Welcome to Vancouver City
Council. I'm Anne McEnerny Ogle
mayor for the City of Vancouver,
and you are attending the
August 24th, 2026 City Council
meeting for the City of
Vancouver. This afternoon, we
enjoy the opportunity to listen
to the fire Chief give a
Vancouver Fire Department
support staff update. And then
we heard from Lisa Brandel, the
deputy city manager, to discuss
the city financial policies and
investment policy review,
followed by a Climate Action
Framework update. We are now in
our regular City Council
meeting. Would you please stand
and join me in the Pledge of
Allegiance? I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United
States of America and to the
Republic for which it stands
one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. Thank you very
much, Miss Duller. Please call
the Roll Council.
>> Harless. Present. Perez.
Present. Fox. Here. Paulson.
Here. Stober. Here. Hansen.
Present. Mayor.
>> McEnerny present. Thank you
very much. Councilors. You have
the minutes of August 17th.
>> Move for approval.
>> Hansen. Seconded by. Stober
Stober. Any corrections or
changes? All those in favor,
say aye. Aye. Opposed. Motion
passes. Thank you very much.
One abstention. Thank you. And
this opens it up to the
communication from the
community. And we have Kimberly
Elbon from Le Center.
>> Kimberly Elbon. God.
Afternoon. Well, I'm going to
be speaking to the Vancouver's
Climate Action Framework
Workshop as Vancouver updates
its strategy to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 80%
by 2030 and reach carbon
neutrality by 2040, we must
address how these sweeping
changes are communicated to the
public. While the city's stated
focus is on building complete
streets, expanding electric
vehicles infrastructure and
creating dense, walkable
neighborhoods, rather than
eliminating cars entirely.
Local policies do not exist in
a vacuum. These localized
efforts perfectly align with
the broader global mandates of
the United Nations Agenda 21
and the subsequent 2030 agenda
for Sustainable Development.
True sustainability cannot be
achieved through top down
mandates or workshops that feel
like a foregone conclusion. The
city must do better, a better
job of including its citizens
in a completely transparent way
through transparency means
opening up the floor to the
full reality of what is
happening in our skies and
environment, rather than just
focusing on municipal carbon
footprints. If we are, you need
more than 18 or 165
participants, that's for sure.
If we are genuinely committed
to environmental protection,
human health and climate
resilience, this council must
look at the data before
compiled by independent
researchers such as
geoengineeringwatch.org. For
years, citizens have observed
persistent white grid like
patterns in the sky what many
refer as chemtrails, documented
research into climate
engineering and solar radiation
management indicates that toxic
chemicals and heavy metals,
including aluminum, barium and
strontium, are being dispersed
into our atmosphere. That's a
true story. These chemtrails
are not normal jet streams.
They are. They stay in the sky
all day long. These intentional
atmospheric operations directly
impact our weather, our local
tree canopy, our soil, and our
insect and bird communities and
our public health. Yet these
toxic inputs are completely
omitted from the city's climate
action framework. It is a
massive contradiction to
restrict the daily habits of
local citizens under the banner
of the 2030 agenda, while
ignoring large scale,
unacknowledged atmospheric
programs that disturb our
ecosystem, if not killing it.
Which it is. You have no bug
splatter on your windows.
They're killing our insects.
The one thing I urge this
council to practice absolute
transparency to the citizens.
Inform the citizens of
Vancouver about these
atmospheric realities. Expand
the scope of your environmental
assessments to test for these
heavy metals in the local
environment.
>> Thank you for your testimony.
Carmen de Lehan.
>> Do we have to sit this one?
Is this the one that has to
work? Okay, so my name is
Carmen de Lehan. I also go by
Molodih Lehan and I was
watching the workshops. So
let's go ahead and talk about
the first one. The first
workshop was Department of the
Fire People. So I know they're
talking a lot about jobs and
stuff, but I'm talking about
investment into the safety of
our forests and our communities,
which I have seen the palladium
or palladium, whatever those
fires were. In California, the
firemen were looking for
swimming pools to get water and
and use the water. So it's just
natural to, to have that safety
mechanism. Other people there's
a, there's a country where they
have the whole historic little
wooden village. And every year,
just like, just like the grass
at the golf course, it waters
all of the, the ancient
facility that cannot be rebuilt.
That's why every year they make
sure they got the water in case
of a fire. Remember when
Multnomah Falls almost burned
down and those firemen were
over there putting their lives
at risk to save one building?
That's what I'm saying. Forget
the money. Forget the employees.
Put some androids out there so
that you don't risk the bravest
out there in the firemen. You
have robots that can do water
and you can make upstream what
is it called? Tubes. So that
they can water the forest and
not catch fire. Now I'm running
out of time. Okay. Another one
financial policies. I don't get
this because at 415 they said
1,000,023 debt. And you can
check your own time stamps. At
420, they said 105 debt. And
then at 430 they said there was
going to be a surplus. And then
they said that they're not
going to save the surplus.
They're going to use it to fill
in the other debts that you
guys have created. So fun with
words here, debt or surplus,
you know, make up your minds.
So that's what I saw at that
one. And when I don't even know
if I have time to talk about
the kids. So you're talking
about the environment. Kids at
school should be already taught
to bring in their old shoes,
because I found out that they
can't really be recycled, but
they can be turned into turf,
into streets, you know, into
other things. And even Nike has
offered to buy back their own
shoes to recycle them. So the
everyday shoes, that's what
they're talking about, getting
the juveniles in it because so
many kids are used to, oh, I
drank my pop. Throw it away one
one used disposable thing. We
have to erase them mentality
that everything is one use and
thrown away. We got to reuse
stuff. We got to make bamboo
toilet paper because you can
grow it three times faster than
any decent tree. So if you can
get you want businesses, oh, I
got ideas. As long as you don't
shut me up for no good reason.
So anyways, maybe I'll see you
later.
>> David Meyer, please.
>> Good evening everybody. My
name is David Meyer and I'm a
citizen of Vancouver,
Washington. I'm also a
volunteer on the climate policy
advisers that you learned about
earlier today at one of the
workshops. And is is background.
I'm an environmental consultant
and sustainability consultant
with a background in forest
ecology and forest science. I'm
really appreciate that.
Washington Conservation Action
has brought 20 of us advisors
together. We've got quite a lot
on our agenda to work, work on.
But one of the issues that
really floated to the surface
very quickly was around the
issues of tree canopy and tree
density, and I know that it was
discussed today. Councilor Fox
took quite an interest in that.
18 of the 20 advisors signed on
to a letter that I submitted
tonight in paper form. We
believe it's vital for the city
to continue to strike a balance,
and it's a very complex balance
between urban density and tree
canopy. And those are two key
components of emissions
reductions and climate
resiliency. The city's 20 year
comprehensive plan calls for
increasing Vancouver's current
tree canopy from 19%, where
it's at now to 28% by 2030. And
that's going to require a
substantial increase in tree
planting, preservation and long
term maintenance. But it's also
going to require alignment with
the various different
frameworks, city ordinances and
incentives for sound
development to increase density
within the excuse me, within
the within the community. That
was my call to wake up, I guess.
So canopy expansion by 10%
offers a real powerful
combination of climate,
environmental and community
benefits, including lower
carbon emissions and building
energy savings, climate change
mitigation, air quality and
public health, ecosystem and
biodiversity support, and
community and economic benefits.
And while it may represent a
drop in the bucket, as it was
discussed today, there are
indirect impacts of tree canopy
even on energy efficiency in
the built environment. And our
letter gets into some details
about that, and I'll leave that
for you. We really urge the
city to adopt tree ordinances
and update its regulations to
support tree canopy goals and
sustainable management, as
recommended by the Urban
Forestry Management Plan, and
that aligns with the urban
growth and energy use studies
and guidelines. But we are
particularly supportive of
developer incentives and policy
policies for tree preservation
and planting, and protecting
mature native trees through the
urban area that are protected
through the Heritage tree
regulations. So again, we
appreciate your serious
consideration of our
suggestions. The details are in
the letter, and we hope that it
will be entered into the public
record. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Closing the community
communication. I do not have
any additional individuals.
Let's go ahead and move into
the consent counselors. You
have three items in the consent
agenda. Are there any items
you'd like to pull? Hearing
none, I'll entertain a motion
for the three items. Fox
seconded by Perez Perez. Those
in favor, say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Motion passes. Thank you.
Counselors takes us into the
public hearings. Item number
four. This is a resolution
relating to the approval of a
land disposition and
development agreement between
the City of Vancouver,
Vancouver Heights Senior
Housing Partners Limited
Partnership, establishing the
terms and conditions under
which the senior housing
building on the Heights
District site P lot will be
developed and ground leased by
the City of Vancouver Heights
Senior Housing Partners Limited
Partnership and authorizing the
City Manager to execute the
Disposition and Development
agreement. Staff summary,
please. Thank you Amy.
