WEBVTT 00:00:00.290 --> 00:00:15.361 - Now calling to order our deliberation session 630 on March 11th councilmember Stossberg take it away. 00:00:15.361 --> 00:00:26.590 - Oh Do we have to call roll again? Okay? Will you please call the roll? Here 00:00:26.850 --> 00:00:46.520 - Here. Here. Uh, yep, I'm here. Here. Here. Here. If anybody's... My audio is off. My audio is off. My 00:00:46.520 --> 00:00:55.198 - audio is off. Wow. Check. Check. What? What? 00:00:55.714 --> 00:01:25.086 - These microphones always make me a little crazy. Oh, I think it might be now I 00:01:25.410 --> 00:01:32.430 - All right, so the purpose of this deliberation session is the development of 2027 shared budget priorities. 00:01:32.430 --> 00:01:39.515 - And so what we're starting with is both the deliberation session that we had in December where we identified 00:01:39.515 --> 00:01:46.081 - priorities and then that survey that I got sent out to y'all in February. So thank you everybody for 00:01:46.081 --> 00:01:52.711 - responding to that survey on time, which allowed me to compile results for fiscal committee meetings. 00:01:52.711 --> 00:01:55.376 - So then at the fiscal committee meeting, 00:01:55.376 --> 00:02:03.779 - kind of reviewed the outcomes, reviewed the things that kind of floated to the top and how we could 00:02:03.779 --> 00:02:12.686 - sort those things out, talked it over with Controller McKim and Deputy Mayor Knapp, and one of the things 00:02:12.686 --> 00:02:21.762 - that they said was it's not necessary to keep our priorities within buckets, and so then the top priorities 00:02:21.762 --> 00:02:22.686 - draft that 00:02:22.786 --> 00:02:31.478 - I put in the packet is not within buckets, but just as kind of, so each category in terms of results, 00:02:31.478 --> 00:02:40.085 - so I think that the four results are in appendix A, I made sure that the top things all were somehow 00:02:40.085 --> 00:02:49.374 - included in the top priority list, and there are different numbers of tops in each of the bucket categories, 00:02:49.442 --> 00:02:58.050 - just because of how voting dribbled out. So it was this really kind of fun slash challenging thing for 00:02:58.050 --> 00:03:06.157 - me to do after discussing with the fiscal committee how to make this data make sense in any way. 00:03:06.157 --> 00:03:08.414 - And so, for example, under 00:03:08.514 --> 00:03:13.935 - The high-performing government outcomes, the top three voted on were implementation of existing plans, 00:03:13.935 --> 00:03:19.461 - maintaining city assets, and developing city plans where none currently exist. And so all three of those 00:03:19.461 --> 00:03:24.303 - end up in one way or another under our top priorities. The one that I'll maybe point out is 00:03:24.303 --> 00:03:29.566 - making homelessness brief or non-repeating, which came out as a top three in two different buckets. 00:03:30.242 --> 00:03:38.160 - So that's kind of like consolidated, right? And then there are several things consolidated under there 00:03:38.160 --> 00:03:46.001 - in terms of top priorities that all kind of connected in different ways with that bucket. So overall, 00:03:46.001 --> 00:03:54.303 - I'm just trying to explain, I guess, really badly this data that you got sent out, all of this information, 00:03:54.303 --> 00:03:59.838 - because there was a lot of it, and how I kind of consolidated these top 00:03:59.938 --> 00:04:08.612 - 13 priorities with help from fiscal committee. So like as fiscal committee chair, that was why this 00:04:08.612 --> 00:04:13.470 - landed on my lap. But these are in no particular order. 00:04:13.602 --> 00:04:19.407 - In fact, actually they are kind of in an order. They're in an order of how they were discussed. So the 00:04:19.407 --> 00:04:25.156 - high performing government ones are first, and then I think it was housing and homelessness, and then 00:04:25.156 --> 00:04:31.017 - it went on down in terms of making sure that each of the top things found a place in this list in terms 00:04:31.017 --> 00:04:35.582 - of what everybody was individually prioritizing. But it is not in a ranked list. 00:04:35.938 --> 00:04:41.089 - It is not this is definitely not me saying oh the number one council thing overall was implementing 00:04:41.089 --> 00:04:46.343 - existing plans because that's not necessarily accurate. We also can't just go on the number of points 00:04:46.343 --> 00:04:51.649 - any one of those things achieved because there were a different number of outcomes within each bucket. 00:04:51.649 --> 00:04:55.358 - So it's like we could only vote for three things you know and there are 00:04:55.554 --> 00:05:01.268 - you know, five choices, well then each one of those is gonna have more points than if there were 10 00:05:01.268 --> 00:05:07.269 - choices. And so we can't, there's not really a good way to do this except by having a conversation about 00:05:07.269 --> 00:05:13.211 - what people think, and so that is what we're supposed to do tonight. And so then things to keep in mind 00:05:13.211 --> 00:05:18.983 - when considering this, and some of this was kind of said by Controller McKim and Deputy Mayor Knapp, 00:05:18.983 --> 00:05:24.126 - you know, things to keep in mind. Is this activity or outcome driven by local government? 00:05:24.418 --> 00:05:30.921 - And if it's not, how can government support the activity is kind of the follow-up. Because if it's not 00:05:30.921 --> 00:05:37.298 - driven by us, is there something that we want to do to support whoever is driving it? Is the outcome 00:05:37.298 --> 00:05:43.675 - measurable? Is it something that we can actually measure? Is the funding allocation for that outcome 00:05:43.675 --> 00:05:50.115 - measurable? Does the outcome require direct fiscal investment, staff time, or legislation in terms of 00:05:50.115 --> 00:05:52.830 - kind of figuring out what kind of priority 00:05:52.930 --> 00:05:59.882 - it might be. And then also, is it a priority for 2027? And if it's not, and so I'll pull out the safe 00:05:59.882 --> 00:06:07.174 - streets for all kind of concept because that was one of the top things, zero traffic fatalities or serious 00:06:07.174 --> 00:06:14.194 - injuries by 2039. Technically, next year is 2027, not 2039, but of course we need to be working toward 00:06:14.194 --> 00:06:21.419 - that goal. So it's not necessarily a goal or priority for 2027, but how should that priority be reflected 00:06:21.419 --> 00:06:22.782 - in the 2027 budget? 00:06:23.170 --> 00:06:29.823 - right, when thinking about the multiple smaller type projects or initiatives that could move us toward 00:06:29.823 --> 00:06:36.476 - that goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries. And then the last question, is this outcome 00:06:36.476 --> 00:06:43.000 - personally important to you? Which, because the whole point of this is to be able to submit a ranked 00:06:43.000 --> 00:06:49.717 - letter to the administration saying these are our top however many priorities in the order that we want 00:06:49.717 --> 00:06:50.686 - them to be in. 00:06:50.882 --> 00:06:57.897 - And I would like us to largely agree with that order. And this is the hard part, right? Because a couple 00:06:57.897 --> 00:07:04.711 - years ago when we did this, they were not in any particular order because we couldn't put them in any 00:07:04.711 --> 00:07:11.459 - particular order. So I'm kind of hoping that maybe we can do better this year. So that was about the 00:07:11.459 --> 00:07:16.670 - intro that I had. And so I guess this is the time for feedback. Who wants to? 00:07:17.602 --> 00:07:23.395 - throw out any kind of comment. And also comments in terms of things that I left out of this, including 00:07:23.395 --> 00:07:29.526 - things like low-hanging fruit that you might go, hey, nobody voted for this thing, but it's this legislative 00:07:29.526 --> 00:07:35.488 - piece, or it's this thing that maybe we should throw up there as something important. And that's appendix 00:07:35.488 --> 00:07:41.113 - C, I think, is things that I just kind of, the fiscal committee decided if it got no votes, then we 00:07:41.113 --> 00:07:45.950 - were just gonna not worry about it when trying to consider how to order these things. 00:07:47.490 --> 00:07:56.140 - Great. Council member, sorry. Do you imagine that we would prioritize in buckets or individual things? 00:07:56.140 --> 00:08:04.621 - So could you imagine that it would be, you know, item 3A is priority one and item 2C is priority two 00:08:04.621 --> 00:08:13.439 - as a council or that we're saying like, you know, we care most about, for example, housing is like thing 00:08:13.439 --> 00:08:16.798 - one and then these are top three within 00:08:17.762 --> 00:08:24.386 - bucket one? I think my vision was to ignore buckets, because it felt like there were so many of the 00:08:24.386 --> 00:08:31.075 - outcomes that crossed bucket lines. And part of that is because I think the nature of how we devised 00:08:31.075 --> 00:08:37.765 - the outcomes, and we're all novices at outcomes. And so it's like, well, what are outcomes actually? 00:08:37.765 --> 00:08:44.389 - And also the overall discussion, where does this outcome belong? And so housing and homelessness is 00:08:44.389 --> 00:08:47.038 - a good one, because it literally was in 00:08:47.170 --> 00:08:54.062 - I think it was public safety and in housing. And you could say it belongs in both of those things in 00:08:54.062 --> 00:09:01.091 - different ways, but which bucket should we put it in the most? I don't know. Deputy Mayor Knapp didn't 00:09:01.091 --> 00:09:08.052 - seem like it. She didn't think that it mattered. So I don't think we need to worry about the buckets. 00:09:08.052 --> 00:09:15.354 - Council Member Flaherty. Council Member Sari, was your question a bit about what are the 13 top priorities 00:09:15.354 --> 00:09:16.446 - though on pages 00:09:16.962 --> 00:09:24.646 - four and five, and basically ranking those 13, as opposed to the six buckets of housing and homelessness, 00:09:24.646 --> 00:09:32.184 - economic development, et cetera. Yeah, well I'm wondering whether there's some utility in us being able 00:09:32.184 --> 00:09:39.433 - to say of the six buckets, this is our priority, this is how we, of those six things, these are all 00:09:39.433 --> 00:09:46.174 - things we care about, but of those six, this is the one we care about most of the six first. 00:09:46.338 --> 00:09:52.148 - whether there's any utility in ranking those over ranking the 13, but I think that Councilmember Sassemer 00:09:52.148 --> 00:09:58.012 - makes a good argument for it's just like here are the 13 things that we really want to see and the reasons 00:09:58.012 --> 00:10:03.657 - we want to see them there. And I think that we could, like I think we could start with the 13 and then 00:10:03.657 --> 00:10:06.014 - depending on where our discussion goes and 00:10:06.626 --> 00:10:13.701 - what y'all think about your priorities, then maybe it will say, maybe things will float to the top that 00:10:13.701 --> 00:10:20.028 - all do have to do with housing, or do have to do with economic development, or do have to do 00:10:20.028 --> 00:10:26.967 - with environment. And so maybe we could, maybe this is a both and. But we have to start in one or the 00:10:26.967 --> 00:10:33.022 - other. So let's start with the 13. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Council Member Zulek. 00:10:33.282 --> 00:10:39.646 - What's most important to you? Thank you. What is most important to me is that making sure that all of 00:10:39.646 --> 00:10:46.197 - our residents have their basic needs met. And so when we sort these, I think we should be thinking about 00:10:46.197 --> 00:10:52.436 - which one of these things provides food, shelter, water, and safety towards people. And that is how 00:10:52.436 --> 00:10:58.675 - I've been framing it, just so everyone is aware of what's going on in my mind. Can I ask the follow 00:10:58.675 --> 00:10:59.486 - up question? 00:11:01.730 --> 00:11:17.834 - So going back to the first things to keep in mind, are those activities driven by local government? 00:11:17.834 --> 00:11:30.718 - I think they can be. OK. Other thoughts on how to rank? Councilmember Flaherty? 00:11:32.674 --> 00:11:38.627 - like if we're gonna try to rank these 13 things, we probably need to have another survey that's like 00:11:38.627 --> 00:11:44.757 - a literally like put them in order and like assign points and then average it across everybody. We want 00:11:44.757 --> 00:11:50.769 - like an actual system that's reflective of a balanced, like I don't think we're gonna reach consensus 00:11:50.769 --> 00:11:56.723 - just by like talking. So I think a survey to do that, if we're trying to rank these 13 things, which 00:11:56.723 --> 00:12:02.558 - are admittedly of different kind and scope, you know, but if that's the exercise, I think that is, 00:12:03.074 --> 00:12:12.492 - worthwhile to rank them. And I'll just, you know, I think we're kind of stumbling our way towards something 00:12:12.492 --> 00:12:20.864 - and trying things, which is great. And at the same time, the planning infrastructure and policy 00:12:20.864 --> 00:12:29.847 - infrastructure of the city is not currently suited, I don't think, to a strong outcome-based budgeting 00:12:29.847 --> 00:12:31.678 - system. Most of what 00:12:31.874 --> 00:12:39.420 - We have major substantive areas of city government that have no formal plans at all. Certainly not any 00:12:39.420 --> 00:12:46.893 - legislatively adopted ones anyway, or that are reflective of both branches of the city government. So 00:12:46.893 --> 00:12:54.219 - there's huge gaps on things like public safety. The plans we do have lack consistent frameworks for 00:12:54.219 --> 00:13:00.446 - how they think about or name outcomes, if at all, how we measure for those outcomes. 00:13:00.578 --> 00:13:07.191 - traffic fatalities and deaths by 2039, great. That's a very clear, smart outcome. But the devil's in 00:13:07.191 --> 00:13:13.935 - the details of implementation. And just by way of example, the Indiana Avenue project, which we funded 00:13:13.935 --> 00:13:21.007 - through a GO bond, has a third concept design out that made, without question, objectively unsafe decisions 00:13:21.007 --> 00:13:27.358 - relative to prior concepts. I'm just using it as an example here. There are trade-offs involved. 00:13:27.490 --> 00:13:33.725 - Like we funded it, that's supporting that outcome, but now it's being changed in a way that is counter 00:13:33.725 --> 00:13:39.839 - to the outcome. And so without good measurement and rigor in all of that, in a coherent framework, I 00:13:39.839 --> 00:13:46.013 - think we're always just gonna be really hard pressed to really make something useful out of all this, 00:13:46.013 --> 00:13:52.127 - which isn't to deter us. I think this is a good exercise. I think we are moving forward in some way. 00:13:52.127 --> 00:13:56.062 - I don't think it's useless. I do think we are naming things that 00:13:56.450 --> 00:14:02.887 - have value and will still give some shape to things. But I guess I'm trying to note that because I don't 00:14:02.887 --> 00:14:09.262 - want it to be a surprise later. This list alone is just not how I'm going to be thinking about a budget 00:14:09.262 --> 00:14:15.638 - vote and or engaging with the administration on budget. I think it matters, but there's more to it than 00:14:15.638 --> 00:14:21.891 - that considerably. And at the same time, I think I've offered to take on for the committee, which I'm 00:14:21.891 --> 00:14:25.630 - sitting on this year, and really still hope that we can move 00:14:25.762 --> 00:14:32.034 - something like a more coherent framework for the city that might involve updating plans in a consistent 00:14:32.034 --> 00:14:38.305 - way that has near and midterm and long-term outcomes and an appropriate number of lead and lag measures 00:14:38.305 --> 00:14:44.517 - for those things so we can actually start systematically measuring progress and having like a coherent 00:14:44.517 --> 00:14:50.607 - framework with which to engage a topic like this. That's not gonna be fast, but I do think we should 00:14:50.607 --> 00:14:55.070 - look to best practices and think about like what that actually looks like 00:14:55.490 --> 00:15:02.047 - and just, again, acknowledging that we're not there yet, and so there are some limits to what we can 00:15:02.047 --> 00:15:08.603 - do here. Sorry. Well, that's okay. I have a follow-up question for you, too, or a follow-up thought, 00:15:08.603 --> 00:15:11.070 - I guess, on that because that kind of 00:15:12.034 --> 00:15:17.805 - So if we put out a survey and then assign points and put things in order based on the survey, then how 00:15:17.805 --> 00:15:23.575 - is that honestly any different than what we already kind of have? Because it would essentially be like 00:15:23.575 --> 00:15:29.290 - averaging things, and so it's one of those like nobody would probably get their first choice. Like is 00:15:29.290 --> 00:15:35.173 - it different? It is more different than it has now. Right now it's anyone's guess if any of these things 00:15:35.173 --> 00:15:37.918 - mean more than anything else. But with a survey, 00:15:38.018 --> 00:15:44.773 - We actually would know. Yes, it would be averages. It wouldn't be a mirror image of any individual's 00:15:44.773 --> 00:15:51.596 - rank order, most likely. But I think some patterns would emerge, is my guess. And that still might be 00:15:51.596 --> 00:15:58.819 - helpful, at least incrementally more helpful than the list as it stands now. So I don't think it's useless. 