Good afternoon. Welcome to
Vancouver City Council, our
meeting today. Oh, well, first
of all, this is June 1st, 2026,
and our meeting today is back
in chambers. Thank you, staff,
for working so well to make
this happen. We can. Can you
all hear us in the back of the
room? Yay! How wonderful! So,
gosh, this is kind of exciting,
isn't it? New colors, new
floors, screens everywhere. And,
Stacy, you get to be number one
on this day. Let's go ahead and
talk about the Inspire
Vancouver program update.
>> Thank you. Michael.
President.
>> All right.
>> Well, thank you so much. I'm
honored to be the first speaker
in the new space. So thank you,
Mayor and City Council for
having me here. And I'm excited
to give you an overview on the
Inspire Vancouver program. You
will see a series of pictures
throughout the presentation
that are reflective of some of
the types of programs that this
inspire. Vancouver funding
could program. So I just wanted
to let you know that. Okay. For
our agenda, we'll be discussing
an overview of the program.
You've already heard from us
several times in the past. So
this is a little bit of a
higher level overview. Our
progress to date, the community
engagement efforts to date, and
the work ahead and next steps.
As you know, Inspire Vancouver
is a publicly publicly funded
grant program that invests in
community based arts, culture,
heritage and science
experiences for the public.
You'll see some simple
definitions included on this
slide of what is included in
each of these categories. These
categories are an important
part of the identity of this
program. Inspire Vancouver is
one of several cultural access
programs across the state that
were created to make sure more
people can participate in
meaningful arts, culture,
heritage, and science
experiences in their local
communities. The cities of
Tacoma and Olympia, as well as
King and San Juan counties, all
have cultural access programing.
Inspire Vancouver isn't just
about funding individual
projects, it's about
strengthening the overall
cultural ecosystem for our
community. It's a game changer
for Vancouver. It marks a major
commitment to expanding access
to arts, culture, heritage and
science, supporting the local
organizations, and investing in
creative experiences that bring
people together and strengthen
our community. It removes
barriers like cost,
transportation, and
accessibility so more residents,
especially youth and
underserved groups, can take
part in meaningful cultural
experiences. In response to the
ordinance adoption, the city,
the city's Cultural Arts and
Heritage Commission, along with
city staff, was charged with
developing the policy to guide
and and the to guide the
administration and distribution
of the funds. Now we really
need to talk about eligibility
because that's most of the
questions that we receive when
we're out in the public. The
eligibility criteria for
Inspire Vancouver are guided by
the state law and adopted into
our program policy. One of the
most important eligibility
factors is that an
organization's primary purpose
must be to advance arts,
culture, heritage or science.
In Vancouver. Primary purpose
means an overall mission and
programing not just the project
being proposed. Organizations
will be asked to provide
documentation that confirms
their primary purpose. This
could include a published
mission or value statement, or
the nature of business
description form that they
filed with the Washington
Secretary of State. It also
needs to align with the goals
of Inspire Vancouver to
increase access, to strengthen
community connection, to invest
in the cultural ecosystem, and
to encourage creativity and
learning. Applicants should be
501 C three non-profits. If
they're not a nonprofit, they
may be able to apply with a
nonprofit fiscal sponsor that
accepts funds on their behalf
and handles the financial and
administrative tasks for the
project. There are also some
important location
considerations because this
program is funded through the
Vancouver specific tax, the
applicant must be located
within Vancouver city limits or
provide at least 55% of their
programing within city limits
to be eligible. In cases where
there are dual primary purposes
in an organization, for example,
preservation of culture
combined with social services
for that specific cultural
identity, staff will request a
programing summary chart so
that we can look at the year
priors past programing to help
us decide if they're eligible.
They also need to provide
public programing for residents
of Vancouver as part of the
public benefit requirement. If
they aren't sure whether a
location, if their location is
within city limits, there will
be a link on our website. There
is a link currently on our
website for the online mapping
tool, where they can determine
if they're within city limits.
We absolutely do not want
anyone to self eliminate. We
have an eligibility tool on our
website currently that helps
people understand if they're
eligible and if they're still
questioning. We really want
people to reach out to program
staff so we can have a
conversation with them about
their organization, the type of
programing they have and the
type of program they're
suggesting for funding. So
that's a big part of what we're
wanting to do is really engage
with one on one conversations.
In the first year of collection,
the cultural access tax has
raised approximately $7 million.
So we are right on track with
what we were estimating. We now
officially have two Inspire
Vancouver staff on board.
Kirsten Hall, our grant program
coordinator, has been working
on the program over the past
year. And we now have Diana
Betancourt, who is with us
today. And today is actually
her first day and she will be
the program supervisor. So
we're super excited to have her
on board and be leading the
team. All our communication
specialists will we're doing
interviews for that position.
Know that position actually
starts next week. And we have
one last position. That is the
school program grant
coordinator. We're interviewing
applicants this week for that,
and we hope to have them on
board by the end of June. And
then that will round out our
team of four staff to help
manage and run this program.
We're balancing the need to
create effective systems and
processes with a strong value
for distributing money and
creating impact as soon as
possible. In order to achieve
this, staff is developing a
proposal for a limited initial
grant opening this summer. We
are committed to offering
grants in the impact,
innovation and comprehensive
categories, the amounts
available by category and the
timelines involved will be
presented to the Cultural Arts
and Heritage Commission in the
near future. While the amounts
and timelines in this first
round may not reflect the full
program policy objectives,
while we establish the program,
we will ensure that the limited
opening flows smoothly into the
full grant cycle program in
2027. And so starting in 2027,
the grant program cycle will be
Joylyn July to June cycle. So
this initial program cycle that
we're hoping to start this
summer. Potentially end of July
will be applications opening
this summer. Grant review
process awards funding in
October and nine months to
spend the awards before we
start the regular grant cycle
in July of 27. The first wave
of community outreach for
Inspire Vancouver is off to a
strong start. Right now, our
primary focus is connecting
with people and organizations
who are eligible to apply for
grants. We want to make sure
that they have enough time to
learn about the program and
begin considering grant
opportunities before the
applications open later this
summer. We're using social
media and email to encourage
people to follow Inspire
Vancouver social Media to visit
our website, join the mailing
list and attend one of our
community Information sessions.
We've held five information
sessions in May, with more
scheduled for June. We've
welcomed between 10 and 25
people at each of the sessions,
and the information sessions
include a short presentation
and Q&A. After that, staff and
ambassadors. We've. We've
trained several people to be
ambassadors for this, including
some of our commissioners. We
stick around to meet people who
are there and try to answer
questions at that time, and
also encourage them to email
the program staff so we can set
up more proper meetings to
really hear more about their
ideas. There's a lot of
learning happening both ways at
these information sessions.
We're there to educate them
about the program, but we're
also really learning a lot from
them about, you know, really
about questions for the whole
community. It's real time
feedback and it's already
identified new information for
us that we need to consider as
we're building out the website
and the program. After the
grants are awarded in the fall,
the outreach strategy will
broaden to include the whole
community as we start promoting
all the exciting new arts,
culture and heritage science
experiences that the Inspire
Vancouver program has made
possible in Vancouver. We'll be
launching the grant management
software program soon. Kirsten
Hall is working really hard on
that, and she's also been
facilitating a grant process
work group that includes myself
to cultural arts and heritage
commissioners and several
community nonprofit profit
representatives. We've been
developing the application, the
scoring rubric and guidelines
with the Cultural Arts and
Heritage Commission. Feedback.
The Commission works with
Inspire Vancouver staff to make
sure the program meets its
goals and delivers public
benefits to Vancouver residents.
They also make the final
decisions on which
organizations receive funding,
based on recommendations from
the volunteer grant review
Committee. We'll be working
with them on the Grant Review
Committee selection process.
Grant review Committee members
will be selected for their
knowledge of the arts, science,
heritage and community needs.
This depth of expertise allows
the committee to evaluate
applications more thoroughly
against established criteria
such as public benefit,
organizational capacity and
alignment with program goals.
We also want people who are
benefiting from the community
to be members on this review
committee. It's important for
them to have a chance to make
decisions about what types of
opportunities are being funded.
Having a review committee make
recommendations to the
commission, rather than having
the commission review and award
grants, directly creates an
important separation of
responsibilities that
strengthens the integrity of
the program. The committee
handles the time intensive,
detail oriented work of
application review, allowing
the Commission to focus on its
broader governance role and
exercise final decision making
authority with the benefit of
well-researched recommendations
already in hand. This will be a
subcommittee of the Commission
and will be reviewing this and
will be reviewing this with the
Commission on June 11th at
their meeting to help determine
the process for recruitment and
approval of review members. Our
culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission has several key
initiatives in their work plan,
and having a review committee
will really help them balance
the work that they have to do
with the Inspire Vancouver
program and the work they have
to do with the Vancouver Arts
Hub and the public art program,
the different major work plan
items that they are focusing on.
Program staff will host grant
application workshops and one
on one support for applicants.
