Thank you. Good afternoon and
welcome to Vancouver City
Council. It is Monday, July
20th, 20, 2026. Thank you. I'm
Anne McEnerny Ogle mayor for
the City of Vancouver and it is
4:00 time for our community
survey results. City manager,
do you have any comments?
>> Nothing further to add,
mayor. We can launch right into
it.
>> All right. Let's go ahead.
Laura. Please introduce
yourself and let's go.
>> Great. Thank you. Mayor
Council, my name is Laura
Shepherd. I'm the
communications director for the
city, and I'm here today to
present the 2026 Community
Survey for the biennium budget.
The city worked with DHM
research, a firm that has a
long history of measuring
public opinion in the Pacific
Northwest. This is our third
biennium budget survey that
they have conducted for the
city. Our other surveys were
conducted in 2022 and 2024.
I'll leave it to DHM to speak
to the mythology. Mythology?
Did I say mythology?
Methodology must have odyssey
on the brain, but I want to
point out that the survey was
available in English and the
city's two target languages of
Spanish and Russian, as
identified in the city's
language access plan. This
survey marks the second year
that we've included performance
measurement questions, along
with resident sentiment and
opinion items. This year's
survey I worked with DHM to
develop questions focused on
residents opinions on the
economy, affordability and
changes in spending behavior. I
felt that this was important
given the concern in the
community around pocketbook
issues that residents are
facing and how those pressures
are increasingly shaping daily
life and financial decisions in
the community. I'm also
different. This year, we added
focus groups for a deeper dive
on a few key issues. The two
focus groups were held this
weekend, so we don't have a
full analysis yet, but early
findings may be referenced as
we move through the survey
findings. And then once
presented to you, the report
and the full crosstabs will be
available on the city's website
on the data hub portal. And I'd
like to introduce and turn it
over to Jen Hoeger, vice
president at DHM, who led our
research. And hopefully.
>> Thank you so much, Laura.
>> Tony.
>> Can you hear me? Okay.
>> We can.
>> There you are.
>> Jen. I'm sorry.
>> Thank you. Jen.
>> We're having issues with the
clicker. Tony. Okay. Sorry.
That's okay. There we go. So,
Jen, take it away.
>> Okay, great. So I can't
really see the research slides,
but I'm just going to kind of
go through Laura. And if you
just, I probably just say the
slide number that you're on,
we're on.
>> Slide three.
>> Slide two. Okay, perfect. So
I think Laura already went over
all of the kind of areas that
we really tried to explore with
this survey. So just to give
her a bit of a deeper click
down into the methodology, it
was a mixed mode survey. And
what that means is, is that
when we had the ability to call
individuals, they could either
take the survey by phone or via
text message and go straight to
a web portal. It was about 15
minutes long. And what we did
was we really wanted to make
sure it was a representative
sample of Vancouver City
residents. So we did set quotas
by area, gender, age, race,
education, and income just to
make sure that we were really
making sure that we were kind
of getting that that
representative sample and that
all respondents that, you know,
could participate had the
ability to, which is why we
also offered it in Spanish and
Russian as well. And then, you
know, just to kind of go over,
you know, a little bit more of
the technical research side,
the margin of error here is
around 5%. That means, you know,
when we ask a question, if we
asked it to 100 people, the
responses would be within five
percentage points of any given
target. And so with that, I
think we can kind of jump right
in.
>> Great. If I can ask you to
pause for just a moment, Tony,
is there a a view where Jen can
actually see the slides?
>> I can see it now.
>> Oh you can okay. Yeah. Okay.
Good.
>> It just had switched over.
Oh, good. Perfect.
>> Okay, so we started with,
you know, kind of general moods
and perceptions of the quality
of life in Vancouver. And, you
know, this chart might look a
little scary at first glance.
We're seeing that about, you
know, in 2022, we started at
68% of respondents saying that
their quality of life was
getting worse. We have made
progress on that, with 55% now
saying their quality of life is
getting worse. And we've seen
people saying that it's getting
better or staying the same.
Starting to come up a bit as
well. So 22% saying the same
and 20% getting better. A lot
of these things are going to be
directly tied to kind of the
economy, how people feel about
their personal finances. And so
as we go through this survey,
it's going to add a lot more
depth and color to why
respondents and residents are
feeling that way. But we are
moving in the right direction.
When we dig in a little bit
more. And we asked people, so
why of those those individuals
that did feel the quality of
life was getting better, what
was it about Vancouver that was
was making them feel that way?
And around 50% said there was a
lot of positive growth and
development. And when we looked
deeper into the open ended
responses, what we really found
was, is that was looking at
kind of the the development
going on. So the waterfront was
mentioned. You know, people
were seeing that there was new
buildings going up, more
apartment complexes. It really
made it seem like there was,
you know, new businesses
opening up in the downtown area
as well. And there was a lot of
mentions about parks and how
clean the parks were and things
like that. You know, we also
saw some mentions of
transportation and
infrastructure. This was one of
the areas that we were able to
dig into a little bit more in
the focus groups. And it really
was kind of encapsulating of
everything that makes the city
work. But it really did focus
more on kind of the streets,
the roadways, traffic patterns,
ability to kind of be able to
navigate the city and feel safe
while doing so. So they kind of
runs the gamut, but I would say
it's mostly focused on the
transportation infrastructure.
And then I want to comment a
little bit on that 42% saying
it's generally positive or good
place to live. People move here
because they don't want to live
in Portland or Seattle. They
think that Vancouver is a far
superior location. It's where
they want to go to, you know,
raise families to get a better
quality of life. And so they
really do think it's a clean
and lovely place to live. Now,
if you go to the next one on
kind of the other side of this,
you know, why do they think
like the quality of life in
Vancouver is getting worse? And
that's really predominantly
focused on homelessness. It's a
visible problem that when they
see that in their day to day
life, you know, that's some of
the things that they, you know,
that contribute to them not
feeling that Vancouver is
improving from that perspective.