00:15:58.819 --> 00:16:05.374 - I just think we have to acknowledge the limitations of this exercise for outcome-based budgeting. 00:16:07.458 --> 00:16:15.346 - I'm not opposed to doing that. I kind of wish that I had done that in preparation for this meeting, 00:16:15.346 --> 00:16:23.392 - but that idea never came up. So Councilmember, sorry. I have a question. I want to query our thinking 00:16:23.392 --> 00:16:31.438 - and just make sure that I've understood it correctly here as well. So the 13 here are the things that 00:16:31.438 --> 00:16:37.118 - rose to the top from each of the buckets, but then that assumes that we 00:16:37.442 --> 00:16:45.758 - This is going to sound like I'm re-litigating the question I asked earlier, which I'm not. I'm just 00:16:45.758 --> 00:16:54.241 - curious about something. Are we saying that there's not a possibility where there's a fourth thing in 00:16:54.241 --> 00:16:59.646 - bucket A that's higher than my top thing in bucket three, right? 00:17:00.546 --> 00:17:07.932 - Yeah, so I'm wondering about that a little bit as we start thinking about prioritizing. And then as 00:17:07.932 --> 00:17:15.539 - a follow-on point here, it's that some of these things aren't necessarily... I feel very strongly, for 00:17:15.539 --> 00:17:22.924 - example, about... We phrase it in some way like, execute on the plans that we already have. Okay, I 00:17:22.924 --> 00:17:25.214 - feel very strongly about that. 00:17:25.602 --> 00:17:33.942 - There's a lot of downstream things that come from execute on the plans that we have, and that's quite 00:17:33.942 --> 00:17:42.118 - a different thing than reduce income inequality. They're different, so I'm also struggling a little 00:17:42.118 --> 00:17:46.942 - bit with how we even compare the list of 13 to begin with. 00:17:48.290 --> 00:17:55.883 - Just imagine managing all of this data when it came in. Exactly. Thank you for that work. I think maybe 00:17:55.883 --> 00:18:03.402 - the question for us all is thinking about how can we continue to synthesize this in a way where we get 00:18:03.402 --> 00:18:10.703 - to, so that things are like, that we're comparing like for like. I don't know if we can ever really 00:18:10.703 --> 00:18:12.382 - compare like for like. 00:18:13.090 --> 00:18:20.896 - But that is why I mean at the end of this there's like the data from the whole thing and that is why 00:18:20.896 --> 00:18:28.702 - you know if you and and I also want to say like I made sure that this was an accessible document and 00:18:28.702 --> 00:18:36.739 - It makes it a little bit like gross Grosser like harder to like read compared to say like a spreadsheet 00:18:36.739 --> 00:18:40.990 - where you can look more across a little bit easier but 00:18:41.858 --> 00:18:48.628 - it's, I'm trying to find one by looking across. So under transportation and mobility outcomes, for example, 00:18:48.628 --> 00:18:54.897 - our top had 12 points, which was network supporting travel, all travel modes for people of all ages 00:18:54.897 --> 00:19:01.416 - and ability. Second one had 11 points, third one had 10 points, and then after that, it went right down 00:19:01.416 --> 00:19:07.685 - to five. So it was this steep drop off. And so in transportation and mobility, I would have put the 00:19:07.685 --> 00:19:11.070 - top three in that one. Whereas in environment, we had 00:19:11.650 --> 00:19:19.169 - a 12, a 12, a 6, a 6, and a 5. And so I think I put the top five in that one. And so that's where it 00:19:19.169 --> 00:19:26.763 - absolutely is some measure of discretion. And that's why I put that full data in, is that very thing. 00:19:26.763 --> 00:19:34.282 - And that's why, I mean, there's that example at the end of the list of 13 about public safety, about 00:19:34.282 --> 00:19:38.302 - reducing crime. We all probably want to reduce crime, 00:19:38.434 --> 00:19:45.797 - it's kind of an interesting outcome in terms of that survey. The public safety category was 00:19:45.797 --> 00:19:53.800 - really interesting, actually, and if we looked more closely maybe at that public safety category, I 00:19:53.800 --> 00:20:01.804 - think if we had discussed that one in the way that we discussed some of the other ones in December, 00:20:01.804 --> 00:20:07.646 - some of those things, maybe they wouldn't have gone under public safety. 00:20:07.938 --> 00:20:14.459 - You know, housing and homelessness like rose to the top in public safety and in housing. And if we had 00:20:14.459 --> 00:20:20.790 - been discussing both of those at the same time, we probably would have categorized that into one or 00:20:20.790 --> 00:20:27.121 - the other. And then how would we have voted? So it's really, I mean, it's one of those things where 00:20:27.121 --> 00:20:33.452 - this was helpful. It gets us somewhere maybe, but it doesn't get us to an end point. So if there is 00:20:33.452 --> 00:20:34.782 - something like that, 00:20:34.946 --> 00:20:42.879 - councilmember Asari just suggested, you know, something that's the number four, that's the trailing, 00:20:42.879 --> 00:20:51.204 - but wait a minute, like I want to raise that up, or wait a minute, like, because here's another question, 00:20:51.204 --> 00:20:59.216 - especially for those outcomes that were suggested through the survey by all of you, right? If, let me 00:20:59.216 --> 00:21:03.614 - see if I can find one. If, let me get my window bigger. 00:21:05.986 --> 00:21:13.406 - So if Council Member Zulek suggested that, sorry, I called you out because you were the first one, so 00:21:13.406 --> 00:21:20.826 - you're the first result, that Bloomington residents have options other than uniformed police officers 00:21:20.826 --> 00:21:28.247 - for nonviolent issues. One example is community resource officers are often dispersed to crash sites. 00:21:28.247 --> 00:21:34.430 - So I think that I put that in as example, community resource officers, but you know, 00:21:36.002 --> 00:21:43.084 - There's some other response related to that, right? And I think that that really overlaps with, let's 00:21:43.084 --> 00:21:50.514 - see if I can find Council Member Piedmont-Smiths, which was mental health and addiction treatment services 00:21:50.514 --> 00:21:57.736 - are increased to meet residents' needs. And those things could overlap in ways that if we were actually 00:21:57.736 --> 00:22:02.110 - discussing them, they might have been combined into one thing. 00:22:04.962 --> 00:22:13.102 - Yeah. You know what we might think of doing for the next round of surveys is that instead of us, and 00:22:13.102 --> 00:22:21.242 - this is building off of something that Council Member Rosenberger said two years ago, because it was 00:22:21.242 --> 00:22:26.078 - a really good idea, give us, like if we all had 100 points, 00:22:26.274 --> 00:22:31.290 - call a thousand points, whatever, right? You have some large amount of points and you can distribute 00:22:31.290 --> 00:22:36.307 - them however you want amongst all of these categories. Now we've already started to say some initial 00:22:36.307 --> 00:22:41.323 - ranking amongst the buckets, all that type of stuff, but I think that might give you a little bit of 00:22:41.323 --> 00:22:46.290 - a better sense of the, like I think we might get a little bit more space between things, right? And 00:22:46.290 --> 00:22:47.134 - so that might be 00:22:47.202 --> 00:22:53.138 - That might be the way to do it, right? Because at the end of the day, the variation right now is going 00:22:53.138 --> 00:22:58.901 - to be very small, because we're talking about three, four, you know what I'm saying? So if you give 00:22:58.901 --> 00:23:04.895 - us all 100 points, and then I can say, look, for me, whatever, wage, jobs, and GDP growth is 50 points. 00:23:04.895 --> 00:23:10.658 - That's the most important thing. It's not, Dave. But if it was, if that's the most important thing, 00:23:10.658 --> 00:23:15.614 - whatever, I say that's 50 points for me. It does sort of change maybe the way that we 00:23:16.354 --> 00:23:21.609 - think about and compare things, you know? Also that, that, right, but it also helps us think a little 00:23:21.609 --> 00:23:26.865 - bit about our approaches, you know, because I think just sort of, you know, my starting place is that 00:23:26.865 --> 00:23:32.120 - we don't want to be spreading the peanut butter super thin amongst a lot of things, but maybe some of 00:23:32.120 --> 00:23:37.375 - us actually feel that way, that it's more like, yeah, all of these things are good, let's do a little 00:23:37.375 --> 00:23:42.528 - bit of each of them. I think it would be really helpful to start to see where, you know, if I could 00:23:42.528 --> 00:23:45.310 - put all my, anyways, yeah, I've made my point, sorry. 00:23:47.138 --> 00:23:55.337 - We don't get to turn it off. Other thoughts? Council Member Zulek. I have a different line if everyone's 00:23:55.337 --> 00:24:03.379 - done with this. OK, thank you. This one is for Comptroller McKim. Sorry to tap you in here. Last year, 00:24:03.379 --> 00:24:11.344 - I felt that a lot of the budget presentations were a little bit vaguer than they had been in previous 00:24:11.344 --> 00:24:15.326 - years. And so I guess I'm wondering to what extent 00:24:15.906 --> 00:24:22.858 - can it get as explicit as this amount of money is allocated to this? Obviously, there's only so much 00:24:22.858 --> 00:24:29.811 - time allotted to each presenter. So I'm just wondering, what are the reporting mechanism options and 00:24:29.811 --> 00:24:37.107 - how can we get as specific as possible in terms of money to goal? Well, I guess I'd like to hear a little 00:24:37.107 --> 00:24:42.270 - bit more about in what way it was vague. Let me just back up for a second. 00:24:43.298 --> 00:24:51.135 - I think as everybody knows, we will still, we still have to present and submit and pass a budget the 00:24:51.135 --> 00:24:58.973 - way that you always have by fund and by department and by category. So that's gonna have to exist no 00:24:58.973 --> 00:25:06.733 - matter what when we have to do that. What I think we are hoping to do is if we have some small list 00:25:06.733 --> 00:25:10.302 - of kind of operationalized, operationalizable 00:25:10.466 --> 00:25:18.482 - priorities from council, we can then work to sort of tag or associate expenditures with the, you know, 00:25:18.482 --> 00:25:26.654 - that are still in there, in the same form that they always have been, but also tag them with the council 00:25:26.654 --> 00:25:34.592 - priorities. So is that the specificity that you're looking for, specificity that is tied to this list 00:25:34.592 --> 00:25:39.806 - of priorities that you're coming up with, or is it just more of a, 00:25:39.970 --> 00:25:47.585 - a general, you didn't feel like you got an adequate narrative as to what was being requested, or just 00:25:47.585 --> 00:25:55.200 - tell me a little bit more. Well, there are the four budget categories that we were very clear on, but 00:25:55.200 --> 00:26:02.666 - I think it was hard for me to kind of decipher past that where things were going in terms of money, 00:26:02.666 --> 00:26:09.758 - like very specific dollars, but I do think that would be very, very helpful in terms of adding 00:26:09.986 --> 00:26:17.343 - on the, hey, this is what council said was a priority X. So thank you, that'd be very helpful. I agree 00:26:17.343 --> 00:26:24.700 - with the general point and I expressed it last year that I appreciate the effort that went into trying 00:26:24.700 --> 00:26:32.057 - something new and different with priority buckets in the presentations, but I ultimately found it much 00:26:32.057 --> 00:26:39.486 - less useful than the way budgets have been presented previously and including in Mayor Thompson's first 00:26:39.714 --> 00:26:44.925 - year, which was largely a reflection of past practice at that time. So I think comparing the budget 00:26:44.925 --> 00:26:50.291 - presentations for the last two years would, if you haven't done that already, Comptroller McCann, that 00:26:50.291 --> 00:26:55.606 - would be helpful to kind of see at least some degree of what we're talking about. It used to be that, 00:26:55.606 --> 00:27:00.921 - I don't know if this is a good system, but the departments would kind of set goals and then report on 00:27:00.921 --> 00:27:06.496 - them also. Again, I'm not sure that needs to be replicated, but there was more detail and more granularity 00:27:06.496 --> 00:27:09.310 - in what was being presented to us kind of from like a 00:27:10.210 --> 00:27:18.293 - programmatic or initiative or project dimension in past years relative to last year, which I think was 00:27:18.293 --> 00:27:26.376 - still helpful. Yeah, so there's that. So that's just a comment to maybe share another opinion and more 00:27:26.376 --> 00:27:34.458 - context on what customer resilience shared. But I'm also curious just to hear more from you. We talked 00:27:34.458 --> 00:27:40.030 - about it in the fiscal committee a bit. How are you finding this list? 00:27:40.322 --> 00:27:45.857 - Is it gonna be useful at all? Will it give you the contours of something to start to come back to us 00:27:45.857 --> 00:27:51.393 - in time to, you know, have something where there's a back and forth and we're iterating on it? Or is 00:27:51.393 --> 00:27:56.873 - it just sort of like, we take this list, we're gonna do our best to interpret it, hope it goes well 00:27:56.873 --> 00:28:02.464 - come August, you know, and we'll live with it? Or what? Well, I will say from a budgetary standpoint, 00:28:02.464 --> 00:28:07.999 - the way they are written right now, it's very difficult for me to be able to work with them. I mean, 00:28:07.999 --> 00:28:09.150 - I understand them as 00:28:09.410 --> 00:28:16.298 - priorities for the community. I think that they're probably, they seem like, I think most residents 00:28:16.298 --> 00:28:23.392 - would probably look at them and say, yeah, that's exactly what we want our council to do, what we want 00:28:23.392 --> 00:28:30.280 - our city to do. But the, and I kind of tried to make this point in the fiscal committee meeting and 00:28:30.280 --> 00:28:37.168 - Council Member Stossberg already reiterated it and included it in the notes at the top that we just 00:28:37.168 --> 00:28:38.270 - need to kind of 00:28:38.530 --> 00:28:47.099 - think through for each of these outcomes, what part of it is driven by local government and how do we 00:28:47.099 --> 00:28:55.668 - measure both the outcome and how do we allocate or think about allocating funding for that particular 00:28:55.668 --> 00:29:04.406 - outcome, whether it's contracting or staff time or legislation, which isn't really a budgetary concern. 00:29:04.406 --> 00:29:06.590 - So I think at some point, 00:29:08.418 --> 00:29:17.815 - this needs to move kind of to the next level. And at that point, I think I can probably do a better 00:29:17.815 --> 00:29:27.683 - job of understanding how to map costs and budget allocations to those outcomes. Is that what I'm saying? 00:29:27.683 --> 00:29:38.302 - Council Member Aurelio. Well, first, I want to say how much I appreciate Council Member Stusberg's work on this. 00:29:38.594 --> 00:29:47.315 - large effort, and it took a mathematician's probably mind to sort through the data. Just an old timer's 00:29:47.315 --> 00:29:55.701 - perspective, there used to be, back in the day, extremely detailed budget presentations, going back 00:29:55.701 --> 00:30:04.254 - to what Council Member Zulek talked about, and it gave us, not only us, but the public an overview of 00:30:04.254 --> 00:30:06.686 - exactly what Citi was doing. 00:30:06.850 --> 00:30:14.035 - the capital investments that were done, the programs that were offered, the services provided, all of 00:30:14.035 --> 00:30:21.219 - those things were detailed in like 40 plus slide deck. I'm not asking for that, I'm not, but just to, 00:30:21.219 --> 00:30:28.263 - if you go back 15 years, you'll see that, it was incredible. Maybe it was excessive, because it was 00:30:28.263 --> 00:30:35.518 - an exhausting process. Now we have outcome-based budgeting, which is a great sort of directive for us. 00:30:35.746 --> 00:30:45.451 - But I think that what this provides, I think, is a good rubric for you and the department directors 00:30:45.451 --> 00:30:55.835 - to anticipate the questions that we will likely probe. I think it adds a good framework for, for instance, 00:30:55.835 --> 00:31:05.054 - high-performing government. For instance, I think one of the highest scores was, let me think, 00:31:05.186 --> 00:31:12.754 - Maintain city assets, for instance. I gave it a rough Piedmont Smith. Actually, I think the first was 00:31:12.754 --> 00:31:20.471 - the first. Anyway, it's no matter. Oh, implementation of existing plans. Got these plans sitting around 00:31:20.471 --> 00:31:28.336 - the shelf. Some of them are very specific in terms of what they direct us to do. Again, maybe excessively 00:31:28.336 --> 00:31:34.494 - so, but it would be nice to reference those and say, have we made, what's the CO2? 