We really want to ensure that
they have an understanding of
the process, and we can remove
any barriers that might be
getting in the way, and we
recognize the importance of
providing necessary resources,
infrastructure, technical
support to navigate these
opportunities. We don't want to
create any unnecessary barriers.
And I'm happy to take any
questions.
>> Thank you very much.
Councilors. Councilor Hansen,
go ahead.
>> I'm really looking forward
to what is going to be
accomplished here, and also
thinking of some of the
projects to beautify the city
as well. And, you know, some of
us up here might have a bit of
an issue with graffiti that
happens throughout the city.
And I think one of the projects
that always stands out to me is
that project on I-5 right there
off of fourth plane, where we
were able to bring in some art
in an area that really needed
it because it was getting the
treatment that we didn't want.
So maybe we could look at some
projects like that as well.
Throughout the city.
>> We can definitely discuss
that with our Cultural Arts and
Heritage Commission, and
they'll they'll be considering
all of the important needs in
the community. So we can
definitely bring that up with
them.
>> Yep.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor. City
Councilor Eric Paulson speaking.
>> Thank you for the reminder.
>> Yes, Stacey, thanks for the
update. Really excited about
the ongoing progress that's
being made. And also, I really
like the way that you've
created this first award cycle
so that we can get money out in
the community quickly, rather
than waiting until next June,
even if it is an abbreviated
nine month funding cycle, it's
still something out in the
community. And to the comment
that you made, it's also proof
of concept so we can promote
the folks who have gotten those
awards in the next grant award
cycle when we're seeking
broader applications from more
folks. So great concept. Also,
I like the idea of the grant
review committee. I think that
makes a ton of sense,
especially in terms of
balancing workload. As you
mentioned, I'll defer to some
of my colleagues who actually
serve on the TAC. But one of
the things I understand that
the TAC has done lodging Tax
Advisory commission.
>> Thank you.
>> Is that they have developed
a rubric, a scoring rubric, so
that it's very clear how things
are being scored, and
especially if the grants Review
committee is forwarding
recommendations to the Cultural
Arts and Heritage Commission
for review and approval. I
think the culture, Arts and
Heritage Commission members
would be well served to be able
to see what the scoring rubric
produced in terms of scores and
what some of the decision
making criteria are, so that
they can make a well-informed
decision. And there's a little
bit of sort of showing your
work on the part of the grants
committee rather than just
having a subjective process.
But other than that, I'm very
excited about where we are and
where we're going and looking
forward to the ongoing work.
And thank you for your
leadership and that of the
culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission, and congratulations
on the new staff, the new team
and looking forward to the work
that they'll produce. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And if I if you
don't mind me, adding, we have
taken our scoring rubric card
to the Commission for review,
and they have given us feedback,
and we'll be taking it back to
them in June for final approval.
So we totally agree with you.
It's really important to have
their buy in and advice on what
we should be looking at and
scoring. So thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. I'm really
excited about this program. A
couple of questions. One is you
said $7 million has been raised
the first year, and that that
was on track with what you
estimated. Is this an annual
estimation of $7 million per
year? I see Dave shaking his
head back there. Okay. So and
the question really was about
is the intent to grant the full
7 million with within this year
alone?
>> Right. And that's a great
question. And yes, we we
estimate between 6 and 7
million. So we're very thrilled.
We're thrilled to have that
upwards of 7 million in this
first round because it is a
shorter timeline, only nine
months to spend the this
funding. And it is an
opportunity to to learn, you
know, about to ensure that what
we're presenting is working
well for the community. We
won't we most likely will not
be granting the 4.7 million
because we wouldn't want an
organization, say, with a
comprehensive grant to apply
for a $300,000 grant and only
have nine months to to spend
that out, we really want to set
them up to succeed. So we're
going to be thoughtful in the
amount that we're able to fund
in this shorter timeline. But
then and then moving forward,
the commission will have the
opportunity to decide how, you
know, like we'll always have
that. Hopefully 7,000,010% will
come to administration, 10%
will go to the schools for
field trips and access to
venues. And then each grant
category has a minimum amount
that they need to receive from
that. And that will probably
leave about 30 to 40% of that 7
million to be determined by the
commission, how it should be
spent. So they may determine
that they received several
comprehensive grants, and they
might want to give a little bit
more to those in that funding
year, or maybe a little more to
a capital grant in that funding
year. So it will be up to the
commission to kind of decide
how they want to spend the full
amount. And if they decide that
we don't have enough applicants
to spend the full 7 million, it
can be carried over and kept
safely in that fund for the
future year.
>> Okay. And I imagine that as
this effort to learn from this
program, that there will be a
proper communication with the
applicant, people who applicant
organizations to advocate to
improve their applications so
that we're continuing to, to
move forward with a more robust
outreach and organizations
being able to apply. And I'm
interested in the impact that
the applications that do get
granted and how that intersects
or connects back to the rubrics
deciding effort. And so if
there's any feedback loop to
improve that, because I know
sometimes it could be too
rigorous of a system for our
organizations to apply for a
limited amount, if it's just a
three month or whatever. So I'm
curious as to how we're going
to work with our community
organizations to make it easy
to apply, understandable, and
that we're able to track the
impact to be able to ensure
that we're being responsible
with the tax dollars that are
coming into this.
>> Yeah, I really appreciate
that question. One of the
things staff has been talking
about for quite a while is to
ensure that we have a process
set up so that we are working
with the applicants every step
of the way. So while the grant
application is open, there will
be opportunities for our staff
to start reviewing the
applications to make sure
they're not missing any key
pieces. And so we'll be able to
get in touch with them to say,
hey, your application is
looking great. We just need you
to continue to fill out this
certain section, or we'll help
them to make sure that it is a
complete application and
they're not being excluded from
something that they didn't
fully understand. So throughout
that process, we'll be working
very closely with them. Once
the grant funding is awarded,
we'll be staying in close
contact with them. Not too much.
We don't we don't want to
create, you know, stress or
barriers around reporting. We
will have reporting processes
in place if it's a one year
grant, depending on what the
project is, there may be a
midpoint report that they need
to do. At the very least, staff
will be reaching out to them
midpoint to check in, see how
they're doing to see if they're
staying on track with the
proposal that was in their
grant application. And then
there will always be a year end
report that they shared with us.
And then we will review that
and we'll compare it to the
application, the contract that
they signed and agreed to the
scoring rubric as well. And
we'll consider all of that in
conversation with our Cultural
Arts and Heritage Commission to
see if there are any
adjustments that we need to
make. We totally understand
that this needs to be low
barrier and easy access and an
equitable process, and that's
something we've heard over and
over from the community and
something we highly respect.
Kirsten's been working hard
with our grant process work
group to create an application
that isn't necessarily
narrative heavy, heavy, that
creates a lot of stress for
non-profits that might not have
the capacity to put in a lot of
time into an application if
they or they just don't have a
lot of experience with that. So
we plan on staying in
connection, in connection with
them all throughout the process.
>> All right. Thank you, Stacy.
>> Thank you.
>> Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Fox.
>> Yes, just a couple questions
about the grant program itself.
Is this a progress? Are they
are they able to bill as like a
progress billing grant program
or is it going to be
deliverable based?
>> This is deliverable based,
right. They they will not need
to. Report along the way. So
we'll be looking at the program
that they suggested in the
application at the end to make
sure that it's in alignment
with what was proposed in their
application.
>> Typically, you know,
organizations that don't have a
lot of capacity typically lean
towards more of the progress
billing or, or there's
something built into the grant
that has funding that's allowed
kind of upfront as like small
deliverables to get them to the
end line. Is that then?
>> Sorry. Yeah,
>> We are this.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. We will be for the
impact innovation and
comprehensive grants. They will
get funding upon award for the
comprehensive grant. It is a
two year grant. So it might be
a partial funding upon award.
And then the second awarding of
funds partway through their
project or program.
>> Okay. And then kind of
zeroing in a little bit on the
grant committee review
reviewers. Did I hear you say
that they will be a subset of
our arts and culture committee?
Yes. Okay. So they're not new
volunteers that we're
recruiting?
>> Well, no, they they will be
new volunteers that we're
recruiting. Yes. And they'll be
reporting to the commission and
they'll have there may be a
commission member on that, but
it will be it will be local
community members who are
non-profits in the cultural
arts and heritage community, as
well as we're hoping to get
members from the public who can
sit on this so they can have a
voice in the type of funding
that their tax dollars are,
type of programing, that their
tax dollars are funding.
>> I guess I have a few
concerns around a new committee
being formed, especially given
all the consideration and
thought that we've put into
recruiting the Arts and Culture
Commission and ensuring that it
has a really balanced group of
individuals, and not saying
that this new committee
wouldn't be as balanced, but I
would say council members have
weighed in on the on the folks
that are sitting on that
committee already. And this new
committee doesn't sound like we
have any role. And as far as
recruitment or approval of this
new group that would be
overseeing perhaps $7 million.
