Prescott advances Community Development overhaul, delays charter amendment votes until June

Good afternoon. Today is May 12th, 2026 and this is the city of Prescuit City Council study session. Roll call, please. Mayor Rousing here. Mayor Prom Fworth here. Councilwoman Frederickson here. Councilman Gamboji I am here. Councilman Garing here. Councilman Grady here. And Councilman Ruby here. All are present. Okay, next item. Our first item is a presentation and discussion regarding an operational analysis of the community development department. Thank you very much, mayor and councel.

So, a couple of years ago as I got started um with the city um started to identify some areas where we wanted to do a little more um um understanding and research um there concerns of the public, concerns of the council, things I'd observed and we identified several things including our you know our facilities study an IT study and one of those studies was also our community development department study.

Um, so we're here today because I know this is an an item that has been interesting to the public as well. Um, so we've brought in the the consultants Raph Telus. Um, I'm going to ask Jonathan Ingram to come to the microphone here. They'll share their findings with us and then we can um ask any questions that we may have. So Jonathan, go ahead. Thank you. Good afternoon, mayor and council. Uh, very good to be with you in your beautiful community.

Um, as uh the city manager noted, my name is Jonathan Ingram. I'm a vice president with Rafelis. I lead Raft Telus' local government organizational assessment practice. So, we do this work um all over the country and internationally and have extensive experience conducting community development development review process assessments. Um just to give you some uh just next slide, please. We don't have a clicker. Um just to give a highlight of who we have uh here today.

Um you'll recognize a couple of faces. Oh, thank you. Um as I mentioned, my name is Jonathan Ingram. Also with me is my are my colleagues Rebecca Hoskin uh and Susan Healey Keen. Uh Rebecca was the project manager on this effort. So she's been involved working very closely with your staff um with your key stakeholders and also involved in conversations with you all individually as we've as we've gone through this process.

Um Susan Healey Keen is our community development and development review subject matter expert. Susan has an extensive background leading community development operations uh for multiple communities uh and is our plan is our planner and resident expert uh in the nuance of the process and has that experience delivering the service. We will uh next slide. In terms of the agenda and the focus today um I'll hit high level but let me give you a sense of what this process is and what it isn't.

So um a lot of times in in these kinds of projects you hear the word audit and we don't really view this as an audit. We view this as an assessment and it's an opportunity to really look at the operation, look at your community, look at your development environment and identify those strengths that you all can build upon.

uh but also to identify those areas where there are opportunities for improvement relevant to the customer experience, relevant to your regulatory environment uh and your service level expectations as a governing body. Our goal today is to walk through how we went about the work. Um so we'll give you some detail of of our particular scope and approach. Um but really we'll spend the bulk of our time uh going through our key recommendations.

Uh we've had the opportunity to provide the draft report to you all and really this is an opportunity for you all to ask questions uh and to provide any any feedback that you may have as we work through the finalization process. Um I'll then talk through next steps. Uh we have a few key uh key activities left um including building out an implementation plan and and facilitating some discussions with your team. Uh and then of course um questions and answers.

Um I recognize we're on a tight agenda today. We're going to try to get through the um the presentation as quickly as we can. I'd ask that you try to hold your questions, but if you have a burning question, of course, we'll answer it. So, in terms of project overview, um we really built this based on the RFP and the scope that you all developed. Uh it's pretty consistent with what we see um in lots of other organizations.

So our goal is really to provide you with very specific analysis and recommendations that improve kind of customer focused operations, identify where technological improvements may be warranted or where process improvements may be warranted that can add value both to staff and to um the users of your process in the community. Um and to give you a very clear actionable path forward.

In other words, not to offer pie in the sky recommendations, but to articulate what you all can do as a community to make your process work better for the community uh and and for the individual customers of the process. Um this is really the overall project scope and timeline and I won't go through every activity, but what I'll highlight is we're nearing the end of the process. So, we've provided the draft report.

Our goal is to finalize that report this month um with um very specific feedback from you all incorporated um where it's appropriate. uh and then to ultimately develop an implementation plan through a workshop format, a facilitated format um with your community development staff. So in terms of our process, it's there's really several key elements. The first is really engagement.

Um so we're spending a lot of time looking at the data that is available and there was quite a bit of data available um to be able to understand, analyze and really document what is the status quo relevant to your development environment. Um, we also spent uh significant effort both interviewing and surveying your staff. Uh, we had a number of on-site days where we where we experienced your process and observed your process.

I had the opportunity to interview each of you to provide your feedback early in the process. Um, and then also sent a survey to some of your stakeholders, your core users of the process. We didn't have a great response rate early on, but I'm I'm happy to say we've gotten some improved response rates lately. Uh, so uh we have some additional feedback that we can include and we'll highlight that as we move through. Um, and then we did some peer benchmarking.

So we looked at 10 uh benchmark organizations both within the region and nationally uh that represent a similar development environment and similar challenges that you all face. So it's not just those folks that you're that your customers are are tapping regularly within the region. It's also other communities like Boulder, Colorado for example and Cordelane, Idaho. Um and then of course we went through a process of extensive analysis to develop those recommendations.

Um what we're here today to do is really share um the specifics of those recommendations in four core areas. Um the first is around staffing and organizational structure. So from a capacity perspective, where do we feel like there are opportunities and needs um in the organization? Where are there process improvements that we think you all can make that can generate staff capacity and generate predictability on the part of your development community um as they navigate through the process?

Where can you better utilize the technology that you have invested in and pay attention to very specific data metrics um that you all can use as a governing body to quickly assess how well your process is moving and that your staff can use to identify what are the important trends that we need to proactively adjust and adapt to um as we as we move through the the development process. And then communication and accountability.

So, um, you know, really focusing on what the communication program and process looks like, um, not just with you all, um, but with the community as well. With that, I will turn it over to my colleagues, Rebecca and, uh, and Susan to walk through the details of the recommendations. Okay, we're going to start with the recommendations regarding staffing and structure.

As Jonathan mentioned, um this section includes six recommendations and is the largest single category because obviously staffing and structure is foundational to getting the work done. Um but before we get there, I want to give you just a little context on the existing structure. Um as you can see here, this is the current structure. There's 26 FTEES currently in the department. Um there are a couple of things I want to draw your attention to that that caught our eye.

First, the engineering uh group there, private engineering on the left. um that supervisor position was vacant during our review period and for that reason it was a temporary move to put that under the operations manager while that vacancy occurred. Um when we'll talk about that more as we move forward but that was one thing that you should be aware of. Um secondly uh the the administrative coordinator position was also vacant under the operations manager at the time of our review.

Um but luckily it's been filled since so that's good news. Um, finally that that private engineering review of the uh three reviewer positions, two of them were vacant at the time of the review. So, a lot of that was being covered um in part by the city engineer providing some backup coverage. So, those are just some things to be aware of that were in place at the time of our review back um in December and January.

And each of these vacancies um is really important to the process because there's not a lot of redundancy. So, when a when a vacancy exists, it definitely has an impact on processing. Also, this slide sort of just puts uh staffing and volume into some context. Um on the left, you can sort of see the permits and the application volume from 2023 to 2025. That was the set of data that we had and used for analysis.

And you can see that there was a slight projected decline at the end of 2025, but basically it was pretty stable. You can see that the permit volumes were stable over those three years. Um, but then if you look at adding in the 10,000 to 20,000 housing units that are already included in your development agreements, you can see on the right, we tried to do some projections across high, middle, and and and um low progressions across the 12-year period.

And you can see that it it goes up very radically depending on, you know, how much the growth actually occurs. Obviously, we can't project exactly what's going to happen, but it gives you some sense that we are going to need to look at workload volumes increasing over the future years as those developments move forward, and we just want to make sure everyone's aware of that. So, the first recommendation is really about addressing vacancies.

Um, and you know, this is this was important and as I said, something we noticed right away when we came to the city. Um there were several vacancies at the time of our review. Four of the 26 positions which is 15% of your staff in CDD were vacant. Um and more importantly to us when we looked at that period of 2023 to 25 and over the past 5 years actually going back um several of your key leadership positions were vacant as well. Your planning manager was vacant.

Your chief building official position was vacant. Your director was vacant for almost a year and even your operations manager came um in late 2024. So there was a lot of kind of destabilization in the department for a little bit there and that's important to understand. We feel like they're starting to stabilize now which is great that you've you've kept your folks in there moving forward.

Um but that was a lot of transition and it did impact your processing and the data proves that the data shows that on-time performance dropped during those years when you had those position vacancies. So it just kind of shows that correlation of performance related to vacancies. Um Madame Mayor. Yes, Ted. You say uh partner with HR to improve retention, but before you can improve retention, you need to find out why you have lost employees. Did you probe into that? Did we probe into it?

I mean, we heard anecdotally from some of your staff that, you know, compensation, job duties, housing costs all contribute to those things. Mhm. Um the other piece of vacancies that's important to know in CDD in particular, unlike a lot of um positions in a city, it's not plug-and-play.

These are technical positions and oftentimes in community development operations we see it can take up to a year to get someone up to speed fully because they have to learn all of your local regulations and ordinances and codes. So there is a high learning curve in community development. And that's another reason why it's critical to try to not have as many vacancies as possible. obviously no one wants them.

Um so that's something we really think that um CDD would benefit by working with HR to improve that retention as as we mentioned and and try to preserve that institutional knowledge just as much as possible. Um if we go to the next slide, it's very very um uh it goes together in partnership with the prior one and it's really building opportunities for succession.