00:31:34.786 --> 00:31:43.438 - output. What have we done in terms of, is there any estimates in terms of local food providing local, 00:31:43.438 --> 00:31:51.921 - those sorts of things. I'm very heavy on maintenance, so I would probably, this council member will 00:31:51.921 --> 00:32:00.573 - probably be asking about street maintenance, the fleet maintenance for the city. The downtown is very 00:32:00.573 --> 00:32:02.270 - important, I think, 00:32:02.722 --> 00:32:11.394 - Economically, I wanna make sure that it's an inviting place where people feel safe and invited and active 00:32:11.394 --> 00:32:19.656 - and businesses are happy, et cetera, et cetera. In any case, maybe I'm sort of going off course, but 00:32:19.656 --> 00:32:27.837 - I think this provides a good sort of litmus for you all to know where we're coming from. If I'm not 00:32:27.837 --> 00:32:30.782 - mistaken, you're not just gonna get 00:32:31.234 --> 00:32:39.616 - It's not gonna be just like we're just throwing darts at a board. It's gonna be directed. So I find 00:32:39.616 --> 00:32:48.585 - utility in that. So. Go ahead, yeah. You gave the example of maintained city assets. That's a particularly 00:32:48.585 --> 00:32:57.470 - good example because that is something that is entirely under the control and responsibility of the city. 00:32:57.666 --> 00:33:04.604 - And even though it's not necessarily easy to count the money that's spent on maintaining city assets, 00:33:04.604 --> 00:33:10.998 - it's something that is definitely operationalizable. There are metrics that can be associated 00:33:10.998 --> 00:33:18.004 - with maintaining city assets. So yeah, I think that's a particularly good example, even though the way 00:33:18.004 --> 00:33:25.214 - that it's reflected here is very top level, maintain city assets. It's pretty easy to see how that can be 00:33:25.698 --> 00:33:33.217 - taken into something that could be useful in budgeting and budget presentations. Thank you. Before you 00:33:33.217 --> 00:33:40.517 - go, one of the things I want to point out from what Councilmember Rallo said about the implementing 00:33:40.517 --> 00:33:47.890 - existing plans is if you recall from our December session, Isabel, Councilmember Piedmont-Smith came 00:33:47.890 --> 00:33:53.438 - up with that original list of outcomes directly from all of our city plans. 00:33:53.922 --> 00:34:00.222 - So in theory, there's at least some of these outcomes, like in terms of the actual specific language 00:34:00.222 --> 00:34:06.709 - of some of them, that would also nest underneath the implementation of existing plans. And so it's hard 00:34:06.709 --> 00:34:13.134 - to know, I mean, Council Member Asari, you said it, that that concept was really important to you, but 00:34:13.134 --> 00:34:16.190 - is that something that should be at the top of a 00:34:16.322 --> 00:34:26.438 - of a list for budgeting for 2027 specifically, or should that be more like at the top of a philosophical 00:34:26.438 --> 00:34:36.360 - kind of list, like it's really important to us that we use the plans that we have. But that that's not 00:34:36.360 --> 00:34:42.526 - necessarily, so then maybe in presentations we want to know the 00:34:43.298 --> 00:34:51.405 - climate action plan might be the CO2 levels and some of those details and what have we done to affect 00:34:51.405 --> 00:34:59.353 - that and if there's a direct cost that can be associated with that. I just wanted to point that out 00:34:59.353 --> 00:35:07.381 - as an interesting piece of number one as is listed on here. And then the second thing I wanna say is 00:35:07.381 --> 00:35:10.878 - going back to what Controller McKim said is 00:35:11.682 --> 00:35:17.894 - going back to those things to keep in mind and maybe we should just go through, use our time to go through 00:35:17.894 --> 00:35:24.048 - all the 13 and go well is implementing existing plans and activity driven by government. Is it measurable 00:35:24.048 --> 00:35:30.027 - in terms of outcomes? Is the funding allocation measurable in terms of those things? And even if those 00:35:30.027 --> 00:35:36.065 - things are important to us, if they can't pass those three things, maybe they need to go on a different 00:35:36.065 --> 00:35:41.406 - piece of priority that is more of a philosophical priority as opposed to a budget priority. 00:35:42.946 --> 00:35:48.649 - So are there thoughts on that idea, Councilmember Flaherty? Was there something that you wanted to say 00:35:48.649 --> 00:35:54.241 - before that? Well, I think where I was headed is consistent with where you were just going, which is 00:35:54.241 --> 00:35:59.777 - basically we can use some type of system to rank these things. We can talk through them. But how do 00:35:59.777 --> 00:36:05.702 - we make it actionable in the absence of, again, a coherent actual systemic approach to this in government? 00:36:05.702 --> 00:36:09.854 - Like, should we be talking through these? And like, are there any existing 00:36:10.338 --> 00:36:16.147 - plans or metrics, like look, just pick one, right? It's like, okay, reduce systemic inequities, 00:36:16.147 --> 00:36:22.501 - item B, engagement processes are inclusive and representative. Okay, I'm taking that to mean like public 00:36:22.501 --> 00:36:28.552 - engagement on policy making, on services implementation. What are we doing on that front right now? 00:36:28.552 --> 00:36:34.604 - Are we measuring anything at all? Do we have goals articulated somewhere about it to help guide it? 00:36:34.604 --> 00:36:38.174 - And if not, is it reasonable to start measuring something? 00:36:38.882 --> 00:36:45.041 - I don't know, asking for voluntary demographic and other data when people weigh in at design charrettes 00:36:45.041 --> 00:36:51.318 - and meetings like this and actually start tracking things like that over time. I think with this probably 00:36:51.318 --> 00:36:57.240 - uniform set of a few questions, is this addressed at all in existing policy documents or plans? Are 00:36:57.240 --> 00:37:03.280 - we measuring anything related to it now? And if no to those things, can we do something meaningful to 00:37:03.280 --> 00:37:07.070 - start measuring it now or at least try to give an indication of 00:37:08.066 --> 00:37:13.054 - I don't know. It seems like we could settle on a limited set of questions that we probably apply to 00:37:13.054 --> 00:37:18.540 - each of these that could try to move it in the direction of something actionable. Even if we can't accomplish 00:37:18.540 --> 00:37:23.777 - it all tonight, we could workshop it, and then the committee could do more and also offer opportunities, 00:37:23.777 --> 00:37:28.764 - if not in the deliberation session, at least asynchronously for feedback from noncommittee members, 00:37:28.764 --> 00:37:31.358 - again, to try to move this towards something that's 00:37:31.874 --> 00:37:38.657 - closer to actionable. Yeah. Yeah, and if maybe we can narrow down some of these based on these questions, 00:37:38.657 --> 00:37:45.312 - especially from Controller McKim, and then use those in a follow-up survey. Is that what you were going 00:37:45.312 --> 00:37:51.839 - to suggest? Yeah, I was going to build on all of this that the thing that I've been trying to wrap my 00:37:51.839 --> 00:37:58.238 - head around, too, is let's call it cost to move index, right? So some of these things on this list, 00:37:58.238 --> 00:38:01.566 - and I'm playing around with this in different ways, 00:38:01.826 --> 00:38:07.953 - Developing new plans, waste reduction, strengthening food security networks are all things that we probably 00:38:07.953 --> 00:38:13.683 - could make significant progress on with very little money, right? Whereas what you were just saying, 00:38:13.683 --> 00:38:19.583 - the point about maintaining city assets could be a huge thing, right? But it also, okay, so that's sort 00:38:19.583 --> 00:38:25.483 - of one thing. So I think it might be useful for us to sort of think about cost of move index so we know 00:38:25.483 --> 00:38:28.830 - what are our big bucket items to begin with and, you know, 00:38:29.122 --> 00:38:34.690 - then we back to that mentality of like, do you fully fund this, do you, you know, whatever. Some of 00:38:34.690 --> 00:38:40.369 - those then would have to be adjusted. I think then to your earlier point, Council Member Slasberg, is 00:38:40.369 --> 00:38:45.937 - that I identified three things that I think could operate within that 13 that really are more like, 00:38:45.937 --> 00:38:51.505 - I don't know, approaches or like operational priorities, and one of them overlaps, but implementing 00:38:51.505 --> 00:38:57.630 - existing plans is like a philosophy, right? We're like, you know, we want things to come from existing plans. 00:38:57.794 --> 00:39:03.190 - and that is already implemented in our philosophy here, right? Development of plans where none exist 00:39:03.190 --> 00:39:08.533 - might also be kind of like an operational approach or a philosophy or something like that, and then 00:39:08.533 --> 00:39:14.036 - maintaining city assets. So we might want sort of sub outcomes actually attached to those in some way, 00:39:14.036 --> 00:39:19.539 - but yeah, so that's sort of what I'm trying to think about is that if we think about what is expensive 00:39:19.539 --> 00:39:24.881 - to move versus cheap to move, I think it's helpful in terms of like, okay, well, what really is the 00:39:24.881 --> 00:39:26.110 - priority of this list? 00:39:29.890 --> 00:39:36.024 - Okay, do other people agree that those three are like philosophical? Kind of. And to be clear, I'm not 00:39:36.024 --> 00:39:41.443 - saying exclusively philosophical, I'm saying that there's an element of them, right? Okay. 00:39:41.443 --> 00:39:47.458 - So if we say, if we say we want to make plans where no plans exist, there's an element of that which 00:39:47.458 --> 00:39:53.413 - is, that is a fundable thing, right? But there's also an element of that which is saying, there's a 00:39:53.413 --> 00:39:58.654 - particular approach which we want to develop which is saying we want to be plan-driven, 00:39:58.754 --> 00:40:04.555 - And so implement our plans first, and if you don't have a plan to implement, then make a plan so we 00:40:04.555 --> 00:40:10.472 - can implement it, right? So that's what I'm saying, is that it is a fundable thing, so is maintaining 00:40:10.472 --> 00:40:16.273 - assets, but we'd have to be a little bit more specific about what we mean by maintaining assets. So 00:40:16.273 --> 00:40:19.870 - is there anybody who would disagree with, say, a paragraph in 00:40:20.002 --> 00:40:28.737 - a letter to the administration basically describing those three things as a philosophy and specifically 00:40:28.737 --> 00:40:37.136 - calling out public safety as a place where there's not a plan that is a cohesive like understanding 00:40:37.136 --> 00:40:45.282 - of public safety. Council Member Rosenberger. Anything here? Is it on? I'm having a harder time, 00:40:45.282 --> 00:40:48.894 - I like this, I'm having a hard time seeing 00:40:50.274 --> 00:40:57.644 - how maintained city assets fits in as a third. I see implement existing and develop plans where none 00:40:57.644 --> 00:41:05.160 - exist as I think philosophies to be like, who are we to make our own priorities? We have the plans and 00:41:05.160 --> 00:41:11.582 - priorities kind of thing. I guess maintained city assets to me, it falls more along the 00:41:11.746 --> 00:41:18.492 - same lines as like make homelessness brief and rare and reduce systemic inequities. So I guess I don't, 00:41:18.492 --> 00:41:25.043 - I think I'm not seeing the third connection as well. How do other, Council Member, sorry. I'm trying 00:41:25.043 --> 00:41:31.594 - to still, I was thinking out loud as well, right? Because what had me put it in that list is because 00:41:31.594 --> 00:41:38.274 - I agree with the statement that Council Member Aralo made that I'm like, that is a priority. Generally 00:41:38.274 --> 00:41:40.350 - speaking that we do things like 00:41:41.442 --> 00:41:49.608 - There's a lot of things that fall under that banner. To me, that includes sidewalks to making sure that 00:41:49.608 --> 00:41:57.539 - the doors are painted. There's a lot of variability within that. When I started thinking about how I 00:41:57.539 --> 00:42:02.878 - think about all of those different things that we want to maintain, 00:42:03.234 --> 00:42:08.765 - They're they beg more questions to me I like well what what do we want to maintain and how do we want 00:42:08.765 --> 00:42:14.458 - to approach the prioritization of the maintenance, but if we might say as a whole, as a funding category 00:42:14.458 --> 00:42:19.230 - it's like thing that we as a council really want, you know, maintain basic stuff right. 00:42:19.330 --> 00:42:24.167 - But then I just think that that would need more workshopping in the level of like a doing thing. But 00:42:24.167 --> 00:42:29.291 - it may be something that guides all that we are saying, which is like bring stuff up to a certain standard 00:42:29.291 --> 00:42:34.127 - or something like that is kind of what I'm trying to get my mind around. But again, I'm thinking out 00:42:34.127 --> 00:42:34.654 - loud here. 00:42:34.754 --> 00:42:41.177 - Okay, so what about, so I'm trying to think ahead to this actual document or letter, right, that we 00:42:41.177 --> 00:42:48.113 - need to ultimately agree on. So if there is a paragraph that philosophically talks about the implementation 00:42:48.113 --> 00:42:54.536 - of plans and developing plans where none exist, specifically mentioning public safety, because that 00:42:54.536 --> 00:43:00.702 - was called out, and I mean, we couldn't really find good outcomes about public safety, and then 00:43:00.898 --> 00:43:10.290 - not including maintained city assets, but as Comptroller McKim said, that those are calculable, calculatable 00:43:10.290 --> 00:43:19.079 - in terms of these questions to keep in mind. You can measure that investment, and to some degree, you 00:43:19.079 --> 00:43:27.006 - can also measure that outcome in terms of number of potholes that get filled, and actually, 00:43:27.202 --> 00:43:35.619 - between a pothole being reported as existing and when it got filled. So there's lots of measurability 00:43:35.619 --> 00:43:43.954 - in some of these maintenance kinds of things. So can we agree on that piece of the letter right now? 00:43:43.954 --> 00:43:52.371 - Is there anybody who disagrees on that piece of the letter? Okay, what's your addition? Well, I'm not 00:43:52.371 --> 00:43:56.414 - attached to this, so I'll just put it out there. 00:43:56.514 --> 00:44:04.118 - it could potentially be helpful for like the abiding by city plans, maintaining city assets, and creating 00:44:04.118 --> 00:44:11.650 - plans, if that could be an interesting structure for the presentations. And so that way, each department 00:44:11.650 --> 00:44:19.039 - could be like, hey, we have these plans. This is how we plan on achieving whatever out of these plans. 00:44:19.039 --> 00:44:25.854 - This is how we plan on maintaining city assets. And if there are no plans, this is our plan to 00:44:26.146 --> 00:44:32.656 - create one. I think that that would help me at least. I don't know about my colleagues, but I think 00:44:32.656 --> 00:44:39.492 - that would be really helpful in wrapping our minds around what is doing what. I would argue that I think 00:44:39.492 --> 00:44:46.393 - part of at least what we talked about to some degree during fiscal committee, like this whole list should 00:44:46.393 --> 00:44:52.904 - present like that. Okay. But that could also be something that gets put into a paragraph I think of 00:44:52.904 --> 00:44:56.094 - this is how we want to see budget presentations. 00:44:56.322 --> 00:45:02.484 - like we want to know how the specific programs fit into this, because that's one of the things, I mean, 00:45:02.484 --> 00:45:08.528 - we don't have specific programs in here, but there are specific programs that our city does, that our 00:45:08.528 --> 00:45:14.512 - staff do, that would fall under here, right? And so it's going like, okay, we want to know how, what 00:45:14.512 --> 00:45:20.437 - planning engineering is doing this year to meet that 2039 goal of zero injuries and fatalities, and 00:45:20.437 --> 00:45:21.918 - so have that very, like, 00:45:22.050 --> 00:45:29.836 - That's like my vision of that, controlling the camera. I don't know if that was what you were also thinking 00:45:29.836 --> 00:45:37.477 - at all. I mean, that certainly makes sense. That wasn't necessarily what I was thinking, but I understand 00:45:37.477 --> 00:45:45.262 - what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. Councilmember, sorry. I like in just triangulating on this idea as thinking 00:45:45.262 --> 00:45:51.390 - about those elements as like tags, right? Because going further with the maintaining 00:45:51.522 --> 00:45:57.739 - Sorry. City assets. Yeah, maintaining city assets. There's an element of maintaining city assets that 00:45:57.739 --> 00:46:04.200 - will contribute to reducing fatalities, right? And so do you see what I'm saying? And again, I'm stinking 00:46:04.200 --> 00:46:10.357 - out loud, so I will not be upset if you disagree. But it gives this opportunity to sort of tag it as 00:46:10.357 --> 00:46:14.014 - saying, we want to see this all the way through the budget. 