Thank you so very much. Good
afternoon. Welcome to Vancouver
City Council. Today is Monday,
September 14th, 2026, and we're
going to start off with
development fee updates. City
Manager.
>> Thank you. Mayor. This is
the first of three workshops
that we have scheduled for the
council this afternoon, kicking
off with some update on where
we're sitting with development
fees and then moving into a
discussion about doing some
cleanup and amendments to the
municipal parking code. And
finally, an update on where
we're heading with our board
and commission recruitments for
the fall. And so first up, we
have Chad Aitken, Steve Wahl,
and Patrick Quinton.
>> Thank you very much, City
Manager. Good afternoon, mayor,
city Council, I am Patrick
Quinton. I am the director of
Economic Prosperity and Housing.
And as the city manager
mentioned, I'm joined by Chad
Aitken, who is our community
development director. Also
Steve Wahl, our public works
director, and Dave Perlick, our
director of Parks and cultural
services, is he got off today,
but he's available for
questions and I'm sure you'll
have some for parks. So we want
to bring to you what is going
to be the first in a series of
conversations over the next
probably 18 months on a review
and potential updates to a
range of different development
fees. We were beginning work on
an update to the first of those
traffic impact fees, and we
decided that we it was better
to take a step back and give
you a big picture of, of how we
stand now. And like I said,
what's coming so that we can
think about them in totality
and in particularly their
potential impacts on
development. So, so this is
step one. We're going to start
by giving you an overview of
the current fee structure,
impact fees, sdcs as well as
development review fees, what
they pay for. And then we'll
walk through four different
development actual projects
turned into generic scenarios
and show you how we currently
apportion the different fees.
And then we're going to switch
over to kind of what our
current situation is and why.
It's it's now time for us to
review the range of fees and in
particular, talk about what we
have lined up in terms of our
capital and investment programs
across all of our
infrastructure areas. And then
we're going to do a comparison
across jurisdictions to try and
give you a sense for how we
stack up currently, and what a
potential potential increases
might do to that. Then jump
into discussion of impacts on
development. You've obviously
received a number of
presentations from us on
development activity or the
lack thereof. And so obviously,
it's a tough time to be talking
about this, but so we do want
to kind of begin to talk about
how we balance these two
different objectives, and then
we'll finish off with potential
ways that we can think about if,
if changes are needed,
implementing these over a
number of years and give you a
hypothetical timeline for how
we might proceed on that. So
with that intro, I'm going to
turn it over to Chad and he'll
he'll kick it off.
>> All right. Thanks, Patrick.
Good afternoon, Chad and
Community development director.
We wanted to kick this off with
just an overview of all of the
types of fees that the city
collects on development
applications. I'll get into
more detail in subsequent
slides, but first is impact
fees. This is for parks,
traffic and schools. These are
collected at the time of
building permit issuance. In
the case of schools, CBD, which
is my department, calculates
and collects the school impact
fees. And then these are passed
on through to the school
district. System development
charges or sdcs are for impacts
to the water and sewer system.
Those are collected by CBD
prior to a water meter being
issued to the developer. The
city does not currently charge
Sdcs for stormwater system
impacts. Plan review fees is
the next category. These
include land use, engineering,
fire and building review of
development applications. The
building plan review fee is
based on half of what the
building permit fee is, and you
can think of these as a fee for
service. They're collected at
the time of the application
being submitted. We currently
do not charge a separate fee
for water or sewer engineering
review permit fees. Next
category also a fee for service.
These are to authorize actual
construction work, including
grading, building and
construction in the right of
way. The fee is collected at
the time of permit issuance.
The building permit fee in this
case covers the cost to inspect
the building, and then we have
inspection fees, which are
essentially construction
inspection fees. They're
collected at the time of permit
issuance, and they cover
inspection work that occurs in
the public right of way. Then
we have state fees. These are
really minor state attaches a
$6 fee to single family homes
and $25 fee on commercial
building permits. So not really
substantial. A little more
detail on impact fees and sdcs
impact fees were authorized
under the Growth Management Act
in the mid 90s. Three purpose
statements in that act around
impact fees. One is to ensure
that adequate facilities are
available to serve new growth
and development. Secondly, to
establish standards for new
development to pay a
proportionate share of the cost
of new facilities needed to
serve such growth. And lastly,
to ensure that developments do
not pay arbitrary or
duplicative fees for the same
impact. The authority to charge
water and sewer sdcs comes from
the more general municipal
authority and state law,
separate from the Growth
Management Act. Both impact
fees and sdcs cannot be used to
pay for existing system
deficiencies. Impact fees are
based on a projected demand. A
new project creates and planned
capital investments over the
next 20 years, whereas Sdcs are
based on infrastructure
infrastructure already built to
serve the development. You can
think of those as a fee to
connect to our system. Parks
and transportation fees apply
within specific districts to
ensure that fees paid will be
used on infrastructure that is
directly related to the impacts
created by the development. And
lastly, impact fees and system
development charges are placed
in restricted funds, so they
cannot be used for other
general purposes. The next
category is permit and plan
review fees. These cover the
cost of processing and
reviewing all types of
development applications,
inspecting public and private
improvements once completed.
Again, these include land use,
engineering, fire and building
applications. Plan review and
permit fees are periodically
reviewed to ensure that cost
recovery targets established by
City Council are being met.
This analysis involves staff
tracking their time to projects
and using an average hourly
rate to determine whether the
fees are appropriately
calibrated. Proposed fee
increases other than annual
adjustments based on the
regional CPI, are brought to
City Council for approval. We
wanted to include a few actual
development projects and their
associated fees, so you can
start to see how the fees add
up and also see how they have
or have not changed in the last
two years. So this is this
slide is two different projects.
We have 198 mixed use
residential project and a 100
unit three story multifamily
project. And then the two
columns 2024. You can see what
the fee actually was in 2026.
Using the fees that are in
place today is what the fees
would be. The main takeaway
from this slide is that while
some fees have increased, most
such as traffic impact fees and
sdcs have not increased enough
in the past two years to keep
pace with inflation. While not
a city fee, we included school
impact fees to show the full
scope of fees that a
residential developer pays.
Recognizing there's some
variance in the fees between
the different school districts.
In fact, the Evergreen School
District impact fees are now at
$0 due to declining enrollment
overall, while large
developments such as these pay
a lot of fees, fees still
represent only about 3% of the
total project costs. And this
would even in this example,
would even be lower if the
school impact fees are backed
out of the total. You'll notice
that several categories of fees
are increased from 2024 to 2026.
I'd be happy to go into more
detail about what caused those
increases, but I can also come
back to that after our
presentation. Any direction on
that? Would you like me to move
on to the next slide and come
back to the explanation?
>> Would you take a look at the
fire permit and review from 70
to 174?
>> Sure. That yeah, that is a
big increase. We've noticed
that as well. It's been
influenced by a multiplier in
the fee calculation formula.
That is being rounded up each
year when adjusted by this
annual CPI. We're doing some
more analysis to see if that
may need to be corrected,
because that will compound over
time.
>> Yeah, that seems to be the
outlier in those statistics
counselors. Do you have any
questions on this particular.
Yes, counselor. Stober. Go
ahead.
>> So can you help me
understand? What. What's the
key drivers in these two
different project types? What's
you know, so we have a cost of
development at 2.5 versus 3.3.
Or obviously things changed.
2620 so help me understand
differences there. Yeah, yeah.
>> Each each fee is has a
slightly different calculation.
Park impact fees are based on a,
a fee per unit. Traffic impact
fees are based on the number of
trips, average daily trips that
are generated by a project, and
sometimes that is dependent on
whether there is. Steve can get
into more detail on this, but
if there's pass by traffic,
then maybe there are some
adjustments that are made to to
that calculation, water and
sewer sdcs, I believe, are
based on the size of the water
meter. And permit review fees.
Again, that's that's several
subcategories of fees. Building
permits are based on the
valuation of the project. So
there's a calculation that uses
that as the primary driver. And
land use fees is based on
number of units or and possibly
combined with square footage.
So each each one has sort of a
different formula.
>> But generally speaking, on a
per unit basis for residential,
larger projects will have lower
per unit costs because they
spread the fees over, you know,
there's a certain kind of
initial threshold. And then the
more units you have, you spread
it over more units. So that's,
that's why the percentage and
the per unit, the amount goes
down is because is because it's
a larger project. And that's
going to be the case with, with,
with fees. There's a kind of a
fixed starting point of fees.
>> So and does the, the. One is
mixed use. So there's a retail
component, we'll call it a
retail component to that. Does
that end up diluting it as well.
>> It. Yes it can.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And the zero on project two
for sewer.
>> Not all projects have have
SDC charge them. I mean they're
just unique circumstances
whether they have existing uses
that that that are that they
then get to take advantage of
or they have they have credits
or something. So so they if as
we go through this conversation,
we're going to try and have
some, you know, kind of general
themes. But one of the things
that good way is every project
ends up different, but within a
range and comparing, we're
going to compare across
jurisdictions in a minute. It's
really hard to do that too,
because everybody calculates
differently and whatnot. So
we're trying our best to figure
out how to make this an apples
to apples conversation. But
every project is going to end
up being different. But you're
going to see that's in this
range as, as Chad mentioned,
it's going to be in this kind
of low 2% to 4% range across
different projects. Okay. The
next slide will be the
commercial industrial, it's
lower.
>> Do you want to.
>> Go ahead, Steve?
