[0:00] Yes.

[0:27] » See them.

[0:33] Are you ready, city manager?

[0:34] >> We're ready, may we? Thank you.

[0:36] » We're ready, may we? Thank you.

[0:36] >> Perfect. It is now 6 pm. I will call the

[0:39] » Perfect. It is now 6 pm. I will call the

[0:39] August 11th, 2026 city council meeting

[0:42] to order, and council member Gobieski

[0:45] can lead us in the pledge of allegiance

[0:46] this evening.

[1:05] Leah, roll call, please.

[1:07] >> Mayor Vigny,

[1:08] » Mayor Vigny,

[1:08] >> here.

[1:09] » here.

[1:09] >> Mayor PMDuk,

[1:10] » Mayor PMDuk,

[1:10] >> here.

[1:11] » here.

[1:11] >> Council member Cavaleri.

[1:13] » Council member Cavaleri.

[1:14] Council member Steckler,

[1:15] >> here.

[1:16] » here.

[1:16] >> Council member Allison

[1:17] » Council member Allison

[1:17] >> here.

[1:18] » here.

[1:18] >> Council member Paddock,

[1:19] » Council member Paddock,

[1:19] >> present.

[1:20] » present.

[1:20] >> Council member Bobki

[1:21] » Council member Bobki

[1:21] >> here.

[1:23] » here.

[1:23] Council member Cavaleria told us that he

[1:25] would be on vacation this week. Do I

[1:26] have a motion to excuse?

[1:28] >> So moved. Second.

[1:30] » So moved. Second.

[1:30] >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:31] » I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:32] in favor say I.

[1:33] >> I.

[1:33] » I.

[1:33] >> I.

[1:34] » I.

[1:34] >> Any against? Any abstensions?

[1:37] » Any against? Any abstensions?

[1:37] Motion passes 6.

[1:41] Next up, I'll move on to audience

[1:42] communication. Is there anyone in the

[1:45] chambers who would like to speak?

[1:48] Is there anyone online who would like to

[1:50] speak this evening?

[1:55] All right, with that there will be

[1:57] another opportunity to speak at the end

[1:59] of the council meeting.

[2:01] Next, we will move on to presentations

[2:05] and we have a financial and investment

[2:07] report for the period ending June 30th,

[2:09] 2026

[2:11] and finance director Lumbad is going to

[2:14] speak.

[2:15] >> Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council.

[2:17] » Thank you, mayor. Good evening, council.

[2:17] Um, you haven't heard from me in a

[2:19] while, so I have three items for you

[2:22] tonight. But, uh, to start off, we are

[2:24] reviewing the financial and investment

[2:26] report for, um, the 18-month period

[2:29] ending June 30 of, um, 2026.

[2:33] Let me just um get my Oh, may I just uh

[2:39] Okay. But anyway, um so to start off, we

[2:42] are um going to review um two economic

[2:45] indicators. And the reason why I um

[2:48] we're reviewing them is because for one,

[2:50] the consumer price index um is, you

[2:53] know, a measure of price or it's the

[2:56] index of price and this affects our

[2:58] sales tax. So when the CPI goes up, our

[3:02] um sales tax revenue generally tends to

[3:05] grow as well. Um but also because it is

[3:09] price it's the cost of goods that we buy

[3:11] then it also impacts the cost for the

[3:13] city including our M. And then for the

[3:16] federal so for a consumer price index um

[3:18] as of June 2026 the consumer price index

[3:21] for the city of for the Seattle and

[3:23] Tacoma area which is the orange line is

[3:26] at about um 4.1% and then the one uh in

[3:30] blue which is the national average is

[3:32] right around 3.8.

[3:35] And then for our federal funds rate, now

[3:37] this indicator is the cost of um money.

[3:41] Um and again it's um helps helps us

[3:44] understand why our investment is

[3:46] growing. So as that rate goes up um then

[3:50] the investment return uh is also higher.

[3:53] Um on the flip side of that, when the

[3:56] federal funds rate goes up because of

[3:59] this cost of money, the borrowing um

[4:02] that affects the our rate revenue, which

[4:04] is for mortgage, would also tend to go

[4:07] on the opposite side, right? Because if

[4:09] mortgage if the 30-year mortgage is

[4:11] higher, then there's less um activity in

[4:14] the real estate. And so since um

[4:18] since let's see June of 2024

[4:22] um that rate has been um elevated and

[4:26] primarily because uh the federal funds

[4:28] of the finance open market committee are

[4:31] trying they're trying to set the policy

[4:34] to influence the economy so that we can

[4:37] hit the 2% target for our CPI. Um but as

[4:40] of today um in their last meeting they

[4:44] have not changed the federal funds rate.

[4:46] It is still between 7 excuse me 3.5 to 7

[4:50] to 3.75%.

[4:54] Um now for our benchmark we are at 18

[4:58] months. So over the 18month period we

[5:01] our benchmark would be 75% 75% collected

[5:05] or 75% spent. For the general fund

[5:08] revenues, we are at 70 almost 71% and

[5:12] our expenditure looks as if we are

[5:16] spending less, right? Because we are now

[5:18] at about 60 um 69% right here.

[5:24] Um if we dive deep into the general fund

[5:28] revenue um majority of our uh sources of

[5:33] revenue are above um or at or above the

[5:37] benchmark except for um our interfund or

[5:41] intergovernmental revenues which is um

[5:44] collected only about 40 um 46%.

[5:49] Um

[5:51] and the

[5:55] see our in uh excuse me fines and

[5:58] penalties and this includes our um

[6:01] traffic um infraction collections. Um if

[6:04] you recall um a couple of meetings ago

[6:08] uh police chief provided you with

[6:09] quarter 2 of 2026 and it shows um a

[6:13] decline in traffic contacts. That's

[6:15] about about 9% or 192% in traffic

[6:19] contacts. So that has also reduced um

[6:22] started to see a decline in our um

[6:24] collections. Um let me just go back to

[6:27] the intergovernmental revenue. Recall

[6:29] that

[6:30] a few months ago um council uh

[6:33] authorized the grant for the DOC for the

[6:36] climate change. So that increased the

[6:38] budget numbers but we it because it's

[6:41] reimbursement based that the timing of

[6:43] that is the one that's causing us to

[6:44] show us if we are not truly or up to

[6:47] speed with our benchmark. And then the

[6:49] other thing um that's lagging in our uh

[6:53] general fund revenue is the interfund

[6:55] transfer. So recall that um the uh when

[7:00] we received the ARPA funding, we said

[7:02] that we were going to transfer any

[7:04] interest from the ARPA fund to the

[7:06] general fund. But since um March or

[7:10] April of last year, we have fully

[7:12] exhausted or dispersed all of the ARPA

[7:14] fund. So there are no um principal

[7:17] amount to be invested in. So there's no

[7:20] future transfer of interest from ARPA.

[7:26] our sales stacks.

[7:29] Okay, one second.

[7:35] So, moving Oh, there we go.

[7:38] For our sales tax, we were about um a

[7:41] little over uh about 76% collected. Um

[7:45] but year-over-year between um 2025 and

[7:50] 2026 the highest um increases in sectors

[7:55] would be from construction as well as

[7:58] from information. Um so you might say or

[8:03] what we could say we could tell from the

[8:05] um data is that for the construction

[8:07] because there's not a lot of movement in

[8:10] real estate market we are seeing a lot

[8:13] more expenses on um DIY projects or

[8:17] improvements home improvements. So we're

[8:18] see we're seeing some of that numbers

[8:21] come through around this time. But also

[8:23] for the information um sector this

[8:27] increase is primarily um because of the

[8:30] change in law. So sometime in July of uh

[8:33] 2025 after the legislation um session

[8:36] ended um they authorized or they RCW was

[8:41] revised such that now certain services

[8:44] are now uh subject to sales tax retail

[8:47] retail sales tax and that would be for

[8:49] information that could be

[8:52] um services such as advertising on the

[8:55] internet um data processing for

[8:58] information uh subscription

[9:01] um

[9:05] services or IT services including

[9:09] webinars or live presentations. So those

[9:11] are now taxable uh services.

[9:15] So overall we are um our sales tax is um

[9:18] growing. Again this is a factor of the

[9:21] the um inflation because of CPI is

[9:25] elevated but at the same time there was

[9:27] a change in in law uh relating to the IT

[9:32] services or the um advertising on the

[9:35] internet. So overall, um whether it's

[9:38] outside or within the city of Mil Creek,

[9:41] uh both um collection from these

[9:45] locations are um are up.

[9:50] Now on our general fund expenditures, um

[9:52] I noted earlier in summary that overall

[9:55] we are about 69% spent. Um and this um

[9:59] by type we have about 22 million of

[10:03] general fund spending of which 62% is

[10:06] related to salary and benefits. That's

[10:08] about 18 months of it. And our

[10:10] maintenance and operations about 34%

[10:13] um and this includes this number

[10:14] includes our jail cost, our district

[10:16] court, our legal cost

[10:19] and any other consultants that we may

[10:21] have. And then our debt service of about

[10:24] 1%. Um this is just a uh presentation

[10:28] regarding um the uh the change in how we

[10:32] report our leases as well as our um

[10:36] subscriptionbased um information

[10:39] application tech applications. Um and

[10:42] then for capital which is 3% this

[10:45] includes the um RPB purchase of the snow

[10:50] plow. Um on the right hand side by if we

[10:54] look at the same set of data which is

[10:56] the $22.1 million um it shows that

[11:02] uh again we are 69% spent but this

[11:07] number both the the the the budget and

[11:10] the actual numbers includes certain

[11:13] items like uh RPB and the climate

[11:16] change. If we remove the RPB cost and

[11:19] budget as well as the climate change

[11:21] grant and the cost related to that, we

[11:24] would be at um about 21 million spent or

[11:28] 72%. So, a little bit closer than um

[11:32] than what we than what it looks like

[11:34] right now.

[11:37] Um for the this the um following slides

[11:41] I'm I'll be talking about the

[11:42] departments that are above the benchmark

[11:45] and one of them is the city manager's

[11:46] office. You could see the blue line is

[11:49] the projected budget or spending over

[11:52] the 12-month period and the green line

[11:54] is the actual number and the um overage

[11:58] is primarily from um city attorney cost.

[12:02] So, u majority of the city attorney

[12:04] costs uh are reported under the city

[12:07] manager's office and that may include um

[12:10] any of the initiatives that the city has

[12:13] done over the past um 18 months

[12:15] including any annexation

[12:17] um legal advice that we needed, anything

[12:20] related to the TBD, to the utility tax,

[12:23] any code compliance might be in here as

[12:26] well. Um on the HR side, it's the same

[12:29] thing. Um the uh we are also over the

[12:32] benchmark and that's primarily because

[12:34] majority of legal costs related to

[12:37] employment um items are reflected in

[12:39] this department including um and just

[12:43] also recall that in 2025 we had the

[12:47] labor negotiation with um police guild

[12:50] and so that is in here as well as the um

[12:53] employment settlements that we um had in

[12:56] the past year.

[12:58] And then for non-EP departmental, non-EP

[13:00] departmental includes um you can see the

[13:04] spikes here at the beginning of the year

[13:06] and sometime in January again of 2026

[13:10] when we uh pay out the annual um

[13:15] insurance liability to WC WCIA as well

[13:18] as some of the annual payments for our

[13:21] membership and dues for various

[13:22] organizations. But specifically for the

[13:25] month of June, um this included um two

[13:29] dues that um just because of timing it

[13:32] it showed up and those are the uh

[13:35] payments that we or assessments paid to

[13:39] the Puget Sound Clean Air as well as the

[13:42] Puget Sound Regional Council.

[13:45] Okay, I will skip then this next slide

[13:49] for a bit. I'll just keep going on on

[13:52] our other um funds here. Um for the

[13:57] citywide legal fees, as of June 30, we

[14:00] are about um 1.4

[14:04] million spent or about 91% of our by

[14:08] annual budget. Um however, if we back

[14:12] out [snorts] because this cost again,

[14:13] this is citywide cost. So that includes

[14:15] our city attorney for Ballard's bar as

[14:18] well as the um public defense and the

[14:20] indigent um prosecution. Um they're all

[14:23] in here. Um the impacts of these um

[14:27] would include the um change in the

[14:31] standard of of case loads for our

[14:34] indigent defense. So recall that within

[14:36] the next um 10 years starting 2026 we

[14:40] have to start reducing the workload per

[14:43] defense attorney from um 90 to now to a

[14:47] 100 to 40 case loads and then the one

[14:51] for misdemeanor is substantially also

[14:54] going to change from 300 to 400

[14:56] currently down to I want to say 100 case

[14:59] loads. So instead of having one um

[15:01] defense uh attorney uh we now have to

[15:04] contract out more of that.

[15:08] Okay. Um now moving on to our REIT fund.

[15:13] So REIT um revenues uh we've collected

[15:18] 71% it is still below the benchmark um

[15:21] but that includes both um this number

[15:24] includes both the investment as well as

[15:26] the read. Um, if we look at the read for

[15:29] the six-month period, uh, we've

[15:31] collected 402. And if we compare that

[15:34] number over a five-year period, um, it's

[15:37] about 39%

[15:39] um, below the average. So again, that's

[15:43] a factor of because the federal funds

[15:45] rate are high right now. So as of today,

[15:49] um, the average 30-year fixed mortgage

[15:53] is about 6.76%.

[15:56] Um, but in 2019, right around this time,

[16:01] it was at um 3.15%.

[16:08] Yes, Council Member Stler.

[16:10] >> Quick question. I was noticing the um

[16:14] » Quick question. I was noticing the um

[16:14] regrowth in 23, 24, 25.

[16:18] Um those are obviously full year numbers

[16:21] and I assume your 26 number is just a

[16:24] six-month number,

[16:25] >> correct? Correct. What fueled the growth

[16:27] » correct? Correct. What fueled the growth

[16:27] in 23 24 25 when the market was still

[16:30] pretty soft and interest rates are still

[16:32] pretty high? Why was the re up on a

[16:36] trend upwards? So I think uh around this

[16:40] time our um I think it would just be and

[16:44] this is just an assumption for me um

[16:46] without looking at the underlying data

[16:48] because when I looked at the data I was

[16:50] looking more earlier years in 2019 and

[16:53] in 2020 2021 but not further down here.

[16:57] Um but I believe right around here even

[16:59] though the um interest rate was high

[17:02] there were still volume um a lot of

[17:05] volume. Um but I want to say that

[17:08] sometime in between among these three

[17:11] years there was one big um transfer of

[17:15] uh a real estate transaction. So,

[17:18] anything above a a $10 million real

[17:21] estate transaction is really going to

[17:23] bump us up, right? As opposed to like,

[17:25] you know, um um just a million dollar

[17:28] transfer versus um let's say a 50

[17:32] million transfer. And that um in 2019

[17:35] and in 2021, we saw those transfers.

[17:38] There were two transfers. Um in 20 2019

[17:42] the self storage um was a transaction

[17:46] and then in 2021 it was the Monta

[17:49] property.

[17:53] » Okay. And then so for surface water uh

[17:57] they're both below the benchmark. Uh

[17:59] revenues are at 4 uh 2% and then our

[18:02] expenditure is only 21% spend or 2.9. Um

[18:06] but we anticipate that um since the

[18:09] start of the summer the um repairs the

[18:13] big projects that we uh that we've uh

[18:15] moving forward with uh I think it's the

[18:17] cash basin. So remember that's a $7

[18:20] million project over a two-year period.

[18:22] They have initiated or started the

[18:24] project as well. Um so we anticipate

[18:27] that in the next couple months we're

[18:29] going to see a big jump in here. Um,

[18:35] and then let me just go back to the RPB.

[18:37] So, in your packet as well, I provided

[18:40] um a summary of what we've spent so far

[18:44] on RPB. Um, and so that we've spent

[18:47] about one almost $2 million of it. Um we

[18:50] anticipate to carry over about 1.5

[18:52] million and the projects that will be be

[18:55] carrying over into 202728

[18:59] um bianium budget will be in the last

[19:01] column right here about 1.5 million.

[19:06] Um if there are no questions I'd like to

[19:09] move to the investment um item.

[19:13] >> Yes, Council Member Stler.

[19:16] » Yes, Council Member Stler.

[19:16] Actually I I I see my answer on this

[19:19] chair. Thank you.

[19:20] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So um for our

[19:24] » Okay. Thank you. Okay. So um for our

[19:24] investment, so as of June 30, uh the

[19:28] excess um money that the city has about

[19:30] 42.5 million is invested between LGIP uh

[19:35] about 93% and then US obligations about

[19:38] 7%. Um to date we have received about

[19:42] 696

[19:44] or 86,000 of interest from LGIP that's

[19:47] has been reinvested um into the fund

[19:51] whereas for our US um obligations these

[19:54] are we have three separate um sec US

[19:57] securities that are held in safekeeping

[20:00] um and we received about 60,000 of

[20:03] interest from that we did not have um

[20:06] any new activities there was a maturity

[20:08] um in the last six months, but we didn't

[20:11] reinvest or buy any new obligations for

[20:13] that because we needed the cash flow to

[20:16] get us through this six month. Um mayor,

[20:19] that concludes my report. If there are

[20:22] any other questions,

[20:23] >> does anyone have questions?

[20:28] » Everybody seems quiet. Um I actually

[20:30] have a question. Um if you could go

[20:33] back, I should have said something when

[20:34] you had it up. I have just a quick

[20:36] question for my memory on um like the

[20:40] second back. I was just curious on the

[20:42] line items when it comes to the flock

[20:45] cameras. Um so the next one is that

[20:47] money that we've already allocated

[20:49] because where we spent the um we went

[20:52] ahead and paid up front.

[20:54] >> Is that what that Okay, that's what I

[20:56] » Is that what that Okay, that's what I

[20:56] thought. But I just wanted to make sure.

[20:57] >> So there's still remaining the second.