00:46:14.146 --> 00:46:20.056 - right? And then we also want to see how you're contributing to these 10 things that we've, you know, 00:46:20.056 --> 00:46:25.967 - the 10 remaining things on the list as an example. So following that, going down to the zero traffic 00:46:25.967 --> 00:46:31.877 - fatalities or serious injuries by 2039, is that also something that should be more in a paragraph of 00:46:31.877 --> 00:46:37.846 - this is important to us and it's important that we make incremental progress in various ways? Tell us 00:46:37.846 --> 00:46:43.230 - how you're going to make that progress in a very specific, like tell me how you're going to 00:46:43.874 --> 00:46:50.937 - move us toward this in 2027, because this is very important. Do you know what I mean? Yeah. I'm not 00:46:50.937 --> 00:46:58.282 - sure I'm going to answer your question, because I feel like it headed in a different direction a little 00:46:58.282 --> 00:47:05.557 - bit. The word maintenance sort of implies status quo and keeping things the same, whereas most of what 00:47:05.557 --> 00:47:12.478 - we're doing is actually trying to get better and transform and improve. And so I wonder if, like, 00:47:13.506 --> 00:47:19.912 - I'm not wild about the frame maintaining city assets or elevating that to too high a level relative 00:47:19.912 --> 00:47:26.511 - to other policy changes that aren't asset intensive exactly as one might traditionally think of those. 00:47:26.511 --> 00:47:33.558 - Maybe like capital expenditures is like a better way to think about that, including both for like maintenance 00:47:33.558 --> 00:47:39.900 - improvements, operations, projects. Back to your customer, sorry, your kind of cost to move index. 00:47:39.900 --> 00:47:41.630 - It's like, yeah, you know, 00:47:42.338 --> 00:47:47.735 - The transportation system is incredibly capital intensive. And that's both repaving streets, making 00:47:47.735 --> 00:47:53.401 - improvements to streets, making curb ramps more accessible. It's a whole lot of stuff, right? So I would 00:47:53.401 --> 00:47:59.014 - encourage us to move beyond maintenance a little bit. I'm just kind of also just workshopping, thinking 00:47:59.014 --> 00:48:04.572 - that maybe capital investments is a better way to think about that. And then it helps also distinguish 00:48:04.572 --> 00:48:09.969 - that from things like policy implementation that are really about resourcing it through staff time, 00:48:09.969 --> 00:48:11.966 - but in ways that are consistent with 00:48:12.482 --> 00:48:18.582 - the outcomes that we're prioritizing, that are in our city plans, and that's sometimes where, I didn't 00:48:18.582 --> 00:48:24.742 - give an example earlier, but it also had a capital component, but I think we run into trouble sometimes 00:48:24.742 --> 00:48:30.902 - with like, on the implementation side, it's not that it's actually like a lot of money, it's that we're 00:48:30.902 --> 00:48:36.824 - not doing it. So yeah, I don't know, just some thoughts. So I guess, like once again, so I'm trying 00:48:36.824 --> 00:48:41.918 - to format the next survey I'm gonna send you, but maintain city assets could still be 00:48:42.050 --> 00:48:47.686 - like a line in how would you prioritize this or how many points would you give this, but I would take 00:48:47.686 --> 00:48:53.266 - out, implement existing plans and take out developed plans where none exist because I would put them 00:48:53.266 --> 00:48:58.957 - in a paragraph form as opposed to a ranked list. Because they would be this philosophical, it's really 00:48:58.957 --> 00:49:04.758 - important to us that we implement our existing plans. And so that would be taken out of the ranked list. 00:49:04.758 --> 00:49:07.134 - I guess that's what I'm trying to propose. 00:49:08.258 --> 00:49:13.830 - Council member Roseberger. I think that is right. I was going to ask what council members rather rough 00:49:13.830 --> 00:49:19.294 - thought about that. What council member Flaherty said too about the maintained city assets because I 00:49:19.294 --> 00:49:24.921 - was thinking that when council member Asari was saying it that maintained sounds like our whole purpose 00:49:24.921 --> 00:49:30.439 - is to keep everything the way it is where we would maybe get a lot of points to repaving a road which 00:49:30.439 --> 00:49:35.957 - like increases speeds which is you know like not necessarily good for bike ped people or potholes are 00:49:35.957 --> 00:49:36.606 - the reverse 00:49:36.898 --> 00:49:43.472 - speed bumps, you know, then what? That's not popular. Okay, so I am, I do like, because when I read 00:49:43.472 --> 00:49:50.045 - Maintain City Assets, I didn't think so much about like repainting doors, but I did think about how 00:49:50.045 --> 00:49:56.750 - we have a huge, you know, 50 year sewer replacement, right? And I think about those things that would 00:49:56.750 --> 00:49:59.774 - like bankrupt the city if we are not planning 00:50:00.002 --> 00:50:07.460 - Them fiscally every year to like make sure right we are replacing all those things So and like our plants 00:50:07.460 --> 00:50:14.847 - and all that so I wanted to hear from YouTube that makes more sense with the capital Expenditures rather 00:50:14.847 --> 00:50:21.953 - than maintain city assets Councilmember all You're running afoul of the nine-headed beast because we 00:50:21.953 --> 00:50:26.878 - we all have different viewpoints, but I like the word maintenance and 00:50:29.314 --> 00:50:37.849 - Entropy is real. I feel it every day. It's predictive. You should be able to tell at what pace roads 00:50:37.849 --> 00:50:46.638 - degrade. And so I like maintenance as a word because it would, so take an example. And it could be very 00:50:46.638 --> 00:50:55.258 - quantitative. Number of miles of roads paved per year. I can go to the map and I can see it. However, 00:50:55.258 --> 00:50:59.230 - I don't know what that means in the context of 00:50:59.874 --> 00:51:06.695 - I was told once long ago that it was a 20-year repaving schedule. Now, I don't know if that's appropriate 00:51:06.695 --> 00:51:13.259 - or not. And I know some roads wear out earlier than others, et cetera. But in any case, you should be 00:51:13.259 --> 00:51:19.823 - able to plot how many miles we paved this year, how many we did last year, how many we're going to do 00:51:19.823 --> 00:51:26.322 - next year. And you've got a trajectory now. You can draw a line, and you can say how many years will 00:51:26.322 --> 00:51:28.446 - it take to repave all the roads. 00:51:28.578 --> 00:51:35.368 - And that would be a good to know. And something I could tell constituents that we're going to get on 00:51:35.368 --> 00:51:42.293 - this schedule. It's revolving. It's not like we're neglecting the roads. And by the way, the cost goes 00:51:42.293 --> 00:51:49.083 - up. And so if we're going to maintain the trajectory, it's probably going to mean additional capital 00:51:49.083 --> 00:51:56.478 - expenditures and budgeting for those because the cost of asphalt goes up or whatever. So I do like that part. 00:51:56.770 --> 00:52:04.737 - Now, back to zero fatalities by X date, that's aspirational. And that involves a lot of moving parts. 00:52:04.737 --> 00:52:12.782 - You know, you don't just order it like you do repaving a road. It involves a lot of things and is much 00:52:12.782 --> 00:52:16.062 - more difficult to unpack. I'll let it go. 00:52:16.162 --> 00:52:22.518 - I want to keep on trying to move down the list. Yeah, totally. I think one of the things coming up here, 00:52:22.518 --> 00:52:28.633 - and I really love what both of you just said, is twofold. I don't think that it's a zero sum between 00:52:28.633 --> 00:52:34.686 - the question of maintenance and improvement. I think that we maybe want to split those and actually 00:52:34.686 --> 00:52:40.740 - have both of those as sort of things that we highlight and feature in our budget. One of the things 00:52:40.740 --> 00:52:46.128 - I really like to two finger or whatever, double say yes to, that Councilmember Rosenberg 00:52:46.128 --> 00:52:53.470 - said was that there are some investments that we need to make in the infrastructure in this city. 00:52:53.538 --> 00:52:59.456 - that if we don't make those investments and are going to bankrupt us as an example, or they're going 00:52:59.456 --> 00:53:05.316 - to become increasingly more expensive to maintain if we don't maintain them now, and that both is a 00:53:05.316 --> 00:53:11.586 - guiding element to how we're approaching the budget as sort of like the top level, like this is something, 00:53:11.586 --> 00:53:17.681 - so I'm submitting to us that that may be our number one priority, because it's the one very clear thing 00:53:17.681 --> 00:53:19.966 - that's coming out of the conversation, 00:53:20.066 --> 00:53:24.956 - I think, I don't think that though that's contrary to the idea that on top of that, there's a certain 00:53:24.956 --> 00:53:29.799 - amount of things that we want to make sure that you're doing, which goes hand in hand with due plans 00:53:29.799 --> 00:53:34.594 - that we already have. You know, there's a certain amount of maintenance that we want to see, but we 00:53:34.594 --> 00:53:39.436 - also want some real capital investment, right? And so I think that you could sort of say that as the 00:53:39.436 --> 00:53:43.847 - philosophy towards whatever we want to call this thing, you know, maintaining and improving 00:53:43.847 --> 00:53:48.785 - our infrastructure or something like that. And that there's a paragraph associated with that, but then 00:53:48.785 --> 00:53:50.032 - that there also, I think, 00:53:50.032 --> 00:53:56.071 - maybe our next conversation and something you might want to put on the survey is like, what type of 00:53:56.071 --> 00:54:02.594 - things do we actually want to see here? I think Councilman Rallo brought up some things, you know, certain, 00:54:02.594 --> 00:54:09.056 - you know, X percentage of roads paved, you know, less, I finally got the joke about the, you know, reverse 00:54:09.056 --> 00:54:15.276 - speed bumps, you know, less speed bumps, right? So I just think that there's a lot there that's really 00:54:15.276 --> 00:54:19.806 - clear that we're really, you know, sort of getting on the same page about. 00:54:20.770 --> 00:54:28.864 - Thank you, so I will try to, when compiling this letter or document or whatever, try to finesse that, 00:54:28.864 --> 00:54:36.799 - maintain city assets, potentially breaking it into two things, a maintenance and an improvement, or 00:54:36.799 --> 00:54:44.972 - combine them into one and put that on the survey and see how that goes. So let's try to move down this 00:54:44.972 --> 00:54:50.526 - list in the context of these questions that Controller McKim gave us. 00:54:51.650 --> 00:54:59.752 - So making homelessness brief, rare, and non-repeating, which rose to the top in two different categories, 00:54:59.752 --> 00:55:07.548 - and those things underneath it were just other things that rose to the top, or actually got any votes 00:55:07.548 --> 00:55:15.038 - at all in some cases that I felt like, well, that really connects in some ways with homelessness. 00:55:15.426 --> 00:55:22.217 - And that's the other thing is there were probably a whole other slew of things that we could have put 00:55:22.217 --> 00:55:29.140 - under there that also connect to homelessness. So this is another opportunity to be like, hey, put this 00:55:29.140 --> 00:55:36.463 - other thing under there too. But the first question is, is making homelessness brief, rare, and non-repeating 00:55:36.463 --> 00:55:43.121 - driven by local government? Yes. Is it a measurable outcome? Yes. And is the funding allocation for 00:55:43.121 --> 00:55:45.118 - that outcome measurable? Yes. 00:55:47.522 --> 00:55:54.131 - That's harder to know. Controller McKim, what do you think about the answers to those three questions? 00:55:54.131 --> 00:56:00.547 - I definitely need to have a lot more guidance on that because I would not have necessarily answered 00:56:00.547 --> 00:56:07.285 - yes to all those questions. I can tell you, just a highlight of this, I spent all day today with heading 00:56:07.285 --> 00:56:10.878 - home, the mayor, people from county council, et cetera. 00:56:11.106 --> 00:56:16.908 - talking about some new thing that Heading Home wants to do around homelessness. And it was a very clear, 00:56:16.908 --> 00:56:22.489 - like, input-output type of design where you could say, you know, we need so many houses, we're going 00:56:22.489 --> 00:56:28.125 - to spend this much money on, and that's how we're going to end, you know, not end, but, you know, get 00:56:28.125 --> 00:56:33.706 - to functional zero. So, like, people are thinking in those ways and the question becomes, like, what 00:56:33.706 --> 00:56:35.198 - is the city willing to put 00:56:35.330 --> 00:56:41.751 - to make that happen, right? So yeah, I think that is a total thing where you can measure what, now there 00:56:41.751 --> 00:56:47.927 - are things that are outside of our control within that realm, but absolutely, it's something that we 00:56:47.927 --> 00:56:54.164 - can fund and see outcomes for. So are all of these subcategories then also accurate in terms of like, 00:56:54.164 --> 00:57:00.279 - because I guess I'm thinking about number one, is this activity outcome driven by local government? 00:57:00.279 --> 00:57:04.926 - And I would not necessarily answer yes to that in this very definitive way. 00:57:05.026 --> 00:57:13.259 - Like it, because it does depend on how much money we as government invest or have to invest. But that's, 00:57:13.259 --> 00:57:21.336 - and I think that's the key point that, yeah. Yeah, and then if we invest that in this, what are we not 00:57:21.336 --> 00:57:29.334 - spending money on? Correct, correct. Control McKim. Yeah, and I guess, so you have five separate kind 00:57:29.334 --> 00:57:31.294 - of subtopics under make, 00:57:31.714 --> 00:57:40.698 - make homelessness brief, rare, and non-repeating. And I guess to what degree are you addressing just 00:57:40.698 --> 00:57:49.771 - that top level number four versus the five bullets under that? You know, I think the answers to those 00:57:49.771 --> 00:57:57.598 - questions probably differ for each of those five sub-bullets, like job and wage growth. 00:57:57.826 --> 00:58:05.287 - I'm sorry, but there's not that much. Right, yeah, and so that's where like the way that it's like they're 00:58:05.287 --> 00:58:12.259 - nested. It's like if this seems like the top level goal and job and wage growth could contribute to 00:58:12.259 --> 00:58:19.511 - making homelessness brief, rare, and non-repeating. Increasing coordination of services could help with 00:58:19.511 --> 00:58:22.718 - that overall goal. So it's, they're like sub, 00:58:23.298 --> 00:58:30.265 - there are more specific outcomes that we could invest in, and that became another, you know, it's those 00:58:30.265 --> 00:58:37.233 - nested outcomes, because in theory, we could nest everything under one big outcome. And it really makes 00:58:37.233 --> 00:58:44.602 - the mind go like this. I have an important note, just like collective memory note. One of the big discussions 00:58:44.602 --> 00:58:51.502 - that we've had over the last year and a half, particularly last year in fiscal committee, is that when 00:58:51.502 --> 00:58:52.574 - it gets down to 00:58:53.058 --> 00:58:58.199 - How are we going to make homelessness very brief? And we chose not to say that we're going to get into 00:58:58.199 --> 00:59:03.290 - the nitty gritty as a council, all nine of us saying, OK, well, we want this, and we don't want this, 00:59:03.290 --> 00:59:08.431 - and we don't. At least at this stage, that we're saying, this is what we want you to come and tell us, 00:59:08.431 --> 00:59:13.522 - people who are in all of the departments. This is what we're telling you is the priority. So you tell 00:59:13.522 --> 00:59:18.214 - us how you're going to do it, at least at that stage. Now, I think it's useful for us to have 00:59:18.214 --> 00:59:20.510 - the conversation, because it's useful for us. 00:59:20.738 --> 00:59:27.100 - areas of expertise where we say, actually, you know, here's some very specific things I'd like to see 00:59:27.100 --> 00:59:33.586 - in the budget, but we wanted to make sure that the sort of, what do you call it, the agency of deciding 00:59:33.586 --> 00:59:39.948 - how we operationalize that rests with the departments, right? So I think that that helps a little bit 00:59:39.948 --> 00:59:46.622 - here, that we don't need to decide, you know, amongst the subthings all of the things that we want to see. 00:59:46.722 --> 00:59:52.673 - the decision will happen at the council meeting. We could then say, I don't like that one, actually. 