2026-10-20 - City Council Special Meeting

00:21I'm calling this meeting to order. This

00:22is a Redmond City Council special

00:24meeting held on Tuesday, October 20th,

00:262026 commencing at 6:15 p.m. Council

00:29members in attendance are Council

00:30President Stewart, Council Vice

00:31President Noeva Camiña, Council members

00:33Forsyth, Kritzler, Pearcy, and Prakriya.

00:37This meeting is being held for the

00:38creation of a new department to support

00:40improved development service functions,

00:43and I have the team here uh to take

00:45questions from Council. We don't have a

00:47presentation this evening, but we wanted

00:48to continue the conversation that you

00:50had last Tuesday. Um and prior to that

00:54as well. So, um I'd love to open it up

00:56to Council members uh to have your

01:00questions answered. I will remind

01:02everyone that we do have a hard stop um

01:03at 7:00 for our regular business

01:05meeting.

01:07So, anyone uh with a question and I will

01:09go around the table so everyone will

01:11have an opportunity to ask a question.

01:13I'm going to make sure everyone gets an

01:14opportunity before any second questions

01:16are asked.

01:31Council member Kritzler.

01:33>> I'll kick us off. Um thank you so much.

01:35I appreciated the the follow-up on the

01:37questions that we asked in the last uh

01:39meeting.

01:41A few questions that um kind of stood

01:43out to me um following up on some of

01:45those. Um in particular, I you know, I

01:47um the question that I had asked around

01:50how do we make sure we're not creating

01:52new silos

01:54um and the response about the SLAs that

01:57that'll be set up in that that

01:59structure. I guess um one follow-up

02:01question that I had on that um and then

02:04maybe I'll I'll pose a similar question

02:06related to it. Um

02:08>> [clears throat]

02:08>> is

02:10in moving to this structure I guess the

02:13question is

02:14if

02:15if we can create SLAs to address the um

02:20uh

02:20any silos that might get created, why

02:22don't we just use SLAs in our current

02:25structure um to be able to address those

02:28issues instead of moving everyone

02:29together in one place and then creating

02:32a whole new set of SLAs

02:34um going another way. Um

02:38and similarly, I think one of the other

02:40answers to a question around um

02:43uh you know, the

02:44the importance of of moving to this new

02:46department and creating this new thing

02:48was specifically to have one director

02:51who could make decisions.

02:53And I guess my question is is also um

02:56related to that, why couldn't we use our

02:58current structure and just give

03:00authority to someone, especially since

03:02we're currently hiring

03:04a new public works director and a new

03:05planning director.

03:07Could we hire for

03:09one or the other of those that has the

03:10skillset to be able to be the person to

03:12make those decisions? Um and and I

03:15really am asking this as a curiosity if

03:17you can explain why you think that that

03:20both of these things would be better

03:21with the new structure and with with a

03:24with an additional leader on top of

03:26that.

03:28>> Jeff, would you like to answer that

03:29since you've had some history?

03:32>> I I can start. I think uh

03:36a partial answer to both questions is

03:37that

03:39you want to have the the foundational

03:40structure in place to give

03:42staff the the best chance possible of

03:45success.

03:47And I think having a

03:49uh

03:50a unified team under one director um is

03:53part of that and and starting there,

03:58um you develop SLAs to address the

04:01cross-departmental coordination that

04:03that is still going to be required in

04:05any in any setup. Um I think one thing

04:07that that I know from experience is that

04:10we have

04:11done reorganizations in the past and not

04:15set up service level agreements and that

04:18has resulted in um

04:21a a considerable amount of

04:23friction in process.

04:25Um and

04:28And so so it is in in any scenario, I

04:31think important to to set those up for

04:34all the cross-departmental coordination,

04:36but fundamentally, I think you need to

04:37start with the

04:39the organizational structure that is

04:42uh

04:43going to give you the best shot at

04:45success for for the work that needs to

04:46be done.

04:50>> And I appreciate the question, council

04:51member Kreutzer.

04:53I think most importantly, we have to

04:54understand that overall, generally,

04:56we're looking at the economy of time

04:57here. And when we have everything under

04:59one umbrella, we do have that single

05:01decision-maker, and as things do get

05:04handled at lower levels, however, if

05:05there's something that needs to be

05:06deconflicted, they're all warehoused in

05:09the same location or

05:11officed in the uh same location, and we

05:13think that uh

05:15by having that, it's going to work a

05:17little bit more cooperatively, so we

05:19won't have those silos, and then again,

05:21capitalizing on that economy of time and

05:23making more than certain that we get to

05:24the decision-maker if necessary to

05:27deconflict whatever has to be done.

05:30>> Thank you. And if if the chairwoman, I

05:32I'd love to make a comment. Um and I I

05:35appreciate those answers.

05:37Um and I I did some thinking since our

05:39last conversation, and I just wanted to

05:40share my current perspective on this,

05:42which is you know, it seems like the

05:44team and we we have a really smart team

05:46of people here at the city have thought

05:48through a an ongoing problem and how it

05:51is that we do uh improve this. And I

05:54have heard from from folks about

05:57projects that just have never happened

05:59because they've gotten so stalled

06:00through our different processes and

06:02we're trying to do something different.

