[5:35] Recording in

[5:50] progress.

[5:53] >> Going to order the City

[5:55] Council study session for

[5:59] Tuesday over 21st 2025. City

[6:03] clerk. Would you call the

[6:03] roll, please.

[6:04] >> Yes. Thank you, Christine

[6:06] Brown city clerk. Please state

[6:07] for the record. If you're

[6:07] present at I call your name

[6:08] mayor Matthews present deputy

[6:11] mayor quits and PRESIDENT

[6:12] Councilmember Dietz present

[6:13] councilmember family Johnson

[6:16] PRESIDENT Topless PRESIDENT

[6:18] Councilmember Milwaukee

[6:19] present councilmember

[6:20] Schneider, PRESIDENT. Thank

[6:23] you.

[6:24] >> I'd like to read the

[6:27] landing. A beginning with the

[6:27] words attributed chief

[6:32] Seattle. Every part of this

[6:33] oil sacred to in the

[6:34] estimation of my people, every

[6:36] hillside, every Valley, every

[6:39] plan and growth has been

[6:41] hollowed by some happy event

[6:46] in days long vanished. Begin

[6:49] by acknowledging land on which

[6:50] we gather is within the

[6:52] ancestral territory of the

[6:53] stick. Watch people of clear

[6:55] salt water squamish people

[6:57] expert fisherman builders

[7:02] basket weavers Koch live in

[7:03] harmony with the lands and

[7:04] waterways along Washington

[7:05] central Salish sea as they

[7:09] have for thousands of years.

[7:11] Here. The supply Slive and

[7:12] protect the land and waters of

[7:15] their ancestors for future

[7:16] generations as promised by the

[7:26] point. Eliot treaty of 1855.

[7:27] We have with deputy city

[7:32] attorney that are told city

[7:34] manager player King city

[7:38] clerk. Other members of staff

[7:43] be active in the program.

[7:45] Motion to approve the agenda.

[7:47] I move to approve tonight's

[7:51] study session agendas, prison.

[7:55] Second councilmember Dietsch

[7:56] motion by Clints Moore

[8:01] walking. Are there conflict? A

[8:05] conflict of interest. You need

[8:05] we vote yes, of course, all

[8:14] those in favor. Any opposed.

[8:14] Motion is approved for

[8:18] approval of the agenda. Any

[8:21] conflict of interest tonight.

[8:24] Okay. Our first item of

[8:28] business. He's a presentation

[8:31] related to the ground water

[8:32] management plan of our peer

[8:37] review. I believe.

[8:38] >> This was to go great that

[8:39] we're going to have our waters

[8:41] for specials. Kristian Berg.

[8:45] We'll go ahead and introduce

[8:47] key that waters who was the

[8:48] consultant who prepared to

[8:50] peer review of the groundwater

[8:50] management plan introduced at

[8:52] then be able to channel some

[9:03] of the information from them.

[9:03] >> She buried the water

[9:07] resources specialist here. The

[9:08] city tonight we're going to

[9:09] talk about groundwater near

[9:09] new perspective on the work

[9:10] that's been ongoing for about

[9:13] 5 years. In APRIL Council

[9:14] approved a motion to direct

[9:15] staff to look for peer

[9:16] reviewers for the groundwater

[9:20] management plan. And on JULY

[9:21] 22nd Council received the

[9:21] second draft of the plan and

[9:24] authorize staff to hire key

[9:25] the waters to review the plan

[9:26] and write a memo detailing

[9:29] their findings. You know,

[9:30] waters was recommended by

[9:31] spawned a staff member who is

[9:32] also on technical advisory

[9:36] Committee for the plan. If

[9:38] received this memo and we'll

[9:39] have a chance to hear from the

[9:39] authors and ask questions

[9:40] about the process and

[9:45] findings. City staff is also

[9:46] working keep waters meet with

[9:46] the planning Commission on

[9:47] OCTOBER 30th and give a

[9:52] similar presentation. The

[9:53] recommended motion on this

[9:54] item is the for the

[9:55] groundwater management plan.

[9:57] Pierre view to the ground.

[9:59] Water management plan,

[9:59] subcommittee and technical

[10:00] advisor Committee for

[10:01] development of next steps and

[10:06] plans for public engagement. I

[10:07] am pleased to introduce to

[10:07] accomplish groundwater experts

[10:08] that have joined us tonight

[10:13] via zoom. Joel mast man has

[10:14] over 30 years of experience as

[10:15] a groundwater consultant and

[10:17] received his ph d and

[10:18] groundwater hydrology from the

[10:18] University of British

[10:23] Columbia. And Adam s man is an

[10:24] environmental engineer, an

[10:25] atmospheric scientist and

[10:26] holds a phd in environmental

[10:26] engineering from Columbia

[10:31] University. And with that, I'm

[10:32] just kind of handed over to

[10:33] them and they have a brief

[10:34] presentation and will be

[10:35] available for some questions

[10:41] afterwards. Thank you.

[10:42] >> Good evening and thank you

[10:43] for the opportunity to talk

[10:44] with about are peer review.

[10:45] The draft groundwater

[10:51] management plan. As mentioned,

[10:53] we've prepared a short

[10:53] presentation that's aimed at

[10:54] highlighting some of the main

[10:54] conclusions and

[10:58] recommendations from the

[10:58] review with the understanding

[10:59] that questions and discussions

[11:04] will follow. My name is Jerome

[11:05] asman. I'm a principal

[11:06] engineer and partner with Cuba

[11:07] waters. It's groundwater

[11:08] consulting practice that I

[11:11] started about 25 years ago.

[11:12] Prior to starting that

[11:14] practice. I was on the fact

[11:15] Lee and the Department of

[11:15] civil engineering at

[11:16] University of Washington for

[11:19] about 10 years. And I've also

[11:21] served on the city of Mercer

[11:22] Island utility board from 2004

[11:28] to 2011. I'm joined by Adam

[11:29] and my son and partner in key

[11:40] to waters. Next slide. Please.

[11:42] The presentation and that

[11:43] being around 10 minutes or so

[11:48] and tree preferred options

[11:50] which we finished summary of

[11:51] conclusions and

[11:52] recommendations and then a

[11:55] little bit about our rationale

[11:56] for going conclusions and rep

[11:57] recommendations. Next slide.

[12:04] Please. The draft review

[12:06] report is about 40 pages long

[12:07] and contains some relatively

[12:08] detailed discussions related

[12:10] to groundwater modeling and

[12:13] other technical topics. It

[12:16] also includes responses to

[12:17] some specific comments and

[12:20] questions that the technical

[12:23] advisory committee and the

[12:24] planning subcommittee prepared

[12:26] what we'd like to highlight in

[12:26] this evening are a few of the

[12:28] higher level conclusions and

[12:28] recommendations that are

[12:33] included in our reach. You.

[12:33] The good and groundwater

[12:34] management plan that we

[12:37] reviewed includes are ranked

[12:40] set of groundwater plan

[12:41] actions in some ways these

[12:42] actions are are the real focus

[12:45] of the report. The 2 actions

[12:46] with the highest ranking

[12:49] heartening that increasing

[12:49] water conservation and

[12:50] increasing Brown water

[12:56] recharge. We agree that these

[12:57] actions warrant the higher

[12:57] rankings in large part because

[12:58] the improved, the resiliency

[13:02] of the system by resiliency

[13:05] Remini ability to provide the

[13:05] necessary services over a

[13:06] variety of climate and

[13:08] environmental scenarios. Next

[13:14] slide. Please. The available

[13:17] water level data and the

[13:20] available modeling result do

[13:23] not provide definitive

[13:24] evidence that current and

[13:26] future groundwater withdrawals

[13:27] are sustainable or are not

[13:33] sustainable. This MAY be an

[13:33] unsatisfying conclusion, but

[13:34] it's one that Adam and I

[13:35] believe is an important point

[13:39] to make. One of the main

[13:40] reasons there are questions

[13:41] about sustainability is due to

[13:43] uncertainties and ground water

[13:45] recharge rates not only are

[13:46] future recharge rates on

[13:47] certain routes or current

[13:54] rate. Next slide. Want to

[13:57] spend just a few minutes. Kind

[13:58] of describing using some

[14:00] schematic diagrams, maybe

[14:01] cartoons. But the overall

[14:02] rationale for for those

[14:07] conclusions are. Next slide.

[14:09] The key question in evaluating

[14:12] sustainability is what is the

[14:13] water balance over the long

[14:14] term. The amount of water that

[14:16] these the ground water system,

[14:16] what we call the amount that

[14:20] enters the system. This figure

[14:22] presents a very basic

[14:23] description water balance

[14:26] might look like on Bainbridge

[14:27] The main source of inflow to

[14:30] the system is from recharge

[14:33] that the land surface. Most of

[14:36] this recharge is from rainfall

[14:36] with a little bit more from

[14:42] septic return flow. There's a

[14:43] possibility of inflow from

[14:45] deep aquifers under Porter

[14:47] today. But that doesn't seem

[14:47] to be a consensus about how

[14:50] significant that might be. So

[14:51] we've dash that he wrote a

[14:55] show that. Certainly

[14:56] groundwater believes that the

[14:59] numbers piling through Wells.

[15:02] By flow to streams and

[15:02] wetlands. And by Florida salt

[15:12] water bodies. Next slide.

[15:13] Water components that are most

[15:14] important and the ones that we

[15:16] have the best handle on

[15:17] Farwell withdrawls floater

[15:19] fresh water features at the

[15:23] land surface and recharge. And

[15:25] if you were to ask for a best

[15:26] guess relative value for these

[15:28] 3 under current conditions. It

[15:28] might look something like

[15:33] this. At first glance you

[15:36] might conclude that inflow.

[15:39] From recharge exceeds outflow

[15:41] from Wells and slowed the

[15:43] surface water. So things are

[15:47] ok, but if you dive into the

[15:48] uncertainties they're actually

[15:49] larger than what the

[15:51] differences are. So there are

[15:53] scenarios we're outflow might

[15:54] exceed inflow, particularly

[15:56] under future conditions. And

[15:59] it's these uncertainties and

[16:01] the relative size of those

[16:01] uncertainties compared to how

[16:05] close is balances, which

[16:07] causes us to make our

[16:09] recommendations and to support

[16:10] the conclusions in the draft

[16:11] groundwater management plan

[16:14] about the importance of.

[16:17] Conserving water as much as

[16:18] possible and increasing

[16:18] groundwater recharge as much

[16:25] possible. That concludes the

[16:26] presentation prepared and like

[16:27] to open it up for questions

[16:32] and discussions. Thank you.

[16:33] >> Thank you both very much

[16:34] for being with us. Tonight. I

[16:40] want to. Hear from my fellow

[16:41] council members their

[16:46] questions are there concerns

[16:47] so we probe into the pier

[16:52] review and the work that lies

[16:55] as we refer peer review and

[16:57] questions it raises to the

[17:01] specialists. Locally. I just

[17:01] wanted to make a few comments

[17:05] at the outset and then turn to

[17:08] my colleagues and I have

[17:10] further comments maybe at the

[17:11] end of the process in the

[17:14] middle if have more to say.

[17:23] This has been. A peer eagerly

[17:24] waited for and that is what

[17:27] been well worth the wait. I

[17:28] just think it is excellent

[17:30] from start to finish in a

[17:32] certain several different ways

[17:34] it's very meticulous attention

[17:37] to places where phrasing could

[17:39] be changed, where little slips

[17:44] could attended to in in the.

[17:45] The second version of the

[17:49] going water management plan.

[17:52] Also raises some very big

[17:53] questions about assumptions

[17:59] made principles followed in

[18:04] the the creation of model. So.

[18:05] That's that's important. And I

[18:07] wanted to comment next In

[18:13] conclusion. On one page at the

[18:16] very end of the pier review

[18:21] commenting a document that

[18:21] iPhone.

[18:22] >> Very impressive. I think a

[18:23] Christian Berg for his

[18:26] important role in creation

[18:27] creating the summary and

[18:31] near-term action. A memo. It

[18:34] is 15 page document that I

[18:40] think is much more. Valuable.

[18:40] Then the executive summary

[18:41] that is part of the

[18:42] groundwater management plan.

[18:46] It carries us forward. In the

[18:50] direction of implementation

[18:52] and actions that and so I'm

[18:56] I'm pleased to waters. The 2

[18:58] of you together endorsing this

[19:03] and making some very precise

[19:03] and useful suggestions for re

[19:05] phrasing in a few places. I

[19:10] want to see the council. Pay

[19:12] attention to this document and

[19:17] take action to endorse it.

[19:17] Props after some give and take

[19:25] with committees that the will

[19:27] be reviewing all of our work

[19:30] and public engagement process.

[19:32] But at some point I think the

[19:35] council should be standing up

[19:40] and saluting near-term action

[19:41] memo and whatever is added to

[19:44] it as a result of our review

[19:57] of the whole project. My

[19:58] colleagues any any comments

[20:01] next see topless with the

[20:05] light on and needs of.

[20:08] >> first of all, I want to say

[20:10] that I so thankful for this

[20:12] document in this work. I think

[20:13] it's when the best pieces of

[20:14] work I've received as a

[20:15] councilmember. After long

[20:18] period of struggling with.

[20:22] What was coming to us from

[20:23] this work and now hearing

[20:25] trying to understand is what I

[20:29] would most appreciate from you

[20:30] both would be clarifying some

[20:31] things I'm trying to wrestle

[20:31] with because my first

[20:35] reaction. In reading through

[20:38] peer review was well, if this

[20:41] sounds very critical of a lot

[20:43] methodology or the approaches

[20:44] taken and warning us about

[20:45] what we should be doing. So I

[20:49] could be taking that actually

[20:49] being too should these could

[20:50] be confirmation bias. So I do

[20:52] want to check with you on

[20:53] that. What I think I want

[20:53] understands. I'm trying to

[20:57] tease out where a c. You know

[20:58] what how much the model

[21:00] itself. You MAY feel critical

[21:01] of the modeling itself or the

[21:03] dwelling on the modeling not

[21:04] perhaps moving forward to the

[21:08] work of the management part of

[21:10] the plan and what you if you

[21:12] could distill down what should

[21:13] concern us most if anything,

[21:13] because these these policy,

[21:14] this is a policy decisions

[21:17] that are going to come off of

[21:19] that are being fed by the are

[21:21] so critical test our community

[21:22] that we just The Strait is

[21:23] talk possible. I think you

[21:25] actually do have a very clear

[21:27] document. And but again, I

[21:28] worry confirmation bias

[21:29] because some of the statements

[21:30] put so many quotes out of here

[21:33] of your comments that suggests

[21:34] to me that again, we kind of

[21:35] still don't have a plan, which

[21:39] is what we've been waiting for

[21:41] and so it can tell us. Do we

[21:42] have the modeling and the data

[21:43] and we can move from there. Do

[21:44] we need to worry about

[21:47] modeling. Before we could go

[21:48] to planning. So those are

[21:49] really can some broad

[21:50] questions. And I would like to

[21:51] reserve the building come back

[21:52] and ask more specific

[21:52] questions about specific

[21:55] comments you've made but I

[21:56] hope that's clear. What I'm

[21:56] asking for. Some direct

[21:59] guidance to those of us were

[22:00] policymakers who MAY have been

[22:00] hoping that at some point we

[22:04] can actually achieve a balance

[22:07] water and if we're somehow

[22:08] going to be forced to not

[22:10] achieved that that we at least

[22:11] are making targeted decisions.

[22:18] And acceptable, a drawl read

[22:19] >> Let me start off with

[22:20] Respond to that. And I'll ask

[22:26] them chime in as well. As far

[22:27] as the groundwater model goes,

[22:27] we try to provide some

[22:32] constructive. Criticisms like

[22:33] gas about the modeling work

[22:37] that's been Some of it. Was

[22:38] handed down to the consultant.

[22:39] You've been working with. It

[22:40] wasn't their decision to make.

[22:43] And. And so that's part of

[22:49] that and Criticism or some of

[22:54] difficulties with that model.

[22:56] Kind of influences our

[22:57] recommendations about you

[22:57] know, moving forward with

[23:02] doing what you can do about

[23:05] what you and what you know is

[23:07] that if you conserve more

[23:07] water and you if you can

[23:09] increase the recharge, you're

[23:14] going to be better off You

[23:16] know, I I don't know that I

[23:18] would spend a whole lot more

[23:19] money and effort on modeling

[23:24] at this Because of those

[23:26] uncertainties as we say in the

[23:27] report, there are inherent,

[23:29] you know no matter how much

[23:29] modeling you do they still

[23:31] going to be lots of

[23:33] uncertainties and you probably

[23:34] still won't know whether your

[23:35] current and future production

[23:38] is going to be sustainable or

[23:39] not. The best thing to do in

[23:41] my estimation is to continue

[23:41] the monitoring that you've

[23:42] been doing maybe beef it up.

[23:45] If you can do what you can to

[23:46] control both inflow and

[23:48] outflow from that system.

[23:48] Adam, you have any thoughts

[23:53] you'd like to share.

