[0:28] Question, are you hosting or is the mayor?

[0:31] It's the mayor, but I can be sure you're not available.

[0:36] Oh, actually it wasn't me, but I can.

[0:40] I think we need to have the first part as the research report.

[0:47] All right. All right.

[0:48] I'll call the, sorry. I will call the May 13th, 2026 Discussion to order at 3 p.m.

[0:58] All right. Mr. Tatum. Okay. Actually, Luke, is there a Brendan Kara in the waiting room?

[1:10] There is only a pull the men. Yeah, thank you.

[1:23] Okay, great. Okay. There we go. All right.

[1:28] Hello, members of the council mayor. Thanks again for, thanks again for having us. Just a reminder,

[1:37] this is about the community survey. We started our first community survey in 2024. EMC research was

[1:47] the company that we chose to do that. This is an effort to gather feedback from our residents

[1:54] about the importance that they've rate our sort of the level of importance they give to certain

[2:02] services in a satisfaction in our delivery of those services. This has been an important part

[2:09] of our budgeting cycle where it helps us to align with with our residents' priorities

[2:16] and also have a better understanding about how well our services are meeting their needs.

[2:22] The goal was last time to have this available for the start of the budget season, but due to

[2:28] kind of like the newness of the process, we didn't get in until June, so we were a little bit

[2:33] later than we would have liked to be this year. The process got done in March. So we're

[2:39] sitting in a really good place to be able to start our budget planning cycle with these,

[2:45] with these data points. This brief will cover the outcomes of this survey and this

[2:58] data what I've always found with surveys is that they're very useful to understand what people are saying

[3:05] but you have a lot of work to do to say okay well what does this mean now what do we do with it and

[3:12] and so that's the work that we'll have to do over the next several months to help incorporate this

[3:17] in the city services and into our budgeting cycle so I'm just going to go ahead and head

[3:22] and head over to Brendan he can introduce himself and Brendan I think you're driving the slides right

[3:27] as well. Yes. Okay, correct. Hopefully everybody can hear me.

[3:35] All right, I'm going to share my screen here,

[3:36] but then I will go ahead and introduce myself. My name is Brandon Cara. I'm a vice president with EMC

[3:44] research. We've had the pleasure now again in 26 to work with the city of Edmonds and with Todd and his team

[3:51] to conduct this community survey. Priorities survey. Make this the appropriate size of

[4:01] here. Yeah, so thank you for having me with you this afternoon so I can take

[4:07] everybody through the results.

[4:11] So this survey was a survey of residents across the

[4:14] city of Edmunds, really aiming to understand as Todd said in his great intro,

[4:20] residents, priorities for future planning and improvements, but really to understand the importance

[5:00] The multi-model survey, which means that we were using live interviewers on the telephones, reaching out to residents, as well as sending emails and text messages driving them to an online version of the survey.

[5:12] And the survey data was weighted in the end lightly to reflect the known demographic breakdowns of residents and the city of Edmunds using voter-incensus data.

[5:25] So, we completed a total of 350 interviews there at the end of March, and so when we're thinking about the results overall, we want to keep in mind that there's a margin of error of plus or minus about 5 percentage points, 5.2 percentage points, and we do have in several places, in fact many places, the ability to compare this to how things looked back in 2024, when we conducted a very similar multi-modal survey with the same methodology back in the middle of July 2020.

[5:58] So these are just some a respondent profile basically so we can all understand, as you

[6:04] as already know, of course, some of the demographic make-ups of the city of Edmund, residents

[6:09] in the city lean a little bit more female than male, more than 50% report having an income

[6:15] greater than $120,000 for their household, and we have a nice age distribution as you would

[6:24] to find across the city. 75% of residents are identified as white or Caucasian, and then we have

[6:34] 25% making up other ethnicities of residents in the city. And we do have a bit of a lean

[6:40] here towards homeowners versus renters reflecting, reflecting, knowing, knowing,

[6:49] rates in the city.

[6:52] So some key findings of the bat over here, we do see that the mood among residents

[6:57] and Edmonds does remain really positive today. While some ratings on specific metrics have

[7:03] softened a little bit, we still see that residents value living in Edmonds that they view it very

[7:09] positively and that they're overall in a pretty positive mood compared to what we see in other

[7:15] communities across the country. So really a nice place to be. Addressing the city's budget

[7:19] issues, though, is definitely a top priority to residents and something that a subset of residents

[7:26] are focused upon, and in open-ended questions, we do find that pocketbook issues focused

[7:33] on the cost of living and taxes and things of that nature, housing affordability, are top of

[7:39] minds of voters, which we're seeing really in research across the country these days.

[7:44] Residents continue to rate the maintaining of streets and fixing of potholes as the most important city service that they think is being provided.

[7:54] But we have seen some changes in terms of how people perceive the importance of and the ratings of specific city services which we will go over and much greater detail in this presentation.

[8:06] But things like services for the homeless and traffic safety and enforcement, these are places where satisfaction is now higher.

[8:15] Among residents in the city then it has been just two years ago.

[8:19] But then there's some other services like preparing for natural disasters and attracting new businesses and jobs,

[8:25] where that importance has increased.

[8:28] But satisfaction has dropped a little bit.

[8:30] And finally at the end of this survey we took a future looking line of questioning, right?

[8:36] After talking about all these services that the city provides, do you want to see these services

[8:43] grow in terms of the number and the quality that are provided by the city?

[8:49] Most people did say that they want services maintained for them to be enhanced, but there's

[8:56] a reluctance facing the reality of things to pay for these increased taxes.

[9:02] Certainly there was a preference for some smart reductions or cuts as opposed to increasing funding from residents.

[9:13] So starting with the overall mood at the beginning of the survey, you can see that the responses to this question,

[9:18] how would you rate the quality of life in Edmunds were quite positive, right?

[9:22] 93% this year compared to 94% to years ago.

[9:26] So people are still really thinking that living in Edmunds is quite nice.

[9:32] So there's negative numbers are extremely low.

[9:34] So that's nice to see year over year.

[9:38] We also asked about the direction that people think Edmonds

[9:40] is headed.

[9:41] Do you think that things are headed in the right direction?

[10:00] But that is a bit suppressed now compared to two years ago, but it's still on the positive territory. 60% of residents thinking things are headed in the right direction, 40% on the wrong track.

[10:11] Looking at this by some demographics, you can see that women a little bit more optimistic about the direction that the city has headed compared to men who are a bit more split.

[10:21] But across other demographics, we don't see as stark differences over here.

[10:26] We do see that those residents between the age of 50 and 64, which you might see as a recurring theme in this presentation,

[10:35] are a little bit grumpy about how things are looking towards in the future and Edmunds.

[10:41] But we do see some elevated right direction satisfaction among residents who are of other ethnicities.

[10:49] So non-white non-coccasin residents,

[10:54] which is great.

[10:57] And we have to open any question,

[10:58] thinking about life and Edmunds.

[10:59] What do you like best about living here?

[11:02] So these are some of the nice quotes

[11:03] that people gave in response to that question.

[11:06] They love having the water so close by.

[11:08] They love the clean nature of the vibrant downtown,

[11:13] but they also really like nature

[11:15] and they love their community, the people that are in it.

[11:18] So these were really nice encouraging things

[11:21] to see come out of the open-ended responses to this question.

[11:27] We have some other open-ended question

[11:29] that was really thinking,

[11:31] making people think about the priorities

[11:33] for the city in the near future, in the near future,

[11:36] in the next two years.

[11:38] And you can see what comes to the top over here.

[11:40] Budget and fiscal responsibility, 27%.

[11:44] That's kind of head and shoulders above

[11:45] any of the other items that people mentioned.

[11:48] they were all coated into the, into the groupings that you see here. And compared to that box in

[11:54] the bottom right over there, you can see that budget and fiscal responsibility was only at 7% in the

[12:00] 20-24 survey. So this is something that a subset of the population are more focused on today than

[12:06] they were just two years ago. But I do want to draw your attention to the second and the third

[12:11] items on this list, cost of living in taxes at 14% and housing affordability at 8%. Those combined

[12:19] to 22% of people nearly a quarter who are saying that these

[12:24] cost of living pocketbook issues are the top thing that the city should be focusing

[12:29] on for residents in the near term.

[12:37] We have to view ratings of the city and we are able

[12:40] to compare these over time. The item at the top everybody got first within this

[12:44] battery of items, the job, job rating for the job, the city does overall. You can see

[12:51] We're still in positive territory over here, but it is a bit suppressed from what we saw back in 2024.

[12:57] We're at 58% total positive rating an excellent or good, the job the city is doing overall.

[13:05] The intensity in response to these questions hasn't changed dramatically at all.

[13:09] It's really the changes are on the softer opinions in the middle.

[13:15] The job the city of Edmunds does delivering services effectively.

[13:18] This still remains pretty high at 68%, it's down a bit from what we saw in 2024, but still it's two thirds of residents saying that the city is delivering those services effectively.

[13:33] The job the city does focusing on priorities that matter the most to community members.

[13:37] This is where we see opinion is a little bit more split, and yes, this again is a bit decreased from 2024.

[13:44] So, yeah, thinking that they're not the city may not necessarily be focusing on what matters

[13:51] the most to community members. That's an increased sentiment.

[13:58] Let me ask some agree disagreed questions on perceptions of city services over here. On top,

[14:03] I'm satisfied with the types and quality of services provided by the city of Edmunds.

[14:07] Three quarters, 74% saying that they agree with this statement. The city does a good job engaging

[14:14] residents to inform important decisions. This is where you see about a third of residents, maybe

[14:20] a little bit more than a third, disagree with the statement. So thinking that there is a bit

[14:24] of a gap there between the happiness with the services that the city provides and feeling engaged

[14:32] by the city in those decisions.

[14:40] Importantly, we compared these perception of the types and quality

[14:43] services back to what we saw in 2024 and this virtually no change here. Residents perception

[14:49] of the quality and the types of services remains strong and unchanged.

[14:58] We looked at that by

[14:59] demographics over here.

[15:03] All right. Now we're getting into the meeting potatoes of the survey. We asked a series of city services, and we first

[15:10] engaged everybody's importance rating for that particular city service. And then we followed up with the exact same list and

[15:19] wanted to understand that, but now how satisfied are you with how the city is providing that service? These are the items that came to the top in terms of importance.

[15:27] You can see the dark blue parts of this bar.

[15:30] Those represent a seven out of seven on this scale in terms of being extremely important

[15:36] fit to them personally, right?

[15:39] So at the top maintaining streets and fixing potholes.

[15:42] Again, this is the top item, same as it was in 2024.

[15:47] With 94% of residents total saying that this is important in some way.

