2026-10-20 - Committee of the Whole

02:22Abraham, are we live?

02:31Hello and welcome. It is 4:32 p.m. and

02:35this is the October 20th

02:37Public Safety and Human Services

02:39Committee of the Whole. Council members

02:41in attendance are myself, presiding

02:44officer Councilmember Procteria, Council

02:46President Stewart, Council Vice

02:48President Mayacumina, and Council

02:50members Kritzner, Pearcy, Forsyth, and

02:52Sony.

02:53We have three action items on the day.

02:56The first one is the noise code SEPA

02:58appeal presented by Jeff Churchill of

03:00the Planning Department.

03:02>> Good afternoon, Council members. Today I

03:04will provide some background on this

03:05item focusing on the process to date and

03:08the process going forward. I can answer

03:10process questions that can Council

03:12members may have, but because this is a

03:15pending quasi-judicial matter before the

03:17Council, I cannot discuss the substance

03:20of the record or the hearing examiner's

03:22recommendation.

03:23As background, on May 13th, 2026, the

03:26city issued a State Environmental Policy

03:28Act or SEPA threshold determination of

03:31non-significance for amendments to

03:33chapter 6.36 of the municipal code

03:36concerning noise standards. And the city

03:38reissued that termination on June 10th,

03:41and on June 24th, the Interlake Sporting

03:43Association appealed that determination.

03:46The Land Use Code, specifically

03:4821.70.190.F.2.B,

03:51calls for such appeals to be heard by

03:53the hearing examiner in an open record

03:55hearing and for the examiner to make a

03:57recommendation to the city council

03:58following the hearing and the city

04:00council is the decision maker.

04:02That open record hearing was held on

04:04September 1st and 2nd. You have the

04:06material submitted via the hearing

04:08examiner's webpage. And the hearing

04:11examiner issued a recommendation

04:13yesterday, October 19th, and that

04:16recommendation is also posted on that

04:18same webpage that is linked in your

04:20packet.

04:22So going forward, as I said, this kind

04:24of appeal, the city council makes the

04:26final decision and the city council

04:28rules of procedure describe what that

04:30process will look like. So I'm just

04:32going to quote from it a little bit.

04:35It says, "Whenever a quasi-judicial

04:37matter pending before the city council

04:38has been the subject of a public hearing

04:41before the hearing examiner or planning

04:42commission,

04:43the council shall allow each side,

04:45proponents and opponents, to speak for a

04:47maximum of 10 minutes each.

04:50No new evidence may be presented by

04:51either speaker and testimony shall be

04:53limited to argument based upon the

04:55hearing examiner's or planning

04:56commission's record.

04:58All quasi-judicial items shall be noted

05:00on the agenda as being quasi-judicial

05:02and a statement shall appear on the

05:04agenda indicating that each side may

05:06speak for a maximum of 10 minutes each."

05:10This item is scheduled for the city

05:12council special meeting on November 2nd.

05:15After any presentation or arguments from

05:18either the Interlake Sporting

05:20Association or the city, the city

05:22council has the responsibility to decide

05:24the appeal will be done

05:26by motion and without any without

05:28introduction of any ordinance or

05:30resolution.

05:31That concludes my overview of the

05:32process. I'm happy to answer process

05:34questions. My goal is to help you feel

05:36comfortable about the process since it's

05:38relatively unusual.

05:41>> Thank you, Jeff. So do we have any

05:42procedural questions from my colleagues?

05:47Perfect. I do not see any.

05:49>> Okay, thank you very much.

05:50>> Thank you. Our next action item is uh

05:53our Housing and Human Services Action

05:54Plan presented by Brooke Buckingham, Ian

05:57Lefcourt, and Alaric Bien of the

05:59Planning Department. And actually, we're

06:00joined by um

06:02uh Director Allen.

06:03>> Thank you, and I am joined by um Alaric

06:06and Ian and Brooke online. Um and

06:09>> [clears throat]

06:09>> so, we are coming back to you today

06:11after the discussion and questions we

06:12had on September 22nd from the study

06:15session. You recall at the study session

06:17um

06:18we uh went through kind of a different

06:20uh

06:21uh questions and comments. And so, on

06:23what we agreed to was that we would

06:25share the updated materials with with

06:28you all, which I sent an email on

06:29October 6th um sharing how we had

06:32updated um per the council's request uh

06:34different action items. And so, as a

06:37part of that, I wanted to summarize. We

06:39heard um your interest in addressing

06:41increasing access to nutritious foods,

06:44um healthy aging for seniors, mental

06:46health services for teens, focusing on

06:48child care and early learning, and

06:49domestic violence,

06:51and addressing fear and safety concerns

06:53of residents. So, we have incorporated

06:55those edits while making sure they were

06:57aligned with the council's role and

06:58scope, as we discussed, and then

07:00proposed redlines that are included in

07:02attachment B of your packet. Um and we

07:04have also provided a response and

07:06explanation for each of the issues

07:07raised, which are which was included in

07:10attachment C for the issue matrix. So,

07:13these materials, as I said, were sent

07:14out um in October with the requests if

07:17there were any kind of additional

07:18feedbacks or questions um that we could

07:21get those and have those addressed for

07:23today. I did not receive any additional

07:25requests or questions, and so we are

07:27asking for your approval to place this

07:29on the November 2nd consent agenda.

07:34>> Thank you. Any questions from my

07:36colleagues? Councilmember Soney.

07:41>> Thank you so much. I actually I have a

07:43comment. Um

07:44just you know, for the records the

07:46agenda um

07:48said that the item was presented on

07:49October 22nd study session which was

07:52September 22nd so that can be corrected.

07:55>> Uh yes. Sorry, where are you seeing

07:57that?

07:58>> It was in the agenda.

08:00So just a kind of a that correction.

08:02>> Okay.

08:03>> And um

08:04uh I just uh you know, have an just an

08:07additional question.

08:08And uh this was more for the

08:11manufactured homes, the mobile homes.

08:13It's like you know, what kind of the

08:15protective measures uh

08:18we are thinking for

08:20uh are those communities? They're just

08:23just wanted to like you know, it was a

08:24additional question that just came to

08:25mind.

08:28>> Do you have a the you're saying overall

08:30or was there a specific action item

08:32you're referring to?

08:33>> I just wanted to clarify was that

08:34covered in some way?

08:37>> Mhm.

08:39>> You know, specifically for the mobile I

08:40was actually when I was driving through

08:42that Avondale Road and I just saw and I

08:44this this was one of the questions that

08:45came to my mind.

08:49>> Let me team, do you have any thoughts on

08:51it was the mobile mobile home park

08:53specifically whether there's any action

08:55items that specifically addressing

08:56those?

08:58Uh

09:02>> Sophie, I can hop in.

09:03>> Yeah, go ahead Ian.

09:05>> So there are uh

09:06the specific callout of preserving that

09:09specific typology is not uh provided its

09:12own unique action in the plan. However,

09:15anti-displacement, replacement, and

09:17overall preservation of naturally

09:19occurring affordable housing are through

09:21lines of the actions. In addition, one

09:24of the reasons why we didn't lean more

09:26into it specifically in this plan is

09:28there are a variety of state components

09:30that offer some amount of protection to

09:33those uh

09:34types of housing. And then finally, one

09:37other way that um Redmond 2050 has

09:40provided some protections is through the

09:42zoning code itself. So, all those

09:44together we feel um provide a good

09:47framework for us to take uh any action

09:50necessary to create further preservation

09:52of those areas.

09:54>> Thanks, Ian, and I would add looking

09:56here that I think that could be

09:57incorporated under strategy A

09:59uh one, which is to expand investments

10:01and programs and partnerships that help

10:03people achieve and maintain their

10:05long-term housing stability. And so,

10:07like Ian said, that would be a subset,

10:09but I think the broad overarching is

10:10covered.

10:12Mhm.

10:15>> Council President Stewart.

10:16>> Thank you so much, um Director Allen and

10:18team. Really appreciate this. You got um

10:20our questions back to us really quickly

10:22over email. That makes this conversation

10:24super helpful.

10:25Um I'm particularly glad that action six

10:27was created in support of tenant

10:29stability, um and that marries really

10:31well with the additional proposals that

10:33we see in the draft preliminary budget,

10:36and we'll continue to discuss more.

10:38Um this is really in my mind in good

10:39shape, and so my attention is actually

10:41beginning to turn to how the council is

10:44staying informed as the work goes on. Um

10:46I did have a conversation over the

10:48weekend with Chair Procteria to to

10:50describe a little bit about how um the

10:52thrive program used to do quarterly

10:54updates, for instance, at this um

10:57committee, and um potentially as we get

10:592027 work plans going together, um there

11:02may be interest in having some of the

11:04the work

11:05uh having reporting time here in this

11:07committee. So, um looking forward to um

11:10the next step on this, and thank you

11:12everybody for your work.

11:13>> Absolutely. And if you don't mind, I'm

11:15excited to share that our community

11:16health manager is her's first day is

11:18tomorrow. Her name is Emma, and you'll

11:20get to meet her, and that will be one of

11:21her first duties is charting out

11:23quarterly updates again and working with

11:25fire and police for ensuring that gets

11:27back on the council agenda.

11:31>> That's awesome. Great. Any other

11:33questions from my colleagues?