>> Good evening mayor, city
Council members. Amy Zolty,
real estate project manager,
the Land, Disposition and
Development Agreement in front
of Council for action this
evening is a 51 unit senior
housing project in
collaboration with the
Vancouver Housing Authority and
local developer Related
Northwest. The project is
located on the corner of Mill
Plain and Devine, adjacent to
the Park Hill Cemetery, and is
shown as site P on the map here.
Council previously approved the
Disposition and Development
agreement for another project
on this site. The Family
Housing Building. And so now
we're we're coming back to
council for the other project,
the senior housing. These two
projects will be phased and
will. And so have two separate
disposition and development
agreements and then two
separate ground lease
agreements. So the presentation
this evening will kind of walk
through the developer selection
and rationale. The proposed
program of the project, the key
terms of the development
agreement as well as the ground
lease terms, the investments
that the city is making into
this project. And then just
highlighting the project
timeline and next steps. So
this project began in 2024,
when the city and the Heights
Community Investment Committee
issued a request for proposals
in March of that year. And then
through a two month selection
process related northwest and
the Vancouver Housing
Authority's proposal, which
included 131 units
multi-generational project,
including an 80 unit family
housing project. And then this
51 unit senior housing project.
And and then we entered an
exclusive negotiation agreement
that was executed September of
that year. And since then, we
have been negotiating the terms
of this development agreement,
working with the developer in
pre-development of to take this
project to construction. I do
want to highlight one kind of
clarification is that the name
of the developer in the
development agreement is kind
of single purpose entity that
was created with related
northwest and the Vancouver
Housing Authority as partners
in that entity. So when I'm
referring to the developer, I'm
referring essentially to
related northwest and the
Housing Authority. So the
reason why this developer was
selected was the kind of strong
partnership with the housing
authority to kind of be, be
able to leverage resources and
local expertise, although
Related northwest is kind of a
local developer to the kind of
Portland Metro. Metro region.
This is their first project in
Vancouver. So very much leaning
on the housing authority to
support with that local
knowledge and expertise. And
then additionally, the
reputation that both the
Housing Authority and Related
northwest have in delivering
sustainable and affordable
housing developments. So as I
mentioned, the developer is
related Northwest and Vancouver
Housing Authority. They are
co-owning and co-developing
this project. We have a local
nonprofit Engaged Northwest
that are providing the resident
services that will be on site.
And then there's the
development team here, and then
the building will be managed by
Quantum Residential. Turning to
the proposed program for this
senior housing building, as I
mentioned, it's 51 units of
income restricted housing,
ranging from 30% of the area
median income, all the way to
60%. There will be some ground
floor community serving space,
which is where those on site
resident services will happen
and those kind of
multi-generational. Activities
and programing that will happen
in conjunction with the family
housing building. In addition
to affordable housing that's
designated for seniors and the
on site resident services that
I mentioned, this project is
delivering opportunities for
local and minority owned
contractors. So, for example,
the development agreement sets
targets that 20% of the
workforce is awarded to women
or Bipoc owned businesses. And
then where appropriate, the
contractor is to rightsize bid
packages. Pardon me, to make it
more accessible for smaller
contractors, and then also kind
of conduct intentional outreach
to those small contractors. And
then additionally, this
building will be sustainably
built and it will include
efficient heating and cooling
systems. It will be a fully
electric building and also
include kind of sustainable
construction materials and
building practices. The unit
mix of this building ranges
between studios and two bedroom
units, and then spans that
income range between 30% of the
area, median income through to
60%, with the vast majority of
the units being at the 60% Ami
range. Moving into the key
terms of the development
agreement, the land will be
ground leased to the developer
for 99 years at a heavily
discounted rent rate, and the
staff will kind of come back to
council for to take action on
the ground lease closer to
construction. As I mentioned,
that is a separate agreement,
but the kind of key terms of
the ground lease have been
agreed upon, and we'll touch
upon them on the next slide.
But the construction of the
building will take anywhere
between 18 to 24 months. The
development agreement includes
very specific contractual
performance dates, such as.
Planning, permitting deadlines,
award of funding deadlines, and
then start and completion of
construction deadlines. The
development agreement also
includes completion guarantees
and standard default and
termination provisions, and
then the housing will be
affordable for at least 40
years. There is the intention
that this will be affordable in
perpetuity, and the the
discounted ground lease
payments covers that period of
affordability and certainly can
be extended upon an update in
the ground lease terms. So
moving into those ground lease
terms, and this is a 99 year,
very long term lease where the
rent is discounted at 95% for
the first 40 years. And then
following that on year 41, the
rent will be recalculated based
on an appraisal of the property
and then also renewal of the
affordability commitment. The
rent will increase annually a
3% rate. However, there will be
no rent charged in the first 30
months to allow the project to
get through construction and
leasing, and for it to become
cash flow positive and far more
stable. The city is investing a
total of 2.8 million into this
project, and that includes the
heavy discount in the land
value of 617,000. That amount
is calculated based on the land.
The Senior housing Projects
portion of the land valuation
that was conducted February of
last year. So that was that six,
seven, six land valuation. And
then we calculated the today's
value of that discounted ground
lease over that 40 year period
per me. And so the city's
investment in the in the land
is. The the land valuation less
today's value of the discounted
ground lease. There's also 2
million in the affordable
housing fund. And then this
project does qualify for an 80%
reduction in parks and traffic
impact fees. And so that 200
000 number is that 80%
reduction in those those fees,
bringing it to a total of 2.8
million. The private investment
in this project totals around
26.7 million. And so comparing
the the private investment
versus the public investment
that comes to roughly a 9 to 1
leverage ratio, the city will
also. Take advantage of the
construction sales tax as well
as utility taxes that this
project will generate. Turning
to next steps. Today we you
know, we take action on the
development agreement. I will
say that this project is
applying for state funding at
the end of next month. And so
timing is critical to this to,
to, to, for the Council to vote
on this development agreement
as the developer needs to
demonstrate site control. And
the development agreement is a
form of site control. So it is.
Important that Council take
action on this this evening to
be able to meet that funding
deadline. And then of over the
course of the next year or two,
and the project will go through
planning and permitting and
secure additional funding, and
then staff will come back to
council for review of the
ground lease closer to
construction, and then all
things going well, that the
project is able to secure the
necessary funding. We can
commence construction, which is
estimated to be summer of 2028
and be completed by summer of
2030. So the requested action
front of council tonight is to
approve the disposition and
development agreement between
the City of Vancouver and
Vancouver Heights Senior
Housing Partners Limited
partnership and adopt the
resolution authorizing City
Manager to execute the DDA on
behalf of City Council. And
that concludes my presentation.
I'll open up to questions.
>> Thank you. Councilors, do
you have any comments or
questions of Miss Olchowy? No.
Okay, then let's go ahead and
open the public hearing.
Hearing at Carmen de Lehan.
>> Do I get to pick my own
chair? Do I have to use a
certain one?
>> Go ahead and have to pick
one.
>> Okay, so it's my
understanding it's for senior
citizens. And I think this is
on the corner over here, a meal
plan and divine, which is where
they put $40,000 into a park
that was just a parking lot
that was painted. I know the
corner. Anyways, I'm wondering
about the safety of the people
because it's not built into the
contract. Because I was in the
building at sixth floor.
>> Miss De Leon, I'm going to
have you focus your comments to
City council. That's what I'm
okay.
>> City council. I was in the
county council building when
the fire alarm went off in the
sixth floor, and people in a
wheelchair could not evacuate.
It's a death trap. If you're in
a wheelchair, you cannot be
upstairs when the the first
thing they do is say, you can't
use the elevator. Well, you
can't go down the stairs either.
So guess what happens to
anybody disabled? I'm lucky I
can go downstairs because any
good knee surgeon says you
can't go downstairs. You can
only go upstairs. So I can't
escape a fire building. But
that I don't know if it's
written in here. And also when
the lights go out, because the
other lady said that their big
fear is when the lights go out.
Yeah, because every winter the
lights go out. So that's why
I've talked about those bikes
that are generators that
everybody can make their own
generators generate their own
energy when the lights go out.
So how come that's not written
into this as a safety measure
for people that are on heart
machines, because these are old
people. Now, when I lived in
Romania, they had all the
apartments stacked up and the
whole bottom floor was the
supermarket. And anybody
upstairs wanted food, they'd go
downstairs. And this is for
seniors. So guess what? When
the cold comes and nobody can
leave. And if there's no food,
that's when you need, you know
that they have, what is it
called? The ice cream man in
the summer for the kiddies.
