:05:13with my colleagues over in Belleview.

2:05:15They have implemented some AI policy

2:05:18into their planning department that has

2:05:20streamlined their processes to the tune

2:05:22of saving uh about 80% of that timeline

2:05:25on permitting. Are we looking at that?

2:05:27If we implemented that, how would that

2:05:30structure fall into this structure andor

2:05:33how would that um be implemented in our

2:05:36current structure? Would that resolve

2:05:38some of these issues?

2:05:40>> So, I want to be very clear. Yes, we are

2:05:41looking at AI, but I want to be clear

2:05:43because when people hear AI, they think

2:05:44that they're being replaced. That is not

2:05:46the intention to replace any staff

2:05:48members. AI is a tool and we will

2:05:50actively and are currently actively

2:05:52having conversations with uh some

2:05:55vendors and with TIS about implementing

2:05:57a uh planer review intake checklist

2:06:00which is an AI component. Uh our

2:06:03observation has been that what it is

2:06:05taking staff potentially half hour to 45

2:06:08minutes to do completeness check AI can

2:06:10do in probably two to three minutes. So

2:06:12we are looking at utilizing some of

2:06:14those tools that will help staff process

2:06:16the actual intake but the actual review

2:06:19we want individuals with eyes on and not

2:06:22a AI component doing a plan review

2:06:25function because it impairs life safety

2:06:27requirements.

2:06:27>> Absolutely.

2:06:28>> But yes, AI would be used and be

2:06:30supported by the department but again

2:06:32not to replace anyone's individual work.

2:06:34>> Fully appreciate that and appreciate the

2:06:36um the the detail and level on that and

2:06:39and saying we're not replacing people.

2:06:41that is that is not the goal here at

2:06:42all. Um if we were to implement those

2:06:46tools

2:06:48in the current structure, would that

2:06:52resolve some of the bottlenecks that

2:06:54we're currently seeing?

2:06:56>> So the bottleneck is not on intake. The

2:06:58bottleneck is in on policy and

2:07:00interpretation of policy. So those are

2:07:02SOPs and the uh service level agreements

2:07:05that uh director Stinganger talked about

2:07:07that we are implementing that we will

2:07:08have ongoing conversations with the

2:07:10consultant that's coming in so that we

2:07:12are clearly messaging that across the

2:07:14organization and there is clarity about

2:07:16those standards and ensuring that we're

2:07:18aligning with the expectations of the

2:07:20city engineer and the creation of those

2:07:22standards.

2:07:22>> Okay. And then um in casea I'm I'm sure

2:07:26it was in the documentation somewhere

2:07:27and I missed it. Um, I know that matrix

2:07:29report had a lot of suggestions, but it

2:07:32didn't it wasn't quite as fully fleshed

2:07:34out as what we're seeing in front of us.

2:07:36Um, this is kind of far beyond in some

2:07:40areas, right on in other areas. So, um,

2:07:43can you just remind us what the timeline

2:07:45of this conversation and building this

2:07:47department looked like before it was

2:07:49brought to council?

2:07:50>> I'm sorry, the last part before it was

2:07:52brought

2:07:52>> before it was brought to council in the

2:07:53last couple of weeks. So matrix had an

2:07:56RFP that was limited in scope. It did

2:07:59not include looking at the capital

2:08:01group. It did not uh in in in view that

2:08:04in it. We looked through the

2:08:05recommendations of the matrix. There are

2:08:0876 recommendations starting on page four

2:08:10through I believe page 50. The majority

2:08:12of the recommendations were accepted by

2:08:14the city. There were some that did not

2:08:17fit the city's needs or comply with some

2:08:19of the service level requirements that

2:08:20we were trying to achieve.

2:08:22uh the committee that I spoke to that

2:08:24that I spoke to council that met

2:08:26afterwards had a consolidated

2:08:28conversation with a consultant that we

2:08:30brought in and looked at

2:08:30organizationally and the conversation

2:08:33was broadened to all services related to

2:08:35plan review and inspections within which

2:08:37then included the capital group. So that

2:08:40was a conversation that was a broader

2:08:42conversation that the original matrix

2:08:44study did not include that scope in

2:08:46their RFP.

2:08:47>> Okay. And that was how how how many

2:08:49month process?

2:08:50>> Um

2:08:51>> roughly

2:08:52>> the process with the matrix uh I'm

2:08:55roughly my understanding is it was about

2:08:58a six-month process and then the process

2:09:01with the second committee I believe went

2:09:04two and a half months. I I'd have to go

2:09:06back and check some dates.

2:09:07>> Thank you.

2:09:10>> Thank you so much. um really appreciate

2:09:12the questions from my colleagues um and

2:09:15the additional materials that we

2:09:17received prior to tonight's

2:09:19conversations. Just to lay the

2:09:21groundwork for for my question, um I do

2:09:25believe that uh the council funded the

2:09:27matrix study because we believe um that

2:09:30we should take care of this negative

2:09:33feedback that we've had as a city for a

2:09:35really long time. And also it's state

2:09:37law now to which we supported to also um

2:09:41speed up permitting and and make sure

2:09:43that we can do our part to build more

2:09:46housing faster especially. Um I do

2:09:49believe that the council was

2:09:50unfortunately kept in the dark and I I

2:09:52can't necessarily hold the people in

2:09:54this this room necessarily accountable

2:09:56for that. Um but we are late in this

2:09:59process now having this conversation

2:10:01because of that. So, it is just

2:10:03unfortunate and there's some lessons

2:10:04learned maybe as as council members um

2:10:07how we might better track and use our

2:10:09legislative coordinator to help us

2:10:10track, you know, the results of studies

2:10:12that are funded and making sure we're

2:10:13hearing timely reports on them or maybe

2:10:15there's some ideas on on how we uh can

2:10:18can help with that solution in the

2:10:20future. Um but where we are today, um I

2:10:24I share the concerns of my colleagues,

2:10:27um Director Lynch, that I I'm not yet

2:10:29fully convinced on the the capital piece

2:10:31in in particular, especially when it's

2:10:33only 10% of the overall development

2:10:35business. Um but but for the moment, I'm

2:10:37going to set that that uh dissonance

2:10:40aside, if you will. Um I think we do

2:10:43need to to do this because we do need to

2:10:46uh shorten the permitting timelines. And

2:10:48my true north this whole time has been

2:10:51um what can we do to lower costs and

2:10:53speed up permit timelines? And in the

2:10:55materials that you were able to share um

2:10:57it does look like uh the the estimates

2:11:00are speeding everything up 20 to 30% and

2:11:04costs um are are relative based on those

2:11:08land use and and permit types therein.

2:11:11So um this is really important that we

2:11:14actually do achieve this. So should the

2:11:18department move forward in some form and

2:11:20maybe there'll be alternatives discussed

2:11:22but should the department move forward

2:11:24end of the year we adopt the the budget

2:11:28authorize the new staffing could you

2:11:30help us understand what might be some of

2:11:32the questions that the new department

2:11:35will be like looking to answer in uh the

2:11:38end of year one the end of year two

2:11:41there's there is no synthesized report

2:11:43like this is how it's going to go but

2:11:45how do think it's going to go and what

2:11:47questions might come up in the first 12

2:11:48months, the second 12 months as as you

2:11:51get as the team gets going in this new

2:11:53formation.

2:11:56>> I'd say some of the key roles are going

2:11:58to be, you know, individuals want to

2:11:59understand how they fit in the

2:12:00department, how they are looked at for

2:12:03the review process, what is their actual

2:12:05role. Uh those are a lot of the

2:12:07conversations that we're having and

2:12:08we're identifying right now. Um

2:12:10obviously they want to know what does

2:12:11success look like and we're outlining

2:12:13what success looks like. a big part of

2:12:15what success looks like the required

2:12:17timelines that are required by the state

2:12:19but it's bigger than that it's can we

2:12:21provide a process for an applicant that

2:12:23can come in and say that it's

2:12:24transparent there's clarity around it is

2:12:27it a timely review process uh we've

2:12:30heard continuously from the development

2:12:31community that time is money if we can

2:12:34give them predictability about that and

2:12:36deliver the level of service and not

2:12:37compromise any life safety which there

2:12:39would be no intention to do that um the

2:12:42the other one would be is that we would

2:12:44then have insuranceances that we have

2:12:45alignment with our engineered standards

2:12:47citywide. So public works right now is

2:12:49the holder and the keeper of those

2:12:51standards. Development services

2:12:52implements those standards. So I'm sure

2:12:54you can imagine that between the

2:12:56creation and the implementation there

2:12:58can be a little bit differing opinion.