11:36Great. Well, thank you so much, um,

11:38Director Allen and and to the team.

11:40>> Thank you.

11:41>> Our next action item is, uh, the SCORE

11:43jail cost adjustment, uh, presented by

11:46Police Chief Darrell Lowe.

11:49Oh, actually, whoops. Uh, I'm I'm sorry.

11:52I I forgot to ask, do we have any

11:54objection to that previous item moved to

11:56consent on November 2nd?

11:59Great. Thank you. Now, we move on to our

12:00next item.

12:06>> Good afternoon. Uh, what you had, uh,

12:08before you in your packet was our, uh,

12:10annual, uh, renewal of the, uh, jail

12:12contract, uh, with SCORE. Uh, we're

12:14looking, uh, to maintain the same number

12:17of beds that we've had, uh, in previous

12:19years. Um,

12:21uh, for a little bit of backstory, uh,

12:23the number of beds have both, uh,

12:24increased and decreased, uh, over, uh,

12:26the last, uh, several years, uh, with 22

12:29being, um, I'll say the appropriate

12:31number,

12:32uh, of beds, uh, moving forward.

12:35Uh, as it outlines in the, uh, memo,

12:36there are guaranteed beds and

12:38non-guaranteed beds. Uh, so, we're

12:39asking for, uh, authorization to

12:41guarantee the, uh, 22 beds, uh,

12:44uh, moving forward into, uh, the next

12:46year.

12:50>> I see a question from Council Member

12:51Forsyth.

12:52>> Thank you.

12:54Hello, Chief.

12:55>> Howdy.

12:57>> Um, a couple years ago, I think it was 2

12:59years ago, I had asked about us

13:00potentially partnering with Kirkland on

13:03this, and then last year you said they

13:04weren't quite ready. Uh, so, I'm

13:06surprised to see

13:08only SCORE as our option this time. So,

13:11what happened with Kirkland?

13:12>> Still not ready. So, the issue is that,

13:14uh, Kirkland does not have the ability

13:16to provide, um,

13:18uh, remote, uh, court access,

13:20uh, nor do they have appropriate space

13:22for, uh, attorney-client conversations.

13:24Uh, so, they are not a viable option,

13:27uh, still.

13:28>> Okay. And then in the documentation that

13:30was provided, there was reference to an

13:32attachment D in their letter of what

13:34they've changed at SCORE,

13:36which I still

13:38don't like that name. But, um, so I'm

13:41curious to see what they're referencing

13:44when they talk about the Keep Washington

13:45Working Act policies that they have in

13:48line in their facility. Um, before I'm

13:52comfortable voting on this, I would love

13:53to see what that attachment has in it

13:55because the Keep Washington Working Act

13:58has lots of implications for immigrant

13:59neighbors and I I definitely want to

14:01read what that attachment was.

14:03>> Okay.

14:08>> Any other questions or comments from my

14:11colleagues?

14:14Council Vice President.

14:15>> Thank you. Um, just for the record, it

14:17is in the in the packet and everything

14:19as well as where in the budget this is

14:20going to be coming from. But, just

14:22making sure that on the record I call

14:23out for the public that this is going to

14:24be increasing from,

14:26uh, a budget in this in our current

14:28biennium of 1.65 million.

14:31Um, their actual spend for that was

14:331.83. And this is going to now going to

14:35be increasing up to, um,

14:38an expected actual of 1. I'm sorry,

14:412.13.

14:42Um, which is going to be slightly under

14:44what we already have budgeted for it in

14:46the preliminary budgets at this point.

14:48But, it is going to be an increase.

14:54>> Thank you, uh, Councilmember Percy.

14:58>> Thank you so much for referencing that.

15:00I also saw that in the budget and I

15:01would love to know if, um, you can kind

15:03of explain a little bit how the budget

15:06increase maps to the scope increase.

15:12>> In what sense? Uh, the, uh, budget I

15:15I'll say the budget offer the budget ask

15:17is consistent with, uh, the, you you

15:20percentage increase, uh, from score. Um

15:23and then as far as

15:25the number of beds guaranteed is um

15:29what factors into that cost. I believe

15:30in the memo is the breakdown of both the

15:34guaranteed beds and non-guaranteed beds,

15:36both the medical services, transport,

15:38etc. So, those are all of the components

15:41that add up to to that number.

15:48>> Thank you. I saw Councilmember Sawant

15:50had a question as well.

15:53>> Thank you so much, Chief.

15:54Uh while I was reading, the thought that

15:56came to my mind, I wish just like vision

16:01zero, we have a crime zero vision also

16:03for our city.

16:05Uh my question is more specific like

16:07when the score is providing housing, but

16:10when

16:11uh when what what happens after the

16:13post-release and suppose if there is a

16:16re-entry into our city,

16:18are we having any mechanism to ensure

16:21that we are able to use some method to

16:25prevent some of

16:27these arrests not to happen so that it

16:30can help us to reduce some of this

16:31burden that you know, because every time

16:34this is happening, there is a cost

16:35involved. So, if we are able to measure

16:38that somehow or do some actions to

16:41prevent like you know, taking some

16:42preventive actions, that would be

16:43wonderful.

16:47>> Uh so, I think of the question there.

16:48So, yes, recidivism is a real thing.

16:53The re-rehabilitative

16:55aspect of the criminal justice system

16:56falls outside of

16:58the the the scope of

17:01you know, the police department. There

17:02are a number of community-based

17:04organizations and a number of services

17:06that

17:07you know, are available to

17:09incarcerated or formally incarcerated

17:12individuals.

17:13And as far as you know, how one would

17:17access those particular programs and or

17:19systems would be part of the

17:22rehabilitative part of

17:24corrections.

17:26So all that to be said is that yes,

17:28there are things out there. No, we are

17:30not directly involved in

17:32you know, matching people with those

17:34particular services that that scope

17:36falls like I said on the corrections and

17:38rehabilitation side of the criminal

17:40justice system.

17:47>> Go ahead, yeah.

17:48>> So but do you think it will help us in

17:50any way if we if we fund some of these

17:53services?

17:54Will there be any benefit coming?

17:57Do you see any benefits if we try to do

17:58this?

18:02>> I'm going to say no.

18:04Could there be benefit? Sure, but it's

18:07it's outside of the scope of law

18:10enforcement. So perhaps you know, from a

18:12human services perspective, like I said,

18:14there are a number of community-based

18:16organizations that that already exist.

18:18So perhaps if we encourage them to

18:21participate in cities grant process for

18:24community-based organizations, that

18:26might be a

18:27um

18:28you know, an option for you know, for

18:30that type of support.

18:35>> Council Vice President.

18:37>> Thank you. Chief, are we actively

18:39seeking alternatives to SCORE?

18:44>> In the sense of

18:46um

18:46>> [clears throat]

18:47>> I'll say yes and so we looked at

18:50Kirkland you know, as an option.

18:52SCORE is the only other

18:54you know, option for for this particular

18:56service.

18:57The King County Jail exists, but those

19:00are generally for felonies and more

19:02violent crime. SCORE is

19:04more of your

19:06you know, everyday crime and then

19:09post court housing for individuals that

19:12gets sentenced. So there are not a lot

19:14of options

19:15>> And I'm glad that you brought up King

19:17County cuz I I recall I can't remember

19:20what year but a few years ago

19:22King County was going to use score

19:25to to leverage their capacity to for

19:28some relief for the county jail

19:31but

19:32because of some conditions and I don't

19:35remember the details. I just remember

19:36that they abruptly changed direction.

19:41So that's why one one of the reasons why

19:42I was asking if if we're actively

19:44seeking an alternative to score.

19:47>> And again there are there aren't many

19:50alternatives there because we we when we

19:53look at it so it's not just

19:55that you know the housing costs and

19:58you can start looking at like

19:59transportation costs and different

20:00things

20:02um

20:03very briefly

20:05corrections within the state of

20:07Washington is in a crisis like many

20:09other things because of the liability

20:11that is associated with running a

20:12correctional facility with the you know

20:16lawsuits and payouts and different

20:17things that occur when events occur in

20:19jails. So even other jails that exist

20:23are not actively seeking

20:26I'll say other contracts for people to

20:29you know house their prisoners there

20:30because that liability passes on to them

20:33and then much like the Kirkland

20:35circumstance there are

20:37logistical and physical

20:39requirements of that facility in order

20:41to be able to do it and and not a lot of

20:43them have that ability.

20:45>> Thank you.

20:48>> Thank you. So I know Council member

20:50Forsyth said that there was some

20:52material she would like to see before

20:54she'd be comfortable voting

20:56on this item.

20:58How does the rest of Council feel? Are

20:59we okay with this moving to consent?

21:02Would we also want to see that

21:04information if

21:05I think more other folks want to see

21:07that information. Uh Chief Lowe, would

21:10you be willing to send that out in an

21:11email before um we put this on consent

21:14for November 2nd? Is that uh acceptable?

21:17>> Uh sure. I thought I heard that the

21:19attachment D was uh part of the packet,

21:21but we can resend it out so it comes to

21:23the uh top of everybody's um inbox.

21:27>> All right. Council member Forseth, if

21:29you want to reiterate what information

21:32you wanted to see.

21:34>> I I didn't see attachment D as

21:37referenced in the letter. So, if you

21:39could just send out what was referenced

21:40in the letter. The letter was attached,

21:42but the attachment referenced in the

21:43letter was not attached. Um and I will

21:46look again, and if I am wrong, I will

21:47email you.