[23:54] >> No. Yeah, I would agree

[23:55] with all that. The other piece

[23:59] of dad in addition to the. You

[24:00] know, groundwater modeling

[24:00] there in these inherent

[24:04] uncertainties. You know, one

[24:05] option would be you could

[24:07] explore with those

[24:07] uncertainties are with more

[24:10] modeling. It cetera. And you

[24:11] know, we provide some ideas

[24:13] about that. But again, I would

[24:15] second what tools saying of

[24:20] MAY be moving on from the

[24:20] modeling work because that is

[24:21] extremely resource intensive

[24:24] to to really try to put

[24:27] together a comprehensive

[24:28] modeling plan. This bans all

[24:29] the uncertainties in the

[24:30] present and the future is very

[24:32] resource intensive and because

[24:37] this is inherent the bounds

[24:39] might not be shrunk enough

[24:40] even after you do on that to

[24:40] be actionable from a

[24:45] management standpoint and so

[24:45] focusing on the monitoring and

[24:48] the conservation I think would

[24:49] be a likely better use of

[24:55] resources.

[24:59] >> Thank you. Deputy mayor.

[25:00] Thank you, Adam and let you

[25:02] identify father son. But

[25:06] that's just a coincidence that

[25:08] have the same names, but no

[25:08] thank you for the report. I

[25:09] read it great interest in. I'm

[25:14] not sure if I'm duplicating

[25:15] Council topple says minds

[25:16] more. MAY be straight forward

[25:21] that.

[25:22] >> There's uncertainty,

[25:24] whether our water use is

[25:25] sustainable or on sustainable

[25:31] and. Is it your conclusions?

[25:32] Is there anything perhaps in

[25:33] the big, you know, is there

[25:35] anything we could have day

[25:40] one. Let's just say when we

[25:41] started this to have come to a

[25:41] different with more certainty

[25:43] or when you mentioned the

[25:44] inherent nature.

[25:48] >> Is that common with these

[25:49] reports. I this is the only

[25:50] one I've ever looked at and

[25:50] that's Bainbridge Island. So

[25:55] my point being is, is this

[25:57] usual to have an inherent

[25:58] uncertainty or is or do we

[26:03] stand out in some manner.

[26:06] >> Yeah. I think all models

[26:07] have lots of uncertainty. That

[26:07] here and uncertainties and is

[26:12] not unique to babers I think

[26:14] is a little bit you need is is

[26:15] if you look at those numbers

[26:16] about the amount of

[26:16] groundwater withdrawal you

[26:20] have. And compare it to past

[26:21] months about the amount of

[26:25] recharge you have. You're kind

[26:26] getting up there a little bit.

[26:26] I mean, a lot of systems

[26:29] there. You know, maybe 5% or

[26:30] something like that. You know,

[26:34] so there's more wiggle room in

[26:35] there. So those inherent

[26:37] uncertainties are quite is

[26:39] important as you start to get

[26:41] closer together terms of that

[26:43] water You know, as your

[26:44] withdrawal start job. You

[26:48] know, 30%, of what do you

[26:49] recharge is then the

[26:49] uncertainties become more

[26:53] important. More questions

[26:59] later.

[27:00] >> Mary Matthews and then no

[27:00] because a number of entry

[27:04] Johnson.

[27:05] >> Thanks deputy where I just

[27:06] wanted to thank you both for

[27:08] this peer review and the

[27:10] written report to even a

[27:14] layperson like myself was so I

[27:15] just double and redouble and I

[27:15] think I get where you're

[27:20] going. But have a couple what

[27:26] do you think should be our

[27:29] first step in dealing with

[27:30] Should we for say, ok, let's

[27:32] immediately go to and then are

[27:37] you familiar with the.

[27:40] >> Campbell water. Treatment

[27:42] facility any of the keep

[27:43] things they're doing in the

[27:44] water didn't work. And do you

[27:44] think those are some things

[27:45] should start to look at here.

[27:57] It.

[27:59] >> I think it's possible that

[28:00] Dole MAY having Internet

[28:03] connectivity yeah, these are

[28:09] great you know, I I think what

[28:12] to do next I think would be.

[28:15] Focus on conservation. And you

[28:16] know, 1 one place to maybe

[28:18] start is to, you know, in the

[28:21] groundwater management plan

[28:22] theirs a table that documents

[28:24] what different water systems

[28:25] are using what water and

[28:27] there's a large range of

[28:29] variability there so, you

[28:31] know, potential low hanging

[28:34] fruit is to say, ok, systems

[28:34] 30's and very little water.

[28:36] What are they doing and it's

[28:36] great. And you know, the

[28:39] systems that are using a lot

[28:40] of water.

[28:42] >> Where's I want to go where

[28:43] the summit water and you know,

[28:43] if it's possible bring this

[28:46] high water use and systems

[28:47] down to to the lower water use

[28:49] and systems. You can increase

[28:50] the resilience of the system

[28:51] right there. And you know,

[28:52] having those data on those

[28:55] systems are using the water.

[28:56] You know, it's it's things

[28:57] that we know are feasible

[29:00] because they're being done And

[29:03] it's that so I'm not familiar

[29:04] with this poor gamble

[29:04] facility. I am somewhat

[29:09] familiar with Cape water

[29:11] systems just much as it was

[29:11] presented in the groundwater

[29:13] management

[29:18] >> and there, I mean.

[29:19] >> What was in the report is

[29:20] one thing to be concerned

[29:21] about is it seems like kp you

[29:24] be some of their recent work

[29:28] has pretty large increases in

[29:29] production you know, getting

[29:31] back to these figures we've

[29:33] been talking about, about how

[29:35] close the margins are between

[29:36] the water withdrawals in the

[29:39] recharge. You know, refilling

[29:40] the system and then you factor

[29:42] in the uncertainties around

[29:45] that that having such an

[29:49] aggressive assume growth in

[29:50] production for their systems

[29:52] could create issues for the

[29:55] city of Denver, John system

[29:55] also from the permit exempt

[29:56] well, users that, you know,

[30:00] the live on the island.

[30:00] >> really helpful. Our. And so

[30:04] since the u probably deal with

[30:07] other municipalities in

[30:07] jurisdictions do other peer

[30:09] reviews. Are there any really

[30:14] innovative.

[30:15] >> Things that, you know, we

[30:16] don't have to be written here.

[30:17] You know, I have no trouble

[30:18] copying other folks. If it's

[30:19] something that works really

[30:20] well. So is there something

[30:21] that you think you see other

[30:28] places that we could be doing.

[30:28] >> think sorry, but I keep

[30:33] item

[30:40] >> I think do little for none

[30:43] that I have a familiar with

[30:44] directly. But I do know one

[30:45] potentially very measure that

[30:52] can be taken. You know, a ban

[30:54] on outdoor water extreme

[30:56] situations. I mean, that can

[31:03] really a decrease consumptive

[31:04] >> Over Charlotte in a It

[31:08] outdoor water any water

[31:12] gardens any anything like And

[31:15] especially for homes septic

[31:16] systems ok, then you're

[31:17] consumptive water use goes way

[31:19] down because most of the

[31:21] indoor water use is running

[31:22] through the septic system and

[31:24] eventually ends up going back

[31:25] to the ground. Water system as

[31:27] recharge. And so as long as

[31:28] the septic systems are

[31:29] functioning and treating the

[31:32] water. Well, then you.

[31:34] >> Whatever they water quality

[31:35] issues in the opera for and

[31:36] you'll be really well in the

[31:39] water. One of the but I would

[31:41] say that I mean, that a very

[31:43] extreme extreme measure for,

[31:46] you know, emergency so fun.

[31:48] Fact is that the bridge

[31:49] islands, the South and to be

[31:54] in Island uses the most water

[31:56] in Cape can And so we have

[31:57] Houston. We have a problem.

[32:01] Thank you,

[32:01] >> Council member found Roy

[32:04] Johnson and councilmember

[32:05] Schneider. Thank you. Just

[32:06] want to thank you for giving

[32:10] us this report.

[32:12] >> But I guess I have some

[32:17] questions the modeling and the

[32:18] conclusions well, kind of

[32:22] conclusions that you you come

[32:22] to.

[32:24] >> I guess I wanted to know

[32:26] for us for for what we've been

[32:27] doing and the data that we've

[32:29] collected in this modeling.

[32:30] >> It sounds like to leave

[32:31] from your report that that

[32:37] kind of hindered. The outcome

[32:39] of what you found. It's like

[32:40] maybe we shouldn't have been

[32:42] spending so much time on the

[32:47] because it seems to me that

[32:48] we've we've come out to the

[32:49] conclusion that what we need

[32:52] to do is be more conservative.

[32:52] Without water. It would seems

[32:58] like. A It seems to me that I

[33:03] guess I'm wondering. The no

[33:04] way that we need to go with

[33:05] our decision-making. And what

[33:11] you found out from doing this

[33:11] peer review. If whether the

[33:12] many uncertainties that you

[33:14] found were. Was it a

[33:18] collective of. What's

[33:21] happening with global warming

[33:25] conservation and the modeling

[33:25] or could we should not self in

[33:30] the foot here trying data when

[33:31] you know the outcome is well,

[33:31] we need to be more

[33:37] conservative in.

[33:38] >> Yeah. I don't know if I'd

[33:39] use I'm sorry, I keep getting

[33:41] dropped off. Yeah, went back

[33:46] on for good now I know he's

[33:47] shooting yourself in the foot.

[33:48] So much there's definitely,

[33:49] you know, that tradeoff that

[33:53] you're talking about You know,

[33:53] whether it whether to spend

[33:54] more money on modeling make

[33:59] sense for not and. I think

[34:00] what Adam mentioned before as

[34:01] you know, maybe try did spend

[34:05] a little more effort trying

[34:06] know what you don't know in

[34:06] terms of the modeling work,

[34:08] you know, don't spend so much

[34:09] time trying to get the right

[34:13] answer. But use them, the kind

[34:14] of more, you know, simply to

[34:15] bracket what what the answer

[34:21] might be. As we say in the

[34:22] report, you know, the biggest

[34:24] bang for your buck is going to

[34:25] be for doing what you can do

[34:26] conserve water and increase

[34:29] recharge and no amount of

[34:30] modeling.

[34:31] >> It's going to change So

[34:36] follow Yeah. There's really no

[34:39] way for us to quantify you

[34:46] know, the of our water.

[34:47] >> And the next steps is

[34:48] probably to engage in some

[34:51] sort of project.

[34:53] >> To the residents on the

[34:58] island conserve more water.

[35:04] >> I would agree with with

[35:05] Yes. Yeah. Other thing I just

[35:07] add about the modeling I think

[35:07] hindsight 2020 and you know,

[35:11] so we have the benefit looking

[35:12] backwards and you know, what's

[35:13] the you know, usefulness of

[35:14] the you know,

[35:15] >> How much is the

[35:19] uncertainty. But. So things

[35:21] MAY look different. Looking

[35:22] backwards. But, you know,

[35:23] these numbers that we had in

[35:24] our sliding pulled out this

[35:28] came out of the model and, you

[35:30] know, even just understanding

[35:31] that how close these numbers

[35:34] are and knowing what we know

[35:35] kinda independently about the

[35:37] uncertainty and knowing that

[35:38] this a system that could be

[35:42] kind of close to. Its limits.

[35:47] It could not be, but it could

[35:47] be. I think that can be can be

[35:49] nice because it does, you

[35:51] know, motivate this

[35:53] conservation approach. And we

[35:54] know that now, you know,

[35:55] looking backwards that, you

[35:55] know, might might have been as

[35:56] clear, you know, before this

[35:59] all began.

[35:59] >> Right. And I think that's

[36:00] the main point. It could be or

[36:03] it could right. And when we

[36:04] look at the numbers, it looks

[36:09] like everything's fine, but we

[36:09] don't know that because

[36:12] there's other uncertainties

[36:13] that we will. We will never be

[36:16] able to model all of the

[36:17] uncertainties, I guess is the

[36:21] point I wanted to make.

[36:22] >> Snyder and then Council are

[36:28] walking.

[36:29] >> Thank you. Deputy mayor,

[36:30] then probably follow a little

[36:32] bit of similar threat here.

[36:33] Thank you both very much for

[36:38] coming back. I know that, you

[36:40] know, this has been edited

[36:40] groundwater in general. In the

[36:41] end, this plan has been a huge

[36:44] issue for our community and

[36:45] and primarily. Is it an issue

[36:52] of trust. I would think. So. I

[36:53] guess I have 2 points. One is,

[36:54] you know that you were saying

[36:55] you might want to focus on

[36:56] knowing what you don't know

[37:03] with that. Include more

[37:05] monitoring, more Wells

[37:07] bringing more sort Wells in

[37:08] the private sector you into

[37:13] our supply of data, which I

[37:15] think was what was told to us

[37:17] quite a while ago by our

[37:21] public works director that we

[37:22] really probably should be

[37:24] amping up. The number

[37:29] monitors. Well monitoring. So

[37:30] does that fall in the category

[37:31] of end. Maybe, maybe not

[37:33] because that, you know, that

[37:34] sort of falls in the spending

[37:37] a lot of money modeling or is

[37:40] it still a valuable. Tool to

[37:43] do more monitoring without

[37:49] dumping a lot more. Of our

[37:50] resources into modeling. So

[37:51] that's question number one.

[37:52] And then question number 2 is

[37:56] if the recommendations come

[37:57] out as you know, conservation

[38:05] and increasing. Recharge. What

[38:06] I think that, you know, the

[38:08] elephant in the room for our

[38:09] community is what does that

[38:10] mean about our plans for

[38:17] growth. And how does that

[38:17] recharge and conservation

[38:22] relate to population growth.

[38:23] Is it easier at can we

[38:24] accommodate, you know, in a

[38:25] smart way, more population

[38:28] growth. If we pursue these

[38:30] other modes. I just wanted

[38:37] that to be out there.

[38:38] >> Yeah, let me answer first.

[38:39] And the other question about

[38:39] monitoring versus modeling.

[38:43] And these are really, I think

[38:44] too, very different animals in

[38:48] some ways. And I think the if

[38:50] it's well thought out, which

[38:52] from what we've seen it has

[38:52] Monday, which islands terms of

[38:56] the groundwater monitoring

[38:57] that that that's very valuable

[38:57] information and we don't want

[39:03] to suggest that. Efforts spent

[39:05] trying to continue that has.

[39:05] So that's kind of different

[39:08] from the model in question.

[39:11] You know, as far as how does

[39:12] the water conservation

[39:15] translate into growth limits.

[39:16] It's not something that we

[39:19] looked into on this peer

[39:23] review. It's an important

[39:24] question. My sense is that

[39:27] you've got quite a bit of room

[39:30] in terms of water conservation

[39:32] that would allow girls. You

[39:33] know what? What those specific

[39:36] numbers look like. We haven't.

[39:36] That wasn't part of our school

[39:40] board we look into that. But

[39:41] there's definitely some room.

[39:42] They urge us from numbers that

[39:50] we've seen.

[39:50] >> comes are walking. Thank

[39:54] you. Getting question again.

[39:55] Join my colleagues on square

[39:55] there. You did a great job for

[39:58] all of us. When I first read

[39:59] this, it really was

[40:00] eye-opening because I begin to

[40:07] think. Didn't get anything

[40:08] right and someone bring a new

[40:11] review that you just highlight

[40:12] the things that you saw that

[40:14] needed correction or you

[40:16] weren't on cleared and that

[40:16] standard or their parched that

[40:17] you agreed with new just in

[40:19] coming on someone that that

[40:20] modeling to corrected. That

[40:22] statement seems to be accurate

[40:22] or not. That thought follows

[40:24] common signs, that kind of

[40:25] thing. So if you give me an

[40:29] idea where they're places that

[40:29] you thought that the plan been

[40:31] just fine or follow No rules

[40:36] and procedures.

