Good evening. Welcome to
Vancouver City Council. Today
is Monday, June 15th, 2026. I'm
Anne McEnerny Ogle. Please
stand and join me in the Pledge
of Allegiance. I pledge
allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to
the Republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you,
Miss Spolar. Please call the
roll.
>> Council member Harless.
Present. Perez.
>> Present.
>> Fox. Here. Paulson. Here.
Stauber here. Hanson. Mayor.
McEnerny Ogle.
>> Present. Let's move into the
approval of the minutes.
Councilors, you have the
minutes of June 8th. Are there
any corrections or changes.
>> To approve? Second, Paulson.
>> Oh, sorry. Hansen and
Paulson. All those in favor,
say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed. Thank you very much.
Motion passes. This brings us
into community communication
items on the consent agenda, we
have Todd Boulanger and Serena
Luisi. Please join us right up
here.
>> Do you want to go first,
Todd?
>> Go ahead.
>> Okay.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yes. Thank you mayor. Good
night or good evening, Todd.
>> Thank you.
>> Todd Boulanger, Carter Park
neighborhood. I'm here for the
cry wolf consent agenda. Agenda
item. It's a long story. A
partner of mine is an alarm
service recipient. And they
started getting very odd
billings. And I've submitted
hard copies to the clerk for
distribution to all of you. And
you can see how odd the cry
wolf building practices. She
got a 60 day notice, then a
third, then a 90, then a 30.
They forgot to invoice her. And
so really, this is a story
about small business owners
getting potentially threatening
billings in the mail, not
having a process, and then not
knowing who to communicate to.
You've outsourced this service
to an entity in another city
who doesn't have very good
bedside manner, shall I say.
And when she went initially to
pay the fines, she went to City
Hall like she used to do for
any other service, parking and
other fees. And she was not met
with very customer service
oriented. Interactions
downstairs. Long story short, I
started researching it and then
found out their staff at the
city in the alarm program. And
they were very helpful. You
know, Sonny and Daphne were
very helpful, but it took she
probably spent 20 hours calling
Cry Wolf, dealing with emails.
And it's not a very small town
friendly service. I know I can
understand why you've
outsourced it, but with this
contract review, I believe this
is the first time the council
has had a chance to really hear
about this program, and that's
why I'm glad you pulled it. I
can't find anything online,
really. The original contract
was an administrative contract,
and so I have a list of
questions I've submitted to the
city manager and to share with
you guys, in addition to the
emails I sent you over the
weekend. So I think this would
be a great workshop item just
so you can understand what's
happened, where the monies are,
where they're going, why they
need to increase the threshold.
Just actually, the more I
learned, the more questions I
have. And this service is
nationwide. Other cities have
had success with them. Others
have had horrible service with
them. Some have pulled out.
Some are getting a better deal
than Vancouver is regarding the
income split. So I think
there's a lot you can guys can
look into. So thank you.
>> Thank you Serena. Go ahead.
>> Yes, I'm Serena Lucy. I'm
the longtime chair of Columbia
River Neighborhood Association,
and I formerly partnered with
Roger Parsons, who moved out of
the area. But working with him,
the public works director at
that time, Brian Carlson,
transportation. We developed a
quarter 2016 quarter management
plan, and it was adopted by the
City Council at that time in
2016. However, going forward,
that plan is sort of a little
bit maybe with change of staff
and so on, has kind of gone by
the wayside. So you'll hear
also from Areli Watson. She
newly joined our our
neighborhood association. She
moved into Steamboat Landing,
which is off Evergreen Highway
in Vancouver, and she was
wondering why there isn't a
safe walking trail, which most
people that move into the area
think the same thing. So this
project has been going on for
30 years or more, and we'd like
to continue to call attention
to it. It's not safe. So Marlys
is using her skill set to
provide that information. But I
want to kind of speak more
about the personal side. So the
I don't know who, if you've
been out there, but it's
approximately seven miles long
and goes from the Kansas border
to downtown. It's the old
original highway before they
built SR 14. And right now I
can say thank you. There are
currently working on a 1.1 mile
section between Chelsea and MH.
That's section D, and over the
span of this time we've had a
7/10 mile was done in 2001.
Then we had 1 in 4 tenths of a
mile in 2015. So the total so
far of the seven miles is 2.2
miles. When this particular one
mile portion is complete. So we
have a long ways to go, right.
This is a long ways to go, so
we don't want to be forgotten.
We've worked so hard to, you
know, to develop the corridor
management plan, to work with
the city in earnest for a long
time. And I've lived there
since over 30 years myself,
built our home there, raised my
kids, you know, too afraid for
them to be on the highway to
take the bus as others are have
to face today. So in addition
to that, what I want to point
out is 28% of our members are
seniors. So with that, there
are a they're a vulnerable
population. We all know that
exercise is key to staying
healthy for all, particularly
for our seniors. And every
doctor, every health
professional will tell you,
take a walk, right? Good
exercise, good for your heart.
However, that's not possible.
Even though we have such a high
percentage of seniors, it's not
safe. And if you take in kind
of the as we age, unfortunately,
we kind of become more limited
in our mobility, our eyesight.
So anyway, I would like to have
us back on the board and get
the. We are now off tip. We are
not even. We're on the back
burner and somehow we need to
get back.
>> Thank you Serena. Okay,
Serena, that was a public
hearing. Number nine. So when
we get to that, I won't call
you back up. Okay. Thank you.
>> I had a copy of my.
>> Comments for each of you
that are in front of the
attorney, if they could
distribute them. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Todd. So,
Nina, we have some documents in
front of you. If you'll give
them to Sarah, we'll pass them
around. Thank you. That
concludes our community
communication on the consent
agenda. Counselors, we have
eight items. Which ones would
you like to pull, mayor? Number
nine. Item number nine.
>> Number six.
>> Number nine is a public
hearing.
>> I'm sorry. Whatever the
transportation improvement.
>> That is number nine, a
public hearing. We will pull
that consent only. Sorry,
councilor Soelberg.
>> Item number six.
>> Item six. Thank you.
>> Seven two.
>> Item two. Any others? I'll
entertain a motion on item one,
three, four and five and eight.
>> Move to approve Fox.
>> Seconded by Perez Perez.
Those in favor, say aye. Aye
aye. Opposed? Motion passes.
Thank you. Item number six. So
do we have staff online or
available? Item six. Thank you
chief. Counselor Stover. Go
ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. So there's
two two parts to this. One is
specifically about this
contract. The other one is is
more general and general policy.
So specifically on this
contract. Chief, can you speak
to how these different fees are
playing together because
there's a a revenue share. And
there's also this extra amount
that we're approving tonight.
Can you help us understand that
a little better?
>> Yes, I can speak to that.
Chief Troy Price, Vancouver
police, we have not had a great
experience with Cry Wolf, and
it has not missed us that their
customer service is is not to
the standards of the city of
Vancouver. We need to move away
from this vendor and in order
to do that and bring that work
back in-house where we think we
can deliver better service. We
need to create an FTE. It was a
position we gave away when we
went to Cry wolf. We need to
bring that that back. And so
we're asking for that in the in
the next biennium, but also to
get us through the RFP process
and into that next biennium, we
need to extend our contract
with with Cry Wolf in order to
get us over this hump so that
we can bring that work back to
us. We do want to walk away
from this vendor.
>> Okay, can I explore a little
further? So there's the
contract calls for, for a 25%
revenue share. Is that what
we're is what's triggering
tonight? What is the amount of
this increase? Is it that that
we expect the revenue share to
reach that threshold? Or is
this a separate payment from
the the from the revenue share?
>> I if you don't mind, I'd
like to introduce Daphne Harris.
She actually is running the
books on this and was the one
that brought this to my
attention.