21:50>> Okay.

21:53Great. All right. Um

21:54if we get that information, are folks

21:56good with that being on consent this

21:58being on consent for November 2nd?

22:00Awesome.

22:01Thanks. So, we move on to our next item,

22:03which is um

22:05feedback for a study session on the

22:07office of air and space management. Uh

22:09the study session will take place on uh

22:11November 10th, and we're joined again by

22:13Chief Lowe.

22:16>> [clears throat]

22:16>> Uh good afternoon. So,

22:19in the next few minutes, what I want to

22:20try and do is uh kind of uh level set

22:23and get everybody up to speed. I know

22:24there's been uh multiple conversations

22:26around this. It fits in a couple

22:29different um

22:30uh areas.

22:31So, with the uh concept or idea of uh uh

22:35airspace management, um in your packet,

22:38uh there's a suggested name change

22:39because uh to suggest uh that we have

22:43the ability to manage the air uh is

22:45incorrect. Uh that is a FAA mandate or

22:49space.

22:50Uh so, what we're saying is a a drone

22:52coordination office um

22:54and the thought behind it is um

22:57irrespective of the decisions from uh

22:59zoning, uh land use, the business aspect

23:02around commercial drone delivery. uh

23:05Commercial drone delivery is going to

23:06occur in Redmond.

23:09So, what this is is think of it as an

23:11ombuds type process because after those

23:15other things are done,

23:17there is no place in the city for the

23:19community to turn to if they have

23:21questions, complaints, issues, etc. So,

23:24that's the concept behind it is that we

23:26need to create a resource for the

23:29community to address, you know, some of

23:32these issues.

23:33As it was laid out in the

23:34[clears throat]

23:35attachment of the one-pager, it talks

23:37about specifically what it will do as

23:38far as the

23:40coordination

23:42for the community and even for the

23:44commercial drone delivery companies. We

23:48can assist with,

23:50you know, filing complaints with the FAA

23:52who actually manages the airspace and

23:54would deal with complaints and the like.

23:57I know you guys received a

24:00email complaint from a community member

24:03around a drone that was flying near that

24:05person's fence line. That is a prime

24:08example of what this function, this unit

24:11would do because as it stands right now,

24:13there

24:14there is no one. I can say, you know,

24:17unequivocally it was not the police

24:18department's drone because we don't

24:19operate below 200 ft. So, to be at a

24:22fence line, that was not ours. But,

24:26where in the city would that person turn

24:28to? Even if they go and file a

24:30complaint, you know, with the FAA which

24:33manages the airspace,

24:34there there is no connection point for

24:37the community. So, that's the the

24:39concept and the idea behind it.

24:43When we get down to the

24:45staffing aspect of it,

24:47we are not asking or I'm not asking for

24:49any staffing, anything in the budget

24:51because we don't know what the impact is

24:53going to be because Uh, commercial drone

24:55delivery does not exist yet. It is

24:57coming. So, in that first year, uh, the

25:01responsibility would rest with the

25:02police department. Obviously, we have an

25:04existing DFR program. Uh, we are the

25:06city's uh, subject matter experts uh, in

25:09this particular area.

25:10Uh, somewhere around year two or three,

25:12we will know what the impact is uh, and

25:15what the volume is. And at that point,

25:16there may be a conversation around uh,

25:19additional uh, support staffing or

25:21administrative staffing. Uh, so, that's

25:23kind of the the time frame and timeline

25:25uh, around it. Uh, the other aspect of

25:28it uh, is talking about the technology

25:30uh, piece of it. Uh, so, low altitude

25:33radar is something that the city is

25:34going to need uh, irrespective of this

25:37uh, particular drone coordination unit

25:40um,

25:41because we have no idea what occurs uh,

25:44in our airspace right now. There is

25:45technology that would allow us to better

25:47understand what drones are out there uh,

25:50etc. moving forward. Um,

25:52there is uh, some conversation uh, um,

25:55I'll call it uh, confusion uh, on the

25:57B-TAP presentation uh, around that

26:00portion because there was a line item

26:03uh, on there. So, the the the history on

26:05that was that was included in the B-TAP

26:08uh,

26:09prior or or previous to this budget

26:11cycle uh,

26:12because the again, this is something

26:14that the city is going to have to

26:16address

26:17uh, like I said, irrespective of these

26:18other uh, pieces.

26:20The last portion of that is um, as the

26:24the council was made aware, uh, there

26:25was a uh, uh, congressionally directed

26:27spending uh, opportunity that uh, we um,

26:31uh, pursued uh, and uh, are told or

26:34waiting that uh, we may get a uh,

26:36congressional directed allocation that

26:39will fund the hardware portion uh, of

26:42this low altitude radar. So, at that

26:44point, it we would come back to council

26:46looking for uh, the ongoing costs around

26:49the uh, the software portion of it. So,

26:52that kind of kind of brings it all back

26:55around to where this conversation is,

26:58what the study session will be, and then

27:00ultimately once some of these other

27:02decisions are made, there will be I'll

27:05say both that consistency and continuity

27:07with

27:08I'll say the information from our side

27:10of the table as far as the other

27:11departments cuz you know, clearly we

27:12have different departments that have a

27:14hand in this right now.

27:16We are on the same page. We do

27:18understand what's occurring. What is

27:20occurring in different lanes and at at

27:23different timelines.

27:28>> Thank you, Chief. Um anything we would

27:31like to see at the study session?

27:32Council member Forsyth.

27:34>> Thank you. And thanks for the one-pager.

27:36It was really interesting to read and

27:38while I was reading it, it made me

27:40think about the PulsePoint app. And

27:43anytime I hear sirens in my community, I

27:45open that up to see if

27:47see what's going on. See if there's a

27:48fire or medical emergency.

27:51Um

27:51while reading this, I figured that would

27:54also be a really incredible use of a

27:56technology like that so that community

27:58members don't have to call somebody and

27:59say why is this drone in my

28:00neighborhood. They could look up and see

28:03maybe it's a delivery drone, maybe it is

28:04a police drone. So, I'm interested in

28:07knowing if there's some sort of

28:08connection that we could make with the

28:11PulsePoint app or something like it so

28:13that our community members have a a

28:15place where they can go and look and

28:17have that right at their fingertips.

28:20Thanks.

28:23>> Thank you.

28:26Council member Kritzer.

28:28>> Thank you. And I also appreciated the

28:30information that was provided with the

28:32item today.

28:34And I think we we've had a couple

28:37conversations on this and it's not until

28:39now that we've seen some written

28:40information. So, I think that's where

28:41we've had a lot of the the questions

28:43coming up cuz it hasn't been super clear

28:45what it is we're talking about. I think

28:47what would be helpful for the study

28:48session you've mentioned on some of the

28:50the cost breakdown is just to be able to

28:52discuss that both um

28:55uh with with the items of what what is

28:58paid for or what would be paid for by

29:00this potential congressional

29:01appropriation and what else

29:03um you know would be ongoing costs or

29:05other types of anticipated costs so that

29:07way we could talk more about that um and

29:11and potentially have that that

29:12conversation as part of the budget. I'm

29:14also interested just cuz it sounds like

29:16we

29:17uh this was a joint uh city

29:19appropriation or it's a joint city

29:21effort um with the D drone um effort and

29:25to be able to hear about uh what that uh

29:28process looked like um to develop this

29:32this proposal and how we see

29:34coordinating with our neighboring

29:36entities and then lastly interested

29:38since we always have a lot of questions

29:40in this area around how we manage any

29:42privacy issues or any implications I

29:44noted in here um you have some some

29:47things on there but just clarity in the

29:49study session on what types of data

29:52collect and uh whether there'd be any

29:54camera footage type of collection. It

29:56sounds like it's mostly um

29:58radar sensors but uh if you can just

30:00bring that clarity for us to share with

30:02the public that'd be helpful.

30:05>> Thank you. Councilmember Pricey.

30:09>> I um have a few concerns about this that

30:12I just wanted to share. One of them is

30:15how we have heard from the community

30:17that um surveillance is really important

30:20for them and having this program have a

30:22lot of impact in public um and privacy

30:27components. I do feel like our community

30:30may feel a concern about this program

30:32being um in police department. I

30:34understand the current expertise but

30:36current expertise doesn't necessarily

30:38always uh reflect future expertise.

30:41Um so that is the community perspective

30:43that we've heard strongly from the from

30:46the public this year. So, I just wanted

30:48to make sure that we talk about this.

30:50The second component is the role of the

30:51government. For example, the PulsePoint

30:53app

30:54is funded through community donations.

30:57And when I think about the city funding

31:00a program like this or not making that

31:02decision, I think about how should

31:04public dollars be spent? And if based on

31:08the justification that I'm seeing if

31:10this is the best use for public money

31:12from the city to be spent, if this

31:13should be something that could be

31:16a private

31:18entity providing this, this should be a

31:19nonprofit, or what is the responsibility

31:22of the government?

31:23So, those are some of the top of minds

31:25for me. And also, given that it is on

31:28the not in the budget, I do think that

31:30I'm interested in seeing this

31:33later down the road and [clears throat]

31:35maybe not right now.

31:37Thank you.