>> I was just going to say
you'll see on the next slide a
couple other examples of where
every project doesn't
necessarily have every fee. I
think it it could, with the
exception of, you know, in this
case, with the commercial and
industrial, the school impact
fees, which don't apply to the
commercial and then the park
impact fee, which we'll get
into as well, doesn't apply to
the commercial industrial
projects, but there are other
scenarios and exemptions that
we'll talk about in later
slides as well that come into
play.
>> Got it. Okay.
>> Okay. These are our our
third and fourth projects. We
have a 40,000 square foot
commercial project and a ten
zero zero zero square foot
industrial project. A couple of
things to point out here.
Project four, which is smaller
in size and has a valuation
that's lower than 7 million.
This is not going to mean much
because I didn't explain about
the building fee and on the
last slide, but we have a
building valuation cap on our
building fees. So if a project
is in 2024, if it was $7
million in valuation or more,
it would pay. Even if it was
$100 million worth $100 million,
it would pay the building
permit fee as if it were based
on a $7 million valuation. So
that that has kept our larger
projects from paying what we
felt was or overpaying based on
the service that we were able
to provide. So if they were to
pay, if there was not a cap in
place, we would large projects
would be paying. If it were
converted into an hourly rate
way more than our inspection
staff would be spending at
their project, inspecting their
project. So we have
administratively capped larger
projects at that fee or at that
valuation rate. In 2024, we
increased that to 10 million
because our building fund was
drawn down to be lower than
where we wanted it to be, to
cover. This is hard to explain.
Our the balance of work over a
period of 18 months that that's
our building fund reserve is
intended to cover inspection
work that. If all development
felt fell off the the map today,
it would cover the inspection
work that was remaining. I hope
that makes sense. So 18 months
is our target. We've fallen
below that. And so in 2024, we
increased the cap to 10 million
to slightly build back up the
building fund. And that's a lot
of detail that maybe I didn't
need to go into. But project
four is smaller in size and its
valuation was lower than 7
million. So you can see there
was not that the same sort of
increase in the building fees
from 24 to 26. And I think that
is all I wanted to cover here.
And you can see there's no
school impact fees because that
only applies to residential
projects. Same with park impact
fees. I'll turn it over to
Steve.
>> Yeah. Thanks, Jen. Good
evening, Mayor and council
again. Steve Wahl, Public works
Director. Chad got us through a
good background of impact fees
and system development charges
and review fees. Slide seven
talks about the fee analysis
that we've already started and
some that will will be starting
soon. So I think it might have
been mentioned earlier, we're
starting or have started an
update to the traffic impact
fees. And that will actually
will have some information
coming forward to council,
probably in the next couple of
months before the end of the
year. On what the traffic
impact fees look like and have
a good conversation there.
Parks will be taking another
look at the parks, Recreation
and Cultural Services
Comprehensive plan and the
associated park impact fee.
Specifically, as you see on the
slide here. As it notes,
commercial park impact fee
option. So that's something
that we'll be considering
coming up in the next 18 months
or so. And then Public Works
has a kind of a slate of
analysis that are planned. So
we're just starting to kick off
our utility rate analysis,
comprehensive analysis that's
done every few years. As part
of that, we'll do our system
development charge review as
well on both the water and
sewer side. And then the other
thing that was mentioned
earlier, a couple of nuances
here, the engineering reviews,
we do have fees for engineering
reviews right now for
development projects. However,
we don't have fees associated
with the water and sewer
engineering reviews. So that's
something that over time
decision was made that, you
know, I think we want to take
another look at that as we
think about the impacts of, you
know, the time and effort it
takes to review those plans on
the water and sewer utilities
and then similarly on the
inspection review. So this
would be construction
inspection out in the field,
except for fire. We actually
don't collect any fees to
recoup our costs for
construction inspection review
either. And so there's a lot of
time that goes into those
activities in the field. And so
we're not currently capturing
those costs as well. So we want
to take a look at that and
understand what our costs are.
Right. And then have that
conversation as well as we look
at our utility rates and fees.
And then just a general note
here, most of our fees that
you've seen that we're talking
about are adjusted annually
based on a CPI. And one thing
that we'll talk about a little
bit more is just that I think
it's important that we review
that and understand what
inflationary factor we're using
and how that relates to the
market and how it relates to
other factors that can affect
these fees. And that's
generally what we'll talk about
here. Coming up.
>> Steve, before you go on to
the next slide, I think I know
commercial Park, but define it
for me.
>> Actually, it's a review of
the park impact fee as it
relates to the impact of
commercial and industrial
development on parks and trails.
So currently the city just
collects an impact fee based on
residential uses. And so when
you build a new home or a
multifamily residential, you
pay those fees for parks. But
if you come in and you build a
commercial or industrial
facility, you don't pay any
park impact fees currently. And
I think the recognition kind of
over the throughout the state
over time is that, hey, our
commercial and industrial
businesses. Yes, they bring a
lot of value to the city and
jobs, but they also benefit
from our parks and trails
systems. And so, you know, the
question then becomes, should
they also participate in
funding of our parks and trails
systems through payment of park
impact fees?
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep. So why consider updates
now? There's been actually a
couple of good conversations
already on this, but both slide
eight and slide nine. Talk to
this. You know, I think the
first thing I would mention
that's more generic is that
this conversation shouldn't
really be as static or a single
point in time, right? This is
ever evolving and evolving
conversation. And as we get
towards the end, we can talk
about that a little bit more.
But I mean, we are at a good
point in time to review this.
We just finished the
comprehensive plan. We finished
the transportation plans. We're
getting ready to finish the
water system plan. Right. And
so we have all the information
and the data. And it seems to
be a good point to, to look at
all of this as a whole. As
Patrick mentioned earlier. But
there are a number of reasons,
right, of why, why we want to
look at this. And I think one
is, you know, we don't
infrastructure is expensive and
we don't ever want to short
ourselves on that if we can
help it. Right. And that just
means finding a balance. And
we'll talk about that as well
here in a couple of slides. But
I think as an example of, you
know, why we want to look at it,
I think as we went through the
transportation impact fee
analysis here recently, and
again, you'll see that it had
been a long time since we had
reviewed those fees. And
primarily, it was not
necessarily the the projects
and stuff that were in there.
It was I think my understanding
is a lot of it was based on the
construction cost estimates
that were included. And if
those get outdated and they're
not increased over time for
inflation, right, then your
costs and your fees can get out
of whack basically, and not
aligned. And so I think that
was a good example. I think as
we're looking at our system
development charges for water
and sewer, that's going to be
another scenario where we
haven't looked at them for, you
know, I think 6 or 7 years at
this point and done a detailed
analysis and a lot of of things
have changed during that time,
and that's going to be a big
impact. And then I think, you
know, a big one is state law.
And that can mean various
things, different legislation
that comes up over time. But
part of that is big picture. So
I just mentioned we completed
our comprehensive plan. That is
a fresh look, right? 20 year
planning horizon of all of the
infrastructure needs and all of
the development needs that we
have. And so that by itself is
going to be a change, right?
It's meant to be a change over
the next 20 years. And then you
have more specific legislation,
like the fees that are, you
know, based on a method that
reflects the proportionate
impact of new housing units. So
you'll hear more about that as
we talk about particularly
traffic impact fees and more
park impact fees actually were
different size units, right,
have a different impact
potentially on the system. And
you kind of have this scaled
version of proportionate impact
fees based on the type and
number of housing units. And
then PFAs is a good example,
right? State federal mandate.
Didn't necessarily know about
it forever. Right. We're just
still learning more and trying
to figure out or understanding
what that means to our system.
So these are all things that
that come up of why we want to,
you know, make sure we're
looking at these fees. And then
we talked about the, the parks
piece before is there's just a,
a large. Amount of
infrastructure on the park side
between land and development
activity that we're trying to
support through our parks plan.
And so, right. That's the
conversation that we need to
have is how do we fund that?
And does that include, again,
commercial, industrial. Does it
just include residential? And
so those are all things that we
want to be looking at as we
look at these fees. So what
projects are we trying to fund?
Slide nine has a table here
that you know it has some great
examples. This is not
comprehensive by any means, but
we wanted to just give a quick
snapshot of some ideas here
that provide or show an impact
on our fees. In the upper left
is just an example of our water
system. So the last time we
looked at our system
development charges for the
water system and our fees in
general, the 20 year CIP was,
you know, a little bit less
than the 400 million that's
shown. But what's new since
then is about $300 million in
PFAs projects. That was not
included the last time that we
reviewed our system development
charges. Obviously a very large
piece of it, right at a $700
million total program now,
quite different than it was 6
or 8 years ago. The bottom left,
very similar, actually, on the
sewer side, you have the
incinerator replacement, which
has kind of become known or
called the Solids Renewal
Program. Council has seen
information about that over the
last couple of years. And yes,
that's going to be a phased
program similar to PFAs, but
even over a longer time period.
But that's roughly, you know,
another 250 to $300 million
that's included in that. That
was also not fully baked into
the cake the last time we
reviewed fees as far as system
development charges and a
comprehensive rate analysis,
top right is transportation.
There's a number of of projects
listed here. Like I said, I
think one of the bigger impacts
on the transportation is just
not having the ability to open
up the traffic impact fee
analysis and really update cost
estimates and those types of
things. But when you think
about transportation, there are
large projects on here as well.
32nd Avenue should be Fruit
Valley area. I think actually
our estimate is quite a bit
more than the 86 million at
this. At this point I have 18
192nd. That is in design. Those
are all very large
transportation projects and
costs have continued to
escalate over time on those
projects. And then parks again,
I mentioned on the prior slide
acquisitions and development,
you know, 800 plus acres. I
think based on our current
levels of service and the the
current Parks Comprehensive
plan, very expensive right to,
to buy and be able to provide
that level of service. And so,
you know, how we fund that and
those investments we need to
pay attention to definitely.