Little kids have some ice cream.
Well, for the seniors in the
winter when they can't leave,
you can have the food mobile
and it drives out and brings
people their foods without the
danger of going out into the
ice lake that we know is going
to happen every winter in the
northwest. And another thing is
a. To encourage upper body
strength in senior citizens,
it's called a rope ladder that
in case of a fire, you throw it
out the window and you climb
down the ladder. Because like
we said about fires before, I'm
tired of putting our bravest
young men. I've heard about
them dying in these fires, and
it breaks my heart. That's why
I said to send out the machines.
Don't invest in more people.
Invest in machines to put their
lives on. The little machine
can melt and screw these people
that want to. You know, that
guy up in Seattle was a police
chief who screwed up. And what
did they do? Pay him almost a
million to quit. So when I see
fires and these firemen want
more money. Okay, I get it.
You're brave. You're putting
your life on the line. But
machines can do that, and they
want to save the forest, water,
the forests. It's not that hard.
You just have to move the water.
And we have the capabilities of
doing that. This is the future.
Why aren't we tapping into it?
Why do they want 100 year old
technology?
>> Kimberly Elbon from Le
Center.
>> Kimberly Gavenn Elbon well,
so good job. Now, fully
electric buildings sounds
reasonable. And we're used to
electricity, aren't we? But we
here in Clark County and
Vancouver really are not
prepared for blackouts,
especially during the winter
months. And mark my words, this
will happen. The senior
population will not be able to
cook and will not be able to
heat their units. What plans
does this council have for this
emergency? When a blackout
occurs, I'd like to know. I
consider the lack of foresight
from this form of government
slash council to these
blackouts, absolutely criminal
and not prepared to protect the
senior citizen. Will you have
backup generators for the
elevators, the alarms, medical
units? But how are you going to
back up stoves and heat? So I
think you need to be
transparent. Maybe have your
presenter answer that question.
For those senior citizens that
are listening to this public
hearing, be respectful,
respectful and transparent to
them and let us know what
you're going to do during a
blackout, because you are going
to be all electric and
blackouts do occur. Thank you.
>> God bless. Close the public
hearing Council. I'll entertain
a motion.
>> Move to approve.
>> Paulsen. Seconded by. Fox.
All those in favor, say aye.
Opposed. Motion passes. Thank
you very much. Let's move on to
public hearing. Number five.
This is an ordinance of the
Vancouver City Council amending
chapter 3.05, Vancouver
Municipal Code to change
administrative responsibility
for certain procurement actions
to provide clarity to other
existing provisions to provide
for severability and setting an
effective date. Geraldine. Good
evening. Thank you so much.
Hello.
>> I'm Geraldine Moyle, the
General services director, and
I will provide an overview of
the changes proposed to the
Vancouver Municipal Code,
section 305, which governs the
city's procurement policies and
processes. Earlier this year,
the City Manager Office shifted
the oversight and management of
the city's procurement division
from the Finance Department to
the General Services Department.
Chapter 3.05 of the Vancouver
Municipal Code assigns
responsibility and authority
for procurement to the Finance
director, so the proposed
amendments reflect shifting
this authority from procurement
for procurement, from finance
to general services. But rather
than being specific about
general services, we are
proposing changes that instead
shift the authority to the city
manager or his designee or
their designee. So that is
consistent with our charter
section 3.03, and then the
Revised Code of Washington.
35.1, 8.010 and 0.060. So this
gives a little more flexibility
as at the city manager's
discretion as to shifting and
delegating authority without
having to come back every
single time. There are also
some small minor
non-substantive code cleanup
items that improve readability
in this section of the code.
And both Carrie Driscoll,
assistant city attorney, and
Anna Vogel, the procurement
manager, are available remotely
to support me with any specific
questions you might have on the
changes.
>> Thank you. Councilors, do
you have any questions on the
changes? None. Thank you.
Public hearing. Carmen de Lehan.
>> Yeah.
>> Carmen de Lehan again. And I
was just doing the estimate
here because of if every
citizen in Washington or
Vancouver, Washington did pay
just the five bucks, that'd be
over 100,000 $125,000. So, you
know, I mean, we're talking
about money. I don't see how
living off minimum wages for
certain public.
>> Lehan please focus your
comments on the changes of
procurement language.
>> Okay. Because I don't know
what that means. All I
understand is, is money that's
going from one hand to another.
Whereas if certain people
didn't have such large salaries
could cover this in a heartbeat.
>> No, that's not what this.
>> That's that's what I'm
saying is that there's a lot of
money that could be given to
the police that I see is being
moved around money. Like.
>> That's not what this means.
Okay. Do you have comments on
this? Thank you. Kimberly Elbon
from the center.
>> Kimberly Gavenn Elbon. So
this chapter dictates goods,
excuse me, dictates the city's
purchasing and public
procurement rules, which govern
how tax dollars are spent on
goods, public projects and
professional services. I've
said for years now that this
form of government only gives
the public one third of the
rule over its government, while
the council and city manager
hold two thirds rule over the
people. So it's an unelected
position. The city manager. The
public does not elect the city
manager instead of.
>> City Elbon. Your testimony
needs to pertain to the focus
of the procurement language
change.
>> It's pertaining to the city
manager taking this procurement
over. Thank you. So the city
manager is not elected. And
because of this city manager is
not directly elected. They are
not directly accountable to the
ballot box or the public.
Instead, they are strictly
accountable to the City Council.
The public's recourse if they
are unhappy with executive
administration is to vote out
the city council members who
oversee and hire the manager.
So the good of this would be
adjusting thresholds that the
city manager and staff execute
smaller or standard contracts
without waiting weeks for City
Council agenda space. This
speeds up public works, repairs
and community initiatives, but
it is at their own total. Will
supply chains and labor costs
change rapidly? Updating
outdated dollar limits ensures
that the city doesn't trigger
slow, expensive, formal bidding
process processes for routine
municipal purchases. But the
bad argument would be it's
raising the financial
thresholds for purchases that
require explicit City Council
approval. If spending power
away from the elected officials
and onto unelected staff, such
as the city manager. It also
contracts approved internally
by staff that do not require a
public council vote. While the
resulting contracts remain
subject to public records
requests. The decision making
process happens away from the
televised public comment floor,
limiting immediate public
scrutiny. Let me continue. If
members of the community do not
trust this amendment, the core
issue centers on the permanent
surrender. Excuse me, of
legislative oversight to an
unelected executive branch.
When a city council modifies
procurement codes, it
fundamentally, fundamentally
changes the holds. Who holds
the checkbook, and how easily
the public can track tax
dollars. So you can't track the
tax dollars as easily. Looking
for a specific arguments to
challenge this ordinance at the
public hearing? The most
crucial concerns.
>> Thank you for your testimony.
I'll close the public hearing,
having no additional cards.
Bring it back to council.
Council. Do you have any
questions of staff?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, counselor Stover, go
ahead.
>> Concern has been raised that
this shifts. Responsibility
away from City Council towards
the city manager. Do you want
to address that?
>> I'm happy to. And I'll look
to Lorne and Becky as well. It
does not. The only thing that
changes in here is the
reporting structure from
finance to general services for
procurement staff. And via the
City Manager. The. The
threshold for bringing a
procurement item to Council
remains the same.
>> Thank you. And it changes it
from being explicitly directed
towards the finance team to
instead be at the discretion
which finance reports to the
City manager. And it changes
from a a explicit designation
to the finance department to
being at the discretion of the
city manager. But it doesn't
change the fact that ultimately
the city manager has been and
will remain in charge.
Procurement, correct?
>> Yeah. Ultimately, all of the
department heads, even if
they're reporting to a deputy
city manager versus directly to
the city manager, the deputy
city managers, in turn, also
report to the city manager. So
I am the whether it's me or a
different city manager, you
retain ultimate responsibility.
>> And. The delegation of
procurement to the city manager
is a matter of the city charter.
That was approved by the voters
of the City of Vancouver that
designated our form of
government. And so the city,
the residents voting, legal,
voting. Residents of Vancouver
set up our form of government.
Correct by vote. Okay. Thank
you.
>> I'll entertain a motion.
>> Move to approve.
>> Seconded by. Perez. Roll
call. Vote, please.
>> Councilmember Harless I
Perez I box I I I Hansen, mayor
McEnerny.
>> Ogle I. Motion passes. Thank
you. Item number six ordinance
authorizing the implementation
of the 0.1% public Safety sales
and use tax pursuant to CW.
