Today is April. Monday, April
27th, 2026. I'm Anne. McEnerny.
Ogle. We are starting our
workshops. Our first workshop
will be on the Comprehensive
Plan update. So staff and
counselors, please remember to
identify yourselves before
speaking and make sure your
microphones are on. Anything
else sir? We're good. Okay,
Rebecca. You're on. Thank you.
>> Great. Hi. Good afternoon,
mayor and council. Rebecca
Kennedy, deputy director of the
Community Development
Department for the city and
part of the team that has been
working for several years now
to update our comprehensive
plan and development code. Next
slide please. And I'm joined by
Mark person, senior planner,
also in community development.
And he'll be taking part of the
conversations. He's been
leading the task the code
update task. So the agenda for
tonight is to really do what
how we open every presentation
on the comp plan, which is sort
of the legal and policy
framework and the key things we
have to do as part of it. We'll
go through the changes that
have happened since the last
draft you reviewed at your last
workshop on April 13th. So
essentially, between the second
draft of the plan and the third
draft that was published on
April 17th, we'll do that for
both the plan and the code.
We'll walk you through a few
additional changes we think are
going to happen between
essentially now and the the the
third draft and the final draft
review. Briefly, the final
environmental impact statement
findings and remind folks what
it is and remind all of us that
that's what helps us meet our
State Environmental Policy Act
obligations in terms of
supporting the adoption of a
comprehensive plan, and then
talk about final steps and have
lots of time for your questions.
So briefly, we do comprehensive
planning under the legal
framework of the Growth
Management Act. That was
established in Washington in
1990. It requires cities to
plan, and it has several goals
associated with it. And in
terms of protecting
agricultural, rural, natural
areas, forest and resource
lands, by focusing development
in developing into cities,
preventing sprawl into those
areas outside cities and
outside urban growth areas. It
requires us to project for
growth in coordination with
other jurisdictions in the
county and the county clerk and
Clark County itself, and then
demonstrate the ability to
accommodate and have capacity
to meet that growth. And it
requires several elements,
which you are all familiar with,
that where we need to address
very specific items, either
from a policy standpoint or a
regulatory regulatory
standpoint, or both, and
demonstrate compliance. We've
reviewed those chapters in
depth with all of you over the
last several months, but that
includes our our land use and
development chapter, housing,
economic opportunity, public
facilities, transportation,
parks and open space. We have
an equity chapter, a climate
chapter, a community experience
chapter. So there's, there's
requirements associated with
all the required chapters. And
then just a reminder to, we're
not doing this in a vacuum. We
as part of the Growth
Management Act, all
jurisdictions are required to
look at their plans and their
codes and their other
implementing regulations every
ten years through what's called
the periodic review process.
This is when we update
population projections and then
the housing and jobs that come
with that. You can do it more
frequently. Vancouver is
typically stuck to the every
ten year or close to that.
Other jurisdictions have done
it more often, including our
colleagues at Clark County. And
then just a reminder, too, that
this isn't like this isn't lock
us in stone. We look at our
plan every year through the
annual review process. We look
at if there's plan, text or map
changes that are needed, if
there's zoning code, text, or
map changes that are needed,
comp plan changes have to
happen once a year and have to
be assessed together. Basically,
you have to look at impacts
cumulatively. We can update the
code any time under the Growth
Management Act, and then just
want to note too, that there's
a full review and progress
report due to the state, after
five years from this periodic
review update process. And that
is a new requirement that the
legislature added a couple
years ago. So there's a more
robust reporting and review
process than there previously
was halfway through the
periodic update time frame.
>> Rebecca, before you go any
further, Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
You stated update the
population projections. The
county gave us that number that
we for housing, didn't they?
>> Correct. Yeah. So the county
in the in the Growth Management
Act structure, counties are
responsible for selecting
population targets and then
translating that into numbers
of housing and jobs and then
allocating those out to the
city. We planned for a little
more like, I think, a little
more than a thousand more units
than the county allocated us.
And that's because. We don't
always agree with their model.
And we did our own analysis to
figure out what we would need
to do to, to meet our housing
goals in terms of our meeting,
our existing deficit and
meeting that future growth. But
it's, you know, it's all within
Clobes. But but the original
allocation, the large number of
housing units, yes, came from
the county and they allocated
units to other cities and the
urban growth areas as well.
Thank you. There's many reasons
to do periodic updates and a
full update of our
comprehensive plan and our code.
Now, both from a regulatory
standpoint as well as just
what's happening in the
community. We see quite a lot
of of changes. More people
moving here has impacts on
housing affordability, which
has impacts on housing
stability and houselessness. We
see different, you know,
economic trends emerging.
Certainly since Covid, we see
more work from home, but we
also see a hollowing out of
sort of those middle wage
family jobs, family wage jobs.
We all familiar with the growth
and the growing diversity of
the city. Our analyzes show
that, you know, it is pretty
much undisputable that where
you live determines your access
to different opportunities. And
we, we want to strive and have
aspirational goals to make it.
So it doesn't matter that
everybody has access to
opportunity, regardless of
their zip code is in this city.
Health care, education, parks
and recreation, fresh food,
transportation, all of that
jobs. And then we have council
policy direction to take robust
climate action and address the
impacts of climate change. But
we also have state requirements
to do that, including new
legislation around conducting
greenhouse gas inventories and
demonstrating that your land
use plans and transportation
plans reduce the local sources
of of greenhouse gas emissions.
Sort of good entry into new
state laws. As you are familiar,
there are many new state laws
relating to what cities and
counties and others planning
under the Growth Management Act
need to do to demonstrate
compliance and particularly
focused on housing. So we have
to allow a minimum of 4 to 6
units on every residential lot.
And we have to, importantly,
make sure that standards for
middle housing are not more
restrictive than what we what
what we impose on single family
development, detached single
family development. And we have
to make room again for this set
number of housing units. But
what's new in this cycle is
that we also have to
demonstrate capacity for units
by income band, and we have to
also demonstrate that we allow
permanently supportive housing
everywhere we allow housing, we
have to account for racially
disparate impacts, and we have
to demonstrate and sort of
apply that lens to ensuring new
policies, don't have those, and
demonstrate that we're trying
to essentially address or
change past policies that have
resulted in racially disparate
impacts. We've got to allow two
accessory dwelling units per
residential lot. There are
several rules around parking
minimums. We have to align
impact fees with the size of
housing. As I mentioned, our
last workshop that's happening
going to happen slightly after
this because we got to give
some more time to coordinate
with schools on it. And then
again, I mentioned the climate
and greenhouse gas requirement
analysis requirements. So these
are lots of lots of stuff
happened over the last four
years of working on this plan.
A lot of detailed analysis,
engagement, translating that
into maps and, and different
regulations and a new
regulatory structure. But the,
the five buckets or the five
things that we have to do as
part of this is we have to have
a community partnership and
engagement process in GME, a
growth Management Act language
that's called public
involvement plan. We. So that's
a big piece of this. And we've
done that engagement and
partnership work throughout. We
have to have a plan document
that is informed by a bunch of
different analyzes and has a
bunch of key components. I
mentioned the, the key required
elements. We have to have a
capital facilities plan, which
shows our, our planned capital
investments over six years and
20 years time periods. We have
to have a bunch of analyzes
around housing and jobs to
support the things that build
off that. The third kind of big
bucket is the title 20 or your
land use code. It is required
under the Growth Management Act
to implement your comp plan. So
we went through a very long
process of talking to you all
and talking to the community
about what a new land use code
framework could be. And that
started in 2024. And we've been
talking about those concepts
out in the community and with
you all since then. We have to
demonstrate some key
implementation steps. The big
one is title 20. But but we
know that our aspirational
goals and the things we're
required to do can't be solved
by just the land use code. And
so we have implementation steps
at the end of each chapter. So
that's sort of the fourth
bucket. And then the final one
is the environmental impact
statement process. And that's a
requirement of the State
Environmental Policy Act. This
is a non project action which
I'll kind of go into. But
there's no specific development
thing that's going to be built
proposed. This is a policy and
planning document that we that
there's a process for analyzing
under Cepa. And then on the
right hand side, you can just
see a sort of a high level
summary of the process. Over
the last four years, we, we,
you know, spent a lot of time
learning about the community,
analyzing existing conditions.
We developed land use
alternatives in partnership
with the community and others.
You all the planning Commission,
we we vetted those and we
refined it into a preferred
alternative. We analyzed those
under the Environmental Impact
Statement process. We. We
eventually again got to a
preferred alternative. We have
refined our policies and our
code. And now we're at the
adoption phase. We showed this
slide last time. Engagement and
outreach slide at the last
workshop two weeks ago. So I'll
just say there's been a really
long and extensive engagement
process. We've talked to 2000
plus people directly had many,
many different events with
different groups, utilized the
City council's board and
commission process to get, you
know, citizen appointees who
are on those boards and
commissions to weigh in in
their areas of expertise. We've
obviously presented to the
council and Planning Commission
a lot. You can see a lot of
numbers, 270 visioning tags,
150 pins on our online map,
over a thousand survey
responses, 409 draft
environmental impact statement
comments. So we've we've, we've
got a lot of feedback and then
a lot of outreach was done
through, I guess, what I'd call
our traditional channels of
e-newsletters, direct emails,
news coverage. The city has a
quarterly newsletter that they
hard copy newsletter they
mailed to every address in the
city. We've we've used that to
spread the word and then social
media and we've been canvased.
So quite a bit of engagement
through the process. This slide
covers our, our targets. So our,
our population allocation, our
housing units, we believe, are
required to meet our existing
deficit and serve that growth
as well as the jobs target. As
I mentioned earlier, you know,
comprehensive plans are a 20
year time horizon that you're
planning for, but you update
them typically every ten years.
Our current plan is actually
updated in 2011 because there
was a delay in this cycle
because of Covid 2021 was a
great time to do engagement.
And then we have a vision
statement on the right of this
slide that is the vision
statement Council endorsed for
this whole process and what we
were trying to achieve,
including that Vancouver is an
equitable and prosperous
community, which ensures that
all residents, businesses and
organizations benefit from the
growth and advancement we make
together. Vancouver will be
recognized for our quality of
life, as evidenced by
affordable housing and vibrant,
safe, walkable neighborhoods,
access to jobs and economic
opportunity for all, and
leading edge efforts to address
climate change. And I should
say, our population of as of
2024 was 200,000 people. We're
anticipating 81000 people in
more people moving living here
by 2045. So that gets us to a
2045 target of 281000. We
currently have about 86000
housing units. You add 38,000
new units to that, you get
124,000 for this, a 2045 target.
And then jobs. We currently
have about 100,000 in the city.
We're looking at adding 43,200
to get that 143,100 target.
Here are the plan elements, as
noted in the slide, that some
of these are required under the
Growth Management Act and by
the implementing our revised
Code of Washington, the
Community Experience and Equity
and inclusion chapters, we have
optionally included. And the
annexation chapter is not
required by the state, but it
is required by our county wide
planning policies that all the
jurisdictions create together
every periodic update cycle.
And given the size of our UGA,
it's urban growth area, it's
very important that we plan for
annexation. So since the last
draft. So the second draft you
saw. These are the changes that
were made in the third draft,
which is part of your packet.