00:59:52.673 --> 00:59:58.683 - I'd like to rather fund this one twice or something like that. Yeah, and so I want to make clear that 00:59:58.683 --> 01:00:04.752 - the sub things are things that people voted on. Sometimes they were maybe voted heavily on or had lots 01:00:04.752 --> 01:00:10.939 - of points, but I went, this is really a subcategory under this larger thing. Council Member Rosenberger. 01:00:10.939 --> 01:00:12.766 - We were just looking for where 01:00:13.314 --> 01:00:21.482 - is the vote for job and wage growth? Or did you combine multiple? I know, I know she was saying there 01:00:21.482 --> 01:00:29.971 - maybe in other places that, because I was like, is that an economic development? I think it's an economic 01:00:29.971 --> 01:00:38.060 - development. And that's where like in, I tried to really lead y'all through my thinking process, but 01:00:38.060 --> 01:00:40.382 - then I put it in the packet. 01:00:40.930 --> 01:00:49.671 - kind of in reverse of the thinking process. So under economic development outcomes, we had wages, jobs, 01:00:49.671 --> 01:00:58.413 - and GDP are outpacing population growth as having six points. And then there was also attract employers 01:00:58.413 --> 01:01:06.398 - that provide living wage jobs that had four points. And I feel like there was another one too. 01:01:06.562 --> 01:01:13.775 - Per capita, oh no, that's not right. There was a tracked 24 to 44 workforce, which was two points, which 01:01:13.775 --> 01:01:20.645 - is kind of related to that too. And then there was economic inequality is reduced, which also could 01:01:20.645 --> 01:01:27.721 - be wage and job growth. So it wasn't that exact phrase, wage and job growth, but that phrase I thought 01:01:27.721 --> 01:01:31.774 - kind of summarized some of the other pieces. Thanks, yeah. 01:01:35.138 --> 01:01:45.274 - Other thoughts about housing and homelessness? Council Member Aralo. Yeah, I just wanted to ask our 01:01:45.274 --> 01:01:55.511 - controller. Kind of, maybe. You can hear me. When you query council, several members said, yes, this 01:01:55.511 --> 01:02:02.302 - is government responsibility. And you have some quibble with that. 01:02:04.482 --> 01:02:11.928 - No, definitely local government does have a role in reducing homelessness. Yeah, no, my concern was 01:02:11.928 --> 01:02:19.524 - just the very high level of the outcome of some of the, particularly with the five sub-bullets. So it 01:02:19.524 --> 01:02:27.491 - was actually, my issue was more with the five sub-bullets. Well, let's take a couple, job and wage growth. 01:02:27.491 --> 01:02:33.374 - I mean, we could target tax abatements that are specific to companies that are 01:02:33.538 --> 01:02:41.597 - raising the wage floor, right? We raise the wage floor of employee salaries in the city, which is a 01:02:41.597 --> 01:02:49.897 - minor number of employed people in the city. In terms of mental health and addiction treatment, that's 01:02:49.897 --> 01:02:54.974 - probably more county related, but we could have an interlocal. 01:02:55.106 --> 01:03:02.371 - You know, I would hope that the new jail would have those services provided, because I think that's 01:03:02.371 --> 01:03:09.781 - essential, but that's the county, you know, probably. But we're in agreement, generally, that we have 01:03:09.781 --> 01:03:17.409 - an impact. It's just to a greater or lesser degree. And maybe how to categorize it. So in this follow-up 01:03:17.409 --> 01:03:19.806 - survey of ranking, should I just 01:03:20.226 --> 01:03:28.097 - leave it as make homeless as brief, rare, and non-repeating, and drop all of the sub bullets. I like 01:03:28.097 --> 01:03:31.838 - the sub bullets. I mean, it adds a detail that. 01:03:32.930 --> 01:03:39.439 - Well, I think the sub-bullets are like how to potentially get there. I feel like I'm off again. And 01:03:39.439 --> 01:03:46.013 - so I think the question goes back to what Councilmember Sari was pointing out. It's like, do we just 01:03:46.013 --> 01:03:52.522 - want to tell the administration, we care about this thing, figure out a way to spend money in a way 01:03:52.522 --> 01:03:59.486 - that's going to impact the thing? Or do we want to say, we want to impact this thing in this very specific 01:03:59.486 --> 01:04:01.374 - way? Yes, I find it helpful. 01:04:01.506 --> 01:04:09.302 - I find that those are helpful. They're not exclusive to other means of getting that. And I certainly 01:04:09.302 --> 01:04:17.329 - don't want to put parameters that these are the only way in which it can happen. So maybe on the survey 01:04:17.329 --> 01:04:25.202 - that I follow up, leave it as make homelessness briefer or non-repeating, but then put these into the 01:04:25.202 --> 01:04:31.454 - letter underneath there as in ways like this. For example, this is, yeah. Great. 01:04:32.194 --> 01:04:40.698 - Any other feedback on number four? I just want to chime in on that, that what you're saying is, I mean, 01:04:40.698 --> 01:04:48.956 - I think because we all did the work and you did the work to say these were bullets that got hit on a 01:04:48.956 --> 01:04:57.541 - lot, I do think it's useful to include them because it is what we said, like increase affordable housing 01:04:57.541 --> 01:05:00.158 - options and early intervention. 01:05:00.322 --> 01:05:06.635 - So I think it is good to be like, here are some things that we're thinking about, but the list is not 01:05:06.635 --> 01:05:12.948 - exhaustive. OK. Great. Yeah. Councilmember Rosari. Again, two fingering the same thing. It's like you 01:05:12.948 --> 01:05:19.198 - say, I think we have sort of two outputs here. You're going to create another survey for us to maybe 01:05:19.198 --> 01:05:25.511 - a little bit to help prioritize. Great. But there's the other side, which is the actual format of the 01:05:25.511 --> 01:05:29.534 - letter or whatever resolution or whatever we want to send forth. 01:05:30.210 --> 01:05:35.623 - And I think you're already writing some of it, like now. It makes a lot of sense. We say, our priority 01:05:35.623 --> 01:05:41.036 - is make homelessness rare, brief, and non-repeating. This is where it ranks within our priorities. And 01:05:41.036 --> 01:05:46.396 - here are all of the many ways that we've liked of ways to do it, but we are recognizing that it's not 01:05:46.396 --> 01:05:51.809 - the exhaustive list. I mean, right? I mean, I think that's things that we are willing already to fund. 01:05:51.809 --> 01:05:57.064 - I think it's a great way of putting it. OK. Are we ready to move on to number five? Great. Increase 01:05:57.064 --> 01:05:59.166 - housing diversity within neighborhoods. 01:05:59.426 --> 01:06:06.252 - And then underneath that, increased predictability for permanent approvals, increased range of affordable 01:06:06.252 --> 01:06:12.757 - housing options, including those with universal design and or environmentally sustainable. And so is 01:06:12.757 --> 01:06:19.390 - this outcome or activity driven by local government? Yes. Is it measurable? What, increasing diversity 01:06:19.390 --> 01:06:24.606 - of housing? Yeah. Yes. And is the funding allocation for the outcome measurable? 01:06:29.602 --> 01:06:37.376 - partially. I feel like I need to follow up with this with number four. The things to keep in mind, number 01:06:37.376 --> 01:06:44.783 - four is, does this outcome require direct fiscal investment, staff time, or legislation? And this is 01:06:44.783 --> 01:06:52.410 - where I feel like number five, in terms of government role in that, would involve legislation. I agree. 01:06:52.410 --> 01:06:55.710 - For example? A co-change? For example? Yeah. 01:06:57.506 --> 01:07:05.297 - So this, in terms of the letter, is that this requires staff time legislation for a code change. I have 01:07:05.297 --> 01:07:12.864 - it on my cheapish, cheapish to move category. Yeah. But I struggled with it. Councilmember Flaherty. 01:07:12.864 --> 01:07:20.581 - Where do existing plans factor into it? I had sort of asked the question, I guess we go through these, 01:07:20.581 --> 01:07:24.926 - are we going to request from the administration that they 01:07:25.762 --> 01:07:32.853 - share information on this framework, and are we asking them to say what in our city, I don't know. I 01:07:32.853 --> 01:07:40.084 - feel like we're a little divorced right now from specific things that are called for in documents that 01:07:40.084 --> 01:07:47.245 - I think relative to this exercise are, I don't know, a little bit, went through certainly a much more 01:07:47.245 --> 01:07:52.510 - robust process as far as community input, legislative adoption, et cetera. 01:07:52.738 --> 01:07:59.713 - So I think there's synergies. We're just not talking about that piece right now. And I'll return to 01:07:59.713 --> 01:08:06.478 - the fact that the devil's in the details on all this. I think increased housing diversity within 01:08:06.478 --> 01:08:13.731 - neighborhoods. The mayor probably says she's doing that. I disagree. The devil's in the details of what 01:08:13.731 --> 01:08:20.706 - policies. There's policies called for in our plans that we're not implementing. So how do we, those 01:08:20.706 --> 01:08:21.822 - are measurable. 01:08:22.178 --> 01:08:30.195 - they're legislatively adopted, they're in existing plans. How do we make sense of that in the context 01:08:30.195 --> 01:08:38.291 - of these priorities? To be honest, I would take this one out of my priority list for 2027 because it's 01:08:38.291 --> 01:08:46.308 - legislative, it's cheap, and I think that we should do it in 2026. I would just take that out. That's 01:08:46.308 --> 01:08:51.102 - my personal thing is that we could do that this year despite 01:08:51.266 --> 01:08:58.356 - staffing challenges. So that's just my position, kind of in that, because that to some degree is up 01:08:58.356 --> 01:09:05.445 - to us as a body to figure out ways to do that. And I know that the Mayor's Administration is trying 01:09:05.445 --> 01:09:13.244 - to do some different things with permitting already, which we don't have any control over, is that permitting 01:09:13.244 --> 01:09:20.830 - piece. But I'll try a little bit. Just because it's legislative doesn't mean it's exclusively our purview. 01:09:21.090 --> 01:09:28.332 - We have staff experts in urban planning, for instance. Most legislation comes to the administration. 01:09:28.332 --> 01:09:36.005 - And just as a pragmatic matter, it is true that when the administration weighs in heavily on a legislative 01:09:36.005 --> 01:09:43.248 - item they did not develop, they're able to affect it to a meaningful degree. And so yes, we can pass 01:09:43.248 --> 01:09:47.550 - legislation over their opposition. It doesn't happen often. 01:09:47.682 --> 01:09:52.237 - I think we'd be naive to say, because it's legislative, we don't need to put it in a set of priorities 01:09:52.237 --> 01:09:56.837 - and get the mayor's buy-in because it's just our job. It just doesn't work like that in practice. Well, 01:09:56.837 --> 01:10:01.613 - that's not exactly what I meant, but it's more like we could do that this year. Yes, we could make progress 01:10:01.613 --> 01:10:06.036 - later this month. And I mean, some of that is what Director Hiddle was talking about at our meeting 01:10:06.036 --> 01:10:10.591 - last week, too. So in some ways, that might be happening this year already. Councilmember Daley? Yeah, 01:10:10.591 --> 01:10:15.102 - but I mean, that's exactly what I was just going to say was what Councilmember Flaherty said, is that 01:10:15.522 --> 01:10:22.521 - We can legislate. That opens pathways to it. But that doesn't mean anything is going to happen. That's 01:10:22.521 --> 01:10:29.316 - the first step. But we need more to happen beyond just us legislating. So I would leave it on here. 01:10:29.316 --> 01:10:36.112 - But that's just my vote. Council member, sorry. I think another element of this, agree with both of 01:10:36.112 --> 01:10:42.975 - those statements. Another element of this, though, is like staff time, which is a part where we have 01:10:42.975 --> 01:10:44.062 - to say justify. 01:10:44.386 --> 01:10:49.403 - you know, it sounds meaner than maybe it is, but it's like justify that you need X amount of people 01:10:49.403 --> 01:10:54.670 - in X office because this is the thing we're moving towards. Why is said thing not moving forward, right? 01:10:54.670 --> 01:10:59.687 - And it's like if you're not going to align with our priorities, then we won't fund your activities, 01:10:59.687 --> 01:11:04.754 - right? I mean, it's like is one way that we could approach such a conversation. So I think it's very 01:11:04.754 --> 01:11:09.470 - important even with things like this that, you know, many ways could be very cheap to put on, 01:11:09.570 --> 01:11:15.653 - to push forward that we hold the administration to account or saying, like, tell us how you are going 01:11:15.653 --> 01:11:21.796 - to do this this year. And I also, I mean, we had conversations at our very first budget meeting around 01:11:21.796 --> 01:11:27.761 - this, you know, and Councilmember Flaherty and I have talked about this on the dais where it's like 01:11:27.761 --> 01:11:32.830 - I asked a question about, hey, are we going to see some changes towards a form-based 01:11:32.930 --> 01:11:39.002 - code and whatever. And they're like, yeah, that's what we'll do next year. And so we need to do these 01:11:39.002 --> 01:11:45.073 - things this year. And then next year was like, no, we're not going to do that anytime soon. So having 01:11:45.073 --> 01:11:51.026 - a clear conversation like that, I think, is really important that we keep those priorities, even if 01:11:51.026 --> 01:11:56.978 - they're cheap. OK. Councilmember Rosenberger. One tiny thing. The word affordable was difficult for 01:11:56.978 --> 01:11:58.526 - me to sort of understand. 01:11:58.626 --> 01:12:08.449 - in increased range of affordable housing options? I mean, did we mean housing options or do we mean 01:12:08.449 --> 01:12:18.272 - affordable as in AMI percentages or did we mean different options, different home prices? I take it 01:12:18.272 --> 01:12:25.246 - to mean increased range of housing options. So that particular outcome 01:12:26.434 --> 01:12:35.077 - oh, now I'm going to have to open up the December thing. That's the first one on my spreadsheet, which 01:12:35.077 --> 01:12:43.552 - means that it is one of the ones that came from a plan that Isabel would have marked in the December 01:12:43.552 --> 01:12:52.110 - meeting. And I don't have that particular packet pulled up. So that's where you could track that from 01:12:52.110 --> 01:12:56.222 - if you weren't sure about how to interpret that. 01:12:59.042 --> 01:13:07.065 - I actually had a conversation about one of the other ones, and it wasn't that one when we were preparing 01:13:07.065 --> 01:13:14.859 - for this, because she had comments. Yeah, and some of these outcomes, whether they came from plans or 01:13:14.859 --> 01:13:22.500 - whether they came from individuals suggesting them, they're easily interpretable in different ways. 01:13:22.500 --> 01:13:25.022 - But yeah, and that scored seven. 01:13:29.922 --> 01:13:39.583 - actually with increased predictability and decreased time for permanent approval, so that's interesting. 01:13:39.583 --> 01:13:48.969 - All right, so what I'm hearing so far is that I'm keeping the top level things on the survey and then 01:13:48.969 --> 01:13:57.342 - putting the lower level things into the examples. Okay, so we're good on number five then. 01:13:58.818 --> 01:14:11.742 - Number six, reduce systemic inequities. Is it an outcome or activity driven by local government? 01:14:11.742 --> 01:14:19.870 - Number six, reduce systemic inequities. I will also say that 01:14:21.218 --> 01:14:28.953 - We played with this one a little bit because we had these other lower level things, the ABC, about reducing 01:14:28.953 --> 01:14:36.114 - income inequality, making sure engagement processes are inclusive and representative, reducing race 01:14:36.114 --> 01:14:43.562 - and class disparities in our various systems, and those three things all received high scores, and this 01:14:43.562 --> 01:14:50.366 - was one of the things Councilmember Piedmont-Smith, as another member of the fiscal committee, 01:14:50.690 --> 01:14:58.833 - the thought that those should be grouped together differently as opposed to grouping them underneath 01:14:58.833 --> 01:15:06.895 - other things to pull out and have a whole systematic inequity as sort of category. So I think we're 01:15:06.895 --> 01:15:15.038 - still answering the question, is this an activity or outcome driven by local government? Often, yes. 01:15:15.038 --> 01:15:19.230 - Most systems are subject to some degree of inequity 01:15:19.330 --> 01:15:26.849 - It's sort of like the water we swim in. We can't control all those systems, but the government interacts 01:15:26.849 --> 01:15:34.511 - with and perpetuates and creates many systems. So it's such a broad statement, reduce systemic inequities. 