Ad Hoc Committee on Police and Community Relations - Regular Meeting

Alright. Hello, everybody. This is the community livability and public safety committee of the Olympia City Council. Today is Wednesday, February 25. We are just after 05:30PM. My name is Danny Madrone, and I serve as the chair. I am joined by my committee mate here, Kelly Green, and committee member Yang Huen will be joining us momentarily. But we wanted to go ahead and get started. And let, Kelly, could I go ahead and get a motion for, to approve our agenda for the evening?

I would love to move to approve our agenda.

I I will second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Great. And we do have somebody signed up for public comment. I'm gonna go confirm that yes. We have Beth Enriquez Enriquez here in the attendee list who has signed up for public comment. So if we can go ahead and give her the power of speech. I don't know if she gets promoted to the meeting for that to happen or if she just is able to speak.

What's that? She has declined the invite. Oh, she's declined? Oh, let's try it one more time just in case that was a mistake. And, Beth, it's okay if you don't wanna wanna speak. I just wanna make sure you didn't hit the wrong button by mistake. Oh, there you Excellent. Thanks for joining us, Beth. You've got about two minutes, but you're also the only public commenter. So if you go a bit over, I will not penalize you for that, but go right ahead.

Okay. Well, thank you, council members and city leadership. I'm my name is Beth Enriquez. I'm the executive director of a local nonprofit organization Enterprise for Equity. And we have been the very grateful recipient of CDBG funds for many, many years.

That money has helped us help many businesses in Olympia launch and grow. I'm sure several of you shop at many of them. But the reason I'm here tonight is because I just wanted to say a public thank you, actually, to Anastasia and Jacinda. I don't really see them in the room here, but I hope they listen to this later. I really wanted to just say thanks to them for being so communicative, so transparent, so supportive to we subrecipients from this past year as the CDBG funds have been really hanging in the wind.

So I I applaud the city's stance. I applaud the city's decision to join the Turner versus State

legal action, and I'm just really, really grateful for the CDBG staff. That's it. Great. Thanks so much. We will make sure that they receive your gratitude. Thanks for being here, Beth. Alright. And that's the only, person we had signed up for public comment. So next item on the agenda is to approve the minutes from January 28. So, Kelly, I'll entertain a motion.

Move to approve the minutes from 01/28/2026.

Alright. Yes. 2026. I will second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Well, now that we're done with all the fun stuff here with the minutes approved, the first item we have on our agenda is a youth council update and the approval of the proposed 2026 youth council work plan. And Susan Grisham is going to, help us through this presentation, but she's got several, members of the youth council who are joining us here. So, Susan, if you could help us out with, introducing, the folks who are joining us today.

Absolutely. So for the record, I am Susan Grisham. I'm the assistant to the city manager, and I have the distinct pleasure of being the liaison to the youth council. And this evening, we have Donovan Hohova, who is the co chair of the youth council, Shuthi Lingam Nathamai, who is the co chair of the policy, subcommittee of the Youth Council, and Anita Parabhakar, who is a Youth Council member. So this evening, before I turn it over to them, they are going to give an overview of what they accomplished last year and an overview of their work plan for 2026.

And I just wanna give a little information of how we came to these work plan items. So over the last year, as they were working through their work plan, items came up of interest that they indicated. So I kept note of that. And then I also had a facilitated discussion with the youth council asking what they wanna work on, what they're interested in. And then, we had a little survey to kind of, figure out what items rose to the top.

So that's how we developed that, work plan. So it was really driven by what the youth want to work on, and what they're interested in. So I'm really excited to turn it over to the youth council. I will be controlling the slides. So if you all let give me a nod and let me know when you're ready to move to the next slide, I'm ready to help you with that. And with that, I'll turn it over to you all.

Thanks, Susan. Unfortunately, no one isn't here right now, but I can start us off. So I'm Shruti. I'm the one of the co chairs for the policy subcommittee, and we are so excited to share with you our youth council update and the approval of the 2026 youth council work plan. We've worked pretty hard on this, and we've had a big jump in numbers in the youth council this year or this year.

So we're really excited about that, and we're really happy to share this information with you all and see what you guys have to say. Next slide, please. Just a little refresher on the mission values and purpose. So the Olympia Youth Council's mission statement is that the Olympian Youth Council amplifies and elevates youth voices in city govern governance and expands the youth involvement in the community. Our purpose statement is that we connect, represent, and give voice to the diverse groups of youth in Olympia, and the vision statement is that we envision that envision an Olympia that is accessible, equitable, inclusive, safe, and engaging for everyone in the community.

We came up with these values, I think, two years ago when I was a panelist on youth council, and the youth council was being created. And, yeah, we've kinda stuck with it because we believe it's super important. Next slide, please. So a couple of the first year accomplishments we did last year, we first seeded the youth council with, I think, nine members.

15.

50. Plus 15 members, developed our first work plan, shared feedback on the five chapters of the comprehensive plan. This includes getting briefings, taking notes, writing letters, things like that. We had our first joint meeting of the, Lacey with the Lacey Youth Council. We began planning for a joint twenty twenty six youth summit with the Lacey Youth counts or, yeah, with the Lacey Youth Council, created a PSA related to Narcannon overdose, planned and held a recruitment event, and we were, Nolan and I were featured on the Actually Olympia podcast, and we onboarded new members for this year round.

Next slide, please. So going a little bit deeper on that. This this is a picture from our first meeting with the Lacey Youth Council. Was really fun. We talked about what we could do for our youth summit, which is coming along swimmingly.

And, yeah, we're really excited for that. Next slide, please. We we created a PSA related to Narcan and Overdose, which was also a really big accomplishment. We couldn't have done it with all of our city city council advisers and people who are helping us out, and it was really a really cool experience. We filmed in the Olympia Arm Armory, which I think is being renovated now, but it was very cool.

And it was shown all throughout Olympia and Thurston County. Next slide, please. We planned and held a recruitment event. We had a couple new members this year, but it was just a really fun event where we had ice cream, and we gave a presentation on what Olympiad Youth Council could be like. Next slide, please. And that is Nolan and I on the actually, Olympiad podcast where we talked with, Jay Bernie and Kelly, I think her name is, about, our plans on the youth council and trying to recruit people to come, to the youth council. I'm gonna hand it over to Donna now.

Yeah. Thank you. So at our first business meeting of the year, we elected and chose our new leadership positions for the year. So that includes our two co chairs, me and Nolan. That includes our secretary, treasurer, and the vice chairs and co chairs of our different subcommittees. These leadership positions will be held until either the student graduates and they go off to college for their co chair or vice chair to take over, or they'll keep going for, I believe, a year long term. Next slide.

Okay. So our youth council member terms are from September to August 31. So our proposed work plan so February 18 was our business meeting, an inner city transit briefing on, like, the changes that we're gonna be well, we proposed to be made to the bus system, and we developed a transit PSA development discussion among the members of our council. And then our March meeting, we had an Olympia Sanctuary City And Public Safety Briefing. And then we also were doing a little check-in on our transit PSA.

Next year. Yeah. For next year. And then planning for our youth summit event. And then April 15 was our business meeting where we were communicating our public policy to youth discussion, going over how to get youth more involved in policy initiatives across Olympia, and we also continued talking about our youth summit planning, and we had a check-in on our transit PSA development check-in.

And then for May, the date is still to be determined for the youth summit. And then we also had a business meeting going over mental health resources for youth and debriefing the youth summit, recruitment check-in. And then June and July, we take a break for the summer, and then we join back in August 19 for a business meeting where we'll go over the Olympia Climate Programs Briefing, third places for youth discussions, and a work plan for, like, the next year. And then September 19 will be, like, where we welcome our new members and go over the work plan for the upcoming year. October will be where we talk about our year accomplishments, so what we've been able to accomplish as a council as a whole, and then also go over the work plan for the next year.

In November, December, we do not have meeting.

Yeah. A lot of this stuff is stuff that we will be doing in 2026 as well as things that we might be planning on for the future. So the transit PSA is something that we're developing right now. And some of the stuff, like the third places for youth discussion may also carry into the 2027 school year or 2027 youth council year. Donovan, do you have anything to add to that?

Yeah. So, specifically, the the transit PSA, that's something that we're currently working on developing with the city transit department. And that's something that I that we're really excited to get to work on. It's kind of similar to our last year, our overdose PSA, and that our goal is really to inform, and something it's a project that we'll get to work on in the next coming months and that the entire council is really excited to get started on.

Yeah. Susan, can we go to the next step slide? Just skip through all the months. So our next steps are to move to approve the recommended 2026 youth council work plan and forward to the city council for approval. So we would love your input and feedback as well as your approval of this work plan. Thank you all so much for listening to us.

Great. Thank you so much. And, Susan, if you could stop sharing there so we could see everybody. I see that we are joined by, committee member, Yeon Hwyn, though I think she might still be having some tech issues at the moment, but she is here with us. And so at this point, I'll go ahead and open it up to the committee for any questions, thoughts, anything you'd like to share. Go ahead, Kelly.

Thanks. Hey. Thank you all for being here. That's a really ambitious and exciting work plan. I think about, you know, the youth who lives in my house, and that's that's a lot to get done. So congratulations on on coming up with that. I was hoping would you just tell me a little bit more about the the vision for the youth summit? Like, kinda what your like, who who you'll be looking to get there and what the the sort of theme or activities might be?