That. I think Patrick gets this.
>> All right. Thank you Steve.
So Patrick Quinton, Director of
Economic Prosperity and Housing
again. So the primary way that
we think about how our our kind
of combined fees and the
charges stack up is to compare
with other jurisdictions. As I
mentioned earlier, this is
really hard to do without
commissioning a full study. And
so there is there's going to be
more work done on this. So
we've pulled some different
data sources. This first slide
here is is just for impact fees.
The next slide is sdc's. So on
the impact fee side what we
have here is is a bar graph.
The first set of bars is is the
weighted state average. So just
consider that to be. That's the
average across the state. And
if you look at the three impact
fee categories parks, schools
and transportation, they're
shown in the green, purple,
blue, and then black is the
combined number per unit. This
is on a multifamily residential
project. So the weighted state
average is just under 11,000
per unit for impact fees. The
next three are relate to us.
The the next one over where it
says current fees. That's where
we currently sit. So we are
below on impact fees, the
weighted average in the state.
So I think we want to be in
that general area. Certainly to
be competitive from a
development standpoint. The
challenge though, is if you
look within our overall number
and you look at the blue line,
that's our traffic impact fee
number. So our traffic impact
fees are well below the state
average. This is why the
traffic impact fee conversation
has started is because we,
Steve and his team know well,
like we're way behind. So, so
so if you start to to adjust
these, then you start bumping
up our average. We didn't get
into specific increases. We
just then said, what if we
increased all of our impact
fees by 25%? What if we
increased them by 50%, just a
25% across the board increase
bumps us above the weighted the
the state average and then 50%
obviously puts us well above
that. So this is the kind of
almost the sensitivity analysis
for us, like how much room do
we have to increase fees to
cover the, the investments we
need to make without putting us
out of really out of alignment
with the rest of the market.
And so what you can see there's
sensitivity there on that. So
that's just impact fees. And
the next slide is going to be
Sdc's. I don't know if yeah.
Councilor Fox yep.
>> Yes counselor. Go ahead.
>> So I sent this question to
staff. So perhaps you're ready
to answer this particular
question. But on this slide my
question was around showing the
school impact fees increasing
along with the fees that we
have control over. And I wasn't
sure how realistic that would
be over any time frame, that
school impact fees would be
increasing, you know, at a
level to match ours. They tend
to kind of run in their own,
you know, trajectory when they
bring forward that the analysis
of what type of funding they
need for their growth. And so
just wondering if, I guess I'd
like to see future
conversations that don't
include showing that same
increase on school impact fees,
just to better understand what
the effect of any decisions we
make are on our total fees.
Does that make sense?
>> Yeah. I mean, of course,
yeah, this school impact fees
are decided separately. We kind
of live with with whatever is
decided, but it does from a
developer standpoint, right?
It's, it's, it goes into the
overall cost. You're right. I
don't know that that doing the
25% across the board really
makes sense for all these. So
but we didn't want to get into
this in this workshop, kind of
proposing specific increases so
that we were now diving into
specific because that's what's
to come. But you're right, I
don't think we would we would
analyze it this way for
subsequent conversations. I
think we'd either leave it flat
or set it aside. But once again,
we still need to keep it in
mind. And in a second, I'm
going to mention some other
analysis that literally just
came in from Eco Northwest on
Friday, which compares us
across or some Oregon
communities, Portland and
Beaverton and those. The school
impact fees in Washington state
are significantly higher than
Oregon. We're trying to figure
out why that is. So it does
affect our competitiveness as a
place for development. So.
>> And perhaps we do need to
have a discussion at some point
about our level of control over
accepting those fee increases
that are proposed to us by
school districts, too. But I
know a different conversation.
But that purple line is a huge
contributor to that total black
line. That's why I wanted to
just say, you know, for me,
this chart is a little bit
maybe doesn't represent the
things that we can control
entirely. Okay. Thank you.
>> So on the Sdcs, once again,
this is not the same data set.
You can see the list of
communities here were, I think
were the biggest communities.
So, so but this is the data
that we have available. Like I
said, we have you can see the
last bullet there. Full SDC
analysis with benchmark is
underway. We really want to get
a more representative sample of
communities. But you can see
here that on the SDC side, we
we actually stack up really
well right now compared to the
communities shown on this.
Smaller communities, a lot of
times end up having to charge
more on a per unit basis just
because the developments are
smaller and there's kind of a
fixed operating cost and
different, different functions.
We also don't charge stormwater
SDC. So there's other
communities that do so. So
there's a there's room within
this comparison for for us to
add on on the SDC side. But but
but and the ultimate analysis
is to bring these two together
and look at it. The full impact
of impact fees. SDC and compare
it against a representative
group. And and that's what we'd
like to do, as I mentioned. And
this is we can we can send this
around to you and make this
available. But we did get
numbers from Eco Northwest just
at the end of last week. And it
and it. And this one looked at
primarily Oregon communities,
Beaverton, Gresham, Hillsboro
and Portland. And it also added
Camas and Olympia. And and once
again, looking at multifamily
development across two
different development scenarios.
112 unit, 150 unit, we ended up
with the lowest total fees. So
that's everything. Impact fees,
sdcs and other fees
substantially lower than, than,
than communities like Beaverton.
Hillsboro and Camas. They're on
the high end, but substantially
lower than Portland as well. So
when, you know, I think once
again, I think this is meant to
show that we are in a
competitive position right now,
but probably given the the full
scope of investment that needs
to be made, probably on the low
side. And there's room for us
to, to add to our fees, but we
want to end up in a place that
is for however we want to. And
we want your feedback on this,
whatever you want to aim for,
whether it's to be right in the
average or to keep it as a
percentage of development cost
or some metric, we want to aim
to be in that in that middle
ground so that we can still
have an attractive development
environment here. And so happy
to come back to this. As part
of the conversation, I've kind
of covered the next slide,
which is, you know, the, the
impacts of new development, but
it's, it's really kind of the,
the other part of this
conversation, which is any
increase in fees, even if from
our low state will impact
development negatively, it's,
it'll just add costs to new
development. And given the
given the current environment,
it makes fewer projects pencil
or. It makes projects harder to
pencil, particularly in an
environment that we've shared
with you in previous
presentations where, you know,
rents are relatively flat from
a, from a, an absolute
perspective and material costs
are going up, cost of, you know,
interest rates. So it really
will have an impact on that.
The, as we've shown you,
smaller projects are impacted
more by increases than larger
projects. And so as we enter a
period with our adoption of our
comp plan, where we believe
there's a big opportunity now
for middle housing, any
increase in fees will hit
middle housing harder than than
our bigger projects, bigger
projects that just have. They
can spread the cost out over
more units. So something for us
to be cognizant of. And, and
then, you know, the, the
ultimate thing is we want it.
If we're trying to add, trying
to collect more revenue to fund
more, more infrastructure
investment, we want to
obviously have, we want to grow
revenue. So if development
slows down because of this,
then we're obviously not we're
not increasing investment. So
this is this is really the
conversation we want to have
with you. Steve's going to
going to take it from here. But
you know, we have these two
objectives that in some
respects can be in conflict
with each other. And and we
have to figure out how to
balance these two.
>> Thanks, Patrick. Steve Wahl
again, Public works Director.
And the good part is that we do
have a number of tools
available to us. And so, you
know, we've just lined out a
few on slide 13 here. You know,
I think the one thing to
understand maybe as we look at
this is that impact fees and,
and system development charges,
they're calculations are fairly
complicated. But ultimately
what we determine when we do
the calculation is typically
called a maximum defensible
amount, which is really, you
know, a fancy way to say follow
the the state legislation,
right? The R, C, W s. And oh,
by the way, there's some case
law out there through the years
that actually provides a lot of
guidance on this topic as well.
And so stay within those bounds.
And you come up with this
maximum number. The good part
is you, we don't need to adopt
the maximum defensible number,
right? That's just given the
top end of our limit. And there
isn't anything that says that,
you know, we can't as this
slide says, you can't have an
overall cap or that you can't
increase or phase increases in
fees over time, or that you
can't, you know, hit the pause
button and say, oh, man, the
market conditions are just not
right. We don't feel
comfortable. We're going to hit
the pause button for a year,
and we're going to pick it back
up next year, or we'll
reevaluate the year after and
see what see what happens. So
those are the types of tools as
far as the implementation side
that are actually available for
council. And and this is, you
know, very good policy
discussion for all councils in
general, just trying to find
the right balance. And the
other thing that is available
to us are, you know, discounts
and exemptions. And again,
those allowed by statute. So
there are types of development.
There's some more recent
specific legislation that talks
about affordable housing, child
care, transit oriented
development. You know, if
you're in the transit oriented
development, if you're near,
you know, mass transit areas
that can allow for exemptions
or require exemptions,
depending on the scenario. Same
thing with child care. So there
are those discounts and
exemptions. And I think Patrick
mentioned earlier, there's also
credits and other things that
we can get creative with a
little bit. If there are
participation by the
development community at the
right level. But overall, this,
you know, really the key, like
we've mentioned, probably 2 or
3 times already is just ideally
finding a balance between the
potential impacts that
development has on the system
and not totally stalling
development and still being
able to fund the necessary
infrastructure projects. So
again, it's, you know, can we
get enough development in the
door to keep things rolling and
not charge them too much, but
charge them enough that we can
fund all the infrastructure
that we have? And as we talked,
right, that that can be tricky
sometimes. But again, we do
have tools available. And then
just briefly, we've talked
about most of this, I think
already as far as the timelines
and what we're working on, I,
you know, this is I think
hypothetical is probably a good
word for this. You know, some
of these conversations, even
after we're done with the
analysis and we bring in the
council, can take a little bit
of time because they can be
challenging. So I think
recognizing that and then the
fact that we we're just now
kicking off our water and sewer
system development charge
analysis and the discussion on
the review and inspection fees.