2:13:00So we will get clarity on that so that

2:13:01everyone understands that and it's very

2:13:03transparent. If we can be transparent

2:13:05with that policy then we can deliver a

2:13:07product to our end uh consumer or

2:13:09deliverable in a timely manner and it's

2:13:11predictable. The one thing that the

2:13:13developers have said from the get-go is

2:13:15we need the information upfront. We need

2:13:16to count on it. It needs to be

2:13:18dependable. It needs to be reliable. And

2:13:19that when we're told that if we deliver

2:13:21that, you'll issue the permit.

2:13:23>> I really appreciate that. And um Council

2:13:26Member Sony actually earlier tonight

2:13:28brought up uh an idea around having some

2:13:32regular reporting as we get going here.

2:13:34And I just want to echo my support for

2:13:36that. Um it would be helpful early on

2:13:40even when we don't have data yet to put

2:13:42in the performance dashboard or the like

2:13:45uh to be moni for the council to be able

2:13:47to monitor this um at least on a

2:13:50quarterly basis and a staff report or

2:13:52something like that because I do feel

2:13:54that um we actually

2:13:58we would will have a lot to celebrate if

2:14:00we do achieve this and um I want to be

2:14:03able to come along that journey and be

2:14:06helpful in the problems. solving as as

2:14:08things come along and um this body with

2:14:11purview over the budget and staffing

2:14:12authorization um want I believe wants to

2:14:15continue to be helpful. Um so with that

2:14:17I I will thank you for the response to

2:14:19my question. Um yeah uh Chief Shepard,

2:14:23>> absolutely and I appreciate the pressure

2:14:25testing of what it is we're doing. Uh

2:14:27certainly been a lot of work going back

2:14:29over the past seven to eight months. Uh

2:14:33we're probably really good at doing our

2:14:35jobs individually, but um probably not

2:14:38good at messaging what it is that we've

2:14:40done. And I just want to make more than

2:14:42certain uh that we also get out uh the

2:14:45message that we're trying to build a

2:14:47culture of success um in this new uh

2:14:50unit of work. And so uh we did have a

2:14:53consultant come in and these were things

2:14:55that we did socialize as how do we bring

2:14:58people who were previously siloed into

2:15:01one work group? How do we have overwatch

2:15:04that single uh uh person who may do

2:15:07deconliction but also push down to

2:15:08decision making uh to make us better,

2:15:11stronger and faster. Um that's

2:15:14[clears throat] how we're going to

2:15:15better serve our our business community.

2:15:17I think that if we build a culture of

2:15:19success, um we serve our uh internal

2:15:22people as well and uh we've addressed

2:15:25that. We continue to address it. I love

2:15:27all the questions that are being asked.

2:15:30We don't have all the answers for that

2:15:32because we're going to build this plane

2:15:34a little bit as we're flying, but we've

2:15:36got the the structure in place. And um

2:15:39and I just think it was important

2:15:40because uh we haven't talked about the

2:15:43culture of what we think that we're

2:15:44building, but we do think that we're

2:15:45building something that would better

2:15:47serve the employees as well, the

2:15:49external customer. So,

2:15:52>> thank you. All right, we will head into

2:15:54the second round of questions here. Um

2:15:57and

2:16:00>> Oh,

2:16:02did you have an immediate response to

2:16:03Chief Shepard?

2:16:04>> No, I just haven't asked my first round

2:16:05question yet.

2:16:06>> Um I believe you did. You asked about

2:16:08the scope of a permit technician.

2:16:10>> Oh yes, sorry, my mistake. I'm sorry.

2:16:14>> Thank you.

2:16:17>> Okay, we're going to open round two and

2:16:19um I'll just encourage folks um please

2:16:21continue to ask your questions and um

2:16:23also if there is a piece of information

2:16:25that you might need to help inform a

2:16:28decision, it's helpful in this round to

2:16:29start to get clarity on that. So we will

2:16:31start with council member Parsy and then

2:16:33uh Council Member Pria, please go ahead.

2:16:36>> Thank you. Um so I will um share some of

2:16:40the information that I would want to

2:16:42have in order to feel more uh

2:16:44comfortable making uh some of the

2:16:46decisions. One of them is I do not

2:16:49currently see safeguards that we have in

2:16:52place to avoid permitting issuing

2:16:54permits that can potentially cause

2:16:56long-term impact on the city or uh other

2:17:00residents. For example, if we issue

2:17:02permitting for multifamily and we issue

2:17:05that permit really quickly without

2:17:07consideration to potentially kind of um

2:17:10sewage lines or wastewater lines,

2:17:12utility lines that need to be expanded

2:17:15and discover those later on. Those are

2:17:18really really costly um discoveries to

2:17:20make later on. So I would um not feel

2:17:24comfortable moving forward with

2:17:25something that you know especially if we

2:17:27say that we're making we're pushing the

2:17:29decisions down to the individuals. I

2:17:31want to make sure that the these

2:17:33safeguards are fully in place before we

2:17:36do that. Uh so that's one of the areas

2:17:38that I want to make sure that we have

2:17:40proper safeguards in place to avoid

2:17:42issuing permits that we cannot support

2:17:44the cost of with discovering issues

2:17:47later on. Um the second part that I want

2:17:50to understand is you know we have disc

2:17:52we have discussed um different size

2:17:55departments different phasing

2:17:56opportunities um but we haven't really

2:17:59seen uh what would be the minimum number

2:18:02of folks required to be able to meet the

2:18:05um state uh criteria. Not to say that

2:18:08that's the number we're going to move

2:18:10forward with, but I think it would be

2:18:11really helpful to say, hey, here's the

2:18:14minimum smallest V team that we can put

2:18:17together, one of each department to

2:18:19create that small um agile organization

2:18:23to be able to move things forward. I

2:18:26would love to see what that minimum cost

2:18:28look like, including the suggestion that

2:18:30from uh council member foresight. What

2:18:33if we want to be really agile with

2:18:35reducing the cost? You know, we're

2:18:36asking for 60 something people and $2

2:18:40million star fund. If we wanted to be

2:18:42really really um swift with reducing

2:18:46these costs, what would be the maximum

2:18:48benefit we could reach with like 80%

2:18:51effort 20% effort, 80% win? What would

2:18:55that look like? That's something that I

2:18:56would want to see before making such a

2:18:58massive commitment.

2:19:00The second part and the the next part

2:19:03that I would want to see is um what are

2:19:06the biggest bottlenecks? You know, you

2:19:08shared the matrix report. Nowhere in the

2:19:11matrix report did I see that we need to

2:19:13have 60 a 60% organization to solve this

2:19:16problem. we saw different uh kind of

2:19:18opportunities outlined and you also

2:19:21mentioned that you know timely review of

2:19:23the process um and having a seamless

2:19:25process for an applicant to complete

2:19:27things would be helpful. Um but in

2:19:29nowhere did I kind of have I yet seen

2:19:32the justification for this size of an

2:19:35organization. So for example, I think

2:19:38council member Parkria also mentioned

2:19:40that you know how many permits does a

2:19:43person need to kind of pursue? What is

2:19:45the kind of volume of work? What is our

2:19:48anticipated volume of work in the next

2:19:50few years looking like? Um earlier in

2:19:53the meeting uh council me council member

2:19:55Critzer mentioned that you know maybe

2:19:57development is slowing down. um do we

2:20:00have projections along the 60%

2:20:03organization to potentially what if the

2:20:06uh kind of development declines? So I

2:20:08would want to see some um kind of

2:20:10long-term um vision and planning before

2:20:13I would feel comfortable making such a

2:20:16big uh decision. So those are some of

2:20:18the things that I would want to be able

2:20:20to see before doing this. And then um

2:20:22some I will put put out some of my

2:20:24concerns um on the um record. Um I am

2:20:28concerned with creating such a large

2:20:30diverse department that has so many

2:20:33different branches and expertise

2:20:35required. I see us um with many new um

2:20:41new leaders in the departments. We

2:20:43recently lost um two of our technical um

2:20:46leaders. Um so I do have concerns around

2:20:50you know for example um with capital

2:20:52which director would have the most

2:20:54expertise and supporting uh the which

2:20:58group depending on what percentage of

2:21:00their time would be spent on capital

2:21:02projects for example versus um

2:21:04permitting projects. if they're spending

2:21:0690% of their time on capital projects,

2:21:09what does that um look like in terms of

2:21:11departmental kind of um

2:21:15um department belonging to different

2:21:18departments? And then uh some of the

2:21:20other concerns that I have is that with

2:21:23previous planning department, we did

2:21:25have some problems with getting too big.