31:41>> Thank you. Council Vice President, May

31:43we have a commina?

31:44>> Thank you. Um, Chief

31:46remember how the the community was

31:49concerned about Flock? With this

31:51particular platform, it is

31:54a part of Axon now.

31:56Um, I'm I would anticipate there to be

31:59some questions about

32:01um

32:02how are we going to ensure that

32:04information doesn't get shared, that

32:07type. So, in the study session, I'd like

32:08to just see a statement or something as

32:10to, you know, acknowledging that it's

32:12it's um platform by Axon

32:16um and how we can take things that we

32:18learned from before and how we're going

32:20to be proactive in addressing as we move

32:22forward.

32:23>> Good.

32:28Thank you. If there's nothing else, I'll

32:29chime in with um

32:32something of my own, which is I would

32:34like to see kind of options for

32:37consideration on

32:40what level of of of government

32:43should deal with an issue like this

32:45because you know, like you said,

32:47it's very likely that in the future

32:49you know, drone proliferation, drone

32:51delivery

32:53will happen

32:54whether or not we want it to because we

32:57do not have the authority to regulate

32:58it.

32:59But you know, if I were a resident and

33:02there were a drone in there there was a

33:04drone in my neighborhood and I had a

33:06question,

33:07my immediate instinct would not be to go

33:10to the city of Redmond because you know,

33:13this drone very likely originated from

33:15another city.

33:17Um it likely will deliver to a different

33:20city very soon or maybe even a different

33:22county.

33:23Right? Um I just don't know if building

33:26this in-house in the city is the best

33:29um use of something or is the best

33:32mechanism for a drone program or drones

33:35are hopping um between many cities.

33:37Right? So, I'd like to see options for

33:40you know, is this something that the

33:41county could build out? Is this

33:43something that we could do um via a

33:45regional partnership? I see something

33:47about Eastside safer Eastside safer

33:49skies at the bottom. Whether this is

33:51something

33:52that maybe we should even take up with

33:53the state. Right? So, I'd like to see

33:55kind of those options before

33:57um we move forward. Thank you.

34:04Anything else?

34:08Great. Well, we will move on to our next

34:11item, which is the informational police

34:15Q3 police activity report also presented

34:17by Chief Law.

34:42>> Beautiful. Okay. So, what we have before

34:45you is our quarterly police activity

34:47update.

34:49Um

34:50starting with our DFR dashboard. And

34:53then, as you guys say for the listening

34:54public, there is a public-facing

34:56dashboard that demonstrates the

34:59drone activity from the police

35:00department as relates to calls for

35:02service.

35:03As it stands right now, we're just a

35:05little bit over 2,300 flights for the

35:08year.

35:09And we've been able to

35:12Where are we at? Sorry.

35:14Yeah, there we go.

35:16At about 15 and 1/2% of the time we're

35:18able to cancel the ground unit. That

35:20number varies between 15 and and 20% um

35:24of the time that we don't actually need

35:26to send an officer in a car on the

35:28ground. The officer does get dispatched,

35:31but the pilots are commissioned police

35:32officers. So, within 90 seconds we have

35:35a commissioned police officer overhead

35:37that can assess whether or not this is

35:40a circumstance that requires a police

35:42involvement. If you follow

35:45our social media, we've had several

35:47instances where we've been able to

35:49apprehend shoplifters within 5 minutes

35:53or less of the call coming in, even

35:55despite the person leaving the location.

35:58In our most recent success, an

36:00individual committed a crime at our

36:02Target, fled on a bicycle, but realized

36:05that the

36:06drone

36:09was on the call. And in essence, he sat

36:11down and waited for the officers to

36:12arrive. And then, when the officers got

36:14there, he said, "I I I knew I could no

36:16longer run." And so, that's the benefit

36:19of the program

36:21you know, that that we're seeing.

36:23Right now, we're seeing just a slight

36:25increase in our calls uh for uh for

36:27service thus far.

36:29Uh and and again, that number will uh

36:31ebb and flow as we get into the uh

36:33colder time of the year. Uh we would

36:35expect a decrease on the overall number

36:38of calls for service.

36:40Uh arrests are actually up uh 21.6%

36:43uh for the year, uh which is a testament

36:45to the

36:46uh the great work that the officers are

36:48out there doing, keeping the community

36:49safe.

36:51Uh we've also seen a 56% decrease in

36:54auto theft.

36:56Uh residential burglaries are also down

36:58uh 30%.

37:01Uh the shoplifts, too, are down 26% in

37:04part as uh the the example I just gave

37:07with the drone. Uh individuals know

37:09that, you know, uh when they come to

37:11Redmond that we do actually, um you

37:13know, respond to the calls in a timely

37:15manner.

37:16Um we are arresting individuals

37:17responsible uh for those calls. Uh and

37:20and that, uh kind of to the earlier uh

37:23point, um encourages people not to come

37:25to Redmond to commit crimes because

37:27again, they know that we respond and we

37:29will in fact arrest them. Uh not just

37:31give them a citation to allow, um you

37:33know, that pattern to continue.

37:37Uh we have seen a uh 7% 7.5% uh increase

37:41uh in our traffic collisions. Uh we uh

37:44do participate in uh regional uh

37:47directed enforcement uh programs with

37:49our uh neighboring agencies. Uh and then

37:51I've also been able to increase staffing

37:53within our traffic unit uh to

37:55specifically address both the crashes

37:57and you'll see or you saw in your packet

37:59uh an increase in the uh number of DUI

38:01arrests, and that's a direct result of

38:03the increased staffing uh in our traffic

38:06unit.

38:07Uh property crimes have decreased by

38:09almost 28%.

38:11Uh violent crimes are down uh 53%.

38:14Uh as we

38:16uh talked about within those uh crimes

38:17are actually sending the assaults. Uh

38:19the assaults are up 16.8%

38:22and 48% of those uh are domestic

38:25violence related. I am happy to report

38:28out that we will be starting

38:31a pilot project with project B Free,

38:34which is a domestic violence co-response

38:37program.

38:38They they received

38:40grant funding from

38:42King County Councilmember Claudia

38:44Balducci. They utilize those funds that

38:47they received to expand

38:49here to Redmond. So we will be starting

38:52to work with them in an effort to

38:54address you know, this aspect of need

38:57within our community.

38:59As I said, DUIs are up 58% like I said

39:03in large part because of the additional

39:04staffing within our traffic unit. And

39:07with that, I'm happy to answer any

39:08questions.

39:12>> Thank you, Council Vice President

39:14Neuwirth Camin.

39:14>> Thank you. Thanks for the report out,

39:16Chief. I appreciate it. And it was like

39:17you were reading my mind cuz I when I

39:19saw the numbers for the DUI, the the

39:21increase,

39:23the percent change was 58%. And I was

39:26like, well,

39:27is it is it cause and effect? Is it

39:28different strategy? So thank you for for

39:30addressing that. I appreciate it. And

39:33very excited

39:35project B Free is going to be working

39:37with with the city of Seattle or with

39:39the city of Redmond. So because

39:43that that number remains constant.

39:45Roughly 50% of our assaults are DV

39:48related. So that's that's wonderful

39:51news. Thank you.

39:55>> Councilmember Forsyth.

39:57>> Thank you. Thank you for the report.

39:58Overall, look looking like very good

40:00news for us and being a safe community.

40:03Just interested on the arrest slide, if

40:06it's that same causation with we're

40:09arresting more people that are

40:10shoplifting, so therefore our number

40:12went up. Is it is that a correct

40:14assumption?

40:16>> So it what it comes down to is we have

40:18an incredible workforce that are out

40:21proactive in in arresting people,

40:24conducting the preliminary

40:26investigations.

40:27And so, it's a combination of all of

40:29that. I was going to save the best for

40:31last.

40:32We are actually fully staffed for the

40:34first time since the late 1990s. So, we

40:37have a fully staffed police department.

40:39And because of that, it has allowed some

40:42internal transfers, like I said, to

40:43traffic. And able to send another

40:46investigator to detectives. So, you

40:49know, we are now I'll say, you know,

40:51clicking on all cylinders. And so, we we

40:53should continue to see,

40:55you know, positive outcomes. And as I've

40:57always said, you know, there are a

40:59number of factors that go into crime

41:02rate. So, I will never sit here and take

41:04100% credit for the decreases cuz that

41:06means I have to take 100% credit for the

41:08increases not going to work, which we

41:09haven't had any in my 7 years here.

41:11But, part of that is the staffing

41:14component of it. Uh the energy and great

41:17work from the officers out keeping the

41:20community safe.

41:26>> Any other questions?

41:30Great. Well, thank you so much, Chief.

41:37Our next item

41:38is read only. It's the fire impact fee

41:41schedule. But, actually for um

41:45for once in a in a few weeks, we're

41:46running on time for our Committee of the

41:48Whole meeting. So, I'd like to ask

41:50Deputy Chief if you're able to say a few

41:53words about this item.

41:54>> Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much.

41:56Appearing back tonight at Committee of

41:57the Whole based on our study session

41:59that we just had last week on the 13th.

42:01Your packet included tonight an

42:04opportunity to make a decision on a

42:05phase-in option. I went back and modeled

42:08two, three, and four-year options based

42:10on your feedback from study session.

42:12We also looked at the 10-year option and

42:14provided that in the materials for you.