>> Good evening. Daphne Harris,
business manager for VPD. So
there is a revenue share. The
way that it is set up is that
Cry Wolf receives 25% of the
revenue that comes in. So there
still is still an expenditure
side that we have to account
for. So we have the revenue
that comes in cry Wolf will
keep 25%, and then they send
the rest to the city. There are
issues. Finance has issues with
them as well. I've been in
communication with them about
the process of bringing that
back in-house and what that
looks like. So even though
there has to be that offset and
we have to account for it,
that's where the threshold is
going over is because we have
to account for that part of it.
>> Okay, that's what I now I
understand better. I was
confused on whether we had to
pay them in addition to the 25%,
we were paying them an
additional fee. Now, now I get
it. Okay. I really appreciate
that and glad to hear that. And
that leads into the bigger
question or the bigger what to
me is the policy issue here
more broadly is. Every time we
communicate with our
constituency, with our
residents, with our business
owners, people who come into
the city. That is a reflection
on who the city is. And so I
think there's an opportunity or,
or help me understand. City
manager, is there an
opportunity to be talking in
more depth about what is our
outsourcing policy? Because I
do get nervous when we're
giving a third party such an
important communication role
with our our residents. Thank
you.
>> Yeah, I think that that's
something that we can take a
look at. I'd have to engage
with the procurement department
to see if we can set particular
expectations. You know, one
thing that comes to mind would
be about the ability for us to
periodically audit what their
customer service is like, to
see what the customer
experience feels like on that
end, to make sure that it meets
City of Vancouver standards.
But we'll need to do some
digging on that one.
>> Thank you very much,
councilor.
>> Yes, councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. Mayor. Just
building on Council member
Stover's comment. City manager.
We heard some feedback in the
testimony just now having to do
with. What was referred to as
folks downstairs interacting
with the public on things that
are being outsourced. And so I
think that there could be a
policy question there as well,
having to do with when we do
outsource something, do we
still retain the ability to
communicate with our
constituents as issues arise
and they come to us seeking
information? Do we have the
right resources? Do we have the
right talking points? Do we
have the right referral
mechanisms in place so that
when a person comes here
seeking help, they get the help
that they need? Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councilor Hanson.
>> I it draws me back to
another issue with a vendor and
customer service many years ago,
and I voted no to it. And for
the reason being, it's I don't
think they just started having
bad customer service the other
day, but it. I understand your
point. You need to go through
the RFP process, and the RFP
process is going to take you
six months. Something of that
nature, 3 to 6.
>> 3 to.
>> 6, 3 to 6.
>> Fair 3 to 6.
>> Yeah. Hit that light again.
There you go. Thank you chief.
>> There we go. 3 to 6.
>> Yeah. So I would love to
hear other council members.
Thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> Questions comments from
other councilors. Councilor Fox.
>> Well it's interesting as
yeah, I had read the emails
that our constituent had sent
over the weekend as well and
was and had other questions,
not knowing this additional
information that we are moving,
hopefully moving away from this
vendor. But I am wondering now
to that question of what how
are we going to be able to, I
guess, triage this between now
and December and knowing that
there are some problems and
this can't be the only one.
>> It has been a difficult
process with this vendor simply
because where we were
guaranteed that they were going
to actually add someone else to
our account. That's just if
they did, that's just another
person that's not contacting us
or interfacing with us. And so
out of Daphne's office and with.
With AR here in the city, we're
doing the best that we can to,
to address issues as they arise,
as they arise. But this is this
connection with this vendor is,
is it goes around the city,
except for the transfer of
revenue. And so it's, it's a
little difficult. We're our
we're going to be doing some
social media information
sharing, just letting people
know that we're aware that
there's an issue and that we're
asking people to be patient and
providing contact information
to help resolve issues. We're
this I think the vendor knows
that that there are some
there's some dissatisfaction
here in terms of what's going
on with the city. It doesn't
seem to be motivating them to
work harder for our business.
And so we're going to continue
to try and do outreach and tell
people who to call and when to
call until we can get this
resolved.
>> One final question, since
none of this was in the staff
report, I would wonder why this
contract is being extended to
May 2027. If it would seem that
we would have a shorter time
frame for this extension to
this contract.
>> As chief explained to where
I'm going to be asking for that
position in the biennium. So a
background with VPD takes
roughly 90 days. So if that's
not effective until January, we
won't be able to hire someone
until March or April. And then
going through the RFP process,
which I could start now. And
that is just for the software
portion. We actually had this
vendor for the software. We've
had them for many years, and we
didn't have a problem with them
until we outsourced for them to
do the additional work for us.
And so by. Doing the RFP, I
just don't have the staffing in
my department to go through a
full migration and upload that,
or like to take care of all of
that in a short term basis.
That's why I'm asking for a
year to be able to do the RFP,
get the position and hire
somebody if they don't already
have experience, we're going to
have to train them. I only have
one staff member that has
experience in this, and right
now in that department, she's
one person doing the work of
two because of somebody out on
medical leave, and we're trying
to backfill that position. So I
don't have the capacity to
bring it all on right now. So
that's why I'm asking for one
year.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Nothing to add other than I
support what my colleagues have
brought forward.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, yeah. There's a lot to
intake. And the information
you've provided, chief, is also,
you know, not in the report.
And so that would have been I
didn't realize the way that you
articulated it. It sounds a lot
more dire than how it was
written in the, the memo and,
and all the additional
information that's been
provided by public comment as
well. There's just a lot to
kind of digest all of a sudden,
you know, and, you know, I
would thank you for what you
just said about kind of really
laying out like your options
and limitations and totally
understand. And I, I am
juggling right now with, you
know, trying to see if there
might be other options, but it
does seem pretty limited. Yeah.
As we try to get through this
phase to the end goal is where
we want to, I think we're all
in alignment on where we want
to go, which is great. And it
sounds like expediting. It is
definitely limited based off of
what you just outlined and but
definitely open to exploring
more options. If there were
additional options that you had
in mind, I would love to hear
those as well. This one seems
pretty straightforward, but if
there was additional options to
maybe make the impact on our
sounds like our small
businesses and others and
customer service is there's
other options that we could
look at to make that transition,
whether it's certain pieces
sooner, would love to have that
conversation.
>> Any other. Councilor silver.
>> Go ahead.
>> Thank you, mayor. And I
think I'm glean something from
what Councilmember Harless just
says. Mr. City Manager, we make
lots of requests on you. And I
don't want to make an un
uninformed request. But if
there were. But if there are
opportunities to look at a
supplemental budget, granted,
there may be 50 other people
asking for positions right now,
but would I would be open to a
supplemental budget so that we
could move this process faster?
Given that I believe this would
be revenue neutral, given that
we're spending or we're giving
up 25%. So I don't think I'm it
doesn't seem like there would
be a huge budget impact. So
thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Any other comments? Thank
you so very much. City manager
request has come in. It seems
you have four nodding heads for
something. What do you think
that something is?
>> I'll have to work with the
police department to see what
alternatives might exist. If
there are any opportunities to
potentially accelerate moving
the shift forward from what
they've anticipated so far. I
suspect that based on what
Daphne has talked about, that
the biggest issue might be the
internal staff capacity to
manage the migration of the
software. So we'll just have to
explore that and see if there
are any opportunities.
>> Great. Thank you, councilor
councilors. What kind of motion
would you like?
>> I'll move to approve the the.
The item number six.
>> Second motion and a second
Stober and Paulson. Any other
comments? Councilor Harless.
>> Sorry, I'm just trying to
understand. So it sounds like
emotion has been made to
approve this, but we're also
asking for information. Is that
because it's coming back again
to us, or I guess I'm a little
confused.