>> That's correct. It will be
the culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission that helps select
the members of the review
committee. Yes, because the
program is set up with the
Cultural Arts and Heritage
Commission overseeing the grant
funding, we felt it appropriate
that they be the ones that are
able to select the review
committee members as well.
>> Could you explain more of
the reasoning why there needs
to be a separate committee? Is
there a time constraint concern
with the Arts and Art
Commission actually reviewing
them themselves?
>> Yes, I with this type of
funding, we really anticipate
upwards of 50 to 70
applications, if not more, once
the program really takes off
this first round, there may be,
you know, only around 50. But
as word spreads and people
start to understand eligibility,
we fully anticipate a number of
applications that would be just
would increase the workload of
the commission tremendously if
they had to review all of them
and also make the decision and
be able to continue the other
work that is on their plates.
So we're trying to create a way
to help keep them at a level
where they have a lot of say in
every step of the process with
this, but can can rely on a
review committee that can
recommend applications at a
very high level. And when we
have the review committee,
they're presenting the
recommendations. They can have
the applications with them. And
if there are questions from the
commission, they can look at
the applications and answer the
questions, hopefully very
promptly with the Commission.
>> Yeah, I guess I'm still a
little concerned, just given
you know, how important this
grant program will be for the
community understanding. You
know, again, as I just
mentioned, the role that
council has already paid and,
you know, paid forward. And as
in terms of recruiting the
members of the commission and
giving them our full trust in
the work that they're doing,
and having a new committee
formed feels like a lot of time
that staff's going to have to
invest in this new subcommittee,
the training, the vetting, all
of those things feel like
perhaps a bigger workload than
needed. You know, I, I have
lots of ideas on how to get
through 60 to 100 grant
applications without requiring,
you know, a ton of work, you
know, perhaps, you know,
there's, there's ideas on
breaking up the one group,
three of them review ten and
the other three review ten. You
know, there's lots of ways to
break up that perhaps, you know,
amount of applications that
might arrive at the city so
that we can just retain our
original commission and their
overall review of these
applications. Again, knowing
that they've had so much time
and attention even put into
creating the grant program
itself. So I don't know if I
will unless my colleagues share
my concerns. I'll let it drop.
But I voiced them.
>> No, I appreciate that. And
we do recognize it will be a
heavy lift for a review
committee. And and, you know,
our staff and our the staff
that we're bringing on board
are committed to to that work.
And we you know, I appreciate
what you're saying and we can
continue to discuss. But thank
you. Appreciate it.
>> Any other comments? City
manager, Mayor Pro Tem brings
up a good point. If I'm right,
I believe we have five
different ways the community
receives grants from the city
of Vancouver. We have L Takach.
And so we have a group that
works on that. We have housing,
Cdbg home, all of those. We
have neighborhoods that receive
money. We have traffic calming
with transportation, and now we
have inspire. I'm wondering if
we could get staff to do put a
spreadsheet together just real
quick so that we can kind of
see who, what, where, when, why,
how much money, who's how many
are applying, what type of
money is going out the door,
who is on the at the different
levels of decision making. So I
know ltac housing has always
been kind of a question of who
is meeting to help Sam. And
then that comes forward to us.
So here we have inspire. How
many are we expecting to get?
How much money kind of the
timeline here and that decision
making process. So if we can
look at that, along with
neighborhoods and traffic
calming counselors, am I
missing any other grant
opportunities that are going
out to our community?
>> Yeah, it would be nice to
see more of a comparison of our
processes across the city.
>> Yes, councilor. Go ahead.
Councilor Erik Paulsen.
>> Thank you mayor. I believe
that this program is unique
among the programs that you
just named in that we have
empowered the culture, Arts and
Heritage Commission to have
ultimate decision making
authority. And so that's a
distinction.
>> Good point.
>> And while I appreciate the
comments of the mayor pro tem,
I think that having more voices
involved in that process makes
a lot of sense to me. And I
would just say, this is what
empowerment looks like, is
giving a commission who has
ultimate decision making
authority over a program, the
ability to enlist additional
members in that decision making
process so that they have a
well vetted program, and that
also provides them relief that
they do have a lot of other
things that they're focused
upon, including the arts Hub
and many other things. And so
I'm, I'm supportive of the
program that's been proposed,
acknowledging that some
concerns have been raised, and
this is part of what we are a
lean organization that learns
as we do. And so we will learn
as we do. And if we have
concerns or issues, we can
address those issues.
>> Yeah, great.
>> Thank you.
>> Mayor. Yes.
>> Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, Council Member
Stover. So I hear the mayor pro
tem I am less concerned in this
instance because it will be a
board that we have appointed,
appointing the committee. Where
I get concerned is where staff
starts appointing committees.
And I feel like in those
instances, we've given up our
authority at that point. But
I'm. I'm more comfortable when
there. I can trace it back a
lineage back to decisions that
were made by council. So thank
you.
>> Okay.
>> Any other comments? Yes,
counselor. Go ahead. Councilor
Harless.
>> Thank you, Councilmember
Harless, for this subcommittee.
What kind of structural
supports would be given,
whether that's a stipend or
other supports and training, if
we're trying to get a real
diversity of members? You know,
I think about folks with kids,
school schedules, all all the
things that you I know you're
aware of that can be barriers
to a diversity that would be
present on this. I was curious
what additional supports would
be given to the subcommittee.
>> Yeah, thank you for that. It
is really important. And we do
want to make sure that there is
a stipend that will be offered.
We will be looking into bias
training as well. We'll be
working with scheduling and,
you know, see what the
commission's thoughts are
around any of the training that
they would like to see from
them as well. These are all
really important factors as we
consider the selection of this.
And hopefully we'll be able to
set up meetings where they
aren't necessarily all in
person, and they'll have
flexibility to have some hybrid.
So it works with their
schedules. But we are taking
all of this into consideration.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Councilor Diana Perez, thank
you so much. I agree with the
in support the commission doing
the work for the subcommittee
and identifying that. What I
would like to make sure is that
the Council sees the list of
the folks that are being
recommended or appointed, and
if we have any suggestions that
we're able to provide that
recommendation to the
Commission to consider as well.
And also, if we have any
concerns, we'll be able to
communicate that also. So both,
I think, is a good, good thing.
But final recommendation would
need to come from us.
>> Okay.
>> All right. I appreciate that,
Stacey.
>> Thank you so very much. And
keep us abreast of the news as
things progress. Good job.
Thank you for your time ahead
and switch over. Dave Perlick
with Parks and Rec and the
Clark County Sustainable
Funding Team update.
>> Thank. Yeah.
>> I was going to do a quick
little intro. For folks, if I
may.
>> That we would we would
appreciate that. And then we'll
go through the presentation.
Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Council member
Diana Perez here. I want to
appreciate the council, my
colleagues, for making me work,
not making me, but identify me
work with with the Regional
parks funding task team. One
thing that became very clear
throughout the process for me
was that our park system does
not stop at the jurisdiction of
our boundaries, at our
jurisdictional boundaries, and
that neither do the people who
rely on on our parks. Our
Vancouver residents benefit
every day from regional
destinations like Vancouver,
Lake, Frenchman's Bar, Lucia
Falls and the trails in our
natural areas throughout Clark
County. Just like the residents
from across the county use our
Vancouver facility,
recreational facilities,
community spaces and our urban
parks. So what's important is
that this collaboration that we
have right here recognizes that
our communities are deeply
connected and that maintaining
safe, accessible and high
quality parks and recreation
opportunities requires a more
coordinated regional
conversation, which is what we
did here. And I'm excited about
today's workshop presentation
from staff who's going to walk
through the data, the funding
challenges, the benchmarking,
and the models that we have
looked at as a task team. And
I'm excited for you all to hear
that and ask the questions.
Hand it over to you now.
>> Well, great. Thanks. Hi,
Dave Perlick, director of parks,
Recreation and Cultural
services for the city. I'm
going to do some intros with me
as Ross Hoover, director of
Clark County Parks and Nature.
I think I got that right. Want
to recognize and acknowledge
County Councilor Glen Yung,
who's here today, who's
participated throughout the
process with this task team
member of our Parks and Rec
Advisory Commission, Jim Lewis,
has been monitoring this
process closely, and I want to
acknowledge Evelyn Ives, Clark
County staff member, who you'll
see some of the data in this
report really has done an
excellent job supporting us and
pulling some of that together.
So I hope I didn't miss anybody,
but it has been a team effort.
And I think right off the bat,
those introductions are
important. What we've been
doing is really, at the request
of the county council to look
at funding throughout the
county. And so the presentation
that you'll see today is a
briefer version of a
presentation that was delivered
to the county council about a
week and a half ago. And so if
we could move on to the next
slide, I guess I'd do that
quick agenda. We want to talk
about the discussions we've had
and some of the findings. That
includes comparisons to some
natural benchmarks to say, how
are we doing across the county
and as individual agencies,
that work has advanced to
looking at some funding model
options. We'll talk about that
in brief terms today. And
there's a recommended set of
next steps. This is not a go no
go decision. This is really an
opportunity to update you. Make
sure that we're in alignment
with council council values and
and the information you need as
we move forward in this process.