[15:52] Other top items over here maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces,

[15:56] reducing petty crime and burglary, these are items that have changed a little bit that

[16:02] read on the right and the numbers in parentheses indicate that any change from 2024 to this metric.

[16:10] But this is still really important to residents in the city. A couple of things have come up a

[16:16] little higher on this list compared to 2024. That fourth item preparing for natural disasters,

[16:21] such as earthquakes flooding in major storms, 80% of residents saying that that's important to them.

[16:28] And that's up seven points from what we saw two years ago. Further down on this list, attracting new businesses and jobs,

[16:37] it's at 69% in terms of importance of people thinking that's important to them.

[16:41] But it's up eight points from just last year or just two years ago. Excuse me.

[16:48] But some other items over here, when you think about the dark blue here and the intensity,

[16:52] reducing petty crime and burglary, 48% extremely important, cracking down on illegal drug use and sales,

[16:59] 46% extremely important, these elements are still top priorities for a lot of people in the city.

[17:10] These items are a little bit lower on that importance rating, you can see the dark blue on these bars is notably smaller than those top items.

[17:18] And most of these have kind of decreased a little bit in terms of their importance or perceived importance over the last two years.

[17:26] So improving and expanding sidewalks, supporting the arts and cultural events, not a tremendous change, but a little bit lower.

[17:33] Improving traffic safety and enforcement, still important in an area where we haven't seen a ton of change.

[17:40] Some of these with a bit more change, strictly enforcing building and development codes, less important to residents than it was two years ago, preparing for the impacts of climate change, a little less important as well.

[17:54] At the bottom, the lowest in terms of importance, we're improving and expanding bike paths.

[18:03] So, these are the satisfaction ratings for those same city services and again, these are ranked

[18:10] by their by satisfaction.

[18:13] These are the items that came to the top immediately.

[18:15] You can see that the dark blue on these bars is notably smaller.

[18:20] So, the intensity of satisfaction versus importance is easy to see that it's lessen, right?

[18:27] But the ones that came to the top supporting the arts and cultural events,

[18:30] still three quarters of people who say that they're satisfied with the city's efforts there,

[18:35] maintaining parks, trails, and open spaces. Also at the top over here,

[18:41] but other items over here, increasing in terms of satisfaction, maintaining streets and fixing

[18:47] potholes. We know that's the most important issue to residents in the city, and there are a bit more

[18:52] satisfied with that today than they were two years ago. So that's great. We're using petty crime and

[18:58] glory, also another one where we know that there's a lot of intensity behind people's

[19:03] the importance that they place on it. And that also gets an elevated level of satisfaction

[19:09] in the survey this year.

[19:14] Further down on the list of satisfaction, this is where things are

[19:17] we're at about a third or less of residents who are expressing satisfaction with the city's provision

[19:24] of these services. So that's important to note. And we do get a couple of items here that have

[20:00] But we're only at 34% in terms of satisfaction, a 13-point decrease from 2024.

[20:08] Another item over here, again, preparing for national disasters, it's down towards the bottom in terms of satisfaction, and that's a decrease from what we saw two years ago.

[20:17] So certainly, a bit of a change there, a gap, a gap, so to speak, between importance in satisfaction.

[20:29] which gets me to our gap analysis. Now these are the same city services and I

[20:34] know this is a lot of data on on one page but I will walk everybody through it.

[20:39] These are the same city services and they are ranked by that satisfaction gap

[20:43] that you see on the left. So the items, the gray bars that you see are people

[20:48] status faction with that service and the blue bars are the importance that they

[20:53] place on that service. The items at the top, these are areas where

[20:57] satisfaction exceeds the importance that people place on that service.

[21:02] So improving and expanding bike paths, people very satisfied,

[21:06] but the importance of that item, as we know, is a bit lower.

[21:10] Supporting the arts and cultural events of their, again,

[21:15] incentivizing the development of diverse housing types and preparing

[21:18] for the impacts of climate change.

[21:19] These are areas where the city, people think they're doing a good job,

[21:24] But the importance of those items is low.

[21:30] The items in the middle over here, this is kind of where satisfaction is comparable to the importance that people place on that.

[21:38] And this is what we see some of our movement.

[21:39] You can see that providing services to help the homeless and people in need.

[21:43] That's higher on this list than it was two years ago.

[21:47] And you can see that gap from two years ago there in the column on the right.

[21:52] Improving traffic safety and enforcement.

[21:53] Again, this is one where the gap changed notably, and it's moved up on this list closer to the top, closer to

[22:03] To that satisfaction exceeding performance level, right?

[22:08] Attracting new businesses and jobs. This is notably a bit lower now than it was two years ago.

[22:15] And this bottom group is where satisfaction under performs importance.

[22:20] And these are the areas where

[22:22] You know, obviously we know that things are quite important to people and that the city could focus some efforts in terms of priorities for the upcoming years.

[22:32] Preparing for natural disasters such as earthquakes, flooding and major storms, that's on this list and one that has kind of moved into this area as opposed to what we saw two years ago.

[22:44] But I think the important thing to think about on this slide with those items on the bottom

[22:49] is that despite some of them remaining there from two years ago,

[22:57] the satisfaction gap

[22:57] for most of these is smaller now.

[23:01] That is to say people are a bit closer to being satisfied relative to the importance

[23:07] than we saw two years ago.

[23:13] And finally, we wanted to look at some of this by demographics.

[23:18] So we created a bit of a heat map over here.

[23:21] These are ranked in the exact same order that we saw on the previous slides.

[23:25] So you have your items that exceed expectations at the top,

[23:29] and the ones where satisfaction doesn't quite meet importance at the bottom.

[23:35] We'll just give an example over here for the top item of improving and expanding bike paths.

[23:39] If you look at that overall number, men, this sentiment is kind of being led by women.

[23:45] 1.6 on this scale as opposed to 1.04 for men.

[23:52] So men were below in terms of their satisfaction while women were a little bit higher.

[23:57] So we tried to kind of pull out some themes here.

[24:01] And if you think about the items on the bottom where we know that importance is quite high,

[24:06] satisfaction is a bit lower. You can see that younger residents under the age of 50 are a bit more

[24:13] satisfied than some other residents over the age of 50 with some of these quite important

[24:19] city services. We looked at this by ethnicity over here as well towards the middle of this. You can see

[24:27] that residents of varying ethnicities other than white or Caucasian, a bit more satisfied with how things

[24:35] are going for many of these services than white residents in the city.

[24:41] A bit of a difference here in terms of geography as well, residents living in the western

[24:46] parts of the city showing just a little bit more satisfaction on most of these items

[24:51] compared to residents in the east portions of the city.

[24:55] And finally, I want to draw your attention to the homeowner, non-homeowner.

[25:00] Element over here. Homeowners feeling like they're in the middle on most of these items, but you can see that among non-homeowners, which includes your rent or population, the items towards the bottom over here that are quite important to people, are actually where we see a bit of heightened satisfaction among people in the rent or population.

[25:21] and it's some of those items that are higher on this list.

[25:26] So, more greater greater satisfaction than importance,

[25:29] where they're a little less satisfied.

[25:31] So, some interesting things, I know that it's a lot of data on one slide,

[25:36] but we wanted to see if any patterns popped up.

[25:43] And finally, getting to the end of over here,

[25:45] we asked those questions that were really future-looking.

[25:48] One is to understand how people preferred the city to approach

[25:52] The provision of services, thinking about the services provided to residents, which of the following approaches would you like to see the city taking going forward?

[26:00] They were offered in this order, so that's why you see them in this order.

[26:04] You only had 11% of residents saying that they wanted to add additional services that are not offered.

[26:11] The majority of residents were here in the middle. They wanted to either enhance existing service offerings, 30%.

[26:18] or just maintain existing service offerings at the current levels, 37%.

[26:25] Again, few residents are looking to reduce the level of existing services or cut services more significantly.

[26:37] And we followed that up with an acknowledgement here of some of the budgetary realities that the city faces.

[26:43] acknowledging that adding services or even maintaining services at current levels would require additional funding which of the following approaches would you support and again people saw these in this order

[26:55] 18% of residents so nearly one in five said we should explore additional and new revenue streams like a property tax levy and we intentionally included that were those words property tax levy to make it clear what we were talking about

[27:09] So that minority opinion there making reductions to underutilized or lower priority services 37% cutting underutilized or lower priority services 29% so this is what I was

[27:22] towards the beginning of this presentation.

[27:25] The people are looking for smart cuts as the solution

[27:29] to the budgetary issues, as opposed to drastic cuts

[27:34] on one end, reducing services broadly to offset rising

[27:37] expenses, 9%, or raising property taxes.

[27:47] And that is the presentation that I have for you today.

[27:49] And I would love to pass it back to Todd.

[27:53] Yeah, thanks.

[27:55] So staff right now is working on putting context to this data for the department.

[28:03] Our budget retreats that will be participating with Council at the end of the month.

[28:08] We'll allow us some time to start incorporating this into our budget process.

[28:13] And, you know, another one of the things between now and the time that we do deliberate on the budget is a great time to take some of the unanswered questions that I found oftentimes in my best of this at the beginning that the survey data will raise questions that you didn't know you had.

[28:33] And so, working on finding out the answers to those unanswered European questions, we'll need a plan for how to do that and for what to do with that information.

[28:46] For example, last year we gathered some of the respondents together on these areas where we weren't sure what it meant and we were able to have some focus groups and I thought that those were very instrumental.

[28:59] So with that, I'll just go ahead and open it up to questions.

[29:08] Susan, I see your hand up.

[29:10] Oh, thank you.

[29:13] So question to Todd, are we going to do a non-statistically valid survey to capture some of the

[29:20] things that may be more captured from the statistically valid group like we did last

[29:27] time?

[29:28] We are not intended to do that now.

[29:32] You know, what we found out from that is, you know, is a confirmation of a lot of the data

[29:42] and the demographic groups skewed highly to the 902O zip codes and anyway.

[29:52] So the bottom line is where we're not planning on doing it.

[29:54] Okay, that makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you.

[30:00] On preparing to prepare for the effects of natural disasters. And then on the other hand, less important to prepare for the effects of climate change. And those two absolutely are kind of intermingled. And so, as we think about that, and our climate action plan, I feel like there's there's absolutely something there for us to leverage and to communicate.

[30:28] to our community members about and then I really do appreciate how this reinforces the importance

[30:36] of economic development, which I know is priority for me and many of you and so hopefully

[30:42] this will reinforce when we're doing budgeting that we really do need to allocate more resources

[30:49] to that in particular.

[30:54] Thank you.