>> I do not believe it's coming
back. I think the motion is to
move forward with it. And if
the city manager and the chief
have the opportunity to look at
other cost saving and time
saving elements that they could
and would. Chief? Go ahead.
>> I'm sorry, if I may. Just
for clarity, we are asking for
the extension until May, but we
can cancel within 30 days with
that vendor with 30 days of
notice for your consideration.
Thank you.
>> That's helpful. Thank you.
So it's not necessarily an
amendment, but an understanding
that we're going to try to
expedite it. And knowing
there's a 30 day option is also
helpful. So thank you for that
clarity.
>> Okay. A motion and a second.
Those in favor say aye. Aye.
Opposed. Motion passes. Thank
you very much, councilor Fox,
item number seven.
>> Item number seven is about
our interlocal agreement. And I
was struck by the fact that we
hadn't updated the costs
agreements since 2001. And one
of the questions I had on this
agreement is the language has
it. You know, we basically
didn't update the cost for,
what, 25 years? And now we're
coming to us with this new
agreement and an increase. But
also this one includes an
expiration date, but it doesn't.
I guess I'm wondering in this
new agreement, where does it
actually say that we'll look at
the cost sharing again because
it now it's going to expire. If
if we don't renew it in five
years. Right.
>> Curtis Burns from the city
Attorney's office. Yes, it is
going to expire in five years
if we don't renew it. I think
that at this point, it would be,
frankly, to our benefit to have
it locked in at this particular
rate for a period of five years.
>> That's what I.
>> Was thinking, too.
>> Yes, we've had a savings for
25 years.
>> And thank you. I was just
going to say that this appears
to be a contract. That was just
that none of the parties,
including the other cities,
were aware, was just renewing
automatically. And yeah, you're
right, it it. Came down to our
benefit, so to speak. So yes, I
don't at the end of five years,
there will be another
discussion to determine if the
costs have increased. And
frankly, I think the real
instrument or the real key
factor will be whether the
population has changed.
>> Okay. Also is noticing it
seemed as if it was new for
them to declare that a person
or the prosecuting attorney has
six hours minimum to work on a
case. Is that correct? I'm not
quite sure how that worked.
>> I don't think I don't think
that's actually what they were
saying. What they were doing
was trying to provide us with
an explanation as to, to
substantiate the price increase,
and that was based on the fact
that they expect that the
amount of time spent on the
collectively, the cities would
be an additional six hours.
>> Okay.
>> If if I apologize if I
misunderstood your question.
>> But no, that was my question.
I was trying to figure out
again, if they do come back to
us and ask for an increase, how
we would know if that kind of
the new our estimate is
actually accurate or not. But
that was you answered. We can
certainly.
>> Explore that with, you know,
in the future. Absolutely.
>> Okay. Those are all my
questions. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Do any other
councilors have questions on
item seven? I'll entertain a
motion.
>> Move to approve item number
seven.
>> Seconded by Hanson. All
those in favor, say aye.
Opposed. Motion passes. Thank
you. Thank you so much, Curtis.
All right, councilor Harless,
item two.
>> Yeah. If we could have Jamie
come up. Thank you. Jamie, this
should be pretty simple. Just
very straightforward. I just I
had someone come asking me
about, you know, do good
Multnomah not being an operator
at the site anymore and
concerns that they were, you
know, doing a bad service. And
I just wanted to publicly bring
you up so you can say, and it's
also in the memo that this it's
not. They've been a great
operator and it's not for any
performance issues whatsoever.
And just, just wanted you to be
able to say that publicly here.
>> Sure. I appreciate that. Yes.
They've been a great operator.
We, in fact, still plan to, to
use them for the bridge shelter.
It's really just a matter of
kind of economies of scale. Our
safe stays are very small
compared to the bridge shelter
and do good infrastructure.
It's just a little beefier than
than really is necessary for
these sites. So it's just a
place to, to, to, to save a
little is particularly with
bridge shelter being, you know,
kind of everything that we've
estimated for their, they are
still all estimates, you know,
so any cost savings is likely
just going to transfer right
over to bridge shelter
operations. So they've done a
great job, still do a great job.
>> Thank you. Jamie.
>> Any other questions comments.
I'll entertain a motion.
>> Motion to approve Harless.
>> Seconded by. Perez Perez.
Those in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed. Motion passes.
Thank you, Miss Spinelli.
Moving on. That concludes the
consent agenda that brings us
into the public hearings. Our
first public hearing tonight is
item number nine. This is a
resolution adopting the City of
Vancouver's comprehensive six
year transportation improvement
Program for 2027 2032, and the
city's arterial street system
and classification map. Thank
you.
>> Hi. Welcome, Council.
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead and
identify yourself. I didn't.
>> Do that. Of course.
>> Sorry.
>> No problem. Kate Drennan,
transportation planning manager
with community Development. And
I am here to ask council to
adopt our transportation
improvement program, the 2027
Six Year Plan. I don't have a
new presentation for you.
Nothing has changed in the
documents since we had our last
workshop. We had positive
reviews. And so we are looking
to finalize this annual work
program.
>> Thank you. Councilors, do
you have any questions of Mr.
Brennan at this time? Yes,
Councilor Stover, go ahead.
>> Thank you, mayor. Thank you.
Kate, I want to clue in on the
last thing you said. So give us
a high level, though, of what
this document is. You talk
about six years. But then you
also talked about our current
work program. And so can you
kind of for the folks listening
at home, give that interplay
between 6 and 1? Thank you.
>> Sure. So we have a number of
ways that we identify
transportation projects and
priorities at the city. We have
most notably our transportation
system plan, which is a 20 year
policy document that also
includes programs and projects.
We get similarly, other
programs and projects
identified through things like
the strategic Plan, the Climate
Action Framework, various
subarea plans like Fourth Plan
Forward. So we have a series of
transportation priorities and
projects that have been
identified, and we put them all
on a big list. And it has
historically always been our
transportation improvement
program, and it has been an
unconstrained list of projects.
But by state law, every year we
need to update a six year work
plan that is fiscally
constrained, that says, here
are six years of projects that
are fully funded, partially
funded, or unfunded, and we
need to say what our finances
are. So this this annual
document also includes
information about our capital
revenues, our capital
expenditures. What are we
taking in, what's going out?
How is it being paid? So what
we do is do an analysis and a
ranking of projects. And that
is how we determine those six
year funded and partially
funded programs. And it's
really our work plan that gets
updated every year. So once
something gets built, it gets
taken out of the work program.
As things move forward, they
move up to, you know, partially
funded generally if we have
received some sort of grant. So
we have a partial maybe it's
design money, construction
money that will move up as we
secure other funds and do our
biennial budgets, things move
to fully funded. And so this
year is the last year that we
have a fully unconstrained list.
Now that we've adopted the
comprehensive plan, we can move
those unfunded projects to the
capital facilities plan. And
that is really a 20 year plan
that looks at all of the
facilities that we need. And so
that will be really the place
that holds kind of all of the
transportation needs, as well
as other capital facility needs,
whereas we'll be able to really
focus our transportation
improvement program truly on
what we think we can do within
six years and what we really
want to target and move forward
in six years. And so, again,
every year, we annually update
this to take older projects off,
to move new projects into fully
funded based on our budgeting
that year and on grants we've
been awarded. Similarly, the
partially funded gets moved up
if we've been awarded grants or
otherwise identified funded for
those projects. And again, this
is a state mandated process
that we in every city go
through every year.
>> So I'm going to say it back
to you, or I'm going to say my
interpretation back to so every
year projects move on and off
of this. Oh, actually, first,
how often does this
transportation system plan get
updated?