2:21:27Um if you have an organization that is

2:21:30too big, you inherently are creating

2:21:32some other problems. I do want to make

2:21:34sure that we highlight those problems,

2:21:36look at what are some of those problems

2:21:38we've observed in the past and if um

2:21:41those [snorts] are some of the risks

2:21:42that we're going to move forward taking

2:21:43on. I do want to see how we're going to

2:21:45mitigate them. Um if we have had

2:21:48problems in the past with having a

2:21:50really large organization that has gone

2:21:52out of hand, um I think it's really

2:21:55important for us if we choose to go that

2:21:57direction to have some processes in

2:21:59place to avoid the problems that we've

2:22:01seen in the past. Um, so those are some

2:22:04of the things that I would love to be

2:22:06able to see before we um feel com before

2:22:09I would feel comfortable making any

2:22:10decision. Thank you. Sorry for the long

2:22:13speech.

2:22:16>> Council member Parkria.

2:22:20>> Thank you. Uh, a couple of points. Uh,

2:22:22number one is I I second the comment on

2:22:24AI. Um, I actually just got back from a

2:22:27couple of months in DC where I wrote

2:22:29Senator Canwell's recently published um,

2:22:31AI framework. Um and this is why in our

2:22:33last conversation on um our org chart um

2:22:38I I brought up the fact that if we are

2:22:40creating you know an interdicciplinary

2:22:42group uh why don't we have someone from

2:22:45TIS in this group especially uh if we

2:22:48are exploring opportunities in AI uh but

2:22:51my my my second point is you know we're

2:22:53getting really really high level with

2:22:56this discussion right and I want to

2:22:58bring us back to first principles uh we

2:23:01all want more housing devel development

2:23:02in Redmond. Uh let's say that I'm a

2:23:04developer, right? And I'm trying to

2:23:06build out a duplex um in a single family

2:23:10residential neighborhood. Because of

2:23:12Redmond 2050, we've now allowed middle

2:23:14housing in these neighborhoods.

2:23:16How do I file for a permit right now

2:23:18with our current org structure? How many

2:23:20permits do I have to file for?

2:23:24Which people in which departments talk

2:23:25to each other right now? What is the

2:23:27workflow for this permit getting

2:23:28approved? And then same questions, what

2:23:32would that workflow look like with our

2:23:34new department for for this example of

2:23:36building a duplex in

2:23:39let's say Education Hill?

2:23:49>> Acting Director Lynch, is that something

2:23:50you'd like to respond to now? or um

2:23:53maybe the example of a middle housing

2:23:56permit. It potentially could be

2:23:58something we could see a written example

2:24:00of another time.

2:24:01>> Provide you that or I can kind of go

2:24:03through it real quick if you like. Uh

2:24:04middle housing is comes in for a land

2:24:06use application. It's reviewed by the

2:24:08land use planner. Then it goes to the

2:24:09civil construction group for looking at

2:24:11that and it goes through a building

2:24:12permit application. Then after that it

2:24:14goes to public works for uh some

2:24:17connections which public works has input

2:24:19on the water service connection and the

2:24:21utility connection coming through the

2:24:23rightway. Um that is where we are trying

2:24:26to align all of those groups with the

2:24:28new department. Right now they go to

2:24:31they could potentially go to the fire

2:24:32department, the building department,

2:24:33land use, uh public works. instead of

2:24:36going to a single consolidated

2:24:38individual, they could go to four or

2:24:39five different people, which then I'll

2:24:40create individual permits for that

2:24:42applicant. So there would be a water

2:24:44connection meter, a rightaway use

2:24:46permit, there would be a land use

2:24:48permit, there would be a building

2:24:49permit, there could be a fire permit

2:24:50related to that application. So with the

2:24:53services set up currently, there are

2:24:55there's a a larger variety of permits

2:24:57that are required. In the new structure,

2:25:00what we're looking at is going to a

2:25:01standardized permit, which would be a

2:25:02single permit. So an applicant would

2:25:04come in and get one permit and then all

2:25:05the other permits would be under a

2:25:07master permit. Uh we're looking at that

2:25:09right now of creating that that if you

2:25:12will kind of a simple process where you

2:25:14have a standardized permit but that

2:25:15would be under the creation of the new

2:25:17department.

2:25:20>> Thank you.

2:25:21>> Thank you council vice president. You

2:25:23that was a perfect segue. Thank you. Um

2:25:26my question is around things that would

2:25:29still need to get taken care of. Um

2:25:32roughly about a year ago,

2:25:35we were rather surprised to learn that

2:25:38not all of our fire ex inspections were

2:25:41getting done, that there was just too

2:25:43much of a workload. Looking at the

2:25:46positions are are going to be the same.

2:25:48How are we going to solve that issue?

2:25:51>> So, I wanted to be clear. You you said

2:25:52fire maintenance inspections.

2:25:54>> Fire inspections.

2:25:55>> Okay. Um currently, we're in contract

2:25:57negotiations right now, so I'm not sure

2:25:58what the outcome would look at like

2:26:00that. Um, Chief, I don't know if you

2:26:03want to speak to that, but um, right now

2:26:06that's under contract negotiations. So,

2:26:08I don't know the outcome of what that

2:26:10would be.

2:26:11>> Yeah. Can I I can certainly talk about

2:26:13the um the deficiency on inspections

2:26:16being completed. I think that it's

2:26:18important to note that in 2021 2022, we

2:26:21transitioned uh the fire prevention to

2:26:25NFPA 1730 standards. And with that new

2:26:28standard um there were there was a

2:26:30requirement for a certain number in of

2:26:32inspections to be completed. And so we

2:26:35were just in that trans uh

2:26:37transformational stage and so we wanted

2:26:40to be very transparent on what we could

2:26:43and could not do. So we brought that

2:26:44forward. Um it's not to say that

2:26:47inspections won't get done. We ranked

2:26:48them high, medium and low. Um and we

2:26:51made sure more than certain that we had

2:26:53everything that was a high, a certain

2:26:54percentage of medium and we did not get

2:26:57to the low. Um Director Lynch is

2:27:00absolutely correct. We are certainly in

2:27:02negotiations. I can tell you we're

2:27:04having robust and meaningful

2:27:05conversations right now and I think that

2:27:07we're making headway. Um but what took

2:27:10place in the past we don't anticipate in

2:27:12any form or fashion uh moving forward in

2:27:15whatever configuration or wherever we

2:27:17find ourselves uh as an entity. you

2:27:20won't have that deficiency in

2:27:21inspections.

2:27:24>> So then in the org chart then when it

2:27:27there is a a notation fire development

2:27:30services note actual structure based on

2:27:32outcome of negotiations. So that's not

2:27:34only um what the structure is going to

2:27:38look like but the number as well. So

2:27:40that number of five and a half staff for

2:27:42fire could change.

2:27:45>> I think everything is being negotiated

2:27:47right now. Thank you.

2:27:50Thank you, Council Member Critzer, and

2:27:52then Council Member Sony.

2:27:55>> Thank you. Um, I appreciate the work on

2:27:58this and I guess just to weigh in and

2:28:01then I'll ask I'll I'll share some of

2:28:03the like questions that I I still have

2:28:05on here. Uh overall, I do see the value

2:28:09in in this. And I do want to just take a

2:28:12moment to appreciate the work that staff

2:28:14has been doing all year and since we we

2:28:18got this matrix report to try to think

2:28:20how we work across and how we break down

2:28:22silos and and how we we work together

2:28:25better. Um and I I I do really love the

2:28:28spirit of this. So, I just want to kind

2:28:30of recognize that. Um and uh and where

2:28:34we're we're trying to go. And I I think

2:28:36where we have alignment in terms of

2:28:38hoping to see um improvement in the

2:28:41process, right? Do continuous process

2:28:43improvement, better service delivery,

2:28:45and hopefully better outcomes in terms

2:28:47of helping us to um build more housing

2:28:51um uh to be able to serve our residents.