And so, you know, ideally third
quarter next year or so, we
might be ready. But sometimes
those take some time to get
through. We have the commercial
park impact fee review and the
parks plan discussion that that
Dave's team is leading. Also
thinking maybe that's the end
of 2027. And so we're doing our
best to tie all of these
together, right? And keep this
broader conversation in mind as
we're bringing it to council.
And, you know, suggest or make
council aware of the various
tools that are out there to be
able to have a good
conversation and, and
understand that this is really
revolving, I think a quick
conversation with Council
Member Stober before the
meeting, just talking about,
you know, it's great if you
could get all of these fees and
all of these plans aligned and
have the conversation at one
time so that you know exactly
what the impacts are at that
given point. And in a couple of
decades plus of doing this work,
I have never yet seen that
happen. And so, right, we just
understand that it's a
revolving discussion and we
need to be wary of, of where
we're at at any given time and
just, you know, have that
complete understanding and
again, find the balance. So
with that, I'm going to pause
there and let Chad take it. Yep.
All right.
>> And last slide. Steve
covered some of this. But quick
correction on this slide. We
were planning on a workshop
with you to talk about the Tiff
updates in October. We had to
move that into December because
of some scheduling conflicts.
So but we are still hoping to
keep that discussion on track
for completion in Q3 of 2027.
Similarly, we'll have a
discussion with you next year
on the park impact fees
wrapping up in Q3, and then
water and sewer sdcs same
timeline. And then we have a
whole new topic, which is
engineering plan review and
construction inspection fees,
Q3 2027. So a lot of work yet
to do. This was meant to be
just sort of an orientation to
the fees and, and to get you
thinking about how we can try
to find that appropriate
balance. And I think at this
point, I'll invite Dave Perlick
up in case there are parks
questions. Mayor, back to you.
>> Okay, counselors, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor.
>> Taking a look at slide 11.
>> Your favorite Patrick, you
wanted to go back to this one.
So looking at some of those
cities or towns or counties
that are extremely small, even
Spokane in Everett, Bellingham.
Tacoma, I wouldn't even count
Olympia. Olympia is where
development goes to die. And
for the reason being, there's
nothing happening in Olympia.
It's a seasonal town. So in
Great city too, don't get me
wrong. Very nice people up
there. Which leads to the
second part to this though, is
this even the right way of
doing it? And no offense, Chad,
but this looks like a lot of
the thinking of a planner. Now,
the thinking of a developer
might be a little bit different.
>> No offense taken.
>> Good good good good. Because
the thinking of a developer is
I wouldn't even compare myself
to these folks. I would be
comparing myself to where I'm
going. And that's going to be
Idaho. That's going to be Boise.
That's going to be Coeur
d'Alene. It's going to be
Montana in places like that,
because a developer is going to
go where they can get land,
they can get financing, and
they can. And that's a good
question. Are there impact fees?
I don't know, but I think that
would be a great comparison
because that's what's happening
right now. Folks are packing up.
They're not they're not saying,
how can I go to go to a
different part of Washington
and get more of the same? And
also, when it comes to the
financing, these folks are
needing to get financing for
their projects. And when you go
to somebody for financing,
they're like, well, do you want
to do it there where you're
going to have all of these
issues anyways? Third question
I ask this all the time when it
comes here, but I'm going to
get you guys off the hook just
a little bit here because
you've done a fantastic job of
saying, how can we make this
happen with development? And I
know you're doing everything
you can. There are other
factors out there, other
discussions that we are having,
whether it be climate framework,
whether it be affordable
housing, whether it be all the
other ordinances that go on
that somewhat work against what
you're trying to do. So it
would be great to see all of
you together to say, this is
the goal and we want to achieve
this goal, but how are we going
to do that? If, on one hand,
we're looking at raising
something and on the other hand,
we're looking at lowering, it's
going to equal the same thing,
which. Lisa, I'm sorry I'm so
long winded to my final point.
And that is how does this help
affordable housing?
>> Yeah. So we will we'll
definitely going to try and
find better comps for future
conversations. So we fully
recognize that. And this is
what we had at hand. I do think
that there's as Steve mentioned,
there are tools, I think like
the affordable housing is a, is
a statutorily allowed carve out.
I think solving for other
development is the bigger
challenge because we know we
can exempt those projects. So
that's part we want to come
back is how do we define the
exemptions and, and whatnot?
You know, there's, there's
other jurisdictions, other
states have different ways of
funding public. Right? So, so
sometimes it's hard to even
compare, you know, some states
have different property tax
framework, right? And so they
fund things with property taxes
that we don't. So there's,
there's lots of issues
comparing across state lines,
but we'll try and bring some
comps in and, and bring those
into the conversation.
>> I'm sure if you go to some
developers, they have an
excellent tool for comparing
across state lines because
that's their business of how do
we do this? But thank you. Yeah.
It's a.
>> Thank you, mayor. Thanks for
the teaser. I guess, for lack
of a better word. So my first
question, Chad, you I actually
did follow your explanation
about why the cap was raised.
My question is this. Once the
building fund has been
replenished and is funded for
18 months, would you consider
lowering that cap?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And where are we in
that cycle, so to speak?
>> We just increased it to ten.
So we haven't really seen the
building fund being replenished.
It's only been a few months. No,
it was 2024. So given the
development cycle that we're in
right now, we just have not
seen much being put back into
the building fund.
>> And how often do you
reevaluate that?
>> Every couple of years.
>> Okay. Thank you. Just a few
things that I took out of the
conversation that I think are
worth reinforcing. It costs
money to live in a nice place,
having infrastructure and the
kinds of infrastructure that
you're describing, whether it
be roads that we fund in part
with traffic impact fees,
whether it be parks, which we
fund in part with park impact
fees, and all of the other
amenities that our community
enjoys. And we just had a
community survey where people
told us what they're looking
for in the community. And a lot
of it has to do with the
infrastructure that we fund,
with the kinds of fees that
we're talking about here. So I
think it's important to keep
that in mind. I also, it occurs
to me that although you didn't
mention this, you mentioned,
Patrick, that our traffic
impact fees are low on the
slide that the mayor pro tem
asked you about. But what you
didn't mention in that slide.
But what is evident in that
slide is that our park impact
fees are actually high compared
to that statewide median. And
so I think that's an important
part of the conversation here,
especially in light of the fact
that we have a parallel
conversation happening about a
regional park funding strategy.
And so this is not happening in
a vacuum. And we need to
understand what that
conversation might lead to,
together with what our funding,
our impact fees are looking
like. You know, I think a
little bit related to
Councilmember Hansen's point a
second ago, when we're making
comparisons to
>> To other jurisdictions.
>> They may.
>> Or may not have the same
needs that we have. So I think
that's a really important lens
with which to look at these
types of conversations. Just
because someplace else is
charging more than we are
doesn't mean we should charge
more. It should always tie back
to what our needs are and how
can we fund those needs. And
then I think that ties to my
last point, which is tying what
we're doing to outcomes. And I
mentioned this a second ago. So,
you know, our residents have
given us very clear direction
on what it is they're looking
for from city leadership in
terms of delivering outcomes,
whether it be safety, whether
it be infrastructure, streets,
parks, and other things. And so
when we talk about where our
fees are and where our fees
might go, I think it's
important that we continually
and repeatedly tie those to
those outcomes to say, this is
where our fee is now and at
this fee level played out over
maybe a decade or two, this is
how it will affect our service
levels, whether it be streets,
parks, what have you. And then
here's the proposed change. And
here's the the outcome that
we're aspiring to, and not just
a list of projects necessarily.
No offense, Steve, but really
more about quality of life.
Like, you know, we're going to
have roads that work and parks
in all parts of the city that
people can enjoy and trails and
those kinds of things. So
because oftentimes when we're
having these conversations, it
can get a little bit too
theoretical. And I think it's
important, especially with this
conversation and the
sensitivity around fees and all
the ramifications of fee
changes that we have that we we
tie to those outcomes. Thank
you, mayor.
>> Thank you, Councilor Stuber.
>> Thank you, mayor, and I'm
glad we're having the
conversation. And for
clarification. So multiple
times during my tenure on
council, we have been presented
with fee increases where fees
had not been reviewed for a
long time. And so we're faced
with a situation where we're
being asked to make these huge
increases in fees all at once,
and that is. That sucks, right?
That just really sucks. And and,
and it's happened. I've had
that experience too many times
over the years. Right? So it's
not a matter of everything
lining up. It's that everything
is being reviewed on a
consistent basis. And we're in
some areas in all of this. So
one, I'm glad that this is
happening as a group discussion
and not as one off discussions,
but some areas there are bigger
jumps than, than other areas.
And so implementation scenarios
have been put out. I am not
personally I'm not interested
in a would not do anything and
wait and see what the market
does, because those are the
kinds of scenarios that, that
we've been in, in the past
where we where consciously or
unconsciously forgotten
decisions about that were made.