That's also another piece that we think is important for the department stability that um right now that there there's um you know some staff that are approaching retirement age and so we it's time to look ahead and try to build in folks that can step into those roles from internally and have that knowledge already in place versus hiring from outside which again results in that learning curve. So as much as possible obviously the job market is you know you can't control that entirely.

Um, also that, you know, there's a compensation framework right now and staff talked about they'd have to be in the city a long, long time to reach the maximum levels.

Um, but we think there's an opportunity there in that if you take some classifications and build in some career ladders, um, for example, planning a planning position, you could start with an apprentice planner, someone with no experience to come in at the lower level and then move up to a a planner, associate planner, a planner, a senior planner, and then maybe a planning manager.

So building in kind of mild steps can help with that progression, give them a little something to work toward and also um some pay increase, but more importantly the leadership can start giving them more tasks and kind of build their skill set so that you build that internal capacity to take over when that top leader leaves.

Um, and we think that's really valuable and particularly that apprentice piece might be very useful to bring in folks who don't have the qualifications or background perhaps, but they can get in the door and start getting that training at a lower level internally. Um, so we think it's really important to build some opportunities for succession and planning ahead. Recommendation three, um, we did suggest that the city add one FTE position to the water resources division within the department.

Um this was probably our highest priority position um for filling and the reason is that water management is critical to your growth. It's a very important uh piece of things. We heard that from most of you when we interviewed you. We've heard that from the stakeholders as well. Everyone's aware of that. Um and you have a lot of complex development agreements in place.

Um and right now unfortunately some of the staff right now there's a project a water project manager and a um two I'm sorry a water resources manager and two water resources project managers and right now a fair amount of their capacity is being spent doing the permitting processing versus working on your long-term master plan for water.

So um that is one of our concerns is that you really need that focus on that long-term planning to deal with those development agreements to deal with the oncoming growth that's going to hit you shortly. And so for that reason, we think it's important to have one position added. It would add that and have that position focused on that permitting uh processing so that the others are free to work on the long-term master planning piece of the water.

Um and that would be uh freeing up that technical staff to do that work. Um the second position we recommended was a management analyst for the operations division. Um this ties into a recommendation you'll hear about later on in process improvements and technology. But um right now you we have to say we were impressed with your data. We got incredible data from your folks. You have more than most cities we work with um frankly and and so that was a real strength for your department.

You have a lot of good information that's there to mine and really use for to drive continuous improvement. Um unfortunately there's not the capacity to do that and it's sort of happening infrequently right now um inconsistently when the operations manager the director have time to run the numbers.

And so we think it's important to for driving those improvements, which we'll talk about later, but it's really critical for your performance management and also for transparency for the public, um to have someone who's really in charge of mining the data, being a data analyst essentially in house.

Um and that can help with consistent performance reporting, developing customer service standards, so you really know how long it takes and know what your standard should be and also to improve that public transparency so that you can put that information out there. Um, we know cities that, you know, put their performance right online for everybody to see. And even if it's not where it's supposed to be, if their if their target's 90%, it might be at 75. Okay, that's okay.

We know we need to work on it, right? We know we're not making what we need to be. So, that's part of knowing where you are is doing that data analysis. And so, this position would really fulfill that role and help transform the operations division into like a continuous improvement performance piece of things division. Um in this position, this was the last position we recommended in this report was a third position. Um it's an administrative position to the operations division as well.

Um the reason for this is we thought it was you had a rather unusual org structure in that there was really not much administrative support at all. And that's really unusual for community development department because um planning in particular has a lot of administrative needs. There's public noticing, there's staffing um liaison for committees and commissions.

there's um you know sending out letters to landholders and a lot of that time that's given to administrative staff which you don't have. So right now some of your technical reviewers are using their time which is an inefficient use of their time to do that work. And so we really think that this would be an easy win. It's a lowcost way to build that capacity immediately and build your technical review capacity by adding that position and freeing them up to do faster review cycles.

Essentially, our last recommendation on staffing and structure is really about some reorganization. Um, we feel that um, there's some misalignment right now in terms of the orc structure the way it is. Um, and both for operational efficiency and the operations manager's ability to focus on the strategic work that he should be doing. Um, currently your development services representatives who are really your permit intake folks at the front counter.

um the private engineering reviewers and neighborhood services representatives who are your code enforcement folks, they all report in operations right now and um we think that that they would be better aligned to move to their technical areas where they're more coordinating. So we would um recommend having the intake folks report to the building division so they work directly with the chief building officer.

Um the engineering as we had mentioned earlier was uh temporarily reporting to the operations manager and that should again rise up to report directly to the director and then the the uh code enforcement folks and neighborhood services reps should report to planning where they're um more aligned in terms of dealing with the code the law the code and ordinances the the land use laws that they're they're upholding.

So we think that that would be beneficial for them in terms of the technical alignment and again we really want to focus that operations division to be your continuous improvement data analyst wing essentially of the department. So that was our last recommendation. So the proposed new structure is up on the board now. Um the items in blue are the three positions that we would recommend.

Um again these can be phased obviously it depend it's dependent on financial resources and and uh all kinds of things but this is what we see as a good structure for the department.

Um and then uh the items in green are those realignment those positions I just talked about that are should be realigned to be with the technical folks moving the development services under building moving the neighborhood services under planning and we think that this brings a really clean structure to the department um and um that it you know then it would help uh create some new thresholds and um these changes can be implemented through updating their SOPs and um make some configuration changes.

So, we think that that would be good. Um, and with that, that is the staffing and structure recommendations. And, um, if there's no questions, I'm going to turn it over to Susan to move on to process improvements. Good afternoon. Um the process improvement recommendations um are largely implementable without any new hires and without any major technology investment.

Um many of them can be updated uh addressed through updated standard operating procedures, administrative policy changes and better use of the tools the city already has. Um that said, it is going to require uh committed management attention and council support to particularly the recommendations that are going to touch fee structures or require staff uh to enforce new submittal standards um that frankly applicants may push back on initially.

Um the first um process recommendation is to formalize the water resources participation thresholds and accountability in the pre-application conference the pack process. Um staff noted um and applicants did as well that the pre-application conference the pack is a strength. Um but uh its effectiveness is somewhat lost when the substantive water review happens too late in the formal cycle.

Um at the pack level the primary determination uh is whether a water service application is or is not required. And for projects that are more complex and have more complex water implications, um the quality of the pack meeting really depends on whether the applicant on what the applicant has submitted and whether the right staff are engaged. And sometimes that information doesn't happen until later in the process.

And so currently there are no thresholds um published that trigger escalation um beyond basic water service application requirement. So that would be something that would be important um to add um if there were clear threshold uh review thresholds um that would help to get those projects back for further review on water issues.

Uh so we recommend that the community development devel department uh develop and publish clear thresholds um defining when water resources needs to provide input beyond that standard uh water um the water um the WSA um requirement. Um and then a tracking mechanism should be um established so that the water resources pack input is logged in the record um and then is accessible to all reviewers as they go through subsequent rounds.

Recommendation 8 also talks about water resources and it wants we recommend that water resources review steps be added to the central square workflow uh to eliminate manual workarounds. Um right now this um this is not tracked through central square and it is tracked manually outside the system and it's not integrated and so this creates some uh handoff risks and blind spots where one department doesn't know what the other is holding up.

So, community development department should work with the internal IT user group uh described later in recommendation 14 um and the dedicated technology support in recommendation 15 to prioritize integration of the water issues subcommittee information which is not happening now. This next slide um requires a little more explanation. Um what it shows is that the factors that have the biggest effect on how long a permit takes after accounting everything else in the model at the same time.

The biggest drivers of permit duration are within the city's control. um both extra review rounds add 48% to the time and each extra department involved adds 43% and both can be addressed through process changes. Um we used a statistical model that looks at all the factors together. The permit type, round count, departments involved, the year, the applicant hold time and the measures um and measures how much each one independently contributes to the total duration.

And obviously everybody wants things to go faster. So we know this is accurate. uh the test uses 4,312 permits which is a large enough sample for the results to be statistically reliable. So if at the front we can see what's going on, we can make sure that we assign additional resources for those more complex projects. So recommendation nine then um allows for uh review and update of submittal checklist by permit type to address the most common applicant errors.

It's so important to have a complete application because when people submit incomplete applications they automatically get a second round of review because the information needed by reviewers wasn't there. So very important to have checklists by permit type that address the most common applicant errors. Um this would speed things up immediately.

Um 27.8% of the applications required extra rounds uh down from the previous years but still we you need to have the information in order to do the review. Um so the corrections rate uh permits requiring three plus rounds was 27.8% in 2025 and staff across all divisions identified incomplete submittals as the number one driver of delays. You can't remove you can't review something you don't have in front of you. If it's not complete at the counter it shouldn't enter the enter the review queue.

So there's a need to review upfront and update submittal checklist by permit type to provide that guidance to applicants and completeness review will need to be reinforced by the development services representatives and supported by upper management and city policy makers. In other words, if it's not all there, don't let it in because the clock starts. Recommendation 10 goes handinhand with that. Once you have checklists established, then enhance education to applicants in preparing submitts.

Um applicants reported when we heard from them uncertainty about where their project stood and what additionally was needed. And so the recommendation here is to create instructional videos for the top five permit types. In this case, probably single family residents, commercial and accessory structures would be the first to look at which account for 60% of all permits requiring additional rounds of review so that you can the city can show then what a good submitt looks like.