42.114.135 this is an ordinance
of the City of Vancouver
enacting an additional sales
and use tax of one tenth of 1%
for criminal justice purposes,
as authorized by CW 82.114.345.
Adding a new section to the
Vancouver Municipal Code.
Chapter 5.98 providing for
severability and establishing
effective date. Staff summary.
Evening, chief.
>> Good evening Council. Just
last week, we sat in front of
you and kind of gave a history
of what we were looking at in
terms of developing a funding
package for for the police
department. We talked about
some of the staffing
inadequacies that are just
inherent in the state of
Washington. And then
particularly here in southwest
Washington. We talked a little
bit about prop four, but we
wanted to focus on this kind of
a three phased funding package
for police here that took the
form of proposition five
funding available through
grants in House Bill 2015, and
the ability for this council to
enact a 0.1% sales tax that
would give us the ability to
hire some more people. If
taking all three of these
pieces into account, it would
net us about 29 additional
police officers, plus some of
the support services that we
need for for those folks, it
would get them trained,
equipped and deployed out onto
the streets. It would also
allow us to enhance our
secondary services, which are
our investigators, our
detective units, units like the
Domestic Violence Prosecution
Center would get an additional
two detectives. Our traffic
unit, which has been woefully
understaffed for years, would
get some enhancements there.
And so that's what this is,
what what brought us here today.
And that the ordinance before
you is what we're asking for
you to pass.
>> It also brings in public
defenders, doesn't it, chief?
>> It does. We recognize that
just due to some changes that
were brought about by a ruling
from our state Supreme Court,
that the ability for our public
defenders to carry cases has
been downgraded. And so they're
carrying smaller caseloads,
which means we need more
attorneys. And so this allows
the city to provide an
additional funding to hire some
more defense attorneys, which
we sorely need.
>> Yeah. Thank you so very much.
I'll open it up. Oh, councilors,
do you have any questions to
the Chief Councilor Fox?
>> Maybe. I just want to raise
a point just so that folks are
aware, to highlight it a little
bit more. But this this action
also just leverages our funding
with that of the states. And so
without taking this action,
then we lose about $6 million
in funding. So it's not
something that we should
typically do is turn around and
not try to do everything we can
to bolster our own funding.
>> It would be nice to see some
of those tax dollars come back
to the city of Vancouver. Yes.
>> All right.
>> Thank you, councilor Perez.
>> Chief, just a question on
the opportunity to get those
tax dollars to come back. When
does that expire? The
opportunity.
>> I would have to actually ask
my business intelligence
analyst, Jake Elliott, to
address that question. Ma'am.
>> Good evening, Jason Elliott.
I believe that the last date
that we can impose a sales tax
is before the sunsetting of the
of the statute, which is June
of 2028.
>> June 2028.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay. Thank you. I, I
support law enforcement and
responsible public safety
investments, such as what
you've shared with us and what
we're trying to accomplish. And
right now, I believe the
responsible choice is to pause
before adding another tax for
our residents. And just as I've
shared last time, I think too
many working families, seniors
and people living on fixed
incomes are struggling with the
cost of housing, groceries,
utilities, and just everyday
necessities. And even our own
staff report, as I mentioned
last week, acknowledges that
this sales tax will
disproportionately affect our
lower income residents, and I
believe that we should consider
the bigger picture here. Clark
County voters may soon be asked
to consider additional funding
for a new jail, and before the
city adds another tax, we
should pause, hear what the
voters say about the county's
proposal, and hire our new
police chief. And therefore,
right now, I will not be
supporting the sales tax.
>> Any other comments from
Council? Councilor Harless.
>> Can you explain in more
detail the grant that was
mentioned earlier about the
matching, the restrictions of
the grant and what it can be
used for timing, that kind of
thing? Just as a reminder for
what we're discussing today,
when we mention that grant.
>> Absolutely. Again, Jake
Elliott, the grant that we have
applied for, we have not been
awarded yet is to support and
the salary and benefits for 16
entry level police officers.
The equipment that those
officers would wear, such as
vests, radios, body worn
cameras, etc. it also would
support hiring those officers.
So it gives us some additional
liquid funds so we can
supplement our staffing and our
background and recruiting unit
to expedite the hiring process
for those officers. And we
would leverage likely retired
VPD officers on a part time
basis to help conduct some of
those backgrounds. And in
addition to that, those
positions also require patrol
vehicles. There's ten vehicles
that are associated into that
as well. With regard to the
sales tax, the match is applied
towards the the salary and
benefit component of that. And
so the sales tax would be
matching 25% of salary and
benefits. And the other 75%
would come from the sales tax
or I'm sorry, from the grant
for the term of the grant,
should we be awarded that?
>> And the grant can only be
used for hiring officers.
>> The priority for the grant
is to hire officers. The. The
grant application could be
broadened to other public
safety needs. At this point.
What we've applied for is for
the hiring of the officers, the
equipment. As I just went over
and principally in the House
bill in House Bill 2015, the
priority the first priority
that was indicated was to hire
new police officers to
supplement police officer
staffing in Washington state,
as it ranks 51st out of 50
states in the District of
Columbia and staffing. So that
was the initial intent, but
there are broader purposes
beyond it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> And you see, these are
officers new to law enforcement,
not laterals.
>> That's correct. The goal was
to broaden the total staffing
volume. The total number of
officers in lieu of hiring
laterals from other agencies in
Washington state. We wanted to
bring in the legislature,
wanted to bring in new officers
entering the career field.
>> Great. Thank you. Any other
questions or comments? All
right. I'll open the public
hearing. Officer, would you
tell Miss Carmen de Leon that
this is her opportunity? Miss
De Leon, this is your
opportunity to testify on the
public hearing.
>> Which public hearing was
this one? I'm sorry. I lost my.
>> This is item number six that
you signed up for.
>> Oh. Sorry. I didn't know it
was coming up. Well.
>> You know, I think people are
overtaxed and all that, but
like, I just finished saying,
if certain people, you know,
the regular population is
expected to live off of minimum
wage, and yet we have certain
employees, even in this room
making upwards of $100,000. And
even just the beginning, police
officers are 80,000. So, I mean,
a big man would say, hey, I'll
take up a pay cut in favor of
the city. But some people, you
know, I guess they're real
needy of money because it
doesn't matter if people are,
you know, dying in the streets.
And I do think that the police
should be reimbursed. I don't
like more taxes, but if they
need it, you got to give it to
them. Because who else are you
going to call when somebody
breaks into your house? When
you got people breaking into
your cars? You need more police.
If you want more, you want more
population. You're putting in
5000 more houses. But where are
the new police? Where are the
new hospitals? Where are the
new everything? You know, you
want more people, but how are
you filling to accommodate
everybody? And I know that for
a fact, because they just said
they were dropping cases
because there's not enough
public defenders, you know, and
that's not fair, you know,
because if I didn't get my
three misdemeanors with
Giovanni, which was misdemeanor
one violation of misdemeanor,
two violation restraint and
misdemeanor three, but after
that, it became a felony. And I
needed that for him to have
three years in prison giving me
peace. So we need the
misdemeanors. You know, when it
comes to domestic violence, I
mean, jaywalking, who cares?
You know, petty crimes, nobody
cares. But but for them to not
have domestic violence, you
don't know how many lives are
at risk. And it's not just the
act of violence. It's the
psychological scars that go on
for generations, because it's a
proven fact that when a
pregnant mother has a a
domestic violence, we feel it,
the baby feels it, and the baby
is born with that trauma. So we
need all the domestic violence,
prosecution. We don't need
these people just throwing out
a domestic violence charge just
because it's a misdemeanor.
Three misdemeanors make that
felony we need. And if you
haven't lived through it,
you're not going to understand
it. I envy you because you
can't understand it. But we
need domestic violence,
prosecution, and those laws are
there for a reason. And nobody
nobody had enough backbone to
do what they did for me. So you
got to understand there's good
and bad in every demographic,
but ain't nobody braver than
these policemen that that have
saved me before. And you know,
we can't shortchange them. I'm
just saying, I got extra time.
God bless.
>> Kimberly Elbon from the
center.
>> Kimberly Boguhn Elbon. So
speaking to, as the gentleman
said, broader options. Our
community is currently facing a
profound crisis. The judicial
system in Clark County is
fundamentally broken. It is a
system currently lacking true
law efficiency and the swift
delivery of justice. Because of
this, I stand before you to
urge that the estimated $6
million generated by this
public safety sales tax be used
to strategically, transparently
and with deep intentionality.
My son is suffering from a
shortfall of public defenders
to this very day. To fix a
broken system, we must look
closely at where the machinery
is failing. A massive point of
failure right now is the
backlog that public defense of
the public defense system,
strict state mandated caseloads.