[40:37] >> Yeah, you're right that

[40:40] there is a bias towards, you

[40:41] know, finding and commenting

[40:42] on on issues that you have

[40:43] with it, you know, as opposed

[40:48] to saying what's right. I

[40:50] think that there there's lot

[40:53] that's good in In terms

[40:56] pulling together, a lot of

[40:57] that data. I think that data

[41:00] could be presented more

[41:01] concisely and more clearly,

[41:03] particularly in terms of you

[41:04] know what, what is the water

[41:08] use rates right now. There's

[41:09] inconsistent season report But

[41:10] there are some good numbers in

[41:10] there that I think could

[41:14] altogether and cleaned up and

[41:15] even the recharge testaments

[41:19] that were developed. Yeah,

[41:21] they were based on methods

[41:22] that have been used by the

[41:24] U.S. Geological survey, which

[41:27] is, you know, kind of the gold

[41:28] standard in some but they're

[41:31] getting a little bit dated now

[41:33] and then. The other issue is

[41:34] that you know, they didn't

[41:35] really look at the

[41:35] uncertainties associated with

[41:36] those. But, you know, I think

[41:38] that the estimates, you know,

[41:39] terms of the midpoint probably

[41:43] are you know, too bad but you

[41:44] know, and they use probably,

[41:46] you know what could be termed

[41:49] you know, you know, current

[41:50] professional standards, but

[41:53] there's a lot of uncertainties

[41:54] that have been highlighted and

[41:55] that was kind of our one main

[41:55] issue as we thought it could

[41:59] have done a better job with

[42:00] talking about some of the

[42:01] uncertainties and that's

[42:02] sometimes a hard thing to do

[42:02] for people like us pay to

[42:06] develop models to really be

[42:08] clear about you the value and

[42:09] the uncertainties associated

[42:14] with so to my colleagues, when

[42:17] I read read this, around to

[42:19] the end. What's the conclusion

[42:20] what you say as a group. And

[42:21] if I can just read sections of

[42:22] your final 2 paragraphs and

[42:26] get some comment on that. You

[42:29] say to guy local decision

[42:30] making. He recommended

[42:31] stakeholders, quote, need to

[42:31] consider multiple lines of

[42:34] evidence on all physical and

[42:34] plausible outcomes, especially

[42:37] when they're contrast

[42:38] contrasting relevant to

[42:38] specific decision required in

[42:39] response to a changing

[42:41] climate. Confident in the

[42:43] distilled regional climate

[42:44] information is enhanced when

[42:45] there's a grim across multiple

[42:47] lines of evidence that comes

[42:51] from this study ipcc to of 21

[42:53] ats. And this is the part this

[42:55] last paragraph on In other

[42:55] words, to have confidence in

[42:57] future predictions on a local

[42:58] scale. There must be several

[42:59] lines of evidence such as and

[43:02] samba modeling and historical

[43:03] data all support each other

[43:04] and agree on a specific range

[43:05] of outcomes and you call it a

[43:07] steely ation method is the

[43:10] gold standard of climate

[43:11] science. However, it MAY take

[43:14] in in disciplinary teams of

[43:15] experts and access to data and

[43:16] resources that MAY make it

[43:18] accessible to smaller

[43:19] governments and institutions.

[43:20] And I think Adam alluded that

[43:22] earlier saying that you can

[43:24] only go so far was study were

[43:27] becomes unreachable not

[43:29] affordable or forgot how

[43:35] phrase

[43:38] >> Yes, it could be very

[43:39] resource Yeah. The amount of

[43:40] the amount of work in data and

[43:41] modeling that all needs to be

[43:45] synthesized in order to. Say

[43:46] something with confidence even

[43:46] say something about the

[43:50] uncertainty pounds themselves.

[43:52] >> Yeah. But that's perfect

[43:52] segue to your final next pair

[43:56] got into your final paragraph.

[43:58] People say for small area like

[43:59] Cambridge Highland results

[44:01] from quantitative modeling. A

[44:02] future scenarios. Maybe so

[44:03] uncertain that they have

[44:04] limited value for gun specific

[44:06] many with decisions. However

[44:08] him this one study in 2012, it

[44:09] states that the context of

[44:10] policy decisions on carbon

[44:14] emissions and global comment.

[44:16] Certainly is not ignorance.

[44:17] And a reliance on policy

[44:18] makers on scientific and

[44:18] economic analysis to little

[44:20] more certainty on how to

[44:23] optimize future consumption

[44:24] MAY be placing more weight on

[44:24] those analysis than they

[44:25] should be. Reasonably there.

[44:29] And then you close with saying

[44:29] instead of being guided by

[44:30] specific uncertain figures,

[44:33] representing future

[44:34] conditions. Planning decision

[44:34] should be made. That will

[44:36] result in a resilient

[44:38] groundwater system that will

[44:40] be able to adapt to

[44:41] uncertainty in this respect.

[44:42] The groundwater management

[44:43] plan is successful in

[44:44] identifying broad management

[44:45] areas that would result in

[44:47] justice system systematic

[44:48] implementing policies that

[44:50] increased water conservation

[44:51] reduce pumping and provide

[44:54] increased cleaning recharge.

[44:54] Your final groundwater

[44:55] management plan. Voted on

[44:57] these core principles will be

[44:58] the most sustainable and

[44:59] resilient in any future

[45:00] scenario regardless of the

[45:02] specific qualities of

[45:03] precipitation recharge sea

[45:07] level rise, et cetera. So

[45:08] summing that Read how how

[45:10] would you put it in your terms

[45:10] of what you're suggesting.

[45:15] That we be moving forward

[45:16] >> Yeah. Maybe a quick point

[45:17] of clarification that and this

[45:18] is kind of with how we

[45:24] organize that that was kind of

[45:26] unintended. 3 organized it to

[45:27] be kind of a stand-alone

[45:29] section discussing general

[45:31] uncertainty future projections

[45:32] but not necessarily, you know,

[45:34] our key conclusions overall,

[45:35] you know, for that we were

[45:39] kind of intending more the

[45:41] first executive summary those

[45:46] bullet points as I as our kind

[45:47] of conclusions of our review.

[45:47] You know, it's it's it's where

[45:48] we can talk about it a little

[45:52] bit you know, I think this

[45:53] kind of brings cause goes on

[46:00] to say earlier that. You know,

[46:00] it's very resource intensive

[46:01] to try to explore this

[46:04] uncertainty. And in the end.

[46:04] Even if all those resources

[46:08] are spent, you might. It might

[46:10] not be possible to get an

[46:11] answer that is satisfactory

[46:13] for making a management

[46:15] decision. For example, making

[46:16] the manager's decision about

[46:17] how things are going to be

[46:20] affected in the year. 2100 and

[46:21] there are so many different,

[46:24] you know, physically possible

[46:25] pathways of what things could

[46:27] look like in 2100 that all

[46:28] rely on human decision-making,

[46:30] you know, across the globe

[46:33] that in the end they're just

[46:34] there might not be that

[46:34] information available to make

[46:37] a concrete decision. So what

[46:38] we can do is, you know, know

[46:41] that we do know what the

[46:43] future's going to be no, it's

[46:46] highly and then we focus on

[46:48] what we can control. So you

[46:50] know, conservation, we talked

[46:54] groundwater monitoring doesn't

[46:56] really add to that is you

[46:57] know, getting better handle on

[46:57] how much water people are

[47:00] using it and where they're

[47:03] using it and then through

[47:04] time, you know, tracking how

[47:06] all these things are

[47:07] progressing. What population

[47:08] is how much water people

[47:10] using. But the groundwater

[47:11] levels doing it cetera,

[47:12] cetera. And just, you know,

[47:14] all working together problems

[47:15] how can we reduce that water

[47:16] usage. How can we get more

[47:19] water going back into the

[47:20] ground and those 2 things

[47:22] together are going to be the

[47:24] best approach for almost any

[47:25] conceivable scenario. No

[47:27] matter what the future MAY be

[47:28] in there so much. And that

[47:29] future that, you know, the

[47:30] city of Beirut Island or any

[47:31] municipalities not have

[47:34] control over.

[47:35] >> Then some like pretty

[47:38] sensible common sense advice.

[47:39] I appreciate that. And again,

[47:39] I think all college, you're

[47:42] going to be an emotional

[47:43] mutual admiration society. But

[47:43] a lot of work and I've been

[47:44] waiting for this peer review

[47:45] for a long time because our

[47:48] committee has had conflicting

[47:48] ideas of what are the best

[47:52] models where water, the

[47:53] possible out comes as a

[47:53] something correct. Are the

[47:56] perceptions projections on

[47:56] target and you helping us get

[47:59] there and a lot of it realize

[48:00] that there's a lot of

[48:01] uncertainty. I think that

[48:01] seems to be the key word on

[48:06] this whole discussion today.

[48:10] Thank customer high topless or

[48:11] second term and also

[48:12] councilmember Thank you. So I

[48:12] want to push for a little more

[48:14] certainty because I'm having

[48:15] hard time reconciling a couple

[48:16] things from themes through

[48:17] your comments on written

[48:20] comments. And so.

[48:21] >> The statement a little

[48:23] while ago about You know, and

[48:24] I'm gonna go straight to the

[48:24] Elf in the room for all of us,

[48:27] which is that we we are set to

[48:27] make significant decisions

[48:31] regarding population growth

[48:31] and that actually is a lever

[48:33] that we do have control, but

[48:33] we can't control climate. We

[48:34] can't control a lot of other

[48:37] things, but we can we actually

[48:38] making one of the key things

[48:39] we do is pass makers is is

[48:41] decide. You know, was owning

[48:45] looks like it's that are

[48:46] right. So and we're getting a

[48:47] lot of growth pressure from

[48:48] the state. So when you said a

[48:49] few moments ago that there's

[48:52] quite a lot of room. If we can

[48:54] serve that felt inconsistent

[48:56] with a lot of what I've

[48:57] written you to read in your

[48:58] comments South. Also that when

[49:02] we started this conversation

[49:03] and I MAY have a

[49:03] misunderstanding, but I

[49:05] thought you were saying that

[49:05] while we have unknowns even

[49:08] within what the state is today

[49:09] but the state we're in today

[49:10] with current population draws

[49:13] and so forth that that you

[49:15] have the sense that we're in

[49:17] that zone of like we could be.

[49:18] You know, there are other

[49:20] communities that have more

[49:21] room for uncertainties and

[49:22] that we're kind of getting in

[49:24] zone where we need to be

[49:25] concerned. And I also

[49:25] understood from everything

[49:26] that think they've said today

[49:29] what you wrote that you

[49:30] written your recommendation

[49:31] about conservation. What's so

[49:32] important about that is I

[49:33] believe that's a

[49:34] recommendation now in our

[49:35] current state. The given how

[49:37] are operating now with this

[49:38] population. Behaving. It's

[49:39] behaving now we need to be

[49:43] looking conservation and so I

[49:44] think it's really important.

[49:46] Get some clarification from

[49:49] you on that for one thing

[49:50] because with this Council, it

[49:51] MAY be thinking Conservation

[49:52] was going you know, we're

[49:53] going to conserve x amount,

[49:55] which as I've said many times

[49:57] up here week actually can't

[49:57] control human behavior,

[49:58] especially if money's no

[50:01] object to some people. And so

[50:04] that's a little dangerous.

[50:04] That we're that getting our

[50:06] capacity from conservation

[50:07] rather than and known

[50:10] unknowable inherent capacity.

[50:11] So I'd love to hear more about

[50:12] that in. The second thing is

[50:13] understanding more about when

[50:16] you talk about and some of

[50:17] that. I think criticism

[50:17] potentially of the of the work

[50:19] that's been done so far. You

[50:24] talk about trying to determine

[50:27] you know, at that that's a to

[50:28] rent a steady state model to

[50:29] determine it sounds of what

[50:30] equilibrium is maybe very

[50:32] simplistic. But rather than

[50:34] focusing on. We've got to

[50:34] figure out the exact number of

[50:35] variables and what will happen

[50:38] here. And here. But rather

[50:39] understanding what we're

[50:40] working with it. I think

[50:41] that's what you're saying.

[50:42] We're talking just making sure

[50:42] all we can really focus on is

[50:45] making sure that that the

[50:46] system we have is functioning

[50:46] as much equilibrium is

[50:50] possible. But that necessarily

[50:53] then even if we don't the

[50:54] exact growth numbers we can to

[50:55] weaken except and so forth is

[50:58] has to be taken into

[50:59] consideration. And so we're

[51:00] kind I hear my my colleagues

[51:01] kind of going back into the

[51:04] Centre of like which is what

[51:06] people who think anyone asking

[51:08] about water is just trying to

[51:10] stop growth is saying is,

[51:11] know, it's uncertain. It's

[51:12] uncertain. We don't know so

[51:12] well. We don't worry about it.

[51:15] We'll just conserve. So I'd

[51:16] love hear more about what we

[51:16] can do if we took the approach

[51:19] is that you talk about could

[51:20] take and anything else that

[51:22] comes to mind after what I'm

[51:22] saying because this is the

[51:23] crux of what our community

[51:24] wants to understand about this

[51:28] work. Thanks.

[51:29] >> When you start off by being

[51:31] a more precise with my

[51:31] language when I said that

[51:34] there's there's there. What I

[51:38] was referring to was average

[51:43] per capita water You multiply

[51:43] that by your population, of

[51:44] course, and you get the water

[51:48] news. You can reduce that

[51:49] average per capita water use

[51:53] significantly from where ends.

[51:56] And you know, the room then

[51:57] that gives here is potentially

[51:58] in some population growth. If

[51:59] you want to maintain the

[52:00] current water use. So it's

[52:00] that's what I meant by it by

[52:11] room. And as far as you know,

[52:13] conserving water, there are

[52:14] things that you can do, right.

[52:19] I mean, there places in the

[52:20] state then a people not to

[52:20] schedule County at all or

[52:26] places like that where they

[52:26] restrict outdoor water use and

[52:29] has a huge impact in terms of

[52:30] how much water comes out,

[52:33] particularly some of these

[52:35] accent Wells there are

[52:36] potentially and I'm not an

[52:37] expert on this, but I have

[52:38] some experience from the worse

[52:42] on water board. There is a

[52:45] response that happens when

[52:46] change the way that you charge

[52:49] for water. So there are ways

[52:52] encourage conservation that

[52:54] way. And then there's peer

[52:56] pressure. You know what she

[52:57] turns out to be really pretty,

[52:59] pretty powerful in terms of

[52:59] conserving life. So I think

[53:00] there are things that you can

[53:02] do as a community to conserve

[53:09] water you have some responses.

[53:09] I think there are things that

[53:13] I.

[53:14] >> No, I think that sounds

[53:15] good. Yeah. And, you know, I

[53:18] also think just you know,

[53:21] we're hearing the groundwater

[53:22] management plan. I think that

[53:23] I that I think a part of the

[53:25] next steps that it identifies

[53:25] are identifying what these

[53:26] conservation measures look

[53:28] like. No, I don't think that,

[53:32] you know, we as reviewers can

[53:33] offer what it what is going to

[53:34] be the best pathway to

[53:35] conserve water. And I do think

[53:39] that, you know.

[53:40] >> There challenges to that

[53:45] for For sure. With how.

[53:46] >> Many different systems

[53:47] there on the island. The

[53:49] permit extent Wells the kpd

[53:49] system because the system and

[53:53] then the other water per day

[53:53] or so, so that that is a

[53:57] problem. I don't want make it

[53:58] seem like we're minimizing

[53:59] not. And I also just don't

[54:00] it's not within our scope to

[54:01] be able to like offer any, you

[54:07] know, slam dunk. Definitely

[54:08] going to work things. But you

[54:09] know, these are ideas that we

[54:11] have and that we in some cases

[54:12] with restrictions on outdoor

[54:13] water use that we see in other

[54:19] places. Go ahead.

[54:21] >> One just to try to

[54:22] understand that one more time.

[54:24] Just though it in that study

[54:25] state thing. I mean, these

[54:26] misses But let me just read

[54:26] this to little things and it

[54:27] would ask you explain it to us

[54:30] as people where you say the

[54:32] groundwater model is used to

[54:33] simulate water levels that

[54:34] these these these 100 up to a

[54:36] 100 years. The future in none

[54:36] of the scenarios to water

[54:40] levels. Reach equilibrium. It

[54:41] would be in a relatively

[54:43] simple task to run the model.

[54:44] Instead, the to estimate what

[54:45] the equilibrium levels would

[54:46] be for different combinations.

[54:48] Recharge rates in groundwater.

[54:49] Extraction rates. The

[54:51] steady-state simulations can

[54:52] be completed much more

[54:53] efficiently than the transient

[54:54] simulations described in the

[54:56] current gw Mt. And then just

[54:59] one last sentence, a thing or

[55:00] 2. Here and advantage of said

[55:01] the state simulations is that

[55:03] they can be used to help it to

[55:05] help identify the combinations

[55:06] of groundwater recharge

[55:06] groundwater extraction. That

[55:09] will be sustainable for future

[55:10] generations. These

[55:11] combinations that are

[55:11] sustainable can then be used

[55:12] to help identify which

[55:15] management options are needed

[55:16] to achieve that target the

[55:19] levels of recharge and

[55:20] extraction that for us as a

[55:20] community, I believe is the

[55:24] Holy Grail for water. So

[55:26] anything you can tell us

[55:27] understand what that means and

[55:27] how we do that would be

[55:31] helpful.

[55:32] >> You know, you're one of the

[55:37] point you're trying to make,

[55:37] you know. And that section was

[55:38] that the way to the

[55:39] groundwater model has been

[55:42] used is outside of the model

[55:43] you develop estimates of how

[55:44] much water you're going to all

[55:59] right. When you put those

[56:01] >> All right. I can do my best

[56:03] on this But to be fully

[56:08] honest. I am a surface. And

[56:09] expert in recharge not on what

[56:10] happens under the ground. Joy

[56:17] Act. I hope so.

[56:18] >> All right. Sense I want

[56:18] what I was saying was that,

[56:19] you know, the way that the

[56:20] models when you do says, you

[56:21] know, it's specify how much.