There's also a lot of talk
right now about cost of living
inflation. We got into a much
deeper dive of that during the
focus groups. And, you know, it
really comes down to a
respondent saying like, prices
are going up, but wages aren't
keeping pace. And so really
what they're dealing with from
an economic perspective is the
inability to kind of keep up
with rising, rising costs
around them without seeing that
commensurate increase in pay.
We also saw, you know, a little
bit about crime and safety.
Affordable housing was a big
topic during the focus groups.
I think that kind of stems from
the same kind of economic
hardships and conditions as
well. And then there was
mention of kind of, you know,
government inefficiency, taxes
being increased, just really
wanting a little bit more
transparency with government
actions as well. And so when we
asked them about, you know, how
do they perceive the current
economic conditions in
Vancouver, again, this is a
little bit more closely
together, but it does fluctuate
from where we started in 2022.
We have 53% reporting that the
economic conditions are poor
and 42% are good. Like I said,
it kind of fluctuates from
where we started, but we end up
back at the same place. A lot
of this is out of the local
community hands again. People,
you know, again are kind of
conflating the the economic
conditions in Vancouver as
being heavily impacted by
what's going on at a state and
national level as well. And so,
you know, as things change or
as things improve, we should
also see this starting to
improve as well. Okay, let's
get into city services. So the
first one, you know, we did ask
residents, what is the most
important issue for city
officials to address. And what
we really found here was that
we saw homelessness go down
from where we were in 2024.
That was a very top issue for
44% of people in 2024, and that
went down to 29% in 2026. And
where we see kind of what's
increasing is infrastructure.
And I think, you know, what we
see there from an
infrastructure perspective,
knowing what we have uncovered
within the focus groups, it's
really about kind of wanting
that the street maintenance,
wanting there intersections to
be safe, wanting to be able to
navigate sidewalks and have
sidewalks and bike lanes, a lot
of those things the city has
already gotten credit for in
their minds, but it is
something that they want to see
continuously improve,
particularly when they start to
conflate housing with it as
well. Some people view housing
separately, and some people
view it as embedded. Now, this
is a little bit of an eye chart,
so I'm going to walk through it
in a few steps. But first, I'd
love you all to focus on kind
of those top three. We were
asking them their level of
satisfaction with the value
they receive from their taxes
and fees. And so what we see
them satisfied with are the mix
of businesses in their
neighborhood. At 59%, the
general city services 58%, and
feeling connected to their
neighbors. And what we really
want to focus on and what we
don't want to see is if we look
at that not too or not at all
satisfied, we want that dark
red or dark orange to be as
small as possible, because
those are the individuals that
more are very upset with those,
those services that are not at
all satisfied. And those
individuals can often be the
loudest and the most disruptive.
And we want to make sure that
nobody feels that way. Right.
So I think that those are
something that we always want
to watch when we look at these
kind of scaled bar charts, we
also see, you know, feeling
connected to your neighbors 12%,
I don't know. But at the same
time, I really think that 58%
compared to 29% is super strong.
If you go to the next slide,
these ones, people aren't
feeling quite as satisfied with.
So right now, the level of
safety in the city we see 52%
are not too or not at all
satisfied with the level of
safety, compared to 46% that
are satisfied. We see a similar
pattern with city streets and
highways. 58%, you know, are
not satisfied currently
compared to 40%. And, you know,
when we look at these two,
again, we want to look at the
strength of the intensity of
those feelings. So we can see
on people that are satisfied,
the only people that are very
satisfied are 12 and 9%. Right.
We want to see that dark green
bar grow. And when we look, you
know, on the other side, we see
23% and 32% that are not at all
satisfied with the level of
safety or city streets and
highways. So again, we want to
work to, to remove the
intensity and move it, you know,
up the up the ladder towards
the dark green bars and people
feeling somewhat or very
satisfied. The last one I'll
talk about is disaster
preparation. This is a little
bit more tied. People aren't
sure whether they're satisfied
or dissatisfied with disaster
preparation, and that's mainly
because they're not really sure
what the city is currently
doing or kind of what the
disaster preparedness plan is.
So we see over a third of
respondents saying they don't
know to rate this city service.
And then we also wanted to look
at how these factors changed
over time. So even in the city
services that we see performing
the best and that have the
highest level of satisfaction,
we also see that they have lost
some satisfaction over time
from 2024. So the mix of
neighborhood businesses went
down nine points, general city
services went down two. And
feeling connected to your
neighbors went down six points.
And so that's also something we
want to keep our finger on the
pulse of to make sure that
those, you know, maintain or
improve. And then when we look
at kind of the latter end of
the scale where, you know,
these themes, these seem to be
holding a bit more steady. So
we are moving people in the
right direction in terms of the
level of safety in the city and
disaster preparedness. So
things are moving in the right
direction, even though right
now sentiment is more on the
negative side. And we also
really wanted to look at, you
know, if there was differences
in terms of demographics. And
so when we look at the level of
safety, you know, 30, 46% said
they were satisfied. We see
white residents being more
satisfied with the level of
safety in the city. So 50%
compared to that 46%. And where
we see people that are less
satisfied are residents of
color, at only 37% said they're
satisfied with the level of
safety in the city. When we
look at city services, overall,
age 65 plus are definitely, you
know, the the least satisfied.