And then nobody bothered to go
back and reevaluate for a long
time. And so for me, I'm much
more interested in making
breaking up the, the increases
over a number of years and not
I'm not interested in big jumps,
but what's the gradual, what's
the runway that gets us where
we need to be? I agree, I agree
that the list of comps has been
noted is not the right list of
comps. Looking forward to
seeing a different list of
comps, and I think it's a good
suggestion to be looking
outside of the not just the
state of Washington and the
metro area, but for further
afield. There was a point.
Council Member Paulson made,
and I can't remember what it is
right now, but I agreed with
him, whatever it was, in his
brilliant, brilliant idea. So
yeah, so that's, that's the,
the big concern is, is that we
are making sure that we're
reviewing this on a continual
basis so that we're not
surprising the, the community
around when, with, with
surprises that, oh, okay, we're
increasing things 50% over what
they were before. So those are
my comments for now. Thank you.
>> Councilor Harless. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Yeah. Just a
couple of comments. I know that
we've been doing a lot of work
with affordable housing on
streamlining and, you know,
revolving loan funds and
financing assistance and other
ways to get projects going. And
I know that there was some
interest also on looking into
that for other projects as well,
especially when it came to
permit fee collection timelines.
So, you know, that collection
near the end of the of the
whole process instead of that,
you know, developers needing
that initial capital for the
fee. So I know that that's
something that there's interest
for. And, you know,
conversations that I've had,
you know, over the last several
years, it's really, you know,
it's such a small percentage of
the overall cost and where we
can make up for that when we
need. And there's an
understanding that we need to,
the city needs to charge for
what it costs us. I think that
there's a basic understanding
of that, and where we can make
up for those increases is
increasing in fees. Is that
predictability and streamlining.
So the more that we can
continue to improve, you know,
I hear we're still better than
Clark County, a lot of other
areas. So that's always really
good. But we can always be
better. And because that every
delay, every circling back, you
know, having to go over
different over and over again,
that all adds to the timeline.
And, you know, financing and
construction costs are very
much like one of the biggest
bottlenecks right now. It's not
us. And so I just wanted to
make that comment, and I agree
with Council member Pro Tem Fox,
but I wanted to add, let's just
take schools completely out of
there, because otherwise, if
we're keeping schools when
we're looking at these things,
we might as well add
construction costs. We might as
well add all these other things.
So anything that's out of our
control is just take it out of
the equation so we can truly
analyze like our impact. Sorry.
Council Member Paulson already
mentioned about the parks. And
then one thing that, you know,
I agree with a lot of what's
been said, but one thing I did
take away from this, though,
probably isn't what you
intended, but I, you know, and
maybe it's my bias of the love
of the city, but I'd like to
think that we have a lot of
folks, developers wanting to be
in the city because it's a
desirable location, so you can
build out in the middle of
nowhere. But if you can't get a
commercial tenant and you can't
get residential tenants, then
it's worthless. It's so we are
a desirable area. And so I
don't want to say these other
regions are less desirable, but
it's interesting to look at it
that way, that our fees are so
much lower despite being a
growing community where more
commercial, more residential is
definitely desired. And so I
just wanted to add that to that.
And so yeah, just comments. No,
no particular questions, but
thank you for what you've put
together. And I look forward to
seeing that eco northwest
analysis that came in.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you for bringing this
to our attention. And the
tickler, as someone mentioned
earlier, a couple of things.
Just one quick question. Were
any of these fees that you're
proposing? Were they ever in
place before? So for the city.
>> So these these are the
proposed or the potential
changes. So. The first the
first traffic impact fees we
currently charges would be.
>> Oh, I'm sorry, this would
this would be an update to the
rate. So it would potentially
increase. Same thing is true
with water and sewer Sdcs. A
park impact fee for commercial
and industrial development
would be a new fee. So
currently commercial industrial
projects don't pay that. So
that would be a new fee. The
addition engineering review fee.
>> So just to to clarify my
question, did we have a fee
that we decided to not do any
more, for example the school
impact fees. We decided not to
do that. So in the past, was
there a fee that we said were
no longer going to do or we
paused or we stopped, and now
we're revisiting.
>> I, I mean, I mean, just the
school impact fee went away
because they did not have a
capital investment plan. So
they, they were not planning on
making any more capital
investments. So they weren't
legally allowed to charge an
SDC anymore. So then that's
when we then removed it from
our. So I don't know that we've
had a situation like that.
>> No. We have paused applying
the CPI for. Let's see, I think
Covid was a period where we did
not implement a CPI increase. I
think we're we're back to
applying the CPI for our
different fees, but I'm not
aware of any fees that we no
longer implement.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then on
your implementation scenarios
on slide 13, whatever we decide
as a city council, I'm thinking
about that. The actual
immediate implementation and
thinking of, you know, a phased
in approach. But what about a
thoughtful approach of
deferring some of the fees
until like, for example,
certifying occupancy?
>> We already have that.
>> So right now we do. So you
city Council approved a
deferral of impact fees and
sdcs it until right before
occupancy. Essentially, it's
before the issuance of the
temporary certificate of
occupancy. So we we have that
in place. So they don't they
don't projects don't pay these
fees. The the impact fees and
sdcs until fairly late in the
construction process now.
>> Okay. All right. So again,
whatever we decide, you know,
there's this like immediate
boom impact and there is going
to be some need to mitigate. So
I'm, I'm wanting to have this
conversation of what are those
mitigations? So I'm hoping to
that will be part of the
conversation and to also sit
with the community, the
development community, to get
input on these different
scenarios. I'd be curious to
see want to make sure that they
chime in on that.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> Yeah, thankfully, my fellow
council members have
highlighted a lot of my similar
thoughts on some of the the fee
changes, but one of the
questions I had kind of coming
into this conversation was some
of the preemptions from the
state on us collecting fees on
affordable housing and
collecting fees on transfer Tod
developments and knowing that,
you know, perhaps they're not a
huge proportion of our new
development right now, but just
wondering, you know, what that
looks like given the very big,
I guess, beginning slide that
we had that said, we charge
impact fees because we want new
developments to pay pay their
way. We want those impacts to
be paid by new development and
not by our taxpayers. And so
the state seems to give them
away like lottery tickets, you
know, and I wonder, and I kind
of if, you know, this next
legislative session comes up
and they're going to expand
some more, hey, cities, just do
all these things for free and,
and, and cover all of these
impacts with this new
development for free, because
it's easy to give away
something that they, you know,
that doesn't impact them
directly. Right? And so just
wondering if we could have a
little bit of analysis, not a
full blown, you know, 80 page
report, but of what that could
look like, what that looks like
to our bottom line, knowing
that as a city kind of building
upon what council member
Harless said is, you know, we
have we have a lot of unique
things that we do here at the
city of Vancouver that we're
proud of. You know, we're proud
of the fact that we hire and
entice, you know, talented
staff to join our teams. We are
proud about our turnaround on
permit times compared to the
review of permit times of some
of our adjacent cities. We're
proud of, you know, a lot of
things that when compared to,
you know, Portland, Gresham,
you know, other cities, the
kind of services we provide
here. And so we have an
opportunity to share more of
that. But also it costs money
to do those things. And so just
wondering, you know, again, if
I was to give a testimony or a
message back to the state next
session, when they are waving
their wand that we'd say, hey,
you know, we, we need these
funds, we need these fees to
pay for the impacts to our
communities. There might be
other ways to entice or to
support these development types
that the state wants to see.
And even we as a community want
to see that it might not just
be a wholesale waiver.
>> Yeah. Appreciate the
comments. I can say that on the
traffic impact fee, where we're
farther along, we have had some
of those conversations, and I
think Kate's in the room
nodding her head. Yes. So
that's helpful. And so I, you
know, my suspicion would be as
we look at these individual
fees moving forward, we can
bring that information back.
And we have had that bigger
picture conversation at a staff
level as we're trying to work
through this, which is the
money has to come from
somewhere, right? And so that's
always the challenge, is that
if it's not the development
community, generally speaking,
then it's on the back end,
right? And it's the residents
through and businesses through
taxes and other means. And so
again, it's trying to find that
balance right in the trade off
of do you charge it up front,
you charge it on the back, or
do you do some kind of
combination thereof? So I think
we should be able to bring some
good data forward.
>> Our current residents end up
paying the bill. Yeah, yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you so very much.
>> One more.
>> Real quick.
>> Real quick. Thank you.
>> Steve. We're talking about
$300 million for PFAs. PFAs is
a way bigger deal to me. So is
this a matter of where we are
looking to maybe bring on some
debt, get this $300 million
solved and then backfill it
with Sdcs?
>> Yes, definitely. That size
of a program and the timelines
that we're trying to to figure
out that is certainly one of
the strategies we do have the
municipal finance advisor on
board that is helping us
through that. And I think there
should be more information
coming to council in the very
near future on some of those
strategies, not just PFAs, but
other large projects that the
city has.
>> So PFAs is, at least to me,
it's a big deal. So I really
appreciate hearing that. Thank
you.
>> All right. Thank you.
Councilors. We have two more
workshops. We're way over. Our
time. Gabe. Gabe, can you do it
in less time?
>> We'll give it a college try.
>> Bless your heart. Thank you
so much, councilors. Gabe is
going to work with us on the
parking cleanup. And then we
also have boards and commission
fall recruitment with joy. So
let's see if we can get it done
in a short amount of time.
Thank you Gabe. Go ahead.
>> Of course. Thank you,
Council and mayor. My name is
Gabriel Montes. I'm the parking
district manager. Today we are
going to discuss some parking
code updates to our title 19.