[20:59] » So there's still remaining the second.

[20:59] So you authorized a 2-year trial. It's a

[21:02] two-year subscription for it. The 97,000

[21:05] that you're seeing would include the

[21:07] installation cost plus the first year of

[21:09] subscription. Okay. The second year of

[21:11] subscription, which is the remaining

[21:13] 86,000, has not yet been paid out.

[21:15] >> Okay, perfect. That's what I thought,

[21:16] » Okay, perfect. That's what I thought,

[21:16] but I just want to make sure that I was

[21:18] thinking right. Did anyone else have any

[21:20] questions then?

[21:21] >> Nope.

[21:23] » Nope.

[21:23] All right. Thank you, Arina.

[21:27] Let's see. I guess you don't get to go

[21:29] anywhere because now we're up to new

[21:30] business. [laughter] And we have a

[21:32] resolution related to US bank custody

[21:36] account application and custody

[21:37] agreement.

[21:40] >> Thank you, mayor. Um so again, I am here

[21:42] » Thank you, mayor. Um so again, I am here

[21:42] tonight because um we're asking council

[21:46] to authorize us to um execute a um US

[21:50] bank custody account application and

[21:53] custody agreement. So currently um the

[21:56] investments that we have with US banks

[21:58] so again we have three US securities and

[22:01] according to our um financial management

[22:04] policy 300-5

[22:06] um any securities that we have must be

[22:09] held by an independent third party and

[22:12] this in this case it's the US security

[22:14] excuse me US bank safekeeping

[22:16] operations. However, in April, they told

[22:20] us that effective April that they will

[22:24] transition us to a new service um

[22:26] operations which is the investment

[22:28] advisory services group um that has a

[22:31] better uh uh or an expanded um services

[22:34] for investment as well as they are

[22:37] supposed to be streamlining their um

[22:39] their operations for for that.

[22:43] Um now so uh we have RCW35A.4.05

[22:50] that authorizes the investment of any

[22:52] excess cash on um um on various um on

[22:58] various types of or vehicles and then

[23:00] supplemented by the city's investment

[23:02] policy. It also note the this policy

[23:06] provided how diversified or how we can

[23:11] um what types of investments we can have

[23:13] and so in which case this um policy

[23:16] authorized us that hey 100% of your

[23:19] excess money you could put it in the

[23:21] Washington um state uh local government

[23:24] investment plan or you could continue to

[23:26] do your own investment you using your US

[23:29] Treasury obligations if you were such a

[23:31] big agency you could actively do the

[23:33] investments. Um, and then all the other,

[23:36] um, it could be a combination of of any

[23:40] of these other investment types.

[23:43] Um, and so I wanted to, um, show you as

[23:48] uh, I think that says July 31. Um, we

[23:53] have $40 million of, um, excess funds.

[23:57] Um, and I'm showing you LGIP, we have

[24:00] 37.4 million. US Bank we have three

[24:03] million with LGIP according to their um

[24:07] reports their as of July 31 their in

[24:10] their portfolio so not just the city of

[24:13] Mil Creek but all of their other

[24:14] investments that are in there are they

[24:17] have diversified or they have

[24:19] investments um allocation as noted here

[24:23] so they have um agency 30% you know cash

[24:26] and cash equivalents 9% they have

[24:28] repurchase agreements um US treasuries

[24:31] is 9%. Um and so the interest we're

[24:34] asked uh for our safekeeping again we

[24:36] have three that's equal to you know 3

[24:39] million um in in cash and then for 2025

[24:44] we have a almost a 1.6 earnings um on

[24:49] LGIP and 131,000 in US Bank. So if we

[24:54] compare it's almost the same. it's about

[24:57] you know about 3 4% um return in

[24:59] investment and the annual fees of

[25:03] between the two is also you know 01% of

[25:08] the value of the investment. So in 2025,

[25:10] not an issue. They're kind of like

[25:12] similar. But now when we go to 2026,

[25:17] um we have um almost exa again exactly

[25:22] the same. And so if nothing changes

[25:26] with shifting from safekeeping to the

[25:29] investment advisory services, there's no

[25:33] issue. But however, because of the

[25:35] shift, the cost structure or the fee

[25:39] structure is also now different. So with

[25:42] the safekeeping, we were only paying $20

[25:45] a month or about $400 a year plus a $15,

[25:50] you know, for every transaction. But now

[25:53] with the investment with a shift to the

[25:55] investment advisory, it'll be about

[25:58] 1,500 a year. Um, but it would be

[26:01] inclusive of all the transactional fees

[26:04] that we're paying and that's about a

[26:07] 273%

[26:09] increase of the 2026 estimated fees, but

[26:13] it would include all of these services.

[26:17] Um so our next steps is we are asking

[26:20] that you authorize your finance director

[26:22] which is the designated treasury of of

[26:24] the city to uh authorize to one complete

[26:28] the account um application for this

[26:31] change as well as to enter into the

[26:33] custody agreement. Um but we are also

[26:36] recommending at some point to phase out

[26:38] the individual holdings from um US bank

[26:42] securities by 2027. So the three

[26:44] investments uh vehicles that we have are

[26:47] going to mature if they're not called

[26:49] earlier will mature in 2027 at least I

[26:53] want to say September all of them would

[26:55] have matured and so at that at that

[26:57] point then we are recommending not to go

[27:00] out and invest um separately for

[27:03] diversification purposes because LGIP

[27:06] provides the diversification anyway for

[27:08] the city. Um and then if we do not

[27:12] diversify and we continue to pay the

[27:14] higher cost, it will not be

[27:18] uh I I because the the cost would be 01

[27:23] with LGIP, but with this new fee, the

[27:27] cost would be 06. So it's a little bit

[27:30] higher. Not a lot, but it's still

[27:32] higher. Um and then we continue to just

[27:35] invest 100% with LGIP.

[27:40] Um and so for our proposed council

[27:43] motion is for um council to authorize

[27:46] the um application to the investment

[27:49] advisory services.

[27:52] That concludes my report. Mayor, I'm

[27:54] happy to answer any questions.

[27:55] >> Sure. Any questions?

[27:58] » Council Paddock,

[27:59] >> clarification question. So just to be

[28:01] » clarification question. So just to be

[28:01] clear,

[28:03] moving the funds cost us less. we get

[28:07] more divers diversification.

[28:10] Um

[28:12] do you mean after we um after all the uh

[28:16] after all the investments that we have

[28:18] now after they mature if we move them to

[28:21] LGIP it would be neutral to us because

[28:25] LGIP already provides the

[28:27] diversification that we have so there's

[28:28] no additional benefit or even increase

[28:30] in the um uh as it in the return because

[28:34] it's the same but the cost is the one

[28:36] that's making it now more costly for us

[28:38] to continue with the individual

[28:40] investments.

[28:41] >> Got it. So, it's cheaper for us to go

[28:43] » Got it. So, it's cheaper for us to go

[28:43] into the more diversified area.

[28:45] >> Okay, that's what I was asking. I just

[28:46] » Okay, that's what I was asking. I just

[28:46] wanted to confirm I heard that right.

[28:48] Okay,

[28:49] >> thank you.

[28:50] » thank you.

[28:50] >> Any other questions?

[28:55] » Mayor, I'll make a motion. I

[28:59] >> Okay,

[28:59] » Okay,

[29:00] >> it does right

[29:01] » it does right

[29:01] >> adopt uh I make a motion to adopt a

[29:03] » adopt uh I make a motion to adopt a

[29:03] resolution authorizing the finance

[29:04] director to execute the US bank custody

[29:07] account application and custody

[29:09] agreement.

[29:10] >> Second. I have a motion and a second.

[29:13] » Second. I have a motion and a second.

[29:13] Would you like to speak to the motion,

[29:14] council member Stackler? I

[29:15] >> think it's pretty self-explanatory and

[29:17] » think it's pretty self-explanatory and

[29:17] and Armenia has done a great job. Our

[29:18] finance director explained that to us

[29:20] the benefits of this.

[29:21] >> Thank you. All right. Would the would

[29:23] » Thank you. All right. Would the would

[29:23] council member goes like to speak to the

[29:25] motion? All right.

[29:27] Would anyone else like to discuss the

[29:29] motion?

[29:31] All right. All those in favor say I.

[29:33] >> I.

[29:34] » I.

[29:34] >> I.

[29:35] » I.

[29:35] >> Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[29:38] » Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[29:38] passes. 6. Thank you.

[29:44] Next up, we have a study session for

[29:47] code enforcement staffing discussion.

[29:49] Did I skip something? I'm skipping

[29:51] straight down. Sorry. Next up, we have a

[29:54] resolution related to amendment number

[29:55] one to the building official plan review

[29:58] and inspection services contract with

[30:00] Safeuilt Washington LLC. Jeff Ryan, our

[30:04] community development and planning

[30:05] director will lead us in that

[30:07] presentation. Sorry, I jumped straight

[30:09] down to Jeff but in the wrong spot.

[30:11] >> Thank you, Mayor. Um, good evening,

[30:14] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, good evening,

[30:14] council, Mayor, Mayor Pert. Um today I'm

[30:17] going to be bringing forward you a quick

[30:20] um presentation on our building services

[30:22] professional services agreement. Um we

[30:24] have to which we'll dive into. Um so the

[30:27] goal today is to understand how we

[30:29] outsource our building services to

[30:31] through safeuilt and um and go through

[30:35] the amendment that extends the amount of

[30:38] um not to exceed amount as part of that

[30:40] contract.

[30:42] So, just as a quick reminder, um the

[30:45] city of Mil Creek does not employ a

[30:48] building official and we do not have

[30:49] plans reviewers. Um and so that means

[30:52] all these critical functions that uh

[30:54] have to be performed by state law, um we

[30:58] have someone else do it for us. So,

[31:00] every time there's a someone opens a new

[31:03] business and they have to go and make

[31:05] sure that everything is built safely,

[31:06] that's a building official. Every time

[31:08] someone wants to put in a water heater

[31:10] and make sure it's installed correctly,

[31:12] we have to send an inspector to do that.

[31:14] Every time someone wants to build an

[31:15] ADU, um, someone has to review the

[31:18] actual blueprints to make sure that that

[31:21] is being built to, you know, safe

[31:24] standards. It's not going to blow up in

[31:26] the event of an earthquake or something.

[31:27] Um, so that's what the plan review,

[31:29] building official, and inspection

[31:30] services are. Um in 20 the uh earlier

[31:35] this year as part of 2026 1984 we

[31:39] entered in a contract with Safeuilt who

[31:41] has been our contracted provider for oh

[31:44] I would say five seven years now. Um,

[31:47] and the original amount was purposely

[31:50] kept at a small level because we weren't

[31:53] really sure at the time what was going

[31:55] to happen with this possible code

[31:57] enforcement/insspector position that

[31:59] might have impacted the safeu contract,

[32:02] which we'll go into in the future study

[32:04] session. Um, and then the other reason

[32:06] why that we blew through the initial

[32:09] aotted funds for this is inspection

[32:12] costs have been significantly higher

[32:13] than expected. Um and um we we can kind

[32:17] of go into more about that. Um and the

[32:19] other thing to know about this is um

[32:22] this is necessary work. Cities are

[32:23] required to do permitting. They're

[32:25] required to do inspections and stuff

[32:26] like that. And we have no one on staff

[32:28] that is certified to do that work. Um so

[32:31] escalating cost. So just a quick note

[32:32] about this. Um since Q1 2025, um plan

[32:36] review fees kind of bounce on a pretty

[32:39] predictable basis. Usually you get a lot

[32:41] of plan reviews in the spring because

[32:42] people want to build in the summer. Um,

[32:44] but you would normally expect your

[32:47] inspection services to kind of bounce

[32:49] delayed like that, right? Where they're

[32:51] going to be more busy in the summer when

[32:53] everyone's doing their roofing work and

[32:55] less busy in the winter because no one's

[32:56] building. But what we're seeing actually

[32:58] is a consistent climb in our overall

[33:01] inspection costs. Um, part of this is

[33:03] because of um, safe builds building

[33:05] practices. They've changed the some of

[33:07] their niches of their contract. Some of

[33:08] this because of higher fees with current

[33:10] scheduling. Um and then also growing

[33:12] demand for building code administration.

[33:14] By that I mean um you know every time

[33:17] there's a change of use for a building

[33:20] um we have to have a building official

[33:21] look at that and every time they look at

[33:22] it that's you know 140 bucks. Um so

[33:25] that's something um that drives up those

[33:28] inspection costs. Um without further ado

[33:31] um so the fiscal impact on this um no

[33:33] budget amendment is is required for this

[33:36] is already budgeted and also just a

[33:38] thing to keep in mind with building

[33:40] services all costs are always offset by

[33:44] revenue. Um this is taking like for

[33:46] example plan review when we pay safe

[33:48] bill 65% of all of our plan review

[33:50] checks that we take so for every dollar

[33:54] that we send safe that we collect from a

[33:57] plan review check safe bill will take 65

[33:59] cents um and the inspection the ratio it

[34:03] is about for every dollar we make on

[34:04] permitting they take about 30 cents um

[34:07] for the actual inspections part. So, um,

[34:10] all this to say is that all costs are

[34:13] offset by building permit revenue. So,

[34:14] this isn't necessarily a a net negative

[34:17] to the city and that everything is

[34:19] budgeted for. Um, with that, happy to

[34:22] entertain um any discussion or answer

[34:24] any questions and um hopefully a motion.

[34:29] >> Any questions?

[34:32] » Any questions?

[34:32] >> No questions.

[34:35] » No questions.

[34:35] I'll move to adopt a resolution

[34:36] authorizing the city manager to execute

[34:38] agreement number one to the professional

[34:39] services agreement with Safeuilt

[34:41] Washington LLC increasing the contracts

[34:44] not to exceed amount $100,000 for

[34:47] building official plan review and

[34:49] inspection services.

[34:51] >> Second. I have a motion and a second.

[34:53] » Second. I have a motion and a second.

[34:53] Would you like to speak to the motion?

[34:56] No. Would you like to speak?

[34:59] Would anyone like to comment on the

[35:00] motion? We are chatty this evening. All

[35:04] those in favor say I.

[35:05] >> I.

[35:05] » I.

[35:06] >> I.

[35:06] » I.

[35:06] >> Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[35:10] » Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[35:10] passes. 6.

[35:12] Thank you. Now we will move down to the

[35:17] exciting study session. Um code

[35:19] enforcement staffing discussion.

[35:21] >> Sure. Thank you, mayor. Um again, Jeff

[35:23] » Sure. Thank you, mayor. Um again, Jeff

[35:23] Ryan, uh director of community

[35:25] development planning. Um so this is

[35:27] probably the fourth time I've come to

[35:28] talk to you about this issue. Um

[35:30] hopefully the last um the last time few

[35:33] couple times we talked about it the main

[35:36] kind of the cliffhanger we kind of left

[35:38] it on is we do a part-time position, do

[35:41] we do full-time or do we just do

[35:43] maintain the status quo. Um so the the

[35:46] ultimate aim of today's study session is

[35:48] to um seek direction from council on

[35:53] what kind of position you would like to

[35:55] have considered as part of next year's

[35:58] as part of the benium budgeting process.

[36:00] So it's not necessarily you'd be

[36:02] authorizing the creation of the new

[36:04] position tonight but rather you would be

[36:06] directing us to in conclude it in our

[36:09] budget deliberations and our forthcoming

[36:11] budget deliberations. Um, so on the

[36:14] agenda today, we'll be understand

[36:16] hopefully reviewing how code enforcement

[36:18] in Mil Creek works and review ways to

[36:19] improve code enforcement outcomes by

[36:21] reviewing the background status quo and

[36:23] then what exactly would be the jobs of

[36:27] these part-time position and this

[36:28] full-time position? How does the RPO,

[36:31] the rental registration impact this? And

[36:33] then what would the costs be?

[36:35] >> Yeah.

[36:35] » Yeah.

[36:35] >> Yes, sir.

[36:36] » Yes, sir.

[36:36] >> Quick question. Um,

[36:39] » Quick question. Um,

[36:39] why would we need to approve your adding

[36:43] a position into the budget? Isn't that

[36:44] your you're right when you put together

[36:45] your budget to present to us that we're

[36:47] going to add these positions here and

[36:48] here? Why why do we need to approve this

[36:50] one? Is there something special?

[36:52] >> Um, I would just like to get your input.

[36:53] » Um, I would just like to get your input.

[36:53] I would like to have a a strong

[36:56] understanding of what council's desire

[36:57] is and how he would like for me to plan

[36:59] for addressing code enforcement and

[37:01] potentially inspection services. Um,

[37:04] mostly, you know, I just want to make

[37:06] sure that when we bring forward that

[37:08] position as part of the banning budget,

[37:10] I've done so at your direction and had

[37:13] your opportunity to have your formal

[37:14] input and guidance.

[37:16] >> Okay, fair enough.

[37:17] » Okay, fair enough.

[37:17] >> Um, just as a quick reminder, um, we've

[37:20] » Um, just as a quick reminder, um, we've

[37:20] had an increased volume of permitting

[37:22] 134% since 2023. Um, planners are acting

[37:26] as stop gap field enforcers. Um and then

[37:29] um every time we have planners working

[37:31] on that um it's um also displacing our

[37:35] statuto permitting work and also

[37:37] planners are not trained in code

[37:38] enforcement um in any sense of the word.