Limits are completely valid.
Public defenders should have
the time to properly defend
human beings, but without
immediate local funding to hire
more attorneys, the system has
ground to a halt. Justice
delayed is justice denied. This
tax will directly fund
additional public defenders,
which is a crucial step towards
restoring constitutionality,
mandated legal representation
and ensuring that the true law
and justice are upheld for
every single person entering
our courts. Furthermore, fixing
our judicial system has a
direct, immediate impact on the
crisis inside the Clark County
Corrections Center, which
resides there in Vancouver
right now. Because of our court
backlog and understaffed
individuals are languishing in
jail for extended periods of
time simply waiting for their
day in court. This overextends
jail staff exacerbates
overcrowding and creates unsafe,
inhumane conditions for
detainees who have not yet been
convicted of a crime. By
injecting these funds into the
judicial infrastructure,
specifically public defense and
court proceedings, we can
accelerate case resolutions.
This will directly help those
inside the Clark County Jail by
reducing unnecessary pretrial
detention times, lowering the
jail population and ensuring
individuals are treated with
dignity under a functional
legal timeline. We are also
told that this tax will fund 16
police officers and stabilize
our community safety pipeline.
But true public safety requires
a balanced scale. More arrests
without a functioning court
system only forces more water
into our bursting pipe. If we
are going to ask Vancouver
consumers to pay more at the
checkout counter, every dime
must go toward balancing the
scale. I urge this council to
ensure that these funds are not
just used to catch crime, but
to properly administer justice,
fund the public defenders,
clear the court backlogs,
review the pressure, release
the pressure on the Clark
County Corrections Center.
>> Thank you for your testimony.
That closes the public hearing
and it brings it back to
council Councilor.
>> Motion. Move to approve.
>> Seconded by Hanson. Roll
call. Vote, please.
>> Is there a discussion?
>> I thought we had some. Did
you have a question? Comment?
>> Yeah. Just comment. Question.
Just. You know, usually there's
discussion with.
>> Comment or question.
>> Yes. So I had some questions
and I wanted to, you know, hear
public comment first before
moving forward. So, you know, I
just want to make it pretty
clear, like what this ordinance
is saying and what it isn't.
And I mentioned this during
council communications a week
ago, but regardless, you know,
reporting goes out. And this
ordinance, it's a potential
adaptable revenue source. And
it covers a wide array per R, C
W of what it can be used for.
It's not just officers. It can
be used for public defense, as
was as what was mentioned, as
well as alternative response
programs, mental health crisis
response, homelessness response,
such as our heart team and also
domestic violence services and
legal advocates as well for
them. So it was a
recommendation that it goes
towards the match for the 16
officers, but that's not what
the ordinance says. So that
will be ultimately determined,
you know, through the budget
process and how things are
allocated. So just want to make
sure that is very clear. And
right now, you know, I do have
concerns with some of the other
temporary funding with regard
to like Hart, for example, we
have taken philanthropy dollars
to help support that team. And
that's not forever either. And
so something like this is also
an opportunity for something
that I would consider giving us
some sovereignty in how we fund
things, and that we're not
dependent on those one time
sort of dollars. So that's one
of the lenses that I'm applying
and trying to balance that out
with the, the what was brought
forward by Council member Perez
about affordability crisis that
we're in. And it's unfortunate
that, once again, as a city, we
have regressive tools, and
that's all we have to
addressing these crises, such
as the public defense. So I
look forward to, if this is
passed, having a conversation
about how it's allocated and
used and that this ordinance
does not earmark it for that.
So I just wanted to add that
comment in.
>> Thank you. Any other
comments or questions? Okay.
Roll call. Vote please.
>> Councilmember Harless, I
Perez nay Fox. I Paulson I
Stover I. Hansen I mayor
McEnerny.
>> Ogle I motion passes. Thank
you. That concludes the public
hearings and the consent agenda
brings it to communications.
Thank you chief. Thank you. JK
from the Council Councilor
Harless.
>> Pass.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Yeah, I just want to
reiterate my vote on this last
ordinance, that my concern is
timing and the cumulative tax
burden that continues to be
placed on all of us. So I just
wanted to clarify that. And
today I had a great field visit
at the Tetra Pak packaging and
learned so much about the
contribution that they have as
far as jobs and the transition
into more sustainable products
and the technology that's being
used. So just a huge
appreciation for the folks who
led us on that little knowledge
tour at Tetra Pak Council,
Harless joined me, as well as
Senator Adrian Cortes and a
couple of other folks. So just
if you haven't had a chance to
visit them or tour them, I
would recommend doing so. And
that's it. Thank you.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> Yes. Thank you. I just
wanted to mention something
that I've been working on over
the this year, I guess, is
there's been a group of female
veterans who have been looking
to form a group here in Clark
County. And we have an event
planned this Saturday at the
VFW 7824, which is located at
400 North Andresen Road. So
it's going to be from 2 to 4
p.m. this Saturday. I have
shared this event with our city
staff because I know we have
female veterans that work here
at the city, and I'm really
hoping that you'll show up and
join us for just some
appetizers and, and some good
conversation. But it's really
around understanding best how
to support ourselves in this
community to raise up the
contributions of women veterans
that sometimes get overlooked,
not fully. Intentionally. I
know that because there's a lot
of veterans in our community
that are also not very involved
too. And so really just trying
to get more folks involved in
our kind of continuing service
even after the service. So
please join us on Saturday. So
again, it's 2 to 4 p.m. this
Saturday at the VFW on 400
North Anderson Road. And that's
for women veterans.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councilor
Paulson. Councilor Stauber.
>> Thank you. Mayor. We've had
a lot of conversation tonight
about tree canopy while sitting
in my physical therapy office,
where I spend a lot of time, I
happened across an issue of
National Geographic and an
article they had on how LA's
urban tree canopy reveals
hidden inequalities, and it is
a walk down Vermont Avenue, six
miles of Vermont Avenue. They
talk about tree canopy, heat,
islands and income level. As
you make that walk, it is I, I
was was prompted to talk about
this. So I was looking for it
online. It is actually much
better online than it is in the
magazine because it's
interactive. So if you have the
opportunity. How LA's urban
tree canopy reveals hidden
inequalities from National
Geographic, take a look at it.
Second thing, thank you to city
staff, Laura, for highlighting
the new Ops Center page. That
page still needs to be updated.
You know, I'm going to pick on
one particular part. So under
the question, how much will
this project cost and how will
be funded? The answer is all
about funding and nothing about
cost. And a lot of the
information is, again, out of
date or stale. I shouldn't say
out of date, but has not been
updated well, and so I would
still appreciate if that was
updated and a lot more
information was shared. Thank
you.
>> Okay. Councilor Hanson,
councilors, the last coffee for
the Main Street promise is this
Friday at 4:00. Divine consign.
The interesting thing that has
been going on is we're ahead of
schedule. We won't put the
trees in yet because it's still
too hot, but we'll start seeing
them more into the fall. OPB
has two reporters now in
southwest Washington. We're
fortunate enough to have enough
exciting news going on in Clark
County that OPB has brought on
a second reporter to cover this
neck of the woods, and we still
have a bunch of neighborhood
picnics out there, even though
school has already started, we
will not have a meeting next
week. We will not have a
meeting the following week on
the seventh. Happy Labor Day to
everyone. We will see each
other on the 14th, so we'll
have a a bit of a break there,
but happy Labor Day to all of
those folks. City manager
comments.
>> Yeah, I did want to address
one thing. While Laura Shepherd
makes her way up here to brief
the council on what we found
out with the focus groups after
the citizen survey. And it's
related to something that
Councilor Paulson brought up
about the use of proposition
two. One of our plans is
actually to start issuing an
annual report, much like we do
with the affordable housing
levy, to detail for the public
how that money has been used,
show what projects it's been
used on. I felt like if we were
doing that with the affordable
housing funds for any of these
voter approved levies, we just
need to make that part of our
practice.
>> Okay, Laura.
>> Thank you. Laura Shepherd,
communications director for the
city. I'm here today to present
additional findings from our
community research regarding
the biennium budget. You'll
recall that we worked with
Demme research on our initial
survey. They have a long
history of survey and public
researching in the Pacific
Northwest, which is one of the
reasons why we we work with
them. We've worked with them on
the last three surveys for the
biennium budget. And of course,
that's why we chose to dive in
with them on our focus groups.