Yeah. I can touch on that. So our the goal for the youth summit is our theme really is preparing for adulthood. So we're talking for about, like, life skills, like career connections, internships, but we're also talking a bit about some broader topics. Like, one of my favorite topics that we're talking about is interacting with native culture and native communities in the area. So we have a lot of we're working with a lot of great partners that we're reaching out to currently to get involved with the youth summit. We're really looking for people from all around the community, so anyone who's youth who's interested in getting involved and wants to learn more.

Cool. Thank you. Yeah. That was actually the same question I have. I'm really curious about the youth summit, and looking forward to seeing how that rolls out. And, of course, if there's any support that you need from the city council as you work on that or the day of, please do keep us in the loop. Also, really excited about this transit PSA. So look forward to seeing that come forward. And I also love the third places for youth topic that you guys will be digging into because that's something that I hear, in the community quite a bit from young people and even those who are, like, you know, graduated from high school but not yet 21. It's like, where can we go?

Where can we hang out? Where where is our place that is not home, not work, but we are just hanging with our friends? So really excited to hear more about that topic. Just one moment. Committee member, Young Hwun, is having some some tech issues, but she is asking about engagement from youth council members. Like, how how are things going on the youth council? And, like, are people digging in? Are they into it? Like, how like, what's the vibe?

I oh, wait. Donovan, if you wanna go ahead again.

Yeah. I I can start with that. So we have some really passionate members, and it's really great to see so many people who are really invested. We have some some pretty consistent attendance rates with certain members, but we also we have some really great people who really show up and show out for our council. We have a lot of a lot of our leaders too on the council are extremely passionate about amplifying youth youth voices in the city. And so we really have some people who are putting in an effort outside of the regular council hours into our subcommittee hours to get involved outside just because they're passionate about it and just because they wanna try it out.

Excellent. Glad to hear that. Sorry. Yeah. Go

ahead. Yeah. To add on to that, I feel like we've built a really solid we built a really solid base last year, and I'm really glad that we can add on to that this year with a lot more passionate members to keep the youth council going. Excellent.

Awesome. Well, at this time, you know, I think we need to take some formal action to recommend the work plan to the Falls City Council. So, Kelly, I would entertain a moment because I don't think Eungh is able to say things. Excited to get to

be your entertainment today, Danny. And I will move to approve the youth council youth council's proposed work plan.

Alright. And I will second. All in favor? Aye. Excellent. Susan, can you tell us a little bit more about when we can expect this to come to the full council?

Yeah. I have it pleaded to come back next week.

Oh, that's a very quick turnaround. Yeah. Love to hear it. Okay. Great. Awesome. Well, thank you so much for joining us. Members of the youth council, tell Nolan that we missed him, but I'm sure we are gonna see him very soon. And we really, really do appreciate your work on behalf of the city. It is really important for us to be able to hear from young people. We are making decisions that impact your future. And so it's just really, really great to have you here and have your engagement. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank

you so much.

Thank you so much.

Right. With that, we are gonna move on to the next item on our agenda, which is considering recommendations related to city council appointed advisory bodies. And I've got Stacy Ray here who's gonna help, and I believe you will be introducing, Genevieve, who's gonna lead us through our presentation.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, chair Madrone, committee members. So for the record, I'm Stacy Ray, assistant city manager. With me is Genevieve Kinsaker Chan, who has served as a consultant on this project, and I will be turning over to Genevieve in a little bit, so she can talk about the recommendations tonight.

Also, I wanna acknowledge we have Margo Morales here from the senior manager's office and Don Carvalho who have both been working on this project as well. So we're available for questions when we get when we get to the end. Me go ahead and share my screen. Okay. Can everyone see that okay? Yeah. Oh, thank you. Okay. So for tonight, we'll talk a little bit. Well, I'm gonna revisit the purpose of the evaluation.

It's little been a little bit since this was in front of you and for any community members watching or listening. We'll talk a little bit about community engagement goals, and I'll recap the evaluation process because we've had several, staff who have been taking lead on this process and have gone through a number of steps. So I'll just recap where we are. I will turn it over to Genevieve to talk about recommendations, and then we'll be seeking guidance from you on on next steps. And, specifically, we're gonna be asking for guidance in two areas.

One is, you know, Genevieve is gonna talk through kind of two scenarios in terms of recommendations. So we'll be looking for guidance on which scenario to pursue further or a combination of both. And then we'll also be looking for guidance on with the next iteration of these recommendations, would you like us to come back to CLIPS or or community livability and public safety or move forward to a study session with the with the full city council? Those are the two things we'll be asking towards the end. Okay.

So so just as a as a reminder and a bit of a grounding in advisory bodies, we are talking about council reported advisory bodies. But as is laid out in the council guidebook, the purpose for advisory bodies is to assist council when formulating public policy and transforming policy decisions into action. And we use standing committees, special purpose committees, and ad hoc task forces. Early last year, council had asked staff, and I'll just acknowledge, committee member Young Nguyen was particularly provided leadership in this area, but really asked staff to and then communications director Kelly Percep Brasseth to conduct an evaluation of council appointed advisory bodies. Shown here on this slide is just a reminder of those type of advisory bodies that we have.

We have boards, committees, and commissions. The first appointed advisory bodies were established in 1935. So that started with a planning commission and a civil service commission. So we've had advisory bodies for a while. And as of this year, we have 14 advisory bodies appointed by council.

And so without listing all of those, just some of those are, arts commission, community policing board, utility utility advisory, committee, etcetera. So we also have an additional seven bodies that are supported by city staff, but that are not council appointed. So those are a separate subset of advisory bodies, but I bring them up because they may be related to or perhaps be part of the conversation. But, for example, those are, PBIA or parking and business improvement areas, civil service commission, and coalition of neighbor associations. That's not all of them, but just a reminder that we have other bodies that we work with as well, that city staff support.

So so assistant city manager Debbie Sullivan was at CLIPS last year, probably in spring of last year, to share extensive findings from the evaluation that Kelly had started and that Debbie had continued. So she was asked by counsel to do the evaluation at that time because, one, we hadn't done one around, advisory fees, at least that we could fund. So it was kind of overdue to take a look at our advisory bodies and what they were how they were And then the other piece of this is the conversation at the time was that we had done a lot of extensive community engagement and he used different methodologies and different approaches to do that engagement. And some of those processes, you probably recall, are like the, you know, the one community plan, you know, Olympia Strong. We had our comprehensive plan work, and so we've we've really been using a variety of methods in which to engage with the community.

We also knew that our staff liaisons were talking a lot about challenges in attendance from advisory body members, and there were some conversations about from certain certain members about what what their role might be or, you know, or if and how they're kind of fulfilling their purpose. And then the last piece was the evaluation was also just trying to get at helping us identify ways to find efficiencies. We had, you know, had had been through, and we're in the midst of two challenging budget years. And so this was another opportunity to think about, well, are we leveraging our resources and other ways to maybe look for efficiencies or ways to be more sustainable? So one of the things that Debbie had brought forward, when she last talked about this in May were these goals around community engagement.

And so having been through a number of significant engagement processes, we kind of, at the time, reflected back to council what we felt like we had heard from you were your goals around engagement. And those those include, you know, having individuals having meaningful input to guide policy and decision making, ensuring that there's a diversity of perspectives and lived experiences, and solutions that come out of equitable engagement, wanting advisory body members to have an impactful and meaningful experience, that the work that they're doing, is is utilized and their purpose is clear, and they're and they're impacting a change. And then, again, we're wanting to be cognizant and aware of being sustainable sustainably using our resources. And then through Genevieve's work, she also found for her research and interviews too that what might success look like around community engagement, and this is a bit underlying the recommendations she'll speak to, but really an improved experience for all, and again, those impactful conversations and recommendations that can be used by the council when they come forward. Just a little bit about where we've been in this process.

Again, when Kelly first started this work, she led the initial work that was done in the advisory body experience survey, and that was done with both liaisons and members. Debbie then picked up that body of work and did a deep analysis on not only the survey results, but as well as looking at what advisory bodies were mandated or required, which advisory what advisory body participation and attendance looked like, and also kind of analyzing what the work plans, what kind of content was in the work plans, and how was that in alignment with with with council work plan items. And at that time, we we got guidance from CLIPS to go ahead and start to develop recommendations on possible changes to advisory bodies. So we brought Genevieve in to help continue this body of work, and Genevieve has conducted individual interviews, with liaisons, with council members, and also with some advisory body members. Genevieve's done research with other cities that have been in similar positions, have asked similar questions, or have been doing evaluations on their advisory bodies.

And then, also had the opportunity to sit down with our liaisons for a couple of, feedback sessions to kind of test some early recommendations and get feedback from them. And then lastly and most recently, we asked, our liaisons to just test some of the recommendations with their chairs, and so we got some early feedback from some of the advisory body chairs. And we'll and and Genevieve can talk a bit about that during her piece.

So so, again, that kind

of brings us forward to a conversation around recommendations. And, again, I'm gonna turn it over to Genevieve. But, just just to recap or set the stage here, we've broken it out into what we've called two scenarios. And, essentially, the first scenario is a a package of recommendations that really look like improvements to the current system. So if we if we kinda want to stay with the framework we have now, but maybe make some improvements to get at those engagement goals, Genevieve's crafted some recommendations around that.