[56:22] Groundwater you're going to

[56:24] use in the future, put it in

[56:27] the model and it calculates

[56:28] water levels. But it doesn't

[56:29] say whether those water levels

[56:32] are sustainable or not. And

[56:34] what what we're advocating is

[56:38] a more in some simpler. But

[56:42] more in precise method to get

[56:43] bounds on what on how much

[56:45] water you might be able to

[56:47] take out and that's what the

[56:48] steady state mode is trying to

[56:50] We don't know if that steady

[56:52] states going to happen in 30

[56:54] years or 50 years or 500 years

[56:55] and will kind of giving that

[56:58] piece of the modeling up. But

[56:59] we would be able to get some

[57:00] bombs on if you're recharge,

[57:01] is this, then you MAY be able

[57:03] to develop. You know, x amount

[57:06] of water in to this. You know.

[57:07] Which is kind of a different

[57:10] way. It. Bp took this picture

[57:13] on.

[57:26] >> 51 new video now.

[57:27] >> Do you up a little bit

[57:29] there at the end we lost maybe

[57:36] the the little bit.

[57:36] >> Yeah. That that was just

[57:37] just a different way of using

[57:44] the I guess.

[57:46] >> We move to Council reduce

[57:47] the should think think you get

[57:51] mayor thank you. So to me it's

[57:52] just maybe could take your

[57:58] video off and that self. Not

[58:06] done leave still here.

[58:07] >> Anyway, Adam, I want to

[58:07] follow You mentioned the guy

[58:10] kind I'm extreme conservation

[58:11] measure ban on outdoor water.

[58:15] Well. I'm sure you Gentlemen

[58:16] you since you're in the field.

[58:17] He saw the Seattle Times

[58:21] article today were the city's

[58:22] a Ellensburg Prosser. Yeah.

[58:23] Come on received curtailment

[58:26] letters from the Department of

[58:27] ecology basically no

[58:28] irrigation or lawn or garden

[58:31] watering due to we're in the

[58:32] 3rd year of a drought and I

[58:39] guess my. Question here is

[58:41] when for us to follow if your

[58:42] recommendation water

[58:43] conservation, which I wholly

[58:44] indoors because I brought

[58:46] discussion on this in

[58:48] mid-APRIL that let's have a

[58:48] discussion of water.

[58:51] Implementing water

[58:52] conservation measures earlier

[58:52] this year and was decided.

[58:55] Let's wait till groundwater

[58:56] management plan this time. So

[58:57] we're kind of back to this.

[58:59] But I think my what I'm trying

[59:02] probe here is. What's

[59:07] happening with the cities and

[59:07] what you just mentioned Adam,

[59:12] is that it an extreme measure.

[59:12] Seems like there's different

[59:13] levels of water, conservation.

[59:19] >> In your. Opinion.

[59:19] >> How would correct. What is

[59:23] our level. Should we. I'm just

[59:24] saying what if we do, we go to

[59:27] the extreme measure. That

[59:29] seems extreme. But what level

[59:30] of water conservation should

[59:31] we be implementing and then

[59:33] second. How do we know that?

[59:39] We're succeeding. You know,

[59:40] how do we know this is working

[59:42] or first quote at a moderate

[59:43] conservation level. At what

[59:44] point do we know we we need

[59:47] ramp it up. So if that if that

[59:51] if that makes sense.

[59:53] >> Yeah, I think you can never

[59:58] know for sure.

[59:59] >> You know, to what degree

[1:00:00] are succeeding because the

[1:00:02] shooter is always going to be

[1:00:06] uncertain. But I do think that

[1:00:06] there is indicators that you

[1:00:07] can follow that can give you a

[1:00:11] good sense that you're

[1:00:12] conservation is working well,

[1:00:14] you know, my understanding is

[1:00:15] that a lot of the well

[1:00:18] monitoring bigger, Wells. Many

[1:00:20] Wells are in a slow but steady

[1:00:21] state of decline that doesn't

[1:00:24] mean the system is

[1:00:25] unsustainable. It might just

[1:00:25] be that they're being the

[1:00:28] system's adjusting to new

[1:00:31] groundwater withdrawals. But.

[1:00:34] If this is the misses they

[1:00:34] will eventually one would

[1:00:37] expect those elevations to

[1:00:38] stabilize. And so like one

[1:00:41] very strong indicator that the

[1:00:43] system is being sustainable

[1:00:45] years at least for the current

[1:00:46] and recent history of

[1:00:48] conditions would you have some

[1:00:49] stabilization in those

[1:00:50] groundwater elevations across

[1:00:58] the and so it's so that can

[1:00:58] monitor. And I think that you

[1:01:03] know, that's something I kind

[1:01:03] of cheese and what we're

[1:01:08] recommending about about the

[1:01:09] if Joe is still with us, you

[1:01:10] know, he's the groundwater

[1:01:11] expert. You MAY have more to

[1:01:14] say about okay was not so much

[1:01:14] say about that. I mean, I

[1:01:16] agree everything you said, but

[1:01:18] no one thought we had was, you

[1:01:19] know, one of the next steps is

[1:01:21] to identify these.

[1:01:26] >> Different approaches for

[1:01:26] conservation.

[1:01:27] >> And a sign no cost to them

[1:01:28] bowl, you know, monetary

[1:01:32] costs, you know, cost in terms

[1:01:33] of and you know how it's going

[1:01:37] affect people and so on and

[1:01:39] prioritizing them get some

[1:01:40] sense of, you know, maybe

[1:01:41] there's some really low

[1:01:42] hanging fruit that you could

[1:01:46] go after and increase the

[1:01:46] conservation significantly

[1:01:47] without a lot of, you without

[1:01:53] a lot of pain. Thank

[1:01:54] >> Yes, counselor, Milwaukee

[1:01:58] and then thank you that in

[1:01:58] there, you know, being short

[1:01:59] Iowa's go furloughing

[1:02:01] improved. That's how we can

[1:02:03] do. Your final chapter. It was

[1:02:04] the headline. I think it's as

[1:02:04] planning in the face of

[1:02:05] uncertainty that was what you

[1:02:08] summed it up with and we

[1:02:09] talked about it earlier, but

[1:02:10] there was one that of all the

[1:02:10] comments and your that jumped

[1:02:16] out at me. Page 4, one of the

[1:02:16] last bullet and says the

[1:02:20] environmental assessment 2025

[1:02:21] model does not explicitly

[1:02:22] include streams wetlands or

[1:02:25] lakes. This severely limits,

[1:02:26] the usefulness of the model

[1:02:28] for freshman impacts on

[1:02:28] groundwater pumping or an

[1:02:29] individual streams and

[1:02:32] wetlands. I just assumed that

[1:02:34] was mean, it's common sense.

[1:02:36] So that that's kind of.

[1:02:40] Surprise to

[1:02:41] >> Yeah, that was the the

[1:02:44] example But what I was

[1:02:48] mentioning before was that

[1:02:53] That model was handed to your

[1:02:54] current consulting that I

[1:02:55] think they point out that it's

[1:02:59] not a proper way to do that.

[1:03:00] Modeling. And we would second

[1:03:01] that it's not a proper way to

[1:03:04] do the modeling to take out

[1:03:07] those streams. So on. Given

[1:03:07] what the objective right.

[1:03:08] You're trying to predict or

[1:03:12] estimate the impacts. On the

[1:03:13] on those resources and model

[1:03:14] can't do it the way it's set

[1:03:15] up right now.

[1:03:18] >> So a number on Broadway. If

[1:03:18] it was included, how might

[1:03:22] that have impacted projections

[1:03:22] on the ground. Water recharge

[1:03:27] him the for him.

[1:03:28] >> I don't think it would have

[1:03:29] affected recharge

[1:03:36] significantly. Probably won't

[1:03:37] affected, you know, estimates

[1:03:38] on how much water you're able

[1:03:38] to pull out of those deeper

[1:03:43] aquifers. But you're kind of

[1:03:44] flying blind in terms of what

[1:03:47] are the impacts the pumping,

[1:03:49] you know, on your stream flow

[1:03:50] and on your wetlands was just

[1:03:51] solid way to get that out of

[1:03:57] the model. And that's

[1:03:59] something that could be fixed

[1:03:59] if you you know, if you want

[1:04:00] to do and it's not if you want

[1:04:01] to be a huge effort to fix

[1:04:02] that piece of the modeling

[1:04:06] work.

[1:04:11] >> colleagues. Thank it's been

[1:04:13] observed that the council

[1:04:14] doesn't spend enough time

[1:04:14] discussing things. But I think

[1:04:21] we're refuting critique in the

[1:04:22] way dealing with these these

[1:04:27] issues and this dialogue with.

[1:04:27] The people who have done some

[1:04:31] excellent work for us. I want

[1:04:32] to touch on a few things that

[1:04:32] I think haven't been mentioned

[1:04:41] to. Quoting paraphrasing

[1:04:41] various place passages page.

[1:04:46] 25, there's the observation is

[1:04:47] unlikely. Aquifer storage and

[1:04:48] recovery would be feasible on

[1:04:52] Bainbridge Island. Does not

[1:04:58] mean tertiary treatment and

[1:04:59] reuse is really not going to

[1:05:05] be the money. It takes.

[1:05:06] >> I know that I and trying

[1:05:09] say that fact, you know, the

[1:05:11] tertiary treatment that is one

[1:05:14] way to prefer recharge. If so,

[1:05:14] we would, you know, support

[1:05:17] those kind of actions. I

[1:05:19] prefer storage and recovery.

[1:05:20] The idea is that you pump

[1:05:20] water down into the awkward

[1:05:24] for you. And store it and then

[1:05:26] pump back on again and we've

[1:05:27] quite a bit of work over. They

[1:05:28] looked at this and this man

[1:05:30] plateau quite a bit that a lot

[1:05:31] of testing on there. And

[1:05:34] they're basically just pushing

[1:05:37] the water out men were really

[1:05:38] storing water. Those are

[1:05:39] that's very helpful. Thank you

[1:05:45] the clarification. I want to

[1:05:46] linger on the phrase planning

[1:05:47] in the face of uncertainty.

[1:05:51] And it's I've been thinking

[1:05:51] this through as as we've

[1:05:55] talked about it. Planning in

[1:05:57] the face of uncertainty is

[1:05:58] exactly what we're doing when

[1:06:02] we plan for for population

[1:06:03] growth. A plan for a diversity

[1:06:09] of housing stock. All of is

[1:06:10] planning without knowing how

[1:06:11] much will actually be

[1:06:15] accomplished or the pace at

[1:06:16] which change will happen. We

[1:06:18] also don't know in advance.

[1:06:23] That's the rate at which

[1:06:24] people will be leaving the

[1:06:24] island well, other people

[1:06:27] arrive on the island. So there

[1:06:29] are these uncertainties that

[1:06:31] give us some comfort. I

[1:06:34] believe when we're talking

[1:06:35] about the obligation to plan

[1:06:41] for population growth. We need

[1:06:44] to monitor year by year. What

[1:06:47] we're producing and our

[1:06:50] increases in population the

[1:06:54] people aging out or being

[1:06:59] displaced by causes and

[1:07:04] leaving room for new people

[1:07:06] coming in.

[1:07:07] >> you address very well. I

[1:07:10] think. The ways in which

[1:07:17] uncertainty could be.

[1:07:19] Recognize more because as you

[1:07:20] say, uncertainty is different

[1:07:26] from But if you if you try to

[1:07:28] quantify the amount or the

[1:07:29] kinds of uncertainty. That's

[1:07:29] that's something we could

[1:07:36] learn from. Now. The last

[1:07:39] thing I the last observation

[1:07:40] on what is in your peer

[1:07:43] review. And also I think the

[1:07:44] contents of the groundwater

[1:07:47] management plan itself. There

[1:07:52] is no discussion of carrying

[1:07:53] capacity. That is something

[1:07:55] that people have been asking

[1:07:56] for looking for expecting to

[1:08:04] be. Addressed in our Studies

[1:08:06] of groundwater present future

[1:08:11] and I take great comfort in

[1:08:12] this silence on this subject

[1:08:16] because I think carrying

[1:08:20] capacity totally on There are

[1:08:23] so many different factors come

[1:08:24] into play and we should not be

[1:08:27] trying to assign a number to

[1:08:30] the carrying capacity of our

[1:08:33] in terms of population, in

[1:08:34] terms of other the other parts

[1:08:38] portions of our ecosystem. We

[1:08:39] should just be cautious and

[1:08:43] careful attentive to the ways

[1:08:43] in which things change in the

[1:08:47] way things stay the same.

[1:08:50] That's just my own. Deep

[1:08:51] conviction on the subject. And

[1:08:52] I wanted to share it with my

[1:08:54] colleagues and the public. Now

[1:08:56] there's one last big question

[1:09:01] for me. About the difference

[1:09:07] within our system. Between the

[1:09:07] deepest aquifers and those

[1:09:08] that are at or above sea

[1:09:14] level. It has been asserted

[1:09:15] that on our Island. We are

[1:09:16] already in trouble because we

[1:09:19] have depended too much on the

[1:09:20] deepest aquifers. And it's

[1:09:25] been observed that those

[1:09:25] deepest aquifers served most

[1:09:26] of the residents on the

[1:09:30] island. On the basis of. What

[1:09:33] you The dating scene in the

[1:09:36] groundwater management plan.

[1:09:40] Can we determine. How much of

[1:09:45] the island depends. Mostly or

[1:09:47] entirely on the deepest

[1:09:49] aquifers. How much of the

[1:09:49] population and how much of the

[1:09:54] consumption. There could be

[1:09:56] proved or there MAY be

[1:09:57] percentages. I'm I'm dubious

[1:09:59] about the observation that

[1:10:02] most of the other residents

[1:10:05] are reliant upon the deepest

[1:10:06] offers. But I don't know that

[1:10:07] for sure. Maybe you. You've

[1:10:08] understood that from the what

[1:10:12] you've done. I want the plan

[1:10:15] to establish. Changes that we

[1:10:21] could make. To to rely less if

[1:10:23] we need to on the deepest

[1:10:28] aquifers maybe can help me

[1:10:29] >> Yeah, I believe there are

[1:10:33] some numbers in the report. I

[1:10:34] don't. That happened at my

[1:10:35] fingertips that do qualify.

[1:10:36] You know how much the water

[1:10:39] use comes from. Most people

[1:10:39] are options. And my

[1:10:42] recollection is that it is

[1:10:43] most of the people who I

[1:10:45] don't. I don't know exactly

[1:10:46] what that number largest

[1:10:48] percentage of the people are

[1:10:52] providing water from that was

[1:10:55] I think that's deepest pockets

[1:10:56] it is the large systems that

[1:11:01] rely especially on the prefer.

[1:11:02] >> But there is a great deal

[1:11:02] other systems in their private

[1:11:06] Wells and so on. But I don't

[1:11:07] know if we have an out of my

[1:11:10] eyes. The whole system as much

[1:11:15] as we might in that regard.

[1:11:16] Yeah. I mean, you remember

[1:11:16] those numbers. I know you look

[1:11:19] at them as well that.

[1:11:21] >> I do. Yes, I know. I think

[1:11:22] they're in there. I don't

[1:11:28] remember the not stop my

[1:11:31] >> I guess counselor high

[1:11:32] topless has one You 2 things

[1:11:35] have come off of your

[1:11:36] questions mayor to just real

[1:11:36] quick. I was curious to look

[1:11:40] up because carrying capacity.

[1:11:42] I thought was probably similar

[1:11:43] to studies the equilibrium.

[1:11:44] And so I thought that sort of

[1:11:44] like what we're talking about

[1:11:45] is something that can

[1:11:49] potentially be determined, at

[1:11:50] least roughly just not knowing

[1:11:50] when will reach it for sure

[1:11:57] because of the lack of Of

[1:11:58] certainty. But I guess this is

[1:12:00] what my continue frustrations

[1:12:01] with this conversation and and

[1:12:03] not not here. Just tonight

[1:12:03] with with you. You too. But I

[1:12:04] mean, just all we've been

[1:12:06] through over the years on this

[1:12:08] is that everything I read the

[1:12:09] comes from the usgs and other

[1:12:14] sources talks about in terms

[1:12:14] of.

[1:12:16] >> Some level of certainty

[1:12:17] your goals with regards to

[1:12:18] balance sustainable. You know,

[1:12:18] withdrawal sustainable for

[1:12:22] that word. A sustainable

[1:12:22] yield. I mean, this is work

[1:12:23] that done, right. So I guess I

[1:12:26] just want to I just want to

[1:12:27] counter that. I don't believe

[1:12:29] it's absurd to be looking for

[1:12:29] carrying capacity of the

[1:12:30] guards to water. We're looking

[1:12:33] for sustainable yield. We're

[1:12:34] looking to tap protect perhaps

[1:12:35] for something along the lines

[1:12:37] of state is the equilibrium.