2:28:53Um so, thank you to all of you. I really

2:28:56appreciate the the thoughtfulness um

2:28:58that you've brought to this. Um, one

2:29:02question that I have just as we think

2:29:04about and I I think getting to some of

2:29:06the questions my colleagues have around

2:29:07the actual choices in the size of this

2:29:11department. Um, one piece that sticks

2:29:13out for me is the decision to add eight

2:29:16new positions including some some of

2:29:19those positions being fairly um

2:29:21topheavy. Um, so that's uh a significant

2:29:25budget increase just in terms of staff

2:29:27positions. I know which I can see here

2:29:30where they're added that some of those

2:29:33are really key to make sure that there's

2:29:35a you know managerial function

2:29:37overseeing different teams that I could

2:29:39imagine helps to um to streamline those

2:29:42processes. But I am curious to know

2:29:44whether you considered um other

2:29:47alternatives where you might add fewer

2:29:49staff because typically it's a pretty

2:29:51big deal whenever we add an additional

2:29:53FTE to staff and even when we look at

2:29:55some of the other departments. I know we

2:29:57were having this discussion for example

2:30:00um with human services when we were

2:30:01talking about our uh human services and

2:30:03housing plan about the fact that we've

2:30:05we haven't really grown our human

2:30:06services uh staff very much in recent

2:30:09times despite the growing need. um and

2:30:12where we're not add necessarily

2:30:14proposing to add an FTE there. Um we're

2:30:17adding eight FTEEs over on this side,

2:30:18which I I get that. Um but I think it is

2:30:20a trade-off to think about that. And so

2:30:22I'm just curious

2:30:24um

2:30:26what was considered and and in

2:30:28particular how we consider about some of

2:30:30the the levels because of of the

2:30:33different salary implications. So maybe

2:30:35it's a question really for our finance

2:30:37director who I see nodding her head. I

2:30:39um I will give you my perspective. Um

2:30:43the development services um it's a it's

2:30:47a business and it's intended to be um

2:30:51it's built to be flexible and to eb and

2:30:54flow with um the work that's in the

2:30:57pipeline. um the level of you know

2:31:00development occurring in the city. And

2:31:03now we are governed by um legislation

2:31:08that requires our a specific turnaround

2:31:12times in order for us to comply with

2:31:14state law. And so the resources that

2:31:17have been identified are the resources

2:31:19that

2:31:21align with our current level of service

2:31:24and allow us to meet the requirements of

2:31:285290.

2:31:31Um and so that's where that came from.

2:31:35Um it's

2:31:37probably not forever. it es and flows

2:31:42with um the level of demand in the city.

2:31:47So um I don't know if Jason has you know

2:31:51more to share about how the specific

2:31:54positions were identified um but for for

2:32:00me the request makes sense because of

2:32:03what we're seeing in um in our

2:32:06financials. We have received a lot of

2:32:08money and we have a lot of work to do on

2:32:11the permits that have been, you know,

2:32:14submitted. We're at a point where we

2:32:16have generated really a record level of

2:32:20reserves because of the amount that's

2:32:23coming in. So, it's more about meeting

2:32:26the needs of the community um given the

2:32:29timelines that we're required to have.

2:32:33>> Are you going to follow up other I have

2:32:34a quick follow-up question? I was going

2:32:36to add it's it's really service level

2:32:38requirements for what the public is is

2:32:41expected. We're we're needing to put

2:32:42managers instead of having a ratio with

2:32:45supervisors. Manager ratio right now was

2:32:47extremely high with the number of

2:32:48employees that they were managing and

2:32:50supervising. And we had to actually

2:32:52ensure that we had subject matter

2:32:54experts in each of those lines of

2:32:55service that we're providing. Uh three

2:32:57of the individuals are admin staff. When

2:32:59the new department got created, we

2:33:01didn't have admin staff. So I we

2:33:02couldn't take all of the admin from the

2:33:04existing planning department because

2:33:06admin staff was still needed. We needed

2:33:08a director to serve in the new role and

2:33:10there was a single position that they

2:33:13wanted to create two deputy directors,

2:33:15one on each side. Um that was the

2:33:18majority of that. The other positions

2:33:20were putting ourselves in a position to

2:33:22be able to meet the service level

2:33:23expectations.

2:33:25>> And thank you so much. And one question

2:33:27on the finance here because you

2:33:29mentioned about the eb and flow that the

2:33:31costs of paying for these positions are

2:33:34covered by the costs um paid through

2:33:37development versus through the general

2:33:39fund. Is that is that correct? And

2:33:42>> mostly mostly

2:33:43>> and so then some of these things let's

2:33:46say development slows down you would end

2:33:48up um

2:33:51with with a change in staffing within

2:33:54the department. Are there certain

2:33:55positions within this that are like

2:33:57limited duration employees versus

2:33:59ongoing?

2:34:00>> No. Um

2:34:03limited duration positions have been um

2:34:06a challenge for that line of work. And I

2:34:08can let Jason explain more, but it well

2:34:10I'm going to just keep talking. Um it's

2:34:13difficult to hire. It's difficult for

2:34:15people to get people to stay when they

2:34:17know that their position has an end

2:34:18date. So, it's like we get someone in

2:34:20the door and we invest a lot to get them

2:34:22trained up and then, you know, they're

2:34:24they're gone because that position isn't

2:34:26going to last for a while. Um, and we

2:34:29recognize that this area of business has

2:34:33to have the ability to be flexible in

2:34:35its size. We have been really successful

2:34:39um

2:34:41at managing those um downturns through

2:34:45attrition. There's only one time since

2:34:48I've been here where we had to actively

2:34:51um pursue any kind of layoffs to reduce

2:34:54staff and that was during the great

2:34:56recession where we just did that that

2:34:59side of the house really took a a hit.

2:35:02Otherwise, um Jason's staff have done a

2:35:07really excellent job of developing

2:35:10reportings that reporting that gives us

2:35:13um better insight into what that

2:35:14pipeline is and better ability to

2:35:17forecast out when we may have an issue.

2:35:21We've also developed some reports to

2:35:23help us um monitor it more closely. Um

2:35:27but we have a little bit more um

2:35:30predictability and ability to make

2:35:32decisions um to adjust or downturn um

2:35:35when we need to.

2:35:38>> If can I I ask just one tiny follow-up

2:35:41question

2:35:41>> please. So and and so in terms of so if

2:35:46a lot of this is paid for by the the

2:35:48fees that we have but then we we are

2:35:50expecting it'll be offset by the savings

2:35:52from the efficiencies and we think that

2:35:55ultimately it will allow us to actually

2:35:57reduce fees. Uh we we think that this is

2:36:00going to balance in favor of improving

2:36:04the overall cost. Is that is that right?

2:36:07>> There's a couple of thing there's a

2:36:08couple of ways that it's impacted. We

2:36:10are we're clearly adding more staff and

2:36:12that doesn't equate to lower fees. Um

2:36:16some of the things that we're doing are

2:36:17putting um lower cost um positions where

2:36:21um where we can than than we've had

2:36:24before. Um the other thing that it's

2:36:26doing is because of the efficiencies, it

2:36:29will keep our fees from growing as

2:36:31rapidly as they had been. Um so it will

2:36:36be able to increase our capacity.

2:36:39um and um sort of

2:36:44efficiencies in not only creating a

2:36:47centralization of engineering and

2:36:50inspection um but also the other tools

2:36:53that we're looking at. There is

2:36:55improvements that need to be made to our

2:36:57permitting system and you heard a little

2:36:58bit about that this afternoon. There's

2:37:00also the AI that we're looking in. So,

2:37:04we will continue to eb and flow. the

2:37:06fees will continue to um

2:37:10I think um better align with um our

2:37:14surrounding jurisdictions

2:37:16um and what is sort of more manageable

2:37:18for development but it's

2:37:22it's more of a reset of our fees and a

2:37:25prevention of the rapid escalation that

2:37:28we had been seeing if that kind of makes

2:37:30sense.

2:37:31>> Thank you.

2:37:32>> Yeah.

2:37:36Council member Sony

2:37:40>> perhaps like you know what I'm talking

2:37:41about right now is not new that's what

2:37:44I've been hearing from all my colleagues

2:37:46so right now I know the the discussion

2:37:51uh topic on the table is the structure

2:37:54like you know is this the right

2:37:55structure and I believe there is a there

2:37:58is another piece of that that we want to

2:38:00understand is like you know how this

2:38:02will be implemented it whether in a kind

2:38:05of a one big bang approach phased

2:38:08approach or maybe a hybrid kind of an NN

2:38:10approach because without having some

2:38:13insight into some of those approaches

2:38:16it's it's very hard to just uh because

2:38:19this is a good structure that's been put

2:38:21together with all the expertise the the

2:38:23the knowledge the experiences that you

2:38:27know you all have and you are bringing

2:38:28it onto the table but it's just making

2:38:30it little difficult for us to understand

2:38:33because if we are just doing a big bang

2:38:35kind of an an approach say on January

2:38:381st 2027

2:38:40the the challenge with that is like you

2:38:42know what is going to be an impact and u

2:38:47what if it's just uh going to create a

2:38:50burden on our process like you know

2:38:53right there so is it possible for us to

2:38:56look into these kind of a three big

2:38:59scenarios and

2:39:02discuss us like you know if we do it

2:39:04this way this is what if we're doing

2:39:06this way this is like you know to get

2:39:08some kind of an insight I know that we

2:39:09are talking about the RFPs for the

2:39:12implementations and change management

2:39:14that's that's happening down the line

2:39:16but based on some of the experience that

2:39:18can help us to maybe understand this

2:39:21chart in a much better way uh I'm

2:39:25totally in favor for a new structure the

2:39:28department and everything that is like

2:39:30you know completely in agreement of that

2:39:31the only only thing that's I think that

2:39:33we all probably are struggling is how we

2:39:36are going to implement this like you

2:39:38know from from from a chart on the paper

2:39:41to actually in practice. So I I I think

2:39:44I I am very curious and interested to

2:39:48know some of those things and if that

2:39:50can be provided that will be very

2:39:52helpful for us.