The second scenario is one that we're really categorizing as reenvisioning engagement through a multifaceted approach, so more like a toolkit with different engagement methods. And this one includes what a a particularly bold kind of concept around reorganizing advisory bodies. So we're gonna, I'm gonna allow Genevieve or give Genevieve the opportunity to kind of work through these. And then, again, we'll circle back around and ask those two questions with guy you know, seeking guidance from you kind of on on where to go next. But I'll just pause here for a minute.

Any, thoughts, questions, or any recollections from your experience with this project leading up to this point?

I am looking to see is that a hand, Anne?

Oh, yes. I'm gonna keep it brief. I really appreciate the the background on this. This has been a a long time coming type of project. So I and I've voiced, you know, my thoughts multiple times, but I'm certainly having recollections, Stacy. But I I guess I won't point to them all. I'm just for all of the reasons that we're doing this of you know, that you had covered in in that earlier slide, like, why this? Why now? So I'm I'm really looking forward to having some having, you know, having some big changes. So, and and it being a positive for everybody involved. So looking forward to hearing the recommendation.

K.

Thank you for that. Well, I will unless there's anything else, I'll go ahead and turn over to Genevieve. And, Genevieve, I'll control the slides. You just tell me what to do.

K. Sounds great. Can everyone hear me okay? Yeah. Just wanna make sure. Okay. Great. So as Stacy mentioned, you know, I had several conversations with, staff liaisons, some of the current advisory body members, as well as some of council, and and also talking to other cities, across the country of similar size. That we're we're undergoing this process, evaluating how they can better utilize advisory bodies or if there were alternative modules to engaging the community and getting their feedback on on, relevant issues and and pressing initiatives. So let's talk through my first set of scenario one recommendations, which are improvements to the current system.

Go ahead and forward, Stacy. So these recommendations that you'll be seeing really were born out of what I was hearing in some of the conversations, some shared concerns around lack of standardization or gaps of knowledge, both from the staff liaison and supporting side, but also some of the advisory body members. Also, a concern that there wasn't a sense of clarity of purpose or feeling like there was some misalignment in terms of the work that was being done in the advisory bodies and what was being asked of them from council. So I'm really looking for, as we share here, some of the desirable outcomes would be recommendations that would provide some consistency, standardization, a way for a council to be more responsive to vacancies, and a stoppage of work within the advisory bodies because of those vacancies, a way to add more intentionality between the work plans that are being developed for the advisory bodies and the work plans that council is is undertaking, and also just understanding a better have a better understanding and of the expectations and relationships between the advisory bodies and council and how what role the staff liaisons play in that.

And then lastly, also looking at why we create advisory bodies. Is there a way that we can systemically understand when we when we, set up an advisory body? What are some of the criteria? Should there be a shelf life of of certain advisory bodies or a way to evaluate advisory bodies on an ongoing basis to make sure that they're really the most effective way to to get feedback from the community or to to assign, you know, initiatives to community members. Thank you.

Next slide, Stacy. So some of these recommendations include, one, just some some shifting of of schedules for for to allow for that intentionality. So for instance, the first one is shifting recruitment of advisory bodies to the fall. We're currently we're recruiting in the winter and onboarding new advisory body members, in March, April, springtime. And already, work plans have started with the both for council and then also for advisory bodies.

So there are new members coming on board who, maybe are not realizing, you know, where they fit into a work plan. We're hoping that maybe shifting a recruitment to the fall where January appointments begin alongside the the the the the start of new work plans, that that'll allow for more participation or under a better understanding of those advisory body members and how they're gonna help execute and support work plan initiatives. Two, to standardize onboarding. A lot of the times, what what I was hearing with it was that depending on the experience or the longevity of staff liaisons, there were sometimes gaps in knowledge or, inconsistencies on how to onboard not only themselves, but new advisory body members or chairs. Looking to maybe standardize and have a shared orientation where we definitely create a sense of cohort among all advisory body members, but that also from the beginning, advisory body members have a better understanding of the scope of work they're being asked to do, what their expectations are in terms of representing the city and their advise respective advisory bodies.

And, also, they have questions about just how city government works and where that advisory body may sit in terms of the greater operations of the city. Three, the rec a third recommendation is to just really clearly define those relationships between advisory bodies and council to understand when there are referrals or how how referrals are handled. And if there are questions or recommendations coming out of those advisory bodies, how are those being trans transferred and and and communicated back to council. In addition to the shifting of the recruitment, also making sure that advisory body work plans are then also in alignment with council work plans. You know, there's a retreat in the in I think towards the end of, fall and and and early winter for council's work plans and making sure that when the the the advisory bodies begin on their work plans that they are receiving and understanding what are the the the priorities from council on their work plans.

And then the last two recommendations really are around a sis a systemized way to look at why the purpose of advisory bodies. Are there a series of questions we should be asking at the onset of the potential of a new advisory body? Why are we creating this advisory body? Have we looked at the different ways that we want to handle this particular topic? Are there existing bodies that are there that could could could address this topic, or if there are other ways for us to engage with community?

And then, also, once an advisory body has been set up, can we implement a regular audit of existing advisory bodies to make sure that we are making these advisory bodies are working to the to having meaningful impact and really are still living up to their initial initial purpose. Next slide, Stacy. Scenario two is a much bigger approach. I think that there are a lot of things in scenario one that are are, feasible and immediately implementable. Scenario two really asks a bigger question about how are we engaging with the community.

Are there other ways to address impacted populations to tap into expertise? We think about the ways that you advisory bodies are set up. There's a there may be a smaller population that can be tapped into that particular kind of model of of engagement. Not everyone maybe have the same availability or accessibility that that the current advisory model model current advisory model model affords. So looking at ways to really create a toolkit where we can engage with the community on a more nimble basis, in a more comprehensive basis, and hopefully in a more inclusive basis.

Go ahead and, switch to the next slide. So in my conversations, again, the out some of the desired outcomes or shared concerns were, how can we make sure that we are, increasing the number of people who can participate in community feedback? Are there other modules that we can, implement that'll allow them to not have to to feel like they have to go through a certain sort of, process or, you know, a fixed schedule? Is there a way that we can create, different ways to to engage with community populations that already exist or community partners? So looking at and then is there a way for us to have a sort of a codified or centralized toolkit that, different city staff who are working on different projects initiatives can refer to so that when they're ready to engage with the community, there is something that has been vetted and established and and is consistent across the across city staff.

We also wanna make sure that we're implementing mechanisms to make sure that there's diversity in the voices and perspectives and the community feedback and community engagement. We wanna also find ways to better educate the community at large on on current issues and and projects that maybe the current advisory model advisory body model isn't allowing for. And and lastly, really wanting to maximize people's time, not only, advisory body members, but city staff and council. We wanna make sure that that the experience in in in these engagement opportunities really results in actual items or impactful decisions. So really thinking about ways that we could really look at a multidisciplinary approach, not only to issues but to possible solutions.

And hopefully, all of this will lead to more efficiencies around, staff time and as well as budget. Next slide, Stacy. So in this multipronged approach, I'm there are potentially multiple ways that we could establish connection points or or engagement points with the community. One would be community connectors. These would be maybe vetted leaders in the community or leaders that have access to certain populations, impacted groups, or organizations in areas within our community that we could use as this as sort of city liaisons out to communicate initiatives or to to use them to sort of understand what are some of the pressing issues and, concerns about particular group.

Two would be to create a database or a network of community collaborators. These can be past advisory body members. These could include connectors, but also other leaders in our community that we could bring together in an ad hoc function to, to serve on working groups, to to help us, present surveys or gather and convene as focus groups on a particular issue. Not something that has to be a standing group, but something that can be be more responsive to oppressing a particular project or initiative. Another idea is to create a community academy.

This is a way for not only the city to share out the work that they are doing or upcoming initiatives and projects, but it's another way to sort of just create a better understanding of how city government works. If we could have seasonal or topical community academies, cities like Lacey as well as, some other regional areas, some other, nearby nearby communities such as Tacoma, hold such community academies, not only to, share out and edge better educate the community, but it's another it's another opportunity to, find and help potentially recruit people to serve on, advisory bodies. They could also serve as connectors and collaborators as well. And lastly, this idea of maybe looking at the current, advisory bodies as they stand and thinking about how we could potentially reorganize or reduce where possible the these these advisory bodies so that they better align with the focus areas of the comprehensive plan, really thinking about multidisciplinary expertise to address multidisciplinary problems and issues in areas. So looking at, potentially looking at advisory bodies around public safety, community livability, environmental stewardship, organizational excellence, our economy, and a well planned city.

Next slide, Stacy. And, again, some of these for both of those scenarios, you know, some of the things I've been hearing from in my conversations, there are some concerns and considerations that we wanted to to to think about, depending on what next steps will be taken. We wanna make sure that, in in thinking about the two scenarios, are we making sure that we will have continued diverse representation from the community, either in those advisory bodies or, reorganized advisory bodies or community academies and other forms of of community engagement? Are we making sure that we are maintaining, you know, a depth of knowledge and, and and expertise in those particular opportunities that we're reaching out to the community to community members? And are we rightsizing work plans to potentially as we look at the the number of advisory bodies and, thinking about their reorganization and potentially reducing that number, what does that mean to existing work plan initiatives, projects, and and items that we have already assigned to those advisory bodies?