06:04And in doing something different, it may

06:06take doing something bigger. And so I

06:08just I just also want to express

06:09appreciation for

06:11thinking through what we could do

06:12differently and it I guess recognizing

06:15it may not all work out exact and I I

06:17like the idea of the change management

06:19and making sure that we kind of know

06:21what we're we're looking at as the

06:22risks.

06:23Um but I I guess I just want to say that

06:26I I appreciate moving towards trying

06:28something um to to get to the outcome

06:31that we're that we're looking for.

06:33Thank you.

06:34Um we'll go to Council member Parsey and

06:37then Council member Prakriya.

06:40>> Thank you. I wanted to follow up on the

06:42question that Council member Kritser

06:45asked. Um so we are in the effort of

06:49unifying one department around

06:51permitting. We are um creating some

06:55other silos from other departments and

06:58we're breaking up existing work. Um I

07:01share the same concern around um that's

07:05it looks it feels like solving one

07:07problem but potentially um creating and

07:10not addressing fully, maybe partially

07:13with SLAs, um many more um

07:18fragmentations that we're creating. So I

07:22am concerned with how um kind of

07:27your answer was that we are this is

07:29giving us the best chance of success and

07:31I understand that this is getting giving

07:33us the best chance of success for

07:34permitting specifically,

07:36but um if we step back and look at the

07:39process more holistically, chance of

07:41success for the whole city and all the

07:44other departments is also really

07:45important to take into account. So, um

07:48right now, I haven't

07:50quite seen the evidence yet. Um and I

07:54hear that there is SLAs in process and

07:56progress and they have been discussed.

07:58Um but I

08:01am concerned about the um gaps that

08:04potentially will be created as a result

08:06of this.

08:08Um and similarly, again, following up to

08:10go a little bit more in detail, um

08:12adjacent to the the comment that you

08:14shared, uh Council Member Kreitzer, um

08:18and previously raised by Council Member

08:20Nury Martinez, I do have some concerns

08:23around the layers of management and just

08:26how large this organization is going to

08:29be. And I am very curious if we can

08:32start much smaller with a scoped um

08:34problem um with a prioritized list of um

08:38problem areas that we're going to tackle

08:40first, um so that we can establish

08:43success, we can prove that we're we're

08:45going towards the right direction before

08:47we um

08:49we invest further in this problem. So, I

08:52think having those would give me a lot

08:54more confidence in absence of evaluating

08:56in front of the whole council other

08:58options. Um you know, we have only

09:00looked at one option so far, and I think

09:02in absence of evaluating other options,

09:05especially from other cities, what they

09:07have done, what other things we could

09:09do, um what are other low-cost options

09:11we had, I think um those are some of the

09:13concerns that I don't have fully

09:16addressed yet, and I would love to hear

09:17if you can share a little bit more um to

09:20that.

09:21>> Yeah, I'd like to address some of that.

09:23Um and thank you for the the uh

09:25the comments and the question. I think

09:27that um

09:29when we were working to put this uh

09:32this new

09:33uh division or department together,

09:35um we did talk about size and scope and

09:38how

09:39you know, how big this was going to be,

09:41but we didn't want to set ourselves up

09:42for failure.

09:44And we're always going to have an

09:45opportunity

09:47to scale back at some point, but we

09:50wanted to give ourselves the greatest

09:51opportunity for success.

09:53And bringing people over into this

09:55department because these things are

09:56already functioning and happening, we

09:58felt we would give ourselves the

09:59greatest level of success that way.

10:02You also talked about the

10:04potential to create silos and um,

10:08I concur that there is the potential

10:10there, but we have to be intentional

10:11about making sure that we don't do that.

10:14While at the same time making sure that

10:15we go towards where that that sound is

10:17that where people are hurting and right

10:20now we're addressing the issue of, you

10:23know, permitting

10:24and making sure that we address that

10:26right now and that's part of this whole

10:28development.

10:30While at the same time making more than

10:31certain that we don't create silos

10:35elsewhere.

10:36Um,

10:37you mentioned SLAs. We're going to have

10:40SLAs here, but um, we already have

10:43service agreements in the city and we'll

10:45we'll have more and we'll be

10:48attentive to making more than certain

10:50that we do it appropriately and making

10:52more than certain that we don't create

10:53more problems when trying to solve a

10:55problem.

10:56Um,

10:57we don't propose to have all the answers

10:59at this point, but we have a pretty good

11:01idea about what we're doing.

11:03Uh, but there's always room for

11:04refinement, right? We can trim in

11:06flight, so to speak.

11:11>> I was going to add when we looked at

11:13this problem originally, you always hear

11:15the term development and permitting.

11:18Now, it's a whole and when you look at

11:20that org chart, it's a whole lot more

11:21than just development. The development

11:24cycle includes the permitting, the

11:26inspections,

11:28the construction, the land use,

11:30the real estate side of the house.

11:33Uh, development itself, you have public

11:36and private.