So this will mean faster reviews uh versus uh via targeted education and consistent follow-through on pack comments. We also suggest that submitts include those packed comments so that reviewers can see what was discussed previously. Recommendation 11 is to create financial incentives to reduce applicant resubmitts.

This is with the assumption that we now have good checklists so people know what they need to submit and we've provided additional information through videos so that we show them what we expect and then um with updated checklists andformational videos there's the expectation that you will have improved submitts. So the city unfortunately sometimes ends up acting as the applicant's designer and that's not the job of the city.

the city is acting as reviewer of these applications and when there's incomplete applications sometimes the tendency is well tell me what I need to do and then I'll design it that way which is not the way you want it to go madame mayor yes Ted I think in earlier slide you talked about 27% of applications had to be redone and you're proposing a video that would help people do that.

And you're also suggesting that if you if you need help a third time that there should be a charge associated with that. Did I read that right so far? Yes. Yes. Because my question is where have you implemented this at other cities and what was the imp what happens to the 27%. Well, you get uh you get a better uh you get better submitts and I will go back and tell you that um the city of Prescott Valley does this. They charge additional fees. The city of Phoenix does that as well.

Um and they have found in increased uh sub the submitts are more complete. Yeah. But like ours is 27%. The what did what happened at Prescuit Valley? It went from what to what? I don't have that in front of me, but let me see if I can find it. Okay. Yeah, because um the Well, I'll give you an example. The city of Phoenix charges 20% of the site plan review fee for a third review and above. and Prescat Valley what they do is charge an hourly rate for building plan check rounds three and above.

Uh Lake Havasu City also does this but they apply a flat resubmitt fee at a similar threshold. The idea is the city working with applicants to get the best submitt at the earliest possible time. So that because it's not only is it um a delay for the applicant, it's repetition by the city of time spent when they could be spending time on other projects. It's intuitively appealing. I just looking to see some concrete results. Let me see if I can find that for you.

So since you're using Prescat Valley as an example, did you do a study for Prescat Valley also? We did not do a study for Prescuit. Okay. you just in your search information we receive from them. All right. Thank you. Any other questions on that? Is our current process all digital? Yes. And and with digital submissions you can set it up so it doesn't go through unless you've hit all the checklist. Is it already like that? Um no, not at this time. That's a pretty easy fix.

Yeah, that would be a technology fix. Mary, thank you. Uh, I was glad to see you added in, if it was in the original packet, I didn't spot it, that as far as the fee incentive to push down the numbers of multiple submittals or resubmitts.

Um, I didn't see in the packet, but I heard you say just now that this would not be appropriate to go forward with until there was a better packet of information provided to the original permit uh instruction on what is considered a complete submittal and how to go about it. So, I was happy to hear that. I guess my question then is did you undertake any kind of assessment on our current system?

uh the percentage or the numbers however you want to quantify it uh as to the number of rejections despite the fact that there was sufficient information provided to the permit that would have if they had this I don't mean this in a pjorative way but nonetheless paid attention or filled out their paperwork correctly um but the information was there and they just didn't for whatever reason access it did you have any thought about that as and if that was the case then more education isn't going to fix the problem if they're not paying attention to current education.

So, Council Member Frederickson, you're looking for numbers as to applications that were completely rejected because they did not meet requirements when the information was available to them at the beginning of what they needed to do. They just for whatever reason didn't do it. Yeah. And if that if that were the case, I could imagine a fee schedule for willful ignorance. The information is there, they just didn't follow it and therefore resubmitts.

But if the information isn't there yet, that doesn't seem fair to hit them with fees. No, we totally agree, which is why recommendations 9 and 10 need to preede recommendation 11. We're not trying to punish people for not um getting all the information they need to make a complete submitt. We're trying to work with applicants, right? Um and then Yeah, I think that answered your question. Yes. Thank you. Uh-huh. Okay.

So recommendation 12 um is then to include additional project types in the pack process and incorporate administrative policy changes to improve effectiveness. And what this recommendation is really trying to do is establish a clear protocol for recommending a second pack when an applicant arrives, probably without a design team or with insufficient project development information to support meaningful review. The one great thing about the pack is any all are welcome. There's no fee.

All are welcome. And so staff advises people even if it's just an idea they have. But at some point in order to give good information more detail is required. So so new a new protocol that's clear as to when a second pack meeting should be called. Uh it needs to go into place.

And then also um we recommend that you replace the language in the pack comment letters that right now it sort of implies approval with neutral tunes like um it implies approval and the suggestion is to put more neutral terms in uh like proceed to application or sufficient for the next step rather than having an applicant believe that now they're good to go, everything's been done.

Um, and then also, I think I mentioned this earlier, we would like to have applicants be required to submit the pack comment letter alongside their formal application. So all that good input that was given at the pack meeting carries through as it goes through the reviewer's process. And the third uh or the next recommendation recommendation 13 is to implement process time service level standards for DSP processes.

Um the processing service time level uh standards are posted on the city's website as required by state law but not necessarily actively communicated to applicants. Um on time rates vary wildly by type. plumbing 100% but model plans are only 33%. Um so it's hard to manage uh what you don't measure. So setting a 90 uh% on-time goal for all types gives the development community the predictability that they're asking for.

So we recommend that the city develop and publish a performance reforing reporting framework that tracks on time review rates. by permit type and by reviewing department and report back uh on a quarterly basis to the city manager and also to you. Um the standards now are tracked internally but not actively communicated and that's the piece that's missing.

uh we want to be publish them and be transparent um because that's going to build credibility with the community and with you as well um because then you will have a regular ongoing report of where things are. All right, we're going to move on to technology. So the next set of slides uh and recommendations is regarding technology and data. Um and I have some good news for you. The good news is that your current system is pretty good and you can optimize what you already have.

So we're not looking at massive investments here. That's the the good news. We think that's great. There are a lot of communities we go in where sometimes they require a whole new system. So you're in a good position here and and that's a really good thing. Um what we did find is that you know Central Square is the permitting software being used in the department and um it's being used. It generally meets the city's needs but there are several little glitches tweaks that are needed.

Um there are several instances that staff reported to us where things weren't quite working. There were there are manual workarounds. Um the mobile app isn't working and folks have to come back to their desk in the office. Um some of the reports are broken. And so those are the kinds of things we're talking about in this section that we want to focus in on and getting what you already have optimized that really helps with the efficiency of the system.

And so with that as background um our first recommendation on technology was recommendation 14 is to establish a technology user group. And this is internal to CDD. Um again there's a lot a lot of these little tweaks that are required but there doesn't seem to be a real inventory of them and a real prioritization. Um, and so that's something we think is really important to move those forward and and get that addressed. Um, because it's really low hanging fruit.

If you can get those IT things done, you know, you can really move the process forward. Um, and also we found that there's some lack of communication internally. We we saw when we talked to different staff, they knew different pieces of the technology puzzle and they weren't all aware of some of the things that were already being worked on and things like that. There's some communication breakdown a little bit.

So we want we think it's really valuable to have a a user group internally with reps from the different divisions within the department to talk meet regularly and make up the inventory of the IT needs and then also prioritize those so that then when you add capacity to address that they can take it right in priority order and knock those things out for you and get that addressed. Um it it would also address necessary training. That's the other piece. You've had some turnover.

you have some new staff and having training to address different things as well as part of that group's uh mission. So we think that could be really valuable to establish that user group. Um and the IT department city central IT could also be involved of course and we would involve them as well with that group to meet with them regularly. On the next slide, it goes with that. It's sort of a partner, which is that we need to have some capacity to address those issues.

And that can be either consulting staff, external consultants, professional services, um, vendors that can come in for a limited time and knock those things out for you. Or it could be internal dedicated city staff IT capacity. Um, but it would need to be dedicated. We need someone who's focused on CDD needs and can kind of knock those things out in a systematic way.

um many of them are are minor, but they do require some knowledge of Central Square and the vendor apps and some time to work with the vendor on those things. So, um there's some technical expertise that that would be helpful. Um so, it's really up to the city how they want to get that capacity, but we really think you do need to have some kind of dedicated capacity to address those things brought up by that user group.

And, um again, like I said, that's those are really minor tweaks over time that we can address in the system you already have and make that way more functional for your staff. The next recommendation, recommendation 16, is kind of overarching and it's really to force the department and and to continue moving the way that they're already starting, which is to really focus on datadriven management and process improvement.

Um, it's really important in community development to look at that data and measure that in real time and know what's happening in the system. Um, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's a multifunctional process, right? This isn't all in CDD. Things go to fire for review. Things go to public works for review. Things are out of their control. And you know, you've got a lot of folks you're passing the football to to get to the goal line.

So, um, we've tracking all of that really helps you know where those bottlenecks are, when things slow down and why. Your data proves this. Actually, when we went through your data, it showed very clearly in some cases where there were vacancies that the performance went down. um fire for example had a fire review position that was vacant and their review times went down um or went up I should say.

So um you know we can see in the data that that that has direct impact and that's exactly what we're talking about is using the data you have to really manage and drive the performance of the department. Um the department's done that as well. We've seen an improvement over the last three years um that you went up to 87% on time performance when you had leaders in there that were paying attention and looking at the data to drive performance.

So, um, we just think this is a philosophy in general that needs to be adopted by the department and it's going to help get you to the things Susan talked about in terms of transparency, accountability where everyone knows what's happening and even if it's not perfect, if it's not, you know, where we want to be, if we're not hitting that 90%, then we can all say at least why and identify why and work on fixing it, right? So, that's the goal with that that recommendation.