01:15:34.511 --> 01:15:41.958 - But yes, of course, many of the things the government does and engages in have systemic inequities that 01:15:41.958 --> 01:15:47.902 - we could work on addressing. And having probably some framework, expertise, goals, 01:15:48.098 --> 01:15:55.908 - on doing that in our various systems would be helpful. I don't know. In utilities and other services, 01:15:55.908 --> 01:16:03.948 - it's not a particularly equitable system when everybody pays the exact same amount. We can't do, I don't 01:16:03.948 --> 01:16:11.758 - think, we don't expect the IURC would approve income-tiered rates. But something I've contemplated is 01:16:11.758 --> 01:16:17.118 - could you do a bill discount that's funded not through the rate base, 01:16:17.378 --> 01:16:23.171 - But from the general fund, like when we had a million dollars that we were using for paying off medical 01:16:23.171 --> 01:16:28.742 - debt for a limited number of folks in the wake of the LIT increase, that was like part of the like, 01:16:28.742 --> 01:16:34.368 - okay, let's focus some on like economic inequities. You could make that go a lot farther if you were 01:16:34.368 --> 01:16:39.994 - saying everybody below a certain income threshold who gets city of Bloomington utilities is going to 01:16:39.994 --> 01:16:45.342 - get $300 a year off on their bills, you know, part-time or monthly. Like that addresses like a, 01:16:45.634 --> 01:16:51.983 - an energy insecurity issue in a fairly broad-based way. Just like, I'm spitballing. Just like an example 01:16:51.983 --> 01:16:58.332 - of a thing like people's ability to afford basic needs, basic utilities varies, so it's not an equitable 01:16:58.332 --> 01:17:04.741 - system, it's full of inequities. We have limitations in what we can do about that, but there are creative 01:17:04.741 --> 01:17:11.211 - ways to do something about it. And so, just to illustrate that these inequities are everywhere, of course. 01:17:11.211 --> 01:17:14.174 - The transportation system is deeply inequitable. 01:17:14.274 --> 01:17:20.798 - And that's part of what our other goals are about. So just sort of saying, yes, it's government, 01:17:20.798 --> 01:17:27.524 - for sure. I think the obvious word should be instead of reducing income inequality, which is a tall 01:17:27.524 --> 01:17:34.047 - order to address income inequality. Because you can address income inequality by, say, providing 01:17:34.047 --> 01:17:39.966 - a transportation that obviously needs for a car. And rather than the idea that we could 01:17:40.898 --> 01:17:48.468 - cut everyone a check or something of a certain, even though that's a possibility too, that we could 01:17:48.468 --> 01:17:56.114 - maybe have some tiered services or something in terms of income. But addressing it would be a better 01:17:56.114 --> 01:18:03.685 - word, I think, because reducing it is. I don't mind reduce at the high level. I'm fine with address 01:18:03.685 --> 01:18:09.438 - for the sub-bullet. And to me, we have talked about operationalizing equity 01:18:09.890 --> 01:18:16.272 - systematic approaches to equity and equity frameworks over the last couple of budget cycles. We haven't 01:18:16.272 --> 01:18:22.470 - made progress, and there's been some sort of preemptive Trump compliance kind of stuff thrown about. 01:18:22.470 --> 01:18:28.667 - Again, we've articulated a few examples here. Kind of like a procedural equity element of engagement 01:18:28.667 --> 01:18:34.865 - processes. We're talking about income specifically, and we're talking about the public safety system 01:18:34.865 --> 01:18:39.774 - specifically, and particular types of disparities there. But the inequities are 01:18:39.970 --> 01:18:45.844 - much farther reaching than that. There's safety inequities in the transportation system. There's on 01:18:45.844 --> 01:18:51.895 - and on. And again, like where my mind kind of goes on this as far as like measurable and outcome, like 01:18:51.895 --> 01:18:57.769 - can we measure the funding and all that? It's like we don't have a coherent system to try to reduce 01:18:57.769 --> 01:19:03.820 - systemic inequities right now. And if that's the broad top line goal here, we would have to take steps 01:19:03.820 --> 01:19:09.342 - toward doing that. I think they are measurable. I think you could talk about a budget impact. 01:19:09.762 --> 01:19:16.435 - So I guess, yeah, I favor that a little more. I mean, I support the sub bullets too. I think they're 01:19:16.435 --> 01:19:23.108 - important areas where we've identified specific, but I just wanted to name those extend farther than 01:19:23.108 --> 01:19:30.046 - the sub bullets too. Okay. So council member Flaherty just made an argument for, is this driven by local 01:19:30.046 --> 01:19:36.719 - government with like, yeah, we can affect certain parts of it. Does anybody want to make a different 01:19:36.719 --> 01:19:39.230 - argument? Council member Rosenberger? 01:19:40.034 --> 01:19:45.991 - It's not different, it's not different. I just though wanted to say, we're talking about what can kind 01:19:45.991 --> 01:19:51.831 - of be measured. Well, I'm not to the measured yet. Do we wanna go to the measured? If we all tend to 01:19:51.831 --> 01:19:57.672 - be like, yeah, Council Member Flaherty made a good argument, so then we can go on to question number 01:19:57.672 --> 01:20:03.629 - two as the outcome measurement. Oh, okay, I mean, I can weigh on that still, that I think it is a good 01:20:03.629 --> 01:20:07.966 - argument. And I mean, I think in terms of equity and inequity in our city, 01:20:08.994 --> 01:20:14.956 - we don't have a, the city doesn't operate with a definition of equity, I think. I mean, we, 01:20:14.956 --> 01:20:21.697 - so it's like, there's a long way to go on this one, so I think starting, starting would be good. Right, 01:20:21.697 --> 01:20:28.307 - like some cities, I think, have great examples of departments and definitions and what that means and 01:20:28.307 --> 01:20:34.918 - what can be triggered if it's not getting implemented and things, and so I think that would be great, 01:20:34.918 --> 01:20:36.862 - and just something that we've 01:20:37.122 --> 01:20:45.937 - talked about potentially starting to measure is who is engaging publicly and who isn't, which is then 01:20:45.937 --> 01:20:54.837 - something to look at to be like, hey, mostly white people are speaking at our meetings. I guess I just 01:20:54.837 --> 01:21:03.479 - thought about something to measure. I know other cities do ask people to fill out some demographics 01:21:03.479 --> 01:21:05.726 - in public comment. Great. 01:21:06.402 --> 01:21:13.000 - That addresses the question, is it measurable? So yes, driven by local government to some extent, it 01:21:13.000 --> 01:21:20.056 - can be measurable. Certain things can be measurable. Is the funding allocation for that outcome measurable? 01:21:20.056 --> 01:21:26.916 - Yes. OK. Great. Can I say one more brief thing on that? Yeah. Which is that I recently found out through 01:21:26.916 --> 01:21:33.449 - my day job about an organization called Viva DEI. If you go to vivadei.org, it's sort of a resource 01:21:33.449 --> 01:21:34.494 - that was set up 01:21:34.658 --> 01:21:41.639 - specifically in the context and the wake of a lot of the sort of current federal administration's attacks 01:21:41.639 --> 01:21:48.225 - on the idea of equity and inclusion or the importance of diversity and thinking about how we govern 01:21:48.225 --> 01:21:55.009 - or how we do anything. So anyway, lots of cities are still making progress on these issues and I think 01:21:55.009 --> 01:22:01.727 - there's a, yeah, I would encourage my colleagues to check it out because I think it can speak to this 01:22:01.727 --> 01:22:03.966 - particular context for this goal. 01:22:04.994 --> 01:22:15.979 - Next, number seven, vibrant and resilient economy. Is the activity or outcome driven by local government? 01:22:15.979 --> 01:22:26.550 - I think it's very similarly to the homelessness conversation. I think to a large extent, yes. Yes. Is 01:22:26.550 --> 01:22:33.182 - everybody good with that yes answer? Is the outcome measurable? 01:22:35.170 --> 01:22:42.590 - I sort of had the, I mean, so I'll tell you where I struggled here, because generally this is a priority 01:22:42.590 --> 01:22:49.798 - for me, but the words vibrant and resilient are words that don't, you know, could mean lots of things 01:22:49.798 --> 01:22:56.935 - to lots of people. So, yeah, so I think we need to operationalize that one a little bit, change that 01:22:56.935 --> 01:22:59.550 - one a bit, but. So do you think that 01:23:00.194 --> 01:23:06.188 - vibrant and resilient economy needs to be adjusted, or do you think that the examples underneath it 01:23:06.188 --> 01:23:12.481 - need to be potentially expanded? Because there's probably other things that could fit underneath vibrant 01:23:12.481 --> 01:23:19.074 - and resilient economy. And I mean, number eight is create vibrant third places, neighborhood hubs, activating 01:23:19.074 --> 01:23:25.127 - vacant spaces. Public spaces are high quality, engaging, and active. Those things in some ways could 01:23:25.127 --> 01:23:26.206 - combine together. 01:23:26.658 --> 01:23:33.040 - One is more talking about social stuff, I think, and one is more talking about economic stuff, which 01:23:33.040 --> 01:23:39.486 - is like social community kind of building, which is not necessarily economic. Certainly, you can have 01:23:39.486 --> 01:23:45.805 - a very vibrant community that has no money. But you don't need money to make community. But there's 01:23:45.805 --> 01:23:52.629 - similarities there. So that was a question to Council Member Sari for just a minute. Do we need to workshop 01:23:52.629 --> 01:23:54.462 - the top level or the bottom? 01:23:54.690 --> 01:24:00.624 - Well, I actually really this is something Councilmember Rosenberger just said that I really agree with 01:24:00.624 --> 01:24:06.500 - I think the issue with the framing currently is that it might lead to a reinforcing of the thing that 01:24:06.500 --> 01:24:08.862 - we got last year in our budget, which is 01:24:08.994 --> 01:24:16.858 - Yeah, everything is this. And so you could talk about anything as vibrant and happy economy or whatever 01:24:16.858 --> 01:24:24.798 - we said. I do think some of the things under it, wage growth, jobs, increased number of employees living 01:24:24.798 --> 01:24:32.360 - and working in Bloomington. I mean, all of those things are the type of things that I'd like to see 01:24:32.360 --> 01:24:37.502 - us investing in. But I think we need to workshop this a little bit. 01:24:37.762 --> 01:24:44.749 - I mean, it does come directly from one of our plans, but I think we need to workshop a little bit how 01:24:44.749 --> 01:24:51.804 - it's framed so that doesn't, you know, it could go in a lot of directions. Okay. Council Member Rallo. 01:24:51.804 --> 01:24:58.859 - I think the word was operationalized. I think I understand. I mean, number of locally owned businesses 01:24:58.859 --> 01:25:06.942 - would be a good measure as opposed to businesses that, you know, where profits go somewhere to shareholders far away. 01:25:07.458 --> 01:25:15.268 - I think GDP is increasingly a bad measure for economic well-being. I think that you could have one-tenth 01:25:15.268 --> 01:25:23.004 - the population profiting very well and 90 percent doing very poorly and have a positive GDP. So I think 01:25:23.004 --> 01:25:30.591 - we need to look into other measures of well-being for the community. And one would be, to what extent 01:25:30.591 --> 01:25:33.790 - do we recirculate wealth in the community? 01:25:33.922 --> 01:25:43.239 - and that would probably require a consultant or something, but I'd like to see how many dollars recirculate 01:25:43.239 --> 01:25:52.383 - as opposed to just exit the community. So. Okay. Income leakage is very important to economic development 01:25:52.383 --> 01:25:59.198 - circles. Okay. So what I hear is you agree with it as a concept, but the title 01:26:00.002 --> 01:26:05.968 - vibrant and resilient economy needs to shift. And I'm not actually sure without looking, and I honestly 01:26:05.968 --> 01:26:11.762 - don't want to take the time right now to do it because we're kind of running out of time, how much I 01:26:11.762 --> 01:26:17.728 - subcategorized other things under that or whether vibrant and resilient economy was one of those things 01:26:17.728 --> 01:26:23.522 - that got the most votes. And if it was, it probably comes directly from a plan. So if it did, then I 01:26:23.522 --> 01:26:24.382 - can look back. 01:26:24.482 --> 01:26:31.887 - that December meeting and figure out the source with Councilmember Piedmont-Smith and see if there's 01:26:31.887 --> 01:26:39.293 - a way to make that clearer. So if y'all kind of give me grace to do that for the follow-up survey, I 01:26:39.293 --> 01:26:46.991 - suddenly have a whole lot of work to do with a follow-up survey. I'll get there. Okay, so create vibrant 01:26:46.991 --> 01:26:53.150 - third places slash neighborhood hubs. Is that driven by government? Yes. Yes. Okay. 01:26:54.146 --> 01:27:04.141 - As an example. Is it measurable? Is the outcome measurable? That was a question I had. What metrics 01:27:04.141 --> 01:27:14.336 - would we be asking to see out of third space? Well, we could do attendance at various things, like we 01:27:14.336 --> 01:27:17.534 - do for certain Kirkwood events. 01:27:17.666 --> 01:27:24.584 - We could also do the amount of events that happen throughout the year, the distribution of events. I 01:27:24.584 --> 01:27:31.708 - know we have a lot on Kirkwood, but if we wanted to expand that, expand the third spaces past Kirkwood, 01:27:31.708 --> 01:27:38.558 - like do we have events going on on the west side, on the east side, like simultaneously so that all 01:27:38.558 --> 01:27:45.614 - of our residents can thrive? I think those are all measurable. I would also say that a measure of that 01:27:45.614 --> 01:27:47.326 - could be businesses that 01:27:47.426 --> 01:27:55.219 - would move in to different areas to create those neighborhood hubs would be something else that was 01:27:55.219 --> 01:28:03.167 - potentially measurable. And I think that, is this on? Yeah. If we look at our zoning maps, we need to 01:28:03.167 --> 01:28:11.271 - make sure neighborhoods all have areas zoned that can be hubs. I think that's the neighborhood hub part 01:28:11.271 --> 01:28:12.830 - of it for me. Yeah. 01:28:15.330 --> 01:28:24.277 - All right, and is the funding allocation for that outcome measurable? Okay, great. Number nine, Bloomington 01:28:24.277 --> 01:28:32.561 - residents have options other than uniformed police officers for non-violent issues. Is it driven by 01:28:32.561 --> 01:28:39.934 - government? Is it a measurable outcome? And is the funding allocation measurable? Great. 01:28:40.034 --> 01:28:46.072 - Number 10 zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries by 2039. We've already talked about this a little 01:28:46.072 --> 01:28:52.110 - bit And I also put down it just in my notes when we were talking about it before this question. Is this 01:28:52.110 --> 01:28:57.974 - also more philosophical? Like councilmember. Sorry was saying because is this Because it connects to 01:28:57.974 --> 01:29:03.838 - city plans. It's technically a part of the transportation plan. So should this just get moved into a 01:29:03.970 --> 01:29:14.067 - that paragraph related to implementing the plans that we have and call it out as a very specific piece 01:29:14.067 --> 01:29:19.262 - that we want to know and we want to invest in steps. 01:29:20.802 --> 01:29:26.419 - I think that question actually helps clarify how the other two operate that we've suggested as sort 01:29:26.419 --> 01:29:32.091 - of guiding principles different than this one, because this one is a clear, we have a whole plan for 01:29:32.091 --> 01:29:37.708 - this, and us putting this as a priority in our budget is us telling the office of the mayor and the 01:29:37.708 --> 01:29:43.549 - city's broader administration to come and tell us, what are you doing this year in funding to move this 01:29:43.549 --> 01:29:46.526 - forward? I mean, I think it's super straightforward. 