Only 40% are satisfied with
city services overall. So that
index is below that 58%. And
then we also see long term
residents who lived in
Vancouver for more than ten
years being less satisfied with
general city services compared
to their younger or to compared
to the newer, newer residents
that have just moved into the
area. You know, we we did get a
little bit of a look at this in
the focus groups. Longer term
residents have seen the city
change from, you know, a very
small area. Some some people
have been there for 40 years
and they've kind of seen all
the development happen. So
they're really gauging things
from a very different vantage
point than someone who has
moved from Portland two years
ago, or Seattle, or kind of
just moved into the
neighborhood. They really have
very different contexts,
contexts for evaluating their
level of satisfaction. And then
we also asked them, you know,
what, what do they consider
city services as that kind of
highest priority within the
city's budget? And, you know,
what we see is really people
looking, you know, to those
essential services first for
being their highest priority in
the city budget. So fire and
emergency medical services,
maintaining streets, also
police services, stormwater
services, affordable housing,
attracting businesses, those
are really kind of the
essential services that people
want. And they need those taken
care of before they can kind of
move down into that latter half
of the list. So you can see
that, you know, homeless, you
know, homelessness support
systems kind of come up
throughout. But when you ask
them to kind of prioritize what
they want to see, they're going
to go with what impacts them
first is their top priority,
and then they want to see other
things improving as well. And I
will say too, you know, we many
respondents in the focus groups
brought up police services.
They felt that fire and rescue
were very quick to respond to
calls, you know, very kind of
present and visible within the
neighborhood. And they wanted
to see more of that from police
services as well. They
mentioned a little bit of kind
of longer times for 911 calls
and things like that. And so
they just wanted to see a bit
more visibility. And so that
kind of bumped up police
services as well in terms of
being a higher priority in the
city budget. And then we did
want to look again at how
individuals in these different
demographic subgroups were
feeling. And so when we look at
police services, older
residents definitely place a
higher priority on police
services than other age
categories. And this includes
kind of 45 plus. And then also
residents who have lived in the
city for more than ten years
prioritize police services more
kind of than the newer
residents as well. And then we
look at affordable housing
again, it's really going to be
kind of the sweet spot for
prioritization among residents,
you know, 30 to 60, 30 to 60.
For those individuals that are
kind of in the current
workforce right now, maybe
starting families have older
families. Those individuals are
ones that are really
prioritizing that. And then
also 80% of residents new to
Vancouver say affordable
housing is a top priority. A
lot of them are moving again
out of market like Portland and
Seattle, and they really value
the fact that Vancouver has
more affordable places to live.
And then, you know, they still,
when we talk about we wanted
them to tell us our their top
three priorities for the city.
And what we do see is, again,
we see them hold in comparison
to 2024. We see them hold
pretty steady. But where we see
those huge bumps are in
affordable housing and homeless
supports and also water, sewer
and stormwater services as well.
So you can kind of see, you
know, police services, fire and
medical. They're always going
to be important to respondents.
We don't see a lot of
differentiation there. But
really, you know, we do see the
importance increasing in some
of these later categories. Okay.
Now I think the personal
finance section is going to add
a lot of color and context to
the way people are feeling,
even in regards to city
services. So for this one, we
just wanted to understand the
perceptions of how affordable
they think. Each of these
things are in Vancouver. And as
you can see, it's almost all
respondents that are saying
that it's not at all or, or
somewhat or somewhat affordable.
So gas, 75% are saying it's not
affordable. Well, together it's
93%, 91% say housing is not
affordable, 88% groceries and
79% taxes. And so you can
really see that respondents are
kind of feeling the pinch right
now, especially with kind of
inflation and tariffs and
things like that that have kind
of hit their pocketbooks. And
then, you know, we also see,
you know, when we, we look kind
of across demographic groups,
we also wanted to see, you know,
how housing, if housing is
unaffordable for them as well.
And we really don't see a ton,
although we do see that white
residents are a little bit more
likely to find it out of reach,
but otherwise it does stay
relatively consistent. And then,
you know, when we're thinking
about what else you know, that
they're not finding affordable
is, you know, the renters are
less likely to view property
taxes as unaffordable. There
isn't that direct connection to
them by seeing if property
taxes would be passed on to
them in their rents. And so,
you know, while they, you know,
and especially from the focus
groups, renters were just
saying, you know, it's almost
impossible for us to, you know,
move because of, you know,
investment that we have to pay
in 2 or 3 months rent. A lot of
people don't have that to even
get started in the rental
market. So they're really
focused on kind of meeting that
monthly rent barrier and not
thinking about all the taxes
and fees that could go into it.
Okay. And so then, you know,
we've asked respondents kind of
how has this impacted your
discretionary spending? And we
really did define kind of that
extra spending is meaning money
spent out on things like eating
out, fun shopping, not basic
necessities or essentials. And
what we really do see is two
thirds have said their extra
spending has decreased a little
bit or a lot, 38% saying it's
decreased a lot. So it is
having an impact across the
board. And really what we see
is, you know, when there's
rising prices, they're really
cutting those discretionary
shopping habits. So they're
reducing the amount that
they're eating out. That was
kind of a huge thing. That was
also echoed in the focus groups
cutting back on spending for
entertainment and shopping,
canceling or delaying those
kind of big purchases,
switching to cheaper brands and
stores. And then also their
basic needs are being impacted.
When I look at, you know, 36%.
So that's about a third of
respondents. Reducing spending
on kind of their basic needs is
something we really need to pay
attention to. And then also
kind of the next one, the next
ones are a bit more negative
through this lens, right? You
know, using savings to cover
everyday expenses. A quarter of
people are doing that, using
credit cards and taking on debt
to pay for things. And then
also, you know, 2 in 10 are
looking for other ways to earn
income so that they can
supplement their earnings. What
we do see from a demographic
standpoint is, you know, when
the price of basic necessities
go up, women are more likely to
change their spending habits.