>> So it's a 20 year plan, but
cities typically update
transportation system plans
every 5 to 10 years just to
stay abreast. Ours had not been
updated in about 20 years, so
ours was most recently adopted
in early 2024.
>> Great. And then we have
plans to do it more frequently
going into the future.
>> Yes. That's correct. In fact,
we'll be doing a minor update
next year in order to make sure
we're fully aligned with the
comprehensive plan and all the
policy that came through that.
>> Tremendous. And then so then
annually, we update the
transportation improvement plan
projects come in and on and off
of that. Things that are that
we may not have thought could
be done in six years could come
into that. And in particular
year, things that we're
realizing can't be done in six
years may move off of that.
>> That's right. We have an
evaluation or prioritization
process that was developed with
council input during the
transportation system plan. So
items that may make a project
more difficult to do, whether
it's a very high cost, whether
there are ecological impacts,
enormous right of way impacts,
other things that make
something difficult and
expensive that might make it
more of a medium or long term.
And so we don't forget about it,
but it gets put on that capital
facilities plan. Whereas within
that six years it's been
identified because it meets
criteria for where we want to
invest, whether that takes into
account our equity index, it
takes into account our crash
history, where we see growth
happening. So it takes into
account those corridors of our
comprehensive plan and our
modal network. It also accounts
for whether there are other
projects that could be
coordinated to save money. So
do we have an upcoming pavement
project on a corridor because
of the state of asphalt repair?
And so we're going to use that
as an opportunity to not only
repave the street, but
implement some of our bike and
pedestrian projects at the same
time. Whether there's some
other partnership, if C-TRAN,
for example, our upper main
street was done in conjunction
with the C-TRAN highway 99
project, so that, you know,
moved that up. So these are all
things that helps a project
score to make it onto that six
year plan. It's a numerous
different criteria. And so we
run that prioritization scoring
each year for all the projects
that we think are near term or
medium term. And those that are
long term don't go through the
scoring process just because
there's so many of them. But if
there's a reason for them to
move up like a particular grant
opportunity, then they, you
know, they, they would be
scored.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Any other questions or
comments at this time?
Councilor Perez? Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Okay, so last at
the last public community forum,
we heard from Marlene from the
old Evergreen Historic Trail
Association, who highlighted
some accidents and deaths along
a certain particular trail that
was also brought up today by
Miss Serena. Lucy here. Do you
do you know where that corridor
management plan that was
referred to early is within is
it in is it in this mid to long
term capital facilities plan?
And if it is, what needs to
happen to acknowledge the work
needed within the six years, or
what are those steps and
processes?
>> Sure. Yes. The Evergreen
Highway plan outlines numerous
segments which were referred to
tonight. So there's, I believe,
five different segments along
the highway. We've constructed
one fully. We have nearly we're
finishing construction of
another segment of that plan of
that path. Right now, it's
under construction this summer.
There is another segment that
we have partially funded, and
we have applied for numerous
grants for. And one of them is
the Washdot Pedestrian and
Bicycle program for the path.
And we are waiting to hear back
on the rest of the construction
dollars this year. So we have
been moving this path forward
through through grant
applications, through money
from the city. We've been
awarded just in the last two
years, $3.6 million for this
project. So we are chipping
away, I believe, the segments
that have been referred to in
public testimony are on the
eastern end. And so as we're
sort of moving from west to
east, those segments have not
been awarded any grants, and
that's why they're on the
unfunded list. And to move them
to the partially funded list
would mean we would need to
secure the money to to move it
to that. The last scoping
estimate, which may be from
that 2016 plan, is around $14
million, which is probably a
low estimate at this point to
build that. So that is why we
continue to look for grants.
But we we are working on that,
that plan and chipping away at
that path, you know, segment by
segment.
>> So and so what I heard
tonight was they don't
organization doesn't see their
neighborhood area trail
included in the transportation
improvement plan. But what I'm
hearing you say is it's in this
unfunded list, grand list. It's
there. And as funding
opportunities come in, that's a
way to move it into a different
plan where the public can see
it. And I know that as far as
what are those elements to move
it, to move the needle to where
it is working. They have
organized themselves into that
old evergreen Historical
Historic Trail Association to
help leverage some money and
partner and work together. Does
that also help advance it?
>> So, yes. So you're correct
that that it is in the tip.
Those two segments are in the
unfunded long term part of the
of the plan, whether or not I
mean, I think if there were if
there was money available via
private donation or private
funding, you know, I think we
would take that into account. I
will say, you know, we do need
to look at how projects when we
apply for grants. And we've
been successful on some
portions, I have looked at the
data provided. I done been
looking at the Wasch dot, you
know, crash portal that we have.
I'm not seeing the same data.
I've seen one fatality ten
years ago. There were two.
There was a crash in 2025 that
resulted in two serious
injuries. And in 2023, the
resulted in two injuries. And
so what I have seen from our
our Wasch dot dashboard is that
we have had five total injury
and fatalities in the past ten
years, which is not great. And
we don't want to see that, but
it does make it potentially
less competitive with other
multi use path trail projects
that we have in the city that
are on more dangerous roadways.
So we do continue to, to go for
grants. But I, I do think that
this one is particularly hard
because it doesn't necessarily
meet the criteria. A lot of, a
lot of the grants that we're
looking for to fund as well.
It's also, you know, it doesn't
score at all on our equity and
displacement risk map within
the city. That's another reason
it wouldn't necessarily move up
in the tip is just we have
other projects that are that
are higher need in terms of the
population it serves and the
terms of the number of
destinations that it serves for,
for people. And so those are
all things that get weighed as
projects move forward. Again,
we are chipping away at it. But
as you know, seven miles and a
very expensive roadway. So
we're doing a piece at a time.
>> Okay. I would hope that
there's an effort, a genuine
effort to continue to work with
this organization. The old
Evergreen Historical
Association, and to look for
ways to leverage dollars and
move forward and show the
community that we are trying to
invest in a broad spectrum.
Okay. Thank you.
>> Miss Brennan. Let's compare
this to Fruit Valley
Neighborhood Association, lower
socio economic area, a higher
priority because it also has an
elementary school. This
neighborhood association area
does not have an elementary
school. It doesn't have a
middle school. It doesn't have
a high school. But if you're
looking for grants, is it more
likely that you would get a
grant for, say, a fruit Valley
than for Old Evergreen Highway
because of an elementary school?
>> Yes, I think there's a wider
number of grants that it would
be eligible for, including
things like the Safe Routes to
Schools grants, but also
because of the population and
because of the air quality,
because of the, you know, the
freight traffic. There are just
a number of criteria that I
think it would score higher for
those those types of grants.
>> Okay, Kate, go ahead and
stay right there. Let's go
ahead and open the public
hearing. Scyllysce Watson,
please.
>> Mayor, this is Sarah Dollar,
council assistant. Yes, she was
online earlier and it looks
like she's dropped off. I've
done some messaging back and
forth to tell her that she can
come on and give testimony, and
it seems like she's still not
able to get back on. So she's
not here right now.
>> Okay. That is the only
individual I have for public
hearing. So I will close the
public hearing and bring it
back to council Council.
Further conversations on this
topic. Yes, councilor Paulson,
go ahead.