11:38Um,

11:38currently right now, we're seven ways to

11:41Sunday, um, when we're looking at, uh,

11:44public and private, uh, when it when it

11:46comes to alignment. Uh, normally on the

11:48capital side, you look at that as the

11:50the the public side of the house with

11:52the with the CIP.

11:54Um, private side, um, it's normally the

11:57homes and some of the developers and

12:00they're

12:01they interconnect. However, you know,

12:03part of that, uh, process leg is the

12:06director, um,

12:08public works director, we'll put it at

12:10at this way, not only has to be a

12:14I wouldn't say a barrier, but part of

12:16that decision of approving development

12:19and waiting,

12:20um, they also have to balance the

12:22operation and maintenance and delivering

12:25those city services,

12:26um, as as a competitive priority, which

12:30slows down the process. Taking a look at

12:32this this new department in that

12:34one-stop shop and that one

12:36decision-maker,

12:37um, they can focus on that development

12:40cycle.

12:42We can have these SLAs where we interact

12:44and work at the the, uh, asset

12:47management that we're getting into,

12:49which I call the infrastructure life

12:50cycle. So, um,

12:53from that development,

12:55we can have that upfront coordination

12:58between all them subject matter experts

13:00that deal with the private and the

13:01public, where our city main hits those,

13:05uh,

13:05you know, the apartment building main,

13:07whether it's water, sewer, wastewater,

13:10um, that department will have all those

13:12decisions upfront

13:15and coordinate all that upfront in this

13:18new structure where it doesn't currently

13:20exist because

13:22our engineers, um,

13:24they provide, uh,

13:26on the utility side, they provide the

13:29overview of the public and then later on

13:32in the point of private development gets

13:34approved then we we go into modeling.

13:36So, some of that upfront coordination

13:39will save time and efficiency not only

13:41for developers but for for our public

13:44projects itself. So,

13:47there there is a more holistic thing

13:49than just, you know, hammering permits

13:51through based off House Bill 5290.

13:54There is a strategy and

13:57a case, you know, when we're looking

13:58through here

14:00because you know, we're not the only

14:02municipality in Washington state that

14:04has to deal with this.

14:06One of the

14:08similar examples that you can, you know,

14:10reference is the city of Marysville.

14:12They originally I believe had a public

14:14works department which is now a

14:16utilities and maintenance services

14:18division that solely focus on operations

14:21and maintenance.

14:22And they have an engineering services

14:24division that focuses on development,

14:26capital projects and I believe

14:28transportation engineering is in that

14:30group well that they seen that need for

14:32that focused of the development cycle.

14:36And then that focus on the service

14:38delivery and that maintenance and

14:39operations aspect of maintaining our,

14:42you know, our last check I think we're

14:44at in the $4 billion of infrastructure

14:47and then having those tie-ins in between

14:49to where we work together

14:52on, you know, our water systems plans or

14:54comprehensive plans we work we'll work

14:56together on the capital projects and

14:59feed that system there. So, it was more,

15:02you know, when you were in that room it

15:03was more than just looking at getting

15:06permits through on a

15:07on a different timeline and you know,

15:10the discussions came up service level

15:12agreements. You know, when I worked at

15:14the county

15:16for facility management division we had

15:18various service level agreements with

15:20the department signed by the county

15:22executive, and then the two department

15:24directors would go there. And those

15:27service level agreements have the

15:29established um

15:31working structures on what side we would

15:33provide to this department, where the

15:35escalation matrix would would be, the

15:38feedback loops, and the continuous

15:40continuous improvement, because they are

15:43living documents.

15:45Um the state provides new mandates that,

15:48you know, will affect this work. So, you

15:50have to have these systems in place in

15:52order for them to be effective, and we

15:54identified that that in previous

15:57reorgs, where things were pulled out, um

16:00that was a gap. I mean, it was a gap

16:02when I came in here

16:04uh

16:04a few years ago and, you know, said,

16:06"What what if we could we could get to

16:08this?" And this was a an opportunity to

16:12look beyond just

16:13um

16:15uh

16:165290 and what the matrix report uh

16:18outlined out there.

16:21>> Councilmember Prokopiak.

16:25>> Um thank you. I'm looking at the um

16:27the section on startup costs, and it

16:29says, "We estimate one-time startup

16:31costs of 2.5 million."

16:33Um uh this this includes the cost of

16:36onboarding new staff

16:37and creating new documentation and

16:39communications materials.

16:41Um

16:42I just that number seems very, very

16:44steep to me. Uh 2.5 million for that,

16:46particularly because, you know, that's

16:49um

16:50more by over 25% than the cost of

16:52actually

16:54funding all eight FTEs for an entire

16:56year.

16:57Um so, I'm just wondering like why does

17:00it cost more to onboard

17:02um

17:03our new staff than it does to pay them

17:05for an entire year?

17:09>> Dr. Cochran's coming up.