So we see, you know, just from
that list that I walked you
through earlier, women tend to
do more of those things
compared to men. The only thing
if you kind of trail down to
the bottom of the list when we
ask, you know, I don't spend, I
don't change my spending much.
Men were more likely to agree
with that one than women. But
as you can kind of see kind of
across the board, women are
more likely to be looking for
these ways to, to figure out
how to reduce their, their
extra spending to make ends
meet. And then we asked them,
you know, you know, kind of
exactly what are you doing?
What's the change in your
shopping or spending patterns
in the past month? And, you
know, over half of people are
just shopping less overall and
buying fewer items. We also see
a lot of brands switching 42%,
you know, trying to save money.
They're trying to be more
economical in changing, you
know, how they the changing and
combining when they go on
shopping trips so they can save
on gas. And then, you know,
what we see is 20% more are
also crossing the border to
shop in Oregon to kind of get
rid of to get rid of the sales
tax and then to also, you know,
sometimes benefit from gas
price differentials. And so
that's only 2 in 10. But we do,
you know, kind of see that. And
what I heard in the focus
groups is if I'm going there
anyways, I will stop and buy
and stock up on things that are
more expensive in Washington
and Vancouver, but I won't make
that extra trip there. And then
again, we see that, you know,
women are changing their
behaviors more than men are
reporting that they're changing
their behaviors more than men.
They're buying fewer items.
They're switching brands. The
one thing that they're not
doing more is they're not going
to go shop in Oregon to avoid
paying the sales tax. We see
slightly more men doing that.
But, you know, it's pretty
negligible. And again, you know,
we see men a little bit more
likely to say that they're not
they're not stopping or
changing where they spend money.
And then finally, you know,
when we asked them to look
ahead in the next six months,
you know, what do they think is
going to happen with their
extra spending? And we see that
71% say their extra spending,
they think it's going to stay
the same or it's going to
continue to decline. And so 42%
actually say that it's going to
decrease in the next six months.
This was a big topic that we
covered in focus groups too.
And there was a connection
between knowing that that's
also going to hurt small
businesses within the city, but
just not seeing a clear path
forward. Now we're going to get
into taxes. And so we wanted to
see kind of how the impact of
like everything that's
happening in their lives, all
the things that are impacting
them financially, how, how they
currently feel about the level
of taxation within the city of
Vancouver and kind of what can
they what would they be able to
kind of find palatable going
forward for city services? And
really what we found is, is
that the best is always, if
they're going to pay more, they
want more. And so we see 49%,
which was consistent with 2024
saying they'd be willing to pay
more in taxes if it increased
the level of city services. We
do see, you know, 32% strongly
disagreeing. You can kind of
see that going the whole way
down. There is going to be a
segment of constituents that
are against any taxes in any
form, but we do want to see
more people that agree, that
are that are more open to it.
What we did see also is only
38% are willing to pay more in
taxes, even if it's necessary
to support the increased cost
of providing the current level
of service so they're not as
open if it's just going to
maintain at current levels,
they don't want to see tax
increases. They definitely want
to see that improvement. That
was echoed within the focus
groups, even though there was
like a little bit of, okay, I
understand, you know, more
people are moving here that
should be increasing the tax
base. But, you know, if we need
more services, we're just going
to have to pay more because
those services are essential.
And then we do see a
constituency of saying they are
not willing to pay more in
taxes, even if it means the
city must reduce the level of
services due to increased cost.
So 44%, you know, say they're
not willing to to go any more,
and they're even willing to
kind of take take cuts on the
current level of services. Due
to increased costs. Okay. And
so then, you know, we wanted to
see if taxes were increased.
What type of taxes would you
support, support, excuse me, or
oppose the city using the
following funding approaches.
And we see that the most kind
of appetite is really to to put
taxation on businesses or
corporate tax increases. And
the focus group, they really
differentiated between making
corporations pay higher taxes
versus small businesses within
the city. They didn't want the
extra burden to be placed on
smaller businesses. There's
also openness to a combination
of different taxes and fees. So
it all doesn't hit in one area
or infect or affect one
population, much less appetite
for a sales tax or property tax
increase on its own. And then
we also did look at that, you
know, by age, we do see that
the older residents, 65 plus
are more likely to oppose,
excuse me, any of these kind of
tax increases. You can see 80%,
82% down in the local sales tax
or property tax increase. And,
you know, I think that that
just speaks to older residents
potentially being on a more of
a fixed income and not, you
know, being able to, you know,
adjust their, their level of
income when prices go up. Okay.
So I can walk through the key
findings. I think, you know, it
really echoes what we've seen
overall within the presentation.