So we've updated the some terms
in the glossary and made sure
we're using them appropriately
throughout, just more
consistent throughout. We've
added some like kind of
explanatory footnotes to
different sections, different
chapters. We have added some
language to policies in the
climate chapter, particularly
around invasive species and
climate resilient sort of
spaces versus like climate
smart development. So there's
been some clarifications. And
the Transportation and Mobility
chapter, we added level of
service for highways and
multimodal level of service for
transit, coordinated with Wasch
Dot and C-tran. On that. We
updated and really it was
adding a couple bullets to the
community feedback summaries
and a few of the chapters just
to make sure they were
comprehensive. We've published
appendix T, which is our
multimodal evaluation and
active trip potential analysis
really shows us really
important for us in terms of
implementation and tracking of,
okay, we have these areas where
we think there's active trip
potential, and we need to see
what happens as we implement a
new land use plan and new, a
new programmatic investments,
essentially to and capital
investments. We added a closing
page and then we did like a
full accessibility review. So
this is now an accessible
document. And for, for, for
anyone who's using a screen
reader otherwise. And then we
are anticipating a few
additional refinements for the
draft that will be published
with your materials on five
five and you'll review under
consent on May 11th. And that's
adding our Ada transition plan
is required to be a piece of
this. It's a pretty high level
analysis that's required as
part of the the the
comprehensive plan under the G,
M A and the Growth Management
Act, our, our team, our equity
and access department will be
back with a more detailed
version of that and to vet with
you later this year. But this
is what's required for the
comprehensive plan, HB 1491,
which was the Transit Oriented
Development Bill that passed a
couple of years ago. Caamal
Commerce led us Department of
Commerce let us know that we
had to include some analysis of
that in our comp plan. And so
we have a memo we've been
meeting with them. It just
needs to be included. And then
we did some clarification.
We're going to have to make
some additional clarifications
based on comments we got from
Commerce. They're pretty minor.
Like one of them was you have a
lot of transportation policies
that also help meet your
climate goals. You should list
those under your climate goals
as well, not just
cross-reference them. So stuff
like that, just that we're
responding to. So that covers
the plan. Now I'm going to turn
it over to Mark person who is
going to talk about the zoning
code.
>> Thank you Rebecca. So these
next few slides will go over
the title 20 overhaul that
we've been discussing for the
past two, two plus years here.
Every parcel in the city will
have a new base district, a new
zoning designation. As a part
of this process. Those base
districts will include a
minimum density and a maximum
height. Most of the other
development standards that live
in our current zoning code will
move to building typologies.
We'll also have allowed uses
per base district very similar
to what we have now. The main
difference will be that we are
allowing obviously more types
of housing everywhere in the
city, except for our industrial
employment zones, and then we
have a a table on the right
here showing some of the major
differences between our
existing code and the new code.
Again, we'll allow more. As
Rebecca has mentioned in the
past, nearly every zone will be
a mixed use zone, allowing
small scale commercial in our
low scale and medium scale
neighborhoods. As far as
density, our current code has a
minimum and maximum densities.
We're going to focus with the
new code on minimum densities.
Maximum will be controlled by
height, setbacks and other site
elements. Each base district
will have a building, a maximum
building height that will be
very similar to our code today.
Our parking. As we've stated in
the past, right now our our
code has minimums. We're going
to most uses having no minimum
parking requirements, relying
on the the use and the the
private sector that builds our
city out for the most part to
show us what they need. And we
understand that parking makes
projects more expensive and
takes up real estate that could
be used for housing. Our new
code is really focused a little
more form based, meaning we're
really looking at the
relationship of those buildings
to the street. We'll also have
some overlay overlays as as we
do now, we're going to remove
some of our overlays and add
some overlays as well. Some of
those overlays are the downtown
area has design guidelines. We
have our noise overlay because
of the downtown's relationship
to Pearson PDX and the rail the
rail line. This slide is
showing our proposed plan
districts and plan designations.
Across the top are our four
comp plan designations. We'll
have residential neighborhoods,
urban mixed use neighborhoods,
employment and industrial zones,
and our two green and green
space, which will include parks
and natural areas. Our
employment and industry
designation will include
institutional, campus,
industrial, employment and
heavy industrial. And again, as
we've said throughout this
process, there's very little
changes to our heavy industrial
areas in in either geography or
or use standards. We have
worked with our industrial
stakeholders to refine some of
those standards, but for the
most part, those are staying
the same. Our urban mixed use
zone includes our mixed use
neighborhoods and our regional
activity center, and then our
residential neighborhood plan
designation will include our
mobile home park designations.
Those are going to be covering
our 16 existing mobile home
parks to retain those for
naturally occurring affordable
housing. And then our two
neighborhoods, the low scale
neighborhood and the medium
scale neighborhood. This is the
preferred alternative that
council endorsed in December.
And on the left, we are showing
some elements that went into
this preferred alternative. As
Rebecca mentioned, that's the
draft environmental impact
statement. Those comments are
centers and corridors strategy
for where we want to focus
growth, where schools are
located, taking into account
tree canopy, taking into
community assets such as parks
and community centers and
services are where our
industrial employment lands are
located. Our existing service
deserts. You know, council's
goal to reduce vehicle miles
traveled and emissions where
public facilities and services
are located, transportation and
health and climate
vulnerability. This slide is
showing our draft code changes.
On the left, we have a draft
code changes since draft three
that was published on 417. That
is part of Council's packet.
This includes change to the
exemption in the medium scale
minimum density. We heard from
folks in the community that if
there is a natural disaster or
an issue where there's a
catastrophic, catastrophic
event at the home, that it
could take a while to work
through that process with
insurance companies. So we
wanted to extend that time from
the original one year time
frame to three years, plus the
potential for a one year
extension. If folks can
demonstrate that they're
working through that process to
get that home rebuilt, we want
to make it clear we have an
exemption to ground floor and
ground floor ready requirements
for emergency services. And we
heard from folks that if you
don't have a site with frontage,
then why would we put up a big
sign? And we agree. This is, I
think, mostly for the port
where not all of the ports
parcels are served by a public
right of way. So placing that
big sign for neighborhood
notification doesn't make a lot
of sense. And on the right, we
have our anticipated final
refinements that we're still
making that will be included in
the five five draft, May 5th
draft. We're going to address
some code section numbering
issues and references. We'll
add in some review the new
review fees for some of those
middle housing and some of
those other new code elements.
We're going to add language to
clarify that existing uses can
continue and expand in the
industrial holding overlay
until it is lifted. We're going
to we've refined heavy
industrial uses to make some
clarifications on those use
classifications and what can be
allowed there. There was some
confusion from community
members and stakeholders about
landscape plans and planting
plans. We've cleaned that up
for readability. And then
there's some clarification that
we've had on landscape
maintenance bonds and who and,
and who would be responsible
for those and the timing. And
we're working with those with
our urban forester right now on,
on some of those clarifications
in the code. The five five code
will also have an updated
downtown design guidelines. As
Council may recall, we took
that through the process. It
feels like a while ago now, 18
months ago or so. Probably
those are adopted by reference.
So our downtown area, those are
just got updated. I think our
last ones were from 1997.
>> Okay. Under the State
Environmental Policy Act a non
project action again. So
nothing being built. This is
the policy and planning
document is required to be
reviewed under Cepa. We have
done it through the sort of
most extensive review process
possible under Stipa which is
an environmental impact
statement process. We've
analyzed land use alternatives
under this. You take questions
and comments through a public
comment period after you
release the draft, and then the
final draft includes an
analysis updated for your
preferred alternative, and also
responds to all the questions
that you received. So we have
we've gone through this process.
We've published a final
environmental impact statement
as part of this. It essentially
is covering the preferred
alternative as as we talked
about really extensively
through the process, the. The
alternatives, the no action alt
one and alt two represented the
range of what was possible. And
the preferred alternative
generally fell within that
range, which was intentional.
That's where we wanted to be so
that we could demonstrate we
were clearly analyzing impacts,
making those that information
available to the community. And,
you know, then responding to
their comments. So this has
been published and the final
environmental impact statement
is quite long. It's a
requirement under the State
Environmental Policy Act, and
it's not something that you
adopt, but it's something that
is required for action to be
legal at the state level. And
then this is the last workshop
anticipated workshop as part of
the comprehensive plan. I know
you were all very sad about
that. We are too, but this is
the anticipated last workshop.
And then we are scheduled to
come back to you for review
under the consent agenda and
first reading of the final
draft of the Plan and Code on
May 11th, and then scheduled
for public hearing on the final
plan and code on June 1st. I
just want to reiterate that
that is it's the process is not
never ends. We've refined and
update our comprehensive plans
annually. We change our codes
all the time to respond to new
conditions and changing
circumstances or unintentional
things that we're seeing, and
we will continue to do that. I
do want to just be clear,
though, that our commitment to
the development community,
particularly through this
process, because we are
overhauling the entire code, is
that we will, you know, be
coordinating with them. We will
educate, we're going to help
facilitate, we'll make sure
staff are trained up on the new
code and processes. And then as
we find things that maybe are
not fully aligned or don't work
or not anticipated or not
working as anticipated, we will
be efficient and responsive to
that. And so this certainly is
not intended ever to imply we
will not be changing things, or
that things are now set in
stone, as is true of the world.
It's also true of our planning
documents and regulations.
Things are always changing, and
we'll be working with
stakeholders and partners to
ensure that that, you know,
we're working together to meet
our goals. It's all we've got.
Thank you.
>> All right. Thank match
counselors. Do you have
questions, Counselor Fox? Go
ahead.
>> All right. I like how close
we are getting to the finish
line here. Just to also share
in that relief that you guys
are taking a deep breath. Just
a few, I guess, minor thoughts
on the zoning code. I focus
mostly on that review, kind of
looking at the building types
section. So that's 20.420. The,
the, the section starts with a
nice table, a nice clean table
like the way it looks, but
which shows all of the building
types and where they're allowed
in the zones. And I'm wondering
if it needs a footnote. And I
say that in because I don't
want us to go back to tables
with footnotes, but when you
dive into each of those
building types, there are
caveats there. Or there's, you
know, other notes that say in
particular, going back to the
manufactured housing zone,
where it mentions how that
building type could be allowed
there. And so if I'm looking at
a summary chart at the
beginning of that section and
it tells me no, yes, no, yes,
but doesn't mention that there
could be a caveat to this or a
condition. I think we should
call that out. And then the
other question I had. Is on our
overlay zones, we. Are we
planning to to work on those at
some point in the coming years,
or is it doesn't I don't recall
us working on that. The overlay
zones in this process. Why I
say that is. And specifically
to the historic overlay, the
map being that I used to be on
the Historic Preservation
Commission, that was a terrible
map in the zoning code then,
and it's the same. So we've
updated our zoning code, but we
still have this really terrible
map graphic and the historic
overlay zone, which then made
me to kind of look at our other
overlay zoning maps for the
other ones. And I'm just
wondering if they should all be,
you know, updated at least to
look with, you know, the
current color schemes and
graphics.
>> Yeah, we can look at it. The
overlays in particular, they.
What's in the code is meant to
be both regulatory and
illustrative because often
you're, you know, covering a
very big area. And then from an
implementation standpoint, you
know, we, we create GIS
databases and property lists,
right? So that it's very clear
to the implementers and people
in the private development
market who is impacted by those.
But we can take a look at them
and try to make them look
better. We are finalizing the,
the, we have to finalize the
draft by Friday. So it also may
be something we could come back
to and improve as we go, but
let us see what we can try to
do by Friday.
>> Yeah, I recognize when I
mentioned the historic Historic
Overlay district as well, that
there's been some changes,
particularly at the academy.
You know, it's not reflecting
that there has been built
development there. So this I do
recognize this could be a
bigger lift. Okay. Thank you.
>> Rebecca. We removed transit
overlay and we removed hospital
overlay.
>> Correct.
>> So, Mark, what you were
talking about, the two overlays,
downtown design. What was the
other one?
>> Mark person development
review planner mayor. Yeah,
those were just two. I, I
recalled, I, we have ground
floor ready, right? That, that
was where we were anticipating
allowing residential, but
building to a little bit higher
standard. And we had extensive
conversations with the
stakeholders on what that
ground, you know, ceiling to,
to, to flourish should be.
We'll also have, if council
recalls the ground floor
activation, right? So we're
really shrinking where we're
requiring mixed use. So
allowing mixed use everywhere,
but only requiring a mix of
uses in those few strategic
locations. And then, you know,
the ones that we're retaining
are the noise noise overlay.
That's right. Yeah. Airport
overlay design guideline,
downtown area.
>> Downtown overlay, basically.
Okay. Yep. There's some others.