2:39:59>> Thank you. Are there other uh questions

2:40:01for staff tonight?

2:40:05>> Council member Parcy,

2:40:08>> um I mentioned this earlier, but I do

2:40:11want to make sure to emphasize it. Um

2:40:14what are mechanisms that are in place

2:40:17today um to hold us back from issuing

2:40:21permits that we should not be issuing?

2:40:24And if we don't have those safeguards in

2:40:26place today, what is the timeline that

2:40:28we can expect those safeguards to be in

2:40:31place?

2:40:33If I may, actually, I'm glad that you

2:40:36came back to this conversation and um

2:40:39another colleague referenced something

2:40:41that also reminded me um oh it was the

2:40:44conversation of AI tools. I wanted to

2:40:46also just add to the conversation. Yes,

2:40:49we are talking about uh remodeling a

2:40:52department, speeding up permitting

2:40:53timelines, maybe evaluating some new

2:40:55tools to help us do that. Um, but what

2:40:58hasn't been spoken into the space

2:40:59tonight is actually all of the rigorous

2:41:02code maintenance and our now annual code

2:41:05maintenance plan um that we do have. And

2:41:08I I know that doesn't fully address uh

2:41:10my colleagues concern, but I will I I

2:41:13would I am confident that the code is

2:41:17doing a much better job of helping us

2:41:20avoid unintended con consequences today

2:41:24um than 5 years ago. Uh so much work has

2:41:27gone on um with all of our stakeholders

2:41:29and and with community and our wonderful

2:41:32staff uh to really make sure that our

2:41:34code is reflective of of our values and

2:41:37also uh serving the modern-day permit

2:41:41needs a lot better. So just wanted to

2:41:43offer that I I realize that it is not a

2:41:45complete answer uh to the council

2:41:46member's concern.

2:41:48So with that, council, um would we like

2:41:52to continue the conversation in a in an

2:41:56additional way with some of the

2:41:57additional followup that was requested

2:42:00tonight? Um possibly through a special

2:42:02meeting uh next week before the business

2:42:06meeting or would we like to continue

2:42:08this conversation

2:42:10through the budget process which which

2:42:13kicks off on the 22nd? And I will say um

2:42:18I I think there had been a hope that we

2:42:22would be able to not put that burden

2:42:24necessarily on our budget share and be

2:42:26able to to end with a clean process. So

2:42:29interested in in folks's thoughts. Would

2:42:32an additional conversation be helpful

2:42:34next week?

2:42:38Council member Critzer,

2:42:42>> I might have a vested interest because I

2:42:44am chairing the budget process, but I I

2:42:47do think especially given our timeline

2:42:50for our budget conversations and and

2:42:53that this impacts,

2:42:56you know, some different budget

2:42:57considerations, if we weren't to move

2:42:59with this structure, um that it would

2:43:02make sense to just follow up next week.

2:43:05I I would be I would be in to have an

2:43:08additional meeting next week so that we

2:43:09could set ourselves up for success um

2:43:12later in the week with starting budget

2:43:14if we can get to a conclusion during

2:43:16that meeting.

2:43:19>> Other thoughts on the proposal? Council

2:43:21vice president?

2:43:22>> I agree with um with the chair for uh

2:43:25for the fact meeting. Um, this way we

2:43:27also just keep it separate and clean for

2:43:30the public so that we've got just very

2:43:32clear conversations on on where things

2:43:34are so that it doesn't unintentionally

2:43:36get muddled.

2:43:37>> Much appreciated. So, um, and seeing

2:43:40lots of headnods. So, I think that's a

2:43:41direction which is something that we had

2:43:43prepared for. Um, some information has

2:43:46been requested tonight. Um, I would also

2:43:49really encourage those council members

2:43:51who uh have additional questions to to

2:43:54make sure that you are uh directly

2:43:56getting that those requests to um the

2:44:00directors. Also, um Director Lynch has

2:44:04offered a couple times now to schedule

2:44:05time with council members. I don't know

2:44:07who's had a chance to take that on or

2:44:09not, but if you haven't yet, um uh it is

2:44:12a helpful experience. Um and we will

2:44:15work toward a special meeting next week.

2:44:17Um that is a proposal that Mayor Bernie

2:44:19and I had discussed. She will be back

2:44:20next week um and can also participate in

2:44:23that conversation. So uh council

2:44:26leadership we will work um with the

2:44:28clerk to establish that for next

2:44:30Tuesday. Is there anything else that

2:44:33could be helpful from the staff

2:44:34perspective

2:44:36um as we head in this direction?

2:44:42>> I would say just getting clarity on all

2:44:43the questions ahead of time so that we

2:44:45can come prepared to to respond.

2:44:48>> Absolutely. Yeah. And if anything was

2:44:50unclear tonight, I know we had to kind

2:44:51of move fast. Please feel free to reach

2:44:52out to individual council members to

2:44:53make sure the the question was

2:44:56>> go back through the minutes and

2:44:58[laughter]

2:44:58>> you do the same thing I do. Watch the

2:45:00meeting. Okay, cool. Well, thank you so

2:45:02much. We really do appreciate the extra

2:45:03time. And with that, we will move on

2:45:04from this item tonight. Thank you all so

2:45:06much for being here and thank you to the

2:45:08council for the discussion.

2:45:11Um

2:45:12the fourth item on our agenda tonight,

2:45:15oh, this is a quicker one. Uh the fourth

2:45:16item on our agenda tonight is the 2027

2:45:20regional boards and committees. I will

2:45:22go ahead and introduce this item as I

2:45:24prepared the materials for council's

2:45:26consideration today. What you have um

2:45:29before you is um uh an update to the

2:45:34Redmond regional priorities document

2:45:37that we created and began working with

2:45:40earlier this year. Uh this is the

2:45:42document that uh helps us identify what

2:45:46regional boards, committees, and tables

2:45:49uh the city of Redmond finds valuable to

2:45:51be at. Um so we could use a moment to

2:45:54look at that. Most importantly though,

2:45:56um many of the opportunities to serve on

2:45:59regional boards and committees are

2:46:00brokered by the Sound Cities Association

2:46:03and um they currently have a call for

2:46:06nominations. So, the packet materials

2:46:09today include information about the call

2:46:11for nominations

2:46:13um and the current appointment booklet

2:46:15for the Sound Cities Association. As the

2:46:18memo states, um I have had the

2:46:21opportunity uh the last year or so to

2:46:24serve on the nominating committee for

2:46:26the Sound Cities Association. And of

2:46:28course, um that committee is balanced by

2:46:32the various geographies throughout the

2:46:34county. One of my observations that I

2:46:37would share with any city um related to

2:46:40to these appointments is we always

2:46:43strive for geographic balance in any

2:46:46appointment opportunity. So if it's the

2:46:48growth management board and there are

2:46:50three or four seats for the sound cities

2:46:52association coalition, we do strive to

2:46:55balance those among cities from the

2:46:58north and the south and the snowwalami

2:47:00valley and the like. Um but

2:47:02unfortunately there are many cases in

2:47:04which um we don't have representation

2:47:08and we don't have applications from the

2:47:11north caucus which is the caucus that we

2:47:12are a part of. So by including that

2:47:15today I just wanted to uh reinforce that

2:47:18um

2:47:19opportunities to apply are abundant and

2:47:22um in the case where we might like a

2:47:24little bit more representation from our

2:47:26caucus, we have to actually submit the

2:47:28applications. So, um I'll go ahead and

2:47:31uh open up the floor. Um we have all of

2:47:34the materials and again one of our key

2:47:37goals here tonight is just to begin the

2:47:39discussion about any applications that

2:47:41the city of Redmond might want to submit

2:47:43through the Sound Cities Association

2:47:45process. We can only submit one

2:47:48application per board or committee. If

2:47:50we were to submit two, they would uh

2:47:53cancel each other out. So, this is a

2:47:54team teamwork moment. Um so, I'll go

2:47:57ahead and open the floor. Are there any

2:47:59uh council members who'd like to express

2:48:01interest in potential applications?