[30:55] Well,

[30:58] yeah, thank you Brendan for the presentation. It's comforting to see 93%

[31:05] in general staying positive in terms of quality of life here in Ammonge, but there was one slice

[31:15] that kind of struck me is one slice we're talking about whether we provide the service that's

[31:25] to the residents and what they want and I remember the result is like 40%

[31:31] sectors factory. I wonder if you have any insight into more or like

[31:40] which area there are no sectors why I think it's good for us as a city to

[31:47] know what they are not happy about so that we can at least know before we

[31:53] mental judgment.

[31:57] Yeah, and that's a great observation. Yeah, it was quite split on that question.

[32:02] This year it was 48% saying that the city was doing an excellent or good job on focusing

[32:10] on those priorities. We can certainly look at the data by those people who are in disagreement with

[32:16] that and see, are there any different priorities that actually come to the top or are a little elevated

[32:24] among this group of residents who are just feeling like the city is not quite focusing on what they think is important.

[32:34] So doing that comparison, which I'll work with Todd on after this call, may yield something interesting.

[32:43] Yeah, I think also depending on how the question is phrase, it is also over all top levels

[32:52] see, does the city offer the service that's mattered to you and without specific examples

[32:59] of whether it is fixing patho or public safety or certain focus is over or maybe people

[33:11] I'm certain that without having Pacific area in their minds, just like in general, I'm just not happy.

[33:21] Right. Yeah. That could be a little bit of what we're seeing in this question as it was relatively broad.

[33:26] And it also came in the survey before we got into any of that specific discussion of city services importance.

[33:34] Mm-hmm. Yeah. Thank you.

[33:38] Thank you.

[33:43] Thank you.

[33:44] Thank you, Brendan and EMC for your work on this.

[33:48] Before I get into like my data related questions, I was just curious.

[33:53] How much Todd did we pay $35,000 for this survey?

[33:58] And was this sample size the same two years ago,

[34:00] 350 respondents?

[34:02] Yeah, it was roughly the same, yes.

[34:04] Okay, and then is the cost of the contract the same this year or did the price go up?

[34:11] Yeah, I think I don't remember up the top of my head. I think it goes 36,000 this year.

[34:16] Okay, I was just curious, because it's a very interesting tool that we get feedback from our community

[34:24] and the cost of it when I talk about it to other jurisdictions. I'm becoming that on top.

[34:29] I think it's really interesting as consumer trend point out that we're getting in 93% satisfaction.

[34:37] And I found the geographic distribution in satisfaction between the eastern and the western parts of the city.

[34:44] The fact that there's higher levels of satisfaction in the western part and lower levels.

[34:50] I think just reading kind of like holistically, I think what we're seeing is there might be more knowledge about the availability of services

[34:58] and work the city.

[35:00] Is doing and response these different categories and subcategories in the western part of the city which is more geographically located around what I call the municipal bubble of city hall and then the public safety building, you know, right in downtown versus knowledge and the availability of these services and what the city is doing on the eastern part of the city and what we can do to do further outreach and education to our community.

[35:30] members in the the annex parts that traditionally haven't had a lot of engagement with the

[35:35] downtown core in the city services and city government. I'd really choose to see how we could

[35:40] partly this data into more community outreach out there. So thank you so much again for all

[35:46] of your hard work. And I think this is this is the persistent problem that Edmund's going back

[35:50] to when the Western part or the Eastern part of the city was for Santax in 1960.

[35:59] Thank you. Thank you, Vivian.

[36:12] Sorry, I can't hear you.

[36:21] Okay. Welcome back. Welcome back to

[36:24] Erica. That was a situation where we go once first.

[36:33] I was just encouraged to see that overall

[36:36] this survey seems to map pretty well to the 2021 survey that we use as sort of a jumping off point

[36:42] for our council prioritization work.

[36:45] So it is encouraging to see that the priorities we've set

[36:48] as council are still, you know,

[36:50] within range of what the citizens of Edmunds are saying

[36:54] are important to them.

[36:55] So that's good for us to know as we go into the budget planning cycle

[36:58] as Todd mentioned and start to think about how we map out

[37:02] our budget to those priorities.

[37:04] I did want to flag just a question.

[37:06] And I don't know if it exists in the data, Mr. Care,

[37:10] or not, but I can't remember acted point out

[37:13] the emergency and disaster preparedness.

[37:15] One dropped the most significant points from the last survey.

[37:19] I think I went down 10 points,

[37:20] or it was like the biggest shift,

[37:22] and that was just curious if there was anything

[37:25] that anybody wrote in the comments,

[37:27] or if there was any opportunity for us to note

[37:29] what either brought that higher top of mind for folks,

[37:33] or if there is something going on,

[37:35] that might have triggered that shift,

[37:38] because it was the one that was somewhat out of alignment with the rest of the adjustments in that data set.

[37:46] Yeah, I would have to go back and look specifically at the verbatim responses to some of those

[37:50] open-ended questions to see if any of the any recent events are being mentioned by

[37:57] by respondents or more broad like concern over natural disasters that they're seeing in other parts

[38:04] of the state or world that are influencing their opinions on programs here.

[38:10] Yeah, I was just trying to figure out was there something specific that Edmunds did

[38:13] or did not do that cause that, or if it's just a general environmental global sense.

[38:19] So anyway, that would be great to know if you can find that.

[38:21] I'll look back.

[38:23] Yes.

[38:23] Great.

[38:24] I don't know.

[38:25] Vivienne, are you able to join us?

[38:30] Don't hear her.

[38:30] I'm going to ask one question then we go through a second time.

[38:35] on the methodology trans, one thing that it looked like there was a 14 point drop in

[38:39] residents feeling the city is headed in the right direction. Is there anything in the

[38:46] fall questions that kind of address that? That's pretty good.

[38:51] Well, I think this one is not necessarily a specific to Edmund's issue. We're seeing in our

[39:03] last 10 years because it varies really community to community. How people view this question, right?

[39:11] It can be heavily influenced by political things that are happening nationally. It can be influenced

[39:20] by a major state election or things like that that are going on. So really, we do see a decrease.

[40:00] People today, then there was two years ago, and so that that can have an effect on responses to a question like this.

[40:10] We use it really to engage relative to other communities and other surveys that we can duck.

[40:20] Just overall community outlook, right? Is it a little bit more positive, a little bit more negative?

[40:25] I think to just to think to keep in mind is how much as we were going through, the, the, the, our financial crisis,

[40:37] you know, we were really working through and struggling how much we, our finances were being impacted during the last survey and that in the finance piece, you know, the open the survey about what's the most important issue to finance is where

[40:54] Well, down there, even though we all knew that it was a really big deal, so I think one of the things we've probably have seen from that is that our communication has reached people and so, you know, there's just there is often a lag in what the community understands.

[41:13] in as aware of versus what we're experiencing in real time.

[41:17] So there's certainly probably a part of that and I think some of the open-ended questions

[41:22] also kind of validate that the people are far more aware of it now than they were before.

[41:28] And that was one thing I was going to note the jump in the budget of the school responsibility.

[41:33] I went from 7% to 27% percent.

[41:35] So I'll be parallel.

[41:36] Yes, definitely more of a salient as you today.

[41:39] and then the public engage when peace that only 44% feels doing a good job. I just want to say just

[41:45] for council too, the priorities that we went through earlier this year, we're really seeing to

[41:50] line up pretty well with what our communities feeling and so I just feel like we're listening. So

[41:58] there's maybe we'll through those will definitely be priorities for the community.

[42:04] So, all right, we got a few more minutes, Chris.

[42:09] Thank you.

[42:10] So, one of their observations, but first, Bren,

[42:12] and thank you so much for your presentation,

[42:14] and your work on this.

[42:15] And then, Todd, your commentary is also very helpful.

[42:19] So, my thought is, it's particularly helpful

[42:23] to see the aid ranges,

[42:24] because not only should we pay attention

[42:27] to key findings in the survey,

[42:30] over all, we also need to be able to walk

[42:33] as I've mentioned in the past, so as we're dealing with the issues that our priorities for the community today,

[42:39] we also need to be thinking about the next generations of Edmund's residents who will be buying houses and paying taxes and living here and renting and all the things.

[42:49] And what are their priorities now, so that we're starting to think about the shape of the city moving forward.

[42:55] So, you know, there are generational differences, so I just, uh, could be encouraged us to kind of keep that in the back of our minds.

[43:04] And then second, we're in kind of high-level top line as you said something that I was thinking as I was looking through the data.

[43:12] What are some of the headlines for the biggest things that came out of this for Edmund specifically versus what you're seeing more globally?

[43:23] I hope this is going on.

[43:28] Maybe see that everything is going to be vivid.

[43:33] Yeah.

[43:34] So that's a good question.

[43:37] I think certainly satisfaction with life and Edmunds is quite high, and we don't see that in every community where we perform research.

[43:51] So, from that perspective, when you pair that with the consistency of satisfaction that people

[43:58] have with the provision of city services,

[44:03] it seems like it's in quite a good place, right?

[44:06] Those are encouraging findings in terms of that continuity over time and it differs a little

[44:12] from what we see in a lot of other communities where, you know, which are also facing budgetary

[44:20] realities, right? So even in the face of that, to have those numbers stay quite high, I think is

[44:28] encouraging, as I said, but also a little bit unique.

[44:33] Nothing else stands out to you, like public safety or, you know, just more universal trends.

[44:40] So maybe just one or two, because I know we'll show them to them.

[44:42] I don't want to take up all the...

[44:44] It's really hard to make some of those comparisons,

[44:46] because I work in communities where public safety is consistently year-over-year,

[44:53] not the number one thing that people are concerned about.

[44:55] And that's not the case in Edmonds.

[44:59] So to see some of those...

[45:00] But I can say that based on what's publicly available in terms of satisfaction, in terms of, sorry, right direction, wrong track, that people think their cities are headed. Edmonds is right there with a lot of other peer, peer cities in the Pacific Northwest.

[45:19] so. All right. Thank you. Great. I just want to check in on Vivian. Are you able to participate?

[45:26] Maybe not just with any on. Yes. So, can you hear me? Yes. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you.

[45:33] Yeah. Dave Roddy has been here helping me go on. Okay. Thanks. And what do you say?

[45:40] Sorry. Okay. So, I had a few things. With the way spam works these days and where everybody's

[45:46] so reluctant to answer their phone, how are you finding that that's affecting your test results?

[45:52] Like, is there some sort of a filter on, you know, what kind of person does answer their phone?

[45:57] Because somebody in a subordinate about fishing now, they don't really recognize he's calling.

[46:02] Yeah, that's where the multimodal approach has really become the bread and butter of our industry.

[46:08] Not the Tudor on home, but we were kind of pioneering it like 12 years ago, but everybody else caught up.

[46:14] It's fine.

[46:16] Really, it's a majority of surveys these days that are completed online.