This time around, we decided to
do the focus groups. This time
we hadn't before. There were
some. Some of the data kind of
left us scratching our heads a
little bit, and that we wanted
to ask more questions. The
public talked a lot about
infrastructure. They talked, we
asked about finance, and they
talked a lot about public
safety. And we as we were
looking at the data, as I was
taking the city manager and the
Budget Committee through it, we
were we were wondering, well,
wow, we'd like to know more
about what they think. What do
they mean by when they say
infrastructure? Are they
talking about streets? Are they
talking about buildings? When
they talk about public safety,
are they specifically talking
about police? Are they
specifically talking about fire?
Or as some some residents do,
they conflate homelessness and
public safety? So really, we
wanted to do the focus groups
to ask a few more questions
about some of the really great
data that that we received. I'd
like to introduce you again to
Jen Holker, vice president at
DHS. And I'll drive, but she'll
take us through the data. So
I'm going to hand it over to
Jen, and Jen will let me know
when you want me to forward the
slides.
>> Amazing. Thank you so much,
Laura. You can go to the next
slide and we can jump right in.
I think Laura really covered,
you know, the goal of our focus
groups. And it really was to
just dig a little deeper and to
illuminate those findings that
we did find in the survey
research, particularly around
public safety and
infrastructure. If you go to
the next slide. From a
methodology standpoint, we did
do two full focus groups. They
were two hours each, and it was
on Saturday, June 18th that
they were conducted. We had ten
participants in one group,
eight participants in another.
And we've added a lot of quotes
throughout the report. That
might be hard to see now, but
I'll try to hit all of the the
main points. If you go to the
next slide, really, we wanted
to make sure to that, you know,
this, this whole report was
accessible. And so we did, you
know, make sure that we were
very focused on, you know,
making sure we adhered to the
web content accessibility
guidelines throughout. The next
one. What we can actually skip
through these key takeaways.
Laura, if we just want to go
right to the content slides,
because I'm going to hit all of
these key takeaways as we go
through. Great. So we can go to
the next slide and talk about
the demographics. So the goal
of focus group research isn't
representativeness as it would
be in a quantitative survey. In
a quantitative survey, we're
looking to make sure we have
the exact percentages and how
they're represented throughout
the city of Vancouver. In a
focus group, it's a little bit
different. It's more about
making sure each of the
subgroups of the community are
represented, so that every
resident has a voice. And we
try to make sure that, you know,
we include residents from all
income brackets, different age
ranges. You know, we want to
make sure we have our Bipoc
communities included as well,
renters, homeowners again. So
it's more about making sure
that, you know, we give
different demographic subgroups
a voice. You can go to the next
slide. And so when we look at
the top issues in budget
priorities, you can keep going.
Thank you. So we asked them,
you know, what's one problem in
the city of Vancouver that you
would really like government
officials to do something about?
And not surprisingly, it
aligned very well to our survey
results. Homelessness was
definitely one of the top
concerns. But then instead of
kind of the broad category of
infrastructure, we really got
roads and sidewalk maintenance.
We also, you know, did see a
little bit more of kind of the
affordability impact. So the
cost of living, housing costs,
needing low income assistance
programs and things like that
also bubbled up to the top. But
it really was those kind of two
buckets of homelessness. And
then the road, sidewalk and
sidewalk maintenance. You can
go to the next one. And we did
ask them, you know, if we're
looking at everything from a
budget perspective, what city
service would you want to
protect at all costs? And, you
know, really what we saw was
police services, support for
the homeless, fire and
emergency medical services, and
access to affordable housing
for all. It was really those
services that they felt were
most personally relevant to
them and had the greatest
impact on their life, the one
service they'd be most willing
to cut, definitely more focused
on ones they either don't find
a direct connection to
personally, or they don't feel
is necessary right now, or that
it could wait a little bit. And
so we saw property maintenance
and enforcement come up. Zoning
and land use and climate action
were ones that kind of bubbled
up. But I will say that
respondents had a really hard
time picking any service to cut.
They really didn't want to have
an answer there. They wanted to
keep everything. So it really
was a bit of just really kind
of pushing them to, to name a
service they would be willing
to part with. You can go to the
next one. Sure.
>> Ty Stover, I want to make
sure because you said something
and what is written is
different zoning and. Land use.
>> Lane use.
>> Lane use. What does lane use
mean?
>> No, that might have been a
an error. It might be zoning
and land use. I think that when
the team was putting it
together, they were thinking
about the different. Because
they. You'll see later in the
report, there's a lot of talk
about bike lanes, bus lanes and
things like that. And so I
think when we were coding it,
that's how it got coded. But
that's, that's generally what
we were thinking of.
>> Okay. Land use. Okay. Thank
you.
>> Thank you. Please continue.
>> Thank you. And so, you know,
we wanted to say, you know,
when we're thinking about, you
know, what, you know, they
would be willing to cut, they
really, again, were focused on
kind of having that first hand
experience. So again, you know,
kind of they all had experience
with police, fire, affordable
housing, things like that. So
that was really kind of driving
things forward. And then, you
know what they did see as a
priority, but not the top
priority was viewed a little
bit less urgently. And again,
you know, when we were kind of
looking at code enforcement,
zoning, arts and cultures,
again, it wasn't things that
people really wanted to part
with. It was just things that
they didn't see as urgently.
You can go to the next one. And
we did talk to individuals
again about their personal
spending and finances. You know,
as we saw within the survey,
things are getting, you know,
worse for a lot of residents
within the city of Vancouver or
they're staying the same. You
know, it just really isn't
giving that kind of positive
momentum. And on the next slide,
we dig into that a bit further.
So why really it's because, you
know, the inflation, the rising
costs of essentials, gas,
groceries, things like that are
not keeping pace with how
people are being paid by their
employers. You know, they, they
talk about not only losing jobs
or delays in getting
unemployment benefits, but just
that their salaries even
haven't kept up with rising
costs. And so things that they
were previously able to afford
or previously felt comfortable
doing, they've had to make
significant cuts against. There
was also a lot of talk about
housing, not only, you know,
for residents that moved into
the area that say, you know,
housing costs are, you know,
seemingly out of reach for some
individuals, especially younger
respondents or younger
residents. But renters also had
some some struggles. What they
were telling us was those that
rented an apartment were saying,
they have to kind of put up
with the maximum increases that
apartments are allowed to
charge every year, because to
move would mean they have to
pay 1 or 2 months additional
rent. They don't have that kind
of money saved up. And so it
really becomes like they're
stuck and just kind of at the
mercy of their landlords and
the, the participants who are
feeling okay, really had that
kind of fallback. They either
already owned a home, have
owned a home for a significant
amount of time, or they had
someone, you know, leave them,
leave them a property or
they've inherited money. And so
those are the things that make
them feel better. And then we
had a few respondents that were
also working multiple jobs, and
that was the way that they were
able to feel financially secure.
And then, you know, again, as
we saw in the the survey
results, this shouldn't be
surprising. People really don't
find gas, groceries or housing
affordable as well as taxes.
You know, we did see a few
respondents that were saying,
okay, it's, it's affordable.
It's very much driven by income,
but people really are feeling
the pinch right now. You can go
to the next one. Yes. You know,
as I said, I won't kind of
spend too much time on this
slide, but gas was kind of the
least affordable, essential,
you know, really, they were
talking about how they plan
trips to save gas money, you
know, thinking about how they
structure their day or how they
can get out of driving
sometimes using public transit.
But people were really feeling
gas as an essential. That's
just really not affordable
right now. Groceries as well,
you know, knowing that they
need to buy groceries, they've
started changing what they are
buying to cheaper options. And
really, you know, talking about
how it's essentials that are
getting cut at this point from
their budgets as well, housing
affordability. Again, we kind
of talked about that on the
other side, it really depends
on whether they're renting or
buying. If they own a home,
they're far more likely to feel
that housing is affordable. And
then, you know, on taxes, it's
really tied to trust. If they
feel like taxes are affordable
and they believe that the city
is operating transparently and
is accountable for the money
that they take from taxes, they
that makes them feel like
things are slightly more
affordable. So you don't see
kind of as harsh of, you know,
a look at taxes versus, say,
gas. You know, taxes seem a bit
more affordable, but it really
is about, you know, whether or
not they think the money is
being spent in the right ways.
You can go to the next one.
Okay. So when we talk about
public safety and homeless
homelessness, when you think
about safety in Vancouver, this
is what comes to mind. So we
really wanted them to define it
for us. And it really is a
pretty broad definition. They
really focus on police
availability and response time.
But you can see that
homelessness visibility does
come into play, which can also
be loosely connected to crime
rates, drug use, and public and
property crime. But they also
really think about safety in
terms of traffic safety and
pedestrian safety. There was a
lot of talk about sidewalks,
crosswalks, unsafe
intersections, and then, you
know, really just feeling safe
when they're walking about is
kind of all the things that
they, they lump into kind of
that public safety definition.