And thinking about how we would even look at, you know, how do you you do align existing bodies to, and mandated activities to those focus areas that were suggested from the comprehensive plan. Is there an Cece, did you wanna also comment on this particular slide?

I think I just I just mentioned this kinda ties to, you know, our next question when asking for for for guidance from you is that we know that these are some things that have come up in early conversations around these recommendations. So these are things that we would still wanna work out. And, of course, any conversation that we have tonight will inform this as well. But I don't think, no, I don't think it beyond that, I didn't have anything else to add, Genevieve. So we can kind of pause if there are questions around this piece or if there's more you wanna add.

Are there any questions regarding the two scenarios?

I'll go ahead and look to my two committee mates first. Go ahead, Ian.

Yeah. I'm curious about, if there has been any work done to sort of get an idea about if we were if we were to, like, do any of these do any of these things, like, what what would that look like? You know? And so if we were to combine any advisory bodies to be multidisciplinary, has there been some some discussion or some work around, which ones that would be? Yeah. I guess kinda like the next step after this, or is or are you holding off to depending on, what you hear from the the body tonight? I think

I think we were hoping to get some additional direction tonight. We've got we put some we've had some conversation about what that might look like. So, in terms of scenario one where you might have you know, it might be a little bit more existing with working within the existing framework. So you might have one advisory body, for example, bicycle pedestrian advisory committee that could potentially serve as a subcommittee, you know, within, the planning commission for so we've had some conversations around that. But in terms of we also wanted to put forward this bolder idea around the reorganizing.

And I and I think the key to to having to moving forward with this concept is knowing which responsibilities that our advisory bodies do that are mandated and which are not mandated and understanding how those might combine in a way that makes sense and and, you know, supports the the focus areas that are shown here. Also acknowledging that there may be some that

Additional areas. Yeah. Sorry. Areas? Oh, but there may be some additional if if there is, after you undergo that mapping exercise, if there is still some areas or issues that don't fall into the one of these six. Right? Stacy, I think that was being open to see if there's still another kind of grouping that would be, would be would need to be addressed in the reorganization. So

could I just quickly follow-up on that? So Yeah. I'm sorry if I'm jumping ahead, but, so we we do currently know which ones are required and which ones aren't. Correct?

Debbie Sullivan had done that work and had shared yeah. That was part of the work the analysis that she had done.

Okay. And we're okay. So we're keeping that. All that body of work is still I just don't see it here, so I just wanna make sure that we're, you know, not not losing it.

No. It's it's informed this work, and we've been building off of that. So depending on direction from this body, the if you wanna move forward with scenario one, scenario two, or a combination of both, we would again use that information to to further iterate on what it could look like. The the other quickly thing I'll just add too is that, you know, up until this point, we really haven't had the opportunity to do any kind of have extensive conversations with advisory body members. So, that's also this is kind of a key point at which to say whichever direction you'd like us to move, we can also do some engagement with advisory body members before we come back with the next iteration.

Yeah. May I just add one thing, and then I'll Yeah.

Go ahead. You got the floor. Go ahead.

Yeah. I

just I unnecessarily wanna be contrary that though, I I do wanna say I do recognize that people are also joining us, and and folks are folks are are wondering about what this means, you know, and and what this means is not getting rid of all the advisory bodies. Definitely not. But just making sure that, like, along this presentation, it said that we're, that we're, you know, that we have advisory bodies, and we actually get advised from them. That they're they're working the way that they're supposed to be, that, we're not creating work for work's sake, but that, that that the advisory body's time is actually turning into impact. Right?

And that it's manageable. So, yeah, so I just I so something that I'm reacting to is, about having not had enough input from advisory body members. And so I do agree that we could have more input. I do wanna say that there has been a couple of rounds of surveys to attempt to get that input as well as liaisons talking to advisory body members. I have visited advisory bodies to have a discussion with them.

We've also talked at the last two I guess, the last two years at the annual in person meeting where we have all of the advisory bodies. Jen, maybe you're a part of that. I remember not in this role, but so there has been it there has been conversation, and there has been things taken taken away from it. So it's not as if counsel just thought of this, and we're just moving full steam ahead. Yeah. So I just wanna make sure that that's clear to folks.

Yeah. No. I agree, and thank you for clarifying. What I hope to convey was that this this bold idea of reorganizing is not something we've tested with advisory bodies, but we absolutely have been in conversation with advisory bodies around their experience, what's satisfying to them, what they value. Yeah. Definitely.

Go ahead, Kelly.

Yeah. Thank you, chair. Hi, Genevieve. It's nice to see you.

Hi, Kelly.

I really appreciate I mean, these these two scenarios obviously present two pretty drastically different visions and so, you know, like, I appreciate the opportunity to talk through them. With with scenario two, with this idea, did you talk to or connect with like, are there cities already doing this? And and kinda what was their take on how effective it's been in terms of, you know, what the what the both the engagement side and the, like, contributions to work plan, that sort of thing?

So one of the cities I talked to is Asheville, North Carolina. They if you you may recall, they were hit by hurricane Helene, about two years ago, and they went through a drastic pause and reorganization to align the work of the advisory bodies so that they've matched with the recovery priorities. So I know this is a very different scenario, but one of the things that they they are realizing is that this is although this was born out of crisis, they're realizing that this is a much more, not only efficient, but in but a more multidisciplinary approach to maybe creating better and more impactful community engagement. So what they did was they paused their advisory bodies. I think they had upwards of maybe 20 or so and formed new four new, boards, one around housing, another around economy, people environment, and infrastructure.

And they looked at their current existing advice bodies. The ones that still had some mandates that needed to to be maintained, those were not paused. But the other ones that were, they, looked at, and they asked those chairs of those respective advisory bodies to see to to match them to one of those forward recovery bodies. And it was actually a combine it was a combined effort of the city staff council and the advisory body chairs to kinda see where there was alignment. Right?

Where where could a planning commissioner chair sit? And and and they didn't have to just it wasn't just a one to one. Like, maybe the the chair would sit on the planning would sit on housing, the vice chair would sit on, people and environment. So that but what they did was what it allows for is allowing to to to bring that expertise to a shared, common, you know, recovery problem and and an initiative. Right?

So they they appreciated that there was a much more transparent there's there's increased transparency in terms of the poll policymaking, and there was more overlapping, better coordination of concerns and community input because they were taking those people from those advisory bodies and helping them serve on a on a on a one particular recovery priority. So that that's one example. Portland, they were they recently went through, a change in terms of their government. They're now a mayor council form of government, so they were trying to look at they had 70 plus, advisory bodies, all of them having various ways of of of of how they came into being, and some of them with a lot of overlapping, you know, influence or or, you know, areas of concern. So, again, looking at their four service areas, city operations, community and economic development, public safety, public works, looking at all the existing advisory bodies, thinking again, like, where do they where do they sit, and, is there a better way to sort of group these individuals?

They're still in the process of they haven't they've made some reductions and and and, you know, sunsetted some advisory bodies. They're still in that process right now in terms of determining if they're fully reducing their number to not they're not reducing to that four, but they're they're looking at the advised rise in those those four lenses to see, do they still serve, you know, in that particular capacity? Are they are they addressing those areas? I think some of the concerns from both Asheville and Portland that, I will share is that, you know, again, worried about, that reduction in in terms of seats, quote, unquote, right, in terms of representation because there are fewer boards. Is that gonna is that are you leaving out certain voices?

And that's where, again again, I wanna emphasize that the this this idea of reorganize reorganizing adviser bodies should just be one part of scenarios two's recommendation To supplement, or to, to address maybe that concern of diversity of voices, we need to have those other ways of community engagement. Those community community academies or collaborators or other ways to make sure that we're, you know, allowing for those voices to come forward. They just might not be in a, you know, advisory body model where you're meeting on a regular basis and, and and, you know, having referrals and topics, being sent to you via counsel. So that's the main I think that was the main concern is that if you are seeing some reduction in terms of advisory boards, that needs to be supplemented with other opportunities for, community engagement.

Awesome. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. You know, I was that the end of the present presentation, or did we pause them at all? No. It's

the end of the comment. Oh,

yeah. Okay. Because I just wanna make sure. Usually, there's, like, a closing sign slide versus questions. So I just wanna make sure, you know, that we're we're diving deep at the right moment here.

So I wanna just just thank everybody who has been working on this for quite a while, it sounds like. Both Kelly and I are are new to this. You know, Ian, you've been a part of it and the staff and Genevieve as well. And I you know, I've got some thoughts that I'd like to share, but I ultimately would also love to hear from the broader council as we move this work forward because all of us are informed by the advisory committees. And there are different advisory committees that are more aligned with the different council committees that we serve on.

So, you know, in terms of any kind of direction we might provide, this evening in terms of how the work is shaped up, I would like this to make its way to a study session, with the full council. And I think one thing that would be helpful, you know, you know, Eun mentioned earlier, like, oh, so work has been done on this before. We haven't lost it, have we? In terms of making sure that the the council is prepared to have this conversation, I think getting some of the work that has happened in front of everybody to make sure that folks are aware of everything that's built us up to this moment. Genevieve, it would be great to see, you know, here are the cities that I've talked to, here are the models they use.

You know? It it reminds me of I just I come from the land use and environment committee, and we we did a lot of work around tenant protections and staff researched what are different city doing. Here's the models they're using here and there. When when we talk to staff, like, here's the feedback that we heard. So we could just have all that information in front of us.