2:48:05[snorts]

2:48:10Council member Critzer,

2:48:13>> I am not speaking to um uh share an

2:48:17interest in applying for a committee.

2:48:19Um, but I did want to speak just from

2:48:21having served on several of of the SEA

2:48:24committees um or as as a representative

2:48:27for SEA on several committees and and I

2:48:30think there are several that are are

2:48:31particularly impactful from my opinion

2:48:35that would be great if we had Redmond's

2:48:37representation on um in particular I

2:48:41know regional transit committee um is

2:48:44one that if if a council member is

2:48:46interested in engaging more on transit

2:48:48that it gives us direct access to the on

2:48:52a regular basis to the general manager

2:48:54of um of uh of King County Metro um to

2:48:59King County Council members that oversee

2:49:02that. And and I think in terms of

2:49:04influencing some of Metro's service

2:49:06decisions and some of the planning for

2:49:07that, that's one that is helpful. And

2:49:09I've heard feedback from staff in the

2:49:11past that it can be helpful for giving

2:49:12our staff access by having us have a

2:49:15seat on that that committee. So if

2:49:18anyone is interested, I would certainly

2:49:20recommend that one. I also just think um

2:49:23that GMPC, the growth growth management

2:49:26planning council and the growth

2:49:28management planning board are both

2:49:29really important ones um where we have

2:49:32uh the opportunity to to influence um uh

2:49:37regional policy. And one that we haven't

2:49:39had, I'll say representation on but has

2:49:42made some decisions that have impacted

2:49:44us in the past. And it looks like

2:49:45there's a lot of uh I don't know who is

2:49:48going if people will continue or whether

2:49:50they'll cycle off, but it seems like a

2:49:51lot of terms are up this time is the

2:49:53affordable housing committee. Um that's

2:49:55something that's been a priority for us.

2:49:58Um and I don't think Redmond has had

2:49:59someone on that particular committee for

2:50:02quite a few years. Um so um those are

2:50:06just a couple that I I just wanted to

2:50:08flag that I think could be um impactful

2:50:10if if others are interested in doing

2:50:12that. I'll also note if anyone's

2:50:14interested in doing the King

2:50:15Conservation District Advisory

2:50:16Committee. Um I served on that for many

2:50:19years including as chair of that of that

2:50:22committee and um so I'd be happy to

2:50:24share with anyone about my experience on

2:50:26that. I also served on the regional

2:50:27transit committee so happy to share

2:50:29about that.

2:50:31>> Wonderful. Thank you.

2:50:39>> Okay. Um, I will go ahead and uh share I

2:50:42appreciate all of those comments. Um,

2:50:45Mayor Bernie let me know uh for

2:50:47tonight's conversation. Um, she'll be

2:50:49rolling off a couple of appointments uh

2:50:51in 2027 and she is interested in

2:50:54pursuing the application for the Puet

2:50:57Sound Regional Council Transportation

2:50:59Policy Board. So, if there are no other

2:51:02interested council members, um I will uh

2:51:05go a go ahead and communicate with her.

2:51:07that that is uh great. We would love to

2:51:10have representation there. Additionally,

2:51:12um uh I already serve on a couple. So, I

2:51:16will be resubmitting my applications to

2:51:17continue serving on the King County

2:51:20Growth Management Planning Council. I

2:51:22currently uh for the second year in a

2:51:24row chair the SCA caucus, but I I will

2:51:27pass the torch and help um help an

2:51:30additional to Council Member Critzer's

2:51:31point. Um the affordable housing

2:51:32committee is a subcommittee of the King

2:51:35County Growth Management Planning

2:51:36Council. So if anyone wants to play

2:51:37around um in the space where the

2:51:40countywide planning policies are

2:51:42dictating some of the policies around

2:51:44housing housing affordability and land

2:51:46use um it would be great to have a

2:51:48partner in the affordable housing

2:51:49committee. And finally um under the

2:51:52general government category um I will be

2:51:55applying for the regional policy

2:51:57committee. You see in the chart that we

2:52:00previously identified this as a high

2:52:02priority for future vacancies um for our

2:52:05city. Uh the regional policy committee

2:52:07negotiates um the final packages before

2:52:10they end up on your ballot. So some of

2:52:12the things that that could include next

2:52:14year include um the renewal of the best

2:52:17starts for kids levy. It could include

2:52:20um a revenue package uh related to the

2:52:23breaking the cycle effort by the King

2:52:25County Executive um and others. So, um

2:52:28there is a seat open specifically for a

2:52:30North caucus member. Um and that is a

2:52:33high priority uh application that I will

2:52:35be submitting unless anyone else is

2:52:38interested. [laughter]

2:52:39Okay. Thank you. Any other comments

2:52:41before we close this item tonight?

2:52:46Council member Parsy, go ahead.

2:52:48Uh would it be possible for us to add

2:52:51this to an Excel sheet so if someone

2:52:54makes a decision later outside of this

2:52:56meeting we can kind of still continue to

2:52:58keep track of um applications and

2:53:01interests? I would say um yes generally

2:53:04but for the most part the way we've

2:53:06always done it is just by communicating

2:53:08over email. So, if something does strike

2:53:10you in the next couple of days that you

2:53:12might be interested in, um, which would

2:53:14be great news, then, um, that what we

2:53:16would normally do is just send an email

2:53:18to mayor council. Hey, I'm considering

2:53:20this. Would anyone else have a conflict

2:53:22with that? Um, and, um, maybe we can

2:53:24check in again also at committee reports

2:53:26at the business meeting just to make

2:53:27sure we're working toward it. Does that

2:53:29work generally? Okay, cool. Council

2:53:31member Kitzer,

2:53:33>> I will just note um that on on some of

2:53:36these these committees um all of in the

2:53:39packet that that came from SCA, I just

2:53:41wanted to call out that it does have the

2:53:43timing for each of when those different

2:53:45committees meet and some do meet only

2:53:48online uh and then others are an in

2:53:51person. So it really varies in terms of

2:53:53the the time commitment. Um, so I would

2:53:57just encourage everyone to look at that

2:53:59and see if there's one that could be a

2:54:01good fit. Even if I would also say even

2:54:03if it's not one of the highest impact

2:54:05committees, if it's interest to you, the

2:54:07more that I think Redmond is out there

2:54:08being represented um that that is also

2:54:12important. [laughter]

2:54:14>> Yes, absolutely. And um several of you

2:54:17uh have had emails and other

2:54:19conversations with me and so I know

2:54:21there are a couple of other committees

2:54:22being considered. So I super appreciate

2:54:23that. Um, next steps keep us all in the

2:54:26loop if you might be submitting an

2:54:27application. Also, um, just a word on a

2:54:30successful application. Um, a successful

2:54:32application always includes a statement

2:54:34of interest. It's often in the form of a

2:54:36letter to the nominating committee

2:54:38outlining uh, your interests and what

2:54:40you can offer the committee as well as

2:54:42how the whole coalition would benefit

2:54:44from having Redmond at the table uh, for

2:54:46that particular interest area. And um,

2:54:50deadline for that is coming up on

2:54:51November 6th. And then this uh document,

2:54:54we will revisit it again in Q1 no matter

2:54:56what because there'll be lots of

2:54:58opportunities um for the mayor to and um

2:55:02uh make some updates some to some of the

2:55:03mayoral appointments and the

2:55:05representation. So if that's good with

2:55:06the council, we'll just continue to

2:55:08revisit this could even be in committee

2:55:10in Q1. Sound okay?

2:55:14All right. So, uh the last item on our

2:55:16agenda tonight is council talk time. Is

2:55:20there are there any items for council

2:55:22talk time? Council member Parkria.

2:55:27>> Thank you. Uh I just wanted to give

2:55:29council a brief update on the uh

2:55:31activities of the tenant protection

2:55:33subcommittee. Uh so following our July

2:55:36presentation to council um and the

2:55:39guidance we got from the rest of council

2:55:40that they would be interested in seeing

2:55:43um possible FTE budget options um for

2:55:46housing related positions. Um in the

2:55:502027 to 2028 city budget um there is a

2:55:54position drafted that would be focused

2:55:56on overseeing uh landlord and tenant

2:55:58policy and planning. Um and the core

2:56:01roles and responsibilities include um

2:56:04studying, developing and recommending uh

2:56:06tenant stability policies and programs.