And then, you know, we asked
them if they were satisfied
with a level of safety in
Vancouver, and most were. And
we really see that, you know,
it's based on their experiences.
So those that were satisfied
reported that, you know, when
they called 911, they were able
to get emergency response times
very quickly. Portland does
Vancouver a great service. And
the fact that everything is
better than Portland. So if
they have experience with
Portland, Vancouver is
definitely seen in a more
positive light. And then
talking about just how their
community is kind of come
together to look after each
other. When we're thinking
about the top reasons for
dissatisfaction, again, it's
the experience. So a lot of
these individuals had, you know,
experiences with slow police
response and perceptions that,
you know, there just wasn't
enough officers on staff to be
able to deal with what was
needed. Seeing property crime
and theft in their
neighborhoods, and then visible
homelessness and drug use. If
you go to the next one, you
know, but things were going
well. You know, when they when
they talk about it, you know,
again, people talked about how
when they called 911 that they
had a fall, they were so
impressed with how quickly
people showed up. You know,
again, a lot of it was really
focused on first responders,
fire departments, police
departments. And that came up,
you know, very specific and
concrete. They had, you know,
it wasn't just a generalized
appreciation. They very much
had specific examples of how,
you know, emergency responders
had showed up for them in the
past. You go to the next one,
but then what's going wrong? So,
you know, depending on their
experience, as I mentioned
before, that really shapes
their perception. So a one, one
gentleman was talking about how
he came home and his front door
to his apartment had been
completely broken into, and it
took police 45 minutes to show
up. Another was talking about
how it was early in the morning
and a police officer was
directing traffic. But, you
know, there just wasn't enough
support. And when they asked
him, you know, kind of what was
going on, they were told that
he was the only police officer
available. And so that kind of
noticeable shortage in only
having one officer for downtown.
And then also talking about
that there's a hiring freeze
for police officers. Again,
these are their perceptions.
That doesn't mean they're
necessarily true, but they kind
of were frustrated by the fact
that the city is willing to pay
overtime when they could just
hire another person,
particularly perhaps at a lower
cost. You can go to the next
one. And then also, you know,
like I mentioned before,
crosswalks, bike lanes,
children being able to go
outside and play are also kind
of part of that public safety
umbrella. And there are some
areas of the city that they
don't feel safe at from a
crosswalk perspective. Also,
you know, in using bike lanes,
they really like the
installation of bike lanes.
They see that there's, you know,
kind of progress being made
there, but they also feel that
they're in some unsafe
locations, especially where
traffic moves at a very fast
pace. And then, you know, again,
I think it was just the child
safety, being able for kids to
be able to ride bikes. You can
go to the next one. And so then,
you know, we wanted to know
whether they thought, you know,
was public safety getting
better or worse. And, you know,
it was evenly split between the
two groups. You know, if they
were newer residents,
especially residents that came
from Portland, they think that
it the city is very safe. It's
getting better, very impressed
kind of with all the safety.
But again, it's it's in that
it's how they look at it and
their point of view. So if
they're coming from Portland,
you get directly compared to
Portland. The same thing with
Seattle and Vancouver shines
very brightly in comparison
with the two larger cities. But,
you know, then longer tenured
residents, residents, excuse me,
you know, see that the city is
getting worse or believe that
the city is getting worse
because they've been here for a
long time, that they see the
city is growing quickly, and
they see some of the problems
that didn't exist before
emerging or seeing homeless
populations grow, for example,
also kind of assaults or
shootings or things like that
they feel are happening more
prevalent. And so it's really
kind of, you know, their
comparison point is Vancouver
ten, 20 years ago, not to
Portland. You can go to the
next one. And, you know, we
really did want to see if
homelessness and public safety
were very much connected and
residents minds. And they
definitely are, you know, we we
were looking at it and there
really was two camps. And I
would say most of the
individuals were really leaning
towards services. But, you know,
from an enforcement perspective,
they really did want to see
increased police presence near
homeless camps. They don't want
them pushed out or cleared out.
There was very big recognition
that that's all the belongings
those people have. So when they
go and clean out the camps and
they're literally left with
nothing. And so they really
didn't want that, but they
wanted to be able to feel safe
in those areas as well. Most
individuals wanted more support
for homeless residents,
particularly those that want
help in getting off the street.
And so they really did want
those, those services available
for those individuals. You can
go to the next one. But when we
kind of look at, you know, how
they really, you know, how they
want to prevent homelessness,
they want to be able to have
services before people are on
the street. There was a few
individuals who had experiences
with, you know, almost becoming
homeless, and they were trying
to find services before they
actually had to, to be on the
street. And, you know, again,
their perspective. But they
said that there was no service
until they were legitimately on
the street, and there was
nothing to kind of help them
from becoming homeless. And so
that's really where they wanted
to see, you know, more service
prevention at that area. And
then as it kind of goes down
the continuum, they wanted to
make sure people had
transitional housing or ability
to kind of get off the street
when they were ready. They
talked about how there's a lot
of vacant houses in the city of
Vancouver, and could that be
something that, you know, women
with children could utilize
from a homeless population? And
then again, you know, they
haven't wanted as much clean up
visibility again, kind of
understanding that that's where
these individuals live, but
wanting it to be safe. Then we
talk about infrastructure. You
can go to the next one. And so
infrastructure is very broad in
the minds of individuals. And I
think, you know, that's really
helpful when we look at and try
to interpret the survey results,
participants really do have
that kind of wide definition.
It's primarily based in
transportation networks, roads,
streets, freeways, like that's
what comes to mind first, but
it also includes sidewalks,
crosswalks, bike lanes, public
transit in their minds. Also,
you know, basic utilities and
systems. They were really, you
know, satisfied with storm
water management. But it also
is included in their definition
of infrastructure. Also, they
think community amenities. So
parks, trails, recreation
centers and schools are part of
infrastructure in their minds.
And then also, you know, as a
much kind of further down the
continuum growth, development
and planning. So, you know, how
are we thinking about housing
and business development that's
all wrapped up in
infrastructure definition for
residents. Overall, people are
pretty satisfied with
infrastructure. So parks, you
know, people talk about how
beautiful the parks are in
Vancouver, that they feel
really lucky that the city, you
know, when there are big storm
surges, water is able to be
dispersed roads and arterial
streets. You start to see kind
of people becoming a little bit
less dissatisfied. You know,
again, they kind of recognize
that highways are really well
maintained. But sometimes side
roads can have potholes and
things like that. And, you know,
you kind of see two. There is
just an appreciation for the
bike lanes and recreational
centers and things like that.
But, you know, people mentioned
that it didn't seem as
accessible in some cases to
some residents, particularly
the rec centers and then
sidewalks and crossings. We're
going to talk about that on
another slide. But people
mentioned a few specific
intersections that they really
feel unsafe crossing. But again,
what do they credit in terms of
infrastructure? They really
love the waterfront
redevelopment. That was
something that unanimously kind
of no matter who we were
talking to, even if they hadn't
been there yet, it was, you
know, just really proud of that.
Within the city, the growth of
the different parks and trails
that are maintained, schools
they think are very competitive,
even at the national level. And
then the expansion of bike
lanes. And then when we look at
the areas of improvement, it's
really the smaller things. So
potholes not being fixed,
traffic lights making
intersections unsafe, you know,
sidewalks that they believed
were promised in their areas
but never built. And then if
they call in and report a
pothole or a light outage, the
response time and actually
fixing that with something that
they really thought could be
improved. But when we asked,
you know, what really could be
better? Tell us it was roads
kind of across the board. Again,
they talked about kind of the
maintenance issue, potholes,
cracks that don't seem to ever
get fixed. You know, they
thought if they're going to
take the time to kind of report
something that it should get,
you know, fixed very quickly.
And then, you know, if
something's promised, they
really do want to see that
follow through. And so, you
know, when they're involved and
if they're kind of making the
effort, they really want to see
results, you can go to the next
one. And then so these are the
intersections or roads that
they, you know, really wanted
to talk about from a
problematic standpoint. So 18th
and Anderson, you know, light
timing was an issue mill plain
kind of how their traffic
lights at every block. I won't
go through all of these, but
these were really the
intersections that they felt,
you know, that were really
problematic. Sixth in
Washington in particular was a
bit problematic from a
crosswalk perspective. You know,
they're like, it's so busy,
it's scary to drive through.
It's scary to walk through. And
so that was one that really was
highlighted as well. And then
fourth plane, I want to mention
this because while people
really love the expansion of
bus lanes and having the bus
system be more efficient, what
they really do see as well,
though, is less room for cars
and more traffic being created
for cars. And so, you know,
again, it's, it's the
frustration is really around
just implementation and uneven
implementation. It's not
blanket dissatisfaction. They
really do notice when things
are changed or fixed, but they
do feel the gaps again, you
know, like they want to see
those sidewalks being built.