42:16>> [snorts]

42:17>> Staff recommends a uniform 3-year

42:19phase-in doing 50% in 2027, 75% in 2028,

42:24and 100% in 2029,

42:26believing that that provides the best

42:28balance between revenue preservation as

42:30well as the implementation

42:33transition for the development

42:35community.

42:36If council's priority, however, is on

42:38minimizing the first-year impact on

42:39development, then staff supports the 33

42:4266 100% option

42:45as the strongest alternative. We

42:48recommend that we apply the phase-in

42:49across all of the land use categories,

42:52not pick a different one. We feel like

42:54that's going to be simpler not only for

42:55the applicants, but also for staff. And

42:58we don't recommend the 4-year 10-year

43:00approaches. We took a look at those in

43:01the materials demonstrate why, and one

43:03of the big one is is that for a period

43:05of years, developments would be paying

43:07lower impact fees than what they're

43:09currently paying right now. And so, that

43:10would definitely impact the amount of

43:13revenue collected. Final note is that

43:16the revenue modeling does not include

43:18annual indexing. So, what you see in the

43:20plan,

43:21indexing would begin only after the full

43:23adopted fee has been phased completely

43:25in. So, the first indexing adjustment

43:27would occur then in 2030.

43:29So, with that, I will turn it back over

43:32to council and see what you guys think.

43:34>> Great. Council President Stewart.

43:38>> Thank you so much, Deputy Chief. And I

43:39first want to say before we get into the

43:41content of the materials,

43:43the level of analysis that was provided

43:45in order to inform the council decision

43:47on this,

43:49and the quick math in the turnaround

43:51since last Tuesday, is just so very

43:53deeply appreciated.

43:55I happen to agree with your assessment,

43:57and I'll get to that in a moment, but

43:59it's really because we had the level of

44:01analysis for each of the alternatives

44:04that I was able to make that

44:05determination for myself. So, just once

44:07again, super appreciate that. Um I

44:12I am comfortable moving forward with the

44:1450 75 100 over 3 years, and I know we

44:18spoke a lot last week as a council about

44:21the current impacts and and challenges

44:24in the development community. I found

44:27table 12 in the new packet to be uh very

44:31illustrative of our responsibility also

44:34to make sure that we're funding these

44:37projects that are that we have that we

44:39have adopted in the order that we've

44:41adopted them in the fire functional

44:42plan. Station 11 is the heart and soul

44:45of the department's brand in the city,

44:48and it needs to be either renovated or

44:50rebuilt. Station 12 needs to be moved,

44:52and eventually we need the right fire

44:54apparatus in the right place so that

44:56when someone's having the worst day of

44:57their life, we have the proper tools

44:59when our teams show up. So, on on

45:02balance, being able to see the

45:05the full implementation versus those

45:07alternatives, I'm I'm very comfortable

45:09at the 3-year option as proposed by the

45:12staff. Thank you.

45:18>> Any other comments on which option they

45:21prefer? Councilmember Critzer.

45:24>> Thank you.

45:25Um and I'll just also express

45:27appreciation for the the detailed

45:28analysis. It was really helpful. Um and

45:32I

45:34I would say that I lean towards the the

45:3633 66

45:39100 option just to give a little bit

45:41more of that runway, but I I could get

45:44on board with the 50% with the one that

45:46you recommended if the rest of the

45:48council

45:49wants to go that way. And I do see the

45:51importance of being able to move forward

45:54on on funding our fire functional plan

45:56and make sure that development is paying

45:58in for the impacts that that it'll be

46:00creating. One question that I had um,

46:03that I didn't get to ask at the other

46:04study session was around um, the new

46:07school um,

46:09impacts and I'm curious if you can just

46:11share a little bit about the engagement

46:13with the school district about um, the

46:15potential impacts that might make to

46:18projects that they are considering and

46:21whether they are whether that would

46:23would cause any delays in their

46:25construction for school facilities.

46:27>> Um, truthfully we didn't surface this

46:29with the school district. We we surfaced

46:31it with the building and the development

46:32community cuz they would have the kind

46:35of the financial analysis on it for this

46:37to apply to schools. I don't I mean I

46:39don't want to speak on their behalf on

46:40how they would actually end up deciding

46:42to build. Um, the impact fees only apply

46:46to anything that would substantially

46:48change and have growth associated with

46:50it. So any schools that are going to do

46:51any renovations or remodels wouldn't be

46:53subject to an impact fee if so if

46:55they're updating a school. So

46:57um, but if they are adding and doing

46:59some additions to that um, again that

47:02fee is still a pretty nominal per

47:03student head count and I think what we

47:05were predicting is only 900 students

47:07over a 25-year horizon that the

47:09community may be um, receiving. So but

47:12to be truthful with you when we did our

47:13engagement we were focusing on the

47:15builder in the development community and

47:16didn't go specifically into the school

47:18district.

47:19>> Sorry, just to be clear though the uh,

47:21the line item that is public schools

47:23that would be impact fees that are paid

47:25for construction of public schools or

47:28for public school

47:30>> Correct. For the building of schools,

47:32yes.

47:32>> But ultimately the school district does

47:34pay for those.

47:35>> Through the construction costs like any

47:38other development.

47:39>> Yeah. Well, I would just say um, I would

47:41be comfortable with us moving forward

47:43but I would say that we should engage

47:44the school district since ultimately

47:46they have to figure out how they're

47:47going to fund

47:48the public school construction if

47:50they're not the ones that are

47:51constructing it.

47:52>> Yep.

47:52>> Okay. Um, great. Thank you.

47:58>> Any other opinions?

48:00Uh Council Vice President Moeva Camina.

48:02>> Thank you. Um

48:04echoing President Stewart um on how

48:09wonderful it is to to have the analysis

48:11that was done, having things laid out,

48:13um and especially how quickly it was

48:15turned around. Thank you very much for

48:17that. Um I would be in support. There

48:19was There was things where

48:21I'd asked a question about smoothing out

48:23the increases, and and grateful that we

48:25have to to take a look at um because I I

48:29want to make sure, you know, that it it

48:32was important to me because when we're

48:35doing such

48:36percentage-wise a large increase

48:39it can be shocking, and we heard that it

48:40was. So, to to have that, "Hey, we we

48:43hear you." for the stakeholders, and

48:46having whether it's a 2-year or 3-year,

48:49um while also making sure that we are

48:52are um looking after our assets as well,

48:55and this is why we need to be doing

48:56this. So, being able to to balance both

48:58sides of it, um so thank you again for

49:00this. I would be in favor of either the

49:03the 2-year phase-in or the 3-year with

49:05the um

49:06the 50 75 100.

49:09And the reason for that is because when

49:10we're taking a look at the bigger

49:12picture of the meta of it, and not just

49:14the percentage of it then it's Is it Is

49:17it shocking for for some of them,

49:19especially for the licensed assisted

49:20living? Yes, of course. In the larger

49:24pie of it, is it How much are we talking

49:27about? Then that becomes more minimal.

49:30So, I think that either the the 2-year

49:34um 2-year 50% 100% or the 3-year 50% 75

49:40100.

49:40>> Okay.

49:43>> Thank you. Uh Council Member Forsyth.

49:46>> Thank you. I appreciate the conversation

49:48cuz I was struggling between the 33 66

49:51100 and the 5075-100.

49:54Um I think from the consensus I'm

49:56hearing around the table, there's

49:57probably the most consensus around the

50:003-year 5075-100.

50:02Um I I am concerned very much about the

50:06development cycles and we are likely

50:09going to see another quarter percent

50:11increase in um interest rates, maybe

50:15even two by the end of the year. So, I

50:17know that's going to have a huge effect

50:19on development and I want to be mindful

50:23of still being able to maintain and

50:25reach our goals

50:26and also reach our goals as a city to

50:29make sure we have funding to fund the

50:30things that we need. So, I think in my

50:32mind, I'm most comfortable um

50:35making that that softer ramp up.

50:38Thanks.

50:42>> Any other uh opinions folks want to

50:44express? Uh Councilmember Sony.

50:48>> Thank you.

50:49Um yes, I was also debating between the

50:52the uh the first and the second

50:54recommendation.

50:56Um

50:57I was inclined so far towards the 3-year

50:59for 3366 and 100% and for the reason

51:02because what we heard from the

51:03developers, this is going to the the

51:06economy where we are right now, it's

51:08like, you know, this will just help

51:10help us to give some more time to be

51:14able to cope up with the pressure that's

51:16coming from all the sides. While like,

51:18you know, we while by the time we are

51:20also ready for our fire station and

51:23other these things, you know, we'll be

51:24able to get like, you know, once we are

51:26able to reach to that point, we are able

51:27to get some of these things.

51:29But um

51:30you know, if the rest of the council is

51:32in the favor for the 3-year for

51:335075-100,

51:35I'll probably be okay with that.

51:42>> Um Councilmember Parsey, then I'll jump

51:44in with my own.

51:46>> Yeah, I think I'm comfortable with the

51:48uh 2-year phase-in um option one that

51:51you recommended. I uh think about the

51:54value to the developers versus the value

51:56to the city and fire, and to me this

51:58option seems like a better

52:01um

52:01less impact for developers, but more

52:03meaningful impact for the city and fire

52:06response. So, that's why I'm leaning

52:07towards this option at this time.

52:11>> Thank you. And uh me as well, actually.