[46:20] We still like to keep that phone component because there's definitely audiences out there

[46:24] who are more receptive to completing a survey over the phone.

[46:29] You have your people that are a little bit less technologically savvy and things like that.

[46:34] But it's a matter of finding people where they're comfortable taking a survey and then appearing

[46:39] as legitimate as possible, obviously.

[46:42] So we spend a lot of time not only like keeping our sending emails green in terms of not falling into people's spam filters,

[46:52] but then also presenting ourselves as professionals and that's how we get engagement from folks.

[46:58] So in the end, we don't let the different modes drive our perceptions of like what the right representative make up of a community is,

[47:08] So we let those things kind of float just knowing that in varying communities different people

[47:13] will engage with survey research in different ways.

[47:16] Yeah, I guess I just am aware that that's a limitation or a constraint in terms of

[47:22] actually participating because even following the link is something that we're afraid to do these

[47:27] days, right?

[47:27] I know.

[47:28] I know.

[47:29] Yeah, it's more of a function of overall feasibility.

[47:33] like, I couldn't necessarily complete a 700 or 800 sample size survey in the city of Edmunds,

[47:39] that doesn't seem possible based on how people respond to surveys, right?

[47:45] Yeah. Okay. Well, I just wanted to make that comment, or you know,

[47:49] ask about that concern. The input about what people said services they wanted to add,

[47:57] I mean, obviously, in our financial situation, that's probably not doable anyway,

[48:02] but it would be interested to know if there's a lot of asking for the same thing, it would just

[48:07] to the extent that that information was available, it'd be interested. And then I think it's

[48:13] really important for us to keep in mind this particular takeaway from this survey, you know, that

[48:19] when we asked what services, you know, that people that we were getting, that they were wanting to

[48:25] enhance or maintain or whatever, but then you asked about, you know, what you're willing to pay for,

[48:30] and it went down so much.

[48:32] You said there was a 5% variance, maybe from what the results are,

[48:36] but it was 75% that said cut or reduced the lower priority

[48:40] or underutilized.

[48:42] And I don't know if we could cutting enough to get down

[48:48] to where we are paying just what people are currently paying.

[48:54] But to the extent that we were, I was looking

[48:57] that the importance if you look at all the importance under 70% you know that maybe if you go to

[49:06] the full 70% that you could get to enough services cut that we wouldn't have to raise any money

[49:11] but basically from this survey they're saying don't raise 75% or saying don't raise any more money

[49:18] and just cut or reduce. So I think that's important feedback for us and once we broke into

[49:26] of groups because I found that information really valuable and insightful, but I wondered

[50:00] Mail female, which is nearly a 50-50 split, carries with it pretty good statistical significance when you're comparing those two subgroups.

[50:08] When we start to look at subgroups that are quite small, we're talking about under 20% of the survey responses.

[50:17] That's when things start to get a little bit higher that has a margin of error of like plus or minus 8 percentage points.

[50:22] So that's where we need to see a bit of a darker difference between demographics to say that's as statistically significant difference.

[50:32] I mean it didn't seem like when they did that by women in the age group of 18 to 49 to me that's like your mom demographic rate and the parks and rack and you know schools because I don't think they always associate what's a city service versus other services, the library, the schools, the parks nature, the beach, you know so I think we're probably doing really well in those areas to have that high rating from women of that age group.

[51:02] basically what you care about when you have kids versus what, you know, the men and the older

[51:08] age group was, we're asking about answering, but, yeah, it's really interesting. I did

[51:15] want to also point out one other thing real quick. When we, in 2024, we were working on

[51:21] the comp plan and so there was a lot more conversation and focus in the community about development,

[51:28] versus right now. There's a lot of focus and development. Thanks to some of our nonprofit groups really focusing on the emergency services or emergency response.

[51:38] So I do think that some of the, you know, where there's more concern over development growth in the past versus the emergency preparedness now might just be that we're focusing a little bit more during those same time frames for the surveys.

[51:52] Okay, thank you. I thought it was really good.

[51:56] If I just jumped in for 20 seconds.

[51:59] Yeah, I think, you know, Council Member Oceans comment about, you know,

[52:03] people wanting more services but also preferring that we cut those.

[52:08] You know, I think that's one of the things where we, where it's really incumbent on us

[52:12] to provide context to what that means and what we do about it.

[52:17] because the level of detail in those two questions was not very high and so you know

[52:25] it could point to a whole bunch of things. It could point to the fact that we need to cut

[52:29] services pretty drastically to meet people's desires or you know it could point to the fact

[52:36] that we need to do more education about how those services are. So I think that's that's like

[52:42] the next step and the most important things for us to do is to take those open questions

[52:47] and try to figure out how we get to clarity and a real come back and forth conversation about those

[52:54] with the public. So.

[52:57] Right. Thank you. And then we do have another, um, for a time check,

[53:02] another item to get to, um, would it be possible for the remaining questions to email you Todd and then

[53:09] um, yeah, that's absolutely. That's fine. Um, if everyone's okay, I literally got one round

[53:13] through, I've ready, I'm glad that you got on.

[53:16] So thank you so much and really appreciate really great work

[53:20] and helpful information that we'll definitely be using this year.

[53:23] So.

[53:23] But you're very welcome.

[53:24] It was my pleasure and thanks for the great questions.

[53:27] Great.

[53:27] I'm happy to answer some later by email.

[53:29] Great.

[53:30] Yeah.

[53:30] Please, everyone feel free to do so.

[53:32] Thank you.

[53:34] So on our second item is administration recommendations

[53:38] for divisions to the use and structure of boards and commissions.

[53:42] It was a mouthful, wasn't it?

[53:44] They were like, yeah.

[53:46] All right.

[53:46] Good to see you all again.

[53:50] And I know that was a lot of information, which is fascinating.

[53:55] I love that kind of research.

[53:57] This too will be a lot of information.

[53:59] There is no specific action today.

[54:03] Putting it in your heads, looking for initial feedback at what will happen next is

[54:09] develop a schedule for the next steps and leading up to and I'll talk more about that but

[54:18] other things that would need to be addressed that aren't necessarily included to what we're talking

[54:22] about today. This started when I was a member of the thought for me started when I was a member of the

[54:30] planning board, both moving from an alternative to an alternate to the member to the chair and then

[54:35] of an observer of the city and then as mayor. So I've had these sort of three different perspectives.

[54:43] And it actually, I don't even know if he recognizes, but I would say having a conversation with Ken

[55:01] Putting together a group to address it. So I tried to in building the task force, create sort of a 360 view of the world.

[55:10] So it includes me as the mayor, two council members, staff members, members, people who are on boards and commissions currently and community members.

[55:20] So there were people who had all of those views and if later, if you want to know who they are, I'm happy to share that.

[55:29] So this will come to, this is my, these are my recommendations.

[55:33] So taking in that feedback, as with any task force, as with any border commission that gives counsel to you all, you know,

[55:41] it is data points that you then put into recommendations and ultimately decisions.

[55:46] So, what I'd like to do is go through it all before we take questions and, in effect, what we just did in your packets.

[55:54] I know you had the PowerPoint that was sort of a brief overview of everything including what I just shared with you.

[56:02] And there was an FAQ document.

[56:04] And in the packet, there was also a spreadsheet that was another way of sort of looking at what all the recommendations are.

[56:12] So I know you had access to this, but let's go through it.

[56:17] Whoa, I can, you can see it.

[56:20] I have lost you, but I'll deal with that.

[56:24] So pretend I can see you.

[56:28] So the idea here is, how do we improve?

[56:32] This is how do we improve our engagement with the community?

[56:36] This isn't about stepping away from it.

[56:38] It is, we recognize that there are smart people out there

[56:42] And there are different reasons we want to engage, sometimes it's to get information, sometimes it's to help, sometimes it's to do.

[56:49] So this is about how do we improve that?

[56:52] And many of our boards and commissions exist solely to provide guidance and help to the council.

[57:00] So going after this in a way to sort of create, is very better model for doing this,

[57:06] there where we can align, you know,

[57:07] form and, you know, they're talking about

[57:09] forms of fall of function.

[57:10] So can we align structure with

[57:12] our priorities and our capacity to do the work

[57:15] and our outcomes?

[57:16] And we're in a different reality.

[57:19] From when all of these things were all of this process

[57:22] and structure was created, like many things at the city,

[57:25] it was sort of created through time based on an existing need.

[57:30] Oh, you are not seeing my slideshow.

[57:33] No.

[57:33] Well, maybe I need to do something about that whole line.

[57:38] Yeah, my screen is frozen too.

[57:40] Is it?

[57:42] Well, that's unfortunate.

[57:45] Let me see if this works.

[57:49] Okay, can you see that?

[57:52] That's in the lockout and lock back in.

[57:54] Okay.

[57:55] But the rest of you can see that?

[57:56] Can you pick a bigger?

[57:58] I think.

[57:59] For...

[57:59] What's the most difficult laptops?

[58:01] Oh, that.

[58:02] or put it in a presentation mode.

[58:06] I did, and it's huge on my screen.

[58:08] Well, I see the side notes too, for the next slide.

[58:13] I think you're sharing your desktop versus projecting.

[58:17] Well, that's your right.

[58:19] Does everyone have side-by-side galleries

[58:21] as their display performance in Zoom?

[58:25] Because I can affect how you see the screen screen as well.

[58:29] See?

[58:33] Yeah, try that slide, Mike. This one? Yep.

[58:38] Yeah, I'm not, see, I'm hitting. Let me try a different way. Yeah. I'm gonna exit that. Okay, I'm gonna hit.

[58:48] I'm gonna hit,

[58:50] all right. It's only open here. I only have one presentation open. Hey, Becky!

[58:58] Hi, guys!

[59:00] So, there's the PowerPoint.

[59:03] And do you have this in presentation mode?

[59:04] You've had a lot of visitors on today's...

[59:07] Do that, but I have to share my screen so I have to get back to it.

[59:10] What you don't know is I was down in Vivian's office trying to help her.

[59:13] It was indeed.

[59:16] Oh shit, today.

[59:17] It's a two.

[59:18] I do, bro.

[59:21] It takes a village.

[59:23] And I want to sit over here saying,

[59:25] Interpicture and picture automatically.

[59:28] No.

[59:31] Come on.

[59:33] Let me try this one.

[59:36] If you would like to send it to me I can drive and you can just

[59:40] prom me to go to the next slide.

[59:44] It's attached in the packet.

[59:46] It's attached.

[59:46] But I can do it this way.

[59:50] Oops.

[59:52] Well, I'm sorry about this.

[59:54] This is like only 120 a time.

[59:56] I've done something like this.

[59:58] and like the ball head finishes.