01:29:47.138 --> 01:29:53.693 - We want that, we want to make sure that it stays a priority, and so on and so forth. So does it belong 01:29:53.693 --> 01:30:00.184 - in the top level paragraph of implementing? No, it belongs in the survey. I think the part of the top 01:30:00.184 --> 01:30:06.866 - level is already covered by do our plans. So the part at the under level is, yeah. Here's one that we're 01:30:06.866 --> 01:30:13.293 - calling out. All right. Does anybody have any opposing guns over Flaherty? I was going to move on to 01:30:13.293 --> 01:30:15.966 - one of the sub bullets. Is that OK? Yeah. 01:30:16.194 --> 01:30:23.139 - Just that I'd like to perhaps have a deliberation session next month. I could even lead it on pedestrian 01:30:23.139 --> 01:30:30.017 - network being cleared quickly and effectively after snowfall. This is a persistent challenge. Obviously 01:30:30.017 --> 01:30:36.631 - the existing policy landscape is inadequate. So it's, and this isn't really, I mean it's definitely 01:30:36.631 --> 01:30:42.782 - recovered, sorry, it's covered kind of conceptually in the Safe Streets for All action plan. 01:30:43.682 --> 01:30:52.385 - but it will entail changes that are probably different and more specific, including funding, all measurable 01:30:52.385 --> 01:31:01.007 - for sure, including the outcomes, the impact, that is different than what's in the plan. So that's another 01:31:01.007 --> 01:31:09.146 - reason that this, in favor of this sort of being specifically called out. So you want me to pull out 01:31:09.146 --> 01:31:11.966 - that? No, no, no, I'm just saying, 01:31:12.450 --> 01:31:20.360 - Number item 10 here. Oh should be specifically called out because okay in the List of yeah, okay. Yeah, 01:31:20.360 --> 01:31:27.661 - and and that's another like that particular 110 a I think was one of the top however many under 01:31:27.661 --> 01:31:35.038 - transportation and I stuck it underneath the zero traffic fatalities or serious injuries because 01:31:35.330 --> 01:31:40.840 - You know, it is such a safety impact. And of course, it's other things too. You know, going back to 01:31:40.840 --> 01:31:46.515 - Council Member Zulek and what she said in the beginning in terms of her priorities, in terms of making 01:31:46.515 --> 01:31:52.025 - sure our residents are able to access the things that they need, that they have the stuff that they 01:31:52.025 --> 01:31:57.535 - need. And if you're dependent on the pedestrian network in order to get those things that you need, 01:31:57.535 --> 01:32:03.100 - then that really breaks down. So, okay, so we're good on that. Strengthen food security networks. Is 01:32:03.100 --> 01:32:04.478 - it driven by government? 01:32:08.866 --> 01:32:16.432 - entirely, but partially. And by local government specifically? Yes. There are actions we can take to 01:32:16.432 --> 01:32:23.399 - improve this, yes. Okay. Might fall under equity, other things like that. I mean, similar to 01:32:23.399 --> 01:32:30.964 - other conversations, but there are actions we can take and food security is something we've all said 01:32:30.964 --> 01:32:37.182 - we care about a lot. Okay. By food, yep. Yep. Is the outcome measurable? Yes. Yes. 01:32:37.346 --> 01:32:48.748 - is the funding allocation for the outcome measurable? Yes. Air quality is maintained at a high level 01:32:48.748 --> 01:33:00.941 - and carbon emissions are reduced, driven by local government. Measurable outcome out of funding allocation. 01:33:00.941 --> 01:33:05.118 - Can I just ask, are we talking about 01:33:05.378 --> 01:33:12.261 - air quality and carbon emissions reduced by the city fleet or are you just talking overall? I think 01:33:12.261 --> 01:33:19.351 - it's overall like that's actually like that's one of those outcomes that is in our climate action plan 01:33:19.351 --> 01:33:26.303 - so it's like overall that we want those reductions and so I think that's one of those things like in 01:33:26.303 --> 01:33:33.186 - terms of actually like doing it we can mostly affect what the city itself is doing because we can't 01:33:33.186 --> 01:33:34.494 - force other people 01:33:34.850 --> 01:33:42.018 - to transition, but we can give incentives to people to transition. So there's all those grants through 01:33:42.018 --> 01:33:49.395 - the sustainable and economic development department around adopting other alternatives. And code changes. 01:33:49.395 --> 01:33:56.911 - There's a whole range of possibilities. Again, a whole plan for it, yet city operations and community-wide. 01:33:56.911 --> 01:34:02.270 - And the degree of control varies, just like all of these, right? Yeah. Yeah. 01:34:02.466 --> 01:34:09.735 - We can control some of it and can't control some of it, of course, because it's not like we live in 01:34:09.735 --> 01:34:17.294 - a bubble with only our air quality. We get that nice wildfire smoke sometimes coming from lots of other 01:34:17.294 --> 01:34:25.290 - places. So all right, we're good with that. Leave it in there. Waste reduction. Is it affected by government? 01:34:25.290 --> 01:34:31.614 - Yes. Is the outcome measurable? Yes. Is the funding allocation measurable? Yep. Great. 01:34:32.194 --> 01:34:49.216 - What should we do about this crime is reduced? Little note down here. Does anybody want me to go ahead 01:34:49.216 --> 01:34:54.174 - and put that into the survey? 01:34:55.778 --> 01:35:02.916 - Well, a lot of these sub points, and for anyone who is looking, it is on the same page, on page five 01:35:02.916 --> 01:35:09.983 - at the very bottom, crime is reduced. A lot of them are already covered in different categories, so 01:35:09.983 --> 01:35:17.191 - I wonder if we could, I think, actually all of them are covered in other categories. I would say that 01:35:17.191 --> 01:35:23.198 - crime is reduced is a very broad category, and I think that they fit better in other 01:35:23.650 --> 01:35:32.446 - categories if my colleagues agree with me. So, leave it off because it's covered in other places. Okay. 01:35:32.446 --> 01:35:41.495 - Council Member Arello. It also fits into the development of plans where none exist, notably public safety, 01:35:41.495 --> 01:35:49.952 - which is, I mean, I think the two primary things that could evolve from is, number one, there was a 01:35:49.952 --> 01:35:52.574 - CAHPS report, which I think is 01:35:53.026 --> 01:36:01.594 - is mostly anecdotal, but I think useful. And then there was the Novak report in 2018 for 21st century 01:36:01.594 --> 01:36:09.994 - policing, and I think it evolved from that, that gives some information too. But clearly, we need a 01:36:09.994 --> 01:36:18.478 - kind of a comprehensive approach to public safety. Agreed. And reducing crime is an outcome of that. 01:36:18.478 --> 01:36:22.846 - Here's another kind of question I have around that. 01:36:23.074 --> 01:36:32.337 - want to make that kind of a 2027 budget priority and this will be like the last thing and then we're 01:36:32.337 --> 01:36:41.509 - gonna go to public comment. Do we have an expectation in 2027 that it would be a plan that would be 01:36:41.509 --> 01:36:51.047 - developed with say a consultant and all of those pieces or would it be something that is developed more 01:36:51.047 --> 01:36:52.606 - in-house through 01:36:52.738 --> 01:37:02.413 - a cooperative process between council, administration, police department, community input, CAPS commission, 01:37:02.413 --> 01:37:11.730 - all of those things. Because that's a good thing to kind of understand and clarify because I guess that 01:37:11.730 --> 01:37:19.614 - kind of, I feel like plans that are done by consultants are usually like, they're like, 01:37:21.730 --> 01:37:28.956 - This is a horrible way to say it. They're like, plan plans. Whereas when you do that in-house thing, 01:37:28.956 --> 01:37:36.110 - it's more like just a first-level plan that maybe isn't as comprehensive, but at least might get to 01:37:36.110 --> 01:37:43.407 - some of what we want to do. I guess I'm just trying to figure out how to write it up and what kind of 01:37:43.407 --> 01:37:45.982 - expectation we would have for 2027. 01:37:47.522 --> 01:37:52.901 - I'm going to make a suggestion that when you send out the survey as well, and I guess we'll have a time 01:37:52.901 --> 01:37:58.125 - before we send out the letter of resolution or whatever we send, but one thing that we might want to 01:37:58.125 --> 01:38:03.452 - think about are other sort of guiding principles, right? And last year this came up through our budget 01:38:03.452 --> 01:38:08.779 - conversation where we were actually like, and Councilmember Rosenberger said it as well, was this idea 01:38:08.779 --> 01:38:11.934 - of like less planning, more doing, right, as one was saying. 01:38:12.130 --> 01:38:18.816 - it would be useful for us to have further conversations about that, like how do you wanna guide the 01:38:18.816 --> 01:38:26.103 - question of whether or not and how often and how much we engage with consultants as an example, particularly 01:38:26.103 --> 01:38:32.923 - in a restrained resources time that if we already have lots of plans and that's sort of principle one 01:38:32.923 --> 01:38:39.676 - or two for us, do we wanna sort of put a restriction on and here are the places where we want you to 01:38:39.676 --> 01:38:40.478 - engage with 01:38:40.930 --> 01:38:47.631 - you know, consultants and in what ways. Okay, so maybe we should consider having a future deliberative 01:38:47.631 --> 01:38:54.138 - session just about this concept of a public safety plan and like a shared understanding. I think we 01:38:54.138 --> 01:39:00.774 - all agree on the public safety plan. I was just saying generally just because you mentioned that idea 01:39:00.774 --> 01:39:06.174 - of do we want to get consulted. I do think that's a broader conversation we should 01:39:06.274 --> 01:39:12.150 - have, I mean, it doesn't have to be a long one, but just a conversation that we have at some point about 01:39:12.150 --> 01:39:18.082 - structuring how we as a council would like to see both consultants engaged with and then followed through 01:39:18.082 --> 01:39:23.846 - with, I think, is sort of, it's in between those two things of the making plans where they don't exist 01:39:23.846 --> 01:39:29.610 - and following through with our plans, because since I've been on council, we have paid for consultants 01:39:29.610 --> 01:39:34.814 - where I haven't seen the results yet. You know, the branding exercise for the city, updating 01:39:35.042 --> 01:39:43.058 - permitting. We had all these things, somebody to come and tell us how to tell people about recycling. 01:39:43.058 --> 01:39:51.389 - It was like $300,000. Then these things are just, oh, we did them, and then we're on stage 17 of deciding 01:39:51.389 --> 01:39:59.484 - about Indiana Avenue and Kirkwood. It was not fair to say that. I don't remember. Councilmember Rallo, 01:39:59.484 --> 01:40:03.806 - did you have something that you wanted to add to that? 01:40:05.090 --> 01:40:13.975 - I know I concur. I did have something to add at the end. I've got two things. The first one is, unlike 01:40:13.975 --> 01:40:22.084 - Council Member Stossberg, your question that I think could transfer into budget questions for 01:40:22.084 --> 01:40:30.970 - the administration, that these are our priorities, but if it isn't a priority or if it's something the 01:40:30.970 --> 01:40:34.334 - administration is like, nah, you know, 01:40:34.690 --> 01:40:41.404 - year number five, is this the priority for 2027? If not, how should the priority be reflected in 2027? 01:40:41.404 --> 01:40:48.117 - I like that, just so like everything gets addressed in some way. I mean, I know we're not at our final 01:40:48.117 --> 01:40:54.831 - stages yet, but council member Zulek, I think said like a couple questions that maybe we want answered 01:40:54.831 --> 01:41:00.958 - in the budget slides, right? And I think that would be really good too that like, if not now, 01:41:01.986 --> 01:41:09.635 - What kind of prep is there and what is it going to look like in the next year or something? And then 01:41:09.635 --> 01:41:17.207 - number two, just a little bit about the plans. The famous comedian Michelle Wolf likes to say, I've 01:41:17.207 --> 01:41:24.780 - got plans on plans on waffles. So I didn't quite hear you. I've got plans on plans on waffles. It's 01:41:24.780 --> 01:41:27.582 - just nonsense. Sometimes it's money. 01:41:28.034 --> 01:41:37.605 - So much nonsense, and on that note, Councilmember Asari, President Asari, do you want to take the meeting 01:41:37.605 --> 01:41:41.758 - back to go to public comment, or do you want? 01:41:41.858 --> 01:41:47.104 - Well, Council Member Zulek, one last comment. You guys, okay, final round of comments. You all have 01:41:47.104 --> 01:41:52.560 - one minute. Well, do we want to have public comment first and then final round of comments? Okay, yeah, 01:41:52.560 --> 01:41:57.859 - let's do public comment first and then we can all have a sort of closing comment and then we'll wrap 01:41:57.859 --> 01:42:03.262 - up the meeting. So public comment, Mr. M.G., we'd love to hear from you. Anybody else who'd like to... 01:42:03.330 --> 01:42:10.227 - Anybody else, whether you're online or in council chambers, if you'd like to make public comment, same 01:42:10.227 --> 01:42:16.990 - rules as normal, three minutes. If you'd like to state your name, that would be wonderful. Are there 01:42:16.990 --> 01:42:23.284 - folks online? Yes, there are, but I have a question. Okay, so we'll start here with Mr. Emgy. 01:42:23.284 --> 01:42:30.649 - Thank you, Mr. President. Christopher Emgy from the Greater Bloomington Chamber of Commerce, a 904 membership 01:42:30.649 --> 01:42:32.926 - organization, 80% of those local. 01:42:33.058 --> 01:42:39.816 - I'm just looking at my notes and we talked a lot about assets and how I sort of saw what are those assets. 01:42:39.816 --> 01:42:46.258 - Some of them are very transportation based with the sidewalks, the Indiana projects have been brought 01:42:46.258 --> 01:42:52.763 - up. Others are more economic development. I often talk about baseball fields. French Southern, we just 01:42:52.763 --> 01:42:59.710 - had a pneumonia spill. Those are things that sort of bring in sort of tourists and have an economic vitality. 01:43:00.610 --> 01:43:06.934 - That also includes the arts. We have the Waldron and the Buskirk. And then there's more community ones, 01:43:06.934 --> 01:43:13.076 - such as the Banneker Center and Alice in Jukebox. So it's very hard to sort of put all of those into 01:43:13.076 --> 01:43:19.340 - one umbrella or the term bucket, which I don't like. When we talked about homeless, I think one of the 01:43:19.340 --> 01:43:25.482 - things that if the council was sort of centered on is what can we do, what can we fund that can save 01:43:25.482 --> 01:43:29.982 - money down the road? These are investments. It's the ounce of prevention. 01:43:30.210 --> 01:43:36.000 - So what can we do to maybe save money on businesses for cleanup costs coming from needles and other 01:43:36.000 --> 01:43:41.906 - trash? So we've got to sort of look at it with that lens in mind. And then a little bit on the social 01:43:41.906 --> 01:43:48.160 - service end. We didn't mention it, I don't think tonight, but the Jack Hopkins. That's very social service. 01:43:48.160 --> 01:43:54.355 - You mentioned in conversations about getting more focused there, maybe increasing that funding and getting 01:43:54.355 --> 01:43:58.814 - some very social service, maybe less projects and maybe a little bit bigger. 01:43:59.042 --> 01:44:05.290 - from one of our providers that sort of looks into that. Cost to move, I liked council members Asari 01:44:05.290 --> 01:44:11.663 - on that. What is that going to cost? I mean, a lot of these things that I think the council claims it 01:44:11.663 --> 01:44:17.974 - can draw, it doesn't really have quite the resources to start really handing out the type of checks, 01:44:17.974 --> 01:44:24.409 - especially in this economic environment, SB1, that I think that would allow for that. So we gotta make 01:44:24.409 --> 01:44:28.158 - sure we're sort of investing that money wisely in the city. 01:44:28.322 --> 01:44:34.618 - And then also looking at in the opposite, what can we cut? What assets do we not need? So it's something 01:44:34.618 --> 01:44:40.674 - to look at there. And then we talked about plans. I'll leave you with what I scribbled. Life is what 01:44:40.674 --> 01:44:46.730 - happens to you while you're busy making other plans. And I think that sums up tonight. Thank you for 01:44:46.730 --> 01:44:52.726 - your time. Thank you so much. Is there anyone online who would like to make a comment? Yes, we have 01:44:52.726 --> 01:44:58.302 - two fans who are up. Fantastic. First person, you'll be unmuted, and you have three minutes. 01:45:06.562 --> 01:45:13.364 - Hello, this is Kevin Keough. Good evening. For the past several months, my public comments have focused 01:45:13.364 --> 01:45:20.035 - on the symptom of our city's late publication of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, the ACFR, 01:45:20.035 --> 01:45:26.576 - along with questions about when it's due and are there any consequences to late publications of the 01:45:26.576 --> 01:45:28.734 - ACFR. Today, I'm here to address 01:45:29.122 --> 01:45:35.116 - The underlying condition. I'm moving beyond the topic of simple timeliness to the critical legal requirements 01:45:35.116 --> 01:45:40.620 - of the single audit report and our contractual bond covenants. Also the need to strengthen our local 01:45:40.620 --> 01:45:45.470 - governments administrative processes and much needed improvement with internal controls. 01:45:46.018 --> 01:45:51.900 - In my recent email inquiries to the State Board of Accounts and responses from Beth Kelly, the Deputy 01:45:51.900 --> 01:45:57.666 - State Examiner of the State of Indiana Board of Public Accounts, she was unequivocal. The September 01:45:57.666 --> 01:46:03.606 - 30th deadline is not a suggestion. It is a federal regulation mandate under the uniform guidance. This 01:46:03.606 --> 01:46:09.603 - deadline exists to ensure the timely submission of the independent auditor's report on internal control 01:46:09.603 --> 01:46:11.102 - over financial reporting. 