We have it here.
>> Yeah.
>> The CBC, the Columbia
Business Center that will be,
you know, zoned regional
activity center, but continue
to operate as heavy industrial
until a time when the city and
that property owner make a plan
for a master plan. So those are
the ones that are.
>> Are new. And then we've
retained several of existing
ones. Yeah. So okay, I will say
you did receive a comment in
some of the written comments
about the. The requirements for
it. It was, I think, a week or
so ago, but about for the
requirements about that active
use requirement. And I will say
that in that comment, someone
mentioned recently passed state
legislation, and we are well
within compliance with that
because we've reduced it so
much to remove as many barriers
to housing as we can. We are
well in compliance with the new
state requirements. Thank you.
>> Yes, councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor, and a
happy, sad moment here. So
technical, technical question.
So I was going through the
title 20 code today and some
places links. I felt like some
places I could click on a
number and it would take me to
a section and then other places
it was not. So you're going to
clean all that up, I'm guessing.
Great.
>> Yes.
>> Then Rebecca, we started to
have a conversation but haven't
finished it. I think it's by
the way, Ty Stover, City
Council member. I think it's
good to, to to flesh this out.
So I received feedback this
week about density near parks.
And I know that in our kind of
guiding principles was this
idea of density near parks. And
this person was struggling with
the the practicalities of that.
So we have a neighborhood park
that's. Maybe not far from a
transit line, but definitely
not a transit line that is
frequent. And. And probably is
not going to be frequent for a
very long time. But in that
medium density, the building
height is allowed up to 75ft.
And so their concern was a 75
foot building around a park,
but nowhere near transit,
really aligning with what we're
wanting to see. And so I want
to just kind of get your
feedback on, on that.
>> Yeah. Thank you. So in the
when we worked on getting to a
preferred alternative, so we
had a range of options that we
analyzed and we worked with
council to develop a framework
for getting to a preferred
alternative. So how would we
combine and refine the options
right into a preferred map. And
one of the core principles of
that framework that we heard
over and over and over again
from people, is that parks and
schools are essential places
for people. They are like what?
They are essential things
people need to be be able to
access on a daily basis to have
to thrive, basically. And so as
we went through that process,
the direction from this council
was to apply the medium scale
neighborhood around all parks
and schools, regardless of
transit access, to give people
that access. And, and the
reality is so, so anyway,
that's what shows up in the map.
So it's not just one park, it's
every park and it's every
school. And in recognition that
in some cases, and particularly
if there isn't good transit,
allowing people to live close
by those things that are
essential to them, thriving is
really something that we heard
very strongly from the
community and that this council,
you know, supported as part of
your framework and ultimately
endorsed your resolution as
part of the final map. I will
also say that, you know, the
75ft in the medium scale, or
whether it's next to a park or
not, is something we've got a
lot of feedback on. And it, it
really is. I think some of some
of you have been like to
National League of Cities and,
you know, have brought back
even to me information on how
do we make how do we get more
housing built? And one of the
biggest things is to allow by
right development that's
flexible. And so our standards
are intended to be that. So
it's kind of two part answer.
One is really about what the
community said about access and
that these are putting more
access and then also getting
out of the way of housing and
allowing by right development
in the places where people say
they need it, need it most.
>> Okay. And so the and I'm, I
don't want to argue with it,
but I think it is important
that we're, we're continuing to
have this conversation. Because
it is can be a big one for
people to get wrap their hands
around. I would also say,
though, in the IL illustrative
photos, I didn't say that word
right. That is definitely not
what's reflected in the code.
What's reflected in the code is
more three four story, which
feels very different than a
probably 75ft is probably more
like a six story. And so a, you
know, wanted to make sure that
we're being. Transparent in
that process. Thank you.
>> Yes. And I will say we did
update a lot of the photos in,
in our materials. We're
anticipating 75ft accommodating
five stories. I'm not saying it
couldn't accommodate more, but
between the energy code and the
desire that we're hearing from
the development community for
taller ceilings, for greater
light and livability, that's
essentially what we we've
planned for, again, with that
flexibility. So we will look at
the code precedent images as
well, though, and make sure
those align with what we've
shown in other materials, which
really we thought we're trying
to be very thoughtful about
making sure we are
intellectually honest,
transparent about what's
possible. So thank you.
>> Other comments. Councilor
Perez.
>> Okay, Rebecca, I have
several questions. One first,
my name is Diana Perez,
Vancouver City Council member,
manufactured homes. And in the
document I read that the
manufactured home zone allows
redevelopment if ongoing use as
a manufactured home park is
demonstrated to be unfeasible.
So my question is, who makes
that determination, and is
there a standard of proof? And
is there a community
notification or appeal process
before that threshold is
triggered? And I don't know if
do you want to answer that
question?
>> Yeah, I can I think we know
that we we are going to well,
there is some code language
around like how you would
demonstrate it. Essentially,
you have to provide a market
study that, that that basically
says that, you know, shows that
like continuing to provide
infrastructure services, water,
sewer power, whatever that is,
is, and, you know, maintain the
property and pay your property
taxes and stuff is infeasible.
It'd be a, I'll have to follow
up with planning commission or
planning official determination.
>> I can look that up.
>> I'll look it up. But there
is a. Yeah, it does outline a
process. And again, there are.
It's important to remember that
at the state level, there are a
lot of protections for
manufactured home parks. And so
yes, there are appeal periods,
notification periods. There are
periods of time where the
manufactured home park
residents have the opportunity.
It's not called for first right
of refusal, but to, to, to also
purchase the property. So there
are state level requirements
beyond our code as well.
>> And we did with the document
tier to those, I mean
specifically tier within the
document to those state codes.
>> We do not like to do that
because state codes change.
Okay. But we but we these are
these are I mean, I would say
knowledge about state level
protections for manufactured
home parks is pretty broad. If
you know about me.
>> Okay. And to your point of
state, codes can change. So in
the situation where a mobile
manufactured home zoned parcel
sells, does that zoning stick
and are there and can we
identify those mechanisms like
right of first refusal tenant
purchase programs to back up
any anti-displacement intent of
the zone?
>> Well, that is so so
basically that the situation
you described where someone. So
the zoning goes with the
property, it's not the owner.
So it essentially putting the
zoning on it is like our best
local tool to preserve it and
do Anti-displacement.
>> It will the zone sticks,
sticks. That's my point. It's
correct. Okay. Thank you. And
then second is the timing with
this with this entire process.
And I shared with you some
feedback that I received. Can
you just go ahead and summarize
the, the extent to which when
we started communicating with
public, but most importantly,
how to better involve our
neighborhood association. So
they're not feeling like
they're catching up or this is
going really fast, or
especially as you tie into this
post adoption final steps
discussion so that we get our
neighborhood associations
feeling like they're, they're
on task and they're involved
and up to speed.
>> Yeah. And apologies, I did
send you a response to that. I
just watching. So yeah, I, I
think we've, we started
engagement on this in early
February 2023. And we've been
at, you know, many community
events and we've, you know,
even before we were like
organizing our own events for
the comp plan, we were out in
the community talking to people
all the time. We were
communicating with
neighborhoods in the best ways
we know how, which is by
directly emailing their chair,
their association leadership,
and using the Office of
Neighborhoods newsletter. I
don't know how many times we
were in the Office of
Neighborhoods newsletter. I
think like most of them during
the comp plan update, or at
least during those periods
where we were, you know, really
actively seeking feedback and
doing engagement. We've also,
you know, presented at the
Vancouver Neighborhood Alliance,
which is a separate but kind of
umbrella organization. Several
times. I think we've, we've,
like I said, we've even, you
know, put information in the
direct mailer that goes to
everybody's house. As part of
the city newsletter. I, I, but
I, but, you know, we can't
reach everyone. And I just want
to acknowledge that, right?
Like it's, it's really hard to
get people involved and
particularly hard to get them
involved while, you know,
earlier in the process. But we
have been out presenting on,
you know, I think one of the
comments was, well, the, the,
the, these standards, the code
and the were just made
available on February, you know,
February 19th. And that was
when we first published the
full drafts of all that. But we
have been socializing this and
talking to you all and many,
many other people about, you
know, the the proposed new
zoning districts and the
development standards, no
parking minimums, the heights,
the you know, how we got to the
map for years. And I, I totally
understand that it is a lot to
for folks to digest. And if
you're just coming into the
process, it can feel
overwhelming. But we really
have done quite a bit of
engagement. And I just also
want to just reiterate this. We,
we will keep adjusting things
based on new information and
what we hear. I think, you know,
the public comment period was
last July. Between July and
September, we got 409 comments,
right? Like written comments on
that. So people the information
has been out there. Yeah, but
but I mean, there's a lot going
on.
>> Follow up with this
particular neighborhood
association to ensure that.
>> I've been communicating with
that specific individual and
that neighborhood association
directly for quite some time.
I've been to their neighborhood
in the last month and but I
will keep doing so.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank
you for that. Yeah. And lastly
is the anticipation of a next
update, a next iteration. And
I'm glad to hear that this
isn't final. We're always going
to be modifying and updating.
And I'm thinking about data
centers and how that's just
moving forward. And you know,
we don't specifically mention
data centers in the eyes, but
in the industrial zoning, does
it or what are we in a position
to be able to catch up or be
smart when that comes to us?
And so.
>> Our code does not allow data
centers anywhere in the city.
>> Okay, so that wasn't clear
in the document. And so if it's
not mentioned, I will just
assume that it's not allowed.
Correct.
>> Well, the eyes is not going
to analyze every potential use.
Right. But but but the code is
where we address every specific
use. And data centers are
prohibited everywhere in the
city. We've consulted
extensively with our economic
development folks. These are
not okay, use a lot of energy
and don't employ a lot.
>> Of people. It wasn't
mentioned in the final EIS.
>> Yeah, not every use won't be
okay. Well, it's not.
>> Particular data centers
because that's the. Hot topic
and coming move forward.
>> Okay. So we need to wrap it
up. We have two other
councilors that need to comment.
>> And thank you. I messaged
you with some other questions
so we could follow up on that
later.
>> Councilor Hanson, go ahead.
>> Thank you, mayor
Councilmember Bart Hanson. Mark,
you mentioned what was it,
landscape bonds. Now, wouldn't
the performance bond cover that?
>> I don't believe we have Mark
person development review. We
don't have performance bonds.
We will have this. But
vegetative maintenance bond for
any plantings on site.
>> Okay. And this would be for
any development or developments
with the city.
>> It would be a private
development thousand. If it's a
thousand I think the threshold
is $1,000 or more in plantings
in labor.
>> So you would require a
landscaping bond, but you don't
have like a performance bond
requirement or a bid bond
requirement or any of the other
bond requirements.
>> Not that I'm aware of,
councilor.
>> So the intent here is what
what we're seeing with this and
this is really about it's a
maintenance landscaping
maintenance bond. Is that
plantings not surviving because
we require you to put in the
tree say, but we we have to
have a way to kind of make you
water it. And so the intent
here is to have that in place.
Now, we did get a comment back
from a company that does a lot
of a lot of subdivisions where
they plant entitle the, the,
but they don't actually build
it. And so their question was,
well, where, how would that
work? And we clarified and will
clarify that essentially, you
know, if, if, if you're doing
it as part of your, your
entitlement process, it's on
you as that land developer. If
you're doing, you know, if
you're required to do the
plantings as part of
construction of a house, then
it's on them. And so we did
talk to that individual, and I
think we've landed in a good
place.
>> So it would be on the owner
because they're the people who
have to like water it. And I
see the intent. The intent is
very I.
>> Yeah, I think it's intended
to be a way to try to help get
that investment to a point
where it's going to survive.
And, and so it's, we don't have
performance bonds or really
performance criteria in our
code because it's at the land,
right at the permit phase where
we have the enforcement
mechanism.
>> Between the owner and the
developer wouldn't necessarily
be between the city. As far as
maintaining that.
>> Is it with the city?