And so with that, I'm going to
turn it over to Ross.
>> Thank you Dave. Thank you,
mayor. Councilors. So the the
task team met over about six
months, met ten times, had some
really deep discussions, a deep
dive into the data comparison
against national data so that
benchmarking exercise, some
interesting insights came out
that we found that led to the
specific recommendations that
we presented to county council
a week and a half ago. On this
slide, I wanted to share that
the one of the findings is that
the county parks system is
simply not meeting its needs.
There's a lack of available
funding, there are rising costs
as we're all experiencing rapid
population growth on top of
that. And so for the past five
years and on this bar chart,
you can you can see the revenue
expenditure for for Clark
County parks, you can see this
gap. This gap has required the
county to draw upon funds to,
to, to make us whole on an
annual basis, because there
just simply isn't enough
revenue in the system to
support the operational needs.
Doctor Dave.
>> Yeah, and so I wanted to
talk in brief terms about some
of the evaluation that we did
against national metrics. So on
on the slide I'll try to orient
this. Well what you see is
seven reporting agencies, Clark
County and seven cities in the
county that took part in this
process. The National
Recreation and Parks
Association publishes a
comprehensive report. We've
identified some of those
standards to compare ourselves.
So we've got a really a deep
resource information that we
can compare against. So on this
chart, you can see that Clark
County and those six
participating cities on the
measure of operating
expenditures per capita. Again,
this is a nationally recognized
average that we compare
ourselves against. The orange
bar shows actual expenditures
from the base year 2024. And
the blue line shows the gap
that we fall short of that
national average. I want to
note you'll see some different
numbers at the top on median
values. There's a lot of data
here. That data set actually
segments by community size. So
really the information is
relevant to the size of the
community, provides more
comparability. And I think rich
information, what you can see
is no one's meeting that
operational expenditure average.
In fact, we all fall a bit
short to some degree or another.
I do want to really make sure
and make a note that the
Vancouver numbers, for the
purposes of comparison, we did
not include our Recreation and
Cultural services program
because those are services that
we've got a much more robust
program than other cities. So
for an apples to apples
comparison, we did it this way.
But we also had a lot of
discussion with the group
around the services, the
additional services the city
has in its parks. Inventory.
And if you add our recreation
and cultural services program,
we would be at $85 of
operational investment per
capita. So still below the
national average, but above the
other communities. And so
another measure is the full
time employees per 10,000
residents. And so this chart
shows those numbers for each of
the cities. Again that orange
bar being the agency data in
the blue section showing the
gap between national median
average. Again, you can see
that all communities in this
county fall short, in fact, are
below half the national median
average. Again, if you added
Vancouver's recreation and
cultural services function, we
would move up from 1.6 to 3.7
full time employees per 10,000
residents. But again, still
less than half the national
median. These national metrics
are not meant to be a rigid
standard or necessarily a goal.
We know that communities are
different. However, I think it
was clear to everybody who was
participating that Clark County
agencies are concerned about
funding, particularly as growth
is occurring, and the data
reinforces that. At this point,
we are not meeting the goals
that we've set for our own
communities and that growth
concern, you know, raises the
anxiety around that and really
has created a great discussion
around how do we create a
sustainable funding plan that
we can look to the future with
confidence? Yeah.
>> There you go. So as Dave
just mentioned, growth is a
real part of our picture.
People want to come to Clark
County in part because of the
amazing parks and natural
amenities and natural beauty.
From the state projections, the
county is expected to grow 34%
over the next 20 years. The
park system needs to grow and
adapt and change to the needs
of those future residents and
our existing residents as their
needs change. Given our
operational gaps that you just
saw in the previous two slides,
we need to find a solution. And
so that was the next body of
work of the task team to look
at specifically where other
communities, other areas, other
regions throughout the country
that have encountered this same
challenge. And how did they
respond? What specific steps
did they take? What mechanisms
did they use? And so we we had
a good opportunity to look at
some of those funding models
and mechanisms. We landed on on
two that were particularly
interesting. And you can see
the various characteristics of
those, those two funding models,
one, a Metropolitan Park
District funding structure, and
two, a regional levy, a county
wide levy. So some of the some
of the regions that are
utilizing these tools, one of
them in particular is just to
our North King County. They
passed a regional levy in 2005
when they had a position
similar to the counties and
similar to the city position in
in Clark County, where that
that operating expenditure was
far below the national median.
So they put a a regional parks
levy on the on the ballot. It
passed and it has been renewed
every, every cycle. Until just
recently, this last August was
renewed. That levy provides
funding for King County parks,
but also through a an
arrangement where the county
enters into an interlocal
agreement with the cities is
shared with the cities
subsequently. So it benefits
not just the county system that
provides the large regional
parks and the regional trails,
but also the city needs the
city specific needs. So that
was particularly interesting.
The second item or mechanism
that we looked at was the
Metropolitan Park District
funding structure. And we'll
talk on the next slide just a
little bit about what that
might look like in Clark County.
So the Metropolitan Park
District that currently exists
within Clark County is called
the Greater Clark Park District.
It exists essentially close to
the urban growth boundary of
the city of Vancouver. So just
north of the existing city
limits and just south of that,
that UGA northern boundary. So
this this Metropolitan Park
district was passed by voters.
It collects a a property tax.
That property tax is dedicated
specifically to park
acquisition, development
operations, maintenance
programs and services. Only
within this within this
boundary. And so thinking back
to that past slide, those two
options we have available to us.
I mentioned the levy option
that the model that King County
uses would extend to the, the
boundaries of the county and
would function as a source, not
just for the county system, but
also the city systems. But a
levy would overlay this, this
Metropolitan Park district,
this Gcpd or Greater Clark Park
District, creating an area
within the county where folks
inside the district would be
paying for park services and
maintenance operations and
acquisitions twice the levy and
the Metropolitan Park District.
And it's for that reason that
we heard from cities that that
one's less that option, that
levy option is less favorable.
Back to the second option that
we looked at, and that's the
Metropolitan Park District
option. So the notion is that
the boundaries of the existing
Greater Clark Park District
could be expanded to the extent
of the county county limits and
could act as a funding source
for the county park system,
regional parks and regional
trails, and the local city park
systems through an interlocal
agreement where the revenue is
shared. And that brings us to
the the recommendations from
the report of the of the
Regional Parks Funding Task
Team and this. These
recommendations were provided
to County Council. A week and a
half ago. The County Council
directed staff to move forward
on these three bodies of work.
These three actions. So Body
action one is conducting market
research, really understanding
how does this fit, asking the
key questions of our residents,
of our business owners. Does
this type of a mechanism work?
Is this an investment we want
to see within Clark County?
Within number one, you'll also
see public education an
opportunity to provide the
detail, the information about
what this what this mechanism
could do for citizens, for our
residents, for our business
owners and. And what it won't
do. So that public education
component is crucial. Item
number two determining
viability and process. What
does this look like to extend
the boundary of a metropolitan
park district? Do we have a
viable pathway? What are the
legal implications? Whether we
need a really a formal legal
review? We want to hear from
folks about whether this is
functional or not, not just
from the county, but also the
cities. And then, number three,
to develop a framework for
revenue sharing, to pull
together all of the parks,
agencies, all of the cities,
and develop a framework and a
subsequent interlocal agreement
whereby the revenue from a
Greater Clark Park district
expanded could be shared at the
local level.
>> And so that's a lot of
information coming at you. In a
pretty short presentation, we
wanted to leave time for
questions and comments. I mean,
ultimately we want to, again,
make sure that we're in
alignment as we move forward,
as we're talking to other
agencies in the county. So
we've added a few prompt
questions, but we'll pause,
look for your feedback and let
us know if there's any specific
questions that you have for us
today.
>> Great. Thank you very much,
Dave. The City of Vancouver
imposes park impact fees,
correct. Does the county and
the other cities do that?
>> Yeah, we we dug into that
information and we found that,
yes, the county imposes impact
fees. And I'm going to say
within an urban growth boundary,
which is what's allowed under
GMA, formerly the city and the
county administered that
program within Vancouver's
urban growth boundary
consistently. And really, it's
many of those same provisions
still exist today, even though
we're not working through a
formal joint agreement. And we
looked at the other cities and
we provided information, we
looked at the rates. So yes,
generally speaking, those other
large cities in the county all
have impact fees. And we're all
administering that program. But
the provisions aren't exactly
the same.
>> So does that mean the other
cities do not have park impact
fees?
>> They do. They do have park
impact fees.
>> Okay.
>> Yes. What happens to those
impact fees?
>> Yeah. So that is just
another funding source for
parks. It would be factored
into the need behind either a
levy or a Metro Park district.