And I'm also happy to take
questions as we go through. But
in terms of the general mood,
again, you know, quality of
life perceptions may not be in
the best place right now, but
we do see it trending in the
right direction. And then, you
know, they really tie their
quality of life to kind of
tangible progress. They love
seeing the new development and
growth at the waterfront, but
they do want to see, you know,
homelessness, improve the
streets, improve things like
that, and be able to kind of
control more of the cost of
living and housing
affordability. You know, there
isn't a ton of economic
confidence right now. You know,
it is a little bit volatile. We
don't see it kind of holding
steady. But again, that's
heavily tied to what's
happening at the state and
national level. And residents
really do recognize that as
well. When we look at
perceptions of cities services,
I think, you know, residents
are growing a bit less anxious
about homelessness. They do see
improvements. I think, you know,
what we did see in the focus
groups is a little bit
different. Is there wanted more
intervention strategies before
people became homeless? There
was large recognition that once
you're on the streets, there
are services that you can apply
for and there's help you can
get. But more of the low income
respondents that we talked to
are like, I've been on the edge
a few times, and it would
really be great to prevent
people from having to be on the
streets in the first place. And
it makes it easier for them to
get back on their feet if the
intervention was earlier. So
that was just something we
found in the focus groups. You
know, also we do see safety
increasing respondents. Again
in the focus groups. We're
talking about how most areas of
the city feel very safe. But
there are pockets and they
would like to see an increased
police presence. And then, you
know, they really do want to
see those essential city
services funded first. Those
are things, you know, that they
depend on in their day to day
life. And once those, you know,
feel comfortable to then then
they're open to exploring
additional options. And then on
the personal finance front, I
think, you know, right now,
affordability is just really
universal strain. It's reaching
every demographic group right
now in terms of, you know,
paying higher your grocery
bills or higher, your gasoline
bills are higher. And housing
is also increasing. And so, you
know, they, they're under
pressure and they're trying to
do what they can to alleviate
that, whether it's just cutting
back on their discretionary
spending, taking on additional
jobs, or finding that kind of
after hours job to really meet
those gaps. And I think, you
know, what, what I heard a lot
of was that, you know, they
really just want their wages to
be able to keep up with the
change in their, in their basic
necessities. And then finally,
on the tax front, we know, and
I think, you know, everyone, no
one loves taxes, but, you know,
they are willing mostly to
impose taxes on corporations,
not small businesses.
Understanding too, that those
costs may get passed on to them
at some point. But then they
felt like they really had more
control over whether or not
they needed to buy that, that
corporation or company's
product or services. So they
felt a little bit more in
control. And then, you know, I
think one thing that I'll add
that we really found in the
focus groups was that, and I
think it's not a surprise to
anyone here, but they would be
more open to taxation if they
had an easy place to go to, to
see where their tax dollars are
being spent. You know, we
always hear in talking about
taxes that they want that
transparency, that they want to
go, you know, for more
information. There's really
lack of knowledge about where
things are at the state level,
like lottery or things like
that, or gambling for casinos.
Like where does that revenue go?
There was a lot of questions.
And so I think, you know,
people being more educated
would be helpful about like
through the system about where
their tax dollars go would make
them potentially more open to
considering those things. But
right now, you know, again,
with our personal financial
situations and things like that,
they really are looking for
more creative ways to get money
to the city and get money for
those essential services, which
they do recognize.
>> Okay.
>> And then the last chart
really is just demographics. We
wanted to make sure, you know,
that we, we put in basically
kind of the mix of age, gender,
language, race, ethnicity, etc.
that we captured, you know, the
income levels within the city
of Vancouver and that we were,
we made sure we got a
representation kind of across
the board for West, central and
east areas within the city, and
then also kind of rent
homeownership, etc. So I'm
happy to dig into to any of
these. If any of you have
questions.
>> And thank you, Jen. And that
is the data. We're happy to
answer any questions you might
have.
>> Councilors, do you have
questions or comments?
Councilor Fox?
>> Hi. One of the first
questions I have is just out of
the focus groups or anyone else
we surveyed. Do we know how
many of them were business
owners or, you know, lead
businesses, given that response
rate being taxed, the
businesses and not the
individuals?
>> We did have 2 or 3
respondents in the focus groups,
which is a much smaller
category. We did not ask that
in the survey. So that's
definitely a flag that we have
for future versions so that we
can see how many are business
owners. But of those in the
focus groups that were business
owners or small business owners,
they definitely were open to
corporations but did not want
the taxes for themselves. And
they were more hesitant that
increased taxes on corporations
would drive them out of the
state. They heard, you know,
they cited Starbucks and Amazon
as potential threats to leave
based on like the millionaires
tax or, you know, other
corporate taxation. So there's
definitely drawbacks that
people recognize, but they
weren't as bad as what they
thought would be their personal
drawback for taking taxes them
on themselves.
>> Okay. Yeah, that one
definitely stood out for me.
Was that slide 32.
Understanding that some of the
ways that we're going to fund
or hoping to fund some of our
services are around sales tax
increases. And then the other
takeaway I had was slide 15.
With the views of safety, you
know, between our populations
and really hopefully looking to
staff to come back to us and
talk to us a little bit more
about how they're going to
close that gap. You know, that
that seems pretty significant
that we have, you know, 37% of
our residents of color that are
not satisfied with safety and
or the feelings of safety in
our community. And then my
final comment is really around
the disaster preparedness, one
that kind of surprised me to
see so many people not knowing
anything that we might be doing
to prepare for disaster. And,
and this really speaks to us as
a city being resilient to, you
know, impending future
disasters that could hit us and,
you know, anywhere from
wildfires to flooding, you know,
those kind of things that
typically do hit the city at
different levels of, of, of,
you know, extreme levels that
could happen. And so again, I'd
say those two stood out to me
and I'd like staff to talk to
us in the future about how to
help with more information that
needs to go out there or
improve our service levels in
those respects, because it's
pretty important that our
community knows that if
disaster strikes, that we're
ready to respond.
>> Councilor, I definitely
agree. And I when I saw that
data, I really just looked at
it as opportunity to, to move
the needle on that and give us
something clearer in that area
to communicate about.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. I had the same
reaction.
>> Councilor Perez hi.
>> Thank you. Just to piggyback
on what Councilor Fox mentioned,
can you elaborate a little bit
more on the safety portion?
Anything in particular about is
it the crime? Is it the guns?
Is it the drugs? Is it the
neighborhood? Is it a certain
area? Is it I mean, a little
more specificity or is it more
general? Because it could be.
>> I'm going to ask Jaejin to
hop in in a second, because she
could tell you a little bit
more what she saw in the data.
But I was wondering, given
given the moment in time that
we took this survey, we were
coming off several months of a
lot of concern and activity in
the community around actions at
the federal level. So I was
wondering myself if that was
potentially impacting those
numbers. But Jen, do you did
you see anything in the in the
data that might have that might
tell us more here?