[1:00:00] This is like only the hundred and twenty of time. I've done something like this.

[1:00:04] I like the ballhead of your issues last week,

[1:00:11] so.

[1:00:12] Mayor, I wonder if Todd would be willing to show the slide, maybe?

[1:00:16] I think he's gone. Oh, there he is. Well, Luke, I just added to Luke, so hopefully he can.

[1:00:21] Okay.

[1:00:22] All right. So, what are you trying to say that Todd knows how to do this better than I do?

[1:00:27] I've had success in the last 24 hours with it.

[1:00:31] I'm sure you've got a technical glitch.

[1:00:35] It is.

[1:00:38] Did you get it?

[1:00:41] I did.

[1:00:43] I have it open.

[1:00:43] Give me just one moment.

[1:00:58] Are you able to see that?

[1:01:00] Yes.

[1:01:01] Okay.

[1:01:02] Thank you.

[1:01:02] So much.

[1:01:03] All right.

[1:01:03] So go ahead and change the next sign.

[1:01:06] I'll just say there were next each time.

[1:01:07] So this is the sort of you heard me say these words.

[1:01:11] Go to the next please.

[1:01:13] So, this is where I was and, you know, this is sort of recognizing the world is different.

[1:01:20] In the same way that many of our codes existed, we're sort of patched together based on an immediate need.

[1:01:25] That is, in many cases, how the boards and commissions were created over time.

[1:01:31] And, you know, as we have learned through many things, opportunity, opportunity can happen when there are issues in the world.

[1:01:39] And so we had to make very difficult decisions

[1:01:42] because of the financial constraints we're in.

[1:01:46] We pause the boards and commissions to help try

[1:01:48] to stabilize things for a while, staff capacity

[1:01:51] was and is continues to be limited

[1:01:55] and the expectations appropriately

[1:01:58] for accountability and results are higher than ever next.

[1:02:05] So that's the opportunity that I saw in all of this

[1:02:09] During this, it allowed the time, you know, so as I shared this was something that had been going through my mind for quite some time and it allowed me to sort of go to the balcony and sort of think about it, put together the task force. So, you know, what to be able to ask these kinds of questions, what is the purpose, why did we create these and where and how do they have the very most value and how do we align this with not only what we're dealing with today, but most things we're doing.

[1:02:38] we are talking about the future and how to impact it. So how can we align all of that next?

[1:02:46] So what we did learn is that we're getting, you know, there is strong input, but there is some

[1:02:52] inconsistency in terms of not only structure but how these things are being utilized. So the value of

[1:03:00] boards varies widely across council and staff. And I think everybody sort of has their favorite

[1:03:07] or in some cases they're favored individuals or they're favored portion of it or experience with it.

[1:03:16] In many cases I don't think it's a stretch to say the roles and expectations are not always clear to

[1:03:23] the participants in the room and in many cases they've done a good job as happens in any volunteer organization.

[1:03:31] if you don't give people very specific here as our ass, they'll figure out something to do.

[1:03:38] Some of our boards are underutilized and potentially duplicative in terms of the kinds of

[1:03:44] ass, we're asking of them. And it is a heavy lip. It isn't, you know, I think you all can relate to,

[1:03:50] have you ever walked out of a meeting with something not added to your to-do list. So for staff,

[1:03:56] but it's not just the preparation for meeting

[1:03:59] and being at the meeting and then there's all that follow up

[1:04:02] and usually there is additional work involved.

[1:04:05] So it is more than just the time that takes place

[1:04:07] and it should be because there should be value in all of this.

[1:04:10] So, but it is we have to recognize with staff,

[1:04:14] we're basically hiring staff for a very specific amount of time.

[1:04:19] Here's how many hours we get for it with them

[1:04:21] in that also comes their vacation

[1:04:24] And they're holiday and they're sick time.

[1:04:27] So if you think 2008 years is a year and then you take those out and you're something

[1:04:32] less than 2000 hours for each individual, you know, we need to look at that as what is

[1:04:36] the best investment of time for each investment.

[1:04:39] What is the best use of every one of those hours?

[1:04:42] And that needs to also be a part of this consideration because that is one of your assets.

[1:04:46] Next.

[1:04:49] So I think what we're looking for is, you know, how do we get clear outcomes and what can

[1:04:54] create as a better system to do it. So some of the things that I think in doing this that we want to.

[1:05:00] We don't have, how do we tap that? And can we get a stronger, more direct community voice? Is there a process

[1:05:08] to improve our decision-making and using these to help better improve our decision-making process?

[1:05:15] More diverse participation, and as you were talking about, as you looked at the research, we have community members,

[1:05:29] I think,

[1:05:29] You know, think of them in this sort of category, so a lot of people, you know, have very busy lives and busy families, other people, you know, just culturally even kind of participation can be limited and challenging because of cultural differences and how you engage in these kinds of things.

[1:05:48] And then of course, can we be very, very efficient in our use of time and resources next.

[1:05:55] So I'm going to go through the recommendations, as I mentioned, I'll go through them sort of in the slides and they are also summarizing that big Excel sheet, but we'll just talk through them next.

[1:06:08] So guiding principles, so you know, how do we get the right structure for the right purpose?

[1:06:14] So some of the guiding principles that we're in my head is it's going through this, in addition to all the things I've already talked about is not all work requires a permanent board

[1:06:24] or a permanent inter-word here.

[1:06:27] So sometimes, we don't need them for a long period of time.

[1:06:31] And I have, I think done seven or eight of those

[1:06:34] where sometimes, like in this case,

[1:06:36] there were multiple meetings, in some cases,

[1:06:38] it's one meeting.

[1:06:40] Can we match a structure to the task,

[1:06:42] instead of assuming that we need a full all-the-time structure

[1:06:48] to do something that might be better done

[1:06:50] as a one-off as a task?

[1:06:52] Can we be, let's try to maintain some flexibility and adaptability given sometimes on planned

[1:07:00] opportunities, or need we haven't considered when we designed this, so can we be flexible

[1:07:04] and adaptable, and then focus on impact and that tradition.

[1:07:10] So I frequently try to force myself to say, if I were to start over and had nothing to

[1:07:15] sort of draw from in a blank page, is this what I would have created?

[1:07:18] So trying to keep that sort of an open mind to it.

[1:07:24] So bottom line, can we get the right people in the right structure

[1:07:28] at the right time to do what we need next?

[1:07:33] This is the spreadsheet.

[1:07:35] And I'm just referencing that on one page it sort of all exists there,

[1:07:40] well it's actually two pages, but they look a lot alike.

[1:07:43] Next.

[1:07:46] So, what's not changing? These are RCW's. So, we have to have the Civil Service Commission.

[1:07:53] We have to have a disability board. We have to have a large tax advisory board.

[1:07:57] You would think we have to have a planning board. But in fact, that isn't necessarily true.

[1:08:03] But if you have one, you know, so it's sort of an if then kind of a thing.

[1:08:08] But it's not an RCW requirement.

[1:08:11] but I put it in the category of not changing because I think that would be it's my expectation

[1:08:17] or for recommendation and I believe we have operated under that sort of assumption. Next.

[1:08:25] So again, as I mentioned earlier, just saying in another way, how do we move from one size to

[1:08:29] it's all born structure to a right structure to the right function?

[1:08:38] Next.

[1:08:39] One of the things that's also, I felt was important is the language, we are not consistent in our terms.

[1:08:49] And I felt it would be good to create sort of a language in definitions, which would not only help form the structure, but also help us understand the different sort of purposes and needs.

[1:09:00] So, a board, like a planning board, at the highest level, is policy focused and has some

[1:09:06] quite quasi-judicial operation, a board, a task force, bring them together, solve a problem,

[1:09:14] and then they can go away.

[1:09:16] A work group, we've used that example as well, where we look at them and counsels, in some

[1:09:21] cases, create some of their own, where you will divide up and say, hey, will you guys sort

[1:09:26] roll up your sleeves and work on this.

[1:09:29] A committee would be a subgroup of a large group.

[1:09:31] Council also does this on their own.

[1:09:33] You have the council and then you have created a committee structure

[1:09:38] so you're a subgroup of a larger group.

[1:10:00] And a community perspective panel. So, in the same way that I have brought in groups to help me in the interview process. So, a small group to evaluate or discuss,

[1:10:15] I would also say that what Todd referred to when he and I did those focus groups last year that that could be considered a panel.

[1:10:23] A liaison, so this would be council, you know, council has a representative, but the

[1:10:31] part, the part has a representative of the council. So it is the bridge between two

[1:10:36] organizations and emphasis on the word organizations. And then I'm suggesting that we do

[1:10:43] not use the words cabinet or commissions. Those have very specific kinds of definitions.

[1:10:52] And so I'm just, again, my recommendation for those next.

[1:11:02] Thank you.

[1:11:03] So let's jump in.

[1:11:05] Combine the planning board in the architectural board.

[1:11:08] So it has been, in my experience, when I was on the planning board,

[1:11:12] that there was always the feeling of,

[1:11:14] wow, we should be attached more to the architectural board,

[1:11:17] that we should be meeting more often or discussing

[1:11:19] or often the architectural board.

[1:11:21] I know who has had a similar sort of feeling like,

[1:11:24] we have a lot to offer. A lot of these things could be somewhat attached to the hip.

[1:11:31] So I had gone down a path to the architectural board. There was a very specific times when

[1:11:39] they are really a much more sort of a heavier lift. But my recommendation came to

[1:11:45] after thinking about this a lot was to combine them, expand to either seven or nine regular

[1:11:51] members with an alternative, but have three require position. So as you know the architectural

[1:11:56] design board currently has, you were crude for very specific expertise. So I'm suggesting that

[1:12:01] you combine the two and then have three of those positions be one an architect, one a builder,

[1:12:07] and one landscape architect. Next. Salary Commission, you guys have been talking a lot about that.

[1:12:16] I don't know that we need to go into it,

[1:12:19] but I'm basically recommending what you just sort of did.

[1:12:25] Next.

[1:12:27] Transportation Commission.

[1:12:31] So, and in the spreadsheet, in the Excel sheet,

[1:12:37] you'll notice that I had the current titles

[1:12:40] and then what I recommend for the titles

[1:12:42] so that it would conform to that definition

[1:12:44] that I had originally, that I have just given to you.

[1:12:48] So, on here, the Transportation Committee,

[1:12:50] I'm recommending, I'm recommending, maintain no codification,

[1:12:54] change the name to a Transportation Work Group,

[1:12:56] a sample as needed to support the development of a Transportation Plan.

[1:13:01] So, we need them every four or five years,

[1:13:04] bring them together for those kinds of things.

[1:13:06] Obviously, with any of these, you can bring people together if needed for a specific,

[1:13:11] But in this case, non-codified change into a work group, bring them together in this case for the transportation plan every four to five years.