Once it's on, no problem, no
problem. I'm joined by my
colleague Tyler Lund. He is our
parking project coordinator,
and he'll talk a little bit
about our Scofflaw program, our
proposed Scofflaw program as
well. Okay.
>> Gabe, let's pretend it's
there. Keep going.
>> Okay, great. So title 19
code update. This is the third
iteration, I believe, of a code
update that the council has
seen. And so we plan to come
back to you regularly with code
updates, but you will today
we'll talk about the title 19
overall updates, which include
our gendered language updates
also include outdated outdated
language. So language that no
longer applies to our system or
our operation. And then we'll
also also talk about policy
updates, which include the
Scofflaw proposal, as well as
some fine updates. And then
lastly, we'll have a few
moments to talk about next
steps. So once it's up on the
board, you'll see that we broke
it down into three categories.
The first category is the
gendered and payment language.
Again, we replaced a lot of his
or her language with there just
to align with our city values.
And then we also updated a lot
of our payment language. So we
removed things like parking
meters that we no longer use,
and we replaced it with payment
collection device that is more
reflective of how we operate
now moving forward. And so we
just wanted to update that
language. The second column is
related to other other language,
just outdated old language
things that no longer are, are
relevant to our code that are
no longer relevant or don't
really make a change to the
content. But there were small
things like a few typos. I
believe there was one that
listed property instead of
properly, which is something
that we wanted to correct. And
so there's a few other small
changes. But again, the middle
column is related to mostly
language that is no longer
needed or just needs to be
updated. But again, they still
reflect kind of the, the, the
intention of the code. And then
the last column is our
operational and policy updates.
So this is where we'll spend
most of our time today. There
are certain things in there
like flexibility around permits.
So we made a few changes to our
permits to reflect some of the
changes that we want to make
moving forward. A lot of the
language was related to
physical permits and how they
were supposed to be displayed
in the window, and so we wanted
to make some changes to that.
Think about how we are going to
digitize and kind of update our
system moving forward. And so
that's one example. We also
have a few other examples like
rates, which we'll talk about
here in just a moment. And then
there's other a few other small
ones, like the addition of a
parking division to be able to
install signs. So small things
like that. Most of the, the
operational changes are in that
last column. So this slide here
is an example of some of the
gendered language. So you see
in bullet point A, we replace
his or her with their. And you
can see that in multiple
examples throughout this code.
But you could also see in
section D, we also updated the
parking meters to payment
collection device. Again, it
just reflects our current
operation and how we do things
in our operation currently.
This next slide is our slide of
our proposed fines. As you see
here, we have not updated our
fines since 2017. And so on the
top row here we have our
proposed fines. The second row
we have our current fines. And
then the the rows below it are
comparisons to other cities.
You see in the payment overtime
column. We are looking to
increase it to $40 from the
current $25. And one thing to
note about that is that our
rate at the waterfront is $3.25.
With the ten hour time stay,
that's roughly 3250. Our
current citation for non
payment is $25. And so it's
well under the ten hour.
Equation that we ran. And one
thing to note here is we did
present the package of code
updates to the parking advisory
committee. They they approved
it unanimously or in support of
it. But there was one anecdote
that came of that where one of
the committee members actually
referenced a time where he was
at the waterfront, and he
overheard a conversation from
an employee that was parking
right in front of the business.
And he he overheard the
conversation where the employee
mentioned that he parks in
front of the business daily or
every time he comes to work,
and it's because the fee is so
minimal and the cadence in
which he receives citation, it
actually makes more financial
sense for him to, to park in
front of the business and
receive the citation versus
actually paying the hourly rate.
So we thought that was an
interesting anecdote that one
of our council members or
committee members brought up.
So that was a part of our
motivation as to why we wanted
to increase the rates to, to
better align with our hourly
rate, but also to, to, to keep.
Also, it's been hasn't been
updated since 2017. So it was
about time for us to review
those, those rates. The second
column here is improper parking.
And so just for a little
context, improper parking are
things that we consider that do
not disrupt the flow of traffic
or do not cause any pedestrian
issues. So there could be
things like somebody's parking
outside of their stall, maybe
parking in two stalls or minor
things like that that do not,
or maybe parking in a loading
zone, right, where it doesn't
impact the flow of traffic. But
there is a fine associated the
prohibited parking are
citations that do prohibit
folks from using the, the
transportation network as a
whole, meaning that they can be
blocking traffic or they're
parking in a fire lane or too
close to a crosswalk or a stop
sign. So I just wanted to lay
out that distinction of the
improper parking versus the
prohibited parking. And then
lastly, the last column there
you see is the improper license
plate. And so we are looking to
increase it to $65. And it is
related to our proposed
Scofflaw program, which Tyler
will talk a little bit about
here in a moment. But one of
the things I wanted to note
about this comparison is that
you can see some of the
emphasis of each of the cities
and what, what they are really,
what their operation is focused
on. And so as you see here, a
lot of our focus is turnover
and making sure that we have
equitable access to the curb
and that we are better to
manage, better able to manage
our curbs. So we put a lot of
emphasis on our payment, as
well as the prohibited parking,
as well as the improper license
plate, which, like I said,
Tyler will talk here about in a
moment. And if there's no
questions now, I'll pass it
along to Tyler.
>> Keep going.
>> You're the Scofflaw.
>> Yep.
>> Thank you. Gabe Tyler Lund,
parking project coordinator.
Along the similar lines of what
Gabe just shared with you, if
you've ever had a conversation
about parking enforcement
downtown or citations, you may
have heard something along the
lines of, I just don't pay
those. We've heard feedback on
that before, and we definitely
hear it as part of our everyday
work, both in the field and
working with customers on
appeals, those kinds of things.
And the response is always the
same. You just let them know
that that's their choice.
There's a 30 day appeal period,
which expires, and at the end
of that, there's a late fee
that gets applied if a citation
isn't responded to. The reality
is that those kinds of
interactions highlight a series
of small but cumulatively
significant gaps in the parking
enforcement system as it
currently exists, and that
those gaps allow a relatively
small group of vehicles. We'll
see. It's about 2% to abuse the
system and to some degree,
ignore parking regulations on
the street. And that's part of
what this program is, as
proposed, is designed to
address. And just before I move
on, this is showing some of the
benefits that a program would
have. But the gaps specifically
that we're talking about here
are that there's a lack of
accountability for vehicles
with multiple parking citations,
both in state and out of state.
And there's an equal authority
to enforce vehicles that are
registered in the state of
Washington versus those that
are unregistered or which are
coming from other states. And
the third is that there are
limited options that the
department and parking
enforcement officers have to
address vehicles that can't be
recognized or that are
unregistered entirely. A
scofflaw refers to a person, or
in our case, a vehicle which
habitually and contemptuously
breaks the law without concern
for the consequences. For the
purposes of this program, we've
chosen to define that further
as a vehicle that has four or
more citations that have gone
unaddressed by either payment
or appeal for more than 45 days.
And excuse me, when talking
about the Scofflaw program,
it's easy to focus on the
headliners of immobilization
devices or impoundment being
added as enforcement tools. And
those are two of the portions.
But when we talk about the
program, it's including every
step that happens from the
moment a vehicle reaches that
threshold and is added to
what's called the Scofflaw list,
and then all of the steps it
follows after that. So there's
three additional notice steps,
both physical and mail, as well
as payment plans and amnesty
program and appeal processes
for due process throughout the
course of the program. Without
these additional steps, the
current authority for parking
enforcement officers comes from
three main codes. The first is
CW4616A120, which prohibits the
renewal of a registration for a
vehicle registered in
Washington. If there's any
outstanding parking violations.
So what happens with that is we
communicate with the state DOL
and they put a hold on that
registration until those fines
have been addressed. And just
to clarify, that only applies
for Washington residents or
vehicles registered in
Washington. The second code is
CW4655113, which allows for the
impoundment of a vehicle that
has a registration of expired
for more than 45 days, and that
is equally applied to vehicles
that are registered in any
state. But it's particularly
memorable or particularly
applies to Washington residents
as well. Because of the
previous code, those two work
together. And then the third is
the most ubiquitous one. It
comes from our city code, VMC
1913080, and provides for other
monetary policy penalties
provided by law, including but
not limited to referral to a
collections agency, which is
currently part of our process.
Outside of these steps, no
additional enforcement options
are available to address
outstanding citations or fines
associated with any vehicle,
but particularly out of state
or unregistered or no plate
vehicles. Vehicles in these two
groups account for 47% of all
of our unpaid fines, which
we'll go into a little bit more
in the next couple slides. This
chart is a comparison of the
fines that have been issued for
parking violations versus those
that have been addressed by the
recipient, by either appeal or
payment. A couple of things to
note on here is the increasing
ratio from 2024 onward until
the current year, 2026 is
estimated. And we believe
there's multiple factors that
play into that. But two of the
big ones are a change in
enforcement focus that has
emphasized a emphasized a focus
on education rather than
penalizing, which means that in
practice, first time violators
more frequently receive
warnings without a fine amount
attached, which by proxy means
that if a fine amount is
attached to a citation, it's
more likely to be given to a
vehicle that's a repeat
offender. And based on our
study, that means they're less
likely to address it. The
second thing to take into
account here is that prior to
2024, those citations have been
part of a program that exists
internally that voids those
citations. If an owner is
unable to be found after two
years. So it looks like there's
a steep drop off prior to 2024.