And, um, again, that goes back to that management analyst position as well. that was that capacity we were trying to build for that function. So that's important. This last slide on uh technology is really about um on-time performance and it just kind of shows that improvement that I was just talking about. Um systemwide your plan review on time rate went up from 2023 and 2024 where it was about 73% to 87% in 2025. So that was a 14% improvement which is great, right? That's wonderful.

Your department was really doing good stuff. Um, but we're still 3% below the 90. So, we know we've got still work to do, but we can start looking at the the data and figure out why. And on the right, it kind of shows um um the the detail in terms of the performance by permit type. So, that helps you look at which permit types we really need to hone in on, work on some of that educational material, work on our internal process, and really try to improve that rate.

So, this was just an example of how we can use that data to make that analysis. And you can see the improvement in real time. And with that, we have one last recommendation in communication and accountability and I'll turn it back to Susan. Mayor. Yes, Mary. Yes, Mary. Before we get off of uh although we may touch back on it, I'm sure. Sure. U about Central Square, uh I noted that of the 10 or 12 peer cities that you included in your assessment, none of them were using Central Square.

Are you aware of Central Square's presence in the marketplace of these kind of software programs? Yeah, we actually um we we had we have an IT person in our in our firm and they kind of came and talked to some of your folks and we they are very well aware of Central Square. It is national. We've seen it in other clients. It's used as a strong player in the market. It's not, you know, an outlier at all. It's just apparently regionally others haven't adopted it. So, thank you.

And I guess my second question was uh in your assessment, did you have any conversation with our IT staff as to whether or not they have the available time uh or the capacity to undertake this? I'm weighing the thought of bringing in somebody specific to Central Square to help or is our IT staff available? I'm sure they're very busy. Could they take this on?

Um, yeah, we did talk to them and again as part of that little IT we did sort of an IT mini review as part of this and um we we interviewed them and and the short answer is I mean they're more than happy to help but they just like you said they're very busy and it's not a focus. They have to focus on every other department as well. So it's hard to you know uh prioritize CDD above some other needs in the city. Thank you. I I have a question. Uh what about AI?

Would it be um possible to apply a AI to the pack process or some other process? I don't know that we've talked about that. Go ahead, John. I'll speak to that at a high level. So there there are a number of interesting applications that are sort of coming into the market for intake review, for completeness review, um for utilization, for note takingaking, those kinds of things. Are they tested to such degree that we would recommend them at this point?

No, but they are things that you all as a community and your department ought to be paying close attention to, not just um in community development, but organizationwide. Uh it is extremely dynamic. It changes about every moment I look at the news feed, right? So um but I I I think u there will be opportunities to create efficiencies through AI.

One of the things that's particularly interesting, I think relevant to to AI um tools and the recommendations that we've outlined for you all is uh the degree to which AI is able to tap into multiple data sources to create dashboards in an extremely efficient way. So tapping into your system and drawing from the data that you have um uh you may be able to use those tools to present that much more effectively and much more efficiently. So I think there are opportunities.

Um, it just I would I would I would I would be short of uh making a specific recommendation as to what they are. All righty. Thank you. Very interesting. Our last recommendation uh is a very important one. Um and the reason is um really you want to create community confidence in the department through consistent proactive communication and transparency. Um transparency and communication emerged as reoccurring themes across the council interviews.

We had staff interviews and the applicant survey and council members uh described being caught offguard uh by constituent complaints because they had you had no data to reference and applicants described uncertainty about where their project stood and staff uh also described a lack of regular internal communication about department con uh performance.

So the department has been focused appropriately on internal stabilization over the past two years and new leadership has been hired, processes have begun to improve and the data shows measurable progress. But that progress has just not been made visible to the people who need to know about it. Um that includes you, that includes the public, that includes all applicants.

So the recommendation is for CDD to establish a regular pattern of proactive public communication, a monthly or quarterly written summary distributed to council and posted publicly covering on time review rates, active project volumes, emerging issues, and process improvements that are underway. Um, all the staff reports that come to you should also include a clear and balanced statement of the pros and cons of a recommended action alongside the staff recommendation itself.

And then it would be important for the department to also develop a protocol for escalating significant or high-profile issues or projects to council to you before they they surface publicly so that you can respond um as council members to constituent questions from a position of knowledge rather than a position of surprise. Nobody wants to be surprised. You're working you need to be working as a team. It's possible.

Um and this recommendation also requires director level commitment and city manager support to sustain. It's not something that's just going to happen um automatically. Uh the management analyst position uh gives the department the analytical capacity to build and maintain these materials uh without diverting the director or the operations manager from their primary strategic responsibilities.

But we think um it's very important and um I I think that is the most important communication recommendation that we've presented. So now um talk about next steps. So before we talk through next steps, I I I want to just highlight uh a couple key conclusions um before we before we open it up for for discussion.

So um you know one of the things that we are going to move toward are in terms of our immediate next steps is starting to develop an implementation framework and consultation with your staff and that's really our final deliverable once we finalize this effort.

When we look at implementation for these kind of efforts you really have to imagine essentially every recommendation as a new project um that your department is going to have to take on on top of all the other work that the department is already delivering right um these are folks who already have full-time jobs. we think in terms of five-year increments for an implementation plan.

So, what I would encourage you to to the frame of reference that I would encourage you all to consider is um this isn't a we're not going to flip a switch and these are going to be done tomorrow. Um we've also made recommendations um there are individual recommendations around process improvement. There are individual recommendations around building capacity. Those recommendations are related.

Um so one of the tempting things uh can be to ask questions in a year or two around process improvements um uh without necessarily going through the effort of creating the necessary capacity to solve some of those problems to create um some of the communication engagement mechanisms create those performance metrics.

So it's really important to look at the body of work as a holistic um message and a holistic series of recommendations that are designed to move you all in a meaningful way but both toward the best practice um but more importantly toward who you all want to be as a community and what your service level expectations are. Okay. Um as I mentioned just in terms of specific next steps we will be targeting a workshop in June or July.

Summer vacation times are always fun for scheduling but um we'll be building out the implementation plan. You will have a final report with that implementation plan. The intent of that plan is a progress tracker. We provide it to you in a draft format. Um we want your staff to take that plan and to use it as a tool to report their progress on implementing the recommendations um to you all and to the city manager going forward.

With that, I'll ask my team to step back up here and we're happy to answer any questions you all may have with the time we have left. Madame Mayor, may I? Yes. Start off, Ted. on your recommendation 17 outcomes of implementation, you wrote proactive performance reporting. Mhm. And I've always said if you don't have a message, you'll inherit a message. And it seems like the message we inherit is is a sled going downhill.

So, I wholeheartedly support uh uh promoting as to the comment that some council members were asked a question and they didn't know the answer. That happens to me every day. That doesn't bother me. I just pick up the phone and get the answer. So, I think it's incumbent upon everybody to step back, evaluate the process, and then as we make progress to communicate that progress. So, good job. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Yeah. And, uh, I took note of the, um, the water issues.

Um, when an applicant comes to the city with a project, the first thing they want to know is if they're going to get the water because if they're not going to get the water, why proceed any further? So, I think that, you know, the we have a water issue subcommittee of three council members that meets once a month, but maybe we can speed up the process.

maybe bypass the pack and have the applicant first go to the water resource department to Brian and his team and they can look at it and then bring it to us uh first and then we can uh take it from there. I think that might help or whatever way you know we can work on getting the water uh application decided first. Uh Mr. Garing, do you have any comments? We'll just go down the row. Uh thank you, mayor.

Uh I'm wondering uh how you see the creation of all the checklists that are going to be required. That looks to me to be a significant uh project. It is a significant project and and again um our focus is on building consistency and compliance. Um we want to make sure that you have that your applicants even those you know we we sort of um jokingly categorize applicants as sort of one of two categories.

There's the frequent flyers that know your system and your process really well and do work in lots of other municipalities. And then there's those folks who maybe do a project every couple years and maybe aren't quite as familiar or they're coming in from out of town. And we want to make sure that um the process is understandable and accessible. Uh that it's in plain speak. Um and that takes effort. It's really strategic communications effort to build useful tools.

Um and and you know you can it can you can sometimes error on the side of creating a 50-page document when really you need two pages of really concise direction, right? So um it absolutely is extra effort and and and it's really an important part of why we've recommend one of the reasons why we've recommended that management analyst position. That's a that's a major lift.

The reporting piece, the consistency of reporting is a major lift u for the organization and it will be hard for your staff to absorb um independent of that additional capacity. You know, I think when you look back historically at the impact of vacancies just on your on-time rate, on your on-time performance, for example, it really demonstrates the degree to which you all as a small department are really limited um in what your extra capacity is to execute some of these special projects.

So, uh you envision the creation of all these checklists probably by new staff that's that's hired basically. Well, uh, you would have to have some capacity to develop, but your existing staff have got to be involved as the owners and subject matter experts of those of those areas. So, it it's a it is a combination. However, there are other things that we've recommended to generate additional capacity with your existing staff as well, right?

So, again, it's a it's a complicated clockwork um to get you where we need where you need to be. All right. Thank you. Okay, Patrick. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. So what was the workshop that you're referring to? What's the outcome expected for that? So so we develop an initial draft implementation plan that's our recommendations on priority and key implementation steps. We are then going to facilitate a workshop with staff where we say okay um we don't assign target completion dates.

For example, we estimate the amount of effort required to execute a recommendation. Okay. We will work with your staff to say okay what are all the other things that are going on? What's a reasonable timeline? who's responsible, who's the single point of authority and accountability for each recommendation? Um, which is really important. Um, what are what are the resources that are needed?