17:14>> Good evening. Uh that [clears throat]

17:162.5 million is what we estimate sort of

17:18the worst case scenario of what we may

17:21need to use um to get the department um

17:25up and running. It includes an estimate

17:28of what we what may be needed in order

17:30to um implement changes due to fire

17:33negotiations. So, it's a it's a pretty

17:36broad estimate. Um we It's It's quite

17:40possible that we may not need any of it

17:42depending on how well we continue to do

17:46with um development activity coming in

17:48the door. Um if we see revenues stay

17:52high, we may not need it. It's sort of

17:54this worst-case scenario um

17:56that we just need to make sure you're

17:58aware of.

17:59>> I would say some of the um when we um

18:02even move people around, there are costs

18:04in facilities of new desk space, new

18:07office space, uh moving all of that

18:09around. That is actually a

18:10surprisingly expensive um as well as any

18:13other upstart costs with that. Um but,

18:15this is really the high level that we

18:17would need and as Director Cockran

18:19mentioned, we're hoping to not have to

18:21use much of it.

18:27Um Anyone else that hasn't asked a

18:28question? Count Council Vice President?

18:30>> Thank you.

18:31Um I'm curious about

18:35We're talking about work charts. We're

18:36talking about budget. And I want to back

18:38us up just a little bit before we get

18:41there.

18:42I'm curious about the process of how we

18:45got here. We've had the matrix report

18:47for just about a year at this point.

18:50Um

18:52I'm interested to know who who on the

18:54team was championing who had some

18:57opposition. What did some of the

18:59conversation look like before we got to

19:01this point?

19:05>> Well, I can start by saying the reason

19:07um the that the matrix report was in the

19:09budget this biennium was because we knew

19:12this was an issue that we needed to deal

19:13with and so we started with that. So

19:15this has been an ongoing concern for

19:17many years.

19:18So that was part of the beginning of the

19:20conversation. Then I pulled a team

19:22together and I think Jason is not here

19:25today.

19:27But I think

19:28the team here can talk about

19:30the conversations that they had over

19:33quite a few months and

19:35the opportunities that they saw before

19:37them. I don't know if Kelly if you want

19:39to talk a little bit about choices that

19:41were made during those conversations.

19:43>> I will. Thank you. So I joined the team

19:46late. I think I was one of the last to

19:49one of the couple last to join the

19:50conversation and

19:52when I

19:55did as I tend to do I asked for a little

19:58bit of orientation to how we

20:01we had gotten to where we gotten to at

20:03that point.

20:06And asked to spend a little bit of time

20:09on

20:10root cause analysis sort of that five

20:15whys and why and why and why and

20:18in my first interactions with the team

20:22and and doing that um

20:25we could see where

20:28the initial proposal being tossed about

20:30at that time which was really much more

20:32focused on development services

20:36kind of as we know it but

20:39like improved.

20:41Addressed a lot of the things that

20:44Matrix called out and some it didn't but

20:47were kind of an extra

20:49bonus in there.

20:50But they didn't get to

20:53the solutions that

20:55weren't as broad as you're seeing now

20:58didn't get to some of that

21:00root cause of

21:03why.

21:04And

21:05I guess what I would say that is that

21:10the ultimate

21:12why was that we have many departments

21:16responsible

21:18for

21:20um

21:21making decisions about our city's built

21:24environment and our infrastructure.

21:27And

21:28it was similar to many years ago when

21:32the finance department was split from

21:34the TIOS department because we could

21:37recognize at that time that technology

21:39needed one owner. Someone to

21:43implement um develop strategies,

21:46implement a strategy, keep um all of the

21:49principles

21:51um and things in place as the program

21:54grew. And

21:56um so the solution that you see now is

21:59intended to um get to those root causes,

22:02which is

22:03the multiple different

22:06um

22:07decision makers that are currently

22:09involved in the

22:11gaps that that can create um for

22:15our projects, um our customers, um the

22:18community.

22:21The end.

22:22>> Thanks, Gwen.

22:27>> I don't know if anyone want Go ahead,

22:28Chris.

22:29>> I can add.

22:30Um

22:31you know, when I was putting that room

22:34uh we always talk about House Bill 5290.

22:37Uh

22:37we tend to um forget about uh the Growth

22:41Management Act

22:43and what uh

22:45goals Redmond has put upon them

22:48for development and bringing jobs into

22:50Redmond. Uh you know, I'm just I had to

22:53I had to look it up here, so

22:55correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers,

22:57but uh 20 24,000

23:00homes, roughly around there. That's a

23:03substantial increase, population

23:07increase,

23:08and a job increase. I'm looking at the

23:10numbers here. So, by 2044, 20,000. By

23:142050, 24,800

23:17additional housing units. Additional

23:19jobs, 24,000.

23:21Which is 2044, 29,760

23:25by 2050. A population increase of 35,666

23:31and about 400 44,700

23:35by 2050. It's right around the corner.

23:38Um and I I believe that's why some of

23:40these municipalities are taking a look

23:42at a different way of the traditional

23:44way because uh

23:46those

23:47are substantial increases in

23:49development, in population. And you

23:52know, as Redmond always says, we're

23:53going from a suburb to a city.