[1:12:38] And I guess the lesson want to

[1:12:41] say is, is that yes, I mean,

[1:12:41] our major water purveyors like

[1:12:46] us

[1:12:48] >> kpd. That's the issue draw

[1:12:51] quite a bit from the Fletcher

[1:12:52] biographer and that has been

[1:12:53] in decline as long as we've

[1:12:53] been looking at this and

[1:12:54] that's something we still

[1:12:55] never come back to is.

[1:12:56] >> How do we feel about that

[1:13:03] decline.

[1:13:05] >> Mayor Matthew is one thing

[1:13:08] and council Thanks so much to

[1:13:09] be mayor. So I actually had

[1:13:10] this as a discuss to discuss

[1:13:12] coming up for future agenda

[1:13:13] but thought it probably best

[1:13:14] to have this conversation.

[1:13:15] First. I don't remember where

[1:13:16] we're going. But I set we're

[1:13:20] going somewhere in a bus. And

[1:13:22] I sat next to the south one of

[1:13:24] the Silverdale water

[1:13:25] commissioners Marcus and he

[1:13:26] had bunch of suggestions for

[1:13:28] things that we could be doing

[1:13:29] now here that included with

[1:13:30] the first step was that we

[1:13:33] should take a tour of the port

[1:13:33] gamble, water treatment

[1:13:38] facility. And so I what their

[1:13:39] 3rd there. The on the 3rd

[1:13:40] Thursday of the month. And so

[1:13:40] I will send out a calendar

[1:13:41] thing and see if any folks

[1:13:42] want to go.

[1:13:45] >> then I will do. And just I

[1:13:46] guess if there's any interest

[1:13:48] in having him come and speak

[1:13:49] about some of the innovative

[1:13:50] things that they're doing

[1:13:51] there. I think that would be

[1:13:57] helpful for us to.

[1:13:57] Conservatives. Well, I was

[1:13:58] just going to go ahead and

[1:14:00] make the motion. Thank you,

[1:14:07] Adam and. You still there. I

[1:14:08] moved forward the groundwater

[1:14:09] management plan Pierre view to

[1:14:10] the ground. Water management

[1:14:11] plan, subcommittee in

[1:14:13] technical advisory Committee

[1:14:14] for development of next steps

[1:14:18] and plans for public became

[1:14:19] moved by councilmember Dietz

[1:14:22] and seconded by councilor more

[1:14:23] waukee. All those in favor any

[1:14:28] opposed. Ms Bishop motion

[1:14:31] passes unanimously. Thank you

[1:14:35] and thank you both. And Joel.

[1:14:36] It's been great to talk with

[1:14:37] you tonight. Thank you so

[1:14:45] Thank They Chair. If I could

[1:14:46] related directly.

[1:14:48] >> To the report on the pier

[1:14:48] review.

[1:14:53] >> couple topics come up. Will

[1:14:58] try present to you. The most

[1:14:58] recent review of our

[1:15:00] beneficial. You study brought

[1:15:03] to a while back as recall

[1:15:07] there were 2 things that were

[1:15:07] looked one was using

[1:15:09] beneficial reuse for

[1:15:10] irrigation purposes and the

[1:15:13] other was recharged. We spent

[1:15:15] a lot of time and effort

[1:15:16] looking at actual recharge

[1:15:18] would in terms of the

[1:15:19] composition of the ground at

[1:15:24] the The port gamble is. Used

[1:15:25] terms of they're putting the

[1:15:30] treated water back in there

[1:15:30] are conditions for bit

[1:15:32] different. When we identify,

[1:15:35] for example, Kai Park as

[1:15:37] location that would be

[1:15:40] acceptable recharge location

[1:15:40] So perhaps over the next

[1:15:42] couple months or where the

[1:15:44] next before you consider that

[1:15:46] too, might be helpful have an

[1:15:48] update on the beneficial and

[1:15:52] finally just going say that.

[1:15:52] Having worked in several

[1:15:53] cities where water

[1:15:54] conservation important piece

[1:15:55] to basic form of that. If that

[1:15:59] is an area that you go to is

[1:16:01] that you just know many ways

[1:16:05] like greenhouse gas reduction

[1:16:06] efforts. You develop reporter

[1:16:07] demand assessment for how much

[1:16:10] water they are consuming. And

[1:16:10] then you look at conservation

[1:16:12] actions to reduce that water

[1:16:13] by a certain percentage over a

[1:16:16] period of time and then you

[1:16:17] look at your plight tools and

[1:16:19] that's basic form that most

[1:16:23] cities are both the water

[1:16:23] conservation. So really have a

[1:16:24] lot of the information right

[1:16:28] now in terms what your and

[1:16:28] assessment is just discussion

[1:16:29] has been on what your

[1:16:32] conservation tools are and

[1:16:33] help to reduction chief

[1:16:33] through various tools over a

[1:16:40] period of time.

[1:16:41] >> Thank you. I could move now

[1:16:45] to item 3 b. Involving changes

[1:16:49] to the ethics program and you

[1:16:56] information in the packet. And

[1:16:57] no recommended motion but we

[1:17:03] MAY. Provide some Council to

[1:17:05] members of the ethics board

[1:17:12] who are here with us tonight.

[1:17:16] So let's take take forward

[1:17:18] from are there any questions

[1:17:20] or comments at this point. And

[1:17:23] city manager do you want to

[1:17:24] play with I don't know how

[1:17:25] much background you want or

[1:17:26] need in case. You

[1:17:28] >> Right. This is an action

[1:17:29] related to something counts

[1:17:33] last back in MAY. That me the

[1:17:34] council considered some

[1:17:38] changes to program, which is a

[1:17:38] product for work That was part

[1:17:42] the counts from the ethics

[1:17:43] program at the time the

[1:17:47] council limiting to 12 months.

[1:17:50] The complaints could perceive

[1:17:52] to one year for the actions

[1:17:54] subject to complaints within

[1:17:55] also one year after member of

[1:17:56] commissioner had left her

[1:17:59] position within the last 12

[1:18:03] months. The ethics board has

[1:18:04] responded don't you kidding

[1:18:06] the chairs here as you can

[1:18:07] tell, they are recommending

[1:18:11] two-year time frame. 2 years

[1:18:13] after violation occurred in 2

[1:18:15] years after the council member

[1:18:18] advisory group member we

[1:18:19] Assuming the alleged violation

[1:18:22] occurred in term of office and

[1:18:23] they are recommending that be

[1:18:27] the standard to be maintained.

[1:18:29] But chair is here to offer

[1:18:31] insight into their position

[1:18:31] But again, not sure how much

[1:18:33] back on the council want that.

[1:18:34] But that's based addition

[1:18:37] Quick. Thumbnail sketch. You

[1:18:42] have memo sent to Mary

[1:18:47] Matthews and myself.

[1:18:49] >> And I responded had very

[1:18:52] useful give and take with

[1:18:53] don't you're Mainly to just

[1:19:01] encourage 2. Feel to know that

[1:19:03] the council respects, the

[1:19:04] integrity and the separateness

[1:19:10] of the ethics board from

[1:19:13] management or or even

[1:19:17] scrutiny. We honor their input

[1:19:21] in let's see how we can

[1:19:22] perhaps respond to the

[1:19:24] concerns expressed in the memo

[1:19:28] and the ideas there for a way

[1:19:29] forward council member Hart

[1:19:31] high top Alyssa you weren't in

[1:19:32] the initial Lou point. Go

[1:19:35] ahead.

[1:19:36] >> Well, I was you are the

[1:19:38] main voice for being is with

[1:19:43] proposals. Yeah, good as well

[1:19:44] as somebody who drafted recent

[1:19:44] chief brought changes on our

[1:19:49] side of the covid anyway. I

[1:19:50] have. I want to preface. My

[1:19:51] comments was saying it so hard

[1:19:54] for me to say anything against

[1:19:55] anything brought forward by of

[1:19:57] its board since I think that

[1:19:58] they're amazing and I'm so

[1:19:58] thankful for the long service

[1:20:04] of a number of them. And still

[1:20:05] feel the same way that I did

[1:20:06] that before. So I said to put

[1:20:09] on the record. I do not

[1:20:09] believe that either council

[1:20:10] members or committee members

[1:20:12] that was shocking to me that

[1:20:15] we were doing this to

[1:20:16] committee members should be

[1:20:17] hunted down accused of ethics

[1:20:20] complaints any time after they

[1:20:21] leave. And that's one of a

[1:20:22] couple comments about that. So

[1:20:24] I do want to clarify for the

[1:20:25] ethics board. Based on the

[1:20:27] memo to receive my GOD, I had

[1:20:30] no idea that we we were

[1:20:31] suggesting something more

[1:20:32] lenient for us than than the

[1:20:33] committees. I'm more worried.

[1:20:33] The committee members. I'm

[1:20:34] always worried about

[1:20:35] dissuading people from we're

[1:20:40] here for us. I've said this

[1:20:42] before as a lawyer and having

[1:20:43] seen this happen to other

[1:20:45] lawyer members of this Council

[1:20:47] before all of us care about

[1:20:48] being called an ethical, but

[1:20:50] any. But but, you know, in my

[1:20:51] profession in particular, as

[1:20:52] you know, anything raise like

[1:20:53] this coming after me. 2 years

[1:20:56] after the 9 Council

[1:20:58] potentially harming my

[1:20:59] reputation feels

[1:20:59] inappropriate. Was

[1:21:00] particularly profit again for

[1:21:03] a fallen to And I just want to

[1:21:05] remind everybody that there

[1:21:07] are state ethics there is

[1:21:09] their state ethics. There's

[1:21:12] the ethics code. Is a serious

[1:21:13] ethics issue. And I know that

[1:21:14] that committee knows this I

[1:21:15] mean, this is You know, if

[1:21:16] somebody actually commit, you

[1:21:17] know, taking bribes or

[1:21:21] something. We on those. Those

[1:21:21] are a whole different world.

[1:21:22] And that's not what we're

[1:21:22] talking about, trying to

[1:21:25] influence this is our ethics

[1:21:25] code. So I want to I don't

[1:21:29] want to beat a dead horse. But

[1:21:30] I just I just don't think it's

[1:21:31] reasonable to ask of any of us

[1:21:32] volunteer or elected is to be

[1:21:36] subject to our city to ethics

[1:21:37] program after we've left and

[1:21:43] move with their lives. Thank

[1:21:47] >> Council member country

[1:21:47] Johnson.

[1:21:48] >> Yeah, I know when I read

[1:21:53] this, I kind of. Remember some

[1:22:00] things you know, at I want to

[1:22:02] questions about this my my

[1:22:05] main question was well, first

[1:22:07] of all, what what does the

[1:22:08] state say. Are we compliance

[1:22:09] with what you know because

[1:22:12] we've all had to sign the

[1:22:12] little paper says we're going

[1:22:17] to be at the going and kinda

[1:22:18] on what what you are saying.

[1:22:21] Council might have a list. We.

[1:22:24] Some of us are in professions

[1:22:25] where we we all have to sign

[1:22:28] those type language. You know,

[1:22:34] for our jobs. I you know, I

[1:22:34] know it's not a matter of

[1:22:39] mistrust. I know. There was

[1:22:41] some history. With this a

[1:22:44] while back. And I kind of

[1:22:48] remember that. But I have say

[1:22:51] that, you know, when I no

[1:22:55] longer am on this Council. I'm

[1:22:58] no longer on this Council. I

[1:22:59] don't want anybody hunt me

[1:23:01] down in sand and then I have

[1:23:04] to defend myself. Against

[1:23:04] because anybody can make a

[1:23:09] claim. Off the council. I

[1:23:12] won't have legal help. You

[1:23:12] know, I'm just a regular

[1:23:19] citizen. You know. And and

[1:23:22] yeah, the committee, you know,

[1:23:24] the poor committee members. I

[1:23:27] just don't believe that. What

[1:23:30] we're doing up here. Denotes

[1:23:33] that time type of that. That

[1:23:37] to me is for like a criminal.

[1:23:41] You know, somebody who's. You

[1:23:42] know, done something so

[1:23:43] dastardly 2 years after we can

[1:23:48] get you for it. It's not for

[1:23:51] me voting on ordinances. And

[1:23:53] express. In my opinion on.

[1:23:58] Well, Florida housing. I don't

[1:24:01] see it. It's like too much.

[1:24:02] For what we It's like

[1:24:07] overreach. And I think we are

[1:24:10] already ethically covered. We

[1:24:13] don't need to have extra. Put

[1:24:21] on That's my opinion.

[1:24:22] Councilmember were walking.

[1:24:22] Thank you to mayor on you

[1:24:27] know. Laws and ethics, you do

[1:24:28] different things. You know,

[1:24:32] you often uses walk into a

[1:24:33] park Leslie and I walk into a

[1:24:35] parking and I threw my lunch

[1:24:37] on the ground Mike Mike.

[1:24:40] Aluminum can and she says pick

[1:24:40] it up and I look in addition,

[1:24:43] there's no sign that says it.

[1:24:46] You must pick up your law

[1:24:46] later. There's no sign that

[1:24:50] says you must recycle. You

[1:24:51] know, this is the right thing

[1:24:52] to Know. Really Rondon litter

[1:24:55] and not recycle my mind that.

[1:24:56] That's kind of the ethical

[1:24:57] thing to do. It's like your

[1:25:00] conscience. On as the state

[1:25:04] law and a few I want But the

[1:25:04] our cw on that is mostly

[1:25:10] about. Kirsten mentioned

[1:25:11] bribes or you can you cannot

[1:25:15] give contracts favorable

[1:25:16] contract government efforts to

[1:25:18] people, you know, relatives

[1:25:19] this motion. Front none show

[1:25:19] kind of transactions that you

[1:25:21] do not want to.

[1:25:22] >> Being in proper steward of

[1:25:27] tax dollars. Interpretation of

[1:25:35] she w. On the

[1:25:36] >> I'm sorry, counselor. I

[1:25:39] didn't quite capture. It's

[1:25:39] hard so if you're walking

[1:25:48] through a Telling Joe just

[1:25:48] took.

[1:25:49] >> So. Yeah, simply just a

[1:25:50] recent presentation of the

[1:25:50] state. You know, revise go to

[1:25:53] Washington on ethics and

[1:25:54] mostly was about financial

[1:25:57] things that you cannot benefit

[1:25:58] your relatives on that kind of

[1:26:00] thing or you can and as well,

[1:26:01] of course. But those kind of

[1:26:02] effort and dealing with the

[1:26:07] proper use city and county

[1:26:08] revenues.

[1:26:10] >> That's correct. Council

[1:26:11] more waukee that ethics code

[1:26:12] largely has to deal with

[1:26:15] financial interests and

[1:26:17] contracts, prohibited on that

[1:26:18] establishes and essentially a

[1:26:19] basement for ethics for all

[1:26:20] local City Council members is

[1:26:24] Topples had mentioned the

[1:26:26] city's ethics program this

[1:26:27] kind of raises that far. It's

[1:26:28] it's a separate and distinct

[1:26:29] animal than it is from the

[1:26:34] That's And I think it's good

[1:26:39] to elevate the bar.

[1:26:40] >> So I'm reading because this

[1:26:41] is news to me. I'm glad that

[1:26:43] the memo came forward to it is

[1:26:43] that's comprehensive as usual

[1:26:49] coming from the author. That

[1:26:49] the city's ethics program

[1:26:51] describes a two-year post

[1:26:52] service restriction specific

[1:26:53] action by former Council

[1:26:56] PRESIDENT Friends for example,

[1:26:56] unemployment benefits or

[1:26:57] litigation involving prior

[1:27:00] matters. You know. So that's a

[1:27:01] that's a pretty narrow focus

[1:27:06] of what you could be. Hard to

[1:27:07] do. And I think that's not

[1:27:08] actually not an unreasonable

[1:27:09] because you might discover

[1:27:12] some impropriety. Let's say.

[1:27:13] You discover an embezzlement.

[1:27:14] You know, you're later. So

[1:27:15] there was a you might have

[1:27:17] that method to have some

[1:27:18] remedy. But other things I

[1:27:18] don't I'm not quite sure if

[1:27:22] that's something I I would

[1:27:23] kind. I'm kind of leaning

[1:27:24] toward my colleagues here and

[1:27:24] the concern of there might be

[1:27:28] a witch Hunter. Someone

[1:27:29] doesn't like you anymore. You

[1:27:30] know, they do and they just

[1:27:32] want to know, Harris, you give

[1:27:35] you a hard time on something

[1:27:35] so what are your thoughts of

[1:27:38] narrowing it to. Just like to

[1:27:50] state our cw rules of ethics.

[1:27:56] The question goes to. Any of

[1:27:59] those are all of us kind of

[1:28:00] wide open I've I've been

[1:28:03] trying myself

[1:28:04] >> get my hands around. What

[1:28:05] is the unfinished business

[1:28:09] here. I'm not. It. I do think

[1:28:14] we have been. In some measure

[1:28:19] at odds with. The initiatives.

[1:28:23] Are the values represented by

[1:28:24] ethics board. And want to

[1:28:29] resolve miscommunication or

[1:28:33] any Sense of unfinished

[1:28:45] business. On that score. But I

[1:28:46] need help. Because her dates

[1:28:49] first imminent.