And I I just find that it helps, like, bring everybody on the same page, streamline, conversations a bit. And it'll it'll just help the full council out, in terms of just getting grounded in the work, to be able to understand, you know, why why we have this big question in front of us and what kind of direction they'd like to provide. And, you know, as you were speaking about, you know, Portland is currently going through this whole big reevaluating process of, like, how are we doing community engagement in 2026, you know, and into the future knowing that all of our systems for being able to engage with community have evolved. Yeah. Right.

So different ways of engaging with people, different ways of bringing them together, different ways of getting information out to people has evolved substantially. So, you know, I'm really curious around different things we could do around scenario two, and it's very forward looking. Like, it's not a change we're implementing tomorrow or even in the next couple of years probably because of a lot of work that would need to be done. And I say that knowing that we already do some of that work too. Like, you know, doing things like the one community plan.

Yes. And, yeah, even forming, like, the social justice and equity committee, like, you know, the way that we've brought work groups together. Like, we're already doing some of that. But to create a whole new system is gonna take time. And I think in the meantime, there are things that we can pull from scenario one to think about, like, with the system that we currently have. You know? Okay. Where where can we make sure that people that that that we're bringing people into work that feels meaningful for them? Some of these Yeah. Committees, you know, we're we're gonna have to retain.

I know the planning commission is one of them. We're kind of required to have that one. It's not going away. Yet we should probably shift the recruitment, you know, to the fall so that people can come in and get up to speed on things and be ready to hit the ground running in the timeline that Yeah. The other city business is picking up and moving along. So I think there's things to pull from scenario one that are more like the short term. Yeah. How do we how do we move forward with the evaluation? How do we set up that criteria? Where do we have some overlapping responsibilities, you know, between two advisory bodies?

Where can we gain some of those efficiencies? You know, Stacy offered the example of, you know, could BPAC become a subcommittee of the planning commission, you know, Having reviewed the applications that we're, you know, we're going to be doing interviews next week, there's a lot of overlap in the people who want to serve on those Mhmm. The those particular bodies. And, also, we've done so much work around bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure over the years that just in how we do transportation projects that that has changed so much since we first formed BPAC. So so all of this is to say is I think there are things we can pull from scenario one for more immediate changes because there's some parts of our structures that are just not gonna change because we that we need to have certain bodies.

But I'm also really intrigued by scenario two and and what we do differently to kind of almost, you know, codify and institutionalize some of the ways that we have been experimenting around public engagement and engaging folks in different ways. So that's the feedback that I I I currently have. And I'm also so I'm curious, to hear from my committee mates here in terms of, is this is what I'm saying jiving with you? Does it seem like a good next step to kind of bring all this work together and kinda get it down in writing and bring it to the full council? And I'm also curious about the timing with our meeting with the committee chairs, that is coming up and how all of this aligns.

So I'll look back to my committee meetings and see how how all this is sounding to you.

I'll jump in. Yeah. I I agree. I think the full counsel hearing some of this background and hearing these scenarios, you know, similar to to chair Madrone. You know, regardless of of which direction we go, I think the recommendations in scenario one, make a ton of sense.

Of course, I am always a little trepidatious about, adding work into fall, but it makes sense to have committees, you know, onboarding at the beginning of the year when the work is being like like, there's so much sense in all of that. And I actually really, one of the other things that resonated with me, and I think it was in scenario two, was, you know, thinking about realigning, some of the bodies with the with the comprehensive plan goals. And, like, that absolutely seems like a a smart thing to do, especially considering how fresh that comprehensive plan is now. So yeah. So I I'm intrigued, you know, being fairly new to this piece of the work.

I'm a little hesitant to say whether I like one over the other, but that's where I think some feedback from the full council. I really look forward to council member Quinn's feedback on this because obviously you've been part of a lot more of the background work on this. But but that's kinda where I am. I mean, I I can I appreciate the sentiments in in scenario two for sure, but without a little more background myself, I'm just a little nervous to say, you know, to think about what does it look like to really change that experience up? And and I know, you know, for for some of the bodies, like, some value to me in in in a standing body is that when you have someone who has been part of that work, you know, you think about a three year term, and it's like year one, you're just figuring out what it is you're supposed to do and what are the norms and what are the rhythms.

And then year two, you start contributing a little. But by year three, it's like you really have, a good understanding of, of the work. You have some good like, that that's where like, I feel like there's some value in that that timeline piece that in scenario two, thinking about other ways of engagement, you know, I would worry, does some of that get lost? But, you know, without seeing the full model, but that's just something that popped into my head. And at the same time, I've been on plenty of bodies where it feels like we don't really have a clear mission or I'm not really clear what we're supposed to be doing in three years. Just feels like an awfully long time because it never sort of materializes. So, anyway, there's a collection of random thoughts for you.

I feel like that's the same that I offered, so thanks for adding to the random thoughts, Kelly. Ehang, did you have anything you wanted to add? Yeah.

I'm all in on scenario two. I really don't mean to be a downer or dismissive of the work that's been put into this, Genevieve. And and I always wanna be honest. And I am feeling a little bit I'm feeling like I keep having the same conversations. And scenario two is absolutely where I think we should be.

I don't think that we should, you know, implement it right away and have everyone react to it. Though, I had hoped to to see, not only scenario all the things under scenario two, but kinda played out a little bit more. Like, this is how it could work. And then and then take take that something that more informed back to the council. Whereas I, you know, I wouldn't want it to go to the council, honestly, in its current form of, like, hey.

Are we gonna try to refine what's already there, or are we gonna do something different? And and especially as it comes to community engagement models and, like, what that looks like. And and and I and I love the advisory bodies. I really do. I just feel like there's been so many conversations, one on one conversations with people doing the work, looking at different different presentations, talking to different people that have done the work, having really intense and rich conversations with advisory body members.

I Genevieve, I don't I I don't think you are on with us yet. We had a a a meeting, some staff will recall, in person. It was with former Clips members, Payne and Gilman, and it was honest. I mean, peep there were there were raw, so respectful, but, I mean, peep there people were crying, and there was so much passion. And I just I want us to be further.

And, and I know it's not easy, and I'd hoped that we would be further. I yeah. I yeah. So I, would be really, deeply disappointed if we go to the full council, and they're and they're having been and I I don't know. I don't know if that's gonna get us further. You know? So I just I wanna come out them with some of the some of the scenario to like, more fleshed out. And and maybe and maybe you all have that. I I don't know. I I know that there has been a lot of work on this, and so I don't mean to suggest otherwise.

I just just you know, the answer is scenario two for me, and I'm just telling you what's coming up for me right now.

I see that Jay's got his hand up, so we're gonna go to him. But then after that, Eungh, I'd like you to dig in a little bit more on what the clear next step looks like from your perspective. But go ahead, Jay.

Thank you. I just to to council member Gwen, I I definitely hear you. And I know this is something that that is really important, not just you, but to the full council, and you've definitely been invested here. I think we're here in this moment to just when this bold idea came up to kind of align the focus areas, it was, hey, let's have this conversation first and see if this makes sense. And if it does, then we can then start to take it to the next level and say, how would this what would this start to look like versus coming tonight with it all flushed out if that's not a direction you wanted to go?

So I think we just kind of saw this as a really good check-in point. And then I think we can go to the full council in a study session and take this a little bit further in the conversation knowing that that if if if, for example, if scenario two is something that the three of you are are are thinking is you'd like to see more of, then we could say, here's some examples of what that might look like. Here's some examples in a scenario one, what that might look like. If we applied the criteria, here's what that would look like. And I think we can bring that discussion to the full council so they can get a you can get a little bit further down the road because I know that's where you're trying to get to, and I think that's what we're trying to get to.

Thank you, Jay. Okay. Yeah. Go ahead, Jindi.

So just one and just and, again, in terms of my own perspective too, I can't see us doing scenario two without doing scenario one. Right? I think you need to there are some just operationally if it would be helpful to have, all of those improvements that we mentioned in scenario one, those would only make scenario two better. Right? I think that even if we were to potentially reorg and reduce advisory body, you still need to do there it would still be beneficial to have standardization, consistency, clarity. Right? All of those things. So just kinda thinking about I definitely see those as connected. Like, the I don't I would hope that if we if you were to pursue scenario two that you don't, you know, leave out scenario one. Those those recommendations come in and are folded into scenario two.

And and and the same thing and within even within scenario one, the criteria test and the audits, I would love to to kind of work with with with this this group to sort of say, would those questions be? Right? What are those criteria tests? What are what are what are your what do we need to establish as baseline requirements to to put up a new to stand up a new advisory body. So Stacy?

I think I'll also add too is that, in some cases where Genevieve saw this work happening in other communities, they did utilize some existing advisory body members with staff to really think through what the next like, what the model would look like. And I'm not saying we necessarily need to do that, but I do think there's an opportunity before we come to council to check-in with some of our advisory body members to see based on their experience, you know, how how how might this serve to get some input from from them. The the other thing I'll mention is that when we did test this reorganization concept with chairs, it was a largely positive response. So there wasn't a lot of there actually wasn't a lot of concern. There were questions, and we captured a lot of that under the consideration slide that Genevieve outlined.

So that's a good sign. And I think just, I appreciate Jay's summary because I do think we just want to check-in to make sure that before we went further in fleshing these out, which we certainly intended to and can before coming back to council. We just want to check to make sure, hey. This is bold. Like, you know, should we continue to move forward on this path?