23:56Um and sometimes you have to think um

23:58with that city mind in in ways of um

24:02solving problems and then removing

24:04barriers to those problems and then

24:06having

24:08I don't call them silos, I call them

24:09centers of excellence that work together

24:12with documented, memorialized agreements

24:15like the service level agreements on

24:17there. Uh

24:18because that that is a a substantial

24:20increase in in uh businesses and homes

24:23and in population that we have to um

24:27take a look at now in 2026 cuz those

24:30those dates are right around the corner.

24:33>> Mayor, if I may.

24:34>> Yes.

24:35>> Um my apologies, I wasn't direct enough

24:37in my question. Okay.

24:39Um

24:41Matrix report was done

24:43in October of 2025.

24:45That's when we got the results back.

24:48The team was convened

24:50February-ish.

24:52Council didn't see anything for 4 months

24:54after that

24:56about any direction of this.

24:59This is a huge ask for a hundred plus

25:02position team.

25:04$52 million.

25:06I'm trying to have a better

25:07understanding of who is championing this

25:10so that then there's

25:11directions for when we're asking very

25:14direct questions. We know like, "Okay,

25:16Chris Stinger, acting deputy of of of

25:20public works is going to have this. This

25:21is going to go to finance. This is going

25:23to go to Chief Shepherd over in and in

25:25fire."

25:27Because it feels rushed

25:30from our from Let me not speak for the

25:32council as leadership. From my

25:34perspective, it feels very rushed that

25:37we we had this information and now we're

25:40we're sitting here around the table

25:43and we're identifying things in the last

25:46meeting I brought up when we increase

25:49rungs on a ladder of a chain of command.

25:52That is not streamlining a process.

25:53That's going to be adding another step

25:55to it. So, it was understanding trying

25:57to have an understanding of going from

26:00what we have, some of seeing some of the

26:02recommendations in the Matrix report,

26:04somebody had to have been the

26:05decision-maker as to what we're going to

26:07follow from the Matrix report, what

26:09we're not, who was that person, what was

26:11some of the dissenting conversations

26:13that was going on so that we can have a

26:15better understanding of the flavor of

26:17those and a better understanding of some

26:20of the problems that we saw inside of

26:22that as well as some of the ones that

26:24we're

26:25we're going to be solving for. Besides,

26:28of course, we want faster permitting.

26:30I don't know anybody who wouldn't want

26:31faster permitting.

26:33But can we are we doing it in the right

26:34way and just having a better

26:36understanding of the how of in the

26:38process?

26:40>> I can answer a little bit of that. So,

26:42we have been as mentioned before, part

26:45of doing the Matrix study was to get us

26:47going in a different direction because

26:49we knew what we were doing wasn't

26:50getting us the goals to our goals that

26:52we needed in Redmond 2050.

26:54Um initially after the study came out I

26:57put together

26:58a few individuals who worked for a bit

27:01and were not making progress

27:04for a lot of different reasons and so

27:07I changed directions so it was under me.

27:09I needed I needed the team to make some

27:13progress and they weren't doing it at

27:14that time

27:15and so we brought in a facilitator and

27:17brought in different team members and

27:19that's when we started to make progress

27:21on the direction we needed to go and

27:23initially we had

27:25someone from planning, someone from

27:26public works, someone from fire in those

27:28conversations and then as we started to

27:31dive in a little deeper we brought in HR

27:33and finance as well to make sure that we

27:35were covering all our bases. We also

27:36brought in TIS

27:38to take a look at some of those issues

27:39that were going on. So it was a

27:42progressive process that we ended up

27:44with and brought in a lot of different

27:47ideas into the mix but the the

27:51proposition to me to move forward had a

27:54few variables but from a wanting to get

27:57the outcomes that the city needs

27:59moving forward with the direction that

28:00we have put before you is the in my

28:02understanding from my experts in the

28:04city the right direction to go to get us

28:07the outcomes that we need. So yes it was

28:09an iterative process. I have been very

28:11clear

28:12since 2020 that I knew our permitting

28:14process needed updating and I don't

28:16think that's a surprise to anybody

28:18but it took some time to understand the

28:20full depth of our challenges I guess I

28:22would say and that's when bringing in

28:25capital into the conversation helped

28:28unleash some of the hang-ups that we've

28:30been having and we we did get a lot of

28:32feedback from development community and

28:34others who have gone through our

28:35processes sharing with us

28:37many of the

28:39problems and bottlenecks that they've

28:41had from single family home home owners

28:43all the way up to big development

28:44community. So all of that went into kind

28:47of the end result that we have. I think

28:49the product you have before you is

28:52the right direction for the city to go.

28:54It does take It will take effort and it

28:59also will streamline a lot of the

29:00processes that we've been having.

29:02And I think that one of the things I do

29:04want to clarify is one of the things

29:06that I've always been interested in

29:08um

29:09throughout my life is to ensure that the

29:11the decision makers are at the closest

29:14to the problem.

29:15I think by creating this organization in

29:18this way,

29:20we actually give the power back to our

29:22staff at that level that are working on

29:25all of these different issues and give

29:27them the power to make those decisions.