[1:13:21] As we just did next.

[1:13:24] I feel like I should have one of those clickers click.

[1:13:27] Treeboard.

[1:13:29] I'm recommending transition it to a panel, removing it from the code,

[1:13:33] and then recruiting specific tap that recruit for very specific tasks,

[1:13:38] such as advising on the tree code.

[1:13:40] So you would recruit people specifically for the, you know, here is the task, what are the kinds of skills and interest we would need and recruit for that very specific purpose, but not not isn't ongoing.

[1:13:55] Next.

[1:13:58] Economic development commission again, I would remove it from the code transition it to an advisory panel and then recruit for specific tasks.

[1:14:07] So you guys just had a really great experience with that, as they, you know, broke it

[1:14:14] to basically the current economic development commission, assembled broken into groups

[1:14:20] and then did these various specific tasks.

[1:14:23] I think the kinds of people, depending on the type of economic development that we are looking

[1:14:28] to do, the nature of the people that you would recruit for their expertise or experience

[1:14:33] or passions might be different, and this would allow for that to happen as opposed to bringing

[1:14:37] together people who may be a mix or may be generalist, but I think it's also really important

[1:14:43] to maintain some continuity and economic developments. It's a lot of it is, you know, what can we

[1:14:48] do in the midterm and what can we do long-term and having different strategies within all of

[1:14:53] those things? So this suggestion would be to the recommendation would be to have a chair and a co-chair

[1:14:59] Who?

[1:15:00] As needed, which, you know, can't happen with everything. This is something that I believe that we as a community need to, it's unfortunate, wouldn't it be nice if just everything we did automatically fell through those filters, that we didn't have to remind ourselves that those filters should even exist, but we do need to.

[1:15:26] And we sometimes forget about that.

[1:15:28] And I am very guilty of it.

[1:15:31] Even some of the simplest things

[1:15:33] that you know I did one of our presentations

[1:15:34] at the theater for all sorts of reasons.

[1:15:37] I chose that.

[1:15:38] But then it's like, yeah, the restrooms are on the second floor.

[1:15:41] And there's only steps.

[1:15:43] So I believe this group is still essential to the city.

[1:15:48] But I think, again, through all the parameters

[1:15:53] that I discussed before, making them an advisory panel, definitely putting them together

[1:15:58] quarterly, and then if we have special like, you know, we could use your help as we're thinking

[1:16:02] about blank. Next,

[1:16:06] the Starc Preservation Commission. At one point, I will share with you that I

[1:16:11] thought about, I wonder if it would make sense for this to move over to the historic society

[1:16:18] to the museum to do if that is, that is where that passion lies and what it makes sense

[1:16:26] for them to adopt or absorb this particular work. It can't do that, and so the recommendation

[1:16:37] is keep it in the code, transition it to an advisory board meet quarterly. I think the nature

[1:16:43] the work that they're doing would be fine at that, and then like with the other ones then create

[1:16:49] sort of special project committees, so subgroups as required. For example, the designations

[1:16:55] of buildings, another subgroup or committee could have been helped with the Native American

[1:17:00] historic walkie tour as two examples. So that's that recommendation next.

[1:17:08] Arts Commission. As you know, we, many of us, me very included, I don't know if I can claim to be the biggest champion, but we do have a creative economy.

[1:17:21] It is one of our distinctions, and I believe we need to exploit that and grow it.

[1:17:28] It is a very large differentiator that we have going for us here in the community when you live in a region that has as many choices.

[1:17:38] is as we do. I think exploiting and growing the creative economy here is very, very important.

[1:17:50] So I definitely think it ought to stay, stay as codification. I do see a potential that at some

[1:17:56] point, if there is, you know, we had talked, you guys had had deliberated for deliberated for a while

[1:18:04] about the cultural access tax, I think at some point there could be power if we would want

[1:18:11] to make sure that they are healthy and thriving and can't thrive. So I could see us trying

[1:18:17] to get to a point where we could secure enough funding that they could be a spin-off as they're

[1:18:22] in the same way that there are chambers of conferences for those kinds of purposes that we could

[1:18:26] potentially create that kind of a thriving arts commission that has its own stable funding

[1:18:32] source and then the city just becomes another champion and and and primary member of it.

[1:18:38] So I can sort of see a potential future, but in the meantime, I think we need to do a lot of

[1:18:43] carrying and feeding in this area. Next.

[1:18:48] Parts. This one, there's a lot to explain in this one.

[1:18:56] Initially, at some point, again, looking to the future. So if I were to look down the future

[1:19:02] to what the idea would be, it would be to have a parks board.

[1:19:06] That's going to take some time to get to.

[1:19:11] And I always felt that on the planning board, you know,

[1:19:16] who currently the planning board has the responsibility for being the parks board,

[1:19:21] and I personally would recruit totally different people for our parks board,

[1:19:25] and then I would recruit for a planning board.

[1:19:28] And the reality is we, and then I think the reality is still,

[1:20:00] That it's hard to even get airtime with them to be able to advance it. So I think we could sort of start moving in that way by creating a parks advisory board, keep it on codify, and then start moving in that direction. One of the things that would have to happen is that we would need to modify, you need to do some other modifications, because the, the cap, like for example, the city's parks capital programs have to be reviewed and recommended by the planning board.

[1:20:30] And that's a minimum of two meetings of presentations plus the Q&A's, plus the public hearing, and then it goes to council, so under the current format, this would just make it much more cumbersome.

[1:20:39] So this is sort of a step process, but you can see the vision of what I'm recommending. Next.

[1:20:48] cemetery board. I am suggesting that as much as I love the cemetery and apparently that's

[1:20:54] where former mirrors go, I'm not sure it's necessarily the, you know, given the kinds of choices

[1:21:00] that we have to make. And obviously we have to investigate what it would take, but I'm suggesting

[1:21:06] that we explore the feasibility of transferring ownership of it to a non-profit, but as a part

[1:21:12] that transition. There are things that I think the city cherishes and finds value in such

[1:21:19] as the memorial day event, the walk back and time kinds of events. So we would want to continue

[1:21:23] and make sure that those kinds of opportunities would still exist. And again, I know there is

[1:21:29] a lot of information that have been collected in terms of even what the feasibility is and the rules

[1:21:33] would that be in terms of how we acquired it and what the rules of that are. But I am wondering at

[1:21:39] time in our evolution and with our demands, is that a business we ought to be in. Next.

[1:21:47] Sister City Commission,

[1:21:50] this is another evolution. Again, I'm suggesting that we

[1:21:54] remove it from code, eventually, and I'll explain, I'm sorry, I don't know why my phone isn't

[1:22:02] I mean, we would transition it to a work group, so consistency with titles.

[1:22:09] We would unfreeze it now through 2028, so they need to start planning like immediately

[1:22:16] so that they can do the exchange and then do the as adult exchange in 2027.

[1:22:24] So they sort of need to know and have some certainty to that, so I'm recommending we go ahead

[1:22:28] and freeze it. But in the meantime, we immediately started exploring the transition to an unprofit.

[1:22:33] And my personal commitment would be that I would help try to find, you know, legal support

[1:22:41] to make that happen without cost, you know, to find some provonal support that I would help and I have

[1:22:47] already given them an outline of what I think a board structure would look like to create the kind of

[1:22:52] board that would be needed and that I would help sort of in the recruitment of that. So again,

[1:22:57] And this is the there are two other opportunities that I see in doing this I've reached out to other cities in the region to think if they to see if they might share interest in doing this.

[1:23:09] For example, imagine if we had a sister city and the focus was entirely focused on business or another one on culture or another one just on the arts or I'm sorry or on education.

[1:23:20] And imagine if we had multiple sister cities,

[1:23:24] person that had like one closer to the equator.

[1:23:27] So I could see this model, Seattle is obviously much more mature

[1:23:32] and involved in this.

[1:23:33] I think they have something like 11 or 13 of these.

[1:23:35] Each one is a separate nonprofit.

[1:23:39] So next.

[1:23:41] Yes, Commission, suggesting that we move it

[1:23:44] from code transition to a advisory board.

[1:23:48] I would recommend we broaden the age

[1:23:50] because the turnover of sort of our access to them is so brief.

[1:23:54] My feeling is that this is a voice that has been under utilized.

[1:24:02] And I would, so rather than sort of having this group and some of the projects

[1:24:06] they've done in the past is like show up at events and pass out trees, those kinds of things.

[1:24:11] And I see that the value of, and like I included them on this task force,

[1:24:16] Their voice should be heard and I think we should encourage all of the boards and all the different structures that we've been talking about to sort of where we would create this roster of young voices and that could be accessed by these groups and task forces.

[1:24:33] I would also recommend that we bring them together twice a year with very specific motives in that to, you know, I see this also is a great focus group opportunity on a larger scale.

[1:25:00] It's also one of the problems I believe in government is how do we create a pathway toward

[1:25:08] individuals to want to be more active in government, volunteer on these things or run for office.

[1:25:15] And that's one of the things I didn't say at front that I see a huge potential while we talk to the end of the

[1:25:23] because it's another benefit I think in all of this. Next,

[1:25:31] climate protection committee

[1:25:32] maintain the non-photocotification transition to a task force, continue this suspension

[1:25:39] but recruit for very specific needs. So like the Complan climate element,

[1:25:44] revising the climate action plan, technical advice on specific initiatives. So again,

[1:25:50] bringing together people for very specific types of purposes, guidance, support, hands-on,

[1:25:58] kinds of work, and there are, you know, when you think about climate protection, that

[1:26:04] crosses so many categories of influence and impact, so being able to recruit specifically for

[1:26:12] those needs, as well as the bigger lifts that the city itself has for things like the

[1:26:17] plan.

[1:26:20] Next. Interestingly, we have a municipal

[1:26:24] events commission. You might not have known that. It was a

[1:26:26] established in 1941. And I think it was an anticipation of what

[1:26:31] we do should there be a war that we need to prepare for. So I'm

[1:26:34] suggesting, as fun as it might be to keep it around. Maybe you want to

[1:26:38] eliminate it. Next. Liaisons. So I would

[1:26:45] I'm recommending that we do keep them, but at a level that is like with external organizations

[1:26:54] such as the port or, you know, the county stuff.

[1:27:00] But I am also recommending, you have to ensure the autonomy of community member engagement

[1:27:06] to discontinue the liaisans for the groups that we talked about before that the purpose

[1:27:12] of bringing the community members in is to give them the opportunity to offer their guidance and their advice

[1:27:20] and to do the work.