Ultimately, you could all of
the Metro Park districts that
I'm aware of are in communities
that also impose impact fees,
impact fees, paying for the
proportionate share that new
growth is demanding on the
system, often matched by the
Metro Park District revenue and
the programing and ongoing
maintenance and rehabilitation
of the system, then becomes the
sole responsibility of other
funding sources. Which primary
one in those cities would be
the Metro Park district. They
work hand in hand, if that
makes sense.
>> Well, I like the matching
idea. Yeah, but I would not be
accepting the fact that the
city charges impact fees.
Therefore, we would get less
funding from the Metropolitan
Park District or whatever. That
would not be a good compromise.
Councilors, let's go backwards.
Councilor mayor Pro Tem Sarah
Fox.
>> That's right. I did have a
one of your follow up questions.
Here is what specific
information would be useful.
And when I was looking at the
chart on the FTE comparison,
what I was wondering is more
information about what type of
services are included in that
kind of national comparison,
given kind of building upon the
mayor's comments, the different
services that each of our
cities provide when it comes to
park services and the county
itself, you know, include the
city actually has recreation
centers, and we have programs
associated with those
recreation centers. And there's
a lot of other specialties that
are particular park system
supports versus the county that
doesn't have those things. Some
of the cities don't have
recreation centers. Right. So
I'm just curious more about how
do you really compare the
apples to apples on that FTE
numbers and the gaps
potentially, if you have an
answer now, it'd be great. If
not, that would be information
I'd be looking to hear more
about.
>> Yeah. Again, I need to note,
I need to reintroduce. David
Perlick, director of Parks and
Cultural Services. The data set
is actually rich. We can look
at specific agencies and see
what they reported. I mean, I
think ultimately the main
measure is breaking it apart by
community size, helps balance
out some of those, you know,
typical differences. But I
think that we need to work
together as agencies within the
county to better understand
through that interlocal
discussion and apportionment of
money, what are the various
needs, opportunities and
responsibilities? I know
Councilmember Perez can vouch
that we had robust discussion
about how frequently people
from outside the city use our
community centers, and so we
really made that front and
center that when you're the
only game in town, certain
services get used. And we do
have a nonresident fee rate,
but it doesn't always fill the
gap. So I think I can say we'll
be discussing that that's
already been discussed and
needs to be discussed more in
this discussion of allocation
of resources.
>> Okay, so I have a couple
more questions based on on this
particular piece around
services. So understanding that
we've talked a lot about, and
this is Mayor Pro Tem Fox,
understanding that we have had
a lot of discussions around the
annexation topic and, you know,
acknowledging that if the city
annexes in, you know, more of
our urban growth area than we
have a responsibility to
provide those services that
have not been provided, like
recreation centers or, you know,
improving parks to the level
that our city residents enjoy.
So I'm wondering, is that when
we're thinking about this new
organization, are we bringing
more of those services to those
areas in the county? Are we are
we going to have a new rec
center in in other areas of the
city or the county?
>> Yeah. Thank you. Good
question. Ross Hoover, Clark
County Parks and Nature. So one
of the, one of the sort of
recurring themes that we heard
from cities across the county
was that each city is, is
conducting their own parks
system plans, development and
parks, recreation, open space
plans that 20 year look out
that vision document that
provides for the blueprint for
the future of the system and
that the cities in the. In our
conversation repeated over and
over again that that each city
should have autonomy to direct
funds that are shared from a
Metropolitan park district for
the specific investments that
their own community has
identified and the specific
priorities within their own
community. Okay. And so that
was just one piece that we
heard from cities in this
discussion that was really
important.
>> And my final question is
around the funding allocation
piece as well, understanding
that we're the largest city in
the county. And often I think
there are folks that perhaps
are not super excited about
looking at a funding scheme
where the city of Vancouver
might get proportionally more
funding based on our size than
the rest of the county. So I'm
wondering how that discussion
is moved forward, given, you
know, that particular lens.
>> Yeah, certainly not
something that we discussed in
detail. And so that's really
some of the key work yet to
come through that Elya and
revenue sharing framework that
we need to develop really a
cooperative effort. And we
really need to hear from all
cities about what their desires
needs are specific to their own
community, what that looks like
in that final product. I, I
could only guess at this stage
when we reconvene that group,
the cities who are interested
in participating in developing
that Elya will have a pretty.
We'll have some more clarity
for what that might look like,
but certainly I think you you
certainly, I think, touched
upon the the key, the heart of
that discussion is, is over
revenue sharing. And what is
the proportion and what are the
mechanisms that decide who gets
what share?
>> Councilor Perez, did you
have any questions or comments?
>> No, just to add that. Thank
you. Ross. There was really
good communication across the
cities in particularly ensuring
that there is this autonomy to
manage their own park system
with their own budget. But
getting that commitment at a
continuing the conversation,
what does that proportional
distribution look like? If we
were to go into an ILA, and so
we've touched on that
conversation, we've asked that
question, and taking a step
back wanted to ensure that we
have these other steps so that
we can move forward to have
that discussion. But from my
sense with this group, was that,
okay, we're we're poised to
have that conversation once we
get all these first recommended
steps done. But I, I feel
confident about it. I think we
will be able to, to get to a
good place where we will be
able to work through that.
>> Councilor Harless, any
comments?
>> Yeah, I'll be particularly
interested in that. Number
three, about revenue sharing
and the nuances that could be
included in that. For example,
you know, like heat mapping,
like where are people actually
at? Where is the higher
proportionality of people that
do not have yards of folks that
have a higher need for natural
spaces where people are going
for work, having the need of
natural spaces, you know,
during your lunch breaks. So
those nuances being included in
there and, you know, Vancouver,
you know, I would assume would
have a higher proportion of
individuals without their own
backyards or access. And so
making sure that's included in
that revenue sharing model and
the number of folks that are
coming here for, again, work
and employment, and also
accessibility would be really
important too, in how that
distribution is shared. If, if
it's going into a region where
there's less access to the
entire region, then that that
needs to be considered as well,
because then that's not
accessible to the entire region.
And including that as part of
it. So I know you mentioned
community size. Of course,
that's a good baseline, but I'd
be very interested in the
details that go beyond that as
a baseline, but really excited
about this conversation and
this work. And thank you for
including these numbers. It
really sets that, you know,
better understanding of where
we're behind. And I know that,
you know, our own parks, you
know, continuously, it is one
of the things that comes up
most often to potentially be on
the chopping block because of
the revenue sources. And so I
don't want to see that anymore.
I want to see more sustainable
funding throughout the entire
region. And so I'm excited that
we're having this conversation.
And thank you.
>> Councilor Bart Hansen.
>> Thank you, mayor Council
member Bart Hansen. Definitely
a tough nut to crack. When you
take a look at your expense or
your revenues, you're looking
at right. You know, you're
you're looking at this is going
to be a very similar
conversation to what we're
having with Ryan here in a few
minutes. But you're looking at
those two. They're not going to
cover what you're looking to do.
And also, if we're looking at,
what was it, 36% over the next
20 years as far as growth, the
the concern that I have is are
we able to meet our current
needs because to, to look at
the growth and say, yeah, we
want to expand into this
particular area, build this
community park, we want to
build these pocket parks and
which is great. But at the same
time, if you can't fund what
you have, because, I mean, what
are we looking at for an acre
to for operating costs of a
park?
>> Yeah, I don't really have
that.
>> It's just off the top of my
head. I remember it was a
number. I was like, oh, wow.
Well, when you think about it,
everything that goes into it,
the number makes relative sense.
So I think that's one of the
concerns and why I'm totally
interested in moving forward to
finding out this information.
Also, I think we have a bit of
an identity issue where folks
don't quite realize that when
you go to Frenchman's bar, you
go to Vancouver Lake. This
isn't just funded out of the
city of Vancouver. This is, you
know, yeah, Vancouver police
arrive. You'll see VPD rolling
up. But what where is this
actually coming from? Because
those parks are used, they get
a high usage, especially when
you look at the covered areas
where you can have large
families gather. So just my
point. Great job. Please move
forward. Thank you, mayor.
>> Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor. Council
member Stober again. So I think
I've gotten this answered, but
we'll continue to be interested
to see how this matches with
our charter's requirement that
we have a Parks department. And
I'm not prescribing, just
making sure that we're aware
that we have something in our
charter that says we have to
have a parks department. The
other thing is, I look at the
map. There are a lot of county
properties, park properties
that exist outside of these
urban growth areas. And so
wanting to understand how that
plays in to this whole
conversation. Thank you.
>> Councilor Erik Paulsen.
>> Thank you, mayor. I'll say
at the outset that I'm
supportive of continuing the
conversation, and I think that
those are the correct three
areas of work.
>> Ross, you said, look to the
future with confidence. Right.
And I think that's an important
anchoring point for this
conversation, because we all
know that all of our
jurisdictions are increasingly
under significant revenue
pressure. We are not keeping up
with our expenditures. You had
some data on that, but there's
a lot more data that could be
used to illustrate that point.