29:29The system we have currently they get

29:32second-guessed just because of the

29:33structure we have. So, I want to make

29:35sure that they're getting the best

29:37result that they can with the experts

29:39that we have and our community gets the

29:40best results for their permits.

29:44Thank you.

29:46Questions.

29:47I have previous question asks. I have

29:50two

29:52Council President, do you have any

29:53questions for now?

29:58Thank you.

29:59I don't have any questions

30:03remaining necessarily.

30:06And I appreciate Mary your comments

30:10to illustrate

30:13how some of the decision, particularly

30:16around capital, maybe occurred.

30:20Um

30:21I want to appreciate that

30:25as Mr. Churchill mentioned, there's a

30:27lot of institutional knowledge that has

30:29grown through a lot of institutional

30:31wisdom

30:32of trying something and learning a lot

30:35time and time again. And I really do

30:37appreciate that that's what's happened

30:39here.

30:40Um in my mind, I'm kind of reframing

30:44this conversation as whether or not the

30:47council will approve direction on a new

30:50org um, as a win in and of itself, but

30:53rather that the win is really are we

30:56reducing time and reducing costs.

30:59Um,

31:00I think my colleagues have articulated

31:02that unfortunately the analysis was not

31:05presented to council in a complete way

31:07and alternatives were not presented and

31:09we weren't brought along. So that is

31:11unfortunately

31:12uh having an impact where trust is a

31:15little difficult.

31:17But I do think it is the right thing to

31:18do.

31:19I think it's the right thing to do

31:21because um, the feedback we've been

31:23hearing for a really long time as the

31:25mayor just said is

31:28homeowners showing up in my office hours

31:30in tears because they are trying to get

31:32that remodel done and they ran into yet

31:34another barrier, yet another permit

31:36review is needed. Um, developers can't

31:39you know, not complete projects that

31:42would have brought great housing choice,

31:43not just more housing, but a different

31:45type of housing even to our city. And so

31:47I think we know the feedback is there. I

31:49think we know the economics of

31:51everything is changing and so in in my

31:53mind

31:55I'm I'm willing to um,

31:58move forward with the new direction and

32:02also work together as one team Redmond

32:07to make sure that we're keeping one

32:08another in the loop, that we're

32:10monitoring the change management, that

32:12council's kind of kept in the loop cuz

32:14that's going to be a long process, too.

32:16What's going on, what is coming next.

32:19Um, if something needs to slow down

32:21because culture matters, that's okay

32:23with me. I just want to know. Um, and I

32:26I think as a policymaker that that will

32:28be important. And as we begin to um, as

32:31as acting director

32:34uh, Lynch said, not just meet the state

32:36standards, but beat them, quite frankly,

32:39cuz this is not a race to the bottom. We

32:40do good work here in Redmond. We have a

32:42>> [laughter]

32:43>> a culture of excellence in our city, and

32:45I do believe that. So, um

32:48I have concerns about the overall size.

32:51We've had a large department before that

32:53has had a lot of

32:55uh

32:55critique around its size.

32:58Um but generally, this is the right

33:00direction, and

33:02um I hope that we are keeping one

33:03another informed as as we move forward,

33:06and if that's what the council chooses

33:08to do. Thank you.

33:10>> Um I'm going to go back to

33:12Council Member Kritzinger. Did you have

33:14your hand up? Are you

33:16>> I did. Yeah. Um and was just reflecting

33:18on Council President's comments. I think

33:20um

33:21>> [cough and clears throat]

33:21>> I guess I'd say in a similar vein, I

33:24think um what I've heard from my

33:26colleagues is the concern about the

33:28process to date, and and that we

33:30probably should have started these

33:32conversations earlier. I think at this

33:34point, we are where we are. And I will

33:36say in terms of where we um

33:40uh

33:40the council's direction, the council in

33:42the last budget did fund the matrix

33:45study in the hopes that we could

33:46actually find some solutions to be able

33:49to address this problem. We also did

33:51pass Redmond 2050 with the goal to uh to

33:55to create more housing and and uh more

33:58jobs and and to look at planning towards

34:01the future. And so, I appreciate what

34:03Mr. Stenger said about um kind of

34:06thinking about the city we're growing

34:08into and making sure that we have the

34:10right infrastructure in our city to be

34:12able to um support that. Um I And And

34:17correct me if I'm wrong from what I

34:18understood from you were saying, Mr.

34:20Stenger, is that this will also help us

34:21to deliver more efficiently our city

34:24capital projects if And this is And this

34:26is that correct?