>> Yes, with the city, it would
be on the builder, the builder,
probably counselor, not the
owner. Individual owner.
>> So well see that that kind
of puts me in a little because
if you build it and then you're
done and you move on and you're
not required to be the person
that water it every day, why
wouldn't you put it on the
owner?
>> You'd be putting that, you'd
be planting it and putting it
on the the builder, I believe.
But we can follow up with Urban
Forester and get back with you
on that.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay. Councilor Harless, did
you have any comments? All
right. Thank you very much.
I'll send you my comments and
get my questions answered at
another time. We're running a
little late. Thank you so very
much. Thank you. Let's move on
to the budget, please,
counselors. We have two more
workshops. Let's make sure our
comments are short and sweet.
All right. Lisa, thank you so
very much for joining us. Okay.
>> And mayor, while the slide
shows no loading, I'll just
note that City Manager Youkon
is online and he'll be
participating in this
presentation as well. He'll
lead us off.
>> Great. Thank you so much.
And we have with us Lisa,
Brandel and Jeff, are you on
this also?
>> Yes, Jeff Tory, deputy city
manager.
>> Great. Two deputy city
managers and a city manager.
Lisa, let's go ahead and get
started. I'll read just that up.
There it is. Thank you.
>> Slides.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right.
>> Go ahead. Let's jump into
that. Next slide Sarah. There
we go.
>> Okay. Good afternoon mayor,
Council and community. Lisa
Brandel, deputy city manager
and interim CFO. We are
starting our budget, our
biennial budget presentation
and budget framework, and we're
going to start our presentation
here with City Manager Lawn,
who is online, and Jeff Tory,
deputy city manager, will take
over. And then I will talk for
a few slides and then lawn will
close the presentation. So I'll
turn it over to lawn. I see him
online.
>> Thank you. Lisa. Sarah, I'm
hoping that you'll be cued up
to advance the slides when
we're ready to go. The purpose
of today's workshop is to
really talk with the council
about the environment that we
are developing. The next
iteration of our biennial
budget in, and that starts
really with our budget
framework. So the budget
framework is really the
overarching environment that
we're going to be working in.
And it springs from the
universal policy themes that
the City Council has set for us.
And just for that quick
reminder, that is community
safety, equity and inclusion
and climate action. Now those
get filtered down and expressed
in the organization. Next slide
please, Sarah. Through the
city's strategic plan, because
those three areas, those three
focus areas are very, very
broad. And much like the
Cocklin presentation that you
just heard about are really
things that can take decades or
even generations to be able to
effectively implement. So the
way that we break that down
into bite sized chunks that are
actually actionable and that we
can show the council and the
community progress are by using
a six year strategic plan. So
the strategic plan takes those
three universal policy themes
and breaks them down into our
core values and focus areas,
which for us focus around
livability, equity and
inclusion, innovation,
sustainability and resilience
and trust and relationships.
And these are the pieces that
every single thing that we
bring to the council should
filter in underneath one of
these, if you think of them in
terms of columns, to support
those overarching universal
policy themes. Next slide
please, Sarah. To actually then
take those and construct the
budget. We start off with the
item in the top left on the
graphic, which is our revenue
and expenditure forecast, and
then setting the budget policy
direction. So that's the area
where the council really first
gets involved, works with me,
and then I direct the staff to
implement the policy direction
that you set for us, for the
outcomes that you want to
achieve during the next budget.
There's a lot of work that goes
on behind the scenes with the
staff side to actually create
the draft budget that comes
back to the council, and then
we bring that back to you for
review, final adjustments, and
then move on into the statutory
adoption process. Next slide
please, Sarah. So just as a
reminder, we are in the second
year of our current biennial
budget, the 25 to 26 budget was
just about $2.3 billion, 1.63
billion of it, and the
operating side of the budget,
and 667 million going towards
capital. Next slide please. And
why that's important is because
the end of that biennial budget
determines where we're sitting
with the cash reserves that we
have, both for making sure that
we have enough money for
working capital to meet our day
to day operating expenses, but
also money that we've been
setting aside for future
capital projects. We have a
fairly extensive set of
financial policies that the
city has to, to work within,
and we require ourselves to
establish reserves in a bunch
of different categories. And
this one really shows you what
is available to the city in
these different categories. I
will call out one with the
emergency reserve, because the
council is going to be adopting
some policy changes with that
one here shortly that really
are related to making sure that
the state Auditor's office is
happy with us. But all of these
total together come up to about
just a little bit over $114
million. Next slide please,
Sarah. So one of the other
tools that Vancouver has
available is to be able to
issue debt for eligible
projects. Vancouver, with the
size of our community, has a
pretty significant debt
capacity. We have a piece that
is non-voting, meaning that
that would be for projects at
the council's discretion. It's
about $578 million. That can be
supplemented by voting capacity
with approval from the public
for another 1%, another 401
million. Right now, our debt
load is extremely low, with an
outstanding debt of about 23
million. The next piece on this
that we have planned already,
as council may remember, is
that of the three pieces that
will be supporting the
Operations Center project, part
of that is expected to be
general fund debt, supported by
general fund revenues, along
with revenue debt from Public
works. And here I'm going to go
ahead and turn the presentation
over to Jeff Tory, Deputy City
manager, and that will be
followed up by Lisa Bramel, the
other deputy city manager. When
we get to the expenditure
portion.
>> Thank you, mayor, members of
council. Jeff Tory, deputy city
manager. Next slide. Sarah. So
this is a reminder. We have
loaded the primary operating
funds together for the purposes
of this proposal. This
presentation includes the
general fund, the Street Fund
and the fire fund. So they are
all wrapped together. We have
three major sources of revenue
property taxes, sales taxes and
utility taxes. You'll see on
the pie chart that they are by
far the three largest. It's
roughly 73% of our total
revenue. We also include other
revenues like leases, transfers,
grants, fees, utility tax on
privately owned or other
publicly provided utilities.
Next slide. The major
assumptions this year are
related to the what we see as
our current trends. The sales
tax has slowed. We're a little
under the forecast for the
current biennium. We. We are
projecting the implementation
of a public safety sales tax in
January 2027, which will come
to you as a. As a companion
item to this budget. There was
a lot of conversation about
that up to and past the
implementation of prop five.
Our property tax revenue is
projected to increase by about
1% a year, plus new
construction. We've worked with
the county treasurer and
assessor's office to refine
those numbers, and this does
include our proposition two
bank capacity in 2027, which in
part will allow us to be on
track with our planned capital
improvements to our fire
stations. Next slide. Again,
showing our major assumptions
with respect to property taxes,
the increases in assessed value
do not impact revenues except
for new construction. New
construction was reduced to
about 1% from the 1.53 due to
the slowed slowing in
development. You'll see the
historic growth in new
construction and the decline
that we've seen over the last
few years. We're projecting to
be fairly stable in the in the
latter years, but you can see
the decline that's based on our
current our current planned
development. Next slide. These
are our major assumptions on
utility taxes. This aggregates
the utility taxes on city owned,
which are the sewer, water,
stormwater and solid waste
utilities. We're anticipating
at this point in the process,
an average of 5.5%, which
assumes no changes in the taxes.
You'll see that that does
translate to some growth. You
see a flat number from 25 to 26,
which is related to our 26
budget, will be refining some
of these along with our other
revenue numbers as we move
through the process. Next slide.
And then our major assumption
on other revenues are that
business license and business
license surcharges will include
some programed increases. We'll
see some increase in fires,
existing occupancy fees,
recreation center revenues
continue to grow but are a
little bit below projections.
Other revenues are anticipated
to follow our historical trends.
Thanks, Sarah. Next. And at
this point, I'll turn it back
over to Deputy City Manager
Brandel to finish up the
presentation.
>> Thanks, Jeff. Lisa Brandel,
Deputy City Manager we're going
to go on to the expense side of
the city budget. Next slide.
Sarah. So this pie pie chart
illustrates the categories of
the types of expenses for 25,
26, 655 million. You can see it
broken out, the largest part
portion being salaries and
benefits. Interfund denotes the
expenses of internal service
charges. Typically HR, I t
those kinds of departments that
charge out to other departments
that serve for infrastructure,
services and capital, debt and
supplies and services. Next
slide Sarah. And here we have a
new type of pie chart. And this
denotes the type of the
expenses by department. And so
we wanted to show how the
city's budget is broken out by
department. You will see the
biggest parts of the pie chart
are for fire and police.
Between the two departments,
it's about 54.3% of the entire
city budget. And then we have
the other categories broken out
in the different slices. Next
slide. The recent Police Guild
contract that was approved was
a 15.5% increase. The total
increase over the life of the
contract equals $12.2 million.
We have broken it out by year
three, 3,000,000 in 2026, 3.9
million in 2027, and 5.2
million in 2028. Of note is the
city wide overtime amount that
we are projecting in 2027 and
20 and 28 of 34.6 million, of
which between the majority is
about 97% broken out between
fire and police. You can see
the majority of the overtime is
between the two departments.
The remaining amount of 1.1
million is spread out among the
rest of the departments, public
works being the, I think, the
largest part of it. And then
other departments. We still
have bargaining remaining for
other labor groups this fall.
And so we do we do have some
projections built in, but we
don't have that firmly locked
in. So that is subject to
change. Next slide. Sarah.
Thank you. So we have other
assumptions built into our
projections. Our health
insurance in general, in line
with the national economy,
continue to rise upward. We are
going to experience a bit of a
lower cost because for a large
part of our health care costs,
excluding some labor groups, we
moved over to a WC. We're
expecting a little bit of a
lower cost in 2027, but after
that we are expecting upward
trend just because of the
nature of health care costs in
general. And we are assuming
that we will have some debt
service to absorb to support
the Ops Center campus for the
public works department. And we
do believe there's minimal
capacity for covering new or
unavoidable issues at this
point. Next slide. Sarah. And
with that, I'm going to turn it
back over to City Manager.
>> Thank you. Lisa, go ahead
and go to the next slide,
please. Sarah. So I guess
before I dive into this slide a
little bit, just to set some of
that overarching context for
the City Council, what you're
seeing now tonight is assumed
around a status quo budget,
where we're basically
considering carrying forward
our current level of services,
the current programs, along
with some of the things that
already have prior approval. So,
for example, you know, with the
public having approved
proposition five, we are
projecting hiring the new
police officers that would come
from that. Any of those prior
commitments. You've already
heard us talk several times
about the operations center
would be included. But beyond
that, it really is a status quo
budget for all the initial
projections. And you can see on
this slide, where that leads us
is in 2027, we're projecting
that we would have about a $9
million structural deficit. And
in the second year, that would
grow to 20.8 million. And while
it seems sometimes like a
little bit of a tough pill to
swallow, I do take some comfort
in knowing that this is much
smaller than it was the last
time we went through this
exercise with the council, and
I think part of that is
attributed to the fact that the
budget cuts that we made for
the 25 to 26 biennium, we
really did try to focus on ones
that had long term impacts on
the future budgets all the way
exceeding 25, 26 into future
biennium. And we're seeing some
of the benefits of some of
those tough decisions that we
had to make during the last
budget cycle. I think every
time we've shown the City
Council this chart since I've
been with the city, it's always
shown that gap. The structural
deficit just sits out there.
And until there's a change to
the way that city finances are
structured, we will have to
continue to be creative and go
through these exercises with
every budget biennium to make
sure that we achieve a balanced
budget. So next slide please,
Sarah. So how do we address
that structural deficit? We
have done it for quite a while
through a combination of making
sure that we're very
disciplined about how we make
our spending investments. The
council has also allowed for
new revenues. In the past, the
pickings have gotten
successively more slim as far
as revenue options that are
available for the city. We also
then are continuing to grapple
with inflation, particularly in
the construction side of the
equation. While we have seen
some downward pressure and some
projects specifically, I think
streets and some of those types
of infrastructure projects, it
does not seem to have caught up
with things like building
construction and building
investments. So while this
process really is intended to
set out what the framework
looks like and the environment
for the budget, when we bring
back the balanced budget for
the City Council, we will
exercise all of those options
and include future policy
direction from the Council on
how we actually achieve that.