>> You know, what we really saw
in the survey data was one kind
of the visibility of the
homeless population or those in
need of mental health services.
There was a lot of compassion
echoed, but at the same time,
the feelings of unsafe. If they
have to walk through parks or
pass them and someone's having,
you know, mental difficulties
at that time. They also did
talk about this was more in the
focus groups, which I found
interesting, is that they were
talking about that there isn't
sidewalks and intersections are
really kind of a thing for them.
That also bleeds into kind of
the public safety. They're even
called out a few that I'm not
going to remember off the top
of my head. But they did say,
you know, when there's no
sidewalks or things like that,
that that also impacts kind of
their ability to feel safe,
kind of within their area, but
more of a physical safety
perspective. And then I think
the, the final piece that I
would really add there from a
safety perspective, it did seem
to highly vary by. I want to
say income level. So we had
income level and age. So we had
a lot of older respondents
within the focus groups that
cited how quick first
responders were. Any time that
they called that they were
given information on different
lines to use outside of 911 if
they were calling for kind of
non, non emergency situations.
And they were very happy with
the response time. And then we
had other respondents that
seemed to be more lower income
that said, you know, we had a
break in at our apartment, the
door was kicked off the hinges
and it took at least 45 minutes
to show up. And so there was a
lot of discrepancy that way.
And, you know, again, that is a
very small sample size, but
those were some of the examples
that people were sharing.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, I was also wanting to
know a little bit more nuance
of the safety. Like what? Why
POC feel less safe. So thank
you for explaining some of it.
And I'm sure there's a lot more
depth to get into as well. And
then what was the target? I see
that, you know, there was 400
people that responded. What
were you aiming for?
>> That was our target.
>> That was your target. Okay.
>> To have a representative
sample in the city with a low
margin of error?
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Councilor Soelberg.
>> Thank you, mayor, and thank
you to the both of you for
continuing to to give us this
information. I'll start with my
desire comment. We're still way
over represented in ownership
when when 50% of our residents
rent and only 21% of the
respondents are renters, that
that definitely skews things.
You know, I'm it's an
interesting story around crime.
So on slide 11, we get this
great trend that concerns about
crime have dropped
significantly in the past four
years, which is which is
tremendous. But then on 12 the
very next slide, then we run
into people still feeling
unsafe. And then we have we
have police, you know, the
desire for investment and
police just barely above 50%.
And then we have police
services lagging being a major
point. So it's. We have these
this interesting story there
that's hard to kind of parse
out. Or I'm, I'm trying to
parse out how does this come
together in a cohesive message
for us going into this next
budget cycle? Yeah. And as a
side comment, though, back to
previous explanation from Jen.
You know, going back to 2020,
when we talk safety in 2020 as
a core value, we really were
talking about our streets. So
it's interesting to hear that,
that, that perception that we
had in 2020 still holds that
that there is that insecurity
when we don't have a, a good
sidewalk network. And I, I also
in the intermediate years heard
a public, a emergency
management person discuss that,
you know, we can spend a lot of
money on things like fire
alarms and people's homes, but
how people feel connected in
their, in their neighborhood
actually has a higher impact on
whether or not there's going to
be a fire in a particular
neighborhood, which comes back
to that, that that feelings of
safety. There's there's a lot
here. And I could keep going,
but I'll I'll go ahead and cut
off there.
>> Thank you. Councilor.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you
so much for the information.
Thank you. Let's go ahead and
transition over to our 2027
2028 Biennium Biennial budget.
City manager.
>> All right. So we'll go ahead
and transition over to
discussion on the budget. It
was intentional to give the
council the background
information from DHM before we
have this discussion on the
budget, because public
sentiment, we thought, was
something that could inform
some of the decisions or some
of the guidance you give us for
how to frame up the budget
going forward. I will say that
this was one of the driving
forces between why we took such
a more forensic look at the
budget and looked at the
existing resources and how we
can best deploy them, we wanted
to be able to, as the survey
showed, better tell that story
to the public about how we were
stewarding the money that we
already receive before we would
take that next step of going
out and potentially asking them
for more. So at this point,
I'll go ahead and turn it over
to Lisa, just for some of the
framing on how we'll go through
the discussion and then move on
from there.
>> Good afternoon, mayor,
Council and community. Lisa
Brandel, Deputy city Manager,
CFO we are entering our third
workshop for the biennium
budget. And as City Manager
Lannen Pluckhahn stated, this
is really a frame up of a
discussion following the survey
results that you heard and also
the presentation that we gave
last Monday. And so we want to
get your reflection and
thoughts on the presentation.
Discuss a little bit about the
prioritization exercise that
has been going on, and discuss
any possible revenue tools. And
then just preview again the
next steps in the budget
process. So really, this
workshop is really a discussion
with you to hear your thoughts
and take notes as we continue
working on the biennium budget.
So with that, I'm going to turn
it back over to our city
Manager.
>> All right. Thank you, Lisa.
So I wanted to take a little
bit of time here to just
provide an opportunity for the
council. If you have
observations or thoughts, first
impressions coming out of the
information that you just heard
from DHM, I will say that one
of the things that DHM is also
available able to do is that
they do statewide research so
they're able to compare, for
example, some of the sentiment
in Vancouver to what they're
seeing in greater trends across
Washington as well. But when I
looked at the results initially,
there were some things that I
took away from the presentation
that immediately jumped out.