We are in a budget year. When
we get to the end of this
budget year, inevitably there
will have to be compromises
made. And sadly, although we
know that folks move here and
stay here because of the
natural beauty and the parks,
parks often is, as
Councilmember Harless mentioned,
one of the things that is easy
to make cuts in. And so sadly,
it's one of the things that
often is cut in challenging
fiscal times. And for the
foreseeable future, we're
looking at challenging fiscal
times. And so one of the things
that I'm really excited about
with this conversation is that
it provides some additional
revenue in the system to help
buffer some of that. And I do
think that the the real trick
here is going to be that
interlocal agreement, because
we have different jurisdictions
with different philosophies,
different autonomous systems
that they want to run their own
way. We have different
philosophies about who should
get what. Some people feel that
they should get exactly out of
a system, what they put into it.
Others are a little bit more of
a we're in this together.
Sometimes it's what is the time
frame that we're talking about?
And whenever we have these
interjurisdictional agencies,
those are the kinds of
conversations that we wind up
in. We've been having those
similar conversations around
transit, for example. And so
we've got communities that are
emerging in vastly different
ways to like Vancouver is
becoming increasingly urban.
And you've heard some comments
from some of my colleagues
about the ways in which that
manifests and how that affects
our parks standard. It's an
urban park standard versus a
suburban park standard versus a
rural park standard. What are
the needs, financially and
otherwise in the system? And
then how can you then compare
an urban park system to a
non-urban park system and come
up with an interlocal agreement
that's equitable, that meets
everybody's needs,
understanding that everybody's
needs are slightly different
within this system. And so
that's going to be a real trick.
I'm optimistic that we can find
a way to do that other
jurisdictions have. We're not
unique. And having an urban
area within a broader county
that's not as urban. You know,
King County is the same way.
And so it can be done. I hope
we can do it. It's going to
take leadership. But ultimately,
when we get through this
conversation and we get to a
solution that everybody can
agree with, we're all going to
be better off. Because, as has
been mentioned before, and we
mentioned at the outset, folks
don't know where the city
limits are when they go to a
park. Wildlife doesn't know
where the city limits are when
they look for a place to build
their nest or what have you.
And so while it's good to
remind folks that we have a
system and that different
jurisdictions providing
different services, in the end,
what we want to have is a
system where everybody has
access to recreation and to
parks and to green space that
they can enjoy. Regardless of
where they happen to live
within the county. So thank you
for the good work that's been
done so far, and look forward
to the ongoing conversation.
>> Councilor Stauber.
>> Thank you, mayor.
Councilmember, over again. The
other thing I was thinking is,
you know, many times we look at
these national benchmarks and
they're helpful, but they're
not always practical. And so I
would add to this list of
things, and maybe it's part of
one of these three already, but
what is that target level that
we're going to really shoot for
realistically, at least in the,
in the next 20 years. And so we
can, so we don't so we can
still push ourselves, but not
feel overwhelmed that we're
never going to achieve this
national average, which I'd
love to, and maybe we will. But
I think that conversation needs
to happen. Thank you.
>> One last comment. We you've
heard a lot about finance. I
need more specific information
on governance. As we look at
governance of C-TRAN,
governance of the library
system, governance across the
county. As was pointed out by
Councilor Paulson, we have
different ideas of what things
should look like. I'll need
some more information about
governance, representation and
governance. Thank you so very
much. All right. We have less
than an hour, but we're going
to bring in Kate and Ryan
Lopossa and jump in to our
transportation improvement
program. Thank you so much.
>> Adrian.
>> I know sunglasses next week.
All right. Who's kicking this
off, Kate or Ryan? Ryan. I each
pointed to each other.
>> Okay. All right. Kate. Hello.
And thank you for having us
today. I'm Kate Brennan,
transportation planning manager
and community development, and
Ryan Lopossa, transportation
manager with Public Works. And
we are here today to begin the
process of our annual update to
the Transportation Improvement
Program. So today we'll do a
brief reminder on the basics of
the transportation improvement
program, including what
elements make up the plan. Then
we'll get into the changes to
the work program, including
some project highlights. We'll
touch on the inputs into the
prioritization process,
transportation, finances, and
then next steps for council
adoption. So I'll get us
started with the first few
elements, and then I will hand
it off to Ryan. So the
Transportation Improvement
program is an annual program
required by law. It really acts
as kind of a six year work plan
for all of our transportation
projects and investments. It
includes the capital projects
that we plan and build,
programs that fund activities
and ongoing work, such as
pavement maintenance. The plan
includes an overview of our
finances, including project
costs and sources, both
internal and external, such as
federal and state grants. And
each year, we update the plan
to remove the projects that
have been built or are under
construction and will be
completed within the year, and
projects that have changed or
been amended, and of course,
projects that have been added.
And so projects will move
between an unfunded to
partially funded to a fully
funded list. The Tip or
transportation improvement
program is really vital for
coordinated planning within our
Regional Transportation Council
and the state Department of
Transportation. Often when we
apply for grants, we need to
ensure that these projects are
on these lists so that everyone
knows they've kind of gone
through a process. And we do
this. This program update
annually, as I said, and
council approval is required by
July 1st. So this graphic on
the screen is really meant to
depict that there are various
mechanisms for a project to
reach the transportation
improvement program, as well as
many touch points of community
input. So this top row includes
plans that speak to a
comprehensive and long term
vision of the transportation
system, the transportation
system plan, the strategic plan,
various sub area or corridor
plans, all identify needed
project investments that take
both near-term and long term
vision. However, I'll note that
projects can also come about
from private development. When
we have development that
generates substantial new trips
on the system, it triggers the
need for transportation
investments and projects to
accommodate those new trips. So
now we're in that bottom line.
So we have private development.
Of course, we hear about
projects from the public, from
council and other staff input,
and via planning projects that
come through our Transportation
and Mobility Commission. So
outreach really happens
throughout the entire project
life cycle, including in the
project identification within
these larger plans. In the
design elements and
construction notifications and
more. And we also solicit
feedback on the transportation
improvement program itself,
although we don't typically
receive as much engagement on
this plan, since it's really a
list of projects and priorities
of which the community has
already advocated for and
engaged with us on them. So
what's new in this year's 2027
to 2032 Transportation
Improvement Program? We will
note that this is the final
year of this plan that has
projects beyond the six year
horizon. We call it a six year
work plan, but we've typically
had projects that are longer
than that. Once we adopt the
comprehensive plan, which is
nigh, those long term projects
will be moved off because
they'll now reside on the
Capital Facilities plan, which
is the 20 year plan within the
comprehensive Plan. So that
will be a change in the tip for
next year. So we have updated
project scoring and
prioritization. That happens
whenever we add new projects to
the list. As mentioned before,
projects get added and removed.
So those changes are clearly
outlined. We have arterial map
classification changes. This is
where we identify what those
changes are. In this case all
roadway changes this year were
just to match the federal
functional classification to
make sure that ours match what
the federal functional
classification is. And so we
just want those to be aligned.
And then we have public
comments that are included in
full within the transportation
improvement program. They were
primarily about speeding on
arterials and collectors, a
desire for safer crossings for
pedestrians, quite a bit about
pothole repair. And we receive
some comments in support of the
Evergreen Highway Path. I just
want to note again that the
transportation improvement
program has been shared out.
It's online. We've collected
most of our public comments via
that online dashboard, but
we've also shared out
information about this through
neighborhood association
newsletters, social media be
heard and via three different
meetings with the
Transportation and Mobility
Commission. And with that, I'm
going to move you to some of
the project highlights.
>> Thanks, Kate. So a few key
project highlights that you'll
see in this year's tip update.
We obviously are well underway
with the Heights, the Mill
Plain MacArthur intersection.
We had a nice groundbreaking
ceremony there last week, which
my apologies for missing that I
was home nursing a very severe
illness, but sounds like it
went well. So first of the
Heights projects that are
getting underway. So that's
that's highlighted in the tip.
Another Heights project that's
an even bigger project is our
Grand Loop project. And that's
the project that's funded with
our raised grant. So that one
is also highlighted in the in
the tip. And again that project
will get underway later this
fall. We'll go to Bid and then
it'll it'll start this next
year. Another project that's of
significance is the northeast
18th Street project. This is a
segment between 97th Avenue and
107th Avenue. So this is west
of 205. That project is ready
for construction. We're just.
Teeing up some funding with RTC
and are actually very close to
getting that one ready to go to
bid. So wanted to to highlight
that project as well. We have
our project on 192nd Avenue,
which is the will be the final,
final phase of that corridor.
So from southeast, first Costco
area up to northeast 18th
Street. So we're in design now
looking to move into the
environmental and right of way
phase. Later this year, we have
another segment of the
northeast 18th Street corridor
that gets that has gotten
underway. And that's between
100 and 80 first Avenue and
162nd Avenue. And so we're
getting underway with the
design phase for that. And I do
believe that's an item that's
on this evening's agenda to get
to execute or approve a
contract for design services
for that project. And then just
a number of what we now call
corridor improvement projects.