>> Thank you, Mayor Kate, I
really appreciate the thorough
explanation that you've given
on some of the decision making
criteria. And. The different
elements that go into it, and
why different things would
score one way versus another
another. I think that that kind
of transparency is helpful to
constituents who would like to
see their project score higher,
and perhaps are frustrated that
it isn't scoring as highly as
they feel that it should. And
so, in addition to Council
member Perez's suggestion,
especially on the issue of the
data not aligning, I think it
would be helpful to just sit
down and understand where is
their data coming from, where
is your data coming from, and
somehow reconcile that and open
the door to dialog. That's
solution oriented. The other
thing that that I'm thinking
about and wondering about, and
you can either speak to now or
in a subsequent conversation,
but you talked about the
segments that have been
completed, and I got the
general sense that we're moving
in an easterly direction from
west to east, but she didn't
really articulate why the
decision was made to prioritize
moving in an easterly direction,
especially when the testimony
that we've been given suggests
that the eastern portion should
be a higher priority within
that specific corridor. And I
would assume that the
differences along the corridor
in terms of eligibility for
funding and scoring would be
affected mostly by things like
fatalities and crash experience,
rather than equity scoring and
some of the other things that
have been mentioned previously.
So could you elaborate a little
bit more on why we chose to
move in an easterly direction,
starting in the west end of
that corridor?
>> I can say that the very
first segment was done and sort
of the middle of the corridor,
and that was finished several
years ago. As for why we went
for grants on the West End, I
would I would need to ask folks
that were were here when I
wasn't here to, to get those
grants applied for, but it
might just be that we had more
engineering and design work
done on that section of the
corridor that allowed us to
apply for the grants. So I can
I can ask and find out more.
But I do know that the very
first completed segment wasn't,
you know, it was sort of like
dead, dead, middle of the
corridor.
>> Would it be reasonable to
request that you meet with the
folks who are giving this
testimony and feedback and help
them understand the process,
and especially things like,
what is unfunded mean? How does
something move from unfunded to
funded? You've you've outlined
it at a high level here this
evening, but to really get
granular on that and also talk
about the criteria and how
things score and the kinds of
things that would help this
project score more highly and
other paths to completion. So
they don't just feel like year
after year after year, they're
not on the plan and they're
frustrated by that, but that
they can see a pathway from not
being on the funded list to
being on the partially funded
list to eventually being on the
funded list and the completed
list.
>> Yeah. And I will say we we
have spent staff has spent
quite a bit of time speaking
with members from this group.
We've mostly talked about the
the path to grants and what
grants we apply for and how the
city determines to apply for
grants. I went as far as to
check with legal whether we
could give organizations
authority to apply for grants
on our behalf, which they had
requested, and I was advised
that we don't do that for many
reasons. And so I will
absolutely continue the
conversation. But we I should
note that we've had many across
Public Works and grants team
and our city team. We have been
in conversation.
>> I mean, I think part of what
hasn't been explicitly stated,
but is the fact of the matter
here is we have finite finances
and we have to prioritize. And
through that process, there are
inevitably are folks who think
that their project should be
done sooner rather than later.
And it isn't done because we
have to make difficult choices
based on the money that we have
available. And I think when
that's the case, that we just
need to be able to say, this
isn't a never, it's a someday,
and here's a pathway and here's
how you can collaborate with us
to potentially accelerate the
process by which this project
could be considered more
strongly in the future. And so
I think if we're doing
everything about that, of
course, a person's going to be
disappointed if the thing that
they feel most passionate about
didn't make the list. And of
course, they're going to come
to us and they're going to ask
us to please put it on that
list. That's the way the
process should work. But I
think as long as they feel that
they understand the process and
understand what it would take
to move the project forward in
the process, then I think
that's a reasonable expectation.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Hansen.
>> Thank you mayor. And to put
this in some context here,
Evergreen Highway has been
something going back years that
we have heavily invested in.
And there were years that half
the folks down there didn't
want any investment in
Evergreen Highway, because they
wanted it to be in the
condition that it was so that
you would drive slowly in it,
and that you wouldn't need all
of these safety enhancements,
because there's no way you
could have driven fast down
that road. And then you had the
other folks that wanted it
repaved, and inevitably it got
repaved. And when it did,
you're going to see increased
speeds with a better condition
on the road. So this
conversation is almost
inevitable as far as the safety
concerns that are going on,
because you can increase speed.
So I. As far as investment on
Evergreen Highway or any of the,
you know, the, the walking
pathways that have gone on down
there that came along with that
road, there have been there's
been a considerable amount of
investment down there.
>> Thank you, Councilor Hanson.
I remember those conversations
asking people to leave the
potholes.
>> Yeah.
>> Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you mayor. So I want
to Kate, I'd like to go to a
higher level on on this. How do
we pay for trails and sidewalks
in this city?
>> So I think many of. Well, I
can't speak for how parks funds
their trails. I'm I'm not
knowledgeable on that. As for
like multi-use transportation
trails, they are often funded
through grants. And we provide,
you know, a match that is
coming out of our budget.
Sidewalks are primarily built
through development. So when
people come in and get a permit
for a new construction or a
change of use, we have frontage
improvements that we require or
they pay into a fund and we use
that to build sidewalks. We do
have a small sidewalk fund that
is in the transportation
improvement program. You'll see
it as one of the categories. It
primarily builds, fills in
small gaps in sidewalks from
what I understand. So it can
fill in maybe up to a half mile
per year. But those sidewalks
are generally built by
developers and property owners.
And so, you know, the trails, I
think of the trails more like
if it's a multi-use path, like
on Southeast first Street, you
know, that's going to come out
of partially our capital budget.
But if it's an off street trail
that's for transportation, then
we do have various grants that
we, we apply for. And I presume
parks does as well. But again,
I'm, I'm not knowledgeable on
how parks funds their trails.
>> And thank you for that
distinguishing point, because
this evergreen old Evergreen
highway is not a park. It's
it's a street. So thank you for
correcting my use of the term
trails. But let's go to
Southeast first Street. Did we
do that all on our own, or were
there grants involved in
Southeast First Street? Stump
the jock.
>> I wish I had a public works
counterpart here with me to
answer that. I, I don't know if
that was on our own or not.
>> That's fine. Thank you. I
think there was some grant
funding that came into play. So
even even when we have a street
project, I think we still are
relying on some grant funding
to to make it a complete street.
>> Yeah. And generally grants
require some sort of local
match. So we're always nearly
always putting money in, even
if we do get some sort of grant
to help cover the cost.
>> Thank you very much,
councilor.
>> I think you would find that
Senator Murray and Senators
Cantwell helped support federal
grants for Southeast First, and
that's why it is in the shape
it is.
>> Mayor, just a note for
council. Public Works Director
Steve Wall is online. So I
would just say if he's got any
additional context or any
additional comments to help
back up Kate, we should provide
an opportunity for him to speak
as well.
>> Thank you. Steve. Steve, do
you recall the federal grants
for Southeast First?
>> Good evening, Steve Wall.
Sorry, public works director
for the city. Kate's done a
great job. Unfortunately, we're
both a little bit at a
disadvantage regarding timing
of when we got to the city and
some of these projects that are
being requested, but I do I can
confirm that there were grants
and I think probably a couple
of different grants on
Southeast First Street. So that
was correct. And I could also,
you know, help fill in some of
the other blanks here if there
were remaining questions. I'm
trying to think off the top of
my head what they were, but
happy to help here. Answer any
other questions as well.
>> Thank you. Hold tight Steve.
Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. I want to
emphasize that here the city
has a great opportunity to work
with the a nonprofit that's
specifically formed itself
specifically for this trail,
I'm sorry, pathway along
Evergreen Highway. And so
that's focused on this corridor
corridor. And with that, that
presents opportunities outside
of the typical grant funding
mechanisms that we have. So
back to Councilor Paulson's
point of a solution centered
dialog and communication and
partnership outside of
structured limited time. And
because it's not on the list,
we're not going to talk about
it. And I understand that we
have other factors and elements.
There's no school and such, but
we do have constituents and we
do have a city and we do have a
pathway that for many, many
years has been a safety issue,
both in traffic and in being
able to walk. So that I just
want to make sure that we are
capitalizing on the opportunity
to work with the nonprofit
organization that wants to help.