And, you know, obviously being
the city manager, I'm going to
take a look and gauge that
public sentiment around
taxation and fees. And I would
say that I do think that what
we have seen with the public's
willingness to do things like
approve proposition five, have
demonstrated that public
sentiment, that if there's an
enhanced service or if there's
something additional, you know,
a value proposition that the
public feels is out there for
that investment, they have been
willing to invest more in the
city and more in the
organization to be able to meet
those needs. I was a little
more concerned about that
general thought on funding
existing services, as
juxtaposed to that willingness
to pay for new and enhanced
service levels. I'll also say
that for me, it did illustrate
the disconnect between the
tools that we are being given
to be able to address some of
our funding gaps, and I think
the desires of our public. We
have got a smaller toolbox and
a more limited set of tools
than like the state has to be
able to address some of those
funding gaps. So I think that
would continue to inform what
our legislative priorities are
going forward. But just as I
think the Council is aware, two
of the tools that we have
available for us in this coming
budget cycle, one that you just
heard a presentation on last
week with the public safety
sales tax and then the new
Children and families sales tax
are some of the ones that the
public finds to be the most
objectionable. But we have very
few areas that we could
potentially substitute for
those. So with that, I will
open it up and see from the
council perspective, any
guidance or any thoughts that
you have as we frame up the
next iteration of the budget,
based on that public feedback.
>> Councilor silver.
>> Thank you, mayor. And. So as
you, City Manager, as you were
talking there at I wrote a note
here. Slide 30 was one that
talked about that willingness
to pay. And there. There things
the question changed as we went
through and almost became a, an
opposite of itself, meaning it
was, I will pay. And at the end
was I won't, I won't like, I
will pay for additional
services at the. But the last
one was I, I won't pay for
anything is kind of. But the.
There was. I'm sorry, we don't
have this in front of us, but
but there was a small group.
But then there was the negative
group. The, the opposite side
of it was actually really large.
That made it look like, oh,
well, people will pay for
existing services, but I'm not
sure. I'm just not really sure
how to interpret that because
I'm wondering if people, as
they were going through the
survey, started to get confused
on what they were answering.
And I'm yeah, so.
>> So let's hold on. Tony, can
you pull up that slide, take a
moment and go back into the
presentation? Slide 32.
>> No, I wrote down 30, but it
could be 31 because I know
there was. 30.
>> That's men and women. There
you go. Okay.
>> That's it. So this last one
here, I am not willing to pay
more in taxes, even if the city
must reduce the level of
services. So 44% said, I'm not
willing, but actually over 50%
said they would be willing. But
that kind of counteracts what's
being said before it.
>> So obviously that's more
than 100%. Did they get to
answer each of those? Yes.
>> They get yes. So I'm
assuming it's the. But it's
just the there's a I feel like
there's narratives there and I
if we can go back and, and
understand the surveyor has
gone at this point, but I think
it's worth trying to parse into
the data. Or what what is this
slide really telling us here?
Because it seems to me that
there's some opposing messages
happening. And, and I'm just
wondering if they're truly
opposing or were people getting
confused because the because
the question was changing and
going from a positive or a
negative to a positive and.
>> Yeah. Laura, I'm sorry, can
you bring up Jen? Is Jen still
available and see if she can
call in?
>> Perhaps we can answer that
question.
>> Yeah.
>> Let's see what Laura has for
us.
>> It's just because the city
manager continued down this
pathway.
>> So I just sent her a note to
see if she could hop back on.
Usually when we when we go
through the the data as we're
preparing to come to council
DHM always flags where there's
issues or where people got
confused or if people gave
additional comment DHM did not
indicate that the public were
were getting confused by that
question. This is. We. As you
can see, we asked this line of
questioning last year as well,
too, and we didn't have that
commentary. But if Jen can hop
back on, she can certainly talk
speak more to that. And if she
is not seeing my email, I'll
make sure to do a follow up and
ask her about that.
>> Which is which is fine. I
realize.
>> Jen is available.
>> Yes, I just.
>> Popped back on.
>> I'm sorry counselor, I'm not
seeing what you're seeing.
>> Jen.
>> Jen, I'm not seeing it. How
do we know? Can you. Oh, Jen,
thank you so very much.
>> Hi.
>> Councilor Stober, would you
go ahead?
>> So I'd like to hit slide 30
again.
>> Laura, can you pull that up?
>> Yes, it's in front of us,
Jen. Thank you.
>> Okay. Perfect. Perfect.
>> So, okay. Where so the
middle one. I'm willing to pay
more in taxes if it is
necessary to support the
increased cost of providing the
current level of services. We
got 38% responding. Yes, but
then we go to the last one. I'm
not willing to pay more in
taxes, even if it means cutting
back. But then the negative to
that is more than 50%. So
there's kind of this counter
narrative between those two.
>> So for this one, it's a
little tricky. And we should
probably flip the color. So the
positive is the positive side
is actually the negative. So
people
>> Agree they are not willing
to pay more in taxes. So when
we look at that 44%, they're
agreeing with that statement.
So it's actually negative.
That's more of the negative
side than the other side was
saying that they disagree with.
That is the 28% and 24%. Do you
see most people does that make
more sense. So it would be 52%
that are that don't agree with
that at all.
>> But but it is a little
different than the previous one.
The question above it, where
only 44 or no, I don't have in
front of me.
>> 38.
>> 38% said that they do
support, that they may support
paying more in order to get the
same services. So it's yeah, so
if you have the ability to try
and parse through that more.
Sure. To help us understand
because I don't want to, I
don't want to overstate the
fear. My fear is I don't want
to overstate that 52%. Does
that make sense? Because that
52% makes it sound like there's
52%. They're willing to pay
more to get the same level of
services, but that runs counter
to the previous one, right?