So next slide please, Sarah.
You can go ahead and advance
from that one.
>> I have to go back. Go back
one. Okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you Sarah. So as
far as the budget, the next
step for us is to really
confirm those council policies.
We do have a public survey plan
where we will do some work to
see what the public would like
to see the city prioritize our
investments around. We have
added in more touches with the
City Council for the budget
this time around, and
anticipate coming back to you
on July 13th for our first
budget workshop to review the
current status of the draft
budget. We even have some time
held later on in July to be
able to come back to you again,
depending on how that
conversation goes, all leading
up towards the October 1st
deadline for us to have the
recommended budget published.
Next slide please. Sarah, from
that point, once the budget is
published, we have workshops on
the the presented draft budget
scheduled for October 12th and
26th, and then the final two
steps would be the hearing and
adoption process, culminating
in having the budget adopted in
the middle of November. And so
with that, we can open it up
for questions.
>> Thank you very much.
Questions. City Councilor Kim
Harless.
>> Hi, Kim Harless, Vancouver
City Council Council member. I
had a question and a comment.
One just a this seems like a
values based direction for the
budget, so I'm really excited
about that. That's something
I've been wanting to see. Also,
gratitude for having these
conversations way earlier the
last go around. I know that was
feedback we had, so I really
love the direction we're going.
I had a question just about,
you know, we're looking at that
9 million deficit in 2027 and
the 2020 million forecast for
2028. You know, but we have
that 21.5 over time and fire
and that 12 million over time
in police. And I was just
wondering how changes in
policies also just for like,
you know, worker safety, you
know, not having folks
overextended is always really
good about how changes in
policies for overtime might be
helpful to that deficit. Or I
know buckets don't always
change and exchange so easily
in that way, but I thought it
was a question worth asking.
>> So yeah, thank you,
councilor. And I should say
that, you know, it's important
for me to note that I'm not
necessarily that I am not
picking on police and fire with
the budget presentation for
today. I don't want them to
feel like that. But I think I
wanted to do two things with
that. One was to be able to
show the council the real costs
of some of the decisions that
we make in terms of actual
dollars spent, rather than
keeping it generic and talking
about percentages and
percentages over time. But I
also know that whenever you
have a challenging budget
budget situation, the council
is going to hear from the
public that there's an
expectation that they really
want you to be to prioritize
public safety, prioritize
public safety. We've seen that
exemplified in a couple of
public votes between
proposition two supporting fire
and now proposition five
supporting law enforcement. But
I also want to be able to arm
you with information that shows
that the city has been
prioritizing public safety. And
the two traditional uniformed
public safety departments, you
know, the slide that shows that
collectively, the two of them
are 53% of the budget is one
way that we do that. And you
can see that we've been
supporting them by providing
additional dollars for overtime.
Now, that being said, that is
something that I think both
Chiefs have recognized that we
need to be aggressive in how we
are working on that overtime
equation. I don't necessarily
want to put words in Chief
Price's mouth, but I believe
that we fully expect that the
first seven or so officers,
maybe even a few more that are
hired under proposition five,
will be doing work that is
already being done that we are
paying overtime for, so that
that would be a conversion from
overtime to straight time. And
I think it's important for us
to really take a look at our
staffing models. And to your
point, Councilor Harless, make
sure that we don't have
expectations that people are
putting in an incredible number
of hours in order to cover the
work that is there. We're going
into this with the mindset that
for particularly for those two
agencies, my feeling is, is
that we have been imbalanced.
On the expectations about the
number of personnel that we
have versus the number of hours
that they're being required to
work and the tasks that they're
being asked to take on. And we
may be in better shape to
actually staff up. And even
though we have more personnel,
that could be more than
counterbalanced with the
reduction in overtime hours. So
we're doing some detailed
analysis on that.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> This is Diana Perez,
Vancouver City Council member.
A couple of questions. It just
seems like this deficit from 9
to 20 is not a temporary gap.
It seems like a built in
imbalance. And so I would
really like for us to think
about what strategies, specific
strategies we're going to look
at to close that gap and how
that is baked into the
community participatory budget
process. So you mentioned maybe
there's a community budget
workshop where, where there are
also part of this assessment of
strategies that we look at. And
so I just wanted to share those
comments that I'm, I'm, I'm a
little worried about this big
gap in how we're going to close
it and would like for us to
dive deeper into those specific
strategies.
>> Councilor Hanson, any
comments? Councilor Paulson,
councilor Stover.
>> Thank you, mayor councilor
Stober. So I appreciate that
we're having this workshop now.
I still don't historically, I
still don't know that it's that
early in the process from when
I first was on council, but two
years ago, we ended up with
surprises that came along late
in the process. And there are
going to be surprises, but I
just really strongly ask that
we get those surprises earlier
rather than later, so that we
can have conversations during
the course of development of
the budget, and we're not
waiting until after October 1st
before we're able to have some
of these tough decisions that
we can make. Thank you.
>> Councilor Fox. All right.
Lisa, thank you so very much.
That concludes this portion.
We'll see you on July 13th to
have some further discussions.
And. I think we're good. All
right. Thank you. Jeff Lannen
it's good to see you. Thank you
so very much, councilors. Let's
go ahead and move into the IBR
update. Just a moment.
>> I'm gonna have it fix it
after.
>> Do you want me to turn your
microphone on? There you go.
Introduce yourself and get
started.
>> Good afternoon, mayor and
Council Catherine Kelly, policy
and programs manager with the
city. We are waiting for IVR
staff to arrive. Carly Francis,
who is the program
administrator, is on her way,
so I apologize. She is not yet
here and she will do the bulk
of the presentation. So we I
don't know if we want to take a
break, but I have pinged her
office.
>> Catherine, are there are
some pieces of this that you
want to take on?
>> I could potentially do some
opening slides. So yes, I can
sure.
>> Go ahead.
>> Do my best here. Okay, so
the Interstate bridge
replacement program has hit a
key milestone in that a final
supplemental environmental
impact statement, or FSEIS has
been published and is currently
out for public review. And you
will hear that from
Administrator Francis. And that
is kind of the key step before
hitting what's called a record
of decision, which is the
federal government, federal
agency partners prompt to go
ahead and use federal funding
to begin construction of the
program. Next slide.
>> Fany should work for you.
Okay.
>> Thank you. So this slide is
a reminder. This is what has
been studied through the IB
program over several years.
This is the five mile corridor
that the program has conveyed.
They are committed to
delivering over time. Just a
real quick reminder of the
elements of those of that
program. It is a replacement
bridge across the Columbia
River. It includes interchange
enhancements on both the Oregon
and Washington sides of the
river. It includes a new
multi-use path on the east side
of the bridge. Excuse me. And
connecting to both sides of
communities on the river. And
then in addition, it includes a
guideway for light rail to
extend from the yellow line in
Oregon to Vancouver and. And
then additionally, it includes,
excuse me, mainline highway
enhancements past fourth Lane
and up to SR 500 on the
Washington side. Excuse me. So
each. So this is the general
program that has been studied.
And excuse me again in 2021, a
modified locally preferred
alternative was approved
through program partners for
this five mile enhancement. And
program partners once again
include from both sides of the
river, both departments of
transportation, both transit
agencies C-tran and Trimet. It
includes the cities of
Vancouver and Portland, the two
ports in Vancouver and Portland,
and the two metropolitan
planning organizations. So
Regional Transportation Council
on the Washington side and
Metro on the Oregon side. Next
slide please. And this is
really where I can talk at a
very high level, but I would
prefer to wait for
Administrator Johnson to get
here. But what I can do not.
Johnson oh, I'm sorry. Francis.
Previous administrator thank
you mayor. It was Greg Johnson,
Carly Francis, but the program
did deliver an updated cost
estimate for the full five mile,
five mile program on March 17th.
So fairly recently. And as you
can see, there's an updated
range for the full five mile
corridor, which goes from 13.5
to 15.2 billion, with a likely
cost of 14.4 billion. And this
is at a 70 70th percentile
probability. And what that
means is there's a 70% chance
that that 14.4 billion is the
cost. That is based on analysis,
that includes a lot of risk and
escalation based on current
market and projected market at
time of expenditure for the
program. And it does take that
base cost estimate of 7.8 and
inflates it by those two
factors, the risk and the
escalation.
>> Catherine Anne McEnerny Ogle
Catherine, could you explain
what that 4.2 billion in risk
is? What is risk?
>> Yes. Thank you, mayor. And
again, this is probably where I
will not do as much justice as
as Carly Francis will do, but
it does include the cost of
materials escalating. It
includes the cost of labor
escalating over time. And then
there was a delay in getting
the publication of the final
environmental impact statement,
which delayed the full program.
And any time you have delay,
you're going to have those cost
increases. So in essence, I
believe those are the three
critical pieces that are in
that risk category.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Next slide. All right. So
this slide is showing just the
cost increase of construction
over time based on the
program's analysis. And this
does come from Federal Highway
Association Construction Index.
And I believe what this is
showing that where you see that
yellowish triangle in 2022,
there was a cost estimate. And
the inflation that has happened
since that time with the new
estimate. This does represent
that cost increase to
construction.
>> So for those individuals
that can't read those tiny
little size font in white,
could you go ahead and describe
those numbers for us?
>> Sure. So the 2022, the
acronym is NH CCI, which is the
National Highway Construction
Cost Index, was set at 2.04.
And the updated version of that
is 3.21.
>> Yeah. All right.
>> Thank you. Next slide. Okay.
So this does get at some of the
questions you were starting to
dig into and why. There is an
estimated cost from the 2022
excuse me, 2022 estimate. First
of all there is the escalation
impacts. Construction costs
have increased dramatically
over the past few years. And
that does include, as I
mentioned, materials, labor and
equipment. It also the program
used a different type of
forecasting. As I understand it,
there is an inflation index
that was used in the 2022
estimate. That was more of a, I
believe, state Wasch dot
standard. And. Hello. I am
doing the best to represent.
>> I'm so sorry. Okay, I
understood.
>> 515 and so my apologies for
being late.
>> Apologies.
>> That's okay Catherine, keep
going.
>> Okay, I.
>> Actually at this point I'm
going to turn it over to
administrator.
>> My apologies again. Carly
Francis, interim program
administrator for interstate
bridge replacement program. So
thank you, Catherine, for
covering some basics. We do
have cost estimate increases,
both associated with escalation,
as Catherine was mentioning,
but also associated with some
schedule extension impacts. So
the original anticipated
schedule for construction that
was built into the 2022
estimate was assuming that all
work across the five miles
would happen in ten years. We
have looked at both the
constructability of that, the
viability of disrupting
people's lives in that way had
rich conversations with
industry about how you would
package and deliver that body
of work. There's a substantial
sort of schedule increase that
we have anticipated. Based out
of those conversations. We now
have a roughly 20 year delivery
horizon for the whole program.
The other aspect of schedule
adjustments that are baked into
this estimate that we have now
is an additional two is a two
year delay that's already
accommodated in the estimate.
So when we completed the 2022
estimate, we had anticipated we
would have the final
supplemental impact statement
and the record of decision two
years ago. And so that has been
actual real life schedule delay.
And there are costs associated
with that. Beyond those items,
there is the scope and quantity
updates estimate. So we have
more engineering detail. And
that both just drives clarity.
But it also has increased the
spaces where we have just
better understanding of the
work. And so there are
additional quantities,
additional costs to doing the
work. So that's built into the
estimate. There are the impacts
that we've identified and
talked about. And then also
this increase in probability
costs. So the 2022 estimate was
using a 60% probability. That's
a 60% likelihood it will be at
or below this figure. And that
was the the $6 billion figure.
I'm used to seeing the slides
and then getting to this point.