52:13I'm uh

52:14uh I think that my most preferred option

52:17is the 2-year phase-in, and my rationale

52:19for that is that

52:21you know, I think the $350,000

52:24that we save on that compared to the

52:26next cheapest option, which is the

52:273-year 50/75

52:29um

52:30uh 100 phase-in,

52:31I think that actually our development

52:34community would be better served if we

52:35put that $350,000

52:38um and invested that into more pilot

52:41programs uh for our new department

52:43potentially um with regards to AI uh in

52:46permitting. I think that would be a far

52:48better use of money

52:49um than having one more year in um

52:54in a in a smoothing in. So, that's

52:56that's my opinion. Uh it sounds like

52:59the two most popular opinions are

53:03the 2-year and 3-year

53:06um phase-ins.

53:07Um

53:09maybe

53:11um trying to

53:13make sure we don't put this up to a vote

53:15in a committee meeting,

53:17but

53:19um I'll say thumbs, I guess, for

53:22a 2-year

53:24right now.

53:26Um I don't see a majority.

53:29Uh thumbs for a

53:31uh people who'd be interested in seeing

53:33this on consent uh with a 3-year.

53:36Uh the 50/75/100.

53:41I do see uh a majority for for that. So,

53:44I think um as far as consent goes

53:47um

53:49putting the 50 75 100 basin

53:52for the November

53:55uh 17th consent meeting

53:57uh would be

53:59great. And again, thank you so much for

54:00the detailed analysis that we got. Oh,

54:02Council President Stewart.

54:04>> Thank you so much Chairwoman Pericli and

54:06I absolutely recognize what you're

54:07trying to do, which is um ultimately get

54:09direction from the council tonight and I

54:11I do believe that the council should

54:13give direction tonight. Um I want to

54:16make sure if we're going to send

54:17something to consent that we also uh

54:21have a chance to really affirm that

54:23consent is the right place to do it and

54:26um I I wonder if there might be now that

54:29we've narrowed in on maybe we are

54:31talking about a three-year option if the

54:32council might be interested in having a

54:34little bit more conversation. I don't

54:35want to rush, but um I saw some

54:37consternation around the table, so I I

54:39might check in. Um I understand and

54:42really appreciate the uh work you're

54:45doing to make sure that we're able to

54:46give direction today.

54:49>> Yeah, maybe we can

54:51put this on new business for the 17th

54:54meeting. Uh if we narrow it down to the

54:56two different three-year options.

54:58Um if

55:00is that what you were going for or not?

55:03>> I would wonder um since you do have the

55:05uh the floor if

55:07um

55:09ideally we would give direction today

55:12about the the chosen alternative um and

55:15I I just wonder if there's any more

55:17conversation to have on the table before

55:18we put it on

55:20um a business meeting agenda and

55:23ideally we would have uh consensus

55:26around around an alternative. Um

55:29you probably had that and maybe I

55:31interrupted it all, but I don't know.

55:33You may just check in to see if there

55:34are other comments

55:36um here or if I've messed everything up.

55:38I I do apologize. You did have

55:40direction. Um, but I wasn't sure if you

55:42had uh, the enough consensus to put it

55:44on the consent agenda. Thank you.

55:46>> Yeah, I mean is does anybody else want

55:48to say anything on

55:50the direction that I I saw four thumbs

55:52for folks who'd be interested in putting

55:54the 50 75 100 phasing option in on

55:57consent. Does anybody have

55:59uh, any comments they would like to

56:00offer

56:01uh, now on this?

56:08Uh, Council Vice President.

56:10>> Thank you, Chair. Um, is one of the

56:13reasons why and I'm glad that you

56:15brought up the you know, where that that

56:17the example was 350 would be better

56:19spent. Um,

56:21because I feel that the sooner and also

56:24bringing in the comment that uh, Council

56:27Member Parsey had brought in. Um,

56:30it would have a better benefit more

56:33impact more benefit for the city for

56:36fire and therefore the public um, for

56:39that money to come into the city sooner.

56:42So that's why I'm still leaning towards

56:46towards the two-year. I'm not going to

56:48be

56:49I'm not going to die in that hill of the

56:52the 300 and against you know, for the

56:54the two. I would

56:55I would consent to going for the the

56:58three-year with the the 50 75 100 not

57:02the 66.

57:05And still I'm I'm looking at where where

57:07is going to have the bigger impact? Is

57:10that going to be on the two-year or the

57:11three-year? How much money are we

57:13leaving on the table if we go with the

57:15three-year? Um, and what is the impact

57:18that it would have on on the development

57:21community?

57:21>> thank you, Council Member Kirtzer.

57:24>> I'll just say I feel comfortable with us

57:27moving forward with this option whether

57:28we want to put it in new business or um,

57:31or consent. And I'd say it seems like a

57:33good in between since some of us would

57:36have liked to have seen maybe the the 33

57:3966 one. So to me this seems like a good

57:42in between

57:43because we do collect more revenue

57:45sooner in the 50% option. I remain

57:48concerned as I said at the study session

57:50about

57:52the

57:53about making sure that that we are using

57:56levers to encourage folks to develop

57:58because we'll only collect these if we

58:00actually see those developments happen.

58:04And and right now just the conditions

58:06are are challenging.

58:07And I think just in terms of sending a

58:09message one thing that I've heard from

58:10some folks is who are are doing

58:13development is and deciding where they

58:15might be doing projects is just to make

58:17sure that that Redmond is a place where

58:19where people want to develop

58:22if they have options between even

58:23earning ring jurisdictions. I've heard

58:25sometimes things like where what the

58:27different development impact fees look

58:30like are part of calculation they make.

58:32So just being sensitive to that and the

58:34fact that right now it's it's a

58:35challenging environment

58:37is why I'd say that the three years to

58:39give a little runway and to show I think

58:42actually as as one of my colleagues said

58:44that we've heard

58:46and we're we're working with them even

58:48though we also need to make sure that we

58:50cover our costs.

58:53>> May I offer just some clarification. So

58:55thank you very much. I appreciate all of

58:56the discussion on this item. So the

58:59timing that we have again is that our

59:01fees would be coming back to council in

59:03the consent agenda a part of the omnibus

59:05ordinance. So if we pull it back out

59:08then fire will be making separate visits

59:10through there. So that was part of this

59:11decision was is if we have you guys feel

59:14confident moving forward with a

59:15particular thing it gets folded directly

59:17in with what the work that planning is

59:18doing which then gets into Granicus by

59:20the end of the day tomorrow.

59:22>> [laughter]

59:24>> Thank you for that and I'll I'll offer

59:27my my own thoughts, which is that um out

59:31of all these I I would prefer the most a

59:33two-year option just because I do feel

59:35um as

59:36um was stated, I do think this $350,000

59:39is best served in the city. Um but like

59:41Council Vice President May have a

59:42comment on it said, um you know, I'm not

59:44going to die on this hill. I I think

59:47that it is important that we phase in

59:49this option, and I think um an extra

59:52year would be helpful. It's just what we

59:54have to do on Council is weigh this

59:56against the $350,000.

59:58So, um I would be comfortable um moving

1:00:01forward with the 3-year 50/75/100 option

1:00:04on consent on November 17th, um even if

1:00:07that's not my um number one.

1:00:11I see Council Member Percy.

1:00:14>> Uh

1:00:14I'm curious if you believe there is any

1:00:17um material impact that is known to us

1:00:20if we move with option um one or three

1:00:23to the projects that our fire department

1:00:25has in um has in the plans.

1:00:28>> Um the I don't believe there would be. I

1:00:31think as you recall uh uh Director

1:00:33Cochran said here and said that if there

1:00:35whatever the shortfall ends up being

1:00:37based on the the policy decision Council

1:00:39makes, that that'll be the work of, you

1:00:41know, internally to the city to figure

1:00:42out how to make it up. I don't know that

1:00:44we would not move forward with the

1:00:45project because there's a 3-year versus,

1:00:47you know, 33% versus 50%. Um the the

1:00:51projects we identified in our capital

1:00:52plan are important, and they remain

1:00:55important. This is just a mechanism to

1:00:56help have development pay for the growth

1:00:59impact portions of those projects. Um it

1:01:01doesn't you know, you know, we wouldn't

1:01:03not build the growth impact portion

1:01:04because the impact fee didn't get

1:01:06adopted. Does that answer the question

1:01:07for you?

1:01:08>> Yeah, thank you. I'm comfortable moving

1:01:10with the majority as well.

1:01:11>> Yep.

1:01:12>> Great, thank you. Well, um if you have

1:01:14direction now for

1:01:16>> I believe I do. Uh 3-years 50/75/100%.

1:01:19Sounds good. All right, so then you will

1:01:20see that in the Omnibus ordinance that

1:01:22will be coming from planning in a couple

1:01:23weeks.

1:01:24>> Great. And I I echo everybody else in

1:01:26thanking you for, you know, the detailed

1:01:28information we got on short notice.

1:01:30Uh thank you. So, uh we move on to our

1:01:32last item, uh which is approving a

1:01:34contract for fully managed video

1:01:36production for public meetings, uh

1:01:38presented by Zack Hovenier of the

1:01:40Executive Department.

