[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.