2:56:09Uh keeping appraised of changes in state

2:56:11and local um tenant laws and supporting

2:56:14implementation. Uh leading

2:56:16stakeholdering processes. Uh building

2:56:18relationships with landlords and

2:56:20property management uh property

2:56:22managers. uh providing technical

2:56:25assistance and strengthening

2:56:26communication of landlord uh of tenant

2:56:29rights in in the city. Uh this position

2:56:33would be housed within the planning and

2:56:34community development human services

2:56:36division. Um it is currently listed as

2:56:40housing navigator administrator in the

2:56:42mayor's proposed budget page 93. Um but

2:56:46we have a few you know possible

2:56:48classification options um that we can

2:56:51work through as we work through this

2:56:52budget uh this budget process including

2:56:55uh being a principal planner or a senior

2:56:57planner. Um and yeah, that's pretty much

2:57:01it. Feel free to jump in if you have any

2:57:03questions.

2:57:06>> Um yeah, I'll go ahead and see if

2:57:08there's other members of the committee

2:57:09who who also wanted to round out the

2:57:10comments before we take questions.

2:57:12Council member Kitzer.

2:57:15>> Yeah, I would just say in terms of

2:57:17process um so we talked we we are are

2:57:20working on um drafting something up that

2:57:24we could send to council um in a as as

2:57:27we think about that particular item in

2:57:29the budget process and whether there's

2:57:32any change to what is the salary level

2:57:34based on some of the scoping that we're

2:57:36looking at for that position. but we

2:57:37wanted to kind of preview it tonight to

2:57:39make sure we were generally headed in

2:57:41the right direction from what we had

2:57:42heard from council. Um, so I think that

2:57:45that was more the the goal and then

2:57:47we'll our goal was that by the time we

2:57:50begin the budget deliberations that that

2:57:52we can have something written for the

2:57:54the council to look at um uh that would

2:57:58go along with the um the actual position

2:58:02um uh that that we budget for.

2:58:05>> That is super helpful. Anything to add,

2:58:07Council Member Foresight? Okay, Council

2:58:08Member Parcy, did you have a question or

2:58:10a comment?

2:58:11>> Yeah, I wanted to say thank you to all

2:58:14the subcommittee members for their um

2:58:17research and the time that they spent to

2:58:20um put together this proposal. Um I

2:58:24personally have been feeling a little

2:58:26bit I have some mixed feelings about

2:58:29allocating NFT, but I really appreciate

2:58:31you sharing the kind of outcomes that

2:58:33you expect from this FTE. From what I

2:58:36heard from you, um, it seems like we're

2:58:40pursuing policy which has a clear end

2:58:42date in sight and with NFTT, this is a

2:58:46long-term commitment for ongoing um,

2:58:50opportunity. So, I'm curious if the

2:58:53subcommittee also evaluated potentially

2:58:56doing a contract um with a policy um to

2:59:00to help us develop policy and then

2:59:03potentially invest later in community

2:59:05funds for ELAP, ESA site legal um

2:59:08assistance program and other

2:59:10permutations rather than just having an

2:59:13FD. And if you did um kind of evaluate

2:59:16those permutations, if you could share a

2:59:18little bit more about kind of how you um

2:59:22landed on this recommendation.

2:59:26Council member Critzer, there's a little

2:59:29bit of you got it, you got it going on

2:59:30in the room. Council member Critzer, go

2:59:32ahead.

2:59:32>> Uh well, I'd say two things that that

2:59:34we've discussed. One is actually we also

2:59:37discussed um the issue around ELAP and

2:59:40in particular I think uh what we talked

2:59:42about potentially bringing as an

2:59:45enhancement um uh proposal as part of

2:59:48budget would be um to fund a pilot with

2:59:52ELAP because right now they only do um

2:59:56provide services based on um uh income

2:59:59qualifications. Um, but we might do a

3:00:02pilot in which you would be able to

3:00:04provide services um that that reach

3:00:07above certain income restrictions. Um,

3:00:09but it would have to be kind of a

3:00:10specialty funding that that would go to

3:00:12ELAP. So, um, we're investigating that

3:00:15uh, in particular, but expanding kind of

3:00:18what because we will likely see within

3:00:20the human services offer funding for

3:00:23ELAPS um, typical uh, um, for what they

3:00:27had requested there as well. we we

3:00:29haven't yet um seen that but we will be

3:00:32seeing that in the upcoming time. Um and

3:00:35so that's that's one piece that would

3:00:37complement this. In addition, what we

3:00:39talked about in terms of the um this

3:00:42role is that the ongoing kind of policy

3:00:46work and development around um tenant

3:00:49protections, landlord tenant policy,

3:00:51housing policy is so dynamic. Um, we

3:00:54heard from the planning staff that they

3:00:56felt like ongoing it would be helpful to

3:00:58have someone to keep kind of working

3:01:00through this as it's getting implemented

3:01:02and keep responding and figuring that

3:01:03out. It also might, for example, one of

3:01:06the things we talked about was that

3:01:07originally we had also thought about

3:01:09having this role right away be doing

3:01:12some more of the uh like more heavily

3:01:15beyond the enforcement piece of existing

3:01:18policies. Um but right now we still need

3:01:21to develop the policies of the

3:01:22enforcement mechanism. So um potentially

3:01:25part of this role would be um working on

3:01:28some of those policies and then also

3:01:30scoping out what a future staffing might

3:01:32look like for a kind of housing onbuds

3:01:34as we talked about originally that could

3:01:36then support more of that enforcement in

3:01:38the long run once we kind of have those

3:01:40mechanisms in place.

3:01:42>> Thank you council member forsight. Yeah,

3:01:44and just to add on to that, we did ask

3:01:46for uh a time frame for that hiring to

3:01:49make sure that that hiring actually

3:01:50occurs, which was in response to

3:01:52community feedback that we heard. Um so

3:01:55that that should be in that proposal as

3:01:57well. And we we did overwhelmingly hear

3:02:01that this position could be could have

3:02:04continuing work like this wouldn't just

3:02:05be a one-time situation that there's

3:02:07plenty to do in this space that u the

3:02:11staff felt that um it would warrant a

3:02:14full-time position to carry through. Um,

3:02:17additionally on the ELAP uh side of the

3:02:19conversation, when we were discussing

3:02:21that uh the the

3:02:25where where folks end up getting cut off

3:02:27in that conversation because of the

3:02:28income qualifications,

3:02:31um, that would be a new thing that ELOP

3:02:33would have to start up. So, the cost of

3:02:36that would probably be, this is my my

3:02:39best guesstimate, would probably be

3:02:41greater than a full-time FTE for our

3:02:43city. So, we also asked um when they

3:02:47reach back out to ELAP to see if that is

3:02:49even something they would consider, if

3:02:51we could reach out to our uh neighboring

3:02:53cities to see if that's something that

3:02:54they would also be interested in um

3:02:57partnering with us because we know this

3:02:58is a greater need and we know that our

3:03:01income levels here are higher than uh

3:03:05the the state um thresholds. So, we

3:03:08explored a lot of different paths in

3:03:10these conversations and uh we look

3:03:12forward to bringing you more

3:03:12information.

3:03:14Thank you. So, um other other uh

3:03:19excuse me, it's getting late. The

3:03:21subcommittee has asked if this if this

3:03:23direction they're heading in uh to

3:03:25prepare a proposal to bring back to the

3:03:28council that adds some um finesse and

3:03:31details to the position that is being

3:03:33held in the budget is in the preliminary

3:03:35budget um as it was a highly ranked item

3:03:38in the council's retreat this year and

3:03:40also a an item that has been um long in

3:03:43the making. Um is there council

3:03:46direction to for the subcommittee to

3:03:48continue to work on this item?

3:03:52Great. Seeing uh all the thumbs. So

3:03:54really, thank you so much and thank you

3:03:55to the subcommittee. I'm also having a a

3:03:58a meta moment about all of this because

3:04:00this is exactly how it's supposed to

3:04:01work for our subcommittees to be able to

3:04:03take the time to investigate, refine

3:04:05some details, and put us in a really

3:04:07great position to to have a great

3:04:09conversation when we get to our budget.

3:04:11So, uh well done everyone. Are there

3:04:13other items for council talk time?

3:04:14Council member Foresight. Well, just as

3:04:17you gave us praise for how things are

3:04:18supposed to work, I'm going to bring

3:04:20forward something as and that is not how

3:04:22things are supposed to work and I

3:04:24apologize for that. Um, it's really been

3:04:26weighing on me these initiatives that

3:04:29are on our ballot this uh, November 3rd.