But that's just a big portion
of that is because in 2022 and
2023, those citations have
already been voided and reduced
to zero versus that process is
still happening for 2024. It
doesn't mean the citations were
successfully addressed or paid
off. They're just part of the
write off process for our
department. A few more
statistics on the scope of what
we're talking about here for
our study period of 2022 to
2026, 1110 vehicles would have
qualified as Scofflaw, meaning
that for citation 45 day
threshold, those vehicles
account for less than 2% of all
the cited vehicles that have
visited downtown, and 15% of
all vehicles that have
outstanding citations and fines.
Despite being a small
percentage, less than 2% of
those vehicles. That group
accounts for 62% of our
delinquent fines and fees that
come from parking citations.
Another measurement just on
that, it's not on the slide,
but there are 379 vehicles in
that period that have ten or
more outstanding citations.
Those vehicles have more
delinquent citations and fines
than the 85% of vehicles that
don't meet the threshold for a
scofflaw. This breaks down.
This breaks down that number a
little further. As I said
earlier, we believe that one of
the reasons for the discrepancy
in payment is unequal authority
to enforce in-state Washington
registered vehicles versus
out-of-state, out of state or
unregistered vehicles. We
believe that between 65 and 70%
of the vehicles visiting
downtown Vancouver are
Washington registered based on
both payment information. When
you put your license plate in
to make your parking payment,
as well as which state the
license plate is registered in,
when that fine or when that
citation is issued. As you can
see on the left here, 65% of
citations are issued to
vehicles registered in
Washington, and the remainder
35% is registered to out of
state or no registration
vehicles. The second chart digs
a little deeper into that. This
is unpaid citations. And here
is where you can start to see
the out of state or
unregistered vehicles make up a
disproportionate amount of the
fines due. Washington
registered vehicles only
account for 53% of unpaid
citations versus the 47%. Those
other two groups make up. And
as Gabe mentioned earlier, we
consider prohibited parking and
license plate violations to be
some of our more significant or
severe citations because
prohibited parking specifically
addresses violations that have
to do with public safety or the
flow of traffic or parking in
places you shouldn't be
essentially. Right. And here we
see that those out of state and
missing plate vehicles again,
make up a disproportionate
amount of the fines that are
outstanding. And in fact, a
majority at 53% of those. And
we believe that in addition to
a couple other factors that the
big a big motivator behind this
is that disproportionate
authority we have based on the
state law to enforce in-state
registered vehicles versus
those coming from Oregon or
another state. Another common
issue that we see out on the
street parking enforcement
officers see out on the street
is vehicles that are unable to
be identified. These are
vehicles that have no license
plate and have either obscured
their vehicle identification
number, VIN, or defaced it by
scraping it off or removing it.
Because these vehicles can't be
identified, officers can only
write a citation if they have
either a license plate or a VIN
number. So these vehicles are
essentially for parking
enforcement purposes, immune to
the system. They're unable to
be addressed without outside of
a limited system, which
currently involves taking a
picture to address the issue
and forwarding that information
on to the Vancouver Police
Department, who can address it
and investigate based on their
availability and workload. And
one more thing to note, because
these can't be written
citations, these vehicles don't
appear in any of the previous
data we talked about. They'd be
a third separate group in
addition to that unregistered
vehicle, which is where we were
able to get either a license
plate or VIN number. It just
wasn't registered to an owner.
When designing the Scofflaw
program and doing our research,
we compared to various cities
both across Washington and
including a couple in the
northern Oregon area. As you
can see, based on this
comparison chart, we decided to
go with the most common
appearing threshold, which is
that for citations unpaid over
45 days, and then a towing
threshold of 48 hours. We did
that both based on that, these
are tried and tested systems
that have been successful thus
far, but also because it
strikes a good balance between
providing enough time for the
owner of a vehicle or the
driver of a vehicle to address
that growing issue, to get in
contact with us without giving
too much time and letting the
problem build out of control
for that person. And then
finally, this is a chart of
what the Scofflaw program would
look like from beginning to end.
As you can see, there's 15 a
minimum of 15 notices and 62
days that would be required to
pass before that final step,
which is impound. And as part
of the system, the
immobilization and impound
options are reserved right
there at the end, when every
other option has been has
passed. All of the notices have
been ignored, and there's no
other tools left available to
address the growing concern
with the vehicle. When I talk
about notifications, those are
both physical and in mail.
Currently, for every citation
you get, you get physical
notice on your car and two
mailed notices letting you know
about the payment required and
the appeal options. As part of
the Scofflaw system. There
would be those three new ones,
which are both physical and
notice as well, as well as a
minimum additional 15 days to
allow for response from a
customer. And then as part of
this, there are also appeal and
payment options available at
every step of the way to help
ease that addressing of the
issue. And then I'm going to
pass it back on to Gabe for
next steps.
>> Thank you. Tyler Gabriel
parking District manager again.
So as you see here, our next
steps are to come to council on
October 5th for a consent
agenda to be on a consent
agenda. And then from there we
will have a public hearing on
October 12th. If everything
goes well, we will move on to
our project or program set up
in Q1 of 27. From there, we
will begin our public outreach
and education in Q2 and Q3, and
then we will move into an
amnesty program, and our
amnesty program will remove
fees from from all outstanding
citations. And we will allow
folks to pay the face value of
the citation for any
outstanding citations. So again,
we will have roughly three
months of an amnesty program to
encourage folks to come work
with the city, pay the face
value of any outstanding
citation, and hopefully not be
put on a scofflaw list after
that. And then lastly, we the
program will take effect in Q4
of 27. If all goes well.
>> Okay.
>> Councilors, I gave us up to
time. Do you have any actual
pressing question? Because we
do have three weeks before this
comes to consent, Counselor Fox.
>> Well, I'd say my most
pressing question is in looking
at these other scofflaw
programs, what is the
percentage of recovery on these
fines based on this program? So
once it goes into effect, what
are we expecting?
>> That is a good question. I
don't know that we have that
information, but we can try to
find that out for you. I can
tell you that currently when a
vehicle goes into a collections
or collections process, we
recover 35%, 33%. So it's not
very high when it's in the
collections process now, but we
can get that information for
you about some projected
numbers.
>> And what is the cost that
the person has to pay, in
addition to the fines to get
their cars back from being
impounded.
>> They would have to pay a
towing fee. And that may vary
depending on on the towing
company, but they would have to
pay a towing fee in most cases,
there is a increased there's an
additional fine after 30 days
of somebody paying. If you
don't pay your citation and the
citation will will incur
another $25 fee. There will
also likely be a boot fee
because it does cost us to
actually put the boot on and
administer the program and
manage the program. So there
will be an additional boot fee.
And then the collections agency
has a fee as well that they
collect when it is in the
collections process at that
point. But again, all of the
fees during the amnesty program
will be waived during the three
month period of that amnesty
program.
>> Well, could you bring back
all of the fees that we just
mentioned for when it's not an
amnesty program, so we can
better see that total impact?
And then also I had some I
guess bigger question is I
reviewed the code changes and I
didn't see any of the language
about towing in 1914. So where
is that going to be? And can we
see the proposed language in
the new code?
>> Yeah, absolutely. We can
provide it to you via memo. We
were we were first wanting to
bring it to council and kind of
get your feedback and, and some
input before we provided our
first draft of, of a the
Scofflaw program. But we
absolutely can send you our
first draft of the, of the
language related to the
Scofflaw program and send it to
you via memo. Before we go any
further.
>> So that's intended to be in
1914, chapter 1914. Okay. Final,
very small question. The
parking kitty does it. I don't
know if I've stay in the
parking app to the time full
time allowed, but it always
asks me if I want to renew that
time frame. Is there a cut off
on the parking kitty so that
you don't stay beyond a two
hour parking limit in that
space?
>> Great question.
Unfortunately, passport parking
kitty is unable to do that, and
one of the reasons is they they
they aren't able to
differentiate the time stay. So
if you were to purchase one
hour, that views it as the one
transaction that you have for
that time limit or that the
zone number. And so they are
unable to actually prevent
folks from, you know, it's the
system isn't smart enough to,
to, to say, hey, you're at your
maximum, you can no longer
purchase. So they treat it all
as individual purchases.
Individual purchases. The way
we manage it is actually by
documenting cars in the right
of way. So if you were parked
in a two hour zone, our
officers would what we call
chalk the vehicle. So we would
document that it was there,
obviously if it was paid or not.
And then when it returns, when
the enforcement officer returns,
if you overstayed your time,
then that's when we would be
able to issue you an overtime
violation.
>> But I'd like us to look at
that piece too, because again,
if I'm, you know, gone to lunch
and I've paid for an hour
parking, and now my lunch is
going great and I like re-up my
parking kitty, maybe I don't
know that my space is an hour
slot instead of a two hour slot,
because the parking kitty has
just allowed me to pay for more
parking, and so I. If there's
even an alert or some kind of a
caveat that folks would know
that they should double check
the, the allowed amount of time
in that space, you know, versus
someone just, you know, not
knowing and just going, hey, I
paid for the parking. Why am I
getting a ticket? So just like
us to look into that potential
fix.
>> Yeah.
>> We can absolutely look into
it. Notice I think that's,
that's something we could work
with our vendor on and just a
notice, hey, are you aware of
your time limits or where you
parked? So yeah, we can do
something like that.
>> Thank you.
>> Harless hopefully. Quick
question. So you mentioned
about the tool of, you know, us
sharing when they go to
register their vehicle that
they won't until they can pay
the fees that they're
delinquent with for us is that,
but that doesn't apply to
out-of-state vehicles. Is that
unique to Washington, or is
that something that is unique
to every state? Is it just our
state law, or is what else is
going on in other states?