So, we actually build out a critical path in consultation with your staff so that it's not something that's hoisted upon them. Uh, that it's something that integrates with all the other work that the organization is doing and that's a facilitated conversational process. Um, it's a collaborative effort. And as a followup so what level of stakeholder involvement is there uh regarding these 17 or 18 recommendations? Uh the stakeholder involvement.

So we did include stakeholder involvement as part of our information. Correct. But now at this phase in terms of developing the implementation plan, it's really staff. These are staff tasks. And if we were assigning something to an individual stakeholder, yes. Now, now here's where I think your stakeholders are going to play a really important role.

and each of your individual recommendations for example checklist it'll be really important to test and validate those and get feedback from the folks who are going to be using the process right so they're a key input and a resource I think that's going to be needed but in terms of being at the workshop and developing the implementation plan that's a city staff plan so my next question really probably goes to Chelsea or to Don which is so we're right in the middle of the budget process and I don't recall each departmentals each department submitt to date.

But um did did our uh recommendations in community development recommend um any of these staff positions that have been identified in this presentation? Not right now. So, uh all of these recommendations are coming in after budget submitts. Okay. And so there are no positions currently in the FY27. I think is there any way we could change that? Is it too late? because the sooner we implement this the better. Yeah, absolutely.

Um with council support we can um we can look at exactly which positions are most important. But certainly we could do that if that's what council would like to do. Yeah, if we're going to hire Raph Telus and they make recommendation, I think the sooner we implement it now rather than wait another year would be probably a good idea. Um Lois, I can see you're burning with ideas.

Well, it's so funny because for my career managing supply chains and customer service operations, I was like I was reading this laughing going garbage in, garbage out, you know. So, so for me, I totally understand. um been interacting a lot with some small business owners and new business owners in town. People who have never built businesses before that are starting to interact and their frustration would be so um mitigated if we had these kinds of quality checklists, definitions, etc.

Because right now the frustration that they don't know what to do and then they're calling a desk who's telling them, "Well, come to a pack meeting." So then they're in a meeting and they realize they're not prepared and it's like this vicious circle.

So I like some of what I've been hearing in your recommendations because it gets us out of a vicious circle and hopefully starts heading us towards a virtuous cycle of people feel good because they're ready to go when they come in the door and and then things move.

Um I don't recall I saw a recommendation but I think it would be helpful if there was like an online database where people can look in and see the status of their application and where is it stuck and today I look at it and it's stuck there and tomorrow I look at it stuck here and two weeks from now I look at it it's stuck here. Well then what do I do?

Um, and I I hate to say I know of some people that have literally opened their doors and still don't have a certificate of occupancy because they've given up. So, that's like the worst of the worst. So, um, so I I think just by this self-education, I liked all your ideas there about helping people to help themselves. And I'm open to if people are doing that and therefore your recommendation about upcharging for additional services because they're not doing their part of the work.

I think that's a better idea than just raising our fees across the board. in essence rewarding the people who are not helping themselves and now everybody has to help them um financially. So I I was definitely open to some of the recommendations as I was reading it. Um I am a bit worried about three more FTEEs in light of our budget today.

Um, and if if uh you know the recommendation to upcharge those who don't help themselves, um, if that helps us get to the point of staffing in an FTE, I say I'm open to those kind of things. So, um, but I really think the more that we get these upfront guidelines to help businesses and homeowners is the other small group of people that don't know what they don't know until they begin.

Um, if we can help those two groups prioritizing that, I think, you know, we'll hear later on from some of our frequent flyers in the back of the room, you know, they they pretty much have learned the process, you know, at this point. And I think it's the other part that's really needing the help. So, thank you for your um attention.

And um the only other thing I had, and it wasn't for you all, but it was when I was looking at one of your recommendations, you were talking about um let me find it. you were talking about addressing vacancies and retention and all the reasons and I for me before I can wrap my mind around that recommendation I'd really like to see how this compares to employee opinion survey results um both at the department and cross departments.

So I guess I'm looking at Don um you know before I can wrap my mind around that is this something that's just happening and is this a special cause or is this a cause we have across the board? Um and then the other thing is to better understand um what are the exit interviews saying in those cases? Why are people leaving and are we crystal clear on that rationale? And once again is that special cause for just comdev or is that across the board? So those are my thoughts. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, Mary, you're next. I guess the most alarming part for me as I was reading through your report was the continuing vacancies uh in the CDD and and at important levels uh not at entry level but supervisors and managers and uh because the system can't work if if somebody is not at the helm.

Uh and so the the workers the this again not meaning to be pjorative but the worker bees the people on the ground who actually get the stuff done if the system isn't formatted sufficiently to allow them to do their work efficiently and they don't have somebody as a supervisor or a manager who is going to fix this. Uh that's an alarming problem for me. And however many uh whatever budgetary uh manipulations need to happen, those positions need to be filled uh if the system is going to work.

Um and I guess my concern is you mentioned the the good the positive of providing the current staff with a career ladder, a way to move forward. Uh but balanced against that is the need to have qualified capable people in those next steps up. Uh the senior analysis an analysist um or the supervisor or the manager.

Um, and so in the implementation phase, I would hope that there would be some focus on getting qualified either qualified inhouse or qualified out in the community to bring in people who uh aren't flailing because they they're over their head. You know, there's the Peter principal idea and we don't want to push people forward just because it feels good to make move them from an analyst to a senior analyst.

you know that that feels great but if they don't have the goods to back up that position that's just creates more problems. So the implementation phase recommendations are great implementation is where the rubber hits the road. Yes, ma'am. And Jay, yes. Um I was just reminded of like granting processes that I've been through when you're doing an application. you have a digital checklist and you can't actually submit till you've done everything on it. Yeah.

With that the idea of instructional videos I think is it is helpful but sometimes like especially for firsttime applicants or people new to the community it might make sense to have something on a quarterly basis where like the process is explained. Absolutely. And that that can be and if people know that's coming, they plan their life to be there to get that information.

And then that's probably like a little bit of a PR thing on our part to make sure the community knows, oh, I'm going to go into this process with community development. Here's when I can get my information. Uh, in terms of retention, I've asked this to other departments. I'm just curious how much of the of the our full-time positions in community development actually live and own a house in Prescuit. You're looking at me.

So, uh, good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Prom, Council, Chelsea Walton, community development director. So, um, I can't tell you exactly the number. Um, I know that a couple years back our HR division did or our HR department for the city of Prescuit did an employee survey and I think it came back with like 53% of um our employees work outside of city limits.

I know from a comdev perspective um I don't reside in the city of Prescat and several of my staff are um outside of city limits but I don't have a particular number for you off the top of my head. Does that play a role in retention? I think it plays more of a role in recruitment um because of some of the the positions that we're hiring are not at a um a salary offering that can get them into a home here. Thank you. Y Well, I'd like to uh summarize this.

uh community development is the uh first line the front line of our uh people coming here that want to uh start a business or expand a current business. So it's a very important part of our economic development strategy. So it's important that we have a culture of yes in our community development department and if there's a bump in the road or a problem that it's yes, we can help you solve that problem because uh so many people are turned away. they get discouraged and they have hurdles.

They don't know what to do next. So, I think this is a good start and I want to thank everybody for their participation. And uh do we have any um public comment? We do. First is Sandy Griffith. Mayor Council, good afternoon. I'm quite honored to be here with you this afternoon listening to the Rafillis report and their fine presentation. Thank you team.

I want you to know that there's not a jurisdiction anywhere that does not face the department challenges on a dayto-day basis that the city of Prescuit's going through. I know you don't want to hear this, but you're not any different. You're not special. The special part of this is your development services team and the employees that work for the city of Prescuit. I was quite interested with Miss Susan's number 17 proactive performance reporting.

We are now doing that at the town of Prescat Valley on a quarterly basis and I must say that it is exceptional. It has taken off. The lunch meetings from 11 to 1 are glowing with industry folks, homeowners, staff, outside resources, and we will be more than happy to become engaged and help that work because it is badly needed. I feel that the extra round reviews are not necessarily due to complex projects.

We have designers and draftsmen, your plan reviewers that will send out a list of corrections. Let's say there's 10 items. The plan comes back in a month later with only two of the 10 items being addressed. It happens quite often. So either your homeowner, your architect, your draftsman, your designer, they're not doing their job. And that's not a fault of the city and your staff. Those are valid requirements for the safety and life of this permit.

And I'm a firm believer that extra round reviews should be charged. The town of Prescat Valley does it. Yavapai County does it. It's time to implement that charge. Give them two reviews. The third one, it's on them. You and your staff, development team staff, they are not here to draw and review those plans. It's the builder, the homeowner, their responsibility. So, it's important.

I I also want to address, sorry, Councilman Garing and Councilman Ruby, you brought up the checklist to about two years ago, we revamped the permit checklist and really reworked it. You do have a valid checklist. We'll be happy to sit down and go through that again with the industry. It was working quite well. I know that codes have changed. some other processes are involved but you do have a very valid working checklist.

I feel that um due to complex regulations, staffing demands, customer service expectations and of course the growth pressures that we see every day are part of the challenges that your team is faced with. And again, it's not new. It's not unusual. It's happening in every industry everywhere.

And I want to say that in working with your development services team for 20 years now, the serious sense of purpose, their humor, their pride in their job and what they do and who they represent is phenomenal. They all need to be treated with respect and admiration because the city of Prescuit, you're pretty top drawer right now. And I hope that you realize that the industry is here to help you. Love to partner with meetings, sit down, engage, come to solutions.