Thank you. Go ahead, Kelly.

Yeah. And I Stacy, you kinda just answered all my questions. But, Danny, a moment ago, you asked sort of how this, timing wise and, like, is there a committee of the chairs coming up or a meeting of the chairs? I mean, but it it sounds like some of that conversation has already happened. So I think that might be, you know, the the easy opportunity to to continue that conversation with that group before it comes to study session, and then and then have that feedback included with counsel.

And, Genevieve, I appreciated the way you phrased, like, there really is no scenario two without scenario one. And and that put me in a place of, like, yeah, I think exploring scenario two, kind of as the model, but recognizing the the pieces from one. Or another way I framed it in my head is just like one is, you know, our current system, but with some slight improvements. But if if where we're at and what led us to this moment was we need, some improvements, the desire for diverse participation, voices, bigger representation, all of that, then it feels like two is probably, you know, that for me, the model to then sort of build on as we get into that study session.

Great.

I wanna so when when is our meeting with the chairs?

I don't I don't have that date in front

of me.

I'm looking at Debbie. You she you can't tell because we're on Zoom, but I'm looking at Debbie. June. Okay. Yeah.

Well, that seems a little far away, but I do like the idea of having that sit down with the committee of the chairs before going to council and having that deeper level of feedback where we're actually communicating directly with the committee leadership on some of these ideas. And maybe that will give some time to pull all of the work that has come to get that that has been happening into, like, you know, some some kind of report, something people can, like, kinda dig into before the meeting and have some clear examples of, like, what what might what might something look like under scenario one. I'm actually hearing scenario one and scenario two are actually just kinda like one big scenario. It's just one big thing that's evolving. So but what are some clear, like, examples of you know, what what are some criteria we might use to determine when there's a new committee that is needed or when is sunset when when is sunset.

And then but also having those examples for scenario two. And I think we have some of those examples. Like, we have that lived experience here at the city. We we've done some of that already, and there are examples from other cities that we can draw on too. And maybe that is the bulk of the meeting that we have with the the when we meet with the the committee chairs is really digging in on this in June. And then as as a committee, we can say, okay. This is ready to come to the full council, or we might say, let's have one more, you know, moment with the with the with the clips committee to make sure that what we bring to council is gonna get the kind of feedback that we need from them to be able to move it forward. How's this sounding to folks? Go ahead.

Yeah. I'd be on board with that. I do just wanna recognize that we, I know things take time. And this is certainly a lot of work, though, to get to get it to done. Though I do wanna recognize that there has been prior meetings where we have said, hold on.

We're working on it. And so I do wanna when June comes, I do wanna come ready with, yeah, a clear update and and maybe even a win would be great as yeah. I do like it sounds like what you're saying, chair Madron, is it's almost like we're doing a workshop. I know our last thanks to meet you pretty much ran our last in person, and that was really well received. And so, yeah, if we can kind of you know, I wanna I don't wanna, like, overly prescribe it, but if we could go forego the usual sitting at a table for the entire time and turn it into something that could be helpful to this, this, body of work, then I think that would be great.

Oh, I also just wanted to bring up they don't wanna forget about this, but we've had a form advisory body members reach out. We have a very engaged community. I think everyone knows that. And so we have some folks that'll frequently reach out to us. They they stay paying attention and caring, and so I wonder what outreach could look like to them. I mean, it doesn't necessarily have to be just a survey, but I would I would say at minimum, we could survey them. We have their information or their emails. And then, you know, if there's another way to to connect, I think that would be good too. But we could think about it as a belated exit survey.

Yeah. I I I totally agree with that. I mean, people who have been through the whole experience of serving on an advisory body, they probably have some thoughts in terms of, you know, what worked well, what didn't, and putting some of these concepts in front of them and seeing how they react to it would be really, really informative.

Yeah. Can I add one more thing? Go ahead. I'd love to see a timeline.

Yeah. Agreed. Yeah.

Thank you. And I know that, you know, it might need to be a little open or, you know, might change, but, it that would be, really great.

Go ahead, Jay.

I'm wondering, knowing that you're gonna plan a June workshop with the with the committee chair, the advisory committee chairs, that maybe there's an opportunity to come back to to clips one more time before June Mhmm.

And

for this team to kinda outline what's that workshop gonna look like? How are we gonna set it up? What do we hope to get on the other side of it? And then how does that fit into the timeline? And then we can kinda share timeline. And then how do we get from there to a council study session? Right? And maybe lay all that out a bit more and make sure that we're all on the same page in terms of timeline and then and then process what we wanna get out of that meeting in June.

Yeah. I like that idea a lot. And I could work with Debbie on our work plan, Debbie and Stacy, on the work plan to see when that when that can happen prior to June. Go ahead, Stacy.

I think also too, you know, I heard a lot of comments from each of you about, you know, addressing the scenario one items that come first and could be more immediate. So when we come back to you, we can talk about how we can start implementing those sooner rather than later. That's not the kind of thing I think we need to pause and get feedback from chairs necessarily. So when we come back, we'll talk about that piece. What's immediate, and then what what would the engagement in June with the chairs look like, and how might we be what the information we'd be putting in front of them would be.

Great. That sounds awesome. Alright. I'm seeing nods from, both the my committee mates here. Staff and Genevieve, do you have what you need for, next next steps on this?

Yeah. I absolutely do. I just wanna express appreciation for the conversation. This is what we hoped for. Again, wanna acknowledge Genevieve. She brought her expertise as a former social justice and equity commissioner as well as a communications professional, and we're just looking forward to continuing the conversation with you. So thank you.

Excellent. Thank you all so much. Look forward to this, coming back around and continuing to shape this with you all so we can, you know, get some really positive changes in our community engagement. Awesome. Yes.

Thank you. Alright.

Before we move on to the next item of the agenda, I just wanna acknowledge that Kelly had let me know she'll need to peel off at 7PM. So, Kelly, feel free to do an, Irish goodbye and just leave when you need to. But we'll go ahead and get started with the next next item here, or you could just peel off now unless you wanna hear the the start of the final agenda item here, which is to discuss the community development block grant CDBG program year 2026 funding proposal approach. We have Jacinda Stelges here to walk us through this this this agenda item. And, Jacinda, just so you know, you are on the meeting early on during public comment, but there were some really lovely words spoken for you and and Anastasia, for your work, from Beth at Enterprise for Equity.

So, with that, I will go ahead and pass along to you.

Thank you, chair Madron, for sharing that. I I was not on earlier. I was jumping from the Regional Housing Council. But I am glad that we had some comments and our subrecipients reached out and shared comments and thoughts with you all. I do have a presentation. I am not as used to being in front of clips, so give me a moment to pull it up here, and then I will walk you through our 2026, community development block grant proposal.

Alright.

Alright. Are you all able to see that? Okay.

Yes. But it's not in presentation mode. Oh, now it is. Perfect.

Alright. So for the record, I am Jacinda Stelches, our housing manager. Usually, CLIPS is used to seeing housing staff that is usually Anastasia Everett, and that is usually a little bit later in the year. So this is this presentation tonight is not regularly scheduled. But there we go.

Give you a kind of quick overview here. I know we have some new members, that may not be as familiar with CDBG and certainly the public. So I'll give a brief background on what CDBG or Community Development Block Grant is. I know that you all may also be interested in a status update on our current program year funding. And then, we will get to the meat of things with the, program year 2026 funding proposal.

Alright. So CDBG is a federal formula grant, funded by, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. It's a very flexible grant allows us to really tailor to our community's needs. Olympia is an entitlement community. Excuse me.

That means we receive a direct allocation of CDBG funding annually. And that funding amount has continued to decrease over the years, but in the last few years has hovered around about 350,000 annually. Each activity or each thing that is funded with CDBG must be eligible under the federal, code of regulations and also must meet a national objective. So here are some examples of eligible activities. Under CDBG, things that the funding can be used for.

Activities can be carried out, by the city itself or by sub grantees or sometimes called sub recipients. I had also mentioned that activities must meet a national objective. This gets a little bit complicated, so I will acknowledge that this is a very kind of broad overview. But activities must either benefit a low or moderate income population, address slumber or blight, or address an urgent need. There is a requirement of the city during a three year period that at least 70% of our funding go toward that low or moderate income benefit.

So that is where we typically, allocate the majority of our funding. A typical, CDBG annual cycle, that usually starts. Sorry. That usually starts with a request for proposals that is put out into into the wild, into the public. That usually happens around late winter.

And then staff brings recommendations for projects that have applied being carried out by sub grantees to CLIPs. You all we bring drafted recommendations. You all review those. And we go through the process of then drafting what is called our annual action plan. That's what submitted to HUD, tells HUD and the public how we will spend our CDBG funds.

And that process includes a thirty day public comment period. And then that annual action plan must be submitted to HUD no later than July 15. Our program year in Olympia starts September 1. Not all CDBG entitlement communities have a September 1 start date, but ours locally is a September 1 start date, and our program year ends August 31. So when I'm talking program year or using those terms, just acknowledging it can get a little bit confusing when we're talking about our program year.

It does not start at the beginning of a calendar year. It's most definitely toward the end of a calendar year. And, so for instance, right now, we are in program year 2025 even though our calendar year is 2026. I will also take a moment here to make sure that I let you all know Olympia. I had mentioned earlier that Olympia ourselves can carry out eligible activities, or we can choose to select subrecipients to carry out those activities.