And at this point, that was a
that's a standard Wasch dot
plan to figure. So that's what
we were using at that time. We
are using this information
associated with key
deliverables to the federal
government. Their plan to
figure is a 70% probability. So
that is a 70% chance that the
Or likelihood that the cost
will come in at that number or
below it. So that's been a
change in the estimates.
Another place in which they're
not exactly apples to apples.
Next slide. Associated also
with the cost estimate update.
We do also update the schedule
of the program. So the
variables that you're building
in are how many widgets do you
need. How many people do you
need. What how would that work
occur? But also over what time
scale? So this does reflect
that adjustment in timing. So
the one we do have the final
supplemental environmental
impact statement that was
published last month. So that's
or sorry earlier this month. So
very exciting. We are expecting
a record decision out of the
Nepa process. So that is your
approval to advance to
construction. We're expecting
that in quarter two of this
year. And then the next two
items here are speaking about
advancing the program to
delivery. We are working to put
a request for qualifications
out on the street in quarter
two of this year. That is the
beginning of a conversation to
seek a progressive design build
contractor to do work with, and
then also issuing the request
for proposals in quarter four
of this year that would allow
us to identify a contractor
that we would be doing the work
with in 2027, so we could have
those rich conversations with
folks who know this kind of
work, who know how to deliver
it, and then leading to start
of construction in 2028. We
look for that to be concurrent
roughly with the start of the
start of tolling over the river.
Specifically, that is the style
of the that FHwA sort of style
of tolling. There's a couple
different programs you can be
approved through, and the
program that we are falling
under is one that where you
like to see that those revenues
start to flow as you have key
construction underway. We are
still targeting and this cost
assessment considers still
targeting, still targeting the
capital investment grant, full
funding grant agreement. So
that's targeted for 2030. New
bridge opened to traffic as a 6
to 7 year time horizon. Once
construction starts. It's a
range because we really need
the conversation with the
contractor to actually settle
that schedule and set it. And
then this also anticipates
light rail transit service
pending additional funding
beginning in 2036. The overall
schedule anticipates, if we had
funds at the available time
frame schedule identified, we
would have the program complete
the five miles in 2045. Next
slide. So the other piece
that's important to note is
what we are doing right now. So
we've mentioned a couple of
these items that are quarter
two of this year. Really
critical is our work with the
federal government. So we are
working on that record of
decision, working to update the
metro, Metropolitan and state
transportation improvement
programs. That is critical to
demonstrating fiscal constraint,
which is an essential input to
getting our record of decision
from the federal government. We
are also working to demonstrate
that fiscal constraint through
an initial finance plan that
needs to be submitted. That is
where some of the cost estimate
information is folded into, and
our representation of the
program at this time comes into
play, which is what we're
talking about. That does feed a
process where we are looking to
amend our agreements with the
federal government to obligate
funds for both the Bridge
Investment program and also the
mega grant program. So those
are anticipated to occur before
the end of this federal fiscal
year. With respect to the
Bridge Investment Program grant,
there is over $500 million that
would go away if we are unable
to execute by that time. So we
are looking to maintain over
half $1 billion of funding by
executing a schedule that gets
us to those grant obligation
agreements by the end of
September. As I've already
mentioned, we are working to
advance procurement, which is
also noted on this slide. Next
slide. So as we got to the
point of having this cost
estimate update for the program,
the $14.4 billion is big,
bigger than what we had before,
and sort of serves to raise the
question about how do you
advance the program forward? So
internal to the team, we looked
at identifying a core set of
projects specifically that is
identified as the bridge itself,
replacing it, getting that
bridge connected to I-5, as
well as to Hayden Island and
into the SR 14 interchange,
extending light rail to the
waterfront station in Vancouver
and removing the existing
bridges. We do need to build
the bridge, right, so that we
can build the rest of the
program. The program has always
needed to start at the river
build out from there. The other
piece that's really critical is
in working with the federal
government and achieving their
approval to advance to
construction. They need to see
a project that can be
constructed and used. So
they'll term that as
independent utility. But we
have to demonstrate that we
have something that people can
use and doesn't get investments
that don't get, that aren't
able to be used once we're done
with those funds. So that's
really critical. And advancing
the program within the
available funds was a key
message from the governor's
offices as we released that
information. So we very much
were looking to use the
available funds to begin the
program and also deliver that
independent utility. Next slide.
So the line items that I
mentioned on the last slide are
depicted here visually. So on
March 17th, when we released
information on our cost
estimate, this was the core set
of projects. So this does
demonstrate one replacement of
the bridges over the river.
That connection into Hayden
Island and I-5, the connection
into SR 14 and I-5 in Vancouver,
notably the medium gray on here
are improvements that are
identified within the program,
but not part of this first
funded activity or first
seeking to be funded activity.
You will note that in the SR 14
interchange, there are local
interchange connections that
are not included there. So the
connections onto local city
streets, the removal of the
existing bridges is here in
maroon. The other thing I would
note about the replacement
bridges is that one will have
space for light rail over the
river. It also will have a
connected bicycle and
pedestrian facility. So that
will be connected and
integrated into the systems on
both sides, in yellow or orange,
depending on how you see it.
The is the body of work that's
needed to advance and extend
light rail from the Expo
station in Vancouver, across,
in or sorry, the Expo station
in Portland, across to
Vancouver. So what you need
there is you need to grade
separate at Marine Drive so
that you don't have light rail
and trucks at the crossing. At
an intersection, you need to
build a bridge over the North
Portland Harbor. You need to
extend the guideway and extend
the transit. Across Hayden
Island. There is a station on
Hayden Island. Then it connects
into the bridge and on the
Washington side, you need to
connect it to the bridge and
then complete, extend and
complete the station at
waterfront to make that
connection. Inside of this is
also pre-completion tolling as
a component. And yeah, so that
other piece is there. The other
thing. So then I would note
just that the cost for this is
that we had estimated on March
17th was $7.65 billion, which
is beyond the funds that the
program has right now. We are
working to update that cost,
because I'm going to tell you a
little bit about some
refinements we've made since
the March 17th date, but we
don't have a new figure for
this at this time. Next slide.
So in looking at how do we
match up the funds that we have,
we also had this as a set of
information that came out on
March 17th, which was looking
just specifically at replacing
the bridge across the river and
making those connections at SR
14, I-5 and Hayden Island, also
including Pre-completion
tolling. So at the March 17th
date, this was estimated to
cost 5.9 billion, also a little
bit more than the costs that we
or the funds that we had at the
time. And so we also took out
messaging at this time,
recognizing that we were
looking at some possible cost
efficiencies and also looking
to continue to explore tolling
as a whether or not there were
additional funds that could
accrue to the program through
tolling. Next slide. So the
updates since mid March, we've
been continuing to refine that
first set of projects. So, one,
the federal government was very
clear that we needed to include
and reserve funds in this first
step for the bridge demolition.
So we had to build those costs
in. Additionally, we've looked
at consolidating the contracts.
So consolidating the bridge,
the approaches and the
interchange connections into
one progressive design build
contract. So that has been
validated. And we've done,
we've re-analyzed risk
associated with that merging of
those contracts. So there's
been cost and risk reduction
associated with that. There is
reduced oversight requirements.
There's also efficiencies of
scale with the toll gantry
siting. And so that's allowed
for some cost reductions. So
all of that and then analyzing
what risks could actually be
retired because of the lack of
that interface led to cost
reductions. The other piece
that's here as a variable is an
increased expectation out of
projected toll revenue to
accrue to the program. So there
has been a completed toll
funding analysis. And so that
figure has gone up. Those rates
analyzed are part of the
conversation that's happened
with the Transportation
Commission. So they've talked
about four different rates. And
the rate that informs this
increased toll revenue is one
of those four rates. So still
in the dialog with the public
about the analysis that was
conducted. Next slide. So those
updates on the cost side, we
have as you'll see here added
in the removal of the bridges.
It's the same content in black
here of the replacement and the
connections in on both sides of
the river. The inclusion of
pre-completion tolling, the
anticipated cost for this is
$5.68 billion. So it is a
reduction from the 5.9. But we
did also add in that bridge
removal. And then if we can go
to the next slide. So just to
put it also in writing here. So
this includes the Columbia
River bridge, those connections
to I-5, Hayden Island and SR 14.
It does include transit design
to be able to continue the
process with CIG to advance
that orange that you saw
earlier. It includes tolling
infrastructure and also the
bridge removal activity. This
body of work is what is being
coordinated with both
metropolitan planning
organizations and the states,
and doing updates to the state
and metropolitan transportation
improvement plans. And also,
just to note that the bridge
removal is out far enough that
it's outside of those horizons
for those planning periods for
the transportation improvement
programs, they typically cover
3 or 4 years. So it's outside
of that time. So those those
costs won't show up in, in the
line items because they're in
the out years for when the step
and tip plan for. The other
thing to note is that those
improvements will allow for
folks to drive on the bridge,
access it. There's the
independent utility built into
this that allows for future
compatibility towards
delivering the rest of the
program, and also satisfying
the federal expectations and
requirements. Now, to have a
project that you can build and
people can use. Next slide. So
speaking to so 5.68, when we
walked into the March 17th time
frame, we had 5.45 on the table
for funds. So we've seen that
adjust running over here. We do
have the we continue to have
the federal funds through the
Mega and Bip program. So that's
600,000,001.5 billion. We have
a billion from each state.
There's some previous state
funding. And then the projected
total funding amount. This used
to be 1.25 billion. And through
that total analysis conducted
by both states, we've been able
to increase that to 1.5 billion
beyond that. So that's what we
were looking to. So that brings
us to 5.69. That is above and
maths with the 5.68. So that
brings us into that congruity
that we need to communicate to
the federal government so they
can see how the the funds match
the costs. Beyond that is the
continued activity for the
program to advance the full
five miles. So continuing the
process to secure and work
towards the capital investment
grant program, billion dollars
that we are in the pipeline for,
and then there are additional
funds out in the future, both
through the Connecting
Washington Reconnecting
Communities pilot program. So
those are things that are not
associated with funded phase or
that core set right now, but we
know are out there as
discussion points in the future.
Next slide. Next steps for
light rail is first and
foremost building the
replacement bridge such that it
has the space to accommodate
light rail as it comes along.
Without that, there's no way to
bring it across the river.
Continuing to pursue that
billion dollars in capital
investment grant program
funding, targeting that full
funding grant agreement. That
is the final agreement with the
federal government that you
have the funds to. You have
that allocation of funds, and
the funds can start to flow
from the federal government to
the program for constructing
transit, and then anticipating
about a six year horizon to
bring that transit across and
bring it up to operating
capacity. Next slide. So I know
everyone is interested in how
do we get to evergreen, and we
want to get to evergreen, too.
The selection of waterfront is
tied to other costs that are
necessary for per the design
that we have right now for
getting further than waterfront.
So there's some very real kind
of challenges beyond that. So
the current cost and funding
availability really limited
what options that we had. We
were trying to figure out how
to get the bridge across the
river started and underway. The
long term vision is still to
complete to evergreen, and the
interest is in working with
partners to figure out how to
both complete that and also
complete the rest of the five
mile program. So I know that
there's vested interest in
getting to evergreen. We want
to work with folks on that and
finding a way to animate
construction now with the funds
that we have, because the
cheapest bridge that you can
build is the bridge you start
building today, we needed to
find a way to sort of start
this program and get it
underway. It's been far too
long, so I know the timeline
has changed for delivery, but
the commitment to getting the
full five miles done has not
changed from the states. Next
slide. We will continue. And
this is a dialog with partners
as well as internally to look
for cost saving opportunities,
you know, design refinements,
value engineering, risk
management, pursuing what other
federal grants may be out there,
and also talking with the
states about other, you know,
maybe cost savings or funding
and financing opportunities. So
we're looking at under every
cushion to try to figure out
how to find pathways for this
forward. And there's a long
horizon over which to do that.
But the states are committed to
doing that work. Next slide. So
I think we've mentioned most of
these before, but really
critical, as I mentioned,
getting to September is so
important for us. And keeping
on time with the record of
decision is essential to that.