And Ruff Tillis, thank you very much. It's a pleasure meeting you and I was quite involved and honored to be part of Susan's um review process. So, thank you. Let's implement some of these changes. They're valid, necessary, and important. I appreciate all of you. Well, thank you, Sandy. Michael Taylor, mayor, council, staff, I'm not as verbose as Sandy is. I have very few comments.

Um, first off, as a frequent flyer, as was stated, for the last 42 years, I've been working with community development since we were uh since the department was in the basement of the old city hall, and I've seen it grow and expand. um the depth that they're having to do reviews, the amount of codes that we have to follow these days, the the level of work that they're required to do now is so much greater than what it was 42 years ago.

Plans that we would submit back then for a new building might have six sheets of drawings total and be re reviewed by one or maybe two people. Now, the same building would require 60, 70 sheets of drawings and is reviewed by 8, 10, 12 different people in different departments. So, it just keeps growing and growing.

But what I've seen consistently throughout the 42 years that I've been working in this community is that when the city press come uh the department moves up a step, it's because of the staff that you engage. When you find good people who are qualified and passionate about their job, the level of service that we get as consumers rises. Some of those staff are here today. I'm not going to call them by name, but they know who they are.

Um, I would encourage you to keep looking at the staff and try to raise the retention of people because that that uh uh corporate knowledge that people have from being here for a long time and understanding how things work is invaluable. And every time we have to train new people in the city, it just causes delays and some of these problems that we're talking about. The Riftellis report, I was I had the opportunity to look through it. It's fantastic.

The recommendations, I agree with all 17 of them. I think there was 17.

Um I would encourage you to consider each of those individually and implement them implement them where you can and would offer that as a stakeholder um I would be available for comment or to help uh you know discussions uh this this uh the third review charges uh definitely have some opinions about that um but would would welcome the opportunity to participate in that process and would would encourage you uh to look at the recommendations that they've made. Thank you all. Thank you, Michael.

Thanks, Shane Shamway. Good afternoon, council. Shane Shamway with Whiting Brothers. Uh we've done several projects here uh in Prescat. We currently employ about uh 80 individuals. Soon we'll employ about another 50 individuals here. So, we're growing here in Prescuit. We've done multiple projects and we've ushered in several those projects um through community development. I wanted to just highlight a couple of um positive things that we found as through that process.

Um in other municipalities sometimes you see um the departments being siloed between the individuals who have different responsibilities and that siloing creates an effect where projects can often stop or stall because the individuals won't communicate with each other and revol and resolve conflict. Um we did not find that here in Prescuit.

We found that there was a culture where um the individuals with different responsibilities would resolve um conflicting issues and regardless of what recommendations are implemented, I would strongly recommend that that culture continues because I thought it was so um effective.

Um I second wanted I wanted to just highlight as well there is a a culture of responsiveness with the city staff that is really helpful and so um because that is so helpful here in Prescuit continuing that is is really important because that um was really important to us and uh in allowing projects to move forward. So just wanted to highlight that and thank you for your time. Thank you Shane. That's all mayor. Okay. Um, next item. All right.

Our next item is a presentation and discussion regarding the charter review committee, additional proposed charter revisions for council consideration and addition to the ballot for the city's special election to be held on November 3rd, 2026. Um I will just briefly touch on a couple of things and then you'll be hearing from the committee chair Bonnie McMman. Um as you all know the council adopted resolution number 2026-1977 um back in early March of this year.

That resolution called for a special election um to be held on November 3rd and also approved ballot language for two ballot measures um to amend the city charter. The first of which is um an amendment to article 9 section six which addresses majority to elect in a primary and the second is amendments to article 11 section 4 um a title change there um removing justice of the peace with city judge.

Um today, Miss McMmin will cover two additional um proposed revisions to the charter and then also highlight a couple of items that the committee is still working on and anticipates potentially forwarding to you all um for consideration to be placed on the ballot.

The two in particular um today are already planned to be on the June 9th voting meeting agenda um for adoption of the ballot language to be placed on the November 3rd ballot if that is the um discretion of council and then the additional ones um would come forward based on committee action at their upcoming meeting next week. Okay. And uh before Bonnie gets started on our presentation, I would just like to make a few comments.

Um as the uh longest serving uh council member here, this is my seventh year. Um I uh have a little list of suggested criteria for council for charter amendments. So ask yourselves these questions to see if the proposed amendment meets at least one of the following. Will it save taxpayer dollars? Will it prevent lawsuits? Will it manage growth in water? Will it protect quality of life? Will it clarify charter language and promote more transparency and public input?

So, those are just some thoughts to um stay on track before we start. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor, mayor, and council. On behalf of the charter review committee, vice chair Rod Moyer, members Michael Broie, Michael Mike Gettys, Ralph Hess, and myself, I really want to thank you staff, city clerk's office, legal, and the public for the time and participation that's been invested. And mayor, thank you very much for your criteria.

Um, we don't have a lot to do with water right now, but maybe later, but we definitely have a lot to do with transparency and good governance. So, article two, you're going to click for me right there. I can Yeah, you have it right there. The air big arrow. I've never had to do this before. Um, article 2, section 18, consideration of petitions. So the first amendment before you today is regarding citizen petitions.

The purpose of this amendment is to clarify how the how council considers petitions submitted by citizens and ensure that there's an opportunity for public input. So one of the things uh that we we are hoping to retain, of course, is the 60-day public comment period. And this was on the previous uh pallet, if you will, the the buffet of petition of of amendments in 2023, which extended or expanded it to 60 days beyond the 30 days.

But we're asking this time that there be one public meeting, a meeting, not a hearing, but a meeting in which the council would have an opportunity to um listen to the petitioner and um and then there could be public comment based on that. And this is in the interest of transparency. And one of the things that we struggled with in the last session was the language act upon.

And of course we've consulted with legal many times and what that means and doesn't mean but uh we feel that this would clarify for the public what act upon would mean um and we would like for you to consider that um and also consider having some public discussion. So the uh the purpose of this amendment is to strengthen transparency and public participation while still preserving council's discretion regarding the final outcome. This particular recommendation was a unanimous vote of five.

Any questions? Uh yeah, I'd like to make some comments. Isn't this in reference to our current procedure where uh a citizen's petition goes to the consent agenda and that seems to be working pretty well. For example, uh you recently presented a rodeo petition and I pulled it and it was voted on and passed. And also you are the author of the only vote uh citizen petition that has successfully made it to the ballot and passed and that was for the open space. That is correct.

And that was another example of the already working. And I'm concerned um that as it is now, it goes to the consent agenda and if it would say something frivolous like we want to count all the butterflies in uh Prescuit, um you know, no one's going to pull it and it's just going to die. But if it's something that we're interested in, then we'll pull it, have a discussion, and direct city staff to start working on it and having uh public uh meetings.

But we could also get people like say to submit that want to submit 10 every two weeks and then it would overwhelm city staff, slow everything down, be a distraction, and then we'd have to have 10 public uh meetings about it over 60 days.

And I think that's something that could be, you know, it's this is very well-intentioned, but I think, you know, we have to be a little bit of a devil's advocate, especially uh when there's seems to be a surge in uh uh people that are uh you know, I don't nothing against activists, but we got to make sure that if if it's still working, you know, the way it is and we put it on the charter, it would be very hard to change that. if there is if there is a issue.

So, um Ted, do you have any comments on this? No, Mr. Garing, Patrick. So, I I've heard the pros and cons. Um, how do how do you respond to the concern that this may open the door for a surge of petitions and the examples that the mayor just brought up. I certainly understand the mayor's concerns and my compliments to this particular council because this council is open.

this council is willing to uh have citizens involved and have petitions pulled and you're absolutely correct um that it has been successful. However, this council will not be here in two years. This exact makeup, this alchemy is not going to be here in two years. We know from past councils we did not have a call to the public and that level of engagement and participation is really important.

Um, with respect to the mechanics of the 60 days, um, council could listen to the public hearing, have have the public meeting, excuse me, sooner than later and at that point make a decision either then or later to act upon. And that act upon could be staff, we would like you to pursue this or we we are are not inclined to do that. So the process is really the same.

The difference is that instead of it going on consent agenda and us the citizens relying on someone that we can talk to that it will have its day on the dis as as short or as as long as it needs to be. But the concern of course is this is we're very pleased with the council that's willing to listen. But we've had it in the past where we've not had that opportunity. And so, um, citizens are going to do what they're going to do. Hopefully, we're not going to see frivolous petitions.

I think, you know, I I don't want to go back in history in terms of what frivolous petitions we may have had, but I think the risk of having a public meeting h essentially having that person, I was there to have my three minutes. It's three minutes as a speaker to push my case and have it be considered or not at that point.

So that that's the point here and we can certainly no decisions today but certainly if there's any word smithing we've worked with this with the city attorney staff but if there's something that you'd like changed in here but I think the spirit is we believe that this the when the citizen petition was originally put into the charter that it was well intended and it was intended for the citizens to have that chance to petition. ition essentially the DAZ. I have another question. Okay, Patrick.

And so, um, and this may be to the city attorney or or the city clerk. Um so Miss McMmin suggests that um perhaps the level of staff time uh regarding looking at the pros and cons of of the petition submittal. It says act upon such petition with apparently it might not be as extensive a review as seemed to be required in uh our our business that I I saw when I first joined council. Any any response from the city clerk or city attorney on that?