[37:41] Um inspection services also contemplate

[37:44] as we discuss this is inspection

[37:45] services. We just talked about safe

[37:47] built and how they provide that

[37:49] inspection services. Um, the issue that

[37:52] I wanted to flag to the council, as I've

[37:54] previously discussed, is that, um, the

[37:58] guy that comes to your house to make

[37:59] sure the AC is installed correctly is

[38:01] often the city's first point of contact

[38:04] with the public and the residents. Um,

[38:06] that's someone that you want to be under

[38:08] your control fully in terms of customer

[38:10] service, expectations, training, stuff

[38:12] like that. And um you know there is some

[38:17] um risk that comes with off outsourcing

[38:20] the person who is going into our

[38:22] resident's homes. Um also there is a

[38:25] significant res um loss revenue that

[38:28] happens. So like I said before about 30

[38:30] cents to the dollar is paid roughly for

[38:34] every building permit that we issue um

[38:37] is diverted to this third party

[38:38] provider. Um, and you'll see that's

[38:40] where our cost savings come when we talk

[38:41] about the full-time versus the part-time

[38:43] inspection. And then also there is

[38:45] service gaps. I mentioned before that

[38:46] there um having no house no in-house

[38:50] inspector means that we don't have

[38:52] anyone on hand that can answer questions

[38:54] about the the the building code or

[38:59] attend preapp meetings for that. By that

[39:01] I mean, you know, Justin and Serena, my

[39:04] my planners are terrific at answering

[39:06] questions about zoning, right? We can

[39:08] tell you all we can talk all day about

[39:10] setbacks and where buildings are

[39:11] supposed to go on a site plan, but we

[39:14] cannot tell you what kind of nut is

[39:16] required to secure a water heater

[39:20] safely. No idea. I cannot tell you what

[39:23] kind of joist is required for what kind

[39:26] of roofs. Not our bag. That is something

[39:28] that's a special training and

[39:30] requirement we do not have. And

[39:31] presently, every time we get those

[39:33] questions, we have to refer to our our

[39:36] um thirdparty provider, which I

[39:37] mentioned before. One of the changes

[39:39] that we've had and why you're seeing an

[39:41] increase in cost is um they used to have

[39:44] a good old just put it plainly, there

[39:48] used to be a different person in safe

[39:50] who would answer a lot of these

[39:52] questions just out of the goodness of

[39:54] his heart. And that's changed now. Um

[39:58] and they've changed the way that they're

[40:01] counting service questions and stuff

[40:03] like that. So that means every little

[40:05] question like that is available now. Um

[40:08] so that means that also um there are

[40:11] also other ancillary issues like for

[40:13] example um visibility on certain

[40:16] business licenses and for like being

[40:19] able to ensure that when someone says

[40:22] that their their business that might be

[40:25] originally have a certificate of

[40:27] occupancy for a cafe that ensures that

[40:30] the new business in there has the same

[40:32] kind of occupancy status and not like I

[40:34] don't know a church or something that's

[40:36] going to change the way that everything

[40:38] has to be sight and so that's and so

[40:40] whenever we get those we have to refer

[40:42] those also to the third party provider

[40:44] by not having someone on h inhouse on

[40:47] staff to be able to answer those

[40:48] questions instead of just saying hey you

[40:51] know hey John can we um can this guy do

[40:54] this no okay okay that's it that process

[40:57] now is um you know billable hours um so

[41:01] that does u create a bit of a service

[41:04] gap for us the other issue this is

[41:06] important is pre-applications. I

[41:07] gravitate on that is preapps in the

[41:10] development process are very important

[41:12] because what that means is let's say

[41:14] someone let's say you really want to

[41:15] build an ADU in your backyard. What that

[41:17] means is

[41:20] instead of just rolling the dice and

[41:22] submitting your application and hoping

[41:23] everything is good, you can just have a

[41:26] meeting with the city and we'll tell

[41:28] you, oh no, no, no, no. You need to have

[41:29] this report, you need to have this

[41:31] things, this things. you can have all

[41:32] the documents lined up so that when you

[41:35] submit your application, you don't have

[41:36] to worry about it getting kicked back

[41:38] and that creates a significant amount of

[41:40] time for developers and for for

[41:42] homeowners they're looking to get their

[41:44] projects done. Um, every time that we

[41:47] have a preapp and we want the building

[41:49] official to be there, again, it's a free

[41:51] service we offer to the community. Um,

[41:54] but it ain't free to us. Um, so that is

[41:57] something that comes with not being able

[41:59] to have that in-house expertise.

[42:01] that is difficult to calculate in terms

[42:03] of like um overall costs and

[42:05] quantifiable hours. Um there's also

[42:07] operational considerations. Like I said

[42:09] before, a lack of dedicated code and

[42:11] building staff creates operational

[42:12] efficiencies. You know, being able to

[42:14] say, you know, hey Mark, is this cool?

[42:17] No. Okay, that's a lot faster than

[42:19] formally going through reporting

[42:21] channels and stuff like that. And being

[42:22] able to have people in the right room in

[42:24] the meeting, it's creates efficiencies.

[42:26] Um there's also no single point of

[42:29] contact for complaints or building code

[42:31] questions and that requires a lot more

[42:32] coordination from our permit cores to

[42:34] figure out ah who's who's who who can

[42:36] answer this question and like things

[42:38] like that. Um but again there's also

[42:41] information gaps. Um every time we have

[42:43] to answer that question we have to go

[42:45] through a code that we're not familiar

[42:46] or qualified to answer and so it takes

[42:49] us a lot more time just to be able to

[42:50] answer basic questions. So that being

[42:53] said, that's the quote, that's kind of

[42:55] the background on um why inspections are

[42:57] factoring into this. Currently, our

[43:00] current code enforcement.

[43:02] Um there's kind of four four buckets.

[43:05] The way that we do it right now, um

[43:07] there's the type of there's the parts of

[43:09] the Mil Creek code that the community

[43:10] development department handles. That's

[43:12] what's often called the land development

[43:14] code stuff. Title 14, 17, 18. That's the

[43:17] zoning. You know, you can have a

[43:19] business. The good example of this would

[43:22] be yes, your business is allowed to sell

[43:25] cars at this location. Um, public works

[43:28] is the public rights away. This would be

[43:30] no, you're not allowed to sell your car

[43:32] on the side of the street or no, you're

[43:34] not allowed to park your car on the

[43:36] driveway on the sidewalk. And then the

[43:39] police function on this would be no,

[43:41] you're not allowed to sell stolen cars

[43:42] or no, you're not allowed to have dog

[43:44] fighting rings and stuff like that,

[43:46] right? like that's the code that the

[43:47] police enforces or um and then then you

[43:51] have some stuff that has multiple

[43:52] departments that might be involved,

[43:53] right? Title business title 15 is a

[43:55] great example. Title 15 is um no, you

[44:00] can't dump your raw sewage into a city

[44:04] municipal storm water system, right?

[44:06] That would be a public works issue. But

[44:08] also in title 15 is you can't build this

[44:12] without a permit. That would be a

[44:14] planning department function or um

[44:17] health and safety. This is one where you

[44:19] know some of the like abatement of some

[44:22] like health issues could fall under

[44:24] public works. Sometimes some they can

[44:26] fall under the police. There's a lot of

[44:27] different enforcement when it comes to

[44:28] these multiple department ones. Um as of

[44:31] right now, safe bill only covers

[44:33] violations of title 14 and some titles

[44:36] of 15. So that means all other code

[44:39] enforcement here is covered exclusively

[44:41] by city Mil Creek staff. Um the other

[44:45] thing I wanted to bring your attention

[44:46] before we go into these job descriptions

[44:48] is rental registration and inspection.

[44:51] Um so we have a draft language we'll be

[44:53] presenting if you guys like it. We will

[44:55] present the formal draft ordinance to

[44:57] you at a later date. But just to kind of

[44:59] give you a preview of what's going to be

[45:01] established by this should we see

[45:03] proceed with the rental registration is

[45:05] it would require CI rental registration

[45:08] um it would require annual registrations

[45:10] for um uh for the property and at a

[45:14] perunit basis we would establish the fee

[45:17] on a annual uh as part of the master fee

[45:19] schedule. We would use our existing

[45:21] online portal so there's no new software

[45:23] acquisitions or anything like that. we

[45:25] already have the technical chops to be

[45:27] able to build the program inhouse. So

[45:29] there's no necessarily big cost

[45:31] associated with onboarding the system.

[45:34] Um it would include some inspection

[45:36] requirements. Um so you know making sure

[45:39] that properties are safe and maintained

[45:42] and well maint and wellkept. Um, the

[45:45] ordinance will include enforcement

[45:46] language and this ordinance would also

[45:49] be comprehensive enough to include

[45:50] short-term rentals as well as long-term

[45:52] rentals. So, just so we can make sure

[45:54] that we have visibility on all

[45:55] short-term rentals and we can also use

[45:57] that as the platform for um creating

[46:00] additional requirements for short-term

[46:02] rentals like requiring on street like

[46:04] requiring off- streetet parking versus

[46:06] on street parking. Again, this rental

[46:08] registration isn't necessarily part of

[46:11] today's presentation in full, and I'm

[46:13] excited to bring that full ordinance to

[46:15] you at a later date, but I just wanted

[46:16] to bring you um your attention that

[46:19] depending on how we define those

[46:20] revenues, it could generate between 62

[46:23] and $94,000 a year based on the amount

[46:25] of rental properties we have within the

[46:27] city. Um so, the positions, what would

[46:31] these positions include? Um obviously, I

[46:33] won't talk about status quo because

[46:34] that's already where we're at. Um, but

[46:36] for part-time staff positions, uh, this

[46:39] would be someone who would work, you

[46:40] know, up to whatever the maximum, I

[46:42] think, 24 hours or something. Um, so it

[46:44] would be proactive code enforcement

[46:47] based on that workload. Uh, they might

[46:50] be able to do title 17 and 18. So

[46:53] they'll be able to do all the planning

[46:55] stuff and then be able to do a lot of

[46:56] the title eight stuff. So like graffiti,

[46:59] um, shopping carts, that could all be

[47:01] within the um, this part-time component.

[47:04] Another part of their job duties would

[47:06] be public education. They would be, you

[47:08] know, when they're not doing code

[47:09] enforcement and stuff like that, they

[47:10] would be working on letter campaigns and

[47:13] doing public education on what code

[47:15] enforcement is and what the expectations

[47:17] are just so we can have better outreach.

[47:20] Um, the cost of this new staff would be

[47:22] estimated around $70,000 per year. Um

[47:26] but when you layer that on top of the

[47:29] inspections that we pay safe built

[47:30] roughly we pay 70,000 and then 72,500 in

[47:34] plan review um the all-in cost here is

[47:37] about um yeah about 215 grand. Um

[47:41] however with an RPO that would be

[47:43] reduced to about um if you were to adopt

[47:46] an RPO it would be an additional

[47:48] $140,000. The cost would be $140,000.

[47:51] Um,

[47:53] for the full-time position, there are

[47:55] some cost savings that come here by

[47:57] being able to shed our cost that we're

[48:01] sending safe bill every year. Um, so in

[48:04] uh, but we'll get into that later. The

[48:06] actual position itself would be focused

[48:07] on proactive enforcement of titles 8.

[48:09] They'd be doing some right-of-way

[48:10] enforcement. They'd be doing everything

[48:13] 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, everything. Um, so

[48:17] they'd be doing all the dip codes.

[48:18] They'd also be doing public education.

[48:20] And then finally, they would also be

[48:22] doing some building inspection services

[48:24] as well as building code customer

[48:25] service. Um, we do not think that there

[48:29] is enough work for full-time code

[48:31] enforcement, just doing only code

[48:33] enforcement stuff. We also don't think

[48:35] that there's a full workload to do only

[48:37] inspections. However, if you combine

[48:39] these two positions, which is a common

[48:40] thing in a lot of cities, that your

[48:42] inspector is doing code enforcement and

[48:44] inspections, um, it's a natural uh,

[48:47] combination of these two things. Um, and

[48:50] then once you factor in the full cost of

[48:52] this position at 130 and then you factor

[48:55] in the plan review um, cost, the

[48:58] subtotal is 22,000 which is a increase

[49:01] over a status quo. However, if you

[49:03] adopted the RPO, we would actually be

[49:05] saving money relative to what we're

[49:07] currently paying now because again,

[49:08] we're able to shed that uh, safe built

[49:11] um, cost.

[49:13] Um, so here's just a comparison of all

[49:15] the numbers. Um, you see them all

[49:17] stacked together.

[49:18] um you have this part-time position that

[49:21] you will get, you know, there is a

[49:22] potential for some like a slight cost

[49:24] savings um if you adopted an RPO, but

[49:27] then you'd have a more substantial cost

[49:29] savings if you adopt an RPO at the

[49:30] full-time. Um but the part-time is only

[49:33] focusing on code enforcement proactive

[49:35] and then full-time would also be able to

[49:38] realize um some savings by providing

[49:41] limited building services and um as well

[49:44] as the code enforcement. Um, I threw a

[49:47] lot of numbers at you guys. So, if you

[49:49] guys want to ask any questions, I'm

[49:51] happy to. Or if you want me to, um,

[49:53] shoot me a shot and go to the staff

[49:54] recommendation, happy to.

[49:56] >> Council member Gobies has a question.

[49:58] » Council member Gobies has a question.

[49:58] >> I have a couple questions. Um, the first

[50:01] » I have a couple questions. Um, the first

[50:01] one, I just want to make sure I

[50:02] understand this item versus the last

[50:05] one. So, we just approved an increase

[50:08] because this obviously isn't happening

[50:09] right away. So, when is our current

[50:12] contract with Safeuilt up that we could

[50:15] cancel it?

[50:16] >> December 31st, 2026.

[50:19] » December 31st, 2026.

[50:19] >> Perfect. Okay, that was question one.

[50:21] » Perfect. Okay, that was question one.

[50:21] Question two, if if we go with this

[50:24] full-time inspector, code enforcement

[50:27] person and we cancel the safe contract,

[50:30] is there a plan B if all of these jobs

[50:33] don't mesh together to make a full-time

[50:34] and like there's more than they can do

[50:36] in their week? Mhm.

[50:38] >> We wouldn't have that like backup of

[50:40] » We wouldn't have that like backup of

[50:40] being able to use the other service.

[50:42] >> Yeah. Okay. I think I understand your

[50:44] » Yeah. Okay. I think I understand your

[50:44] question. Um in the event of um oh my

[50:47] god, there's a lot of stuff we got to

[50:49] do. We don't have we got one guy. Um we

[50:51] have two options. Either we come back

[50:53] and we talk about position or we still

[50:56] have to subcontract out with a third

[50:57] party provider. Okay.

[50:59] >> Right. Um right now it's safe built.

[51:01] » Right. Um right now it's safe built.

[51:01] There's a number of other companies that

[51:02] could be um potential alternatives that

[51:04] we're exploring too. Um, it could just

[51:06] be a small contract and used for

[51:08] overflow. Um, it's interesting if you

[51:10] look at the history of Mil Creek in the

[51:12] history of the building official

[51:14] position. There used to be a building

[51:16] official in Mil Creek um, like in 2018

[51:19] and before that there was always a

[51:20] building official here, but they had

[51:22] issues filling the position. And when

[51:24] Safe Built was brought on as the

[51:25] building official services, it was

[51:28] brought on as a stop gap measure until

[51:30] they could secure a building official.

[51:33] And then um you know code enforcement

[51:36] happened and um some former leadership

[51:40] philosophy on staffing kind of had some

[51:43] impacts on some of this stuff and so but

[51:45] this used to be a thing that we had.

[51:47] Okay.

[51:47] >> And it was originally it was when it was

[51:49] » And it was originally it was when it was

[51:49] they created the safe bill contract it

[51:52] was never anticipated to be a a

[51:54] full-time thing. And even in the event

[51:56] that we do bring on a full-time

[51:58] inspector um and the workload is too

[52:00] much, again, all revenues are offset,

[52:03] all expenses would be offset by revenue.

[52:06] >> Is there some sort of like ad hoc

[52:09] » Is there some sort of like ad hoc

[52:09] inspecting service that you could use

[52:11] that wouldn't requ.

[52:16] » No. Well, so that's the way it works.

[52:18] The way that the contract works is it's

[52:20] an on call contract. Okay? it's as we

[52:22] get work we send it to them but because

[52:24] we have no one else to do the work all

[52:26] the work goes to them. So um we could

[52:29] certainly maintain a small a small

[52:31] contract or you know some contract of

[52:33] some sort will be maintained but um

[52:35] again all extra cost would be offset by

[52:38] revenue.

[52:38] >> Thanks.

[52:43] » Oh um council member Allison and then

[52:45] council member Suckler.

[52:48] Yeah, I'm looking for that slide that

[52:50] showed the the dip

[52:54] and how that would be alleviated by

[52:57] having somebody or or managed

[53:01] by having a full-time person on board.

[53:04] So if there were let's say

[53:09] the building services

[53:12] volume was really high would that mean

[53:14] the code enforcement would have to you

[53:17] know be less

[53:21] the lesser of the two buckets of work.

[53:25] >> Right. Well I think that's a that's a

[53:28] » Right. Well I think that's a that's a

[53:28] good consideration and I think that's a

[53:29] policy determination would have to be

[53:30] determined by the city. I think from my

[53:33] view, I would see the um if you have a

[53:36] contract available to handle those

[53:38] overflow situations, I would still want

[53:40] to prioritize code enforcement as the

[53:43] primary issue because um clean and safe

[53:46] is one of the city's key priorities. Um

[53:48] it's, you know, it's in our strategic

[53:51] plan. It's in our core values and

[53:53] missions. So I think for me to meet that

[53:55] clean and safe expectation, I would

[53:57] still in the event if you have x amount

[54:00] of workload and we have to choose one or

[54:01] the other, I would prioritize code

[54:03] enforcement and then use that overflow

[54:05] contract to provide those inspections as

[54:08] needed for in those in those events.

[54:11] >> Okay. And if you're looking at the

[54:12] » Okay. And if you're looking at the

[54:12] volume of those two,

[54:15] you know, how likely is it that we would

[54:18] still need to have a contract and have a

[54:20] considerable spend with that service

[54:22] provider? Well, the we will always have

[54:24] to have a contract um for two reasons.