>> Good question. And if I
understand your question
correctly, the particular law
or ability for us to get
registered owner information is
particular to the state of
Washington, where the state of
Oregon does not allow us to get
registered owner information,
and therefore we cannot place
excuse me, they do not allow us
to place a hold on the
registration. We are able to
get registered owner
information, but we can't place
a hold. I am not sure if other
states like Oregon is able to
place a hold on an internal,
you know, vehicles or in-state
vehicles. But we can look into
that. I just know that we are
prevented from putting a hold
on Oregon registrations.
>> Just to clarify. So per
Oregon, we can't do that.
Oregon. And so yeah, I'd be
curious if other border states
throughout the country, if you
know what, what options might
exist and whether there's a fix
with our state law that, you
know, our lobbyists and
advocates can go for.
>> Over.
>> I'm gonna rattle off some
questions. Get back to me.
Interesting. You didn't mention
parking or stopping in a
mobility lane. Why don't you
address that scaffold program?
What is old is new again, this
is not the first time since
I've been on this council that
we've talked about it. If there
is the ability to search for
what we did the last time over
six years ago, what went wrong?
What are we correcting?
Clarifying? It looked like you
said, we're not currently using
boots. You can answer that. We
are not currently using boots.
We used to use boots before we
put the last scaffold program.
I'm pretty sure we used to use
boots, so that's an interesting
one. And then I think I got the
answer just now. Our parking
officers can query the
databases of other states. Okay.
Thank you. So it's the.
Mobility lanes and the history
of Scofflaw. Thank you.
>> City manager, would you
please put on another half hour
before this October 5th consent
agenda? There are enough
questions and we need to see
language and such. We're going
to need a little bit more time
on this one. Okay, Gabe, thank
you so very much. I'm going to
call a halt to the this one. We
need to get joy up here real
quick. Joy, I'm so sorry to cut
your time short, but thank you
for joining us.
>> Well, thank you for having
me. Joy Fowler, Engagement and
Access Department. Great to see
you, Mayor and councilors. And
I can probably do this in 15
minutes. So my goal is to get
you out in more than enough
time. Okay. I want to start by
prefacing by saying that I am
happy to do a memo to support
the presentation, because I
know there were things that
were happening that the
presentation had to be done
before we had all of the detail.
So if you'd like a memo, just
let me know at the end and I
will go and put that together
for Toni. And then we will make
sure that you all get a copy
and that one is uploaded to the
system. So really quickly,
we'll talk a little bit about
the fall recruitment to give
you all an update, because this
is a recruitment that I that I
told you I would come to you on
before the spring and fall
recruitments every year to make
sure you're updated. I would
like to be able to squeeze in a
chat about the teams channel,
just to make sure and see how
things are going with you all,
and then share a little bit
about next steps. So you heard
me when I was here back in July.
Talk about the the spring. Oh,
this is not the right. Oh, boy.
Okay. Yeah. Here we go. We'll
start here. You. I was here
when I talked about the spring
recruitment in 2026, and we
talked about how there was a
55% increase in applicants who
had a varied sense of diversity.
We talked about how there was
an increase of applicants of
185% from 2025 applicants to
2026 applicants in three of our
ten boards and commissions, and
that there was a 75% increase
in applications in the ages of
those between 20 and 30. So I
just wanted to give you that
brief reminder as we move into
our continued work with the
comms team. And they have done
a really great job in helping
us get the word out about
boards and commissions and
what's happening. So we had
some organic outreach where we
reached about 15,000
individuals, which totaled 2400,
a little over 2400 interactions,
and it touched 177 page reviews
on that. Regarding any stories
that we did, it reached 5240
individuals with 59
interactions and nine page
reviews. Then we did some paid
ads regarding this fall
recruitment where or the spring
recruitment, sorry, where we
spent $308.90 and reached
18,250 individuals, and then
2789 individuals actually had
views of our page. And then
total social reach was 39,231,
where we got 2975 individuals
landing on our page. And then
in terms of our website views,
we got 4167 views and users of
3282. So just to demonstrate
the outreach, which isn't
costing us a lot of funds, but
we are able to go out and, and
have people hear about what is
happening. And then in
reference to this fall
recruitment, we just held our
open house on the 9th of
September. We did do a visual
tracking of who was in the room
and in the space. There were a
total of 48 people that came by,
ten individuals represented a
diverse community, or 21%,
three youth from 20 to 30. And
overall, there was a more
diverse audience than in the
past. Four of the individuals
that did attend back on the
ninth did state that they had
applied, and it was as a result
of the information they
received, either from the open
house or that we did via social
media. So that is just a brief
update related to fall
recruitment that we wanted to
share with you and make sure
that you all were up to date.
In addition, this is where I
wanted to see if we could do.
Maybe I'll I'll just keep going.
This is just to see how things
are going. With the team's
channel. There were several key
features that we wanted to
bring to you that were
different from 2025, so we are
really hopeful that the team's
channel is working for all of
you. Is there anything we
wanted to really check in to
see if there's anything that
you would change or alter, or
there's information that Tony
and I could work on. So just
want to open that up really,
really quickly to see if, if
you have any thoughts or
feedback, this would be the
second time that you are using
it. You used it in February of
2021, 20, 2021. Oh my gosh,
2026. And so just really
looking to see how it went then
and how it's going now. If you
all want to share really
quickly.
>> What you change is teams,
but you're not Microsoft. It
just takes a lot of. It's not
always intuitive to get to the
channel. And I struggled across
devices. But again, that's not.
It's not a staff problem. It's
a software problem that comes
with using Microsoft products.
>> Okay, good. And then if we
take that and kind of parking
lot that once you find it and
once you're in there, is it
easy to navigate? Is it easy to
see that you go to either the
fall or the spring recruitment,
and you can able to click on
the folder and get access
pretty easily? Or are there
also things that are within the
system that are.
>> Come back. In January.
>> After.
>> Okay.
>> We do this, we'll do it and
ask, okay, you're asking me to
remember a long time ago.
>> Okay.
>> We'll do. Anyone else?
>> Counselor Fox.
>> No, I appreciate the the
teams channel approach and
being able to have everything
in a folder. So I do appreciate
that. But you know, I know we
had some kinks with our spring
recruitment and, and whatnot.
Well, the kinks were more
around. We, we needed to update
who was on what subcommittee.
So, so moving forward is
probably why I'd say that now
we have the right subcommittees
notified. So this fall we'll
have a little different working,
you know, working with each
other is new actually this fall.
Okay. With the new groups.
>> Awesome.
>> Okay.
>> Anyone else? Okay.
>> And then just wanted to
share a little bit about what's
next because it really is
important. We're getting ready
to prepare for year end reports,
which we did well, we've done
ever since I've gotten here so
that this way, right after the
spring recruitment is out, we
will work with every board and
commission, with the exception
of those that are under either
a special format or a special
system. They know that they
won't be submitting, but others
that do will go ahead and
submit their their year end
reports. Also, there's a
component around strategy
development. So when you think
about when I was here last time,
and I just did the engagement
and access update and boards
and commission was on, we
talked a lot about, okay, we
have this great applicant pool.
The applications are coming in
for those that are within a
respective age range or more
diverse, but then how do they
go from application to
appointment? And so that is
something that I would like to
just explore more and have an
actual strategy for, which
means reaching out to each of
you just to have a conversation
around what that looks like,
what that means, what that
means for you all, and where we
go from there. And then that
will further support me
actually supporting boards and
commissions and really
understanding what does that
look like? How do I do a deep
dive and make sure whether it's
an onboarding process or
whether one of the staff needs
support, where do I fit in and
how do I support each of you?
So all of that kind of flows
when you think about what's
next, relation in relation to
strategy development, as well
as support from me in relation
to boards and commissions? So
all of that is to come as well
as we prepare to move into 2027.
And really, that's what I
wanted to share with you all.
>> Wow.
>> We have comments. Go ahead,
Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor Joy, thanks
for the update. And just.
>> Briefly on teams, once I
figure out where I'm supposed
to go, it works pretty well,
but it's the getting to it that
is the challenge. Okay.
Councilor Stober also said, I
want to draw attention to an
issue that I think we all need
to be aware of, which is not
all boards and commissions are
equal, and some of them in
particular. I'm thinking about
the DRA, the Downtown
Redevelopment Association or
authority, the CRA or City
Center, City Center
Redevelopment Authority, the
Ph.D or the Public Facilities
District, and then the culture,
Arts and Heritage Commission.
They all have autonomous
decision making ability as well
as financial decision making
ability. And when there are
vacancies that are off cycle in
those areas, we must have a
process by which those
vacancies can be filled.
Outside of this cadence. And
that's a non-negotiable because
we are in a situation right now
with one of those commissions
that I just mentioned, where we
are dangerously close to not
having a quorum at an important
decision juncture. And that's
unacceptable. And so I can't
stress enough the importance of
having an off cycle approach
specifically for those and
possibly on an exception basis
for others, but especially for
those. We need to revisit our
thinking on that and need to be
able to go off cadence if
necessary. Okay, great.
>> Thank you for that, I
appreciate that.
>> I don't see anyone else. Joy,
thank you so very much for
catching us up and. If any of
them have questions or comments,
they'll send it to you.
>> Yes, absolutely. Thank you
very much. Have a good night.
>> We'll take a brief break.
We'll go grab a quick bite to
eat. We'll be back here at 630
for the regular council meeting.
Thank you.