So, I would say if if the council's considering a petition from a citizen, staff isn't going to have specific recommendation like a recommended action.

You know, normally if something's coming from staff, we're providing you with a recommendation to adopt a resolution or approve a contract because we've done the review on everything um and determine this would be in the best interest of the city and it's your this group's responsibility to make sure that they're approving things that are going to serve the city.

Um, if we're putting a petition from a citizen onto an agenda, in a very similar manner that we do when we place it on the consent agenda, now we would include the petition, kind of a brief summary within the memo of what the petition is suggesting and then the the recommendation would be for the council to make a determination on how they would like to proceed with that petition.

I will say that the way that it was handled before the change was made to put the petitions on consent um was that there was an extensive amount of research that was going into each of the petitions before they were coming back to the council because we did not have a prescriptive direction from the council on how to handle them which was why that change was made.

There was an extensive amount of staff time that was going into every single petition that was coming in before it was coming back to the council. But so would this proposed language clarify that thereby thereby reducing response? I I don't know that it necessarily clarifies that specifically. I think what it does is it creates instead of you know going automatically to the consent agenda it would come back to council sort of immediately for discussion public comment and so forth.

So the situation where we've have kind of reduced staff time is probably dissimilar. We wouldn't have we wouldn't invest a lot before we bring it to council and have you have an open discussion. There's sort of other concerns that you'd want to think of.

For example, every time you hear a topic, council is criticized for hearing the topic, even though you have no say in what I mean, you do have some say in what comes to you, but when something's put in front of you, you have to discuss it, and you'll still be criticized just for discussing it. Um, so there's certain things like frustrations like that, but I think this um it would at least lay out a a process for how it comes back to you that is I I think a little less controversial.

Can I add something there as well? Just just by way of observation. Um so it takes two members of council to add something to the council agenda. Um the mayor can do it or two members of council. This is suggesting that any member of the public can by themselves add an item to the council agenda.

And so you might think about um maybe part of dealing with the concern about frivolous petitions or those kinds of things is maybe there's a number where we say, you know, we want to see 50 signatures or enough signatures to get on a ballot or whatever the number is to put some of the responsibility back on the public to show this is really an important issue.

Um but also just for some some parody where again you've got two members of council but then any member of the public has then more authority over the agenda than the than the council. Just a thought. Good point Lois. Well, I really do like your thought about, you know, let the petitioner either hit a number of signatures, at which point they get on the agenda, or let the petitioner convince the mayor or two of us to put something on the agenda. I like bo both of those options.

Um, and I understand the um, public perception of something being on the consent agenda with um, a recommendation to turn it down. I totally understand that perception. Um, so the other thing for me to think about is that it I don't want to invest a lot of staff time if there is an interest from the majority of council to go do work. So, I wonder if we don't once you either hit one of those petition signatures or one or two of us saying yes, it's on the agenda.

Um, that we put it on the consent agenda as a yes. And that's going to cause all of us to think, am I going to vote yes on this item? And if we're not, we'll pull it, you know, and want to talk about it. And then once we get clear on where we're at, because we don't know where we're all at until we have those discussions, then we kick off the staff involvement and engagement because we would have shaped it through discussion.

So, I'm not sure I like this exactly as is given it was 50, but um but I'm open to other solutions. Madame Mayor, may I um we're let Mary have her chance. Thank you. It'll come back around to your end.

Um I think when this came up on some prior uh council meeting uh I said then and I continue to hold that uh it's not in the current setup it's not much of a burden to convince one because that's all it would take to pull from the consent item listing one council member if the petition has really any merit or even questionable merit. it it doesn't seem to be much of a burden to find a person on council to agree to pull it. Once it gets pulled, there would at least be some level of discussion.

And if after that level of discussion, it was said, you know, that's just not really something we need to consider, we'll just vote it down. Um but likely if it has any merit, uh the outcome is going to be direction to staff to flush it out. Um so I'm as much as I like the idea of hearing from people, um I'm afraid the the process would swallow the baby if we just had every citizen's petition get the full course. Um I think the current setup is fine.

Jay, I think it's very confusing to have the petitions inside the the uh consent agenda. And just like we have a track for liquor licenses and consent ordinance, I almost think that petitions themselves should have their own track. I think it's really important that the public has a way to address the council that doesn't require the council's approval and that being able to hear the considerations of the public seems critical to me. I do think we need a threshold of engagement.

I can totally see the situation where it could be abused. I don't think having just because someone comes with a petition that we automatically need to have a public meeting or send city staff resources to deal with it is a good idea. But I do think we need to have a public way of presenting a petition to the council that doesn't require any of our approval.

And so I would like to see it go forward with some refinement particularly around the threshold of engagement and what that means and ideally in a way that is outside of being on the consent agenda because I think that creates undue confusion. Mr. Gambboji, I'll try to be a little more succinct. Uh I wholeheartedly support um transparency. Uh well we have two ways of getting it on the ballot and not the ballot but the agenda. One is consent agreement. The other one is two council members.

Sarah has Can you think of any time two council members didn't put something on the agenda? Cuz I can't anytime someone's come to me. I've always agreed. Jay and I did it. Mononttoya and I did it. Yeah. I mean, I I guess that'd be a difficult question for me to answer because if I didn't get a request from you, I wouldn't know that you got a request from a citizen necessarily. Um, but I I would agree.

I think most of the time um what I have experienced from this council and frankly any other council I've ever worked with is that if there's something that's important to the citizens um and there is that availability for the structure to be what we have where the mayor or two members of the council can place something on the agenda, members of the council have been willing to do that and have those discussions.

So, and just as a point of procedure, I I was going to say this is coming to council for discussion. Um, so it's already been approved by the committee, so it'll be back to So, just for the sake of time, I was going to say there's a few other things we want to move on to, but it will be back before you to make the call on whether it goes to the voters. I I a couple months ago, I wrote an article about shiny objects. We get focused on small things and we don't get the big things done.

I hope this is not a shiny object because because right now you do have multiple venues for getting something on the agenda and I'm good with that the way it is. If I may interject, um, Prop 44 was actually presented to a council member who had a second and it did not come before council. it was shut down. So that is why three weeks later you guys those who were on council at that time saw Prop 44 in its in its primitive form because of that. So that it did happen.

Sarah doesn't know about it because it didn't come to you but it did it did happen. It was shut down. Repeat repeat that again. I I missed it. So, so um the question was has any have any two council members never or the mayor agreed to put something on the agenda? And the answer is yes. It happened in Prop with Prop 484. We went to two council members first and it got shut down. It was the wrong council members. Is that there's a story? Well, but but it's it is council. So that that is Yeah.

But but I mean well yeah well you go to you go to two and you get shut down and then you go well then I try another we we have to then do something different which it did work and the reality is is that the process didn't start until until the the previous council which you guys were on you three um said yeah we want to keep going we're not sure we like the language of what was originally in the citizen petition, but we want to keep going. And so that was that's that's how that came about.

But but we did try the, you know, different ways cuz a citizen petition is it's I know it's hard on you guys, but it's tough on us. Anyway, we've got 15 minutes. Sorry, I was just going to say in the interest of time to like Joe said, this is coming back to the council um for action on June 9th. Um what we could do if and I heard several of you mention a threshold. We could um put in some alternative language that would include like a threshold.

So any citizen may appear before the council at a regular meeting and present a written petition with X number of supporting signatures and then the rest of that language stays the same or something along those lines if that um is what the council would like to see. But that can be discussed when you vote um in favor or not in favor of proposed language from the committee. Well, and I'll take this feedback to the committee. We're meeting next week so we can add this onto the agenda.

So the second one that that we have approved is article 8 section 11 leases of city property. Then this amendment is responsive to long-term leases of high value city property and bas if you just want to click the Oh, sorry. You're on the next one. Yeah, you're right. There we go. Sorry about that.

So that's the proposed language, but basically we're asking at this point for a threequarters council approval, a study session, a 60-day public comment period, one public hearing, and then a presentation of any public comments to council before the final vote. And in a nutshell, this basically for high value, what we're suggesting is if it if the property threequarters vote, it takes a it'll take a threequarters vote. at this point, but I do have a comment on that as well.

Um, but the purpose is high value, $4 million value of property or greater and a lease of four years or greater is is the two things it is. It is predominantly, if you read this, it is we're just asking for public engagement. We're asking for transparency. We're asking for citizens to have the chance to um participate in a study session, the public comment period, one public hearing, and then a com a the summary comments from the public.

And this would probably apply to our um new lease for the city court building. Well it would not. Well, it really wouldn't because um because that property, we don't know if it's valued at 4 million, but I don't think so. Um it could be, but also this is for city owned property owning. Okay. It's the city leasing high value our own highv value property. Thank you. Also, you say uh hearings. Do you mean do you mean hearing or a meeting? Well, we have it listed as a hearing, a public hearing.

Um, but again, we are open to um suggestions and we can certainly take the comments that you have today and we would like to, you know, reconvene with the committee to look at anything else that that you might be interested in with this with this property. Madame Mayor. Yes, Ted. Bonnie, what are you trying to accomplish here? It's public engagement and transparency. That's that's it in a nutshell.

We're asking for for public in your ear earlier scenario about public comment, you cited reasons why you gave examples. What's an example of something that went south that relates to this? Well, the rodeo I Well, I mean, we have other things as well. I mean, we can discuss it now. The city did some things with property in 2018. Least 4 acres of property for $1,500 a month. Um, there was no public comment. There was no public hearing. There was no public anything.