These are what we used to call
complete street projects. We
call them corridor improvement
projects. So these are the
projects where they start out
as a as a corridor that's going
to be receiving a pavement
management treatment. But we
pause a bit and we go through
some, some processes and some
efforts and some studies to
determine how can we make that
corridor work better, not only
for the cars that have
traditionally used the corridor,
but also for those that use
other modes of travel, such as
walking, biking, small mobility,
as well as transit. So we have
a number of those types of
projects highlighted in the tip
projects that are currently
underway in varying phases, as
well as projects that will
start up within that six year
time period. Scoring and
prioritization has been a key
component of the tip here in
recent years. And so we've
developed a what is a very
systematic process to actually
rank each of the projects in
the tip and to determine, are
we are we moving through our
projects in alignment with the
city's overall goals and
objectives that Council has has
set forward for us? And so
you'll see in phase one where
to invest. So we look at things
like equity. We look at crash
history, collision history
around the community. We look
at essential places. Are there
are there specific areas in the
community that investment is
needed? And then we also look
at future growth areas, such as
the heights and other areas
that we know are going to be
undergoing changes and are
going to require investments in
transportation. Phase two is
when to invest. So are there
opportunities to do a project
in in conjunction with another
time or scheduled effort, such
as a pavement pavement
management project? So can we
do a one of our corridor
projects in conjunction with
the pavement project? Are there
opportunities to coordinate
with other initiatives? Perhaps
we've had cases where
development is happening, and
while the development may not
necessarily be the sole trigger
for doing the improvement, it's
an opportunity to make
something better in the
vicinity of that development by
partnering with that project to
to do that work, what we call
quick wins or just something
that we can do very quickly to
address a problem. The kind of
the low hanging fruit places
where we have right of way
impacts, site distance issues,
line clear zone issues, and
then environmental impacts,
situations where something is
happening relative to the
transportation asset that's
having an environmental impact.
Phase three is our cost versus
benefit portion of our
prioritization. So we'll look
at the overall cost of the
project. And then we'll look at
what kind of benefit that
solution or that completed
project will offer. And, and
that allows us to then
determine how that, how that
score plays into the rank. So
as we group all of those
together, that helps to
identify what we call near-term,
medium term and long term
priorities. So the higher
scoring projects start to get
lumped together into our
near-term list. And then we
look at blocks of, of those
that are falling in the middle,
those become our medium ones.
And those that are falling, you
know, below medium become more
of our long term priorities. As
Kate mentioned, for as many
years as I've been with the
city and in fact, as many years
as I've been doing
transportation improvement
programs in Washington state,
we've always thrown every
project we could think of into
the tip, whether we had funding
for it or not, whether it fit
within the six year horizon or
not. That is something we want
to change with next year's tip
and focus more on the projects
that we're actually working on
within the six year horizon. So
this prioritization process
will continue, but it'll look a
little different because we'll
have fewer projects that will
be will be working with in
terms of ranking and, and
scoring. A quick picture of our
revenue. So this pie chart
represents all of the different
sources of revenue that we use
to fund transportation. Excuse
me. The lion's share of our
funding is a combination of
general fund and our dedicated
street funding strategy, which
represent about 44% of the
total revenue. The dedicated
street funding is a combination
of our transportation benefit,
district dollars and other
other resources savings. As
we've paid down our our debt
that we've taken out against
transportation projects in the
past, we're reinvesting those
funds back into our program. So
that makes up our dedicated
street funding. We have our
traffic impact fees. What's
very impressive on this, on
this graph is nearly a third of
our total revenue package comes
from grants. So dollars that
come to us from outside of the
city, both at the state and
federal level. I would say we
have one of the most talented
groups of folks that I've ever
worked with that are helping us
to go out and look for and
secure grants for our
transportation program. And
we've been very, very
successful in bringing those
those dollars in to help
leverage our local dollars and
then motor vehicle fuel tax and
real estate excise tax. This is
how we break out the
expenditure side. So a good
chunk of that 63% goes to the
capital side, which are the
projects that you see in. In
the tip, we take about 12% and
put that towards our pavement
management program, which
includes all of the different
types of pavement work that we
do, as well as the, the Ada
curb ramp work that we do in
conjunction with our pavement
program. And then 22% is
basically our operations and
maintenance program associated
with our street system. And
then a very small fraction, 3%,
is the debt service that we are
using to pay down that debt
that we've accrued over the
years.
>> Yes. So as a next step, we
will be back in two weeks for
our public hearing on it's on
your agenda. And just to note
that this did go through our
Transportation and Mobility
Commission. It had two
different workshops and. They
did make a formal
recommendation to adopt this at
their last meeting on May 5th.
So I think with that, we will
be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
>> Councilor.
>> Yes, councilor Bart Hansen.
>> Thank you. Mayor, in the
memo in the council packet
information, you had a link to
the dashboard that. It's
fantastic. I got so sidetracked
on that, looking at all the
different projects that happen
throughout the city. That's one
of the things I wanted to
mention. But yeah, this this
looks great. Thank you.
>> Councilor councilor Erik
Paulsen, Councilor Sarah Fox,
mayor pro.
>> Tem that's fine.
>> Just a few questions. I was
just looking at the changes to
this tip. And I noticed the
waterfront way traffic calming
was listed as a as a quote,
complete in 2026, but I didn't
see it in the funded list. So
I'm wondering, well, what is
the funded cost of this project?
And I guess, what is the
complete look like?
>> So we had included the
waterfront way traffic calming
in the tip for, I believe, 2 or
3 cycles we had received
funding. I believe it was I
believe it was low income tax
funding through one of the low,
low income programs where they
pay into. They. And I'm going
to butcher the the description
here. But essentially we had a
program that if they paid into
a public benefit, they received,
you know, an exception to taxes
over a period of time. And
what's important to that is, is
for that particular project.
The benefit at the time was we
needed to do more in the
waterfront with regards to
traffic calming. So we took
that fund and set that aside.
And I was essentially using
that to address all of these
different types of issues that
were that were cropping up
within the waterfront. So what
was used to fund traffic
calming that we ended up
installing on Waterfront Way?
It was used to fund the, the
domes that we ended up putting
on the, on the traffic circles
down at Esther Street and
Waterfront Way and then down at
the end of Columbia Way. So we
essentially deemed it complete
because we're we've not
identified any further
engineering or structural
solutions that that could be
derived to use those funds on,
as I think most council most of
council knows, we're working
with VPD and other partners on
some other strategies to
address some of the issues that
have been happening down there.
But we've kind of we've we've
exhausted, you know, all of the
engineering options that we
believe would would lead us,
you know, would lead to, to,
you know, solving some of those
issues. I would say I've been
having conversations with the
developer of the waterfront
about the existing traffic
calming on waterfront way.
We're not entirely confident
that it's performing as
intended. So there is an idea
to redo that traffic calming
this year. But in this case,
the developer has agreed to
actually pay to have that done.
So we'll, we'll, we'll, we'll
take those existing speed
tables out. We'll put something
in that's a little bit more
assertive would be a good way
to put it. And hopefully when,
when waterfront way is open,
those will help to keep Keip
cars slowed down. But again,
the developer is going to pay
for that. So no cost to the
city there.
>> And just one point of
clarification. So projects that
are funded and will be
completed in 2026 are not in
this program. They're in the
2026 through 20 2031. And so
this is really for projects
starting in 2027 or that will
have action in 2027. So other
projects you might be expecting
to see this year being built
would not be in the tip. If
they'll be completed this year,
they would be in last year's
tip.
>> Okay, so just a
clarification. So Councilmember
Fox, so the traffic calming has
been installed, whether or not
it functions the way you
intended or not. That project
fully funded from last year
being done might be some other
things coming. So it really has
nothing to do with the
conversations that we've been
having with closing part of the
street down or any of that.
That's not any future funding
that we are aware of. Correct.
Okay. And then my other
question is more of a well, two
questions on two projects. One
is, you know, I wasn't I still
haven't seen anything really
around the Saint John's kind of
pedestrian. Well, I'd say
active Transportation Act,
active modes of transportation
kind of solutions that we've
discussed before at council,
you know, folks trying to
navigate down Saint John's, you
know, towards downtown and the
way that entire system is set
up is people are going, you
know, high speeds and having,
you know, even some sections
don't even have sidewalks,
right? So just wondering maybe
why that project, even if it's
unfunded, isn't listed on this
list yet.
>> So we have, we do have some
work planned for the Saint
John's Saint James corridor. We
have some paving work that's
occurring. So we are planning
to go in and do some of the
work that was identified when,
when we did our planning study
in that corridor, I believe
that's actually slated for this
year. So that might be the
reason why it doesn't show up
in in this particular tip,
because again, this particular
tip starts in, in 2027. But and
then as we do further future
work along that corridor, we'll
continue to implement those
solutions that were identified
in that planning study. So
we're essentially doing most of
the work that was that came out
of that that planning process
as a part of other existing
programs, such as our pavement
management program and as as
those as that work comes up on
schedule.