[54:27] One, we still don't have a plans

[54:29] examiner. We don't have anyone on staff

[54:31] that can review things for, you know,

[54:34] review the actual blueprints. That's

[54:36] something that we don't have on staff.

[54:38] So, that's something we still have to

[54:40] outsource. And this would be outsourcing

[54:43] only the people who are actually going

[54:45] out and checking to make sure that the

[54:47] joists are correct and the building

[54:49] structures are being physically built

[54:52] correctly. Um and the second element it

[54:54] would be we wouldn't we would still have

[54:56] to maintain some contract with them

[55:00] because this person would be an

[55:01] inspector but not a full building

[55:03] official. a full building official would

[55:05] be um a much higher would be not a much

[55:08] higher but it would be a higher salary

[55:10] cost. And so what we're trying to do is

[55:12] thread the needle between um what can be

[55:16] done by getting a full-time inspector

[55:18] and still balancing our code enforcement

[55:20] needs and be able to get a good chunk of

[55:23] our building official costs out of the

[55:26] way. but recognizing that there at the

[55:28] end of the day to sign off on a complete

[55:31] certificate of occupancy, it needs to be

[55:33] a building official. Um, and so we

[55:35] wouldn't be able to be free of it fully

[55:37] yet. You know, maybe, you know, if I

[55:39] know Thomas, maybe there's a way that we

[55:40] can figure out a way to get there, but

[55:42] until then, this is the um the way that

[55:45] we could find the best way to maximize

[55:47] savings to the city um while still

[55:51] dealing with the staff that we have. So,

[55:52] hypothetically, the the contract would

[55:56] maybe be half as expensive as it is

[55:58] today.

[55:59] >> That's the idea.

[56:00] » That's the idea.

[56:00] >> Okay.

[56:00] » Okay.

[56:00] >> Instead of asking for a $200,000

[56:02] » Instead of asking for a $200,000

[56:02] contract, we'd only ask for a $100,000

[56:04] contract.

[56:05] >> Um, yeah.

[56:10] » Um, Council Member Stuckler and after

[56:12] him, Council Member Paddock.

[56:14] >> So, one quick question, then I have a

[56:16] » So, one quick question, then I have a

[56:16] thought, you know, study session, maybe

[56:18] some impact. Um the the cost that you

[56:20] have here of 7130 I assume the 70 is a

[56:23] fully loaded because part-time no

[56:24] benefits but how about your full-time is

[56:26] that a fully loaded number?

[56:27] >> Yes, that would be this that's what we

[56:28] » Yes, that would be this that's what we

[56:28] estimate to be the fully loaded.

[56:29] >> Really? Okay. So this person would be

[56:31] » Really? Okay. So this person would be

[56:31] somewhere in the 80 85. Okay. Um you

[56:36] know when I when I look at this um

[56:40] there's two thoughts that come to my

[56:41] mind. I look at our current situation

[56:43] and I look at what's going to be coming

[56:44] down the road with regards to

[56:46] inspections.

[56:47] There is no question that coming down

[56:49] the road with all the plans that we're

[56:51] putting in place that we're you're going

[56:53] to have this huge onslaught and there is

[56:55] no question in anybody's mind that

[56:56] you're going to need a person, you know,

[56:58] at at that point. The question is trying

[57:00] to justify the position at this point

[57:02] before all that development kicks in. It

[57:05] looks like we're still better off with

[57:07] this safe build contract. Even if with a

[57:12] part-timer, it's going to cost us more

[57:14] because we don't know enough. We don't

[57:15] see enough to say, "Hey, we need to take

[57:17] care of these pieces are coming down.

[57:19] This information is coming down." We

[57:21] don't know that. So, you know, when I

[57:22] look at this and if you wanted to know

[57:24] and you could help more more time to

[57:26] help educate me as to why right now with

[57:28] a little bit information and a little

[57:30] bit of mind that I've got, I would say

[57:31] it doesn't make sense to approve a

[57:33] position like this now.

[57:37] >> Knowing full well we are going to

[57:38] » Knowing full well we are going to

[57:38] approve a position like this when we

[57:40] start kicking up Southtown Center, we uh

[57:45] the uh all that all that development is

[57:48] is going to we might need two three

[57:49] people. Who knows? because the the

[57:51] volume and stuff. Right now, you can't

[57:52] really point to that for at least a few

[57:54] years. So, I don't see the the the

[57:58] reason we went with safely I thought

[57:59] back when we did it was we had developed

[58:02] all the land in Mil Creek and we weren't

[58:04] expecting a lot of development costs to

[58:06] come in anymore and that's why we didn't

[58:07] want to replace the position and why we

[58:09] went with a vendor that could be on call

[58:11] and it looks like we're still kind of in

[58:12] that that position based on the little

[58:14] bit information I see today.

[58:15] >> Right. So if I could respond to that

[58:17] » Right. So if I could respond to that

[58:17] please. Um so when that transition was

[58:20] happened there were a lot of things that

[58:23] stopped occurring that needed to be

[58:25] done. For example um like reviewing of

[58:28] business licenses and um in-depth review

[58:31] of of uh certificates of occupancy and

[58:35] stuff like that. There's a pretty large

[58:37] record gap that we have where that kind

[58:40] of work and services wasn't being

[58:42] performed. um and that's necessary. Um

[58:45] that also relates to like other kinds of

[58:47] just other kinds of projects like that.

[58:50] The other thing I would also note is

[58:52] that during this pro during this period

[58:55] we also had have seen a substantial I

[58:59] would say loss of visibility on

[59:01] permanent activity and stuff that's

[59:03] happening in the community that we don't

[59:04] even know about we you know a potential

[59:07] increase of unpermitted activity because

[59:08] we don't have that visible presence

[59:10] that's proactively looking for work. So

[59:13] there's potentially a an iceberg, right,

[59:17] of you don't see, you know, what's

[59:20] dangerous about an iceberg is what you

[59:21] don't see. And I think that's so I guess

[59:24] what I'm trying to say is um more

[59:26] succinctly is we might be seeing a

[59:28] little bit of survivor bias where right

[59:32] now we're seeing only the influence uh

[59:34] the impact on permits that are being

[59:36] permitted uh correctly and we're only

[59:40] seeing the charges of things that are

[59:41] being tracked by building officials that

[59:44] should be tracked but that are currently

[59:47] being tracked. But what we're not seeing

[59:48] is all the activities that haven't been

[59:50] happening that need to happen or should

[59:53] be would be better if we were doing it.

[59:55] >> Was that our responsibility or is that

[59:57] » Was that our responsibility or is that

[59:57] safe build's responsibility?

[59:58] >> Um little bit of column A, a little bit

[1:00:00] » Um little bit of column A, a little bit

[1:00:00] of column B. Um and that's that's why I

[1:00:03] was saying that they have the increase

[1:00:04] of inspection costs because as we're

[1:00:07] identifying these tasks that need to be

[1:00:09] performed, it's only increasing those

[1:00:12] costs um annually. And that's why you've

[1:00:15] seen the substantial increase in

[1:00:16] inspections despite, as you say, you

[1:00:19] know, we didn't expect Mil Creek was

[1:00:21] fully built out, but um we're still

[1:00:24] seeing you're still seeing a constant

[1:00:26] quarterly increase of inspection

[1:00:28] services regardless of that. And I'd

[1:00:30] also um point out that it's true that

[1:00:33] there isn't a lot of green field

[1:00:34] opportunity, but a substantial green

[1:00:37] field in the development world means um

[1:00:40] a development track where there's

[1:00:43] nothing on it. It's just a patch of

[1:00:44] grass, right? And that's that's a green

[1:00:46] field development. It's the best it's

[1:00:48] the best thing in the world because you

[1:00:49] can build whatever on it and you don't

[1:00:50] have to do anything with it.

[1:00:52] >> But what you do also have in Mil Creek

[1:00:54] » But what you do also have in Mil Creek

[1:00:54] is a substantial number of buildings

[1:00:56] that are over 40 years old, which in

[1:00:59] real estate world means that they're

[1:01:00] past their useful life. And that hurts

[1:01:03] me to say because I'm turning 40 this

[1:01:04] year. Um, so

[1:01:07] >> yeah.

[1:01:07] » yeah.

[1:01:07] >> So, but I hate to think about myself as

[1:01:09] » So, but I hate to think about myself as

[1:01:09] an example. But what that means is it's

[1:01:11] true that there isn't a lot of green

[1:01:13] field sites, but there is a lot of

[1:01:15] redevelopment sites in the city. And

[1:01:17] that I think also reflects in our

[1:01:19] buildable lands analysis that was part

[1:01:20] of the 2024 comp plan. The final thing I

[1:01:23] would like to point out is that the

[1:01:25] primary the primary thing that we're

[1:01:26] pointing talking about here is code

[1:01:28] enforcement and how um

[1:01:32] even if we accept that the idea that

[1:01:36] there's nowhere to build and there's not

[1:01:37] a lot of permit volume, there is still

[1:01:39] an increasing need for code enforcement

[1:01:41] need. And the way that

[1:01:44] um in my mission to council, as I

[1:01:48] understand it, is to find ways to save a

[1:01:51] dollar in as many ways as humanly

[1:01:53] possible um so that we can meet our core

[1:01:56] services and still be good fiscal

[1:01:58] stewards to the community. And the way

[1:02:00] that um we were able to find the most

[1:02:03] fis like fiscally forward way of doing

[1:02:06] that is if we got it if was if we

[1:02:08] thought about the positions and we're

[1:02:10] like well if we can get rid of this

[1:02:12] element of this contract and couple that

[1:02:14] with code enforcement then we can

[1:02:16] provide this service that's needed right

[1:02:19] code enforcement where no one's doing it

[1:02:20] really to the level that the city

[1:02:21] deserves and you can couple it with

[1:02:25] savings found in the safe bill contract

[1:02:27] and then together that's how you're able

[1:02:29] to fine. I think you know a you are able

[1:02:32] to find a pathway forward to finding

[1:02:35] savings at least if you adopt an RPO.

[1:02:37] Keeping in mind this desire to save

[1:02:39] money obviously would it not make more

[1:02:42] sense to better manage the safeuilt

[1:02:46] relationship and consultant agreement

[1:02:48] and you know understand from them what's

[1:02:50] happening what's out there what are we

[1:02:52] missing so that there's data specific

[1:02:55] examples of why we need to we need to do

[1:02:57] this ourselves in house I I still don't

[1:02:59] see the desire to do this inhouse uh the

[1:03:04] I see the desire to do this in house I

[1:03:06] don't see the the the data to support

[1:03:09] doing this in house. That's why I don't

[1:03:10] see

[1:03:11] >> um well as it relates to code

[1:03:12] » um well as it relates to code

[1:03:12] enforcement um safe bill does not do

[1:03:14] code enforcement. Um it is not in their

[1:03:17] contract. It is not within their

[1:03:19] services. We have been talking

[1:03:21] >> I'm sorry but I was talking about the

[1:03:22] » I'm sorry but I was talking about the

[1:03:22] stuff that you mentioned

[1:03:23] >> the actual inspection services.

[1:03:24] » the actual inspection services.

[1:03:24] >> You said there's there's stuff out there

[1:03:26] » You said there's there's stuff out there

[1:03:26] in inspections and plant briefs that

[1:03:27] we're not aware of.

[1:03:29] >> Correct. because that's under I'm sorry

[1:03:31] » Correct. because that's under I'm sorry

[1:03:31] to interrupt you but that was that

[1:03:32] that's under their regalia and we're not

[1:03:36] privy to that or we're not aware of that

[1:03:37] or we're not where we would be if we had

[1:03:39] our own person in there. Is that

[1:03:40] correct?

[1:03:41] >> So Safe Builds contract is only to

[1:03:43] » So Safe Builds contract is only to

[1:03:43] respond to when we schedule an

[1:03:45] inspection. Um they do not have a dude

[1:03:48] on a truck that's driving around looking

[1:03:50] for anything. They're they're they're

[1:03:53] they are an on call contract. Um, we've

[1:03:57] priced out models to have someone just

[1:03:59] sitting in our office and um

[1:04:03] it's not

[1:04:04] >> I seem to remember that

[1:04:05] » I seem to remember that

[1:04:05] >> it's not cost effective.

[1:04:07] » it's not cost effective.

[1:04:07] >> Um, at least compared to the models that

[1:04:09] » Um, at least compared to the models that

[1:04:09] we're looking at now.

[1:04:10] >> Now the model we've got now is the most

[1:04:12] » Now the model we've got now is the most

[1:04:12] cost effective. True. Agreed. Um, not

[1:04:15] the one for the future. Yeah. just to,

[1:04:18] you know, kind of having that dialogue

[1:04:21] in a study session of, you know, if I

[1:04:23] came back and asked you what would I

[1:04:26] need to bring you back to win you over

[1:04:28] to my side to bring us an inspector.

[1:04:30] Now, that that's kind of the point of

[1:04:31] what I wanted to bring on is that I I

[1:04:33] don't think we're there yet,

[1:04:35] >> but um you and I and I think just but we

[1:04:38] » but um you and I and I think just but we

[1:04:38] do need to take real good care of of

[1:04:42] managing that that that safe asset. Make

[1:04:45] sure we collected all the data. we know

[1:04:47] what's going on. Uh so that that might

[1:04:50] give us a better path to where what's

[1:04:52] the justification for hiring a position.

[1:04:54] >> Sure. Um I think one last point if I

[1:04:56] » Sure. Um I think one last point if I

[1:04:56] could uh is also um

[1:05:00] every year we don't have this in-house

[1:05:02] service. When we do stand up the

[1:05:04] in-house service, that's a year lost of

[1:05:08] institutional knowledge.

[1:05:09] >> Sure.

[1:05:09] » Sure.

[1:05:10] >> And there is an institutional knowledge

[1:05:11] » And there is an institutional knowledge

[1:05:11] piece that that can be considered as

[1:05:14] well, especially as we pivot towards the

[1:05:16] future and look at different models.

[1:05:22] » Council member Paddock and then after

[1:05:24] that, Mayor Prom.

[1:05:25] >> Thank you. Uh, first of all, I really

[1:05:27] » Thank you. Uh, first of all, I really

[1:05:27] appreciate the deliberative and detailed

[1:05:30] process that you've kind of walked

[1:05:32] through with us. I think you said four

[1:05:33] times and and it it shows and I just

[1:05:38] riffing off of I think a response you

[1:05:40] actually had about the tip of the

[1:05:42] iceberg and there's there's too much

[1:05:44] that we we're not seeing and that's not

[1:05:46] getting done because Safe Build isn't

[1:05:48] doing it. um has been something that

[1:05:50] stuck in my mind and I think I mentioned

[1:05:53] this in the last discussion that we had

[1:05:54] and I and I still feel the same way that

[1:05:58] there is a significant

[1:06:00] need and opportunity to have that

[1:06:04] proactive enforcement that proactive

[1:06:07] um engagement with the community that

[1:06:10] that that is just not what Safe Build

[1:06:12] does. At the same time, I I do have some

[1:06:15] similar concerns that have been um

[1:06:17] voiced and I again I think we brought

[1:06:19] this up in the last uh discussion on

[1:06:21] this that jumping straight to a

[1:06:24] full-time

[1:06:28] ties our hands a little bit if we find

[1:06:30] out that that's actually not what we

[1:06:32] need or that it's more expensive than we

[1:06:34] thought etc. And I would look at maybe

[1:06:38] there's a middle ground of let's try

[1:06:40] this as a part-time, which again you've

[1:06:43] you've you've laid that as an option.

[1:06:45] Let's try this as a part-time for all

[1:06:46] the benefits that part-time and

[1:06:48] flexibility give us. It's not the best

[1:06:51] long term, but to me it would be the

[1:06:53] best iterative step to say, "Yep, we

[1:06:57] validated the the assumptions. let's

[1:07:00] let's bring that person or another

[1:07:02] person full-time and go versus waiting

[1:07:06] to see what happens and we probably

[1:07:08] wouldn't actually see what happens

[1:07:09] because that's not going to be until

[1:07:12] Southtown Center gets going, etc. So,

[1:07:14] that feels to me like an iterative

[1:07:16] middle ground that I could that I could

[1:07:18] get behind as as feedback and just

[1:07:20] sharing with my peers.

[1:07:25] » Mayor Patton,

[1:07:27] >> thank you so much. um the background of

[1:07:31] » thank you so much. um the background of

[1:07:31] the type of employee you're looking for

[1:07:32] for full-time um versus part-time. I'm

[1:07:35] assuming it's not entry level. I mean,

[1:07:37] what's the kind of um what what's the

[1:07:40] what are you looking for?

[1:07:42] >> Um early to mid career.

[1:07:44] » Um early to mid career.

[1:07:44] >> Early to midcareer. Yeah.

[1:07:45] » Early to midcareer. Yeah.

[1:07:45] >> Okay. So, early is

[1:07:47] » Okay. So, early is

[1:07:47] >> Yeah.

[1:07:47] » Yeah.

[1:07:47] >> potentially that I would I wouldn't say

[1:07:49] » potentially that I would I wouldn't say

[1:07:49] entry level, but I wouldn't say senior.

[1:07:51] I guess I would say probably mid-level

[1:07:53] career maybe.

[1:07:54] >> That's what it sounded like when you

[1:07:55] » That's what it sounded like when you

[1:07:55] were talking about it. So, I was just

[1:07:56] curious about it. um because based off

[1:07:58] of years of experience um in your

[1:08:00] looking into this because I know you

[1:08:01] mentioned other cities um how many

[1:08:03] cities have uh this type of role still

[1:08:06] because the you've explained clearly

[1:08:09] that the we had a building

[1:08:13] we had we had a building official.

[1:08:14] >> Yeah.

[1:08:15] » Yeah.

[1:08:15] >> I don't know if we had a code

[1:08:17] » I don't know if we had a code

[1:08:17] enforcement specific person. Did we have

[1:08:19] that as well?