[1:27:24] So I likely asons, but in the level of things like the port,

[1:27:30] in this area, I'm suggesting that they be discontinued. Next. Here in examiner,

[1:27:40] just this more of like a house cleaning kind of a thing. Next,

[1:27:48] the Edmund City Code, so there are things I'm not talking about today that we also need to, and that will be one of the next steps in this process, is we need to create, not only are we inconsistent in our terms, in what do we call these things, we're inconsistent in who appoints them or who gets to confirm them or what are their terms.

[1:28:10] And we need to create consistency in that.

[1:28:16] So as I collect your feedback from that,

[1:28:19] we will start and we'll create a draft of these kinds of things

[1:28:23] for that will be one of the next things you see is

[1:28:27] applying, trying to apply those kinds of things to those recommendations.

[1:28:35] And next,

[1:28:39] I also think that this, you know,

[1:28:44] the world changes, if we need to be making sure that we're modifying and course

[1:28:48] correcting as we go. So I would suggest that we look at this on a regular

[1:28:53] periodic time period to say, because you know, you are any one of these groups, right?

[1:29:01] And that was one of the questions, you know, I had a question error that I worked with

[1:29:06] the task force on and there were surveys and we asked that sort of question, you know,

[1:29:10] If it didn't exist, what would you create?

[1:29:13] If it did exist, what would you keep or what we need anymore?

[1:29:16] If you're creating an organization as council to give you guidance,

[1:29:20] then there needs to be a, what do I want from them?

[1:29:23] And how am I going to get it?

[1:29:25] And how will they get their information, right?

[1:29:26] And what is the appropriate structure or individuals to do that?

[1:29:30] So I think we need to revisit this and ensure that we are getting,

[1:29:36] and you're getting what you need for that period in time

[1:29:40] for the purposes that you have. Next.

[1:29:44] To clarify, we need to extend.

[1:29:48] Is there one OK for 15 minutes, and then we'll kind of read.

[1:29:52] Does it?

[1:29:54] 15 minutes? OK. We'll extend to 445.

[1:29:57] Thank you, Council President. So what's next?

[1:30:00] Effectiveness, inefficiencies. Next.

[1:30:04] So, if you can stop sharing and then I have one more thing to say before questions.

[1:30:10] One of the things that when recruiting, you know, for a bigger long-term heavy lifts, you know, it's hard because people have lives. And it's like, hey, I know you haven't been involved in before. Please join the planning board and you only have to read 250 pages every so often.

[1:30:25] And if we create task forces and ask for somebody,

[1:30:29] it's like, could you come to three meetings?

[1:30:31] Can I get you to do this?

[1:30:32] So we create an opportunity for more people

[1:30:35] because it's a shorter time period

[1:30:37] and hopefully we can gain a good first experience for them.

[1:30:41] And then we can start sort of upgrading them

[1:30:43] as opposed to the first task being so tiring big.

[1:30:45] Because I think we need to start,

[1:30:47] we need to start creating the new use for the future

[1:30:52] and start younger.

[1:30:53] And so that was also part of my mind.

[1:30:56] And so there I have it, council president, over to you.

[1:30:59] Okay, so we have questions.

[1:31:01] And again, this is the first touch.

[1:31:02] And we're not going to probably get them all done.

[1:31:04] But this is the first step.

[1:31:05] And we're going to absorb it.

[1:31:06] But definitely want to have some opportunities.

[1:31:08] So, Chris, you're first.

[1:31:10] Yeah, thank you.

[1:31:11] I've noodleed on this quite a bit and actually written a lot of feedback.

[1:31:15] But I first want to thank you, Mayor.

[1:31:17] And all the participants who gave their time in their input on this.

[1:31:20] I think there's a lot of great gems, a lot of good ideas, and certainly, you know, I value all the expertise and thinking on this.

[1:31:33] How well, and I've got a number of questions, but I know that we don't have time for that.

[1:31:37] So, how well do you think that this group really knew the existing boards and commissions and had insight into that?

[1:31:49] because I know it was explained, but it's one thing to have it explained to you versus really kind of having that experience of what has been going on in those boards and commissions.

[1:31:58] And I know, you know, moving forward, we may not use the word commission, but just for the purposes of what's been existing.

[1:32:05] Yeah, fair.

[1:32:06] So my intent was to get a 360 because, you know, ultimately you are, in many cases, you're the only audience that counts.

[1:32:14] because many of these serve at your pleasure and to provide you guidance.

[1:32:19] So it's really not about, in many cases, to be sort of straight about it, you create them

[1:32:24] because you want a voice to help you. They serve for you and at your pleasure.

[1:32:31] But I did have invited five different commissions, members from five different commissions,

[1:32:37] one of them said yes and then just wasn't able to participate. So there were four

[1:32:41] commission members who were participating in this.

[1:32:44] We also did comparisons to other cities to see, you know,

[1:32:51] how do we compare and how are they doing?

[1:32:54] We also did do a survey of council members, staff, directors,

[1:33:00] and staff liaison towards the commission.

[1:33:02] We're also surveyed as a part of this process as well.

[1:33:07] Thank you.

[1:33:07] I have another question, but I'll wait till we go through the

[1:33:11] Thank you. Thank you very excited by the work of this career but I think that this has been very necessary when we look at the volume of the board's committees and commissions that we have in the city

[1:33:23] And very excited to see these unpaused

[1:33:26] I'll give my feedback very swiftly and specifically

[1:33:30] I think it would be a mistake to remove diversity equity inclusion and accessibility from the code and to reduce it to quarterly instead of monthly

[1:33:38] I don't think that's the feedback we're getting from our community in terms of how they would

[1:33:43] like to see government adapt into the future.

[1:33:45] It's also just a very unique group in the feedback they're able to provide us within the city,

[1:33:52] especially when it comes to accessibility issues that end up costing us a lot of money

[1:33:57] if somebody decides to litigate with us.

[1:33:59] So I view that as potential cost savings.

[1:34:02] I'm very excited to see the creation of a park sport.

[1:34:05] I've been saying that for years.

[1:34:06] I think it makes sense to fold Mayor's plant protection committee and the tree board into the park's board because they often overlap issues in the stakeholders that they engage in.

[1:34:17] And then finally, I just wanted to swiftly comment on the removal of council liaison and just caution the administration in that regard.

[1:34:25] What I've seen in ad hoc task force that are created entirely by members of the administration and I'm specifically going to go back to the much maligned.

[1:34:35] um, waterfront connector. There is a great deal of confirmation bias in how certain members

[1:34:43] of the administration pursue projects that they are personally passionate about or perspective

[1:34:47] that they highly value. And they only include people in the process that they sometimes

[1:34:53] members of the administration only include people in the process who they feel would support their

[1:34:59] Prups.

[1:35:00] Personal perspective or vision. And then when the public gets an opportunity to comment on this, some

[1:35:05] years of work and investment of staff time go down the drain because the public hates it. I think that even though

[1:35:13] it might be challenging for certain members of the administration, including voices of dissent and making sure that we have the

[1:35:18] independence of these boards and commissions through just council having eyes on these boards and commissions as an

[1:35:26] outside observer and non-voting member and be able to appoint people who might disagree with

[1:35:31] the specific staff member really adds value to the process. And finally, on structure purpose,

[1:35:38] I really think that what we do in our city, because other cities only have a planning and

[1:35:43] parks board and then they hire consultants for hundreds of dollars an hour to solicit community

[1:35:48] feedback and engagement. What we are strategy has always been in the city is we just pull

[1:35:52] volunteers and we ask them to staff these boards and commissions and provide us with that feedback

[1:35:57] for free. And if we had to create an FTE to manage the surviving board's committees and commissions

[1:36:02] I think that would still be a cost savings for the city versus having to engage consultants

[1:36:07] to manage these ad hoc task force and potentially lead us to issues with confirmation bias where

[1:36:13] we end up with an outcome that's strongly out of touch with what the community wants. So that's my

[1:36:22] hard work. It's very necessary. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for putting

[1:36:30] this all together. A lot of information to digest and I know that a lot of very thoughtful

[1:36:36] people were involved. I, you know, so off the top. My opinion is I think that we need to keep

[1:36:48] the Economic Development Commission and have assigned to, you know, parts of our work plan

[1:36:59] to continue to develop areas of focus in neighborhoods, the centers, as mentioned, to

[1:37:08] a lesser extent, the hubs that also all along Highway 99, with, you know, have some specificity,

[1:37:14] I think that that's I think that that might be the missing ingredient for some of these

[1:37:20] groups. The DIA Commission was formed by council with a great deal of intention and their charter

[1:37:30] is so powerful and supportive of the EIA and diversity and all of the work that comes with that.

[1:37:41] I think it was a very effective model and being able to control their work and control their

[1:37:50] voice and have it be an honest broker for the communities that are represented in the

[1:38:01] IA and making sure that we are focused on diversity, equity, inclusion and access and access

[1:38:10] is such a big word that it really does encompass a lot of the things that we've had challenges

[1:38:17] with. So I don't, you know, my opinion is that I don't want this dismantled and I would

[1:38:26] like to have the original chartered honor because it was such a powerful, powerful document.

[1:38:33] The tree board, you know, all of these things are formed by the Council as you recognize,

[1:38:37] This has been something that I think that we can do.

[1:38:41] The tree board and some of these other subgroups need to be pulled into a certain extent

[1:38:49] as the planning development group is done for guidance on the ordinances and that touch

[1:38:58] trees and the work there.

[1:39:01] I think that that's one of the things that we should also be considering maybe rolling

[1:39:07] into a whole different model.

[1:39:11] We have today, you know, in the slide lines in the side room, Georgian Armstrong, who's

[1:39:16] the chair and the president of the climate advisory board.

[1:39:20] And she sent all of us a long document, which is very well, you know, sorted out in terms

[1:39:27] of how this charter would work and it incorporates not everything perfectly, but incorporates

[1:40:00] You know, both obligated morally and also, you know, you know, legislatively to do and follow the and to support the climate action plan, to help work with some of the the tree board work and the urban forestry management plan, there are things that the climate advisory board has been working on in terms of all these things in terms of climate resilience and climate action.

[1:40:30] and they've been positioning themselves with two or three different grants to help support

[1:40:37] the work that the city is doing and in conversation with the city. It's a model that I would

[1:40:44] encourage everyone to take a look at, take a few steps at seeing how, you know, which pieces fit

[1:40:52] and what things do and don't work well, but I think that there's room for for an opportunity here

[1:40:59] to use a larger outside commission to help work

[1:41:04] towards better access for the climate action plan.

[1:41:08] There's going to be climate elements

[1:41:10] in the next rough management act, comprehensive plan,

[1:41:15] and also work on other things like reducing vehicle miles

[1:41:19] traveled, et cetera.