We have, since about 2021, issued that RFP to select subrecipients, typically nonprofits, that do those activities listed in a few slides back. And we chose to go that route of an RFP in an attempt to try to make the funding more equitable and accessible. This is just kind of a very high level and is in your packet excuse me. In your packet as well, it's just like what the a typical program year looks like for CDBG. So I will now take a few minutes to update you all on the status of this current year, so program year 2025, and acknowledge that this year has not gone as expected.

It has not followed the typical annual cycle that you all just saw there. So in these next few slides, I have included here kind of the typical process. And then in bold are actions that were new this year that are not typical, we have not experienced in the past. We being like the city of Olympia, just in general CDBG direct recipients. So for program year 2025, we did put out our request for proposals that went out 2024.

Staff recommended eligible projects to CLIPSE. That usually happens around the May time frame. And then after we went through that process, we were made aware as Anna. Anastasia Everett usually well, she does manage CDBG, but is out on extended leave, which is why I am here. But Anna was made aware through HUD headquarters or excuse me, through our local office that HUD headquarters will review our annual action plan, which is not typical.

And that annual action plans would not be approved if they included language referencing diversity, equity and or inclusion. So at that point, the draft annual action plan was kind of well on its way on a very efficiently and quickly before it was submitted, you know, made sure we didn't have any direct references to these kind of keywords submitted to HUD or excuse me. We, had our recommendations at clips for the actual dollar amount, our public hearing, and then submitted to HUD. So that, kinda early process had just that one hiccup but did submit on time. The next next few slides is where it gets a little bit tricky.

So we submitted. We were waiting to get our grantee agreement from HUD. And as we were waiting, because other jurisdictions, again, nationwide have different program year start dates, we're starting to hear from other jurisdictions that either they hadn't gotten their agreement, or that they had heard there was going to be some, language referencing executive orders in the grant agreement. And we began to prepare for potentially seeing that language as well. So our program year, started September 1.

We had still not received our grantee agreement from HUD, which is unusual. Usually, that is received and executed, and we are moving forward with getting our sub grantees into contract and getting money out into the community. So we did not have that grantee agreement by September 1. We in housing, housing staff made sure we were communicating with sub grantees that we had not received that grantee agreement from HUD, that we had not received our funds. A lot of communication and just, know, we'll let you know when we know more, we'll let you know when we see it.

A lot of concern, around the nonprofits and the community about will the money, actually come through, what stipulations might be required to the funding. So Anna did a great job of, keeping in contact with subgrantees and, letting them know along the way what we were seeing and what we were expecting. So HUD did provide our grantee agreement in late fall, so a few months after our program year start date. As we anticipated, there were some policy requirements reflecting executive orders. And among those was a requirement.

And so these were again policy requirements not administrative requirements written into the federal code of regulation. So those executive orders that showed up in the grantee agreement, made references to tracking CDBG subrecipients immigration status. Again, you know, kind of outlining that funds could not be used for diversity, equity, or inclusion purposes. And at that time, we began hearing from other jurisdictions across the nation as they are also receiving and reviewing their grantee agreement, Kind of a similar approach or thought that, you know, these were not things that we have ever seen before. A lot of jurisdictions not feeling that they were legal aligned with, their community values.

And so a lawsuit was filed against HUD, King County versus Turner. Locally here in Olympia, we did not execute our HUD grant agreement because of those orders and because we were feeling the policy excuse me. The policy requirements included in that grantee agreement did not feel that they were legal and also did not feel that they aligned with the values of our community. So we began also engaging in conversations with our legal staff, with other jurisdictions, and exploring ways to join that lawsuit. There was an injunction that was filed that essentially from the courts that essentially allowed jurisdictions that were part of the lawsuit to strike out the policy requirements included in that grant agreement continue to execute their grant agreement and receive their fundings funding.

Excuse me. So Olympia did decide to join that lawsuit, which is now King County et al versus Turner et al. We in about 15 other jurisdictions at the same time joined that existing lawsuit in late January. We then proceeded to strike out the policy requirements in our grantee agreement and promptly executed it with our, field office in, Seattle, and received our funding fairly quickly thereafter. That lawsuit, obviously, you know, was still in motion.

Nothing has no no, like, further judgments. So we, at this point, have executed our sub grantee agreement. So those are the agreements that the city executes with, again, our subrecipients or sub grantees who are carrying out those activities. Those grantees are now able to start drawing CDBG funds. Those grantee agreements were just exit like, I think the last of them was just executed last week.

So we are essentially around five months behind schedule. Typically, we have our CDBG funding again, at the September, and it's quickly put out into the community and our subrecipients begin drawing funds. Which brings us to our program year 2026 funding proposal. And I want to note that while the typical performance period for sub grantees is September 1 through August 31, so that's a program year. Again, we received our funds late this year, but had already committed on this year being program year '25, but had already committed during our request for proposals to a twelve month period for subgrantees or subrecipients to spend their funding.

I also want to note before we get further on here, that the following funding proposal, was not an easy one for staff to arrive at. We know it will have impacts in the community should you all, you know, approve or be open to this proposal. And it is is based on threats and uncertainty at the federal level and best positions the city to protect its future years CDBG funds. And again, acknowledge that it will have an impact on service providers in our community. And I wanted to share I did hear just about an hour ago from Sierra Abrams with Together who was not able to join us today, but did have an email that she wanted me to share with you all, and we'll do that when I get further on in the slides around the public services recommendation.

So again, the funding proposal best positions the city to remain compliant with CDBG administrative requirements. So those are requirements in the federal code and thereby protect future year CDBG funds. And the requirements are really taking into account these two things here, the timeliness test and the public services funding cap. So I will first talk briefly about the timeliness test. HUD conducts a timeliness test each year that happens in early July.

It measures the city's ability to spend down at CDBG funds in a timely manner. And then to reach compliance or to be in compliance, the city must have no more than one and a half times our most recent CDBG allocation. So again, that is typically around 350,000 in our line of credit. So failure to satisfy the test results in a corrective action plan, a risk of decreased funding in upcoming program years, and it also increases the city's risk rating and could impact the city's ability to compete for other HUD grant funding that may become available in coming years that housing has, in past years, applied to or been interested in to further goals in our housing action plan or respond to housing and homeless response needs and goals. So the timeliness test for, for this year, for program year 25, what happened in July 2026.

Staff is relatively a relatively low worry about making sure that we are able to draw our funds to meet that timeliness test. But when we start getting to July 2027, which is the 2026 program year timeliness test, if things happened as typical, that's where there starts to be a worry. So this is what's driving in part our recommendations that, I will get to here. The other thing that is driving it is a public services funding cap. That is another federal, administrative requirement, that limits, had limits the amount of funding the city can direct toward public service activities within any twelve month period to 15% of the most recent CDBG allocation.

Again, staff wanted to be true to our commitment that was issued in the twenty program year 2025 RFP and give subrecipients a full twelve months to spend down their funds. They have built that into their budget. They have been waiting patiently for that. And they have operated under the expectation that they would be able to access those funds for a full twelve months. None of us anticipated that funding would come, five months late and be distributed five months late.

So when we're talking about the public services cap, that impacts next year, program year 2026. We don't want to exceed our public services cap. If we exceed the public services cap, essentially, that means the city repays the funds by however much, we exceed that cap. We don't wanna position ourselves to repay funds. The funding proposal.

Based on, again, uncertainty at the federal level, an anticipation that program year 2026 is probably going to look similar to what we've experienced this year in '25. Taking into consideration, again, that we don't want to risk not meeting our timeliness test. We also don't want to repay, funding to HUD if we exceed our public services funding cap. So we are recommending or, planning, to move forward, but wanted to make sure we stopped in at clips and let you all know what we were thinking and where we were going before we proceeded. We are proposing to not issue a request for proposals.

We are also proposing that we directly award program year 2026 funds to program year 2025 sub grantees, which are meeting the benefit to low mod income housing and benefit to low or moderate income job creation national objectives. In a a slide or two here, you'll see who these subgrantees are. We are proposing that we continue to fund city administration, an eligible activity with next year's funds. And, again, that we do not fund public services activities because we don't want to exceed that program or, excuse me, that public services, cap. So what you all see here, these are our program year twenty twenty five subrecipients, and these are subrecipients that, again, are not public services.

And so we have Rebuilding Together Thurston County for their critical home repair program, Habitat for Humanity for their critical home repair program, Habitat for Humanity's Energize Thurston program, Enterprise for Equity is micro business development, and then again the city's administration. And so these are sub recipients that the city has contracted with before, again, through that RFP process, but they have a history of, knowing how to manage CDBG CDBG funds and drawing those in a timely, and appropriate manner. And I do also want to, let you all know, typically, we will know from HUD what our anticipated program year 2026 funding amount is, more toward the spring. So what you see here is a recommendation that we move forward with funding at these organizations. What you don't see here, but you will see later in the spring, is a specific dollar amount, once we know, what our funding allocation will be from HUD.

And then we typically also have contingency projects. So these are projects that if another funded project isn't able to spend funds or if we get program income, which we typically do, from our revolving loan, rental rehabilitation program, it allows us to, identify where that funding will go without having to amend our annual action plan. So the contingency projects here are also projects that we have historically funded and are again recommending for 2026. Just a few more slides y'all. Timeline and next steps.