Getting our financial plan in
and validated by the federal
government is essential for
that. And then getting these
grant agreements reviewed and
executed between the parties,
all essential to retaining the
half $1 billion, the over half
$1 billion that would otherwise
elapse by the end of September.
The other piece then, is really
animating construction, as
we've talked about. So issuing
those procurement documents and
also working inside the office
to understand what does it mean
to transition this program that
has been heavily in the
planning and environmental
phase into one that is ready to
administer construction of,
frankly, the largest
construction program that
either state has really ever
seen in the transportation
space. So, you know, excited to
do that work. But it definitely
means transitions within the
team to make sure we have the
right folks on, on board and
the right expertise in-house.
Next slide. So specific to that,
I think I mentioned briefly,
progressive design. Build is
the method that we'll be using
to deliver the program. If this
is not familiar to you, it is
this sort of merging with a
design builder early. So you
have conversations in the
development between where we
are now with design to
finalizing design. So instead
of just issuing, you know, at a
lower level of plans, you issue
for design build, you issue it
out. You ask people to give you
proposals, they price all the
risk that they see between
where you're at and design and
finalizing it. And you don't
have a dialog around that. In
progressive design build, you
get them on board, you have a
rich dialog as you are working
to finalize that design. That
does provide opportunities for
risk management for, you know,
possible betterments that are
maybe no different cost because
they have just a better way to
do this or see things
differently. Because frankly,
some of our, you know, our
analysis for this is our best
understanding from the Dot's
about how to do this work. And
folks who have heavy marine
capacity and other of this
construction ability, their
capacity and their knowledge of
their workforce is really
material to this conversation.
So there is that opportunity
for innovation. And we're also
hoping that it will reduce
change orders and claims, both
through risk sharing, and also
just through that rich dialog
where there's just better
understanding as you when you
start the work. So that's
really what we're focused on,
is trying to figure out how to
get the bridge under
construction and make the
program real to everybody. When
it's been in the planning
stages for so long. Next slide.
Great. I think that was it.
We're up for questions. Thanks
for starting. Sorry.
>> Yes, Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Fox.
>> Yes. Thank you. You already
anticipated that we probably
will have a lot more
conversation on the Evergreen
Terminus. And for, for me, I, I
think the piece that I'm
struggling with is that if the
work for on this light rail
starts at a park and ride in
Oregon, I don't understand why
it wouldn't end at a park and
ride in Washington. So I'm
having I'm wondering if this
project team has one recognized
that that should be the goal on
both sides of the river. And
secondly, if there's cost
reductions, we don't we're not
asking for that. It to stop at
the edge of the river. We're
asking for it to go to
evergreen. So I would I would
hope that the short term goal
would be to first construct the
evergreen stop. And then long
term, we could go back and
construct the waterfront stop.
And so that's, that's where I'm
trying to understand why. Yeah,
why that wouldn't have been a
consideration for cost cutting.
>> So I think, one, the team
was working within the
conversation that we'd had to
date with design with partners.
And so looking for a lot of
changes to that dialog before
talking with partners about
where we were going, or maybe
changes we might be considering,
felt like it would be early and
inappropriate to do as we were
bringing out costs. So the
costs are based on the dialog
over several years. One of
those things is that there was
interest in transit running
adjacent to the highway to make
that work in the space past
waterfront, there is highway
investment that's needed as
well to make that work and to
be able to build the light rail
into that space. And so it's
not simply a costs for transit,
it's also a cost for highway
consideration. So I think
that's, that's what's sort of
important to recognize is to go
beyond that space. You have to
extend the highway improvements
there. And so there would be
additional costs there to incur.
And frankly, there was just not
enough funds to go beyond that
and sort of retain as much
money as there as we could for
light rail to bring it across
and sort of preserve as much of
that capacity. So what you have
in what we're talking about is
a connection into I-5. That's
maybe around Sixth Street,
around that sort of zone, as
opposed to going further than
that. And that's an
approximation. But you have
walls that end there. To
actually adjust the highway,
you need to build a wall on the
east side, you need to shift
things over. You need to build
a wall on the west side, which
is actually the support for the
light rail bridge that would be
over active traffic once it's
constructed, and also then
building in all of the pavement
underneath that and putting
some posts back in. So it's
simply, it's not just a, it's
not just a light rail specific
set of costs. It is a composite.
And based on the funds that we
had, there's just there's no
there's not enough money to do
it, I think is the the very
basic answer, unfortunately,
and.
>> I don't want to sound
argumentative, but it probably
will come across that way. But
I'm hearing again on the south
side, just out of fairness,
they're building a bridge for
that first section of the light
rail to make its connection, to
get onto the new bridge. And
again, when we're talking about
the infrastructure we have here
in Vancouver and not to have
that same level of
infrastructure being built for
these transit connections,
feels like we're not getting
treated equally in this this
construction of this project.
It feels as if you're giving
the future ten years from now,
City Council members, a big
bill to build some type of
infrastructure to connect all
of those maybe potential future
commuters, to get them onto
that light rail, because we
don't have space down there to
put it, or intention. We have
other intentions for that
waterfront space. And so I feel
like they're handing us some
impossibly large bill that
we're going to have to pay for.
So that's what I'm concerned
about.
>> Sure. And I think what's
also important is there's a
rich dialog that needs to
happen with c-tran, with the
city about what is it? What
does it mean to sort of make
that work, and also to explore
whether or not there are other
options sort of in the future
that make something different
more possible. But there are
these financial constraints
right now that, especially in
documenting the initial finance
plan with the federal
government, that we really need
to action now. And so that is
the sort of basis of talking
with the feds right now on how
to move forward. I guess the
other challenge is there's no
way to get the light rail and
building the light rail.
There's a gap overall in the
funding for that. So we're not
building the bridge over the
North Portland Harbor until we
have the funds for that either.
And the only way to connect to
light rail in Oregon is really
to meet it at Expo, where it is.
So there is a there's a gap in
that investment that's been
made in Oregon, where they
chose to stop it at Expo, which
was probably, I would say very
fairly. And I mean, like no
doubt was about getting a
bridge over the North Portland
Harbor. Bridges are expensive.
And so they chose to stop their
investment there. And then the
reality is of connecting into
the 68 or more miles that they
have of light rail in Oregon
really requires getting it onto
Hayden Island first before
getting it connected to the
bridge. So it's it's not parity,
as you're pointing out, like it
doesn't look like the same
investment on both sides. It is
about trying to get light rail
into Vancouver and making sure
that we're making that
connection between the states.
And I would say also to the
point of park and rides, I
think we've heard pretty
clearly, at least from the
mayor, if not from all folks,
that there's not a lot of
interest in park and rides. And
so exploring what are the
opportunities to have that the
extension pencil from a FTA
funding standpoint, and also to
make it function with folks
that that's a again, it's a
rich dialog. So we know there's
going to be a connection to the
purple line once it's built
from C-tran and other things,
but there's a lot of dialog to
have about how that's going to
function and fit within the
city. So we that's ahead of us.
It's not behind us yet.
>> Councilor Stauber.
>> Thank you, mayor. Thank you,
Administrator Francis, for
being here today. So help me
understand. Help me understand
this. 14
>> How 14 comes into play.
Because what I'm hearing you
say is that. 14 it almost
sounds like you're saying 14
will end with a choice, a
binary choice. Either you've
got to go I-5 north or you've
got to go I-5 south because you
said there's in at this point,
money to connect to downtown.
>> So you're asking
specifically about the SR 14
I-5 connections and what's
there and what's not there.
>> Correct.
>> Yes. So there will be what?
What? People in the
transportation industry would
say a system to system
interchange. So highway to
highway interchange. So that
will be constructed. So from SR
14 you could head north on I-5.
You could head south on I-5.
From I-5 you could get to SR 14.
But again the C street, what we
what we know right now is the C
Street, sixth Street ramps,
those or Washington where it
gets on those would not be
constructed in the first body
of work. And so those folks who
are wanting to get locally in
and out of that area in
downtown would probably route
up to the mill plain
interchange.
>> Okay.
>> Sorry to interrupt. Maybe we
could flip back to that slide.
Might be.
>> Easier if it's helpful. Yeah.
Sorry.
>> Is this working?
>> Okay.
>> Yeah. If you just. So. Yeah.
Sorry. No. You're fine. So,
yeah, this is where you'll see
medium gray. It's a little I
mean, it's not it's not
particularly large to see, so I
apologize, but you'll see the
sort of lines there that swoop
from the bridge down. That's
the I-5 to or that's the
connection from the bridge to
I-5. And then you'll see on the
lower half, you'll see those
sort of arching lines that are
in black from SR 14 to north
five. There's one from North
five to SR 14. And then also
the connections to southbound
are built in there. So those
are the connections that are
there. Other things would need
to come along in a future
activity.
>> Okay. But they'll some
somehow they'll be accommodated.
That future build will be
accommodated. I mean, so. I'm I
am concerned about this quote
unquote future build. You know,
CRC, we saw the bridge in
influence area get pulled back.
So there is a visual design on
the. On the cover of the final
supplemental environmental
impact statement that shows a
pedestrian pathway, for
instance, that looks like it
would be a great water slide,
but doesn't look necessarily as
appealing for actually getting
on and off the bridge. And it
definitely is a photo that
doesn't show a future where
that goes to, goes to Library
Square, goes to the fork, goes
someplace that isn't a twisty
turny thingy. And so again, you
know, and at the same time, we
see where. You know, there are
freeway on off ramps on I-5 in
downtown Portland for a future
highway that never was built,
that are just left orphaned.
And so there is that concern
that that it's all great to say,
yay, we're going to do this
someday and then end up with
with stubs, or is there even a
stub?
>> So I don't, I, I can't speak
to the engineering specifically
enough, and I know what you're
talking about in Portland of
the places where sort of
something starts to veer off
and then there's just a
truncated. So I can't speak
specifically in the SR 14
interchange about what that
would look like, or whether or
not it would be more of just a
merge into something that's
there. And so it would be a
little more seamless and not
look like a stub in the interim.
So I, I would have to go ask
about that to sort of verify it
is the intention is that we
would be able to come back and
build those things. Certainly
construction is always
disruptive, so it would be a
disruptive activity to do it.
But, you know, getting those
things back and completed over
time is the intention of is the
intention of the states the
intention of the program. This
is the other reason, though,
why it's going to be valuable
to have conversations with our
partners about construction
funding and sequencing and how,
you know, if there are based on
where we're at right now,
whether or not there may be
different priorities that folks
want to say, I care less about
this item. I care more about
this item. Is there a way to do
something different first
versus what you'd anticipated?
There are dependencies in the
construction and what we would
need to do for bringing forward
this design. My discussion
briefly about getting to
evergreen. There are
dependencies between highway
investments there and light
rail investments there. There
are other places where those
dependencies exist, but we're
certainly open to the
conversation with our partner
agencies about whether or not
there are different priorities,
or folks want to discuss
something that, you know, maybe
adjusts from this plan.
>> Is there. So I want to
really focus in on the bike ped
at this point. So we're, we're
still the loop de loop is what
we're hearing. What I'm hearing
is we're going to or I'm seeing.
>> Yeah. So I would note that
like there's been one, I think
the corkscrew, right. That had
originally, because you're
pretty high in the air, had
been the default assumption for
getting down to getting down to
grade. And I know folks have
been asking for whether or not
you could make the path
adjacent to light rail or run
up to evergreen or other things
along the highway. There are
significant right of way
constraints where that is
extremely prohibited. I know
that in the design conversation
that we were having with the
folks from England who have
rich design experience, they
had some unique ideas that
looked at whether or not you
could get that pathway under
and integrate it into the light
rail station in some fashion,
so that there would be some
access to elevators or other
things. I would say there's
open space for sort of
considering whether or not
there are other opportunities.
Right now, the assumption is
the corkscrew, and we're also
early in design. And so I think
it's that space of whether or
not there maybe is some way to
make it a little bit different.