And so we should take it, take
them up on it.
>> Thank you. I'll close
discussion, bring it back to
council for a motion.
>> Move to approve.
>> Paulson. Seconded by Stober.
Those in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed. Motion passes.
Thank you. Steve. Thank you.
Kate. Item number ten, the
public hearing. Let's go ahead
and start with staff on this
one. Good evening.
>> Good evening. I'm Chris
Olinger, the city's utility
engineering manager. And
tonight we received some some
comments from Department of
Health on Friday evening after
close of business. And when we
were reviewing them this
morning, we realized that the
red line version that was sent
for review was had some
incorrect track changes noted.
And that and with that, while
we're addressing Department of
Health's comments, we would
like to ask Council if they
would remand the ordinance back
to staff to make those
corrections and bring this
forward. Public reading and
second hearing for July 20th.
>> July 20th.
>> Thank you.
>> I'll entertain a motion to
remand this item back to staff
with the second reading and
public hearing on July 20th.
Paulson seconded by Perez Perez.
Any other comments? All those
in favor, say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed? Motion passes.
Thank you. Chris. All right.
Let's move into item number 11.
Public hearing item 11. This is
an ordinance of the City of
Vancouver amending Vancouver
Municipal Code, section
7.04.020 pedestrian
interference, providing for
severability and setting an
effective date and staff. Oh,
hello.
>> Yes, I'm Aaron Lande tonight.
Just kidding. Good evening
councilors, I'm Tyler Chambers,
the city's homeless response
program manager and a retired
Vancouver police officer. It's
my privilege to be with you all
this evening, to engage in the
civic process of helping to
make Vancouver a safer place
for all in the creation of this
ordinance. I'd like to
acknowledge the support and
efforts of the Vancouver Police
Department, City Attorney's
Office, target Zero Program,
Washington Traffic Safety
Alliance, and many others who
have contributed to enhancing
the safety of pedestrians,
motorists, bicycles and other
roadway users. For the excuse
me, in order to meet the city's
strategic goals for a safe and
prepared community, as well as
transportation and mobility
goals, we want to provide our
law enforcement with tools
which will prevent tragedy
before they occur. Currently,
state law and local ordinances
do not regulate pedestrians and
spaces which are dangerous for
them. Motorists and other
roadway Utilizers collision
data from within the city
limits, without going into the
gravity or the gory details,
would support public safety
reasons for regulating these
dangerous spaces. The new
ordinance provides for early
intervention by prohibiting a
person from remaining in spaces
that are not intended for
pedestrian use and improve
safety for all the roadway
users. Officers can provide
warnings and directions prior
to someone stepping into a
roadway or after a collision
has already occurred. The new
ordinance does not regulate
signage speech. It does not
restrict lawful pedestrian
crossing or the permitted use
of sidewalks or other
pedestrian facilities. In
summary, the new ordinance
provides a preventative measure
rather than reactive ones, by
closing a gap in the laws and
is consistent with the city's
transportation safety goals. I
believe that it will make
Vancouver safer for all by
reducing serious injuries and
saving lives. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, councilors, do you
have questions of Mr. Chavis?
Let's go ahead. Oh, sorry,
Councilor Fox, go ahead.
>> I just want to thank staff
for addressing some of the
specific questions that have
been raised in the last few
meetings on this topic. And so
really appreciate the
amendments to the staff report.
For me, it made it a lot more
clear to your point in this
particular presentation of what
this ordinance does and doesn't
do. So I appreciate I
appreciate all of that.
>> Let's go ahead and open the
public hearing. I have Todd
Boulanger.
>> Yes, thank you. Council. I'm
here to provide testimony on
this item. I believe the intent
is the correct intent. I just
found the analysis weak. There
was no direct tie except for
one case out of 47 regarding
the the existence of a median,
an island and such. So I think
that's challenging. I mean,
when you ask for council to
make an ordinance, especially
one with police powers, that
you need to do your homework,
and secondarily, they can
tighten up the language in the
ordinance. And I've made some
suggestions in the the hard
copy I gave out. So I believe
the intent is a good one. It's
just how we get there.
>> Thank you.
>> I'll close the public
hearing, bring it back to
council. Do we have documents
to be shared?
>> The the written testimony I
submitted online. It's limited
to 6600 characters. And so it's
very difficult.
>> Todd. Thank you. You may be
seated. We close the public
hearing. We'll give councilors
a moment. Councilors comments.
Mayor Councilor Stapper.
>> Thank you, Council member
Stover. There's quite a bit
here in the written testimony.
And so I'm I'm not going to ask
personally, I'm not going to
ask for this to be remanded,
but I am going to ask that this
is taken seriously into
consideration and with the
potential of revisions coming
back to us here to make sure we
are, I especially am open to
what I think I'm quickly
reading that maybe this. That
we look at what is the true
intended purpose and are we
deploying all the. I'm going to
put a different way. Are we
deploying all the necessary
tools to hit that intended
purpose? Yeah, and I'll leave
it at that.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Thank you. I think there
might be some definitions that
we've talked about in the past,
like the word occupy. I believe
we've talked about that before,
but maybe it's a good
opportunity to talk about the
definition of occupy within
this. And my reading of this is,
is really about prevention. And
we're starting to see something
happen. And before more
fatalities do happen, seeing
trends. That's why, you know, I
love the heart team. You guys
are out there and you're seeing
what's happening and the moving
and changing dynamics of what's
happening. And I really
appreciate proactive approaches
because nothing is worse than
somebody losing their life. And
so that's the way the, the way
that I've been viewing this.
And yeah, there is a lot on
here. Most of it is about
definitions and, you know, the
phrase occupies and remains
upon, I believe we talked about
that already. So if you don't
mind recapping what that means.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other
comments? Nope. We're going to
move on motion. I'll entertain
a motion.
>> Mayor. I'll move to approve
Ordinance Item 11. But the
ordinance amending the
Vancouver Municipal Code.
>> Second and Fox and Perez
roll call, vote, please.
>> Councilmember Harless. I
Perez I Fox I Paulson Stauber.
I Hanson. Mayor McEnerny Ogle I.
>> Motion passes unanimously.
Thank you, Mr. Chambers. That
concludes that portion of the
business. And let's go into
communications from the council.
Councilor Harless. Councilor
Perez.
>> Yes, I wanted to share an
observation and pose a question
for my colleagues that sit on
the C-TRAN board. Twice. I've
been driving down, I believe,
the 28th Street and some other
streets and have noticed an
elder person sitting on the
ground and at the bus stops.
But then across the street
there's, you know, a small
bench or further down there's a
gazebo. So I'm just wondering,
isn't there a protocol to have,
at least within the city
benches at each of the bus
stops? Or, or is that similar
to when we get there, we'll
we'll pay for it. It was just a.
>> Street councilor.
>> It was on the 28th Street,
28th Street. So it was. And at
first I thought, oh my God,
there's a person on the floor.
But no, it was an elderly lady
waiting for the bus. And then
another elderly lady at another
stop. Waiting for the bus. And
I just thought to myself, if
I'm just going to have a hard
time getting up from the floor
and, and, and no cover, some of
them have a cover, some of them
don't. So I.
>> Ended up on the. Right
frequency. It would probably
not have a cover, but if you
could get us an address and
we'll look into it.
>> Yeah. So just wasn't sure
what our standard within the
city of Vancouver is for our
bus stops.
>> Depends on the frequency.
Okay, okay. Councilor Fox, go
ahead.