And that was under a different council. But these things happen. Now you you you you look at a you say you want a 3/4 vote. Uh I had to pull out my calculator because this is pretty complex mathematical equation. But uh 3/4 of 7 is 5.25 which means you need six votes. We'd round up. But um so the the committee did like the supermajority.

However, this is something that I think we're open to and supermajority applies to annexations, which is a very that's a it's a high bar and I defer to the city attorney because the committee has not had a opportunity to fully vet and discuss the supermajority concept. So yeah, just briefly on the supermajority concept.

I I I think I was pretty clear in the committee and I've sort of repeated this over and over again, which is to say at a bare minimum, I need you as council, and it's not to you yet, but I need you to explain why we need supermajority. I need a rational basis that is articulated by council. Um, and honestly, it makes it a lot harder to do business. So it's worth the discussion. And obviously this isn't being voted on today, but at some point we need to have that discussion. Thank you, Jay.

I This is Mr. Ruby. How many properties or do we have right now that are four years that hit this threshold of four years and and what? 4 million value of 4 million. Like is this going to create like is this a rare occurrence or is this a frequent occurrence? This would be pretty frequent. For example, Meals on Wheels, they rent the uh adult center, which is probably more than $4 million. And so, they would have to go through this process. Meals on wheels.

Also, the center uh would be affected by this. Pretty much every, you know, you'd have to deal with the airport and and they're also governed by FAA regulations. So, we'd probably want to eliminate the airport leases from this. Well, it's $4 million, so it wouldn't be hanger leases and things like that. Well, I don't know. If you look at them at a whole though, I mean, this could be get complicated. Yeah, it may depend somewhat on the definition of value, right?

So, is that the value of a lease over 30 years or is that the value of a property appraised or assessed at the time the lease is entered into? Um, I think in terms of large properties that we rent, um, Meals on Wheels is a is a question mark. That one might be. The rodeo is probably the big one. Um, vacant land normally isn't that much, but it depends on how much vacant land.

Um, but I think the value question sticks out for me at least as is is that the value of the lease, is that the value of the property? um that would need some more definition maybe or one or the other. It is the value of the property, not the lease itself. So, and if you have a lease existing, it's it's when the lease would be renegotiated or redone. So, I don't know like meals on wheels what their status is and things like that.

So, it wouldn't be the moment that this is voted on that it would it would immediately every lease property would fall into that category. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Grady, thank you. Um, yeah, I just like to echo my concern about what this impact is or is not with respect to the airport, but I'd also like to echo Ted's query. Uh, I honestly still don't understand what's be beyond transparency, which is important, but um I don't understand, you know, why was it not 2 million?

Why isn't it 10 million? Um I don't understand actually what prompted this. I don't understand the rationale for why this is being proposed. You must have had the committee must have felt strongly that something has happened in the past that require things have happened. So I I mean Mr. Shamway is not here now is he? Is he behind me? Um that particular land you weren't here. Many of you weren't here. Um, that one got leased. That property got leased.

It wouldn't have appraised at 4 million though because it was a derelict. True. So, we we thought a higher number would be better than a lower number because you could have a lot more properties at that point, but there were just some things that really and again, previous councils that did not want public engagement at all. Yeah. And we're very we're very fortunate to have this council, but we don't know what can happen next year or 5 years from now. Okay.

In the interest of uh so in the interest of time, the the last uh we have three possible uh amendments that we'll be discussing and hopefully finalizing next week. The first one is concerning the city court, which is modernizing the charter language itself and clarification of the judicial structure and independence. And so it has to do with the term and um how how you know he's this person is hired whoever it is.

But there was there was just some very archaic language in that that we wanted to clean up just like we got rid of the justice requiring that he be a licensed attorney. Licensed attorney in good standing. Yes. And having some guardrails around that. And then the second one is regarding major capital projects and enhanced public engagement there. So we're working on that still. We had a great presentation from public works last week. So we're we're retooling that one.

And then the third one revolves around development agreements under article 8 section 14. The discussion centered on the scope and structure of development agreements including adjacent property limitations, term considerations and evaluation of what appropriately belongs in the charter level versus ordinance or policy. So we wanted to to work through that and that was one of uh yeah and let me let me flesh that out.

Some other amendments I was proposing was considering uh whenever the city purchases any property that they should get they need to get an appraisal and not pay over appraised price because there's been many in instances where we have bought property in the millions of dollars just based on asking price. That would be for example this building and we did even pay above asking price for this building.

So I think a charter amendment would be appropriate and also you mentioned no adjoining and adjacent claw property clauses in the development agreements and then no taxpayer funded easements wet utility roads to developers private property because it's come out in our budget discussions. our 5-year capital improvement plan in includes about a h 100red million in taxpayer funded infrastructure to private property developments.

So I think this Oh yes, Lois, we got five minutes and I know I got overlooked. I've had my button pushed for a long time. Um to go back to the previous discussion that you had on leases of city property. Um I am not aligned to the supermajority. I think that politicizes a lot of stuff that we don't need to go there as a community. Um, I'm I'm um I think the value of something that's over $4.5 million is the rodeo.

And I think we agreed to an ordinance um regarding public participation and multiple reviews. And so I really don't understand I would want to know understand more um why this needs to go into the charter.

Um, and and so I'm not fully there yet on this one for me on the leases and the value because I do think when I work through the math, I think that's who we're targeting and and I think it's redundant to something we've already said and I know you're going to tell me because I we're not going to be on council down the road and I understand where you're coming from, but I just I I uh also know where this community is on that topic and and I think things about how we enter in leases and the value of the leases and the fair value of leases.

That's more where I would be okay um with work being done, but um I'm just I don't want to make more things contentious than need to be. So, that's my thoughts on that one. Okay. We'll have one more comment from Mr. Grady. And you do have public comment as well, mayor. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mayor. Um so I'll defer my question to a later time but one question. Um I saw that at your committee meeting you also proposed bringing forward um some language relative to anti-discrimination.

Is that still your intent? Well, given the fact that we have two meetings left and you guys have given us more work, which is appropriate, um, we were here for direction, of course. So, I don't believe that we will be able to address the non-discrimination language in this particular setting because we've got to get everything back to staff by very early June. So, so, mayor, when do we have to decide? Plus, I need to point out that we already got legal um maybe uh Joe can help us out.

We already got legal direction that it would be uh inappropriate to have this uh non-discrimination clause, which is actually out of the California statutes in our charter. Mr. Young, do you have any comments? Um I I don't know that I do. I know we've talked about this quite a bit. We haven't delved into it too much. I kind of think at this point it will be on a next election cycle rather than this current one. We're trying to kind of rush a few things.

And I think one of the things we've heard that's really important for this next cycle is the development agreement provisions. And so that's sort of where the focus anticipated focus is on the next meeting is working through the development agreement uh provision. Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Oh, there was some issues. There was a draft on the anti-discrimination there.

I I think that I haven't fully gone through it, but I did have some issues about it creating new causes of actions um which is a little bit concerning. So, we just to be honest, we haven't spent enough time with it. Most of our meetings have taken um we've spent probably two or three meetings per amendment that we're talking about and we've really not had any significant time spent with that. We had one presented in January and then kind of a different version as Joe alluded to um last month.

And so we've just been trying to focus on what we feel that we can actually get on the ballot this year with with your approval of course. So we're open for any other suggestions, comments off the on the side, whatever. Thank you for all your hard work. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Well, we ran a little bit over time, so we're going to take a 10-minute break. Mayor, do you want to take public comment or no? I keep forgetting. Okay, come on, Ralph H. Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor Council Ralph Hes from Prescat. I just want to say a couple things about the um citizens petition um proposal because the next time we meet, you're going to be voting on this and we'll only have a few minutes to talk to you before you vote. So, a couple things because I've been doing I've been working with getting items on the agenda for 14 years, working with different groups and different ways to get them on the agenda.

I've gone to two council members before we had called the public and we had two council members agree to put something on the agenda. That way you were able to get it on the agenda initially and then subsequently uh have a meeting where you'd be able to give a presentation or give a discussion on it. You lose that opportunity with the current um council policy of putting on the consent agenda for immediately dismissal.

So, uh, I want to address one of the things, uh, city manager mentioned about requiring two council members to get something on the agenda. Only takes the mayor to get something on the agenda. Why does it not just require one council member to get something on the agenda? The reason it takes two is because it's in your city council procedures. You can amend that. You can amend it.

So you have one council member put it on put an item on the agenda which makes sense and so one citizen should also be able to put it on. You had one example of that with a gentleman forgotten his name who had to uh come before council and ask to I guess get an ordinance passed in order to uh legally have an easement be effective. So that was one gentleman and it's unlikely he would have gotten someone else to come and help him.

Um the reason we put forth this proposal is for transparency and citizen engagement. It's not citizen engagement to put in a petition and have it summarily denied. And just because you disagree with the particular proposal that a citizen puts before you does not make it frivolous. My expectation speculation is that the whole in the past you never or go back historically the uh citizens petition had to be acted upon within 30 days.

It was changed to 60 days to give the opportunity for more consideration. Subsequently, most likely because there was a certain petition that was really offensive to a particular council member, then you ended up with this new procedure whereby it goes on consent agenda for summarily dismissal. So consider those thoughts and we'll be back before you next month. Thank you, Ralph. That's all, mayor. Okay, 10-minute recess. We'll be back. And thank you for your patience.

We ran a little little long. We're very passionate in our discussions here.