01:46:11.202 --> 01:46:18.506 - We must be accurate and public must know about what that report states. For the fiscal year ending December 01:46:18.506 --> 01:46:25.336 - 31st, 2023, our independent auditors identified a material weakness regarding internal controls over 01:46:25.336 --> 01:46:32.167 - federal grant compliance. Excuse me. A material weakness is the highest level of an internal control 01:46:32.167 --> 01:46:38.997 - audit concern, indicating a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance will not be prevented 01:46:38.997 --> 01:46:40.350 - or detected to date 01:46:40.514 --> 01:46:47.266 - This council has not publicly deliberated these findings or the required remediation. Beyond federal 01:46:47.266 --> 01:46:54.352 - grants, the city has a contractual obligation to our bondholders. Deputy State Examiner Kelly highlighted 01:46:54.352 --> 01:47:01.104 - the timing of our financial report is often dictated by the continuing disclosure obligations unique 01:47:01.104 --> 01:47:04.446 - to our bond documents. These are legal contracts. 01:47:04.962 --> 01:47:11.865 - When we fail to provide audited financials within the terms of these bond contracts, it is my understanding 01:47:11.865 --> 01:47:18.385 - this may risk triggering events of default or the city may be forced to file notice of failure on the 01:47:18.385 --> 01:47:25.160 - national EMA system. This could damage the city's credit reputation and potentially increase the interest 01:47:25.160 --> 01:47:31.743 - rates Bloomington taxpayers must pay for financing future bridges, roads or housing projects. The 2027 01:47:31.743 --> 01:47:32.638 - priority ask. 01:47:33.090 --> 01:47:40.829 - As you develop the 2027 budget priorities, I formally request three actions. That the audit remediation 01:47:40.829 --> 01:47:48.866 - and internal control strengthening be prioritized at a foundational government's governance goal. Basically 01:47:48.866 --> 01:47:56.158 - improve our processes. Meet the June 30th date to publish the ACFR and the related audit reports. 01:47:57.058 --> 01:48:03.953 - refer to the 2023 single audit findings to the fiscal committee for public briefing to disclose how 01:48:03.953 --> 01:48:11.262 - these material weaknesses are being corrected and provide adequate transparency. That the council include 01:48:11.458 --> 01:48:17.620 - Public deliberations of all future ACFRs and single audit reports, along with public discussion of the 01:48:17.620 --> 01:48:23.841 - findings and or requirements, remediation reports. Make transparency a part of the process. If the city 01:48:23.841 --> 01:48:29.943 - cannot master the basic processes of adequate systems. And that's your time. That's it. My time's up. 01:48:29.943 --> 01:48:35.567 - Thank you. Thank you so much. Is there somebody else online? Yes, we do have one more person. 01:48:35.567 --> 01:48:39.934 - Thank you. You can be unmuted and look forward to hearing your comments. 01:48:40.930 --> 01:48:48.224 - Hi, folks. This is Paul Russo. I don't have much to say. Mostly I wanted to thank you for acknowledging 01:48:48.224 --> 01:48:55.588 - that the transportation system is inequitable. I live that every day, and it was nice to hear. And other 01:48:55.588 --> 01:49:02.811 - than that, I hope you have a good evening. Thanks. Thank you so much, Mr. Russo. Is there anybody else 01:49:02.811 --> 01:49:10.526 - online? No hands up at this point. OK. Well, thank you all for your public comment. Anybody else in the room? 01:49:11.778 --> 01:49:19.255 - Okay, all right. Well, we'll come back then to council members and would be awesome if you have any 01:49:19.255 --> 01:49:26.881 - sort of closing remarks and we'll start with councilmember Rallo Well, I hate to be a wet blanket but 01:49:26.881 --> 01:49:34.433 - I wondered about I wanted to ask a question about Councilmember Stasberg attended it takes a village 01:49:34.433 --> 01:49:39.966 - forum a couple months ago about the SCA one and its effect on revenue and 01:49:40.610 --> 01:49:48.714 - Is the administration still expecting a $30 million reduced revenue over the next couple of years? We 01:49:48.714 --> 01:49:56.658 - don't have good detailed estimates yet. The date that the new income tax system will be implemented 01:49:56.658 --> 01:50:04.841 - was pushed out to 2029 in the latest General Assembly session. It was originally 2028, so we have kind 01:50:04.841 --> 01:50:06.430 - of a year reprieve. 01:50:06.818 --> 01:50:16.568 - But there is no good solid information yet on how much the city-specific local income tax would be able 01:50:16.568 --> 01:50:26.131 - to raise. And that's really the mystery. So we are going to be working with Reedy to just improve our 01:50:26.131 --> 01:50:32.318 - estimates and figure out how much. That $10 million was kind of a 01:50:32.962 --> 01:50:40.598 - very high level sort of lobbyists estimate, using some pretty high level metrics, we need something 01:50:40.598 --> 01:50:48.234 - much more detailed, which is really a kind of a detailed assessment of actual income by resident or 01:50:48.234 --> 01:50:55.947 - by household. So it's to be determined. Yes. So stay tuned. It is almost certain that the options we 01:50:55.947 --> 01:51:02.590 - have available to us now will not adequately replace the income of the current system. 01:51:03.234 --> 01:51:11.418 - So we just don't know by how much yet. And my other question would be, we've gone through process 01:51:11.418 --> 01:51:19.936 - deliberation of these priorities for quite a long time. And I think they're still very useful insofar 01:51:19.936 --> 01:51:28.454 - as even if we can't apply more funds, funding, they still provide directions. They could be useful in 01:51:28.454 --> 01:51:33.214 - determining baselines, maybe even efficiencies. I agree. 01:51:34.562 --> 01:51:44.898 - Thank you, Councilmember Barelta. Councilmember Stasberg? Any last comments, thoughts? Sure. I guess 01:51:44.898 --> 01:51:55.643 - the comment that I will make is just to thank you all for your feedback, and I will do my best to create 01:51:55.643 --> 01:52:01.886 - a new survey and then use that survey to create a letter and 01:52:03.714 --> 01:52:10.549 - I'm going to do that as soon as I can with the acknowledgement that I'm actually leaving town on Saturday 01:52:10.549 --> 01:52:17.127 - morning at about 4 in the morning. So yeah, it may be a fun couple of days. But try to look for that. 01:52:17.127 --> 01:52:23.833 - And as soon as you get that, do your best to respond to it. Because I originally really wanted to bring 01:52:23.833 --> 01:52:28.798 - this letter to you all for approval at our next regular session on the 25th. 01:52:28.930 --> 01:52:35.185 - like I want to have at least a draft that then if it needs to be modified again, then we can get it 01:52:35.185 --> 01:52:41.001 - approved at the next regular session after that on the first week of April because of course 01:52:41.001 --> 01:52:47.256 - the administration is working on this now and so especially if part of what we're asking is kind of 01:52:47.256 --> 01:52:53.636 - some of those categories and if part of what Controller McKim is telling us is like, you know in last 01:52:53.636 --> 01:52:56.638 - year in terms of that like non-specific kind of 01:52:56.738 --> 01:53:02.542 - presentations, it was partly because of the outcome-based budgeting shift and realizing the vast number 01:53:02.542 --> 01:53:08.123 - of outcomes and categorizing. And so if there's a limited number of things that we can say, hey, we 01:53:08.123 --> 01:53:13.983 - really want you to track and categorize these things, then that will help them moving forward. So that's 01:53:13.983 --> 01:53:19.117 - the timeline goal, the very last day that I would want to get something approved to send to 01:53:19.117 --> 01:53:24.698 - the administration would be that first meeting in April. So that's maybe a little aspirational, but 01:53:24.698 --> 01:53:25.982 - just please watch your 01:53:26.338 --> 01:53:32.486 - watch your emails, watch your texts, and respond to that as soon as you can. Thanks. One, I'll continue 01:53:32.486 --> 01:53:38.811 - with the committee to try to do work to identify best practices and think about systems-level improvements 01:53:38.811 --> 01:53:44.899 - to this, to keep this moving in a better trajectory. Because yeah, there's just a limit to what we can 01:53:44.899 --> 01:53:50.811 - do with what we have. Second, really appreciate all the work that's gone into this, especially from 01:53:50.811 --> 01:53:56.190 - Council Member Stosberg. So thank you. And Council Member Piemont-Smith, maybe before you. 01:53:56.962 --> 01:54:04.032 - Third is that just my view and experience, I guess, over the last six years is that often we have pretty 01:54:04.032 --> 01:54:10.765 - good alignment on stated values and priorities. And where we have a hard time is in the details and 01:54:10.765 --> 01:54:18.037 - the implementation. And I think that will remain true. So I think this is progress. I think it's important. 01:54:18.037 --> 01:54:24.905 - But I think being able to get into the details and see them in budget presentations and being able to 01:54:24.905 --> 01:54:25.982 - talk about them 01:54:26.210 --> 01:54:33.049 - at that level is like Where we're actually gonna find the the meaningful tensions in in different 01:54:33.049 --> 01:54:40.168 - perspectives about what? How we're going to achieve these things that kind of thing. So I think we'll 01:54:40.168 --> 01:54:47.495 - see that Then and yes, we should anticipate that that's all. Thanks Hello, I found this to be productive 01:54:47.495 --> 01:54:54.684 - all I'll say to conclude is thank you to controller McKim for joining us and spending the evening with 01:54:54.684 --> 01:54:55.870 - us and Thank you 01:54:56.578 --> 01:55:03.714 - And thank you to Council Member Stosberg for putting this all together and all of my lovely colleagues 01:55:03.714 --> 01:55:10.850 - for such a great discussion. Thank you. Just to give a quick thank you to the fiscal committee for all 01:55:10.850 --> 01:55:17.639 - the hard work that you've done and especially Council Member Stosberg. I know that that was like, 01:55:17.639 --> 01:55:22.142 - you know, creating algorithms for, you know. Don't tell us that. 01:55:22.530 --> 01:55:27.916 - Yeah, we'll give you more. No, and I just, it was fun in kind of a hard way, but it really, you know, 01:55:27.916 --> 01:55:33.197 - it's like a crossword puzzle. Like it's fun in a hard way. It keeps your brain young. That's right. 01:55:33.197 --> 01:55:38.794 - Yeah. No, and I think it's really valuable to have these conversations, like even just for me clarifying, 01:55:38.794 --> 01:55:44.127 - you know, not only to see where everybody's at, but where the city's at and what we're all thinking. 01:55:44.127 --> 01:55:49.566 - And thank you very much, Controller McKim for joining us. I wasn't going to say anything after my, uh, 01:55:50.370 --> 01:56:00.380 - waffles comment, but I do want to say thank you to the fiscal committee and Councilmember Stossberg 01:56:00.380 --> 01:56:10.690 - and thanks for all the reminders via email and text. I think it will go okay. I just want to make sure 01:56:10.690 --> 01:56:18.398 - the overarching theme sort of is to do our plans, you know, do our plans and 01:56:19.554 --> 01:56:27.687 - In a way, I mean, maybe it's just way too hard of an ask, but I just wish we could be like, here are 01:56:27.687 --> 01:56:35.901 - all the numbered goals in our plans, and like, here are the dots of which outcome hits on which goal, 01:56:35.901 --> 01:56:44.195 - kind of. I mean, like Scantron, oh my gosh, or something like that. I don't know, but I think that the 01:56:44.195 --> 01:56:48.382 - departments that have pieces of our plans and goals 01:56:48.802 --> 01:56:55.502 - I think they should like intimately know the numbers and where we should be going. And so I guess I 01:56:55.502 --> 01:57:02.336 - think I would like it to be more of a common practice that our staff can talk to us or the city staff 01:57:02.336 --> 01:57:09.169 - can talk and say like, this is climate action plan 6.2.8. I would love it. I would really geek out on 01:57:09.169 --> 01:57:16.606 - that. So I don't know to what extent that's possible, but it would be useful for me too in the budget process. 01:57:20.066 --> 01:57:28.130 - I was going to thank Council Member Salzburg too for all the effort, time, and thinking she put into 01:57:28.130 --> 01:57:36.273 - this, but since it was fun, she's better ready to go have fun on her spring break on Saturday morning 01:57:36.273 --> 01:57:44.417 - it sounds like. I just want to say one thing. It's a small thing, but I think it's important and it's 01:57:44.417 --> 01:57:45.694 - consistent with 01:57:45.858 --> 01:57:53.579 - This idea, when we spoke earlier about the use of the term maintenance or maintain city assets, sort 01:57:53.579 --> 01:58:01.300 - of frames that, the words we use, the way we say it, and also related to the idea that we have plans 01:58:01.300 --> 01:58:09.251 - that we've adopted. And we need to adhere to those and be consistent as we possibly can. And so I would 01:58:09.251 --> 01:58:14.526 - just like to ask in future surveys and in the wording of the letter, 01:58:15.586 --> 01:58:24.091 - that we are consistent with what we said in our fundamental guiding plan for the city, the comprehensive 01:58:24.091 --> 01:58:32.191 - plan, where we've acknowledged that population growth on its own is not something we seek. We don't 01:58:32.191 --> 01:58:40.372 - seek just to grow for the sake of growing. And so when we frame something like we want to see GDP or 01:58:40.372 --> 01:58:43.774 - outpace or our income outpace population, 01:58:44.706 --> 01:58:53.205 - it sort of creates, at least in my mind, an image that we're sort of endorsing both in some kind of 01:58:53.205 --> 01:59:01.704 - race and we want to move ahead of the other. Instead say it more like we want to see income growth, 01:59:01.704 --> 01:59:10.373 - we want to see GDP increase relative to population, regardless of what population does, and we're not 01:59:10.373 --> 01:59:14.622 - using them in the same way that income per capita 01:59:14.914 --> 01:59:23.017 - for median income growth, we're going to assume is fundamentally good for the community. But we've already 01:59:23.017 --> 01:59:30.818 - said in our guiding documents that we don't seek just population growth. So just in the wording, don't 01:59:30.818 --> 01:59:38.542 - link the two in a way that suggests an endorsement of just for the sake of growing, except when we're 01:59:38.542 --> 01:59:44.222 - talking about well-being of the community in terms of access to amenities, 01:59:44.386 --> 01:59:50.527 - equity, different types of equity, and income, and things like that, which we are going to assume are 01:59:50.527 --> 01:59:53.598 - good to grow. So that's all I want to say. Thanks. 01:59:53.858 --> 01:59:59.457 - Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you all so much for a robust conversation. Also, three quick points. 01:59:59.457 --> 02:00:04.843 - Thing number one, thank you, Council Member Stossberg, for putting this all together and for putting 02:00:04.843 --> 02:00:10.175 - the next one together. For these deliberation sessions, I know Council Member Flaherty said that he 02:00:10.175 --> 02:00:15.668 - wanted us to do one. Council Member Daley is sort of liaising with making sure that they all get done, 02:00:15.668 --> 02:00:19.774 - so just communicate with Council Member Daley so we can get those scheduled. 02:00:19.842 --> 02:00:26.259 - I'm really grateful for the robust conversation that we've had and I think sort of echoing what Councilmember 02:00:26.259 --> 02:00:27.134 - Flaherty said. 02:00:27.234 --> 02:00:32.580 - It would be wonderful if in the middle of our budget presentation, after we get the presentations, that 02:00:32.580 --> 02:00:38.028 - we could have a conversation like this where we can talk about the minutia of the broader things. Because 02:00:38.028 --> 02:00:43.168 - I think when we're talking in this setting, we often were able to go back and forth in a more fluid 02:00:43.168 --> 02:00:48.359 - way. I think sometimes we always end up a bit better than the sum of our parts. So a lot of things I 02:00:48.359 --> 02:00:53.756 - hadn't thought about until we started talking here that was just really helpful. And then the only other 02:00:53.756 --> 02:00:57.200 - thought is whether we want to rather do a resolution than a letter 02:00:57.200 --> 02:01:04.322 - I mean, same effect, I think, at the end of the day, but might allow for public comment, which might 02:01:04.322 --> 02:01:11.515 - help galvanize a little bit more support and awareness around the council's ideas. And so we can also 02:01:11.515 --> 02:01:18.849 - then have a clear vote on all of us said this unanimously in this order or something like that. So just 02:01:18.849 --> 02:01:24.702 - food for thought there. Thank you all. If there's no objections, we are adjourned.