[1:08:20] >> I had code enforcement.

[1:08:21] » I had code enforcement.

[1:08:21] >> So it was two separate positions that

[1:08:23] » So it was two separate positions that

[1:08:23] were here in the city of Mil Creek. How

[1:08:24] many cities um in your and maybe you

[1:08:27] don't have this information today, but

[1:08:28] how many of these cities currently have

[1:08:30] so those two types of positions?

[1:08:32] >> Um I would say that a vast majority of

[1:08:35] » Um I would say that a vast majority of

[1:08:35] all cities have both a building official

[1:08:38] and co and code enforcement officers.

[1:08:41] Your typical planning department is

[1:08:43] comprised of um maybe you have three or

[1:08:47] four plan like of of a city of 20,000 of

[1:08:50] Mil Creek size. Typically, you have a

[1:08:52] building official, you have a couple

[1:08:54] inspectors, a a couple plan reviewers,

[1:08:57] and some permit techs. That's your

[1:08:58] building services. And then you have

[1:09:00] your planners, long range planners, and

[1:09:02] current planners. U Michael Tio, for

[1:09:04] example, has about eight or nine

[1:09:06] full-time FTEEs. Um half of those are a

[1:09:09] mixture of building officials,

[1:09:11] inspectors, and um permit techs. Um

[1:09:16] using the Mil Creek model and our our

[1:09:19] staffing model and stuff like that. Um,

[1:09:21] I think we could still provide

[1:09:23] outstanding service to the customers um

[1:09:26] by providing some things like full-time

[1:09:29] inspec, like having inspection services

[1:09:31] be in house, but some things you could

[1:09:33] probably delay on sharing like a plans

[1:09:36] reviewer. But to answer your question

[1:09:37] specifically, um, many cities will often

[1:09:40] have your inspectors or your building

[1:09:43] official do both code enforcement and

[1:09:45] um, inspections. Um, but most most

[1:09:49] cities of our size and um you typically

[1:09:52] have a building official as a full-time

[1:09:54] position and a code enforcement as a

[1:09:57] full-time position. as a full-time

[1:09:58] position. And I really appreciate you um

[1:10:00] sharing that information cuz you know

[1:10:02] for me obviously we're talking about the

[1:10:04] the building and the and the official

[1:10:06] you know in terms of inspections and all

[1:10:08] that but I've been really

[1:10:11] keeping an eye on this because for me

[1:10:13] the importance of the code enforcement

[1:10:15] that's kind of been you know like I in

[1:10:18] an ideal world would like a full-time

[1:10:20] just code enforcer enforcement whether

[1:10:23] that's um financially available for

[1:10:26] where we are all that but there's so

[1:10:27] many things that we get constantly asked

[1:10:30] about or worked on or you know any of

[1:10:32] those things in terms of what makes Mil

[1:10:35] Creek the city that it is would be under

[1:10:37] that and so I I I definitely think code

[1:10:40] enforcement as its own position makes a

[1:10:41] lot of sense why sharing um what council

[1:10:45] um had mentioned for me I because I see

[1:10:49] it as a full-time position I can get

[1:10:51] behind a full-time that has half um

[1:10:55] building inspection responsibilities and

[1:10:58] half code enforcement because maybe we

[1:11:00] don't actually as like an an in an

[1:11:03] introduction into this is maybe we don't

[1:11:05] actually need that much code enforcement

[1:11:07] as I keep hearing that we do or seeing

[1:11:10] you know where we are in our path. So I

[1:11:12] could see like well then there's the

[1:11:13] part-time plus we're also doing this

[1:11:15] which is also another need. So I find

[1:11:17] that is my kind of happy medium which

[1:11:20] sounds like a full-time position here.

[1:11:21] So I I thank you for um providing that

[1:11:23] background.

[1:11:24] >> Thank you Mayor Berten. Um I guess one

[1:11:26] » Thank you Mayor Berten. Um I guess one

[1:11:26] comment I would have to that is um

[1:11:30] there's also a good conversation that we

[1:11:31] can have as a community of you know to

[1:11:34] put it um as seriously as possible. Do

[1:11:38] you want code enforcement?

[1:11:40] >> Yeah.

[1:11:40] » Yeah.

[1:11:40] >> Or do you want code enforcement?

[1:11:41] » Or do you want code enforcement?

[1:11:42] >> Yeah.

[1:11:42] » Yeah.

[1:11:42] >> You know like there's there's a way you

[1:11:45] » You know like there's there's a way you

[1:11:45] know for example in our code you can't

[1:11:47] have a hedge that's greater than the

[1:11:50] height of a fence.

[1:11:51] >> Yeah. um

[1:11:53] » Yeah. um

[1:11:53] [laughter]

[1:11:53] >> how many properties

[1:11:55] » how many properties

[1:11:55] >> would we

[1:11:56] » would we

[1:11:56] >> yeah I don't want

[1:11:57] » yeah I don't want

[1:11:57] >> be going after right and so I think

[1:11:58] » be going after right and so I think

[1:11:58] there's a question of you know there's a

[1:12:00] science there's an art form to code

[1:12:02] enforcement in terms of how you apply it

[1:12:04] how you don't apply it and there's some

[1:12:06] some considerations that we want to have

[1:12:07] in terms of how aggressive we get on

[1:12:09] code enforcement and what are the things

[1:12:11] we're aggressive about

[1:12:12] >> I I really appreciate that um that

[1:12:14] » I I really appreciate that um that

[1:12:14] example if it's okay because for me I

[1:12:16] would also see the code enforcement

[1:12:18] person saying looking at what we have

[1:12:20] and saying we just don't this isn't okay

[1:12:23] or just questioning like do you know

[1:12:24] that we have this we should bring this

[1:12:27] to council with a recommendation of like

[1:12:29] how we need to do or the planning

[1:12:30] commission you know like whatever the

[1:12:32] right um avenue is I think that's an

[1:12:34] important part because we just don't

[1:12:35] have the bandwidth for someone to take a

[1:12:37] look at those things um and I think it's

[1:12:40] important to do so before we start

[1:12:42] adding on all the additional annexation

[1:12:45] and additional areas of people and

[1:12:47] population or businesses that are you

[1:12:50] know that we're hoping to attract here

[1:12:52] is that we actually have all of our

[1:12:53] stuff nice and clean and to the point

[1:12:56] where we can adapt as new things are

[1:12:57] coming, but we're not tracing back to

[1:13:00] something from 1998. And

[1:13:02] >> and to your point, the um the subtotal

[1:13:05] » and to your point, the um the subtotal

[1:13:05] without the RPO, a full-time position,

[1:13:07] what you're contemplating is still

[1:13:09] cheaper than just bringing on a

[1:13:11] part-time person. It would still be a

[1:13:13] less cost burden to the city to go

[1:13:15] full-time.

[1:13:18] Um, city manager would like to speak.

[1:13:20] Has I'm assuming speak, not a question.

[1:13:24] >> Yeah, I have a comment about uh just the

[1:13:26] » Yeah, I have a comment about uh just the

[1:13:26] fact that we're we're talking about

[1:13:28] full-time and part-time. Just to keep in

[1:13:29] mind that the full-time, we're not

[1:13:31] talking about just 20 hours a week.

[1:13:33] That's what we're referring to right

[1:13:34] here. [clears throat] But also just

[1:13:36] considering that

[1:13:39] is there an actual need out there in our

[1:13:41] community for a full-time or a part-time

[1:13:44] uh existing right now. The reason why we

[1:13:46] have claims we're in litigation, we have

[1:13:48] complaints about junk cars or septic

[1:13:50] tanks is because we don't have code

[1:13:52] enforcement. Somebody out that was

[1:13:54] proactively addressing a lot of these

[1:13:55] issues. Um,

[1:13:58] Director Ryan did did talk about in

[1:14:00] itself the full-time is without the RPO

[1:14:02] is less expensive. That's another

[1:14:04] comment I I wanted to make and and

[1:14:06] reinforced. Um the part-time is 20 hours

[1:14:10] a week and it's further limits the

[1:14:13] ability to provide code enforcement,

[1:14:16] plan review and inspections. Um you got

[1:14:19] to think about what this person will do.

[1:14:22] Not only drive around and look at

[1:14:24] enforce code and update director Ryan,

[1:14:27] but this person will also write letters.

[1:14:29] This person will make phone calls. this

[1:14:31] person will do the whole scope of

[1:14:32] services um

[1:14:36] that that person's responsibility you

[1:14:39] know will will be and and right now a

[1:14:41] lot of staff we're taking on those types

[1:14:42] of roles we're talking about letters we

[1:14:45] have our management analyst right now

[1:14:46] writing letters about graffiti and

[1:14:48] encampments um that cannot transfer yet

[1:14:51] to director's Ryan team until we have

[1:14:52] that code enforcement person um I'm

[1:14:55] trying to capture the scope of kind of

[1:14:57] what this person will do I've talked

[1:14:59] about litigation Um,

[1:15:02] I've talked about the existing things

[1:15:04] that are out there already and I think

[1:15:06] that's pretty much kind of the um

[1:15:09] comments that I want to make in terms of

[1:15:11] I what I believe that this this we've

[1:15:13] already talked about this we've been

[1:15:15] talking about this for over a year now

[1:15:17] um about the need and as we continue to

[1:15:20] wait on this type of full-time position

[1:15:24] um the issues continue to grow and uh we

[1:15:26] haven't done anything about it just

[1:15:28] because We we don't have that full-time

[1:15:31] position. I do not believe a part-time

[1:15:32] position is going to handle uh the need

[1:15:35] out there. Thank you.

[1:15:39] » Um I have a question. Um and I

[1:15:43] I have a migraine so things are not

[1:15:46] clicking I think. So when you explain

[1:15:49] can you go back and explain to me the um

[1:15:53] the full time is 130. Well that's

[1:15:55] obvious but why? So they're taking on

[1:15:59] the inspections, right? So that's why we

[1:16:01] don't have the 725 there. It's going up

[1:16:04] into the 130 basically.

[1:16:07] >> Correct. So um the reason why this is

[1:16:10] » Correct. So um the reason why this is

[1:16:10] less is because you're removing the

[1:16:13] inspections charge. And the other thing

[1:16:16] to note is that these these this

[1:16:19] contract amount is based on the 2025

[1:16:23] 2026 allocations for um safe built um

[1:16:27] and in the next budget and you know

[1:16:30] we'll go through that process but those

[1:16:33] numbers could be higher too.

[1:16:34] >> And so the part-time person we'd have to

[1:16:36] » And so the part-time person we'd have to

[1:16:36] hire the part-time person and they would

[1:16:39] be handling

[1:16:41] code enforcement.

[1:16:42] >> Correct.

[1:16:43] » Correct.

[1:16:43] And then we'd still be needing to pay

[1:16:45] safe bill for the inspections and the

[1:16:48] plan review. Okay, I do understand. I

[1:16:50] just want to make sure I did understand

[1:16:52] since yeah,

[1:16:53] >> I've got a migraine and I wasn't sure if

[1:16:54] » I've got a migraine and I wasn't sure if

[1:16:54] it was clicking. Perfect. Thank you.

[1:16:58] >> Any other questions?

[1:17:03] So, I think you want direction from us

[1:17:05] tonight um on which direction we would

[1:17:08] like to go um whether or not we

[1:17:11] recommend a full-time or a part-time

[1:17:13] budget. So, I think as as discussion

[1:17:16] bared out, um staff recommendation is

[1:17:18] for a full-time position. Um and um to

[1:17:21] be and again, we're not asking for

[1:17:23] authorization of the full position

[1:17:24] tonight, but we're asking for a

[1:17:27] recommendation to have this further

[1:17:29] studied and proposed as part of the 2728

[1:17:33] benium budget process so that we can um

[1:17:37] you know, just provide what is your

[1:17:39] preference going into that? maybe not

[1:17:40] preference, but what is if we were going

[1:17:42] to do it, this is how we prefer to do it

[1:17:44] and then we can provide that costing

[1:17:46] model. Okay.

[1:17:46] >> Um or if you prefer a part-time that

[1:17:50] » Um or if you prefer a part-time that

[1:17:50] whatever consideration that you have, we

[1:17:52] would just like to have some formal

[1:17:53] direction on picking one. Um or if you

[1:17:56] want us to bring both forward, that's

[1:17:58] fine, too. I just looking for direction.

[1:18:03] » Um Council Member Goeski,

[1:18:05] >> I just didn't know did you want like

[1:18:07] » I just didn't know did you want like

[1:18:07] each of us to chime in? Were we

[1:18:10] >> or does somebody want

[1:18:11] » or does somebody want

[1:18:11] >> We're not We're not like voting on this.

[1:18:14] » We're not We're not like voting on this.

[1:18:14] >> No, not really. It was just a

[1:18:17] » No, not really. It was just a

[1:18:17] >> All right. Do you want each one of us to

[1:18:19] » All right. Do you want each one of us to

[1:18:19] make our to tell you how we feel about

[1:18:20] it or

[1:18:22] >> Yeah, that's fine.

[1:18:23] » Yeah, that's fine.

[1:18:23] >> However, Yeah. I think if you just want

[1:18:26] » However, Yeah. I think if you just want

[1:18:26] to each just tell me what your

[1:18:27] preference was, that would be helpful

[1:18:29] and then I would know um better.

[1:18:33] >> All right. Um

[1:18:34] » All right. Um

[1:18:34] >> let's go this way. I know I was like not

[1:18:36] » let's go this way. I know I was like not

[1:18:36] to speak for them, but I think they've

[1:18:37] told this, but um council member

[1:18:38] Paddock,

[1:18:39] >> again, I I wholly uh agree with what the

[1:18:42] » again, I I wholly uh agree with what the

[1:18:42] city manager the part-time is not going

[1:18:44] to do the whole job, but it's going to

[1:18:46] give us data to determine whether or not

[1:18:49] we need a whole job and what that's

[1:18:50] going to look like. So,

[1:18:52] >> um all in for part-time.

[1:18:54] » um all in for part-time.

[1:18:54] >> Yeah.

[1:18:56] » Yeah.

[1:18:56] >> Yeah. I don't feel we have I don't have

[1:18:58] » Yeah. I don't feel we have I don't have

[1:18:58] enough data to justify a full-time

[1:18:59] position at this time. So,

[1:19:01] >> but based on what's being said, yeah, I

[1:19:03] » but based on what's being said, yeah, I

[1:19:03] think a part-time position might make

[1:19:04] sense because it could help us to

[1:19:05] collect the data that we need to really

[1:19:07] justify full-time position going

[1:19:09] forward. But right now, I I I wouldn't

[1:19:11] support anything more than a part-time.

[1:19:14] >> Um, I would lean towards um the

[1:19:18] » Um, I would lean towards um the

[1:19:18] full-time position because it is going

[1:19:20] to cost less than the part-time position

[1:19:22] when we are looking at the budget and we

[1:19:25] really do need some code enforcement

[1:19:27] desperately. So, that would be my

[1:19:29] preference to look at in the budget. Um,

[1:19:32] Mayor Pam,

[1:19:34] >> full-time position.

[1:19:37] » full-time position.

[1:19:37] >> Council member Allison, I'm torn, but

[1:19:39] » Council member Allison, I'm torn, but

[1:19:39] I'm leaning more towards the full-time.

[1:19:42] Um, I think you've explained that that

[1:19:46] full-time person could be

[1:19:49] full up with statement of work and

[1:19:52] the comment you made about the

[1:19:55] institutional knowledge.

[1:19:57] um before we consider annexations. That

[1:20:00] means a lot to me.

[1:20:03] >> Council member Gobies,

[1:20:05] » Council member Gobies,

[1:20:05] >> I'm definitely on board for a full-time

[1:20:07] » I'm definitely on board for a full-time

[1:20:07] position. I think the um the cost

[1:20:09] savings is there. The customer service

[1:20:11] element of having somebody that is a

[1:20:13] city employee be the the face of both of

[1:20:17] those aspects. Um I think as we move

[1:20:19] into annexation,

[1:20:21] that is a better position to be building

[1:20:24] from. Um, additionally, and and I may be

[1:20:27] way off base, I feel like it's a better

[1:20:30] job position for to find somebody who's

[1:20:33] good at it would want a full-time

[1:20:35] position. And so, it feels like it would

[1:20:37] be more likely to get a good hire, um,

[1:20:40] to use their skill set correctly. Um,

[1:20:43] and also that they would have this sort

[1:20:45] of broad scope of things to do to fill

[1:20:48] the time, whereas I don't really know

[1:20:50] how a part-time

[1:20:53] fluctuates, you know, as the things

[1:20:55] fluctuate from week to week. So, I I

[1:20:57] would I would say full-time.

[1:20:59] >> Thank you.

[1:21:00] » Thank you.

[1:21:00] >> You're welcome.

[1:21:03] » All right. Next up, we have the consent

[1:21:05] agenda. Approval of checks number 70644

[1:21:10] through 70688

[1:21:13] and AC wire transfers in the amount of

[1:21:15] [clears throat]

[1:21:17] 1 million6

[1:21:19] Wait a minute. Yeah. Yeah. 1,6,593.81.

[1:21:25] Um myself and council member Allison

[1:21:28] were the audit committee. Um any

[1:21:30] exceptions?

[1:21:31] >> No exceptions.

[1:21:32] » No exceptions.

[1:21:32] >> No exceptions. And we also have the city

[1:21:35] » No exceptions. And we also have the city

[1:21:35] council meeting minutes of July 28th,

[1:21:37] 2026. Do I have a motion to approve the

[1:21:39] consent agenda?

[1:21:41] >> So moved.

[1:21:43] » So moved.

[1:21:43] >> Second.

[1:21:43] » Second.

[1:21:44] >> I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:21:46] » I have a motion and a second. All those

[1:21:46] in favor say I.

[1:21:47] >> I.

[1:21:47] » I.