[1:41:21] So I want to put an upleg for that as well as also a model

[1:41:26] for using a non-profit to help

[1:41:29] of the purposes of the city. And as a partner, my final comment is Alia Zanz, I think that

[1:41:36] it's very helpful for community groups to have a non-voting council member as Alia Zanz to provide

[1:41:43] council updates, and on all the boards that I've served on before the pause, it was for a council

[1:41:50] update. So thank you for that, and if I have other comments, I'll email them. Okay, thank you.

[1:41:58] Thanks.

[1:41:58] Just real quick, and we have some more hands up.

[1:42:01] Is everybody okay to go to 450?

[1:42:03] That'll be a hard stop.

[1:42:04] But let's just try to get everybody through.

[1:42:06] I don't know why.

[1:42:06] It's everybody okay to go.

[1:42:08] OK.

[1:42:09] OK.

[1:42:14] OK, here you go.

[1:42:17] I lowered my hand as opposed to entering the mic on.

[1:42:21] I've given that economic development

[1:42:23] is one of our stated strategic priorities,

[1:42:26] and that we currently don't have a dedicated economic development

[1:42:29] lead.

[1:42:29] I'm just trying to understand how the proposal

[1:42:32] to kind of downgrade and downstructure the economic development commission kind of aligns with

[1:42:37] our need to really dial that focus area up. For the city specifically as you know council member

[1:42:44] pain mentioned we have a lot of plans that we need to action around our highway 99 revitalization

[1:42:51] the the plans around our hubs and centers and port collaboration all of these really great

[1:42:58] opportunities that we need to start to plant the seed so that we can harvest later and I'm just a little

[1:43:04] wanting to better understand you're thinking around kind of dialing that group back.

[1:43:09] And I appreciate it and I'm sorry that's the way it came back because anything that sounds like I don't want money.

[1:43:19] is incorrect.

[1:43:22] It was more of as there's a theme in a lot of this is like who I would recruit for a

[1:43:29] tree board is who different than who I would recruit for a planning board.

[1:43:32] So as we look at 99 and development opportunities up there, there might even be separate

[1:43:37] subgroups up there.

[1:43:38] It could be geomedical district versus housing or business, you know, in terms of that.

[1:43:45] I would like us to be looking for is there an industry that doesn't need a lot of real estate but is drawn to quality of life in terms of that they would like to be.

[1:43:57] That's how biotech grew to see that because there were people who would like that quality of life and industry sprung around the gaming is another one of those that you know where people are.

[1:44:07] So that would be potentially even a different kind of a group.

[1:44:11] As we think about growing the arts, you know, that sector could be another in who.

[1:44:17] So who we would recruit for those specific, I know Council Member Olsen has been sort of leading

[1:44:24] a charge to should we be exploring on a much more intense way, parking as another thing,

[1:44:30] and that would be sort of another group in who you would recruit for that would probably

[1:44:34] be different.

[1:45:00] Justing that that be the chair and the co-chair to provide not only ongoing, but to ensure that. One point I talked with the idea of if we were to create those sort of subgroups, the chairs of those who potentially serve as the members of it, which would then create a link to all these initiatives. So I was talking with that for a while as another model.

[1:45:22] All right. Yeah, that does help clarify. So thank you. I was moderately concerned there for a minute.

[1:45:29] And then I would also like to echo the removal of the non-boding council liaison's from these organizations.

[1:45:38] I don't necessarily see the benefit.

[1:45:40] I'm struggling to see what the obstacle was we were hoping to overcome.

[1:45:44] I think that for those that the council members sit in on,

[1:45:48] it's both for transparency that we can report back on what's going on with the boards and commissions,

[1:45:53] but also to help provide those groups with context,

[1:45:56] like they're kind of in from their day job,

[1:45:58] they may not know what else is going on with the city,

[1:46:00] they may not know why this is happening or that is happening.

[1:46:04] And we can just provide some general context

[1:46:06] as to what's going on that might help them as they're working

[1:46:10] through whatever their work product is in front of them.

[1:46:12] And as we're not, you know, we're cheap labor.

[1:46:15] So we can attend these meetings and kind of help out.

[1:46:19] I think a little bit more than we can if we're not

[1:46:22] a lot to participate. So that's just my two sets. But I will stop talking now. Thank you.

[1:46:27] Thank you. Well.

[1:46:31] Yeah, thank you. I'll be quick. I think I appreciate the effort because

[1:46:35] the current structure in the number of buzzing commision really kind of deming a lot of

[1:46:42] step resources. So it's the right time to kind of visit it and move along a little bit. But in my

[1:46:51] I kind of look at the city. What's our need? Our need is economic development, climate

[1:47:00] controls as a city, planning and architectural because it's related to the cities, long-term,

[1:47:11] well-being. So those are the big ones. And for the time being, I think the DIA, the commission,

[1:47:19] And then we spend a lot of effort in energy into it and under the current kind of micro-climate.

[1:47:31] I think there's still advantages and very to help that.

[1:47:36] So I don't want to diminish it or reduce it.

[1:47:40] just at this colon environment.

[1:47:49] I also echo the consolidations to the chamber, to the board, to the port, those areas.

[1:48:01] We are cheap labor.

[1:48:03] And we can rotate, I mean, council members, we can rotate other members onto these projections.

[1:48:14] And if community members want to join us in partner as early as on team, that will be fine too.

[1:48:23] So I think there is no gain for us to eliminate that, because we are essentially providing

[1:48:34] that service for free unless there is a better structure.

[1:48:41] So those are high level, I think we are coming up to 4.50, we have 2 minutes, so I want

[1:48:48] You'll come up minutes to consumm and bag and also.

[1:48:53] Okay, Vivian, have you spoken yet?

[1:48:55] I don't think you have.

[1:48:57] Okay, I'll let you go next.

[1:48:59] I mean, this full of defense emergency preparedness is the emergency prepared to something

[1:49:04] that could fall under that shedding, because I know that you are working with a group for

[1:49:10] that purpose.

[1:49:11] It just occurred to me that wasn't something that had been on my radar before, and then

[1:49:15] According to liaison roles, I think that the reason why I was getting looked at it all was

[1:49:19] just about the influence of a council member on a board that's then advising council in the

[1:49:28] mayor.

[1:49:29] So we haven't had anything in rules of seizure or anything that was really very explicit about

[1:49:35] what the

[1:49:39] so I guess if we were keeping it and will come in about being for the poor or whatever,

[1:49:45] I think that's what the administration is proposing that those would stay.

[1:49:50] Ryan, eight would stay, late-ballinger, a forum would stay.

[1:49:54] He was proposing with us that we are not doing liaison's to the tree board.

[1:50:00] More explicit about what the Jews and joutes are for that role. That's all I have.

[1:50:07] And then I'll go real quick on the, and then I think we have a minute for Chris to have your final point.

[1:50:15] Okay, thank you.

[1:50:18] Okay, thank you.

[1:50:19] One thing I wanted to talk about just real quick, I was a lot more, but it was just the transparency

[1:50:27] and public accessibility of some of these panels and work groups that are behind the scenes,

[1:50:31] versus the more public ones, just the thought process, kind of behind that and how I know

[1:50:37] some work gets done behind the scenes, which is not a bad thing, but sometimes it can be a little

[1:50:42] bit hidden from view and then pop up kind of late in the game, so just the thought process

[1:50:47] around that as we're thinking about these. And I do want to echo, I know because some of us have

[1:50:55] experience with certain boards or commissions and the backgrounds of them, and the impacts of them,

[1:51:01] you know, we're all going to come to it from different perspectives, so I think it's really valuable

[1:51:06] that everybody participate, which I'm happy to everybody is, just so that we get that feedback as well,

[1:51:13] because what there really was only a few boards or commissions represented on that panel,

[1:51:18] compared to all the ones you had, at least in person. So I agree that you had someone's behind

[1:51:23] So I just wanted to clarify that and then Chris, I'll give you a minute and then I'll let the Mayor wrap up and then we'll come on that stuff.

[1:51:32] Hey, I'm going to be super fast.

[1:51:34] So about the council liaison, I am concerned as a separate branch of government.

[1:51:38] We absolutely have a place in these meetings as liaisons and I know we'll continue those conversations.

[1:51:46] And if someone's a bad actor or a stake in things too far, I think we do with that as opposed

[1:51:51] to taking council liaison, so we do need a climate action committee, and they need to

[1:51:57] meet monthly.

[1:51:58] We have a lot of work to do that we're really behind on, and that's a very important priority.

[1:52:04] DEIA, our culture is one of the most important things about our city, and to me it's

[1:52:10] a priority, and if they just need quarterly, I don't know how they will be able to get

[1:52:15] any work done, economic development, again, super high priority, and that's a, and I'm open to the recommendation that I really feel like it needs to be even more empty up than that. Thank you.

[1:52:33] Thank you. Mary, you want to wrap up and then next steps. This is just the first steps, so everyone, you know, we're not jumping to actions yet.

[1:52:43] Thanks for the call of fire and you're right and I really appreciate the comments really

[1:52:48] thoughtful and I was hearing where there was consensus and it will be helpful so I will

[1:52:56] be coming back with sort of revisions to this in influence by your comments ultimately you

[1:53:04] know these are you know as you pointed out and I did earlier these most of not what the

[1:53:12] So this is your ultimate decision.

[1:53:15] This is me giving a recommendation to Council on these things and you will decide, I think

[1:53:20] we will also do the part with the ordinance that tries to give some guidance or some suggestions

[1:53:25] on appointments, terms, those kinds of things and how that happens to bring some consistency

[1:53:31] to it and also a schedule to get a suit of the process because as we think about the budget

[1:53:37] and staff resources. This is a financial impact. And keep in mind any of these that meet at night

[1:53:45] that have to be broad, you know, broadcasts it. If it's a union person, then we're paying over time

[1:53:52] unless we're shifting their time, which means they're not doing something during the day. So

[1:53:57] that is a difference. So I really appreciate Council President Dash's comment about access and

[1:54:03] it will deserve. In terms of are these things being, you know, is this, do we have to be recording them

[1:54:09] and doing minutes and having them available live stream does have a financial impact as well. So anyway,

[1:54:16] that's the point of that was to say there is, I will try to do this in parallel as we're going through

[1:54:22] the budget and I realize we're already starting to stack that part of the year. But I hope we can make it into

[1:54:28] small bites and that they're consumable. I really do appreciate given what your lives have been

[1:54:34] like over the last couple weeks and just the amount of information you've had to go through

[1:54:38] your head. I appreciate your openness to this and the feedback. Well done. Thank you.

[1:55:00] Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. And with that, and then there will be follow-up and I'll be following up as well for council to be, you know, how we're going to collect all that information and the feedback. Now that we've had a first.

City Council - Study Session

Agenda

Transcript