[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.