[1:21:47] >> I.

[1:21:48] » I.

[1:21:48] >> Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[1:21:51] » Any against? Any abstensions? Motion

[1:21:51] passes 6.

[1:21:53] Next up, we have um reports. City

[1:21:56] manager.

[1:21:57] >> Thank you, mayor. We have three reports,

[1:21:59] » Thank you, mayor. We have three reports,

[1:21:59] and I'll start off with the first one.

[1:22:01] Uh yesterday our city clerk had the

[1:22:03] opportunity to send you uh my report for

[1:22:05] second quarter 2026.

[1:22:08] It is lengthy. It's 12 pages. I'm going

[1:22:10] to cut it short. I'm going to give you a

[1:22:11] high level of the strategic plan and

[1:22:14] cover some key accomplishments across

[1:22:16] our department. So um just keeping in

[1:22:19] mind that's a three-year plan 2025 to

[1:22:21] 2027. Um and I'll start with Southtown

[1:22:24] Center. Um much of the weight in South

[1:22:26] Town Center according to the rubric that

[1:22:28] I put together on the report shows that

[1:22:30] we are aiming for uh September 9th for

[1:22:33] the adoption of the plan. Um some of the

[1:22:36] key things that were moving in 2026 is

[1:22:39] uh a strateg economic development

[1:22:41] strategy. We have a draft now based on

[1:22:43] the framework that you had seen in the

[1:22:44] past u by director Ryan and we're going

[1:22:47] to move that forward putting it on the

[1:22:48] shelf until we get some direction on

[1:22:50] annexation and um completion of the

[1:22:52] master plans. Uh we'll continue

[1:22:55] engagement with property owners uh

[1:22:56] private property owners and uh and um

[1:23:01] those types of partners going forward as

[1:23:03] we start to uh move into the

[1:23:05] infrastructure development down the

[1:23:06] road. Um some of the next um things that

[1:23:11] are going to advance with South is the

[1:23:12] imple implementation of an overlay zone.

[1:23:15] Those designations that are over and

[1:23:17] above the existing uh zoning that is

[1:23:19] within the 55 acres. Uh the other piece

[1:23:22] is infrastructure planning. Um as if you

[1:23:25] recall back on the draft that you had

[1:23:27] seen on the 28th of CIP uh there was

[1:23:30] about a million for each the

[1:23:31] transportation component and the surface

[1:23:34] uh surface water uh drainage. Uh that's

[1:23:37] for the design um of both the

[1:23:42] um surface water and transportation in

[1:23:43] Southtown center. That might shift um

[1:23:47] later on down, but it's on there right

[1:23:49] now. Um uh just as a temporary plan.

[1:23:53] This is a six-year project out to 2030

[1:23:57] um for the engineers. Uh DRCC

[1:24:01] and stop me if you have any questions.

[1:24:03] DRCC um lot of moving parts here. We are

[1:24:06] uh at the same time working on a lot of

[1:24:08] things in parallel and not just concept

[1:24:11] design but uh looking at components um

[1:24:15] of that area based on council's

[1:24:16] preferences. Uh we are

[1:24:20] uh looking at the um how to fund the

[1:24:23] project

[1:24:25] and also we engaged initial uh meetings

[1:24:29] with our potential partners. All these

[1:24:31] things are going on at the same time and

[1:24:33] we're going to start working with

[1:24:34] council and in small teams uh before our

[1:24:37] next presentation, Director Ryan and

[1:24:39] Deputy City Manager and myself to keep

[1:24:41] things moving forward and give council

[1:24:43] an opportunity behind the scenes to talk

[1:24:46] about all these different aspects of the

[1:24:48] DRCC concept. And so when you come into

[1:24:51] council, you have an opportunity to talk

[1:24:52] about it in session. I'm not going to

[1:24:54] talk about much about annexation. a good

[1:24:56] meeting with 1961 to start bringing

[1:24:58] forward um council's questions that you

[1:25:02] had uh regarding the last discussion. Uh

[1:25:05] we'll repackage some of those um areas

[1:25:07] and then bring forward financials around

[1:25:09] that. We'll bring forward GMA impact um

[1:25:13] from annexation. you had asked about

[1:25:16] maze pond fire impact um BRB

[1:25:20] impact um and also uh mapping out

[1:25:24] utilities and districts too and kind of

[1:25:26] finding um how those are going to impact

[1:25:28] annexation. Um not going to talk much

[1:25:32] about uh recclarifying and meeting city

[1:25:34] standards for one maintain public

[1:25:36] outdoor spaces. Uh I'll go over that in

[1:25:38] the operations piece when I talk about

[1:25:40] the public works key accomplishments

[1:25:43] increasing community engagement. Um that

[1:25:47] uh keeping up with the creek uh has

[1:25:49] about 2400 subscribers now. That was a

[1:25:52] key program

[1:25:54] uh deliverable for the Southtown Center.

[1:25:56] I'm sorry for the uh um increasing

[1:25:59] community engagement. But as you're

[1:26:01] probably already aware, uh, community

[1:26:02] development planning, um, I mean, I'm

[1:26:04] sorry, um, communications and marketing,

[1:26:08] um, has done a lot of things so far that

[1:26:10] also is has to be considered as a

[1:26:12] comprehensive

[1:26:14] plan on how they're executing things

[1:26:15] that also bring community engagement to

[1:26:17] the community. So, um, I'm hoping to get

[1:26:21] a little more hits on that u um,

[1:26:23] newsletter, probably hopefully about

[1:26:25] 3,000 by the end of the year. Um so

[1:26:28] that's really kind of very high level

[1:26:31] the uh strategic plan everything's

[1:26:33] moving forward. Um, with that, the only

[1:26:35] concern I have right now is ensuring

[1:26:37] that our um, asset management GIS

[1:26:40] systems are continue to move forward and

[1:26:42] we'll be working with uh, their public

[1:26:45] works director and our city engineer to

[1:26:48] see if we can budget some money and time

[1:26:50] to to further implement that system or

[1:26:54] enhance that system so we can start

[1:26:55] using that before we start working on

[1:26:56] long-term projects and and then keeping

[1:26:59] start leveraging that system to uh, do

[1:27:01] the daily maintenance and operations.

[1:27:04] um key accomplishments across the city,

[1:27:07] executive office, uh deputy city

[1:27:09] manager, myself, we're really focusing

[1:27:10] on uh strengthening leadership and

[1:27:13] employee management, holding employees

[1:27:14] accountable and ourselves as well u on

[1:27:17] performance evals and we've made

[1:27:19] significant progress on keeping those up

[1:27:20] to date. Still a few um past too, but

[1:27:24] we're keep trying to keep those current.

[1:27:26] Um work plans is a big thing. having

[1:27:29] employees uh really update their work

[1:27:31] plans and ensuring that those are in

[1:27:33] alignment with the council's five

[1:27:34] priorities as well as um uh our other

[1:27:38] long-term plans. Um some key highlights

[1:27:42] from the executive office is our

[1:27:43] management analysts who um initiated

[1:27:46] meetings with Congresswoman Dell Benny's

[1:27:48] office and Senator Patty Murray's office

[1:27:50] started talking to them about grants and

[1:27:52] so then now you know Mil Creek's on on

[1:27:53] the on the landscape for grants going

[1:27:55] forward. Uh 4 million asked with Senator

[1:27:58] Patty Mary's office for cash basins was

[1:28:00] denied. Uh the 4 million asked for North

[1:28:03] Creek Trail with Senate uh Congresswoman

[1:28:05] Del Benny's office. Um U got reduced

[1:28:09] about 1.25 million. That's uh in route

[1:28:12] with the feds right now. Hopefully

[1:28:14] that'll be approved in October, but

[1:28:15] we're waiting to see. Uh thanks to our

[1:28:18] management analysts, we are now uh we

[1:28:20] did receive approval the of the

[1:28:22] completed 2021 title six report from

[1:28:24] WASHDOT. Uh that's that's pretty it's

[1:28:27] relevant for us to start to continue

[1:28:29] applying for grants moving forward. Um

[1:28:32] we're starting to build out the 500,000

[1:28:34] for city hall north roof repair. Uh

[1:28:37] that's about 95% complete and then also

[1:28:40] the other money from uh Representative

[1:28:43] Berg 350 for sidewalk repairs we're

[1:28:45] billing out for that as well. So um good

[1:28:48] work on the management analyst part. Not

[1:28:50] gonna say much about communications,

[1:28:51] marketing, about 100,000 hits, website

[1:28:54] visits. Now, that does include staff.

[1:28:57] Um, so, uh, we can't break that out

[1:28:59] between who's external, internal, but it

[1:29:01] gives you a sense that our website's

[1:29:03] being heavily used whether it's internal

[1:29:05] or both internal and external. I talked

[1:29:08] about the quarterly newsletter hits. Um,

[1:29:11] 113 classes

[1:29:13] right now, 884 program uh, enrollments.

[1:29:17] Although um Jod and team are keeping up

[1:29:20] on their recreation program. I won't

[1:29:22] talk much about major events. Uh one new

[1:29:25] one's a FIFA World Cup um event that

[1:29:28] that Jod executed and thanks to PD who

[1:29:30] supported her on that one. Um can't go

[1:29:33] without saying how important Barb Idle

[1:29:35] is. Um I meet her with her monthly to

[1:29:38] get an idea of how the volunteer

[1:29:40] program's going and uh 2026

[1:29:44] uh 442 hours to date.

[1:29:47] um from volunteers. So, it gives you a

[1:29:49] sense of kind of uh you know, translate

[1:29:52] that into dollars. They put a

[1:29:53] considerable amount of time in aligning

[1:29:55] themselves with our public works

[1:29:56] department, keeping the city clean. Um

[1:29:59] can't say enough about how much support

[1:30:01] Jod gives uh our departments. And on

[1:30:04] your on the report, you'll see a whole

[1:30:06] list of of um

[1:30:09] um areas where she's supporting all

[1:30:12] departments to either get ahead of of

[1:30:14] messaging on the projects that are about

[1:30:17] to take place or just communicating with

[1:30:20] even external parties like girls on the

[1:30:22] run to make sure that um uh they're

[1:30:24] executing the projects well. Uh

[1:30:26] congratulations so far to the city

[1:30:28] clerk. uh she's uh getting close to

[1:30:31] moving clo uh to certification as a an

[1:30:33] official municipal clerk. So um she's

[1:30:36] advancing her career um that will

[1:30:40] increase her credibility and and provide

[1:30:42] us with additional knowledge on how to

[1:30:44] move forward um

[1:30:47] as she continues to support all of you

[1:30:49] on the legislative side as well as all

[1:30:51] of us on the executive side. Um

[1:30:55] and one big uh big improvement is

[1:30:58] improving the speed at which records are

[1:30:59] released as well. So uh kudos to the

[1:31:02] clerk's office. Uh on the police side,

[1:31:05] you've already seen the report by Chief

[1:31:06] White about the reduction in crime uh

[1:31:09] direct correlation to how they're

[1:31:10] managing the teams and and our kudos to

[1:31:12] all our police officers as well. Um it's

[1:31:16] reduced all across the board. So um

[1:31:19] they've done a great job. Uh we've still

[1:31:22] negotiating the police manual. Um still

[1:31:25] working with uh guild's attorney and

[1:31:28] we'll keep you updated on that.

[1:31:29] Hopefully we'll shoot for by the end of

[1:31:30] the year. Um the big ask for police uh

[1:31:35] the other unfunded item unfunded item

[1:31:37] besides code enforcement position is

[1:31:39] body warrant cameras. Um, we've all

[1:31:42] talked about false complaints, use of

[1:31:44] force, evidence collection, prosecution,

[1:31:47] holding both

[1:31:49] uh

[1:31:51] our community and our police accountable

[1:31:53] for the actions that occur in those

[1:31:55] inter, you know, when they when they do

[1:31:58] interact. So, um I do think that's

[1:32:00] important. Uh we're going to try and fun

[1:32:02] find money in the budget to fund that in

[1:32:04] the next bianium. Um you'll soon uh see

[1:32:08] a presentation by either Chief White or

[1:32:10] deputy director on on a study session on

[1:32:12] on body warn. So you'll have an

[1:32:14] opportunity to kind of weigh in on what

[1:32:15] you think as well. Um, public works.

[1:32:18] can't say enough about

[1:32:20] uh public works with uh resignation of

[1:32:23] director Todd and our interim uh public

[1:32:27] works director who's doing an excellent

[1:32:28] job

[1:32:30] uh not only managing

[1:32:33] uh engineers and maintenance operations

[1:32:37] but

[1:32:40] thinking about the fundamental shift

[1:32:42] between just thinking about C CIP and M

[1:32:45] and starting to think about utilities

[1:32:47] transportation, parks and trails,

[1:32:50] facilities,

[1:32:52] garbage and recycling, and how

[1:32:53] engineering supports all those different

[1:32:54] divisions. So, it's a different way of

[1:32:57] thinking, but it's it's it's a better

[1:32:58] way to execute um public works

[1:33:01] department. Um I'm not going to go over

[1:33:03] the whole list of projects, but you see

[1:33:05] them in the report. Um

[1:33:10] yeah, everything's everything's moving

[1:33:12] forward on this list. Um, one thing I I

[1:33:15] do want to mention, shaving and panel

[1:33:17] replacement, that's about 80% complete.

[1:33:20] Um, I think 7 out of 10, 70%, but I

[1:33:23] think it's a little further than that.

[1:33:25] Uh, 70. Um, uh, keep in mind panel

[1:33:29] contract is coming in 2027. Although the

[1:33:32] team uh replaced 92 deteriorated

[1:33:35] sidewalk panels, those were emergent

[1:33:37] panels. Um, it take us probably 10 years

[1:33:41] to finish all of them. So, we're going

[1:33:42] to bring forward a contract to to handle

[1:33:46] all the other panels across uh the city

[1:33:48] that precision precision concrete had

[1:33:51] identified as needing replacement. Um

[1:33:57] uh let's see what else. Um Trillium

[1:34:00] Design um significant comments from our

[1:34:04] public and from uh council. We're going

[1:34:07] to revisit uh and reassess um the design

[1:34:11] of Trillium internally. We're talking

[1:34:13] about that right now. So, uh more to

[1:34:15] come there and uh um I think you'll um

[1:34:20] we'll explore that and bring back um

[1:34:21] some ideas we have in terms of how to um

[1:34:25] just reassess that that design. So, um

[1:34:29] but we're silly is in the works. Um uh

[1:34:32] we're the consultant still out there

[1:34:34] trying to I think I'm not sure where she

[1:34:36] where they're at with the um assessment

[1:34:38] of the public facility, but I know they

[1:34:40] made contact with the owner. So um more

[1:34:43] information is to come on that. Um

[1:34:46] community development

[1:34:49] trying to stay within my 15 so I'm I'm

[1:34:52] trying to go a little bit faster but

[1:34:53] community development planning. Thanks

[1:34:55] for director Ryan for one of the few

[1:34:56] who's actually put together an SOP to

[1:34:58] improve the workflow of the permitting

[1:35:00] process. Um it's in place, it's working.

[1:35:04] Engineers are um doing their job and in

[1:35:07] and um accomplishing their task and

[1:35:10] timelines in terms of the perming that

[1:35:11] it's been a big issue in the past about

[1:35:13] how long it's been take to get a permit

[1:35:15] issued. And so um that workflow is

[1:35:19] improving. Um the Keslock property, the

[1:35:22] planned residential development behind

[1:35:24] Lowe's. Uh we're excited about getting

[1:35:26] development revenues coming in for that

[1:35:28] onetime revenues. Um just give you an

[1:35:31] example of what those revenues

[1:35:33] um what we can do with those revenues.

[1:35:35] Of course, they're designated for

[1:35:37] planning purposes, but there may be some

[1:35:41] ways that it would help our budget. So,

[1:35:44] just wanted to bring that up. um about

[1:35:47] the onetime plans. Oh, we two vacancies

[1:35:50] were filled, senior planner and the

[1:35:51] planner. So, we're excited to have um uh

[1:35:55] Justin upgraded to a senior planner and

[1:35:57] then we have Serena as our new new

[1:35:59] planner. Um information technology. I

[1:36:02] don't know if you've noticed those

[1:36:03] things sticking out of the ceiling in

[1:36:05] some places, but we've improved the

[1:36:07] wireless infrastructure and data um

[1:36:10] wireless access points across the city.

[1:36:12] And so, um, you can see them in in in

[1:36:15] the office, but, um, kudos to our IT

[1:36:18] team for doing that. We're we switched

[1:36:20] from Verizon to T-Mobile. Um, uh, big

[1:36:24] move based on quality of service and and

[1:36:26] the cost as well. So, um, not

[1:36:28] everybody's happy about iPhones, but,

[1:36:30] uh, it's easier for our department to

[1:36:33] manage. So, um, finance

[1:36:37] um, kicked off, thanks to our finance

[1:36:38] director, we kicked off the 2728 budget

[1:36:41] discussions. Um

[1:36:45] biggest challenges are not a surprise

[1:36:48] attributed to significant increases in

[1:36:50] in mainly three areas in our budget.

[1:36:52] You're all familiar with the WCIA costs

[1:36:54] of our um yearly premiums. Uh finance

[1:36:59] director mentioned prosecuting attorney

[1:37:00] fees and and jail cost too. Uh things

[1:37:03] that we cannot control and you'll hear

[1:37:05] more about that as we start talking

[1:37:06] about the budget discussions uh coming

[1:37:09] up in in a month or so. Um the finance

[1:37:12] department also completed two reports

[1:37:14] including the the state and local uh

[1:37:16] fiscal recovery funds report and the

[1:37:18] 2025 financial report to the state

[1:37:20] auditor's office. So thanks to to the

[1:37:23] finance department. We're still working

[1:37:25] on type plus executing that across

[1:37:27] departments. Um and and so that that

[1:37:30] that'll probably be done by the end of

[1:37:32] the year. Um

[1:37:35] financial condition uh just briefly

[1:37:38] reserve levels about 8 million uh

[1:37:42] including the 4.7 which meets that 15

[1:37:45] minute minimum requirement. So there's a

[1:37:47] surplus about 3.3.