[1:28:51] >> Great. Thank you to mayor

[1:28:52] perhaps maybe chair members of

[1:28:54] the Pats explore might want to

[1:28:54] come. I my question is

[1:28:58] relating to the I'm just

[1:28:58] looking the amendment does not

[1:28:59] provide equity across schools

[1:29:05] and. We let's do rather have

[1:29:07] maybe everyone has 2 years,

[1:29:08] maybe when people leave. And

[1:29:11] that's whether it's like

[1:29:13] committee member councilmember

[1:29:14] so list. Let's keep I think

[1:29:15] that that a very good point,

[1:29:19] frankly, I wasn't aware that

[1:29:20] there's somehow we're by doing

[1:29:24] what was suggested to where in

[1:29:25] and equitable position. So I

[1:29:26] guess my question whether

[1:29:28] members can choose Tecumseh to

[1:29:32] hear. Thank you. To address.

[1:29:35] Let's do equity. But is there

[1:29:35] another way of doing the

[1:29:39] equity that is not onerous

[1:29:42] because we have had members,

[1:29:43] including myself frivolous

[1:29:43] ethics complaints to say

[1:29:44] they're not pleasant. They

[1:29:49] really are not. And. They

[1:29:52] don't serve any purpose. So

[1:29:55] what if we bring the equity in

[1:29:58] But in a way that's not

[1:29:59] onerous on either council

[1:30:01] members or committee members

[1:30:02] and whether you choose to come

[1:30:17] up and talk about, you know,

[1:30:18] >> All right. Good evening.

[1:30:19] City Council and doing okay to

[1:30:20] have a chair of the efforts

[1:30:21] were. Can you hear me? I just

[1:30:22] a few things. I want to jump

[1:30:23] into really quickly. First of

[1:30:27] all, we don't file complaints.

[1:30:28] The board is not file

[1:30:31] complaints. We don't hunt

[1:30:32] people down the filing the

[1:30:35] complaints is a right given to

[1:30:36] citizens in almost every

[1:30:38] municipality. That is a client

[1:30:38] of mine. They are dealing with

[1:30:41] it on some level this is not

[1:30:42] the board writing this because

[1:30:43] we want you guys 100. I've

[1:30:46] been dealing as a board member

[1:30:47] with my own level unfair

[1:30:48] exposure about things that I

[1:30:52] had nothing to do with and

[1:30:52] I've had, you know, public

[1:30:53] statements about me not

[1:30:54] knowing what I'm doing, what

[1:30:55] I've been doing at for 30

[1:30:59] years. So we understand what

[1:31:00] it's like to be unfairly

[1:31:01] accused of something. And

[1:31:02] that's not what we're looking

[1:31:04] for. So I think the thing that

[1:31:05] we talked about is first of

[1:31:05] all, we thought it was a

[1:31:07] lowering of the standards not

[1:31:10] only for you but for city

[1:31:11] advisory numbers and that the

[1:31:12] public would probably have

[1:31:13] something to say about it.

[1:31:16] There's also a contradiction

[1:31:17] in that we have parts of the

[1:31:17] covid or dealing with

[1:31:19] conflicts of interest that

[1:31:23] have to your windows. And so

[1:31:24] we were trying to be

[1:31:24] consistent across the board

[1:31:25] with that. That was primarily

[1:31:27] way we did the other thing is

[1:31:28] that the contradiction is on

[1:31:30] the one hand, we say that we

[1:31:34] don't want Have complaints

[1:31:34] against advisory members or

[1:31:37] City Council once they leave.

[1:31:38] But on the other hand, we want

[1:31:39] to talk about whether or not

[1:31:41] complaint is valid based upon

[1:31:45] when that incident occurred

[1:31:46] versus when it was somebody

[1:31:48] was made aware of it. And

[1:31:50] theoretically speaking someone

[1:31:52] might not become aware of

[1:31:53] something until 2 years later

[1:31:55] so it's kind of one of those.

[1:31:56] Trying to get the street now

[1:31:57] because our board has been

[1:32:01] working on this since 2022, we

[1:32:02] had 2 and a report to replace

[1:32:04] that we submitted with several

[1:32:08] other recommendations other

[1:32:08] than this and we've been

[1:32:09] waiting and kind of kicking

[1:32:12] the can down the the road for

[1:32:13] a lot of different things that

[1:32:14] we're asking for. So it's not

[1:32:15] I mean, I know that these 2

[1:32:17] things are important to you as

[1:32:18] well. But we have other things

[1:32:19] that we're actually trying to

[1:32:22] focus on one of them was, you

[1:32:23] know, whether or not the city

[1:32:24] manager could request advisory

[1:32:25] teams as other things that

[1:32:28] we're trying to get our board.

[1:32:29] Cooper said so that we can

[1:32:33] represent the public quickly.

[1:32:33] So that's where we If you have

[1:32:34] any questions for me. Happy to

[1:32:39] answer Frederick Johnson. And

[1:32:42] then the mayor Matthews.

[1:32:43] >> Thank you for straightening

[1:32:49] that I guess kind of like

[1:32:52] what? Councilmember Dietz was

[1:32:54] saying. How do we resolve this

[1:32:57] right. First of all, one of

[1:33:00] the things that. Is important

[1:33:03] to me is the. When people

[1:33:05] leave. 2 years after they

[1:33:10] leave. I know you guys are not

[1:33:14] in this

[1:33:14] >> And and I know that. Yeah,

[1:33:18] it seems to me that the way to

[1:33:20] kind of come to some sort of

[1:33:24] middle ground with that is it

[1:33:26] should depend on whatever the

[1:33:30] complaint is right. Because if

[1:33:30] I'm gone to 2 years. And

[1:33:32] somebody says, well, you know,

[1:33:37] which has happened. She had so

[1:33:37] and so on her election

[1:33:38] committee and now she wants to

[1:33:40] be on the committee that has

[1:33:45] nothing to do with finances.

[1:33:45] So if it if it has something

[1:33:48] to do with city finances. I

[1:33:48] can see have and maybe a

[1:33:53] one-year period. But not to.

[1:33:55] And I can't see that for every

[1:33:56] complaint. I just you know, I

[1:33:59] would like to get to a point

[1:34:03] where we all can agree on

[1:34:03] that's required. And when it's

[1:34:10] not. As far ends. Now I forgot

[1:34:13] what the other thing with Wait

[1:34:15] a minute, just commitment.

[1:34:26] That's coming. Then see note

[1:34:29] accompanying the second I

[1:34:29] start talking.

[1:34:30] >> Thank you so much, for

[1:34:34] being So my objective is to

[1:34:35] get a scope static. So

[1:34:37] whatever it takes to get us

[1:34:40] there. I have a hard time

[1:34:41] making decisions that affect

[1:34:46] us. I think I haven't. I'm

[1:34:48] easy. It's easy me to say. I

[1:34:48] don't think that the citizen

[1:34:49] volunteers should be subject

[1:34:52] to something. 2 years later. I

[1:34:53] just think with us. It's a

[1:34:56] little touchy that even be

[1:34:58] talking about ethics rules for

[1:34:59] ourselves. I really think

[1:35:02] that's your role. You've been

[1:35:04] in position for several years.

[1:35:05] This is your perfect. Like I

[1:35:07] trust you. So I trust you to

[1:35:08] say Council. This is my

[1:35:09] recommendation. Let's do it.

[1:35:13] Maybe we can compromise with

[1:35:13] the citizen committees that 2

[1:35:17] years aren't an issue,

[1:35:17] especially we are all it's an

[1:35:19] election season we're seeing,

[1:35:19] you know, facebook in

[1:35:20] Bainbridge Islanders and all

[1:35:21] of those things saying that

[1:35:25] folks, you know, are

[1:35:25] benefiting from for instance,

[1:35:26] the 65, you know, things that

[1:35:30] are not true. We know they're

[1:35:31] not 2, but to then turn around

[1:35:33] and say, oh, by the way,

[1:35:34] you're going to decrease the

[1:35:37] efficacy of our ethics program

[1:35:39] or change the terms of that we

[1:35:41] are not accountable to me.

[1:35:44] Seems the wrong time, wrong

[1:35:46] place so it seems so my let's

[1:35:47] get called a static. You tell

[1:35:50] us what to do and maybe the

[1:35:51] citizen committees will not be

[1:35:53] subject to anything 2 years

[1:35:53] prior. But I think for us

[1:35:54] we're elected officials. We

[1:35:58] signed up for this. We take

[1:35:58] the good with the bad and

[1:36:05] sometimes the bat.

[1:36:07] >> You responded that I don't

[1:36:12] know what this. Funny. I was

[1:36:13] going to say that one of the

[1:36:14] reasons why this originally

[1:36:15] started with 12 months is

[1:36:15] because we were trying to

[1:36:18] actually come up with some

[1:36:18] happy medium. We did not want

[1:36:19] to do 2 years. The only reason

[1:36:21] why we went back to 2 years

[1:36:22] later. It because we recognize

[1:36:22] that there's 2 years already

[1:36:24] in the code for other things.

[1:36:25] And so we thought, well, why

[1:36:25] not just make sure it's

[1:36:29] consistent. There is a valid

[1:36:33] argument to be. They made

[1:36:34] advocating strongly for your

[1:36:35] own exclusion is south of the

[1:36:38] form of self-dealing on the I

[1:36:39] don't. That's not for me to

[1:36:39] say. But I would say that

[1:36:40] we're trying to be sensitive

[1:36:44] to that for the public sake.

[1:36:46] And we are very sympathetic to

[1:36:46] frivolous claims. We have

[1:36:49] tried very hard to emphasized

[1:36:50] over and over again that we

[1:36:53] are educational. Our mission

[1:36:54] is educational and we know

[1:36:55] we've been weaponized in the

[1:36:56] past. And so we have really

[1:36:58] tried hard to make sure that

[1:36:58] this you know, this is not a

[1:36:59] witch hunt. This is not trying

[1:37:02] to embarrass people. This is

[1:37:04] an opportunity for us to take

[1:37:05] that information back to the

[1:37:05] public and say this is going

[1:37:07] to be the standard of

[1:37:08] governance. And this MAY have

[1:37:11] been a violation of the code,

[1:37:12] but there are several

[1:37:13] subsections that say, well,

[1:37:18] maybe this is something that.

[1:37:19] Violated the covid. Maybe it

[1:37:21] didn't rise to the level of,

[1:37:23] you know, having someone sent

[1:37:23] to this hearing examiner,

[1:37:26] whatever. So we do make those

[1:37:27] determinations. But another

[1:37:28] final thing that I'm gonna

[1:37:29] risk is you want to speak.

[1:37:30] Final thing is going to say is

[1:37:35] we have not. I shouldn't say

[1:37:36] We have not been getting a lot

[1:37:39] of complaints And and so we

[1:37:40] don't know if that's because

[1:37:41] you're doing great, which.

[1:37:45] >> I wouldn't be surprised if

[1:37:46] you work for people to kind of

[1:37:46] pausing and not trying to

[1:37:51] weaponize this as much so I

[1:37:53] take that as you will. But we

[1:37:54] are trying we're just trying

[1:37:55] to move forward in a way that

[1:38:02] that public trust.

[1:38:03] >> The other lights on who's

[1:38:07] next to Milwaukee and then

[1:38:08] counselor Schneider.

[1:38:08] >> Thank you your opening

[1:38:10] comment. I would. I don't

[1:38:11] think anybody it's nice was

[1:38:14] assuming that who was the.

[1:38:15] Ethics board wanted to do it

[1:38:16] with thinking of someone

[1:38:19] bringing stuff to you. So I

[1:38:19] hope you didn't think that we

[1:38:20] were suggesting that it was

[1:38:23] members of the board. And as

[1:38:23] usual, I learn a lot when I'm

[1:38:26] always talking with you and I

[1:38:26] did not know of section e of

[1:38:31] article 2, that establishes a

[1:38:31] two-year post service

[1:38:32] restriction on specific

[1:38:35] actions. Was news to me.

[1:38:40] Really so it's there. My

[1:38:42] question would thank you for

[1:38:43] saying about frivolous because

[1:38:43] there are people could lead

[1:38:48] anything. But I was trying to

[1:38:49] align with. What are the state

[1:38:50] codes of ethics, which is a

[1:38:52] pretty narrow use. And on that

[1:38:54] case that seemed like

[1:38:58] somewhere down the You know,

[1:38:58] took the city car without

[1:39:01] permission to go to.

[1:39:01] Vancouver, something like that

[1:39:06] but never reported it. Couple

[1:39:07] usually that's worth

[1:39:07] investigating. That's an

[1:39:08] improper use of city material,

[1:39:09] city property. So that's the

[1:39:10] kind of thing that I think

[1:39:15] would be worth that. I just

[1:39:15] want to make sure 5 Cone. And

[1:39:20] so if we don't do this and I

[1:39:21] was also stunned to think that

[1:39:23] our volunteers are also part

[1:39:24] of this that could have a

[1:39:25] chilling effect of want to be

[1:39:29] a volunteer that you might you

[1:39:30] might not want to apply

[1:39:30] knowing that if the U.S. And

[1:39:31] one little thing that might

[1:39:34] have interpreted by someone

[1:39:34] else that going to be hounded.

[1:39:38] You know, you're an athlete or

[1:39:38] I don't want that and we more

[1:39:39] people to volunteer, not not

[1:39:44] shy them away. I'm just

[1:39:45] putting his thoughts out there

[1:39:46] having a great discussion

[1:39:47] appear it is a study session.

[1:39:47] So what we're studying the

[1:39:53] issue allowed. Thank you.

[1:39:53] >> Because for Schneider and

[1:39:57] then councilmember Thank you.

[1:39:58] Deputy mayor Daniel, thank you

[1:40:00] very much for the thoughtful.

[1:40:05] Memo and pointing out the.

[1:40:06] >> In consistencies or, you

[1:40:10] know, the treatment of it.

[1:40:11] >> I'm imagining that you and

[1:40:17] your team have. Gandhi on this

[1:40:18] issue and come up with quite a

[1:40:20] few hypotheticals. I'm

[1:40:21] wondering if you could.

[1:40:24] >> Share.

[1:40:25] >> I think what we're talking

[1:40:26] about is the public good here,

[1:40:30] right. And we're not talking

[1:40:31] about criminality because that

[1:40:35] is a different system and that

[1:40:38] yeah, you'll get hunted But in

[1:40:42] terms of public good

[1:40:43] councilmember more waukee.

[1:40:45] Maybe just suggested

[1:40:45] hypothetical situation where

[1:40:46] somebody a couple years ago.

[1:40:50] You know, it took and it took

[1:40:51] city vehicle use it

[1:40:56] inappropriately. Carrying that

[1:41:01] forward. I'm wondering, ok,

[1:41:01] what would the public can good

[1:41:07] be in. Following up with that

[1:41:08] particular councilmember,

[1:41:14] let's say. And what would the

[1:41:17] consequences be. You know,

[1:41:18] Sir, chest dicing them or the

[1:41:19] raising the issue so that

[1:41:21] other people are very aware

[1:41:22] that, you know that. That's an

[1:41:23] inappropriate use of public

[1:41:25] vehicles or something like

[1:41:26] that. So just wondering if you

[1:41:27] have any thoughts examples

[1:41:29] about what. Public good would

[1:41:41] be. In following up. I don't

[1:41:43] know. Inappropriate whatever's

[1:41:43] them mean it has to come from

[1:41:44] the public somewhere that

[1:41:45] somebody is being, you know,

[1:41:52] it not charge. That sounds.

[1:41:55] >> Somebody is being

[1:41:56] incriminated What are your

[1:41:57] thoughts on the public good in

[1:41:57] that

[1:41:59] >> I would say that. The

[1:42:02] public. Has to decide what to

[1:42:03] the interest of the public

[1:42:07] good.

[1:42:08] >> And our job is to make sure

[1:42:09] that we're looking at the code

[1:42:12] and making an objective

[1:42:15] determination. So for us what

[1:42:16] we just kicked around in one

[1:42:17] of our most recent meetings

[1:42:19] was the word significant.

[1:42:24] Significant private or.

[1:42:25] Financial interest. When you

[1:42:26] talk about conflict,

[1:42:29] significant, not just someone

[1:42:30] saying you did this and now

[1:42:30] I'm filing a complaint. They

[1:42:33] have a right to do that. But

[1:42:34] one were deliberating. We have

[1:42:35] to make a decision with

[1:42:36] counsel who's in the room with

[1:42:39] us all the time about whether

[1:42:41] or not something rose to the

[1:42:42] level of a violation that will

[1:42:45] require some type of a letter

[1:42:45] of determination. Maria saying

[1:42:46] that there was a violation of

[1:42:49] these to go to the next step.