>> Okay. Well, tonight I want
to ask my fellow council
members if we could move
forward with work on putting
together a ban on the sale of
kratom in the city limits. This
is an issue that I actually
hadn't been aware of until I
saw the article that was in MRC
about kratom. And then it also
talked about the legislative
effort last session to ban it,
and statewide that failed. But
also, you know, I also saw
another news article that went
into more depth about just the
danger of this particular
uncontrolled substance that is
being sold throughout, you know,
throughout our country, but
mostly in gas stations where,
you know, our Food and Drug
Administration does not control,
have any control, does not want
to have any control over the
substance, even though they've
said it's dangerous. And so,
you know, what I was reading
and finding out is that this
because there is no control
over it, folks don't know what
they're getting. They could be
getting sand packed into into a
capsule, or they could be
getting a very high lethal dose
of this substance that is
similar to opium. They call it
gas station heroin. So to me, I
don't often go into gas
stations and buy, you know,
energy drinks or anything. If
I'm going in there, I'm paying
for my gas or, you know, I'm
grabbing a bottle of water or
something. But the fact is, you
know, if I was on a long drive
and I didn't know any better to
end up in an emergency room or
worse, because I strangely, you
know, trust, you know what
they're selling me. And it says
it's just an energy drink. And
I don't think anyone in our,
our, our city, let alone our
country, should be at risk of
that type of mislabeling. And
so I will share the article. If
you didn't read it, that's in
MRI, but it does provide some
information about what city you
know, what our police powers
are in the city. So if it's not
regulated at the state level or
the federal level, and it's not
in conflict with any of those
laws, then we can regulate it.
City of Spokane banned the sale
of kratom within their city
limits. And so that is part of
the example that they've given
CLE Elum, Othello. I think
those are the only other ones
that have also banned the sale
within city limits. So just
wondering if fellow council
members are concerned about
this and would support us
moving forward. Looking at a
city wide ban.
>> Councilor Stover.
>> Thank you, mayor. I support
moving forward with a study on
this and figuring out how we
can potentially bring this to a
ban in the city. Thank you.
>> Councilor Hanson.
>> I support Council Member
Stover's comments. As far as
looking further into it.
>> And Councilor.
>> Perez agreed support looking
into it, studying it and
considering banning.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Moving that item
forward then any other item,
councilor. Councilor Paulson,
councilor Stover.
>> Thank you, mayor. So I'll
start with events. First.
Friday was a very active pride
block party in downtown. A lot
of great performers, a lot of
great vendors and a lot of
wonderful people taking
advantage of the new street
that's down there. So really
excited to see that. Yesterday,
a little smaller celebration,
but still a great celebration
of Flag Day over at the Fort.
Fun to get to participate in
both. We had three different
dignitaries in town for the
event. We had. We had Uncle Sam,
we had Rosie the Riveter and
our own prior resident
President Ulysses S Grant came
back to grace us, so had a lot
of fun at that event. Have
having the opportunity to talk
with some folks in my
neighborhood. And this is, you
know, we've, we've been dealing
with this in various ways. And,
and personally, I would like to
see us be a little more
proactive around trees and
identifying what are truly
heritage trees for the city
right now. That program is
property owner based, but it
feels like there are trees in
our city that need to be
protected. Luckily, it sounds
like a redevelopment happening
in in the Hawk neighborhood
that the developer is on board
with. Protecting, protecting a
very unique species of oak on a,
on a redevelopment. But I think
there's, I think we need to
really be more proactive in
looking at trees and finding
ways to protect trees in our
city, even if they're on
private property. Thank you.
>> Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you, mayor, Council
member Bart Hanson. Yeah, I
went to the pride event this
weekend. That was I mean, I
love the street closure. Of
course, the farmer's market
going on at the same time. And
the pedestrian traffic that was
happening from the waterfront
to the farmer's market over to
Main Street, showed the energy
that was happening in downtown
Vancouver on Saturday, and it
was through the roof. So that's
really all I have. Mayor and
city manager. Hats off to staff
for the efforts that they've
been making in coordinating
events and making sure people
can move back and forth safely,
especially those pedestrians,
because there were a lot of
people on those sidewalks.
>> They were everywhere.
>> Yeah. Thank you mayor.
>> Thank you. Yes. Between all
of the events happening with
Farmer's Market and pride,
people were just out walking
and enjoying everything. It was
lovely. We also celebrated the
Independence Day of our
Filipino American community out
at the park. Hundreds of people
out there enjoying the
opportunity. They've been great
partners in our community,
sharing their culture and
experiences. So our
neighborhood had a jazz little
jazz piece happening over there
that was something new for the
West Side. But this Saturday,
the 20th, we're celebrating
June 19th. Juneteenth on the
19th is the holiday, but the
20th is the celebration in
Esther Short Park, so we'll be
looking forward to that
opportunity. City manager.
Anything?
>> Yeah, mayor, we've got a
couple of staff members in the
audience from General Services
that we're going to do a short
presentation on the City Hall
South parking lot. And while
they're making their way up
here, I'll just do a recap of
my follow up items for tonight,
again, seeking affirmation from
the council that these are
items that you want us to
pursue. So one is to work with
the police department to see if
any opportunities exist to
accelerate our transition away
from the current vendor for
false alarms. Another one, and
this was something I would
classify as a little bit longer
term, is to look at the
language revisions that were
just approved tonight in the
pedestrian interference code,
and see if we're deploying all
the tools that we should be to,
to address the issues that
we're really talking about. And
then the last one, which I
classify as an intermediate
term, is to work with the legal
department to start looking
into the issues around that.
Councilor Fox has raised around
kratom and see potentially come
back to council with where that
could fit into the work plan.
>> Thank you.
>> City attorney, did you have
any other items before we go?
>> No, mayor. Thank you.
>> All right, Geraldine, let's
go ahead and jump in.
>> Hello, I'm Geraldine Moyle,
the general services director,
and I'm here with Brian Taylor,
our facilities manager for
general Services. We're here to
provide an update on the three
City Hall projects we presented
before you last fall, and in
particular, some impacts on
City Hall operations and
solutions to these impacts. For
the remaining project. The
first project presented last
fall was the Council Chambers.
Here we are. This meeting is
the third meeting in the
completed chambers, and while
there are some minor items to
address, we consider this
project to be substantially
complete. The second project
presented last fall was the LED
lighting upgrade for City Hall,
and that project is also
complete. The third and final
project is the City Hall Wells
project, which relocates the
City Hall ground source heat
pump wells from the south,
parcel to the City Hall parcel.
This project was initiated in
the spring. You might recall
approving the contract with the
contractor and construction is
expected to start shortly. I'm
going to turn it over to Brian
to provide an overview of the
project, the impact to
operations, and the solutions
to these impacts.
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening, Brian Taylor
facility Manager thank you,
Geraldine. As she mentioned,
we've had several projects that
we've completed in the last
year. The next project on
general services list is the
ground source heat pump
relocation, which, as Geraldine
mentioned, relocates the
current wells from the south
lot to the north lot. It also
includes some associated
mechanical, electrical and Hvac
related work in those systems
as well. So this work is
necessary to enable future
development of the South Lot
area. It addresses aging
infrastructure within the
system and supports long term
system performance.
Transitioning to the
construction timeline, it is
going to begin shortly. We're
anticipating a 16 week
construction timeline beginning
July 6th of this year and
concluding no later than
October 31st of this year. So
some key impacts to operations
beginning immediately on July
16th, the south parking lot of
City Hall will be closed for
the duration of the project. It
will be closed from July 6th
through October 31st. There
will be significant
construction activity in the
South lot. You will see open
trenches, safety hazards,
material storage, things of
that nature. There will be a
strict separation for and
rerouting for pedestrians. To
avoid that space. There will be
construction, fencing and
things of that nature in that
area. We've been working with
our colleagues in the parking
department to identify
solutions for the reserve
parking spaces. In that space.