[1:37:49] Um bank capacity is about 2.3.

[1:37:52] Um so just give you a sense of the

[1:37:54] number of levers that we do have moving

[1:37:56] forward uh to make financial decisions.

[1:37:58] So we are in a good position I think

[1:38:00] moving forward. Um, with that, I'll just

[1:38:03] mention that just last Friday, we asked

[1:38:05] our department heads to cut another 5%

[1:38:06] of our budget. So, we're trying to be

[1:38:08] responsible, ensuring that we balance 27

[1:38:11] and 28. It's not easy to find, but we

[1:38:13] will figure out how to do that. Um,

[1:38:17] uh, so just a lot of moving moving parts

[1:38:20] on the finance side of things. Um,

[1:38:22] finance, future needs, and challenges. I

[1:38:24] did mention bodywork cameras and the,

[1:38:27] uh, code inspector position. Um, those

[1:38:30] are the two key two key items that uh

[1:38:32] that I'm focusing on for 2728 that are

[1:38:35] not currently in the budget. Um,

[1:38:40] and I think that's it, mayor. Um,

[1:38:43] oh,

[1:38:45] finance director will report on the

[1:38:47] municipal adviser. But, um,

[1:38:52] any questions on the on the

[1:38:55] >> um, first, Council Member Kobesky,

[1:38:57] » um, first, Council Member Kobesky,

[1:38:57] you're still lit up. Did I just forget

[1:38:58] to clear you? Okay. Just want to make

[1:39:00] sure I wasn't um Did anyone else have

[1:39:02] any questions?

[1:39:04] Council member Stackler,

[1:39:06] >> I just had one. Um and it was on the

[1:39:08] » I just had one. Um and it was on the

[1:39:08] DRCC. Um I I was a little bit unclear

[1:39:12] about expectations at the end of the

[1:39:15] year. You know, what what are we

[1:39:16] expecting to have completed? And and

[1:39:19] [clears throat] this might have been an

[1:39:20] act of communication or it could be this

[1:39:22] incredibly tiny type face that you have

[1:39:25] in here that's almost impossible for old

[1:39:28] people to read. But it looked like

[1:39:32] at the I I was under the impression at

[1:39:34] the end of this year we will have

[1:39:36] reached a conclusion as to the um

[1:39:40] concepts and and and planning for DRCC.

[1:39:44] we would know exactly what we're going

[1:39:46] to have and then in 2027 we can now move

[1:39:50] forward and and and build and come up

[1:39:53] with the money and that type of thing.

[1:39:54] But when I was reading some of this in

[1:39:56] here, it looks like there will be

[1:39:58] development planning that will occur in

[1:40:00] 2027.

[1:40:02] Um, and actual development will commence

[1:40:04] past 2027. I assume that means 2028. So,

[1:40:09] it seemed like DRCC is getting pushed

[1:40:11] out again further. And I I was a little

[1:40:13] concerned if that was my misinformation.

[1:40:16] I thought we were going to be

[1:40:19] moving forward next year in 2027.

[1:40:22] You know, we would know what we want. We

[1:40:24] know what it want to look like. We're in

[1:40:25] agreement on the council and you know,

[1:40:28] the next step is not planning but more

[1:40:32] building financing.

[1:40:35] >> Did I get that wrong?

[1:40:37] » Did I get that wrong?

[1:40:37] >> No, you did not actually. The most

[1:40:38] » No, you did not actually. The most

[1:40:38] significant challenge ahead is

[1:40:39] developing a financing strategy that

[1:40:41] aligns

[1:40:43] your long-term projects with our capital

[1:40:46] needs as well, infrastructure and

[1:40:48] everything. Uh master planning will be

[1:40:50] done by the end of the year and both

[1:40:53] South Center and DRCC. Uh annexation,

[1:40:56] you'll have a we'll have a decision on

[1:40:58] that in October. uh DRCC originally was

[1:41:01] planned there's one item on there on

[1:41:03] that strategic plan in 27 where it did

[1:41:05] say development to start in 27

[1:41:08] >> that is not feasible um after we

[1:41:12] » that is not feasible um after we

[1:41:12] complete the master planning there has

[1:41:14] to be a design stage of the actual

[1:41:18] infrastructure where we would get it to

[1:41:22] uh what we call development ready

[1:41:25] >> I thought that's this year this year was

[1:41:27] » I thought that's this year this year was

[1:41:27] the design stage Uh well, it may have

[1:41:30] been on that, but what we're trying to

[1:41:32] do is look at the entire three years as

[1:41:35] an opportunity to accomplish these

[1:41:36] tasks. Uh not just um hold these tasks

[1:41:40] to the year which they were written. Um

[1:41:44] we have capacity strains across the

[1:41:47] teams to try to maintain our daily

[1:41:49] operations and we're working on. But um

[1:41:51] I think it's a huge accomplishment to

[1:41:54] stay within those three years. Um so you

[1:41:57] are correct. It did say develop in 2027,

[1:42:00] but um there has to be a design stage um

[1:42:04] as it lists on the CIP plan for 27 and

[1:42:07] then as we move forward, we'll start to

[1:42:09] develop and maybe I'm guessing probably

[1:42:12] late 28 2 and 29.

[1:42:16] Go ahead.

[1:42:16] >> The fact that this is this is our oldest

[1:42:18] » The fact that this is this is our oldest

[1:42:18] project, right?

[1:42:20] >> PRCC.

[1:42:22] » PRCC.

[1:42:22] >> Yeah. Which

[1:42:22] » Yeah. Which

[1:42:22] >> that goes back over, you know, 10 years.

[1:42:25] » that goes back over, you know, 10 years.

[1:42:25] Yeah,

[1:42:25] >> that is correct. So, it's it's the you

[1:42:28] » that is correct. So, it's it's the you

[1:42:28] know there shouldn't it be one that we

[1:42:30] want to move forward with sooner rather

[1:42:32] than later? I mean, Southtown Center,

[1:42:35] yes, we've got 2040 deadlines of getting

[1:42:38] that.

[1:42:39] >> I recommend not looking at DRC in a

[1:42:41] » I recommend not looking at DRC in a

[1:42:41] silo. Um you're going to see that all

[1:42:45] these projects going to have a

[1:42:46] significant cost. Um it's important to

[1:42:50] stage

[1:42:52] um annexations at Southtown Center,

[1:42:55] DRCC. Uh you want Trillium and Silver

[1:42:58] Crest Drive uh done in all the other

[1:43:00] projects, the public works facility. So

[1:43:03] we're going to have to sit down. The

[1:43:04] staff is already starting to discuss um

[1:43:07] and we set up meetings to start to bring

[1:43:09] forward a draft of what we think may be

[1:43:11] a good staging for the city. Um we we we

[1:43:15] live this every single day.

[1:43:17] And uh but we will bring something to

[1:43:20] council so you have an opportunity to

[1:43:22] make a decision on what you think should

[1:43:24] be staged and how it should be staged.

[1:43:26] Um

[1:43:28] so there has to be trade-offs. You have

[1:43:30] to look at trade-offs. Our good bonding

[1:43:32] capacity is 100 million. Now that that's

[1:43:34] just the tip of the iceberg of what I

[1:43:37] think we need to to move all these

[1:43:38] things forward. Um

[1:43:42] hopefully that gives you a sense is it's

[1:43:43] a trade-off. It's really a trade-off

[1:43:45] discussion. Um, and we haven't gotten

[1:43:47] there yet. We're just not going to build

[1:43:49] the DRCC and be done with it. We got to

[1:43:51] think about the impact of of what

[1:43:54] annexation could provide in terms of

[1:43:55] bonding capacity going forward if we do

[1:43:57] grow as well. And so, um, I know kind of

[1:44:01] bit across the board on a lot of things,

[1:44:02] but so there's the quick things that

[1:44:05] come to mind at the moment.

[1:44:06] >> Yeah. Um, deputy [clears throat]

[1:44:07] » Yeah. Um, deputy [clears throat]

[1:44:07] director wanted to say something or

[1:44:10] deputy city manager

[1:44:11] >> after our next meeting. There might be a

[1:44:14] » after our next meeting. There might be a

[1:44:14] little bit more consensus across council

[1:44:16] on when DRCC moves forward. Um, just

[1:44:21] because of the possible impact on taxes

[1:44:24] with the bonding capacity and the funds

[1:44:26] needed to execute DRCC. More than

[1:44:30] likely, it would take nearly all of our

[1:44:32] bonding capacity. And so that would the

[1:44:35] bond payment for that would be a

[1:44:38] substantial tax increase

[1:44:40] >> of our current

[1:44:42] » of our current

[1:44:42] Mil Creek but not correct

[1:44:44] >> the future annexed Mil Creek would be a

[1:44:47] » the future annexed Mil Creek would be a

[1:44:47] much higher bonding capacity. It would

[1:44:49] be a higher bonding capacity if we

[1:44:51] annex, but it's still going to be a

[1:44:53] >> fairly

[1:44:55] » fairly

[1:44:55] high tax increase to make the bond

[1:44:58] payment each year

[1:45:00] >> just because of I think it's going to be

[1:45:04] » just because of I think it's going to be

[1:45:04] very eye opening when we see numbers.

[1:45:09] I'm I'm just um yeah, I guess I'm I'm

[1:45:12] I'm disappointed when we set goals and

[1:45:15] deadlines and then we say, "Well, we're

[1:45:18] we're not going to make them. We're

[1:45:19] going to" and this is something we

[1:45:21] discussed last year was when we didn't

[1:45:23] move forward on DRCC that we wanted to

[1:45:25] just move forward on DRCC and now we're

[1:45:28] not not doing that. So, I'm

[1:45:30] disappointed. I guess you'll have to

[1:45:31] give me better information then maybe

[1:45:33] our next meeting I'll understand better.

[1:45:36] But I I've you know when when I look

[1:45:38] back at all of the projects that we've

[1:45:40] got here, yeah, they all need to be done

[1:45:42] at the same time. I understand that. But

[1:45:44] some of these have, you know, been on

[1:45:45] the shelf for so long that, you know,

[1:45:48] they're just definitely going to

[1:45:50] >> die of old age before they ever get

[1:45:51] » die of old age before they ever get

[1:45:51] born.

[1:45:52] >> We will be ready for development. The

[1:45:54] » We will be ready for development. The

[1:45:54] design has to happen first. And I think

[1:45:56] one thing I want to make sure we put in

[1:45:57] record is that for the future of this

[1:46:00] city,

[1:46:02] everybody made a decision that one of

[1:46:04] the key principles is financial

[1:46:06] viability.

[1:46:08] >> And the truth is,

[1:46:10] » And the truth is,

[1:46:10] >> I'm sorry, what was the word?

[1:46:11] » I'm sorry, what was the word?

[1:46:11] >> Financial viability.

[1:46:12] » Financial viability.

[1:46:12] >> Financial viability.

[1:46:13] » Financial viability.

[1:46:13] >> Right.

[1:46:16] » Right.

[1:46:16] >> The DRCC is an important project. the

[1:46:19] » The DRCC is an important project. the

[1:46:19] Southtown Center as well. The Southtown

[1:46:22] Center is more of an economic play. Um,

[1:46:26] annexation provides

[1:46:29] uh the needed net positive revenue to

[1:46:31] move things forward. And so that's how

[1:46:34] I'm thinking in terms of it's not what's

[1:46:36] important, rather what is our financing

[1:46:38] strategy moving forward to accomplish

[1:46:40] all the things that you want to have

[1:46:42] done. And so that's kind of what I'm

[1:46:44] thinking in terms of um it's not

[1:46:47] prioritizing

[1:46:50] So pri prioritizing or putting something

[1:46:52] after another does not mean it's less

[1:46:54] important to me. It's making sure that

[1:46:56] we have a game plan to to get there. And

[1:46:59] so that's the way I'm thinking. It's

[1:47:01] it's not that the DRCC is less

[1:47:03] important. Um but it's just that's how

[1:47:06] the cards are playing right now anyway.

[1:47:08] But

[1:47:08] >> will the DRCC

[1:47:10] » will the DRCC

[1:47:10] design be completed by the end of the

[1:47:12] year? Can

[1:47:12] >> I say something quick?

[1:47:15] » I say something quick?

[1:47:15] >> Forget the financial. Well, the design

[1:47:17] » Forget the financial. Well, the design

[1:47:17] and elements that we originally agreed

[1:47:19] upon, will those those be completed by

[1:47:20] the end of the year?

[1:47:21] >> Yeah, we

[1:47:23] » Yeah, we

[1:47:23] >> can I say something real quick on this

[1:47:26] » can I say something real quick on this

[1:47:26] because I think

[1:47:29] we're having a communication

[1:47:31] complication

[1:47:33] and I think

[1:47:35] we are believing that a master plan

[1:47:38] is possibly something that technically a

[1:47:40] master plan is not.

[1:47:43] And so

[1:47:45] I think council

[1:47:47] believes we're at one place

[1:47:50] when we're really at somewhere

[1:47:52] different.

[1:47:53] And I think we're trying to have this

[1:47:54] communication

[1:47:56] and it's just not working. And

[1:48:02] it's getting

[1:48:04] this chasm is getting bigger

[1:48:09] because I keep bringing up things and

[1:48:11] we're not listening.

[1:48:13] And I think what Council Member Steckler

[1:48:17] is

[1:48:18] bringing to light is that we think we're

[1:48:22] doing one thing. And so I really think

[1:48:26] that we need to make sure that we're

[1:48:28] talking to all of council and getting

[1:48:31] everybody on board with where where

[1:48:34] we're at and what we're looking at

[1:48:36] because I really don't think that we

[1:48:38] have a clear picture of what's going on.

[1:48:42] So we need to fix that communication.

[1:48:44] Would it help if we gave in uh just a

[1:48:47] quick overview of what master planning

[1:48:50] is going to accomplish or

[1:48:53] what?

[1:48:57] So, yeah. So, we're on the same page as

[1:49:00] uh

[1:49:04] what is going to be accomplished by the

[1:49:06] end of the year.

[1:49:09] That's probably a great first step

[1:49:11] because that's what brought up my

[1:49:12] question

[1:49:13] >> was we had agreement as to what would be

[1:49:16] » was we had agreement as to what would be

[1:49:16] done by the end of this year for DRCC

[1:49:19] and now for the first time I'm hearing

[1:49:21] that's not going to happen by the end of

[1:49:23] this year or may not happen by the end

[1:49:24] of this year. It may double over to next

[1:49:26] year and there'll be more planning in

[1:49:27] the next year and that's the first time

[1:49:30] I've heard that. So that's why I'm

[1:49:31] bringing it up now at this update. Um, I

[1:49:35] I don't understand why we can't We've

[1:49:37] hired a consultant to put together this

[1:49:40] plan to help us with that. Why can't we

[1:49:43] get it done by the end of the year?

[1:49:45] >> The master plan will be done. That

[1:49:46] » The master plan will be done. That

[1:49:46] That's clear. Correct.

[1:49:49] >> Okay. The line in here that says

[1:49:52] » Okay. The line in here that says

[1:49:52] there'll be more planning in 2027. So if

[1:49:55] I could um interject quickly. So I think

[1:49:59] maybe one of the disconnects might be

[1:50:00] what is a master plan and what is what

[1:50:03] do we mean by like a site design, right?

[1:50:05] Or like a design for a project, right?

[1:50:08] So a a master plan per the RFP that I

[1:50:11] presented to council and um brought back

[1:50:14] with the contract. A master plan is

[1:50:16] something that determines what are the

[1:50:18] uses are going to go there and where the

[1:50:21] buildings generally going to go and

[1:50:23] where are the roads we'd like for it to

[1:50:25] go. The actual design of those roads and

[1:50:29] those sidewalks like what grade they

[1:50:30] walk at, where the water technically

[1:50:33] goes and get built, that's in the actual

[1:50:35] engineering drawings and that's in the

[1:50:37] actual arch architectural drawings.

[1:50:39] That's a technical process that is part

[1:50:43] of the entitlements process of a

[1:50:44] project. Um, if you recall the Southtown

[1:50:46] Center, same thing. The master plan

[1:50:48] determined where is the road alignment

[1:50:50] going to go, where are the buildings

[1:50:51] going to type, and what's the uses

[1:50:52] there. But the actual technical design

[1:50:55] of the storm water system is something

[1:50:58] that is developed after you adopt a

[1:51:01] master plan. And it's same thing with

[1:51:03] the DRCC. We this process is developing.

[1:51:06] Okay. Well, we're going to put X, Y, and

[1:51:08] Z uses there, and the buildings are

[1:51:10] generally going to go right here. But in

[1:51:13] terms of that doesn't mean that we've

[1:51:15] designed the actual architectural plans

[1:51:18] that are going to be built as part of

[1:51:20] that process. That's um that's in the

[1:51:22] next phase of the development. Um, and I

[1:51:26] believe that's consistent with that's

[1:51:28] with uh what was previously brought

[1:51:30] forward in uh

[1:51:34] with when I when we brought forward the

[1:51:35] RFP and then uh also the contract with

[1:51:38] Elellman. Does that answer your

[1:51:39] question, Councilman Steckler?