[1:42:49] Sometimes when we are doing

[1:42:50] something that has not risen

[1:42:54] to that level. We do a letter

[1:42:54] of dismissal, but we take the

[1:42:57] opportunity in that document

[1:42:58] to reiterate what the code is,

[1:43:00] why it's good to follow it and

[1:43:01] what people should be paying

[1:43:04] attention to weather out there

[1:43:05] representing the public as

[1:43:06] government official or even as

[1:43:08] a city buys a group member.

[1:43:08] It's just a reminder. It's

[1:43:14] educational. I get your point

[1:43:14] that there's some people that

[1:43:15] are going to weaponize it and

[1:43:16] think that something was more

[1:43:17] egregious, that ultimately we

[1:43:21] may decide it was. But in

[1:43:22] terms of what the public good.

[1:43:23] Unfortunately, they have a

[1:43:26] right to decide that. And the

[1:43:27] best thing for us to do is to

[1:43:30] make sure that we're doing our

[1:43:31] job appropriately with the

[1:43:31] best code to support that

[1:43:40] decision making. Council

[1:43:40] member.

[1:43:41] >> Hi topless. Yeah, just a

[1:43:42] couple things. I am just still

[1:43:44] trying grapple with how this

[1:43:45] works. So one thing I

[1:43:46] understand it means there is

[1:43:46] an educational component. And

[1:43:48] then there is center. There is

[1:43:52] you know, there's there's that

[1:43:52] potentially going to a hearing

[1:43:57] examiner process etc and this

[1:43:57] is trend or stand on the slide

[1:43:59] is they want to appeal to

[1:44:00] Andrew city. It It's a tourney

[1:44:00] other we MAY appear to answer

[1:44:03] is how there even is. How the

[1:44:05] city can reach out like this

[1:44:07] and go after somebody I'm you

[1:44:08] know, I'm just imagine myself

[1:44:12] to shun now and some and I'm

[1:44:14] being called out for something

[1:44:16] and it MAY not be this ethics

[1:44:17] committee that we've the in

[1:44:18] board that we have great faith

[1:44:21] could be some other random

[1:44:22] people. And you know, they're

[1:44:24] not as good at filtering this

[1:44:24] and all this. And I'm suppose

[1:44:25] take my resources and my time

[1:44:30] to answer a city ethics code

[1:44:30] violation. 2 years after my

[1:44:34] term in office. So I would do

[1:44:34] it here for and about that.

[1:44:35] And then I wanted to talk

[1:44:36] about this. You know, the

[1:44:39] public nothing would stop the

[1:44:40] ethics board moving a program

[1:44:42] where and if a complete was

[1:44:43] brought within 2 years, 3

[1:44:46] years or whatever afterwards

[1:44:46] to have a process for

[1:44:48] utilizing the fact pattern to

[1:44:52] do an educational finding.

[1:44:53] What I'm really struggling

[1:44:55] with is the jurisdiction

[1:44:57] anybody here to censure or

[1:44:58] make me get legal counsel of.

[1:44:59] I want to defend myself of

[1:45:02] that hearings for it just

[1:45:03] doesn't, you know, doesn't

[1:45:04] make sense to me. And the last

[1:45:04] thing I want to say flimsy

[1:45:10] thing else. It is again our cw

[1:45:11] that is out there the guards

[1:45:12] to the big stuff, the stuff

[1:45:13] really make people's hair

[1:45:18] stand on end is still out

[1:45:18] there is not necessarily. I

[1:45:19] don't think even just all

[1:45:20] criminal. I think it could be

[1:45:25] but think it's fix. But yeah,

[1:45:27] anything you can help with

[1:45:29] that. Andrew with regards to

[1:45:31] that, how the city reaches

[1:45:32] gets me 2 years later and then

[1:45:33] on then also been fredonia.

[1:45:37] Any idea about is the

[1:45:37] possibility of capturing the

[1:45:38] fact pattern for educational

[1:45:41] purposes rather than putting

[1:45:42] us or committee members.

[1:45:43] Anybody in the position of

[1:45:43] having to participate in some

[1:45:46] sort of point of litigation

[1:45:50] Council member of great

[1:45:51] question.

[1:45:51] >> And fundamentally, as you

[1:45:54] mentioned, it's about

[1:45:57] jurisdiction. And just quickly

[1:45:57] looked up the program and I

[1:45:58] think if you look at the

[1:46:02] potential. Consequences and

[1:46:03] ramifications of a violation

[1:46:04] of the ethics program. It

[1:46:08] tells you a lot. The potential

[1:46:09] consequences could be at

[1:46:12] mission reprimand censure and

[1:46:13] other sanctions MAY be imposed

[1:46:17] for court of law equity. And

[1:46:19] really these of these it from

[1:46:20] my perspective, these

[1:46:22] potential consequences are

[1:46:23] already within the purview of

[1:46:26] City Council. City Council can

[1:46:26] you know issue formal

[1:46:30] reprimand, a of a committee

[1:46:31] member or or a commission

[1:46:31] member but that doesn't really

[1:46:35] have any sort of, you know,

[1:46:36] potential fine, for example,

[1:46:37] you don't have to 10 show

[1:46:40] criminal time. Things like

[1:46:41] that. So it is kind of a

[1:46:44] tricky situation. We find

[1:46:44] ourselves So I guess to put

[1:46:50] more bluntly. You know. The

[1:46:51] jurisdiction that the City

[1:46:52] Council has his comfort with

[1:46:55] through the program and City

[1:46:58] Council has that ability to do

[1:46:58] that simply because the City

[1:47:00] Council is the ability to to

[1:47:01] censure and on mission to was

[1:47:04] already. I'm not sure if it

[1:47:11] answer to question. But. Like

[1:47:11] >> But we're talking a former

[1:47:13] council members so and I

[1:47:13] realize is that because I

[1:47:15] mean, there is a harm and the

[1:47:17] harm is patients cetera. And

[1:47:18] you realize that we're

[1:47:19] probably so that when the

[1:47:20] shadow of the public figure

[1:47:23] stuff. So we don't really the

[1:47:24] claim. But whether we can

[1:47:26] pursue a claim successfully

[1:47:27] about being, you know, about

[1:47:28] being censured, being an

[1:47:29] obstacle 2 years after we've

[1:47:32] been out of office. It's it's

[1:47:35] a car. So I guess point that I

[1:47:37] see that it MAY not be her

[1:47:37] measurable enough that, you

[1:47:39] know, we care about

[1:47:40] jurisdiction. But on the other

[1:47:41] hand, the City Council is

[1:47:42] asserting jurisdiction over

[1:47:42] people are no longer members

[1:47:46] of their body.

[1:47:46] >> Excellent point. And I

[1:47:47] think that's kind of a policy

[1:47:51] point that you product. And I

[1:47:52] think that phone number

[1:47:53] correctly, you're a former

[1:47:57] assistant city attorney. How

[1:47:58] was the one who developed this

[1:48:00] program. I think he or she

[1:48:04] carefully crafted the

[1:48:05] potential consequences knowing

[1:48:07] you know that there's

[1:48:07] potential harm involved. But

[1:48:10] there's also jurisdictional

[1:48:10] issues involved. So it's a

[1:48:11] careful balance. Find

[1:48:19] ourselves in.

[1:48:21] >> Councilmember federal yet

[1:48:26] so moving forward from this. I

[1:48:27] What I'd like to see the you

[1:48:31] said there were. Things list

[1:48:34] already in the code.

[1:48:40] >> That apply to 2 years.

[1:48:42] >> I guess I don't know what

[1:48:43] those and what what would

[1:48:45] apply.

[1:48:46] >> After 2 years that someone

[1:48:51] is gone. What what? Instance

[1:48:52] of what issue could they have

[1:48:55] committed that now you can

[1:48:58] come 2 years and say we would

[1:48:59] like you to come today here in

[1:49:03] Boardman. Explain yourself.

[1:49:03] >> So part of that code talks

[1:49:09] a ploy you know, like whether

[1:49:09] or not you're able to be

[1:49:12] employed by the city after

[1:49:13] serving. And so that's a

[1:49:15] two-year period. You can't

[1:49:16] really work for the city for 2

[1:49:18] years after you're I think

[1:49:18] another one in there is still

[1:49:20] regarding. Significant

[1:49:22] financial. Conflict of

[1:49:25] interest. So those are the

[1:49:27] main too. And their

[1:49:31] reasonable.

[1:49:36] >> Yeah. So so what what what

[1:49:37] the premise is than that

[1:49:38] because the there are other

[1:49:40] things in there that have the

[1:49:40] two-year period that

[1:49:45] everything should have the

[1:49:45] two-year period.

[1:49:46] >> just a matter of

[1:49:47] consistency. I mean, we also

[1:49:47] offered one year. Good. But

[1:49:51] the the issue wouldn't be

[1:49:52] consistent. It's light. You

[1:49:55] know, those 2 things I can see

[1:49:55] right not being employed by

[1:49:58] the city the 2 years. I get

[1:49:59] that because you still MAY

[1:49:59] have some knowledge or

[1:50:05] whatever. And the financial I

[1:50:06] get significant would want you

[1:50:08] to commit fraud and then 2

[1:50:09] years go away, which it with

[1:50:11] your money right. But I don't

[1:50:15] see anything else that I mean,

[1:50:18] I guess what I would like to

[1:50:22] is a list of things that the

[1:50:23] ethics board thinks needs to

[1:50:27] be 2 years after I'm gone.

[1:50:29] >> I think the better question

[1:50:29] for us is that we respect the

[1:50:30] right that the public gets to

[1:50:33] decide. What they feel. Is

[1:50:38] that egregious or. In a fence

[1:50:39] or a violation of potential

[1:50:39] violation to file. We don't

[1:50:43] want to tell them what they

[1:50:44] should file. We are here

[1:50:45] listen to them and to review

[1:50:50] it when they do. It's not

[1:50:51] perfect. I think that there

[1:50:53] are 2 things that can happen

[1:50:54] multiple things that could

[1:50:54] happen. And I don't want to

[1:50:55] insult your intelligence by

[1:50:56] saying that, hey, we're

[1:50:56] educational. There are no

[1:50:59] ramifications certainly are.

[1:51:00] Especially if you're going to

[1:51:01] hearing examiner something

[1:51:02] ends up in the paper, whatever

[1:51:03] it is. On the flip side of

[1:51:04] that, we've seen it to where

[1:51:09] you it helps you to to make

[1:51:10] your case of somebody making a

[1:51:11] claim against Republic. That's

[1:51:14] not true. And then you come

[1:51:15] the ethics board and we review

[1:51:16] that complaint and see that

[1:51:18] there's no violation that ends

[1:51:19] up helping you. So I mean, I

[1:51:19] know we tend to look at the

[1:51:20] worst part because those are

[1:51:21] the ones that hurt the most.

[1:51:25] But it's a broader issue that

[1:51:26] we are looking at as a board.

[1:51:28] We have to step back a little

[1:51:30] bit and look at the code and

[1:51:31] say what's the best possible

[1:51:31] outcome here. What are we

[1:51:34] trying to achieve and how can

[1:51:36] we as a board make sure that

[1:51:39] we are putting together the

[1:51:42] most robust mindful code so

[1:51:43] that the objective that we are

[1:51:47] stating is is reached and so I

[1:51:50] hear what you guys are I hope

[1:51:53] you understand what we're

[1:51:53] saying we'll just try to

[1:51:55] figure something out but yeah,

[1:51:56] agree that that's what we need

[1:51:57] to do because the harm that I

[1:51:59] see.

[1:52:03] >> For me is that. You know,

[1:52:07] someone brings a complaint

[1:52:09] against me. Now, I'm I'm it

[1:52:10] Ris loose in my day job now

[1:52:11] because I've done some

[1:52:11] conduct.

[1:52:15] >> It's not ethical. You know,

[1:52:18] and or so someone so it's it's

[1:52:19] a double jeopardy. It's, you

[1:52:22] know, so. And I know you guys

[1:52:26] work hard too. We doubt these

[1:52:29] frivolous complaints. And I

[1:52:34] think because. The ethics

[1:52:37] committee is no longer being

[1:52:40] seen as a weapon is maybe why

[1:52:43] you don't have so many

[1:52:44] complaints anymore and that's

[1:52:44] a good because the service

[1:52:49] that you provide. We need that

[1:52:49] is not like we're not saying

[1:52:50] we don't want to be second

[1:52:54] checked. We need that. And

[1:52:57] because we know you when not

[1:52:58] really enough with the we know

[1:53:02] But that's what a good ethics

[1:53:05] board does. Is it provides

[1:53:08] that that layer of certainty

[1:53:09] that you know, somebodys check

[1:53:11] and me. I I wish we had that

[1:53:16] and our government we don't

[1:53:18] have that. So I just would be

[1:53:19] happy to you know, I'm sure we

[1:53:22] all would be happy to work

[1:53:22] with with you guys to come to

[1:53:25] some sort of level of

[1:53:27] understanding where we can all

[1:53:31] be happy with will never be

[1:53:32] happy with you. Looking over

[1:53:33] my But I understand the need

[1:53:40] for it. But I I think it just

[1:53:42] I understand the 2 that you

[1:53:42] named. It makes sense for me.

[1:53:46] The 2 year. But I'd like to

[1:53:48] know what else need You know,

[1:53:49] and I know you don't want tell

[1:53:52] the public what they got say.

[1:53:53] I wanted just to be open and

[1:53:56] it could be anything. What has

[1:53:59] to be the code.

[1:54:00] >> But the other thing I want

[1:54:02] to say is an example is when I

[1:54:06] wasn't the chair, I was on the

[1:54:07] board. We created the

[1:54:09] subcommittee. And on that

[1:54:09] subcommittee was a council

[1:54:10] member deeds and councilmember

[1:54:14] her topless and myself and a

[1:54:14] chair. And we had discussion

[1:54:15] because the issue that we had

[1:54:19] actually brought to you was

[1:54:20] redaction because we

[1:54:20] understood that removing

[1:54:21] information any identifying

[1:54:24] information names companies,

[1:54:25] any kind of references that

[1:54:25] are in those documents. We

[1:54:30] pull those out so that it

[1:54:31] isn't weaponized. What we're

[1:54:32] hearing now, of course, it's a

[1:54:32] public record. So it doesn't

[1:54:34] guarantee total anonymity. But

[1:54:35] that was something that we

[1:54:38] came to an agreement about.

[1:54:41] And the result of that was

[1:54:41] councilmember high top list we

[1:54:42] all agreed it was one meeting.

[1:54:44] It was hammered out. She put

[1:54:46] the language together. It was

[1:54:51] fantastic and Pierre are my

[1:54:52] point is that we have some

[1:54:54] opportunity here. I don't know

[1:54:55] what the answer is going to

[1:54:57] be. Maybe we can come up with

[1:54:58] something between, hey, we're

[1:54:59] not going to let anybody do

[1:55:01] anything after they leave for

[1:55:02] says what are we really trying

[1:55:03] to accomplish and then go from

[1:55:06] there in terms of trying to

[1:55:13] determine what what should

[1:55:14] That's walking thank you to

[1:55:15] mccourts. And perhaps this is

[1:55:18] for Andrew. But. I just read

[1:55:19] this again and it's a it's got

[1:55:20] contradictions itself. But so

[1:55:25] follow me through.

[1:55:25] >> It says complaints must be

[1:55:26] filed within 2 years of the

[1:55:28] alleged violations occurrence.

[1:55:31] So it's not 2 years, let's say

[1:55:32] the occurrence happened last

[1:55:37] year. So is that to mean that.

[1:55:38] Because of last year it could

[1:55:42] be one years already passed.

[1:55:43] So you can only it's only one.

[1:55:44] It's got to be within that one

[1:55:47] year period because it's a.

[1:55:47] Must be filed in 2 years of

[1:55:51] the alleged violations

[1:55:52] occurrence. So to be full 2

[1:55:53] years would be the end of this

[1:55:54] End of my term and then that's

[1:55:57] the current state. So the

[1:55:58] occurrence date is where the

[1:56:00] time clock starts on this

[1:56:00] two-year period. If I'm

[1:56:04] reading that correctly and

[1:56:05] then the second one, it says

[1:56:05] MAY be filed. And I know we

[1:56:09] all know language up here.

[1:56:11] Should Michelle, you should is

[1:56:14] a requirement. They are my is

[1:56:15] a suggestion they weren't. You

[1:56:17] know, it's a judgment on what

[1:56:17] to do. It says complaints may

[1:56:19] be filed within 2 years after

[1:56:22] a council member advisory

[1:56:24] group member leave service

[1:56:25] provided the alleged violation

[1:56:26] occurred during the term. Now

[1:56:29] that's broader. But it says

[1:56:29] MAY I mean, so there's a

[1:56:35] there's I think some sort of.

[1:56:36] Allowance of interpretation of

[1:56:37] is a serious or But the first

[1:56:39] one is really to clear one

[1:56:40] because it says it must be

[1:56:44] found in 2 years. Of the

[1:56:45] alleged violations occurrence.

[1:56:46] So as I interpret that, that's

[1:56:46] where the clock starts on the

[1:56:52] two-year limitation.