I know it's been a dialog
that's been of interest with
folks. I can't make any solid
guarantees right now about what
that's going to look like. But
I recognize that there, you
know, just swooping down in a
continual circle or swooping up
in a continual circle is not
something that is very pleasant
for the user.
>> And yes, exclamation point
on the other end. So the bridge
impact area is smaller than
what it was for the CRC, and
largely because Oregon did the
southern end, they widened
victory to to victory to
wherever it is. Oh, marine
drive to three lanes. But in
that process, they did not
improve the bike facilities
through Delta Park. Is that at
all part of this?
>> So I guess one I would note
that the victory project sort
of predated a lot of this. And
so the bridge influence area, I
think is largely actually the
same as CRC, because that was
otherwise scheduled work. There
are I'm not as familiar with
them, but I know there are some
adjustments to how those
connections get made. There's a
assumption about a local access
bridge, and then some of the
small medium grade that you see
on the map. There's actually
some of those things that are
bike PED type access tools
versus not notably, I would say
you don't see any medium grade
through Delta Park. So that's
and I've ridden my bicycle
through Delta Park on the roads
that are there. So I'm familiar
with that area. So I think
there were some ways in which
trying to make it integrate
better into the network that's
there are within the current
assumed design for the program.
But and I, I actually, I do
know if it's on the bridge, the
local bridge between Hayden
Island and Portland kind of
presume. Yeah. So I'm sorry
that I can't answer that one
for you live today, but there
are other connection
improvements that are built in
with bike ped for this facility.
Recognizing that, especially at
Marine Drive and across Hayden
Island, it's confusing for
folks.
>> So for me, that's the
biggest thing is, is I feel
like PED is still getting under,
getting less attention than it
should be in this whole process.
>> Thank you. Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor, city
Council member Eric Paulson.
Program administer. Francis, I
appreciate you being here this
afternoon. I want to start by
thanking you and the what I can
only imagine are large numbers
of people who are working
tirelessly on a pretty tight
deadline to. Allocate the money
that we have available before
we lose it. And I think that's
a point that you haven't heard
yet, but you need to hear,
which is that we are committed
to building the bridge that can
be built with the funds that we
have before we lose the funds,
and I appreciate that. In order
to do that, there are a lot of
trade offs that take place. And
so I just wanted to start by
saying thank you. You know,
this phrase, the bridge that or
the facility that people will
use, I think has a lot of room
for subjective interpretation.
I think you just heard a
colleague of mine talk about
one set of individuals and what
they view as a minimum viable
project, and I agree with a lot
of the sentiment that was
conveyed. When I'm thinking
about the decision making
processes that you're going
through right now, the biggest
concern that I have and the
biggest the biggest thing I
want to stress to you and your
team to consider is please
don't make short sighted
decisions that sacrifice long
term opportunities, because we
are replacing bridges that are
collectively 100 plus years old
and 70 plus years old, and
we're not going to have another
opportunity to replace this
facility, probably over a
similar time frame. And the
needs of our community changed
greatly over that 100 year and
70 year time frame. And they
will change greatly over the
next 70 to 100 years as well.
And so when we talk about
things like having to build the
bridge, we can with the funds
we have available, and we talk
about the possibility for stubs
or stopping where we don't want
to finish, but we don't have
the money to finish, you know,
making sure that whatever that
resulting design is leaves open
the maximum future flexibility
possible so that we're not
committing to a course of
action. And then it's more
expensive in the future to have
to do the thing that we wanted
to do. Or maybe our thinking
has changed through the
progressive design build
process. And maybe there's an
alternative routing for, for
example, light rail that's less
expensive, easier to build,
doesn't have the same highway
considerations that you
mentioned earlier. And we have,
but we haven't done something
to get to waterfront that
precludes us from doing that
next thing that could be
possibly better than what we
have in mind now, similar with
a bike PED facilities, right?
Having the ability to have
access to the waterfront, while
suboptimal, might be the
compromise you make in the
short term, but with a long
term vision towards eventually
being able to, in a cost
effective way, connect to
Library Square, because the
vast majority of users of that
kind of facility are going to
come from places north of
evergreen. And it's a little
bit absurd to go down a hill,
to go up 95ft, to get onto a
facility when you can
seamlessly roll onto it and go
up much more, you know,
manageable grade from evergreen.
And so those are the kinds of
things that we are hearing from
our community that we would ask
you to incorporate into your
design now and your decision
making now, so that we're not
making decisions in order to
save money that we can't
recover from in the future, or
that are cost prohibitive in
the future to fix. And then. I
think those are my my comments,
but I'd appreciate if you have
any initial comments or
responses to the thoughts that
I've conveyed. Thank you.
>> I think mostly it's just
incumbent, as I think we've had
a lot of conversations with our
partners about design and had
some, you know, rough but not
very tied to location, sense of
costs. And we're at that moment
where that is shifting clearly
and importantly. And so I think
as we think about those choices,
looking forward, I think it's
also important to really
recognize what are those
financial trade offs with those
those questions. So sort of
alignment to bike PED,
alignment to Library Square,
sort of again, there could be
similar cost prohibitive
factors there associated that
we're talking about also with
light rail if you're over or
alongside the highway. So
that's just sort of a reality
space there. Or how do you do
that differently? Certainly
open questions. And I think
we're open to the dialog and
trying to both, one maintain
the fact that we have a pathway
forward. We have something.
This is a compliance. We are
compliant with Nepa and
building something that has
independent utility and is
within the Nepa document that
we've analyzed so far and
really maintaining the ability
to use all the funds the
federal government has
allocated. I certainly think
that paying attention to
precluding future opportunity
is really critical and requires
an ongoing rich dialog with our
partners. And so I know we want
to have that. We want to also
place that in context of where
we're at with our dialog, with
the federal partners and others,
so that we're managing risks
along the way. But I appreciate
the sentiments.
>> Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you, mayor Bart Hanson.
Administrator Francis, thank
you for being here. You know,
the transit construction phase
going through 2030 to 2036.
What about in the meantime?
>> Right. So one, you have the
you're talking about a
construction period, right?
>> Well, yeah, construction
period. What what can we do to
enhance a high capacity transit
going across the bridge in the
process?
>> So I think what is built
into the plan on the highway
side is making sure there are
shoulders so that bus on
shoulder can run. So right now
that runs up to the bridge but
does not extend across. And so
making sure that that space is
there, that would be usable by
both the express busses that
are choosing to use I-5, as
well as local busses that are
on I-5 to get across. So that's
the, I would say the primary
highway aligned mode and
capacity that's built into the
plan. I don't know if I'm
missing anything, Catherine,
but that feels like the primary.
So I think that that's built in.
And I know that the. I think
the bus on shoulder project
here in southwest Washington
has been incredibly valuable
and allows the busses to queue,
jump or, you know, if you're at
35 miles an hour or below on
the main road, they can get out
of that and keep moving and
keep on with those reliable
transit times, which is so
critical to maintaining
ridership. So I know we've seen
really good benefits both here
and then along the SR 14
corridor with having the bus on
shoulder out there as well. So
that's the primary transit item
that would be built into this.
Certainly that doesn't come
along until you have both
bridges built over the river.
The construction assumed
construction phasing here is
that you build the the
southbound bridge first. So
you're building as far west as
you as your your furthest west
point, you are transitioning
all lanes northbound and
southbound onto that southbound
bridge. That's going to be wide
enough to carry traffic that is
going to be in that more
constrained footprint that we
see right now. So not a big
shoulders three through lanes
in either direction. So it's
going to be compressed. It'll
be kind of similar, different
but similar operating than what
you see on the bridges right
now. Once we're able to
transition traffic onto the
northbound bridge as it is
built and connected, then you
have the shoulders that are
available. And then that that
sort of improved bus condition
can be there as traffic is
flowing alongside it.
>> Okay.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Just want to. Diana Perez,
City Council, thank you so much
for being here and appreciate
the overview that you've
provided. I want to reiterate
the points that my colleagues
up here have brought up,
especially the long term view,
and not letting just the dollar
amount dictate what you can and
won't do, but really thinking
about the impacts and the
benefits to not just the
pedestrians, but the bicyclists
from both sides of the river,
and do agree that we do need to
at least see if we could
stretch that dollar to ensure
the the PED bike up to
evergreen at least. And I'm
curious about the the impacts.
By stopping there at the
waterfront versus the impacts
going to evergreen. And I
understand the association and
the dependency with highway 14
and and all that, but I don't
have a very clear picture of
that trade off when it comes to
the impacts to businesses,
homeowners, separate from just
the infrastructure that's in
place, but more from the
community impact by making that
decision, you made a point
about making the program real
and how that can translate to
real jobs here at the local
level and in our contracts and,
and not just going with the
lowest bid, but really looking
at having some type of process
that we're ensuring that our
contracts are providing those
local jobs and local businesses.
And where there's a history of
noncompliance, where we have
apprenticeships and really
diving deep, where all that
aligns with our values here at
the city. So I'm looking
forward to, to working with you
on that as we move forward.
Thank you.
>> Yeah, thank you.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Similarly, yeah, in
agreement with my colleagues
here about wanting to
prioritize Library Square as
much as possible. I mean, I
would be interested in any sort
of alternative transportation
going to Library Square versus
waterfront at all. So as was
mentioned, you know, there's
bike and ped, there's transit,
there's light rail. Let's
explore what it would take for
any alternative transportation
to Library Square versus
waterfront at all. Because as
was mentioned by council member,
I'm sorry, did I say Kinnee
Harless Council member sorry
about that. That was mentioned
earlier by Council member.
Paulsen is about that use. And
you know, when use is mentioned,
use by whom? Because it's not
going to be Vancouver folks, as
was explained. You know, most
people live north of or would
be accessing north of evergreen
and folks aren't going to
travel downtown just to go back
up again. It's going to be
mostly people coming to
Vancouver from Portland that
would be using that. And so it
seems unfair to Vancouver
residents that are in a
desperate need. And frankly, a
lot of folks are very
passionate about being able to
access and go across the river
using other modes of
transportation. So how can we
make that possible sooner than
later for our Vancouver folks,
it's hard to have conversations
without numbers. That's been
which has been, you know, I
think a huge aspect of this
project in general. So it makes
things really difficult. But I
think just an assurance of, you
know, what those numbers
actually look like, I think
would be great to be able to
see, to better visualize those
trade offs that we're all
talking about. Because right
now it's I know it's
hypothetical and I know it's
hard to put numbers to, but it
seems like you and other folks
have at least a general idea of
the cost differences. And so be
great to maybe have a little
more information about that. So
thanks.
>> Happy to continue the
conversation. I would note, at
least on this slide, that we
have up to 7.65. Again, we're
looking to have this updated in
the, you know, in the next I
don't have a specific time
frame, but definitely in the
next couple of months to have
that updated. So we have a
clear sense of what is that
delta between getting between
just the bridge itself and the
bridge removal and then adding
operable light rail. So at
least that sort of sense of
that initial additional funds
that are not yet allocated to
the program. So that becomes
clear. And also continuing the
dialog with our agency partners,
including you folks, on what
are the additional costs to get
to evergreen? What does that
mean? And whether or not there
are other options that are of
interest to explore over time.
>> Anne McEnerny Ogle, mayor
for the City of Vancouver
interim IBR Program
administrator. Francis. That's
right, big title. Carly, thank
you. Over 20 plus years working
on this project. We do
appreciate everything. We also
look forward to having that
discussion about the various
options that we can work with
your engineers so that perhaps
it's not paralleling the I-5
freeway. What other options are
available? We do know your
deadlines. With September, we
look forward to having the
conversations about design
options and funding options,
and we'll continue moving
forward with that. Catherine,
thank you for stepping in and
filling in that little bit of
gap right there. We are done
with the program update for
right now. We'll be going into
executive session pending or
potential litigation. Our CW
42.3.110 1III from 6 to 630.
And then we'll be back here at
630 for our regular council
meeting. Thank you