1:01:41>> Good afternoon, Council. I'm here to

1:01:42present the fully managed video

1:01:43production contract with Granicus and

1:01:45seeking direction to place it on the

1:01:46November 2nd consent agenda. Under this

1:01:48contract, a trained offsite Granicus

1:01:50professional director would produce

1:01:52every Council, Committee of the Whole,

1:01:54and Commission meeting that takes place

1:01:55in these Council Chambers live from

1:01:56their operations center. This includes

1:01:58multi-camera switching, graphics, live

1:02:00captions, encoding so we can still put

1:02:02it up on YouTube, RCTV, and Facebook.

1:02:06Um agenda-linked video segments and the

1:02:08post-production editing that gets

1:02:09recordings posted with timestamps so

1:02:11that when community council staff go

1:02:13back and try and listen to um public

1:02:15meetings, they can do so quickly. The

1:02:17contract covers 150 managed meetings a

1:02:20year and 340 hours of captioning, which

1:02:22is more than our public meetings over

1:02:24the past several years. So, internal

1:02:26trainings, presentations, workshops

1:02:27could also utilize this feature without

1:02:29going over that allotment. The video

1:02:31stream plugs directly into Legistar, uh

1:02:33which is a Granicus project which we use

1:02:35for agenda management. So, agendas and

1:02:37videos would stay connected without a

1:02:39new workflow for our clerk's office.

1:02:40Granicus has run this product for more

1:02:42than 800 local governments since 2003.

1:02:44Closer to home, Lynnwood, Kennewick, and

1:02:46Richland have all utilized the service.

1:02:48What does this mean? So, before I get

1:02:49into accessibility or costs, I do want

1:02:51to address how it's worked historically.

1:02:53So, as you're aware, following

1:02:54retirement of a communication staff

1:02:55member earlier this year, we've rehired

1:02:57that position and you met with him

1:02:58earlier today before the meeting. That

1:03:00communication staff member um

1:03:01historically has spent up to 16 hours a

1:03:03week running AV and doing the

1:03:06post-production editing for public

1:03:07meetings. That's on top of the other job

1:03:09responsibilities that they do as our

1:03:10communications and marketing specialist.

1:03:12When they can't cover a meeting due to

1:03:13sickness, vacation, etc., we've had to

1:03:16um

1:03:17utilize our supplemental employee that

1:03:18steps in and produces the meetings and

1:03:20produces that AV support for us all.

1:03:22The comms position is then left with the

1:03:23remaining hours to accomplish their

1:03:25other job duties such as short-form

1:03:26video, CNN here in Redmond, spending

1:03:28time on the city's YouTube channel,

1:03:30content for RCTV, um professional

1:03:32photography, and other projects as

1:03:33assigned.

1:03:34I describe uh the move as moving uh

1:03:37specialized production job to a team of

1:03:39experts with redundancy baked in and

1:03:40then giving that skilled employee um

1:03:42their hours back for the work only that

1:03:44uh they can do.

1:03:45And what we get in return is a broadcast

1:03:46that no longer depends on one person

1:03:48being available, healthy, and in the

1:03:49building on a Tuesday night. What does

1:03:52uh not change is that Granicus produces

1:03:54the broadcast, the camera switching, the

1:03:56graphics, the encoding, etc. It does not

1:03:57run the meeting. So, Zoom and Teams stay

1:04:00exactly as they are. Remote public

1:04:01comment, in-person comment, the mute on

1:04:03entry, and no self-unmute safeguards

1:04:06that the city clerk's team has built,

1:04:07all of that stays within the city's

1:04:09hands.

1:04:10Our channels stay ours, too. So, the

1:04:11city keeps control of RCTV, YouTube, and

1:04:13Facebook, including the accounts and the

1:04:15content. Granicus sets up the equipment

1:04:17to feed those channels and trains our

1:04:18staff to schedule those streams. They

1:04:20don't hold our credentials. The in-room

1:04:22equipment, the podium microphones, the

1:04:24hardware in the production room remain

1:04:26city-owned and supported by TIS, same as

1:04:27today. Someone on our side would still

1:04:29need to turn on the lights and the

1:04:30microphones before the meeting, however.

1:04:32Uh the only thing that moves is that

1:04:34production layer from the one person to

1:04:36a team with redundancy behind it.

1:04:38If something breaks mid-meeting, uh

1:04:40which I know recently that has happened,

1:04:42um the director isn't passively watching

1:04:44that uh the stream. So, they're actively

1:04:46producing that. They're actively

1:04:47switching the camera feed. So, um the

1:04:49hope is that uh the streaming issues get

1:04:51caught and fixed remotely before anyone

1:04:52in the room actually would notice.

1:04:54Granicus does keep backup production

1:04:56staff behind every producer. So, if a

1:04:58director becomes unavailable and there's

1:04:59a technical problem with the directing,

1:05:01the system automatically falls back to a

1:05:03wide shot of the dais so that the

1:05:04meeting stays on air and stays recorded.

1:05:07Our staff have a direct phone and email

1:05:08line to that producer during the meeting

1:05:09so that if anything comes up, we can um

1:05:12ping them.

1:05:13And then the equipment sits on a

1:05:15dedicated backup battery, so a power

1:05:16outage that would potentially uh, take

1:05:18place in City Council Chambers doesn't

1:05:20take that recording down.

1:05:22Um, why now? So, first there's

1:05:24accessibility. The federal ADA Title II

1:05:26web content uh, requirements that are

1:05:28coming up in 2027 mandate that our

1:05:30meeting video meet those WCAG 2.1 double

1:05:33A standards. This includes providing

1:05:35accurate live and recorded captions

1:05:37along with numerous structural and

1:05:39technical accessibility standards.

1:05:40Delaying this work uh, would expose us

1:05:42to compliance risk and make it harder

1:05:43for some community members to

1:05:44participate fully in their local

1:05:45government. Second is timing. So, uh,

1:05:48the Chambers AV hardware upgrade is also

1:05:50scheduled for December during Council

1:05:52recess. By installing this system, and

1:05:54this is for um, podium microphones, the

1:05:56screen, um, director's team table

1:05:59hardware, networking in the production

1:06:00room, etc. Um, would ensure that we

1:06:02minimize disruption and and get it uh,

1:06:04in place and tested fully before we

1:06:06would roll it out live in 2027.

1:06:08Third, uh, transparency and modernizing

1:06:10the community experience. So,

1:06:11implementing this now would enhance our

1:06:13public transparency um, with how the

1:06:15community engages with city business.

1:06:16This platform offers a streamlined

1:06:18user-friendly way for residents to view,

1:06:20search, and understand, again, how

1:06:21government works both live and on

1:06:23demand, uh, making it through for

1:06:25accessible information.

1:06:26Cost and procurement. So, this would be

1:06:28a two-year quote with two optional years

1:06:31for a total of four maximum. It would be

1:06:34one-time implementation equipment charge

1:06:35of $71,000 plus tax from the general

1:06:38fund using savings within the executive

1:06:39budget. The annual subscription is about

1:06:41$99,000 plus tax uh,

1:06:44and it would replace our existing

1:06:45Granicus contract for non-fully managed

1:06:48video solutions. And so, that net new

1:06:49annual cost um, for the subscription

1:06:52would be about $82,000 in the first

1:06:54year.

1:06:55Ongoing subscription fees for the out

1:06:57years would be included in our and they

1:06:58are included in our 2027 and 2028 budget

1:07:01under B tip.

1:07:02The contract would be established with

1:07:03the city's use of Omeo Partners

1:07:05cooperative purchasing agreement and in

1:07:06line with city purchasing policy. If we

1:07:08were to move forward, we would plan on

1:07:10installation and implementation with

1:07:12testing in November and December of this

1:07:13year and a go live in 2027.

1:07:16Legal and TIS have reviewed the

1:07:17agreement. The one thing that I do want

1:07:19to flag is that on attachment E, I

1:07:22believe,

1:07:23we are still negotiating the AI addendum

1:07:26with Granicus and I'll be sure to

1:07:27provide a redline version if anything

1:07:29were to change in the packet if this

1:07:30were to move to consent on November 2nd.

1:07:33For everyone's awareness, the the AI

1:07:36terms in the in the product would be

1:07:37translation to different languages.

1:07:40I'm asking for your direction to place

1:07:41this on November 2 consent agenda and

1:07:43happy to take any questions that you may

1:07:44have.

1:07:48>> Thank you. Any questions? Council member

1:07:50Forsyth.

1:07:51>> Thank you.

1:07:52Um

1:07:53So, the the instance where we had

1:07:55technical difficulties in chambers would

1:07:58not have been able to be fixed by this

1:07:59contract. That was a physical

1:08:02instance of cables needing to be messed

1:08:04with. So, how will we navigate a

1:08:08situation like that? Will there be a

1:08:09staff member here

1:08:11um that actually understands this

1:08:13equipment? I I have a lot of concerns

1:08:15around this.

1:08:15>> Yeah, so I think two things. One, yes, a

1:08:18staff member would would need to be here

1:08:20and and and figure out that issue. The

1:08:22AV hardware replacement that's going to

1:08:24be taking place in December

1:08:26actually calls for wireless microphones

1:08:28which from our TIS department, we would

1:08:30be utilizing a product that they use at

1:08:32the UN. So, our hope is that those

1:08:35products are up to speed and that we

1:08:37don't have downtime on those. Now, given

1:08:40that tech is tech and sometimes there

1:08:41are issues, I would work with our TIS

1:08:43department and provide a detailed SOP so

1:08:45that anyone within council chambers

1:08:47could

1:08:48adapt that system, bring over another

1:08:50wireless microphone, etc.