We'll be transitioning those
reserve spaces over to the 415
lot. We've also been working on
the Ada parking, the loss of
Ada parking in that in the
South lot, which will
transition to the north side of
the building. There's one space
and directing community members
to park in the 415 lot, where
they have 7 or 8 spaces over
there.
>> Just to be clear, your
parking spaces will be in the
415 parking lot. So the two
spaces that are reserved for
council that are in the South
lot will be signed, and they
will be the closest spaces in
the northeast corner to the
west entry. So that's where you
will park on an interim basis
between July 6th and the end of
October.
>> Thank you for that. Public
parking will be the two hour
public parking spaces will be
closed for the duration of this
project. While they do that,
work will be directing folks to
use the paved street parking
around City Hall for the
duration of this project.
Deliveries and trash pickup
will have to be coordinated as
well. That will be coordinated
with our contractor. The next
major impact is going to be the
closure of the City Hall Plaza,
which is the brick area right
outside of the Aspen Room.
Construction in that area will
begin on August 12th, and it
will conclude on October 31st
as well, so that we've
purposefully postponed
construction in that area to
coordinate with several events
that are planned in the area.
The Vancouver Arts and Music
Festival, I believe, concludes
on August 11th, and we will be
starting construction directly
after that. We've been in close
coordination, close
coordination with our parks
counterparts to make sure that
all the events that are planned
over the summer will not be
impacted by this project. And
then the last and final and
major impact is going to be a
building wide Hvac shutdown
that will commence on September
14th and last through October
7th. So a little over three
weeks during that time. Primary
Hvac system, the primary Hvac
system will be offline. We will
still have ventilation in the
building, but the ability to
heat and cool the space will be
offline. While they do the tie
in to the new wells. We do have
solutions in place to provide
temporary Hvac systems or
alternative locations for
essential public facing
services and tenants, things of
that nature. So Permit Center
will be open. Council chambers
will be open during the
duration of that closure. Aspen
room will continue to be open.
Things of that nature. City
manager's office, city
manager's office, pardon me,
will be open. Et-cetera. So
there are some some folks that
we've identified that have to
be here, and we will have
temporary Hvac heating or
cooling solutions for those
spaces. Other departments that
can't work, that can't work
remotely, that need a place to,
to reside, will either will
find some space here or will
work with our departments to
find other buildings for them
to reside in during this
closure as well. We've also
been in contact with our fifth
and sixth floor tenants, and
made sure we had all their
needs addressed, which we've
done as well. And adjacent
property owners such as the
Hilton have been. We've been in
coordination with them as well.
Once again, Vancouver Arts and
music event planned on August
9th and 11th will be
coordinated as well. So next
steps for us, we're going to
finalize our construction
schedule, which I'm told we
should have very shortly. It's
very detailed. It's going to
show impacts of where the
drilling rigs are and things of
that nature. We should have
that late this week at the
latest. We'll be communicate
will be communicating that
information in collaboration
with other departments. We'll
be messaging on the South Fork
closure duration and the
impacts. We'll have
departmental coordination to
identify staff who cannot work
remotely, ensure that they have
service continuity. We
outreaching with our employees
through our communications and
department protocols, things
like our SharePoint site,
things of that nature. We'll
continue to coordinate with our
tenants via the project
management team and their
scheduled check ins. Be
continuing to coordinate with
council any unexpected impacts
that may arise during this
project. If there are any, will
come back and talk through
those. I think that's about it.
That's it. That being said, I
will open that up to questions.
>> Councilors. Councilor
Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor, thank you
for the overview. A lot of
great specific information.
Will there still be any
pedestrian access to the south
side of City Hall during this
construction period? The. I'm
thinking in particular about
the the bike parking room.
>> So the south door will be
closed. The sidewalks and most
of the corridor around between
the Hilton will be open for the
majority of. So we're still
looking into the bike parking.
What we expect to happen is
staff will come in one of the
alternate entrances, whether
that's the West Side or the
north side, and then walk their
bikes through the. The bike
room itself will not be
impacted.
>> Just have to access from a
different.
>> You have to access from a
different door. Yes.
>> Okay. And my last question,
when the project is complete
and things reopen, will it
reopen similar to the way it is
now, or will there be changes
to the configuration of the
parking lot or any of the
access? In other words, will it
will it be as it is today when
we're finished with the project,
or will there be some changes
along the way?
>> There are no changes
expected. We're going to put it
back exactly how we found it.
>> Fantastic. Thank you.
>> Yes, councilor.
>> Thank you mayor. So
eventually, though, that south
parking lot goes away. This is
a temporary time. I mean, a
temporary closure, but it
portrays a longer term closure
because we have a grander
vision for for all that space
down there. A conversation.
City manager you and I have had,
and I think it it plays into
this right here. I have been
struggling as to why I think
you're calling it the 415 lot,
which makes no sense to me
because this is the 415
building, but the 415 lot. Is
only full day parking. From my
perspective, that lot is highly
underutilized. There's a lot of
parking that's available during
the day, and it is especially
frustrating when coming in at 4
p.m. to do council. And there
are no available spaces. And a
lot of times those paid parking
spaces on Esther Street are
already taken. Having to go
into that lot and pay for a
full day of parking, that just
doesn't make sense to me. It
seems contrary to this parking
utilization that we're wanting
to do and we're wanting to
encourage, and I would love to
hear from my fellow council
members if it makes sense to us
to keep that lot at full day,
rather than it being an hourly
lot.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> I support your thought
council. Mayor Soelberg, as far
as like, let's reconsider not
having the full day and having
it hourly or two hours. Tied to
that comment is my concern
about the public needing to use
paid parking lot. And if there
was a way to validate or, or
stamp or reimburse when they
come in to City Hall to take
care of business, can we
validate their parking so that
they don't have to pay?
>> We can check into that with
the parking team.
>> Yeah. I mean, the we can
invite economic prosperity and
housing to come visit with the
Council about the utilization
of the 415 lot, because that is
as part of our overall parking
strategy for the entire
downtown. But they're the
appropriate department, really,
I think, to answer those
questions, these two build them,
and then economic prosperity
manages them.
>> Any other comments?
Councilor Harless?
>> This idea of validation is
intriguing, but not wanting to
you know, it's one of those
like would be nice to look at
in the future on validation. As
we continue to have, we're
becoming more and more
urbanized city and parking
becomes more and more limited.
But, you know, people needing
to be here to do civic, whether
it's engagement, advocacy,
whatever it might be, just
meaning you're in a civic place
doing civil, you know, actions
that you need to do. It should
be something to consider
validating. And I'd be curious
if that is best practices or
not. But otherwise, what you've
presented here today though,
I'm yeah, thank you for what
you've put together and. I
would I would like to see the.
Before making any sort of
decision, what the. I know we
already have a lot of heat
mapping and everything when it
comes to utilization. Several
months ago, we've had a lot of
conversations and I don't
recall right now where that was
as far as like this lot. So I'd
like that. If there was
something already put together,
that'd be great.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor. I just
echo Councilmember Harless
comments. I'd rather than
having a very tactical
conversation about one parking
garage and one set of parking
spaces, I want to understand
how it fits into the broader
ecosystem. And what's the logic
behind what we're currently
doing, and what would be the
potential changes in logic that
would cause us to reconsider
what we're doing today? Thank
you.
>> Any other comments? Comments
about the General Services plan?
None. Okay. Thank you so very
much. Were there any other
items? City manager?
>> I did not have any other
items. Mayor.
>> Thank you. That concludes
the business of the Vancouver
City Council. This is the
opportunity where we will now
invite our community to have a
community forum with us. We
audiotape it. We don't
videotape it. So City clerk,
please have a CVTV turn off the
video cameras and we'll.