[1:51:40] >> No. No, not at all. I'm I'm still very

[1:51:43] » No. No, not at all. I'm I'm still very

[1:51:43] confused as to what we said we were

[1:51:47] going to have and what we now say we're

[1:51:48] going to have and the fact that we you

[1:51:51] know what I what I think I'm what I'm

[1:51:53] starting to hear me personally one

[1:51:56] person from the council is we've done

[1:51:57] such a great job of planning here over

[1:51:59] the next you know 101 15 years of what

[1:52:01] we're going to be doing here in our city

[1:52:03] that it it almost creates a paralysis of

[1:52:06] being able to move forward and you know

[1:52:08] what what I would like to see is you

[1:52:10] know I wanted to see us move forward on

[1:52:12] one of our projects. And I wanted to be

[1:52:15] DRCC because granted, yeah, the

[1:52:18] economics of Southtown Center, what

[1:52:20] that's going to be are wonderful for our

[1:52:21] city. I'm worried about our citizens

[1:52:23] right now moving forward, giving giving

[1:52:25] back to them and creating that community

[1:52:27] that, you know, we want to try to

[1:52:28] create. Um, and I I thought we had

[1:52:31] gained when I heard master plan that

[1:52:33] includes the utilization, what it's

[1:52:36] going to be, what the components going

[1:52:37] to be, that's what I understood maybe.

[1:52:40] Yeah. Okay. not an architectural drawing

[1:52:42] of the square footage and you know uh

[1:52:45] but it was going to be the questions

[1:52:47] that are still up here. We still are not

[1:52:49] in agreement as to what is going to be

[1:52:51] in DRCC. What is it going what is DRCC

[1:52:55] going to be comprised of? we still

[1:52:56] haven't moved forward on that and to be

[1:52:59] at this stage seems to be um extremely

[1:53:03] frustrating to to me and I thought I was

[1:53:06] holding true on by the end of this year

[1:53:09] all those questions will be asked the

[1:53:11] only thing left is going to be to

[1:53:12] develop or andor find the money and

[1:53:16] again finding the money first is always

[1:53:19] going to be the the one thing that will

[1:53:20] stop us from moving forward always and

[1:53:23] we said that way back in the beginning

[1:53:24] when we started

[1:53:26] All those years ago, remember Mayor

[1:53:28] Holtzclaw said, "If we if we if we focus

[1:53:31] on the funding first, we won't build

[1:53:33] anything. There's just too much money

[1:53:35] and there's no way, you know, first we

[1:53:37] got to find out what we want, then we

[1:53:39] find out how to fund it."

[1:53:40] >> Council member, if I may, um I don't I

[1:53:42] » Council member, if I may, um I don't I

[1:53:42] didn't disagree with the single thing

[1:53:43] you just said. Um part of the master

[1:53:45] plan process is going to do that exact

[1:53:47] thing. Um that's by December of this

[1:53:51] year. We're going to have a resolution

[1:53:53] adopting a master plan on what are the

[1:53:56] preferred uses, what are the what's the

[1:53:58] overall site plan going to look like,

[1:54:00] what it's what's going to go there, and

[1:54:02] then the next phase of the project is

[1:54:05] the technical engineering stuff and like

[1:54:08] the and the stuff that's required for

[1:54:11] the actual like entitlements and

[1:54:13] permitting. So what we're saying is this

[1:54:15] I think maybe we're talking about the

[1:54:17] same thing that that's the actual

[1:54:19] conversation about what uses are going

[1:54:21] to go where, what are the partners, all

[1:54:23] that stuff is part of the DRCC process

[1:54:26] that will be completed by December this

[1:54:28] year. That is correct.

[1:54:30] >> Okay.

[1:54:32] » Okay.

[1:54:32] That's not what I saw on this piece of

[1:54:33] paper. That's what caused me a concern

[1:54:37] or I was confused.

[1:54:41] Okay.

[1:54:43] Any other questions?

[1:54:49] » No. All right, then we will Oh, do you

[1:54:53] have something else, Clinton?

[1:54:55] >> Yeah, I'll just make one last comment.

[1:54:56] » Yeah, I'll just make one last comment.

[1:54:56] And when we get together in these little

[1:54:58] groups, it'll give you an opportunity to

[1:55:00] kind of weigh in on what you're what

[1:55:02] we're talking about right now, these

[1:55:04] components, the financing piece, the

[1:55:07] concepts, and that's the reason why

[1:55:08] we're bringing council, as I mentioned

[1:55:10] earlier, bringing you together. So you

[1:55:13] we're all on the same page because this

[1:55:15] project is moving faster than we we we

[1:55:19] have about four months left. And so we

[1:55:22] want to make sure we start to speed

[1:55:23] things up which means that we have to

[1:55:25] meet with all of you um on like a two on

[1:55:29] two on two basis or two on three basis.

[1:55:31] So um that's yet to come and then I'll

[1:55:35] give you an opportunity to kind of see

[1:55:36] how we're move progressing. So hopefully

[1:55:38] that helps a little bit. Um next I'll

[1:55:42] forward this to our um deputy police

[1:55:45] chief to report on national night out

[1:55:47] and rescheduling that. Thanks.

[1:55:51] Thank you, city manager, council, mayor.

[1:55:54] Um, well, yeah, we had to cancel

[1:55:56] National Night Out because of the air

[1:55:58] quality. Uh, and being an outdoor event,

[1:56:01] it was not the right thing to do. We

[1:56:03] thought to be out outside and exposing

[1:56:05] everyone. So, we made that difficult

[1:56:08] decision, but because of our great

[1:56:10] detective Sergeant Fleming and our

[1:56:13] volunteer Barb, um, they were able to

[1:56:16] get it rescheduled for the 18th. So, we

[1:56:19] will be having it on the 18th at Buffalo

[1:56:21] Park from 5 to 8. Um, the majority of

[1:56:25] our vendors will be there. There'll be

[1:56:27] hot dogs from the chambers and ice

[1:56:29] cream. Um, uh, the South County Fire

[1:56:32] will be there as well as, uh, the

[1:56:34] Department of Fish and Wildlife.

[1:56:36] We'll have barb dancing and, uh, a bunch

[1:56:40] of activities that'll be, um, good for

[1:56:43] everybody. I believe um we will be

[1:56:46] taking donations um for school supplies

[1:56:49] and uh the Mil Creek Food Bank will be

[1:56:51] accepting donations as well. So again on

[1:56:54] the 18th 5 to 8 at Buffalo Park.

[1:56:56] Hopefully it's a beautiful night. Thank

[1:56:58] you.

[1:56:59] >> Just a follow up to that. Kowanas also

[1:57:01] » Just a follow up to that. Kowanas also

[1:57:01] has 300 bottles of water in my garage

[1:57:04] ready to be given away free at that

[1:57:05] event. We're ready to go.

[1:57:08] >> Excellent.

[1:57:10] » Excellent.

[1:57:10] Thank you.

[1:57:12] And the last report is the finance

[1:57:13] director will report on uh the contracts

[1:57:16] we will be executing uh financial

[1:57:19] municipal related contracts that will

[1:57:21] help us advise us on the projects that

[1:57:23] were we've been speaking about. So

[1:57:26] finance director

[1:57:27] >> thank you city manager Yamamoto. Um so

[1:57:30] » thank you city manager Yamamoto. Um so

[1:57:30] we just I just wanted to advise council

[1:57:32] of the three contracts that we are

[1:57:34] working on to help us with the uh

[1:57:36] surface water financing. So recall that

[1:57:39] um earlier this year um council

[1:57:41] authorized an inter fund loan from the

[1:57:43] reed fund to surface water so we could

[1:57:46] um fully fund the catch basin project.

[1:57:49] Um but that's primarily because when we

[1:57:51] do when we did the projection the

[1:57:53] surface water will not have enough funds

[1:57:55] to support that project. And so to

[1:57:57] advance that um we have already executed

[1:58:01] a contract with um the financial

[1:58:04] consulting solutions. Um they will do

[1:58:06] the rate um study for us. Um they were

[1:58:10] the same um consultants that did the

[1:58:12] 2018 rate study for surface water. Um,

[1:58:16] and so we're ready to move forward with

[1:58:18] that contract. That's about a $43,000

[1:58:21] contract. And then we are also

[1:58:23] finalizing a bond council contract as

[1:58:26] well as a municipal advisor contract.

[1:58:28] Um, so with the financing, we anticipate

[1:58:31] um some type of recommendation for

[1:58:33] either a bond or a private placement. Um

[1:58:36] and so the this work is um both the uh

[1:58:41] bond council and the mun municipal

[1:58:43] adviser are both about 50,000 um and

[1:58:46] those um contracts will be paid out of

[1:58:49] the bond proceeds. Um that concludes my

[1:58:51] report, city manager. Thank you.

[1:58:54] >> We have no other reports, mayor. Thank

[1:58:56] » We have no other reports, mayor. Thank

[1:58:56] you.

[1:58:57] >> Thank you. Um I just have well two

[1:59:01] » Thank you. Um I just have well two

[1:59:01] things. So, one brief thing I am going

[1:59:04] to personally send a letter um over to

[1:59:07] council member me this evening ahead of

[1:59:09] their discussion tomorrow on the public

[1:59:12] um safety tax um council tax that they

[1:59:15] are discussing and having public comment

[1:59:17] tomorrow. Um, and specifically, I'm

[1:59:20] wanting to ask that, um, they consider

[1:59:23] pausing on this vote and considering it

[1:59:26] in with their budget. Um, and maybe

[1:59:29] consider doing some things such as not

[1:59:32] raising jail costs if they're going to

[1:59:34] do the do this tax. Um, so I just want

[1:59:38] to let you guys know I'm going to do

[1:59:39] this and then ask you, do you want me to

[1:59:42] do it on behalf of the whole council or

[1:59:44] do you want me just do it for myself?

[1:59:47] Yes, please.

[1:59:48] >> Council. Okay, perfect. I will do that

[1:59:50] » Council. Okay, perfect. I will do that

[1:59:50] and I did speak to um council member me

[1:59:53] this afternoon about it as well. So, um

[1:59:56] second thing was just that um I don't

[2:00:00] remember the exact date yet, but be on

[2:00:02] the lookout because the SCT general

[2:00:04] assembly is going to be um in September

[2:00:07] this year. I think it's the 26th, but

[2:00:10] that might be wrong. Um so, keep an eye

[2:00:11] out. Normally, it's in December. So,

[2:00:14] they've moved it up this year. So, we're

[2:00:15] having the general assembly and we'll be

[2:00:17] going through and presenting and talking

[2:00:18] about all the things the exploratory

[2:00:20] committee has been going over and where

[2:00:22] we're at and what's been implemented.

[2:00:24] So, just wanted to let you guys know

[2:00:26] that. And that's it. So, mayor Tim, I

[2:00:30] have a little bit uh the first I just

[2:00:32] want to say um uh save the date for

[2:00:34] September 15th. If you are available,

[2:00:36] please let me know for the Mil Creek

[2:00:38] Chamber of Commerce's lunch and learn

[2:00:40] from 11:30 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Um, I

[2:00:44] wanted to flag the wonderful speaker

[2:00:45] that will be there um that Tuesday and

[2:00:48] that is Jeff Ryan over there. [laughter]

[2:00:51] Um, and I had up and then it went away

[2:00:55] the discussion. So, it is to Oh, there

[2:00:58] it is. Um, uh, he'll be this is the

[2:01:00] title of it. Improving sign regulations,

[2:01:02] a business community conversation. join

[2:01:04] the city for a collaborative discussion

[2:01:06] as we begin work on updating our sign

[2:01:08] regulations. The round table will focus

[2:01:09] on how current signage rules affect

[2:01:11] business visibility. But I share this

[2:01:13] with you because it's definitely

[2:01:14] something that the business community

[2:01:16] and our city has asked for over and over

[2:01:18] again um about just understanding better

[2:01:20] rules and and language like that. So I

[2:01:22] really appreciate um Jeff Ryan's um

[2:01:25] opportunity to come and speak and make

[2:01:27] it not just a speech speaking like at um

[2:01:32] members. we've really got great feedback

[2:01:33] from the two um kind of government

[2:01:37] events that we did last year with them

[2:01:38] with the lunch and learn um and so I'm

[2:01:41] really thankful for um his insight and

[2:01:43] um and his um willingness to make it a

[2:01:46] conversation. So, thank you very much to

[2:01:48] him. So, if you're available um please

[2:01:50] um sign up to the chambers uh lunch and

[2:01:52] learn meetings. Uh earlier today I had a

[2:01:56] meeting with it's the South Snomish

[2:01:58] County Mayor Promss and Council

[2:02:00] Presidents um that we do via Zoom um not

[2:02:04] in person like the cool mayors do. Um

[2:02:06] [laughter]

[2:02:07] um and I had two things I wanted to talk

[2:02:09] about it that I thought would be helpful

[2:02:11] for for everyone. One actually the mayor

[2:02:13] just talked about her request for it. Um

[2:02:16] the city of Lynwood um they motioned to

[2:02:19] authorize their council president to

[2:02:20] provide testimony at tomorrow's uh

[2:02:23] county council. Um they're specifically

[2:02:25] asking just just flagging we're

[2:02:27] different. We asked for a hold I think

[2:02:29] is what she's u mentioning including

[2:02:31] with the budget but they're asking to

[2:02:33] make an amendment so that the money goes

[2:02:35] um um to cities and and there's and I

[2:02:38] can forward with you like the full

[2:02:39] thing. Um, council president Nicole had

[2:02:42] a lot to say about it in terms of, you

[2:02:44] know, proposing the jail fees and he

[2:02:46] talked about what happened at the

[2:02:47] meeting and so I just did want to flag

[2:02:48] that there's a lot of there there, you

[2:02:50] know, we are all trying to um, do

[2:02:53] something with it. Um, and so flagging

[2:02:55] and I'm very thankful for the mayor

[2:02:56] being able to um, because he he will be

[2:02:58] in attendance. So if anyone else is

[2:03:00] available, I want to say it's 10:30 a.m.

[2:03:03] public hearing at the county this

[2:03:04] Tuesday. So, uh, or not Tuesday, sorry.

[2:03:07] But, um,

[2:03:09] tomorrow, yeah, he wrote Tuesday and

[2:03:12] then I read it and I was like, nope,

[2:03:13] today's Tuesday. So, if anyone's around

[2:03:15] or interested, not you don't have to

[2:03:16] provide testimony. We have a letter

[2:03:18] being written, but you know, if you're

[2:03:20] there for support in whichever way you

[2:03:22] do, um, I just wanted to flag that cuz

[2:03:23] that was definitely a point of

[2:03:25] conversation about jail costs and on

[2:03:28] those increases. Along with that though,

[2:03:30] we definitely did talk about budgets and

[2:03:32] how everyone's doing. um all the cities

[2:03:35] around and the one highlight I wanted to

[2:03:37] flag there was many things is I got to

[2:03:39] flag that we have a very strong um

[2:03:43] financial city staff um obviously we

[2:03:46] have an amazing Arina and then we have

[2:03:48] our deputy city manager and we also have

[2:03:50] our city manager that are really focused

[2:03:52] on it because a lot of the conversation

[2:03:53] that you know it's a it's a little bit

[2:03:55] of like why are we in this kind of place

[2:03:57] or where we are there's a lot of changes

[2:03:59] in in different um cities there

[2:04:01] financial directors or not having people

[2:04:03] are leaving or coming back or things

[2:04:05] weren't, you know, getting together.

[2:04:06] It's it's, you know, uh, one of the

[2:04:08] cities like everyone's gone from their

[2:04:11] financial team, so they're all getting

[2:04:12] new people who are, you know, maybe the

[2:04:14] only ones left are more junior than, um,

[2:04:17] executive level. And so I I flag that we

[2:04:19] have as we're having these hard

[2:04:21] conversations about budget and financial

[2:04:24] uh, viability um, of the city and moving

[2:04:27] forward, we are um, really well um, um,

[2:04:31] directed by our staff. So, I did want to

[2:04:33] say that because I, you know, I did flag

[2:04:35] like, oh, we have a really good staff

[2:04:37] and I felt good about being able to

[2:04:39] share that. Um, and the third thing I

[2:04:41] did want to flag, I don't know if you

[2:04:42] guys will end up hearing um from, but I

[2:04:44] did uh speak to um uh a city resident uh

[2:04:47] today who wanted to talk about the Penny

[2:04:49] Creek Natural Area again and was um

[2:04:51] voicing their frustration that they hope

[2:04:54] that this doesn't um we actually used

[2:04:55] DRCC as um

[2:04:58] a point of comparison in terms of like

[2:05:01] that it just never gets anywhere because

[2:05:02] it seems like well we haven't so we

[2:05:04] don't need to do anything with it. we

[2:05:06] already have like we already have it and

[2:05:08] said it's like let's get this done.

[2:05:10] Let's make this um um ownership happen.

[2:05:13] Just flagging for all of you. Thank you

[2:05:15] very much.

[2:05:17] >> Um Council Member Stler,

[2:05:21] » I think everybody's heard enough from me

[2:05:23] today. I have no report. Mayor,

[2:05:25] [laughter]

[2:05:27] » Council Member Allison,

[2:05:29] >> thank you. Um just a huge thanks for

[2:05:31] » thank you. Um just a huge thanks for

[2:05:31] cancing and then rescheduling the the

[2:05:34] night out activity. Um that smoke that

[2:05:38] night was horrible. So thank you for

[2:05:40] doing that. No more reports.

[2:05:43] >> Council member Paddock.

[2:05:44] » Council member Paddock.

[2:05:44] >> No report.

[2:05:45] » No report.

[2:05:46] >> Council member Mobeski.

[2:05:47] » Council member Mobeski.

[2:05:47] >> No report.

[2:05:48] » No report.

[2:05:48] >> Wow. All right. With that we will move

[2:05:53] » Wow. All right. With that we will move

[2:05:53] on down to audience communication. So is

[2:05:56] there anyone in the audience that would

[2:05:58] like to speak? No report from the

[2:05:59] audience either, huh? All right. Is

[2:06:02] there anyone online that would like to

[2:06:03] speak this evening? All right. There is

[2:06:06] no executive session. So with that, the

[2:06:09] meeting will be adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

[2:06:12] Have a good evening, everyone.

City Council Regular Meeting - 11 Aug 2026

Transcript