1:08:51>> There's still going to be a need for a

1:08:52staff member to be here.

1:08:55>> Uh it

1:08:57Yes and no. I mean, I think for

1:09:00some of the things that the city would

1:09:01still be responsible for, so turning on

1:09:02the lights and turning on the

1:09:03microphones

1:09:05would likely fall to our city clerk or

1:09:06someone else that's in the in the

1:09:08council chambers for that

1:09:10meeting. So, it's it's pretty it's a

1:09:12pretty simple task to to do those two

1:09:14things and then we would have a detailed

1:09:16SOP so that again our city clerk or

1:09:18someone else could be here in in in case

1:09:20of a technical issue.

1:09:22>> Okay, so then we're training our city

1:09:23clerk to be a technical person as well

1:09:27to account for us moving to an

1:09:29outsourced

1:09:31way to produce our meetings.

1:09:33Potentially.

1:09:35>> Potentially.

1:09:36>> Okay. Um we've heard time and time again

1:09:38that this is not going to cut and reduce

1:09:40a job. Can you clearly state on the

1:09:42record that this will not

1:09:44cut any jobs?

1:09:45>> Correct.

1:09:46>> Okay. And then the agreement for um

1:09:49these jobs, you said it's all done

1:09:51remotely. Are those jobs here in the

1:09:53states or are those jobs outsourced?

1:09:56>> Their operations center, I believe, is

1:09:57in Texas.

1:09:57>> Okay, can we get absolute clarity on

1:09:59that?

1:10:00>> Yes.

1:10:00>> Thank you.

1:10:06>> Any other questions? Council Member

1:10:08Kertzer.

1:10:09>> So, you you

1:10:11gave us an overview and and some of that

1:10:13is in here around um the equipment

1:10:15change that would need to be made. Can

1:10:17you clarify specifically which equipment

1:10:20um would be replaced as part of the the

1:10:22change over? Microphones and cameras or

1:10:24is it also the screens as well?

1:10:26>> Yes, my apologies. So, I'm I'm

1:10:28conflating two separate projects. So,

1:10:29the AV hardware replacement that's going

1:10:31to be taking place in December is really

1:10:33being led by TIS. That equipment um I

1:10:35can get a detailed list over to to

1:10:38council on what equipment that would be.

1:10:40Um for this particular contract, it

1:10:42would be the four cameras that are

1:10:43installed around the room, cabling,

1:10:45networking, um some rack space in the

1:10:47production equipment area.

1:10:49>> Okay. And the that that project would

1:10:52happen regardless of whether we make the

1:10:53change.

1:10:53>> Correct. Correct.

1:10:55>> Okay.

1:10:56Um and I guess yeah, I would just say in

1:10:59terms of this I think my it seems like

1:11:03it could make sense. I think my concern

1:11:05is whether we we have a plan to ensure

1:11:09that if there are issues that are going

1:11:11on that we do have staff that are

1:11:13capable of being able to be on-site to

1:11:15help to resolve just because our our

1:11:18whenever we we have had issues that are

1:11:20technical in terms of the streaming

1:11:22capability for our public, we hear from

1:11:25them they we hear concerns. It's really

1:11:26important for transparency that this

1:11:28works well. Glad to hear that we'd be

1:11:30able to continue to stream on all the

1:11:31platforms that we have. So I think

1:11:33ultimately that's that's just my biggest

1:11:35concern and and I think if there is

1:11:38anything that would change the kind of

1:11:39public's experience of our

1:11:42of being able to observe our meetings

1:11:43that would be of of concern, but if if

1:11:45we can keep a similar experience and

1:11:48make things more efficient, I can be on

1:11:50support. Great.

1:11:53>> Council President Stuart.

1:11:56>> Thank you so much for

1:11:58the briefing on this and for my council

1:12:01colleagues and their questions.

1:12:03I really want to make sure that everyone

1:12:05has a chance tonight to air their

1:12:07questions and concerns and if we need to

1:12:09take more time on this, this is our

1:12:11first briefing. It was pulled from prior

1:12:13agendas

1:12:15to to really make sure that there's a

1:12:17level of comfort with it.

1:12:19I'll say for my part having um heard the

1:12:24briefing now, I'm still thinking about

1:12:27what it's like to need to chair a

1:12:29meeting

1:12:31and the need to just not have to think

1:12:34about the technology following the

1:12:36retirement of our lovely Chip Quarter,

1:12:39who we hope is doing well.

1:12:41I had the experience of needing to chair

1:12:43on a night when there was not the same

1:12:46level of support that we'd previously

1:12:48had. That doesn't mean that um, solution

1:12:51won't take care of that, but

1:12:53it's very, um, chairing a meeting is a

1:12:55lot of work, and when, um, in the case

1:12:58of the Council President, whenever you

1:12:59have to chair, you're also chairing and

1:13:01participating in the meeting, and then

1:13:02to also have to manage technology, uh,

1:13:04with the clerk, I'll say that sounds

1:13:06intimidating. Um, so, for my part, um, I

1:13:10would just love to make sure that the

1:13:11Council is really comfortable with this,

1:13:13um, before moving forward, um, and that

1:13:16everyone really does speak up about any

1:13:18questions or concerns, and make sure we

1:13:19get those answered for this, uh,

1:13:20potential solution. Thanks.

1:13:24>> Council Member Forseth.

1:13:25>> I would definitely like to see another

1:13:27touch. I'm I don't feel confident, um,

1:13:29to put this on consent on the second.

1:13:33>> Um, Council Member Purcell.

1:13:36>> Is it possible to share a list of other

1:13:38cities that use, uh, on this service, so

1:13:41we can go offline and review their, uh,

1:13:43quality of service and quality of their

1:13:45meetings, and, um, assess

1:13:47[clears throat] that?

1:13:48>> Yeah, I'd I'd be happy to provide that.

1:13:50>> Awesome, thank you.

1:13:52>> Council Member Krister.

1:13:54>> I'd just say, if this is coming back, I

1:13:55think understanding what the, kind of,

1:13:58contingency {slash} transition plan

1:14:00would be as we phase this in, to make

1:14:03sure that that we do have that

1:14:05experience the Council President spoke

1:14:07of of of being able to just continue to

1:14:09run our meetings without having to worry

1:14:11about the technology and having knowing

1:14:13exactly what happens if the technology

1:14:15isn't working, um, and have and maybe

1:14:17there is a time period in which we're

1:14:19still having the staff on hand and the

1:14:22staff remote, um, and if you could

1:14:23present that plan, I think that would

1:14:25give me more confidence in the decision.

1:14:30>> See Council Member Forseth again, but

1:14:31I'm wondering if anybody else wants to

1:14:33jump in, or No, okay. Council Member

1:14:35Forseth.

1:14:36>> Sorry, yeah, just one more thing I'd I'd

1:14:37like to see, um, we're talking about

1:14:39adding another technology, another

1:14:41contract that's going to be

1:14:42years of hundred thousand dollar

1:14:44payments,

1:14:45and only 16 hours of work that we're

1:14:48trying to solve for. So, I'm trying to

1:14:49understand what the cost savings would

1:14:52actually be to do this. Is that part of

1:14:54the dis- discussion? Was that part of

1:14:55the decision? Just a little more

1:14:56background on how we got here.

1:14:58>> Uh just for the record, 16 hours a week.

1:15:01Um so, it's not 16 hours total. It would

1:15:02be 16 hours a week that Chip

1:15:05you know, historically had spent could

1:15:07spend up to 16 hours a week for

1:15:09providing the AV support and the and the

1:15:11encoding and all the post-production.

1:15:13>> Right. But, I'm not necessarily thinking

1:15:15that that 16 hours a week over the year

1:15:17cost $100,000.

1:15:20>> Okay.

1:15:24>> Thanks, Anna. I was actually doing the

1:15:26same um mental math in my head. Um I I I

1:15:29guess if um

1:15:32Actually, first um thumbs on if we would

1:15:34like this to to come back on another

1:15:36touch.

1:15:37I think that's that's the whole council.

1:15:38And

1:15:40what I would like to see is actually

1:15:41just a comparison between spending the

1:15:4416 hours a week um

1:15:46what

1:15:47I I guess I would just like to see

1:15:47options, right? What do we have right

1:15:50now in-house and then this contract and

1:15:52then just see um

1:15:54kind of cost savings for for each

1:15:56option, pros and cons, whether that's

1:15:59you know, video quality,

1:16:00um

1:16:02uh

1:16:03our ability to

1:16:05maintain uh the services, our ability to

1:16:09you know, keep the services up if

1:16:10there's uh something that breaks during

1:16:12a council meeting as well as

1:16:14um

1:16:16the fact that uh somewhere in this the

1:16:17fact that we do actually have to upgrade

1:16:19our cameras to meet those accessibility

1:16:21requirements. Um so, I I I would just

1:16:23like to see a comparison of the options.

1:16:25>> Okay.

1:16:26>> Thank you.

1:16:28>> Great. Well, thank you so much for the

1:16:30briefing.

1:16:31Um if there's nothing else, this meeting

1:16:33is adjourned.