34:28>> Correct. There would be upfront

34:29coordination cuz public always touches

34:32private. it's

34:33when you see a road I I think one of the

34:36biggest complaints that folks see is

34:38they see development they see that road

34:40construction and then 2 years later the

34:43city might be in replacing a utility

34:45line or or whatnot in there that this

34:49provides that coordination up front

34:52there is silo when you're talking

34:54between public and private

34:57unfortunately it happens you know public

35:00public moves ahead they have the capital

35:02projects there's no Nexus of of of

35:04coordination early to where maybe we can

35:07look at you know a

35:09I was trying to talk about last time our

35:11Redmond Town Center and we up zone we

35:14look for 10 to 14 stories we know that

35:17the the capacity isn't there so that we

35:20have the plans and the coordination in

35:22place in front to upgrade that

35:24infrastructure to support folks coming

35:27in for Redmond 2050 support that tech

35:30center you know the employees coming in

35:32and and and bring that in there up front

35:35vice

35:36chasing tail I always call it

35:38you know hey we got development coming

35:40in what do we need to do then we talked

35:42to director Cochran

35:44and then she she asked to take a look at

35:46what capacity we have to fund to keep

35:49our

35:50great um

35:52credit and bond ratings and all all that

35:53in there so

35:55the proactive coordination up front I

35:58believe you know with public and private

36:00development and having capital in there

36:02and having capital embedded into the uh

36:06place that provides the the land use

36:08review and the SEPA and the permitting

36:12up front that the director of this

36:15department

36:16can deal with that staff capacity to

36:19allow that here's for the public here's

36:21for the private right now we're kind of

36:23on a list and you know when we we we

36:26come up you know we'll we'll fit it in

36:28where we can, but it does compete um

36:31just just based off they're not it's not

36:33in the same department. There's no SLA.

36:37Um we move things forward. So, there is

36:38an opportunity to actually

36:42possibly cut some time in capital

36:44projects because they're they're things

36:46are going to be coordinated under that

36:47one director um

36:49on there.

36:50And then we'll always be the customer.

36:52So, right now um public works,

36:56the people that own infrastructure, we

36:57also provide a service, you know, to

36:59fire and parks and anybody else that has

37:02those capital projects. But, this

37:04department

37:06they don't process. They don't own

37:08infrastructure. And they won't have

37:09those competing priorities. That that

37:11they do get in the way on honestly. If

37:13you have an emergency,

37:15um or if you have a main break, the

37:18director has to take the focus off

37:22anything development review because a

37:23lot of things right now escalate up to

37:25that level because in code,

37:28it's a public works director decision.

37:31Under this new department, that

37:32administrative function or that look

37:34will be under the whatever

37:36insert the title of the new director.

37:38And then public works can work on that

37:40service delivery,

37:42focusing on that infrastructure,

37:44um building that asset asset management

37:47plan and putting that data in there at a

37:49at a better rate. We'll have more

37:51attention and focus on that. And you'll

37:54uh

37:54you'll you'll save time on capital

37:56projects with that in that department.

37:58So, that's my long spiel on on that.

38:01>> Go to Councilmember Prokopiak, then

38:03Councilmember Parsey, then Council Vice

38:04President.

38:06>> Uh thank you. Um my question centers

38:09around our current um

38:12data intake process for permits and then

38:14our future um data intake process. You

38:17know, I think that

38:18uh as council, our job is to function as

38:21kind of the board of directors for the

38:23city um and prioritize and deprioritize.

38:27You know, so I am in favor of this

38:29department because I think at a broad

38:31level it prioritizes

38:33permitting.

38:34But, you know, we also need the ability

38:36to

38:38revert

38:39or

38:41um you know, change if things aren't

38:43working the way we expect, right? So,

38:45this is why

38:47my question is, you know, right now um

38:50what level of data collection do we have

38:52about permit times, permit efficacy um

38:56for different types of permits

38:58um in the city and then what level of

39:00data collection will we have for a

39:01future department um

39:03you know, in

39:045 years? I want to

39:06be able to look and say, "Oh, the amount

39:08of time it took to permit a duplex uh

39:10went down by 14% with the new

39:12department." Or maybe it went up or

39:14maybe it went down uh some more, but I

39:15want to be able to answer that question

39:17um and I'm not sure if we can right now.

39:21>> Yeah, I I think the short answer is that

39:23we can. We have we can produce very

39:26granular reports out of the permitting

39:28software system. We can change the

39:31reports that are generated uh based on

39:34the data that is available and we can

39:35and we can build new reports. So, that

39:37that is definitely data that we have now

39:40and will have going forward.

39:44>> Councilmember Parsey, and I know we have

39:46like 5 minutes left of our special

39:48meeting.

39:49>> I will offer some of my

39:51again concerns. Um so, the the way that

39:54I see the problem is that if we have a

39:58car and we potentially have the flat

40:00tire.

40:01And today, I think we all realize around

40:04this table that we have a flat tire in

40:06that our permits are being processed too

40:08slowly.

40:09Um I think we can all agree on the

40:11premise of the problem and that we want

40:13to solve that.

40:14Um Um, the way that I see this um, kind

40:18of department being proposed and the

40:20size of the investment proposed, it

40:23feels like we're replacing the car.

40:25Um,

40:26and it seems like the proportionality of

40:29our investment to the size of the

40:30problem is not quite

40:33is not quite proportionate in my mind.