So as I mentioned before, we've been in regular communication with program year 2025 grantees. All of those grantees were aware of tonight's meeting. I made sure to direct them to the staff report and this presentation once they became public and encourage them to show up if they wanted to share their thoughts or comments. We'll continue to engage with subrecipients as we move forward. You will see Anna in May with funding recommendations that again have that specific dollar amount attached after we know our program year 2026 allocation from HUD.

There will be the typical comment period, thirty day comment period that happens in that May, June time frame, followed by the public hearing in June, and then a consideration of the annual action plan approval, which happens at council in July. And then submission of our annual action plan detailing those subrecipients we will fund and what activities they will carry out for program year 2026. That is due to head no later than July 18. And then we are hopeful that the program year would we would have our funds by the program year start date of 09/01/2027. We do anticipate that this process of not having an RFP, funding public services, we don't anticipate that this is something we're going to have to do for multiple years.

Anna and I have talked quite extensively and feel that the recommendation here will position us to spend down all of our CDBG entitlement plus our program income and be able to open up a RFP for program year 2027 and hopefully continue, as normal after that. I know I've covered a lot and wanna make sure that I am available for questions. And I will keep, well, I guess, chair, I will let you decide. I can keep the presentation up if we need to flip back to slides, or I can shut it down so we can all see each other better.

Ian, we need to flip back to any slides? No. Okay. Let's go ahead and take it down to lead to each other. Oh, and there's Jay. Got his hand up first. Go right ahead.

Yeah. Before you turn it over to committee discussion, I just wanna acknowledge Jacinda and Anastasia for their work. The CDBG and that funding is complicated. It's got a lot of moving parts on a normal funding process. And what they've been navigating over the last year, year and a half to get us to this point is remarkable.

They've done it with a lot of care, a lot of thought, and a lot of fight to get us to a place where we can have something today. You heard from Jacinda that in a perfect world, they might bring you different recommendations than the ones they're bringing you tonight. But I think what they're bringing you tonight is our best thought as a staff about how we can remain compliant and how we can navigate the waters that we're in right now. So I just wanna say that and just give some gratitude to Jacinda and Anastasia for their work. I know it's been difficult and they've worked really hard at this.

Thank you, Jay. Alright. I will go ahead and see. First, Eon, if you have any thoughts or questions for Jacinda.

Yeah. Thank you. More so just a comment. I understand with CDPG, it's my understanding is there's no lingering projects type of thing.

It's

like they're small grants, and, they have make a big impact on people. And, so I guess I don't really have any concerns there. Are there any lingering projects?

We, typically try to make sure, again, that our funding is spent within that program year time frame. If we move forward with this proposal, there will be lingering projects in the sense of the public services that were funded. I I shouldn't even say if we move forward with this proposal because we have committed to that twelve months. So when program year 2026 starts in September 1, there will be some overlap of the twenty twenty five subrecipients still spending down their money in program year 2026, which is why we're not recommending public services activities in 2026 because then the overlap causes us to exceed that public services cap of 15%. But other than that, there are no long standing lingering projects.

Anna has worked very hard to make sure we're spending funding down quickly.

Thank you. And I just wanna say that just really, recognize that, that you and the team are navigating a a really tough time. You know? And, I think what you brought us, tonight is, is very responsible.

Actually, the question that you asked, Young, wasn't exactly what I was gonna ask, but the answer Jacinda gave answered another question I had. And there was something about you going like this with your your hands. I was just like, oh, yes. That was the visual I needed right there. So, yeah, this is this is really, you know, unfortunate to be in this situation. And there were a couple of times, Jacinda, where you said, you know, if we experienced, you know, what if we experienced what we experienced with the previous round. So am I hearing in that that you're expecting another delay in funding? Okay. And you're just kind of hope for the best, prepare for the worst kind of scenario here? Okay.

Yes. Okay. That's yeah. Kinda is is what it is. And I have full faith in the work that you all have put into this with the engagement that you have with the community organizations that do really, really valuable and critical work for our community and just the tough spot that we're all in.

It's just it's just so hard because we're watching funding get cut away all over the place. And now because of the these kind of almost technical administrative challenges associated with delays, it's just another it's just another, cut, that, service providers are experiencing. You did mention that you had somebody, think, get together who had shared some thoughts. Could you go ahead and share those with us?

Yes. Thank you, chair. I also just remembered. So, again, I reached out to our existing subrecipients and those in the community nonprofits that had been in contact with us asking about an RFP for next year, letting them know that I would be here and sharing the materials. And Sierra Abrams with Together reached out and just said, again, you know, thank you for the update.

So very, like, appreciate everyone has been understanding and appreciative and just lovely to work with. Had some questions about the recommendation around programs that had a history of spending down and pointed out that Together has been funded through the county CDBG funding for quite some time. And had I had responded to her just let her know that that recommendation around projects that were spending down was in reference to the non public services projects and the public services were not being recommended because of that overlap with the cap. So acknowledged that we are aware that Together has received CDBG funding for some years and has been able to spend that down. And then also just shared that she appreciated the extension of the 2025 period to spend, so not so giving them the full twelve months and asked if there was any way to for them together to be able to spend their 2025 funds in a shortened time frame this year if it meant they could get funds next year, which unfortunately isn't quite as simple.

We would kinda need everyone to to spend down in very truncated time in order to position ourselves so that we wanna have to repay potentially repay funds next year. And I'm happy to forward that email to you all as well. Yeah.

I I'd like to see it. You know? And yeah. I and I I I appreciate that perspective from together. And, also, it it considering that there could be another delay in funding next year, there's also those that that's that that potential scenario that would actually further challenge that kind of arrangement.

So but overall, I'm very you know, I'm I'm supportive of the the direction that you and Anna are taking this. It's it's an unfortunate situation, and I know it's not easy for you all, and it's not easy for our service providers, and it's not easy for the people who need services. But it's just kinda where we're at right now. So supportive of the the recommended approach that you have in front of us. And I don't believe you need any formal action from us.

It was more just a check-in. Are we on the right track? And also making us aware of this the the situation that CDBG is in. Okay. Anything else, Ian, or any other staff? Okay. Great. Well, thank you so much, Jacinda. It's nice to see you. I don't see you all that much anymore. I know. I'm not on all the housing land use stuff. I know. Getting

used

to new faces on new committees. Thank you all.

Appreciate your time, and, you all will be seen on a in in May, with, recommendations on dollar amounts and more discussion.

Great. Thank you so much. Yep. Alright. And that brings us to the end of our committee business, but I do wanna leave the time on the agenda for reports and updates to see if there is anything to share. I know that we'll get some quality time together next week, working through advisory body interviews. So that will be happening on Wednesday and Thursday for us. And I believe staff got everything they needed from the committee to be able to get all the things happening. But now Stacy has a thoughtful look on her face. So jump in there, Stacy.

Thank you, Cher. I was hoping to take a minute to just confirm with committee members, on the the interview questions.

Oh, that's right.

Yes.

And and I'm happy to share those if that's helpful. But you may have seen in your emails that, I was asking to I was proposing a revision to the interview questions for advisory bodies, so I'm just looking for feedback.

Yeah. Let's go ahead and take a look at those. And, yeah, Ying, I see you've got your hand up too. So no. No. She does.

I need

to look

at them. I've read them.

Oh, okay. We don't need to see them. Okay. Do you like them, Ian? Are we good?

Like, it's like, you know, white people are but, like, I don't know. But I just if we were sending them out to in advance and everyone got them, I just worry, like because some people will look back at at meetings and some people won't, and I don't want people to have questions in advance before other people. So I suppose I have more of a science approach to interviewing sometimes. So you I'm good with them.

Okay. So you're good with the questions, but you have concerns about sending them out in advance? No. I was just

like I I mean, it's fine. But

Oh, you didn't wanna show them up right now?

Show them. Yeah. I was like, we're good.

Well, now someone's gonna go through this, hit pause, look at them. But but we do plan to send them out to in advance to the interviewees anyway. Correct? That's what I was hoping to confirm.

Is that you're that you're supportive of that?

I am. Yeah. Does that work for you, Ian?

I'm fine with that. How how much in advance are we sending it out to people? Just curious.

Well, not too long because they're all currently signing up for their interview slots. So probably let's see. We're talking I mean, probably get them out on Monday or bills? No. We could get them out we could get them out and then, like, probably tomorrow because I think we know who everyone is. So

Continue. Go ahead.

I don't think we need to get it out that much in advance. It's like, yeah, I think Monday is fine. I mean, Monday is very generous. I mean, you got days to think about what your responses are.

Days. For a very short interview. Yes.

Yeah. Monday Monday it is.

Okay. Excellent. Great. Well, appreciate all the work from staff to, pull all of this together. It's a lot of work, to get together. It'll be a lot of work to get through it. And then onboarding all these new people will also be a whole lot of work. So, but really excited to to move through that process.

Yeah. Thank you. Just if I might just lift up Don Carvalho for doing a lot of the legwork to make sure that we're ready to go next week. So thank you to to Don.

Oh, yes. And taking my phone calls. Like, hold on. Walk me through this. Okay. Great. Thank you. Yep. There she is. Hi, Don.

Okay. Anything else for reports or updates? Okay. Great. Well, thank you everybody for your work this evening, and see y'all again next week. Appreciate the work. Bye.