3:04:32And given that we have time and time

3:04:35again declared our support for our 2SL

3:04:38LGBTQIA plus community, I am seeking

3:04:41feedback um to bring forward

3:04:45um a resolution in opposition to

3:04:48initiative 001 concerning parental

3:04:50rights relating to their children uh in

3:04:52to parents and children in public

3:04:55schools and initiative 638

3:04:58relating to the participation in

3:05:00athletics in K through2 schools.

3:05:02I'm happy to provide more information

3:05:05about both of those initiatives if folks

3:05:07need it. Um, but these these two

3:05:10initiatives do uh overwhelmingly harm

3:05:13our to us LGBTQIA plus community and

3:05:17especially youth and we've been focusing

3:05:19a lot on youth mental health lately. And

3:05:22I think um our council issuing a

3:05:26statement of opposition um would be very

3:05:29powerful in this moment. and I want to

3:05:32see if I could gather support to bring

3:05:35forward that resolution, I can have it

3:05:37to council leadership tomorrow morning

3:05:40to review um for inclusion in our packet

3:05:43because I know we would need to get this

3:05:45um turned in pretty much tomorrow. So,

3:05:48thank you for considering

3:05:52>> Council Member Pria.

3:05:55>> Um absolutely supportive. I I just

3:05:58wonder I I I don't know the answer to

3:06:00this question if a city is actually

3:06:02allowed to come out in opposition to

3:06:04like a political ballot initiative.

3:06:06>> Yes, as if we do it as a group

3:06:08statement, we are allowed to do so. We

3:06:10have done it in the past. Um we did it

3:06:12two years ago around um I think it was

3:06:15natural gas initiative. Um yes, short

3:06:20answer.

3:06:20>> Well um uh thank you. Yes, this is a

3:06:24tool that is available to city councils.

3:06:26And I do see your hand. Thank you. Um

3:06:28there this is a tool that is available

3:06:30for uh cities. Um the intent would not

3:06:35be to state a position and then um

3:06:39deliver on that position, but rather uh

3:06:42using the tool ultimately getting to a

3:06:45resolution to take a position either way

3:06:47uh requires uh noticing and holding a

3:06:50public hearing for the public to weigh

3:06:52in on the position um before the council

3:06:55could consider the resolution.

3:06:59>> Council member Kitser.

3:07:00>> Yes. And I I believe yeah we did do this

3:07:03on two initiatives um I think two years

3:07:07ago. Um and we did them each separately.

3:07:10Um but yeah one of the requirements is

3:07:13that we have the public hearing and that

3:07:14we give um equal time to uh to both pro

3:07:19and con and that is really the only

3:07:21space in which we can discuss a ballot

3:07:23measure um in a so and it would have to

3:07:26be in a business meeting. So it would

3:07:27have to be next week. I guess my only

3:07:29question is whether there's enough

3:07:31there's the time to to notice the the

3:07:35hearing uh and kind of do that

3:07:38logistical piece. If that's possible in

3:07:40spirit, I'd be supportive.

3:07:46>> Are there other comments uh before I

3:07:47share mine? Uh council member Sony,

3:07:51>> I just have a just have a comment and

3:07:53say I do support

3:07:58Thank you. Um

3:08:01I will weigh in to say uh this is a

3:08:04question I've been fielding from

3:08:06community a little bit in the last

3:08:07couple of weeks. It was actually a

3:08:10question that I um considered uh

3:08:13introducing into the hopper um prior to

3:08:17the August recess. Um this is the size

3:08:20and scope of something that normally um

3:08:22and I think that was what the council

3:08:24member was referring to um that we would

3:08:26normally um hope to use that that hopper

3:08:29process for in order to process emerging

3:08:31needs like this. Um, I don't know the

3:08:35answer off the top of my head of whether

3:08:37or not a public hearing can be noticed

3:08:40uh quickly enough. And I do understand

3:08:42that we have a council member um willing

3:08:45to draft an initial piece of

3:08:46legislation. That legislation would also

3:08:49need to be um vetted uh through legal

3:08:52and um I I'm just uh regardless of how I

3:08:57personally feel on the particular issue,

3:09:00there are real logistical barriers. So

3:09:02if the direction from the council um is

3:09:05to uh for council leadership to try um

3:09:10we can do that. There are um

3:09:13consequences to that and um

3:09:17again I I empathize with the community

3:09:21members who I've been in conversation

3:09:22with myself um who've who've asked if I

3:09:25thought we might take this on and

3:09:27because of um we sometimes we are the

3:09:31leader on something. Sometimes we

3:09:33influence another city uh for hopping

3:09:35in. In this particular case, um we in in

3:09:39my opinion, we if we wanted to do this,

3:09:41we should have done it earlier um in

3:09:43order to make a real impact too because

3:09:45ballots drop in 5 days. Um so voting

3:09:48will already be uh commencing um

3:09:51following that. So I will leave that um

3:09:54where it is. I do understand the

3:09:56interest and if the direction of from

3:09:59the council is to try then council in

3:10:01the way of Kamina and I will um connect

3:10:03tomorrow morning and see how we can be

3:10:05helpful.

3:10:09Council member Foresight um I just

3:10:11appreciate the support. I will have

3:10:13something to you in the morning if that

3:10:15is um the direction of the council. I

3:10:18apologize for not taking this up

3:10:20earlier. Uh I I do realize this is very

3:10:23last minute and we normally would have

3:10:25done this through the hopper process and

3:10:28given plenty of time for that public

3:10:30notice. Um but I do appreciate the

3:10:32entertaining of the um the critical

3:10:36matter at hand.

3:10:38>> Thank you. So the first thing that we'll

3:10:40investigate is on on noticing and if

3:10:43that can be done. Um the mayor and COO

3:10:46are both out of town. So, I will also

3:10:48connect um with the assistant COO about

3:10:51accessing legal support to to review the

3:10:54draft. Does that sound like a fair plan?

3:11:00>> Okay. And don't forget, we also have a

3:11:02uh budget hearing next Tuesday, so we'll

3:11:04look forward to that as well. Are there

3:11:05other items for council talk time?

3:11:08Council member Sony,

3:11:10>> I already introduced this item regarding

3:11:12the um you know the developers quarterly

3:11:16report that you request. It's like you

3:11:18know when we attended meeting uh hosted

3:11:21by one Redmond along with uh uh council

3:11:24member Critzer and Mayor Bernie there

3:11:26were definitely some uh like lot of data

3:11:30points and lot of conversation which is

3:11:32like you know it is hurting our

3:11:33developers and uh then I was also

3:11:36talking to you know to staff and I was

3:11:39trying to gauge like you know how

3:11:41whatever the information that has been

3:11:43provided or shared by the developers

3:11:45versus like you know what we are

3:11:47experiencing ing it in the city. Is

3:11:49there a way for us to put this all these

3:11:52details together for a quarterly report

3:11:54that we can assess and know like you

3:11:55know what's exactly is going on because

3:11:58otherwise it will be just merely during

3:11:59these conversations that we are doing

3:12:01it. So putting up like you know what is

3:12:03in the pipeline how many permits have

3:12:04been approved and uh you know what are

3:12:06the different or maybe creating some

3:12:09kind of uh feedback mechanism even from

3:12:12the developers to get and from the sta

3:12:15staff. So, you know, kind of a good

3:12:17quarterly report would be very helpful.

3:12:21>> Thank you, Council Member Sony. I super

3:12:22appreciate that. And in fact, the

3:12:24council vice president and I have been

3:12:26working um to kind of be thinking about

3:12:292027 staff report schedules. Um and so

3:12:33there are a couple that we've we've

3:12:35gotten on a really good pattern um for

3:12:37the most part, which are the financials

3:12:39are back on a quarterly basis. The CIP

3:12:41is back on a quarterly basis. some kind

3:12:43of development activity report on a

3:12:46quarterly basis is certainly um

3:12:49something that we've been batting around

3:12:50also. So, I super appreciate you

3:12:51bringing this forward. Is are are are

3:12:54there is there other feedback on that or

3:12:55other things that might be helpful if um

3:12:58we were to establish some kind of

3:12:59reporting like that that would be

3:13:01helpful for other council members?

3:13:04Certainly a tiein to the um housing uh

3:13:08dashboard perhaps.

3:13:12Okay, seeing some support for that

3:13:13around the table. Wonderful. Um, so,

3:13:15Council Member Sony, we will we will

3:13:17continue to add that to the list. Um,

3:13:19and talking about our early 2027 uh

3:13:22calendar as well. Awesome. Are there

3:13:25other items for council talk time?

3:13:28All right. Uh, with that, there are no

3:13:30other items for this meeting and we are

3:13:32adjourned. Thank you.