40:35So, I think in absence of evaluating

40:38other options to see how else we could

40:41address this problem, I feel concerned

40:44that this is um, going too fast uh, too

40:48soon and I understand and acknowledge

40:49that it Council has been put in an

40:51unfortunate position to have to make

40:53this decision really quickly. Um, and I

40:55feel like

40:58um, we can I would feel more comfortable

41:01um, with a smaller investment um, to

41:04make sure that we're to establish that

41:06we're proceeding in the right direction.

41:09Um,

41:10so I understand that there is also

41:11different opinions around the table, but

41:13um, that's just how I see um, I see

41:15where we are.

41:18>> Council Vice President.

41:19>> Thank you, Mayor. Um,

41:20it in of similar vein and also um,

41:24Council President Stewart had brought up

41:26about the concern of size of the

41:28department. When we take a look at the

41:30FTEs that are being added, um, it's a

41:33director direct

41:34deputy director um,

41:36manager admin.

41:38Um, all of them are administrative and

41:42they're not increasing capacity of

41:44review. And understanding that the

41:46problem is in permitting times.

41:49Me not being on that side of the table,

41:51um, if in two minutes you can

41:54walk me through walk us through, how

41:57does eight administrative positions

42:01not tactical and and being the decision

42:03makers closer to the problem, how does

42:06that decrease our permit time?

42:13>> Uh, I part of the answer is that

42:15currently staff are under supported. Um

42:18they don't have a supervisor that they

42:20can go to um to help with sticky issues.

42:25And so productivity can be increased

42:27when staff are

42:29adequately supported with supervisory

42:31staff.

42:32Um

42:33the administrative function of any

42:35department really makes the department

42:38um I think of the administrative staff

42:39we have planning as the miracle workers

42:41of the department that really make

42:42things go. Without those administrative

42:44staff

42:45permit processing would would really

42:47grind to a halt.

42:48>> Oh, you're preaching to the choir for

42:49this one because this council

42:51understands not having administrative

42:53staff.

42:54>> So I I think so while there are not uh

42:57permit reviewers necessarily added in

42:59the organizational chart, these are

43:01positions that are essential to

43:03supporting the staff that are doing the

43:05work so that the work can can get done

43:06efficiently.

43:10>> We have 2 minutes left. I don't know if

43:12there was any quick question or if we're

43:15ready to wrap up for tonight.

43:18Council President.

43:22>> I think Mayor Bernie it would be

43:25uh helpful to know if the council needs

43:28further conversation on this or would

43:30like to wrap up with a direction prior

43:33to or very early in our budget

43:35negotiations which begin on Thursday.

43:39>> There is time set aside in that first

43:41budget meeting to um answer any final

43:43questions or do any wrap up around this

43:46um

43:46if there is more time needed. That is

43:49already built into the schedule. Ideally

43:51we would love to be at a place where we

43:54have at least four council members were

43:57good to go with this as it is now

43:59understanding full well that we're still

44:01in process of developing this. We're

44:03waiting to get council go ahead. Um and

44:06that as this moves forward, we'll be

44:09giving very regular check-ins on on the

44:11progress that has been made, too.

44:13So, we can go A or B. I can see if

44:16council is ready to um, end this

44:18conversation for this time, or if they

44:20want to use the time on Thursday to talk

44:23about this anymore.

44:26Who is ready to move forward with this?

44:29I guess I will ask. I'll do the council

44:31budget process.

44:33And who would like to uh, I guess A is A

44:36is we're ready to move forward on this,

44:38um, move forward with the budget. B is

44:40that we want more time during the budget

44:42process on Thursday. Council member

44:44Krisser.

44:45>> I guess I just wanted to clarify that I

44:47think since we have a lot on the agenda

44:50for the council budget deliberations in

44:52terms of the scope of what we we would

44:55likely discuss at this Thursday's

44:57meeting would be talking about the

45:00budgeting for this plan if the council

45:03wants to move forward with this plan. I

45:05I think in terms of the amount that we

45:07have on the agenda for Thursday's budget

45:09meeting to continue with the

45:11uh, additional questions folks may have

45:13about kind of the the management of it

45:16or all those other kinds of pieces that

45:18might need to be dealt with at at a

45:19different time or maybe we we shouldn't

45:21talk to the budget until we've dealt

45:23with those questions. So, I guess I

45:25would also be interested in knowing

45:26where the other council members are at.

45:28I'm happy to facilitate that

45:29conversation and and I'd be okay moving

45:31forward with that, but um,

45:33curious to know if others are in that

45:35place so we can set ourselves up

45:37successful on Thursday.

45:38>> So, your your suggestion is to just talk

45:41about the budget implications of this on

45:42Thursday versus the details.

45:46>> If if the council is wanting to include

45:49it in the budget.

45:50>> Right.

45:52Is uh, can I get the council members who

45:55are interested in discussing the budget

45:57implications of this on Thursday versus

46:00uh, talking to staff more about this.

46:03Who's ready to just talk budget?

46:09So, it looks like we need some more time

46:10on Thursday, then.

46:13Or

46:15or not Thursday. Okay. Well, then we'll

46:17discuss when this fits in, but currently

46:19it is scheduled for Thursday.

46:22Right. Thank you. And with that, uh,

46:24this meeting is adjourned.