They want to see more
crosswalks. They don't want to
have to walk six blocks to find
a crosswalk. And so it's really
those little things that they
want to see that would change
how they felt overall. You can
go to the next one and then,
you know, they talk about bike
lane coverage again. You know,
they want to make sure that
they like that in value. They
value this bike lane expansion,
but they worry about the safety
of it. And they really want to
make sure that's taken into
consideration when expanding
bike lanes to make sure that
riders are safe and not at risk
from being hit by cars. Next
one. And then, you know, again,
this is just coming back to the
bus lanes. One group had a
large discussion about busses
and how the new system, you
know, definitely made things
faster, less stops. They were
able to get to their
destinations quicker. But some
residents did note that while
they could walk out their door
and it was two blocks away
before, now it's 6 or 7 blocks
that they have to walk. And for
some that were disabled, that
was a really big sticking point
because it makes it more
difficult for them to move
around the city. Okay. And then
we get to funding and trade
offs. So, you know, we saw a
very similar breakdown on if
they'd be willing to pay more
in taxes for a higher level of
city services. Most are willing,
but it's very dependent on
income. Income is really the
great predictor of, you know,
whether they're satisfied with
city services and whether they
would pay more in taxes. And so,
you know, these were
percentages that we found in
the survey. And so while it
reflected, you know, 49%, they
pay more. We saw something, you
know, very, very similar. They
wanted to fund education,
homelessness prevention, public
safety training. But when we
looked at, you know, 38% of the
survey respondents said they
were willing to pay more to
maintain services, not add
services. And both focus groups,
it was a big zero. They didn't
want to pay more in taxes, you
know, just to maintain services.
There had to be an added
benefit. And it really came
through on that transparency
and accountability front. They
wanted to make sure that the
money is being used well, that
we're looking at all options
before asking people to pay
more. From a tax perspective.
And again, it really comes down
to transparency. So where every
dollar actually goes and how
the money is being used, there
was a discussion in one of the
groups that, you know, that
information is available. But,
you know, some respondents did
not think that it was easily
available, that you had to kind
of go check through multiple
sources, multiple pages to
compile all the information.
And so they really wanted
something that was very easy to
see and very clear that if
they're paying a gas tax, where
that money is going or any
other type of tax for that
matter. And then they also
wanted to see how the current
taxes are being used and how
they're being allocated, so
they could make better informed
decisions on what to fund. And
go to the next one. One thing
you know, that was a little bit,
you know, unusual. They wanted
to see more volunteerism, more
fundraising and grants versus,
you know, being so kind of
shifting the burden away from
individual households. You know,
they were kind of like, we
could, you know, people will
volunteer to, you know, take
care of the parks and things
like that. They were kind of
just throwing everything at the
wall. So, you know, think of
alternatives to tax solutions.
And I think the overall
takeaway for me there is that
they just want to make sure
their representatives are doing
the same. But what they are
most willing to pay for are
education in schools,
homelessness, water sewers,
parks and roads and
transportation. Oddly, even
though that's such a sticking
point for people within the
infrastructure conversation,
while it's in kind of the top
five things that they be
willing to fund, it comes in at
the bottom. And then we asked
them before they left if they
had any final advice before
leaving the room for the city.
And, you know, again, they
really wanted to just put a
fine point on the transparency
and accountability for all the
money collected. They wanted to
focus a lot, especially when it
comes to homelessness on
prevention rather than, you
know, having a response. How do
we help people that are on the
edge or have recently become
homeless so that, you know, we
can start to decrease the
population overall? And again,
small fixes and follow through.
They really want to see, you
know, in addition to these big
projects that the city takes on,
the small problems also being
addressed. And then they want
the city to also keep in mind
who it's being built for. There
was examples of either luxury
stores or luxury car
dealerships taking the place of
affordable grocery stores and
things like that, and they just
want there to be balance. They
know that, you know, some of
these things are going to bring
revenue in for the city. But at
the same time, they just want
to make sure that, you know,
the city that they've chosen to
live in is still affordable for
them. And they have places that
they can go and frequent, as
well as kind of getting in
newer, nicer, and, you know,
more expanded offerings. And so
that's really, you know, all
that we had from the focus
groups. But I'm happy to answer
any questions. I know I, I
wanted to make sure we, we got
through that in our 20 minutes.
>> Okay. Hang on, counselors,
you had 47 slides. Pick the one
item that you really want to
focus on and the rest we can
direct to Laura to get personal
information from if you have it,
counselor Perez.
>> Hi, Laura. I noticed there's
only 18 people. Was that the
goal or was there a goal of a
number of people? I I'm just
looking at 18 respondents for a
population of 208,000. And so I
I'm not sure how much weight I
really am going to put on the
results here.
>> I'll ask Jen to speak to the
methodology about why focus
groups are a much smaller,
concentrated group of people.
>> Yeah, absolutely. So for the
survey results, that was the
larger sample size. What focus
groups allow us to do is to
really get that directional
data. So that was the goal. For
each group. You have the most,
you get the most detailed
conversations and you can kind
of dig in and allow everyone to
speak in a group of 8 to 10,
any more than that, you know,
and you really don't get to
have those deep conversations
to illuminate the findings of
the survey, which was really
the goal was to kind of dig
into why people felt the way
they did, you know, what were
some of the things that they
really wanted to talk about in
terms of infrastructure and
public safety? Those you can't
really ask during a survey. You
know, you have very limited
space to reach a large amount
of people, but a focus group
allows you that flexibility and
allows you to really kind of
dig in to more directional
findings. So no, they're not
representative of the whole
population, but they are very
directional in helping us
interpret the larger survey.
>> Yeah, I get the focus groups.
My question is the number of 18
people.
>> Yes. That that is very
standard for a focus group.
It's 8 to 10 people per group.
And again it's meant to be
qualitative in nature. So it's
meant to only provide those
kind of directional looks and
insights and to really kind of
dig deep into why people feel
the way they do.
>> Okay, counselors, any other
questions or comments?
>> Mayor, may I speak to that
as well? There's another reason
why we only did two. We also
wanted to be cost conscious. I
mean, we we could we could have
done we could have held more
focus groups, but we felt that
we probably should just keep it,
keep it to two. So we kept the
price fairly reasonable on that
type of qualitative data. Okay.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, the age gaps I was you
know, it's like 18 to 34, 35 to
54. Those are really wide.
That's like there's multiple
generations within some of
those. So I'd be curious like
how close to 18, you know, some
that those two people were.
Those are much different
experiences than those that are
34, for example. So more of a
comment than anything is maybe
having smaller in the future.
When we do focus groups or
anything that the age breakout
is a little bit more staggered.
And I know that there's issues
with, you know, trying to have
anonymity and everything. So
however, we can narrow it while
still keeping that and then
kind of a side quest. What is
the deal with six in Washington?
That's my takeaway from that.
>> The there was a traffic
accident that took out one of
the polls, and there's a very
extended lead time on the
replacement.
>> Any other comments? Okay.
Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor. So the big
one is still trying to
understand this. This issue
that the most important thing
is streets. And the least thing
we're willing to fund is
streets is that one's a tough
one to wrap my head around.
That divergence there.
>> I always think of it as
people hold multitudes and I
that's not a great answer for
this question, Jen. You may
have some more insight into
that, but I think people
sometimes believe two things at
the same time. It's just human
nature.
>> That's definitely true. I
think the other piece is gas
prices. And I think when people
think about gas taxes, gas
prices, you know, there's the
thought that those are going to
more transportation oriented
funding streams. You know, they
they briefly mention it. I
don't think they are
necessarily making a hard
connection in their mind, but I
think the they do tend to
conflate that. Oh, if gas
prices are going up, you must
be getting more money from gas
taxes. And therefore, you know,
that should go to lake streets
and roads and things like that
as well.
>> Thank you. That's insightful.
And then I'm going to do my own
commentary of every other time
when we've had high gas tax
prices, people have slowed down
and moved to smaller vehicles,
and we're just not seeing that
this time. And so just like I'm
struggling with cognitive
dissonance about that, just in
general at this, at this point.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right.
Thank you, Laura.
>> Thank you. Council.
>> All right. City Manager.
Anything else?
>> Nothing additional tonight,
mayor.
>> City attorney anything. All
right. That concludes the
business of the Vancouver City
Council. Brings us into the
community forum opportunity,
where individuals can talk to
us about items that are
important to them. This is also
an area that we do not
videotape. We audiotape it for
public records. So please turn
off the TV