>> Are we monitoring or
planning to monitor the speeds
in that corridor? Because if if
you're saying that the work is
pretty much done or will be
done, I'm I would say that this
isn't working. Well, we haven't.
>> We haven't started anything
yet. So we'll be doing work
later this year. And then yes,
as we complete work, as we
complete our corridor projects,
then we do go into a monitoring
phase where we'll look at, you
know, we'll monitor speed,
we'll monitor Post-project
crash history and so forth to
see if what we did achieved the
desired outcome.
>> Could you send me those
project numbers so I can better
track them moving forward? Okay.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Councilor Diana Perez, thank
you for your presentation on
the line of monitoring. I'm
curious as to, for example, the
projects on the east side of
Vancouver on 34th Street and in.
I understand that that's been
is currently being monitored
and I'm intersecting that with
the development on that side of
the city and its impacts and
how we would adjust in the
future in how that is embedded
into this tip plan or this tip
effort, or in the future. Tip.
>> I don't know that we've
actually formally kicked off
the monitoring phase on 34th
Street. We're just barely done
with the actual project. Okay.
But as we as we go through that
monitoring, we're looking again,
looking at all of the same
metrics that we looked at
during the planning phase. And
really the idea is, is did we,
did we make a difference? Did
we, did we improve what we set
out to improve? We know
particular, particularly in
that corridor that we have. Yes,
a lot of active development
that's going to be happening
within the former HP site. And
so we're going to be looking at
that closely and seeing how
that influences what what's
been done on 34th Street, make
sure that we're still getting
what we had hoped for. And if
if there's something that's not
working, what might need to be
done to, to make small pivots,
small changes to, to, to, to
make it so that it will work.
>> Okay. And on the
intersection of highway 14 and
1/64, going from 1/64 up north
to get on westbound 14, a high
rate of accidents there
currently happening and waiting
to happen as the line to the
light stays green and you're
trying to get on 14 going east
from 1/64. But then you've got
another line going from trying
to get on highway 14, going
west from the bottom under 160.
So I'm just wondering if that
has been on your radar or how
those types of intersections
along. 14 with all that
development in the area,
working with with Wasch Dot and
or if that is a unique thing to
that particular site, or is
that outside the scope of, of
tip?
>> No. Things that we become
aware of happen the way it just
happened, which is you sharing
that, that observation. So
we'll definitely take a look at
and my hunch is that's probably
something that happens more
during rush hour times,
especially in the morning. So
we can definitely take a look
at that. We can determine, you
know, what's happening, why
it's happening. If there's
something that could be changed
operationally to make it work
better, there might be some
changes that could be made to
how the signals operate there.
That is a Wasch dot interchange.
So we would be working closely
with them to to understand
what's what's happening there.
But yeah, that's when Kate
mentioned in the one slide
talks about how do we find out
about projects? How do projects
get into the tip? One of those
boxes was, you know, council
and other other public
suggestions. And that's, that's
exactly how some of these
projects often come to be. We
are partnering right now with
Wasch Dot on an improvement to
the interchange of highway 14
and 1/92 Avenue. Again, lots of
development happening, lots of
trips being sent to that
interchange. There's some
things that need to be done. So
we're working, we're collecting
funds from developers that send
trips to that interchange to
help make those improvements.
And then we're partnering with
the state to implement those
improvements.
>> I appreciate you looking
into that. I several times
almost having accidents there,
trying to get on. 14 going,
coming here to the meeting
because there's no green arrow
just to turn left and the two
lanes are going south to get on.
14 going east.
>> So we'll, we'll definitely
take.
>> A.
>> Look.
>> At taking a look at that.
For our residents. Okay.
>> Councilor Harless Ryan,
could you bring us up to speed
on the new freight corridor in
Fruit Valley?
>> I can and for whatever
reason, dry mouth is just
completely taken over. So the
freight corridor project in
Fruit Valley, we have called it
the northwest 32nd Avenue
project. In the past, it would
be a new corridor that would
primarily carry freight north
and south. It would connect
lower River road up to
northwest 78th Street by way of
a new, literally a new
alignment, a. In 2019, we did a
feasibility study that
identified a. What we
considered a preferred
alignment, which took the
corridor from where northwest
32nd Avenue currently
terminates at Laframboise would
continue north through the
Vancouver lowlands up. It would
eventually cross over the
Burlington Northern rail line.
It would then line up with
existing Fruit Valley Road and
then it would follow Fruit
Valley Road up to northwest
78th Street. We are now looking
at potentially a change to that
alignment, that 2019 alignment
really impacts a lot of the
lowlands and a lot of the
floodplain within within that
part of the the Vancouver Lake
area. And we just felt like
that might could be more of a,
more of a challenge than what
we might be able to undertake.
So over the last year, we've
had a consultant looking at
what we consider a shorter
alignment, something that would
still take off from the end of,
of existing northwest 32nd
Avenue within the ports
industrial park. But that would
come back online with Fruit
Valley Road sooner,
hypothetically, maybe somewhere
around just north of Frito Lay,
for example. One of the goals
of that project has always been
to get as much of the freight
traffic off Fruit Valley Road
that currently passes through
the Fruit Valley neighborhood,
through by the school, by the
park. A shorter alignment still
accomplishes that. And that's
that's the goal we still have
in mind when we look at a
shorter alignment, but a
shorter alignment would be less
impacting to the lowlands. It'd
be less impacting to the
floodplain and be a lot more
consistent with the city's
climate action framework. So I
think we're close to getting
ready to kind of roll that
alignment out. And then we'll
go out and we'll have some
conversations with the
community. We want to go out
and meet with Fruit Valley
Neighborhood Association. We
want to have some conversations
with the local freight
companies through the corridor,
and then just kind of start
seeing if, if there's general
consensus around the idea of
that, of that new alignment. We
have secured design funding
from the states of Freight
Mobility Strategic Investment
Board, I believe, to the amount
of roughly $15 million. It's a
line item, I believe, in the
2029 state legislative budget.
So what we're trying to do is
we're trying to get these what
I consider housekeeping things
done so that we can get an
alignment secured, and then we
can be ready to receive those
dollars and start the formal
design process on this project
as soon as those dollars are
available to us.
>> I'm going to challenge you
to check that amount from Fitim
CIB. Okay, as I look at this
project, it's over a decade old.
>> Yeah.
>> It has been on the books for
quite some time. We just had an
information workshop about
Fruit Valley and the
neighborhood association and an
update for that. The equity
index on this is extremely high.
And if we need to check in, I
think City Manager getting
additional support to break
that project into chunks for
Fitim CIB, the road, the bridge,
two different categories, but a
new freight corridor to get
trucks not only away from Fruit
Valley Elementary School, but
the Vancouver Housing Authority.
And a park to boot is long
needed. But let's check on that
money. I'm not sure that we got
the right answer there.
>> Well, again and again, the
money I spoke of is just for
the design portion of the
project. We're still looking at
a potential, you know, three,
you know, six figure. Excuse me.
Seven I know even more. 101
hundred plus million dollar
project to do this work. And,
and so the idea is, is to get
the design far enough along and
then to really start looking
for the bigger dollars, which
are the construction funds.
Past conversations with FMC
have suggested they're ready to,
to fund construction. We're
also looking at our other
partners, Transportation
Improvement Board as well as
RTC.
>> Great.
>> Looking forward to seeing
all of that. Counselors. Any
counselor. Soelberg.
>> Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor, is it who
used to come and talk to us
about the tip? Was it Chris
Malone? Okay. I used to give
Chris a hard time every year. A
hard time is not really the
right word about how does
somebody submit an idea. So I
want to give props that the
website now very clearly says
with a button submit idea. I
hope communications can get
that out in other places on the
website so that it's people can
easily find it. But I'm very
happy that that button now
exists. So thank you very much.
>> I think it was like one of
the last things he did before
he retired was to get that
button put in. So but yeah,
it's been very helpful. And,
you know, we get those when
people push that button or when
they fill out the comment
fields within that tip area
that happens in those come to
us throughout the year. They
come directly to me and we
respond to every one of them.
And so when you look at the
when you look at those, that
section of the tip, you'll see,
you know, different things that
folks have shared, and then
you'll see our responses to
them. But it's a, it's a very
helpful tool. It lets us know
what folks are thinking about,
where they're seeing issues and
challenges, where we need to be
focusing our attention, but we
want to make sure that they
know that they've been heard
and that, you know, we're
looking for ways to make make
that work.
>> Because I used to go after
Chris on is that I, as a
council member, didn't know how
to get things on or off the tip.
And so how was anybody else
supposed to. So I'm really glad
that's there. Thank you.
>> All right.
>> All right, councilors, thank
you very much. Thank you, Ryan
and Kate, we'll go ahead and
dismiss ourselves. Head back
and grab a bite to eat, and
we'll see you at 630 for a
regular meeting. Thank you