[1:56:55] >> Yes, that's that's how

[1:56:56] interpret it. Interpret the at

[1:56:57] least as propose. Both of

[1:56:58] these to required because he

[1:57:01] had that thing and and that

[1:57:03] the 2 years would start with

[1:57:08] violation occurrence. I agree.

[1:57:09] >> One of the concerns that

[1:57:11] councilmember her topless head

[1:57:12] was regarding what happens in

[1:57:15] a court of law depending upon

[1:57:16] the area of law because

[1:57:18] there's discovery rule here in

[1:57:21] Washington and that wanting

[1:57:22] something based upon when it's

[1:57:23] discovered when there's

[1:57:23] awareness event versus when it

[1:57:30] occurred. Obviously the the

[1:57:30] potential issue with the other

[1:57:31] one is that it could p 3

[1:57:34] years. Someone could find out

[1:57:35] something. I mean, there has

[1:57:39] to be reasonable period

[1:57:39] because it's going it's going

[1:57:40] it's going to be on a

[1:57:40] case-by-case basis anyway

[1:57:41] because you have to look at

[1:57:43] weather. It puts us in a

[1:57:43] position of having to that.

[1:57:45] Whether or not there's some

[1:57:45] validity to win. That person

[1:57:48] says they were aware of it.

[1:57:48] And we're not a tribunal. So i

[1:57:52] mean, we cannot do any

[1:57:52] fact-finding independently. We

[1:57:53] only have to look at the

[1:57:57] information is provided and

[1:57:59] then do follow-up of someone's

[1:57:59] represent if referencing

[1:58:00] minutes or a video, whatever

[1:58:03] we can go look at that. But we

[1:58:04] cannot go into independent

[1:58:05] fact-finding outside of was

[1:58:08] provided to us from reviewing

[1:58:09] the complaint. So if someone

[1:58:10] says, oh, I didn't find out

[1:58:11] about this until 3 years

[1:58:13] later. And it's not true. We

[1:58:14] don't have any mechanism for

[1:58:21] determining that.

[1:58:27] >> motion think you did the So

[1:58:27] I think alluded to starting to

[1:58:33] see the flip which is.

[1:58:34] >> Let's say that this that we

[1:58:34] didn't have the ability for

[1:58:38] the ethics board too. So to

[1:58:39] follow a complaint after, you

[1:58:39] know, someone is out of

[1:58:43] office. Then people could

[1:58:46] start saying really nasty

[1:58:46] things on sale on social media

[1:58:52] or whatever. This could be

[1:58:56] with with with it being in

[1:58:57] place. The ethics board could

[1:59:02] look at it. I let's see their

[1:59:03] slender me or saying things

[1:59:03] about what I did. You know,

[1:59:06] while I was in office. And I'm

[1:59:07] going return back and say,

[1:59:14] well.

[1:59:15] >> File a complaint, and then

[1:59:17] they do or they don't. But if

[1:59:18] they do, then I I get a

[1:59:23] hearing. You know, I

[1:59:24] >> and so then the other side

[1:59:25] is that there's the

[1:59:26] possibility for the ethics

[1:59:30] board too. Be weaponized

[1:59:35] right. And so you know, I I

[1:59:37] guess I think we already have

[1:59:39] the ability to take it to a

[1:59:40] hearing examiner. I'm not

[1:59:44] sure, but it would be to have

[1:59:46] the the comfort that, you

[1:59:48] know, if something terrible

[1:59:49] didn't happen. I mean, this

[1:59:52] never happens in real life but

[1:59:53] let's just say the at that

[1:59:58] sport got weaponized. You

[1:59:59] know, I would want the ability

[2:00:01] to say yeah, I'd like to have,

[2:00:04] you know, I'd like to appeal,

[2:00:04] please. So anyway, I'm just

[2:00:09] thinking that. The flip side

[2:00:12] is very that it's a way for us

[2:00:16] to be exonerated.

[2:00:17] >> That was the point I was

[2:00:17] making earlier and then of

[2:00:20] course, worst case scenario.

[2:00:21] Is that someone does something

[2:00:23] and then they say, you know

[2:00:24] what, I'm going to leave this

[2:00:26] advisory group and then to

[2:00:26] leave City Council and you can

[2:00:28] come after me. I'm done. So

[2:00:30] that's the worst-case

[2:00:31] scenario. And I don't think

[2:00:34] the public would like that. So

[2:00:35] I mean, in some ways it's like

[2:00:38] if there is fix board and the

[2:00:39] only time you end up at the

[2:00:40] hearing examiner's for code of

[2:00:40] conduct. By the way, not a

[2:00:43] code of ethics. I would

[2:00:45] suspect that people would come

[2:00:49] after you even harder if they

[2:00:50] felt like they couldn't file

[2:00:51] an ethics complaint because

[2:00:53] you're gone and you left. So

[2:00:54] if you're trying to avoid, you

[2:00:57] know. Being dragged through

[2:00:58] the mud. I don't think that's

[2:01:01] necessarily a guarantee. And

[2:01:02] again, I sympathize with you

[2:01:03] guys because I ended up in the

[2:01:04] newspaper about something I

[2:01:05] keep saying it. I know Ashley

[2:01:08] over there. The mayor is not

[2:01:09] in casinos. And I can tell you

[2:01:09] right now, I work with

[2:01:12] governments and I work with.

[2:01:13] Defense contractors and I work

[2:01:16] with fortune 100 and I can

[2:01:17] tell you that right now. Years

[2:01:18] later, if you search for my

[2:01:19] company over me. It is still a

[2:01:22] result that shows up. That I

[2:01:23] was in an article where we

[2:01:25] were accused of a crime. And I

[2:01:25] had nothing to do with the

[2:01:27] issue at all. But my face was

[2:01:30] used by media because they

[2:01:30] claim that was the only

[2:01:34] picture they could find. So

[2:01:35] this is not us trying to find

[2:01:40] a way to. Anybody. Fact, we've

[2:01:41] we have been weaponized quite

[2:01:43] a bit. And we have done a

[2:01:44] great job, I think of getting

[2:01:45] aboard that. Tries to mitigate

[2:01:49] that. Anymore. Questions for

[2:01:54] me.

[2:01:57] >> Do you want any guidance or

[2:02:03] encouragement from

[2:02:04] >> I mean, I understand why we

[2:02:09] don't have a council I like to

[2:02:10] make sure that there's no

[2:02:11] appearance of impropriety or

[2:02:11] undue influence because that

[2:02:16] helps us to remain objective.

[2:02:17] I think that the I think that

[2:02:20] we transparent both of us,

[2:02:21] yes, and authentic and our

[2:02:22] communication. And I think

[2:02:24] that's that's what that's

[2:02:27] what's required feel. This is.

[2:02:29] >> a matter for your board to

[2:02:29] discuss proceed with to the

[2:02:34] best.

[2:02:36] >> council topless think it's

[2:02:37] on us. I think they've done

[2:02:38] their processing. They've made

[2:02:41] the recommendations as much as

[2:02:42] it MAY feel we're that we're

[2:02:45] involved. The code is our

[2:02:46] code. We passed the code. So

[2:02:47] we have to amend the code. So

[2:02:47] that decisions are with us

[2:02:52] now. Next steps are.

[2:02:54] >> If I can make one last

[2:02:55] recommendation take Maybe the

[2:02:56] middle ground is for us to

[2:02:56] form another subcommittee like

[2:02:58] we did before. And then just

[2:03:01] kind of hash it come up with

[2:03:02] something and then bring it

[2:03:08] back to our respective bodies.

[2:03:09] >> And that was to be my son

[2:03:10] Yeah, think I think we suggest

[2:03:11] that during a business meeting

[2:03:15] subset of the subcommittee.

[2:03:15] Thank you very much. We serve

[2:03:23] at your pleasure. Thanks Thank

[2:03:24] next item is into committee

[2:03:28] reports. A new have something

[2:03:29] to report cause Milwaukee

[2:03:33] tribute. Some really

[2:03:33] interesting stuff.

[2:03:34] >> Last Friday. The content

[2:03:35] housing authority in the tour

[2:03:37] to several of us commissioners

[2:03:38] 2 on the properties in the

[2:03:39] North. And there are so many

[2:03:42] we're going to do a second

[2:03:43] tour. But I was just stunned

[2:03:44] at what is in the inventory

[2:03:45] for contempt housing

[2:03:45] Authority. Just a few places

[2:03:48] you want to. First one had 48

[2:03:52] units. A second one was 5

[2:03:53] single-family homes. Another

[2:03:54] one was a large apartment

[2:03:55] complex broken up into 3

[2:03:57] segments 25 units 45 a

[2:03:57] teenager apartments and then

[2:03:59] there's one place come. In

[2:04:03] addition mention because it's

[2:04:04] really cool. But it's in this

[2:04:04] whole subdivision and it's by

[2:04:05] itself that you think it was

[2:04:08] the most. Beautiful house in

[2:04:08] the area that one of the

[2:04:09] housing Authority's private

[2:04:12] home. Resident says pretty

[2:04:14] amazing. And then there's a

[2:04:14] place called far side, which

[2:04:15] reminded me of government

[2:04:16] House. And I think it used to

[2:04:19] be probably in a, how's it

[2:04:20] look from like with the state

[2:04:22] government, the road or

[2:04:23] government way. And what I saw

[2:04:23] Moses Lake at the Air Force

[2:04:27] Base. So that was something

[2:04:28] people are using properties.

[2:04:32] And today consent transit.

[2:04:33] Couple of First of all, I'm

[2:04:34] going to be on a trip on the

[2:04:37] 28th of OCTOBER 31st. I mean,

[2:04:37] going to Champaign Urbana.

[2:04:38] This was set up quite a while

[2:04:42] ago and it's mass transit

[2:04:44] district. And what we're going

[2:04:46] to look at is either elected

[2:04:48] riser which makes hydrogen

[2:04:51] they have their own plant and

[2:04:51] it's run by solar. That is I

[2:04:55] know about this. But that

[2:04:56] metering? So they produce more

[2:04:59] solar plant requires for

[2:05:00] energy. So it's amazing to us

[2:05:03] to truly rid off. And there

[2:05:03] have been 100 you are the

[2:05:06] first system to have. I have

[2:05:10] articulated hydrogen buses and

[2:05:10] Kitsap transit is plan to do

[2:05:12] that as well. Have a lot of

[2:05:13] money in plan for a future

[2:05:15] hydrogen plant and buying

[2:05:18] hydrogen buses and I think

[2:05:19] it's called who knows French

[2:05:26] here. Okay. Fifa. It The for

[2:05:29] units sent Federation

[2:05:30] international. Now the

[2:05:30] football Association, right.

[2:05:32] Okay. So that's that's that's

[2:05:37] the world club coming year.

[2:05:38] Because a transit bumping up a

[2:05:40] lot of extra ferries just on

[2:05:41] game days. But they're also

[2:05:44] putting the eye right here on

[2:05:46] the days that there are games

[2:05:48] so that will have extra

[2:05:49] service right DECEMBER 5th is

[2:05:50] wonder going announce it. So

[2:05:51] by then we'll know what

[2:05:54] countries are coming here and

[2:05:54] gets a transit and on the

[2:05:56] agencies and no sound transit

[2:05:57] and the rest are working

[2:06:00] together strategic ties. What

[2:06:01] waistline finding they're

[2:06:03] going to need to have and that

[2:06:04] could be something that we're

[2:06:05] going to have to have your own

[2:06:07] being, which is Because

[2:06:08] perhaps some of those visitors

[2:06:10] will be coming to our, I But I

[2:06:13] don't think about parking a

[2:06:16] lot of people MAY be one of

[2:06:18] games and utilize our Island

[2:06:19] Park. So that's something we

[2:06:22] MAY have look at in the And

[2:06:23] finally and a lot of a cent.

[2:06:30] Councilmember. Gates and 10

[2:06:31] Troy Johnson trip China are at

[2:06:33] the no Kings rally this

[2:06:34] Saturday. Join this 1000 of

[2:06:35] our fellow Patriots on this

[2:06:39] Island you know. Can be proud

[2:06:44] to be there. It was really I

[2:06:44] believe the chambers are

[2:06:45] involved planning for fifa as

[2:06:53] well. Covered not great. Thank

[2:06:56] >> The city of neighbors had a

[2:06:56] meeting with the city polls.

[2:06:57] This is Council the council

[2:07:01] meetings and it was a myself,

[2:07:02] deputy mayor you were there

[2:07:09] city manager lurking and

[2:07:10] councilmember Ed Stern

[2:07:11] councilmember Britain that

[2:07:11] councilmember duct tape or and

[2:07:12] city administrator Gilder

[2:07:18] postponed. So number of sound

[2:07:19] Olympics trail derelict Looks

[2:07:19] like we're going to do a joint

[2:07:23] letter on derelict vessels. 3.

[2:07:25] '05, working group. There's a

[2:07:30] date. We have sent certain

[2:07:32] legislation of funding law

[2:07:33] enforcement to defer Ferry

[2:07:34] line cutting. We're going I

[2:07:35] think that's on in the works

[2:07:39] to come for a joint a simple

[2:07:40] vote we do this quarterly and

[2:07:43] it's it's always quite

[2:07:44] helpful. The Saturday my

[2:07:47] office. Hours 10 noon cups

[2:07:48] everyone's. Welcome to see

[2:07:54] That's my report.

[2:07:56] >> Just mention later this

[2:07:57] week Thursday, planning

[2:07:59] Commission has a meeting

[2:08:05] they're moving. I once ate it

[2:08:06] with deliberate speed with a

[2:08:07] great deal is is in the

[2:08:07] packet. If you're interested.

[2:08:10] Take a look at the agenda

[2:08:11] packet for Thursday's planning

[2:08:15] Commission meeting. And you'll

[2:08:18] see the things that are coming

[2:08:19] into focus to discussed and

[2:08:20] decided upon regard to the

[2:08:24] Winslow plant. I look forward

[2:08:27] to following that action. The

[2:08:30] looking ahead to the next

[2:08:32] steps and will begin their

[2:08:34] process. They will be

[2:08:37] discussing well, I will go

[2:08:38] into sea it in the very will

[2:08:44] lay down. Yes. Mayor Matthews.

[2:08:48] >> Thanks. Deputy mayor. I and

[2:08:49] this past Thursday and the

[2:08:51] honor to speak at u dub for

[2:08:53] School of Public policy and

[2:08:57] spoke with a someone is now

[2:08:58] become her friend rep Josh

[2:09:01] Turner, the mayor reading and

[2:09:03] we spoke about it starting a

[2:09:04] bold path forward inspiring

[2:09:07] public service restoring

[2:09:08] civic. Trust through everyone

[2:09:09] moving a little bit to the

[2:09:10] middle. He I did not know was

[2:09:14] just very, very Republican in

[2:09:14] that didn't come out in our

[2:09:17] discussions about issues that

[2:09:20] our cities And so it was

[2:09:24] really great event and left

[2:09:25] very inspired. I was not here.

[2:09:25] This weekend, but I videos.

[2:09:30] And of all the folks and I had

[2:09:31] an idea there are many

[2:09:32] communities including ours who

[2:09:36] are really down at having a

[2:09:38] lot of problems with food

[2:09:39] banks and stuff like that. So

[2:09:40] I don't know who organizes it.

[2:09:42] But if there was a way for the

[2:09:44] next event that folks had to

[2:09:45] bring a food item right now.

[2:09:46] The greatest needs are

[2:09:48] diapers. Wipes formula dairy

[2:09:49] products, canned and fresh

[2:09:52] meat and financial support. So

[2:09:54] if each donated some to help

[2:09:55] line or brought a canned item.

[2:09:57] That would have been really,

[2:09:58] really great. And so maybe the

[2:09:59] next time that could be

[2:10:02] something.

[2:10:07] >> That's I just the 2 of the

[2:10:08] focal with with the mayor just

[2:10:09] said about it. That's Josh

[2:10:13] than their 40 mean, I know we

[2:10:14] spent lots of time talking to

[2:10:16] him. I just want to point out

[2:10:16] that the that yet again. What

[2:10:17] a great thing it was about the

[2:10:22] collaborative them. Leadership

[2:10:23] Institute was a provides

[2:10:24] ample. I think he was one of

[2:10:26] most fulfilling people to talk

[2:10:28] to there and what an

[2:10:28] opportunity to see that we can

[2:10:29] be a different different

[2:10:30] political parties nationally

[2:10:31] and still have so much in

[2:10:34] common and still be, you know,

[2:10:34] leaders that we community

[2:10:35] respect. So I knew I just I

[2:10:39] just wanted I consider him a

[2:10:40] friend and it was really we

[2:10:42] dealt with them so much never

[2:10:45] came up. Only figured it out.

[2:10:45] When I was late night watching

[2:10:46] tv w and want to speak. And I

[2:10:49] was like, oh, oh.

[2:10:50] >> It didn't matter it's just

[2:10:51] it's an important lesson. But

[2:10:55] thank

[2:11:10] >> Meeting adjourned.

City Council Study Session

Transcript