>> Exactly. So when I look at
it and the 52% in my mind that
say they're not willing to pay
more than taxes, maybe not
willing to pay any more in
taxes that are disagreeing with
that. So they would be willing
to pay more, right? So it's a,
we can kind of rephrase that
slide and get that to you. So
it's a little bit easier to
understand. But then when we
look at I am willing to pay
more in taxes, the one that's
above that, even if it's just
to support the current level of
funding, you know, we only see
that that's at 38%. So what I
would take away from this slide
is of of that 52% that is
willing to, to pay taxes that
aren't completely shutting the
door on taxes is that of them.
They're more their, their
palette is for getting
increased services. They're far
less likely to support it if
it's just maintain the current
level of service.
>> Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Sure.
>> Jen, stay with us for just a
little bit. Sure. The
counselors have lawn. Let's go
back to repeat your question,
please.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm wanting to
hear from council based on what
you've heard tonight. And I
know that there'll be
opportunity to reflect and dig
more into the data. But I was
looking for first impressions
on if you wanted to provide
direction on how we should
frame the budget up, and
they'll be opportunities as we
go through this budget
presentation to talk about that
as well. But I also wanted to
make sure that you were aware
of what we were seeing in
public sentiment. I did not
want to bring you a budget that
was built around a whole bunch
of slates of tax and fee
increases, and put you in the
position of saying, but you
knew the public didn't know
anything about these, and you
did not give us an opportunity
to provide direction to you
before going in to do the next
iteration of the budget. Okay.
>> Counselor Harless.
>> I just wanted to follow up a
little bit on what Council
Member Stober was bringing up,
and I look at it more as a
framing, and I can see what
you're bringing up. Council
member Stober. And so I see it,
as you know, if the framing was
about maintaining services
versus taking them away, that
that sentiment changes, even
though it's technically kind of
the same thing. I don't know if
that's what you were also
digging into, but that's the
way that's what I took away
from that slide. And before we
dive into other stuff, I just
wanted to wrap that up.
>> Okay.
>> Any other comments for the
city manager? Not at this time.
Okay. Any other questions?
>> Not on that. Before we get
into taking a look at the early
results of the prioritization
survey.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you.
Jen, I think you can go eat
your dinner now.
>> Thank you all.
>> Right. Are you able to
switch Tony? And I can't see it
yet.
>> I we have so many different
screens. I wonder if is it
under discussion?
>> It was under presentation.
>> Under presentation. I don't
have presentation on my list.
>> Oh there we are. On mine. It
shows up under Perez one.
>> Perez two.
>> Okay, I'm under discussion
and I have a split screen right
now, so that's the best I can
do I guess. All right.
>> So this is the results so
far of the prioritization
survey that we sent out to the
City Council and asked you to
complete. This is something
that for me is important at
this stage in the budget
process. As we think about the
lines of business that the city
is in and what we do and what
we do well, and what we should
potentially look at, either
working with other partners to
provide or how we may look at
the discussion about any new or
enhanced services that the City
Council wants us to look at
over the next biennium. So the
first one, and this was an
important one for me, was to
take a look at the universal
policy themes that the City
Council has set out for us. So
community safety, equity and
climate have always been the
the, the big three of the
universal policy themes and
high performing government was
added to that to ensure that
internal services and the work
that we do inside the
organization really received
fair consideration in ranking
these themes. And the reason
that this was important is
because there are times where
the city contemplates an action
where you can actually have
those values be in conflict
with one another. So the
example that I would use is a
dangerous intersection in one
of our most economically
vulnerable neighborhoods.
Fixing that intersection may
make it safer for the traveling
public that's traveling
primarily by car, which makes
it easier for people to drive,
which increases vehicle
emissions. So it has the
opposite impact of what we
would like to see on climate.
And if it's in a vulnerable
neighborhood and we have to
acquire properties to be able
to do the intersection
expansion, well, that means
that it's in opposition to
equity. So we've always had
that clear direction from the
council on what you wanted us
to look at, but we did not have
the order of priority for how
to look at those. When we are
contemplating projects where
they're in opposition to each
other. And so this is the
results that we have so far,
which would indicate to us that
in those cases, we would want
to balance the community safety
aspects first, then look at
equity and then look at climate
as we contemplate what are what
are the keys towards making the
decision to go or no go on this
project or not? Certainly we
would have an obligation with
the council to make you aware
of all of those impacts so that
you could make the decision for
it more a little bit on a case
by case basis. But as we are
looking at projects writ large
or putting together the capital
improvement plan together, this
would be the guidance that we
would fall back on.
>> Yes, councilor. Go ahead.
>> Mr. City manager. What I
thought I read earlier today
that a very limited number of
council had responded.
>> As of when these slides were
put together. We were up to six
of seven. So that's why I say
there might still be room for
these to adjust a little bit,
but they are largely complete
at this point.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> Yes, counselor. Go ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. City
manager, I appreciate the
spirit of what you're trying to
accomplish in asking this
question. I would reflect to
you that oftentimes the
priority within the previous
big three are now articulating.
Big four could vary greatly
depending on the specific
circumstances of an issue. And
so I would be hesitant to take
this as a strong indicator of
direction to build a budget,
because the budget is a
reflection of our values and
our values, although they guide
us when we're making decisions,
how we might weigh
circumstances does vary from
from issue to issue. So I would
just offer that caveat in using
this slide. Thank you.
>> And from my perspective,
this is a guideline not gospel.
Okay. Are you able to advance
to the next slide Tony. Okay.
So looking at the the different
areas, because of some of the
limitations of the ranking
sheets and the software, we did
collapse some of the categories
together to make it simpler and
to align some of the priorities.
We wanted to ask you to rank
with our strategic plan
priorities. And a couple of
these I know will actually
bridge a couple of different
slides. And I'm not on these
really seeking council members
to, to get to the point of
saying, well, I think this one
should move up and that one
should move down. It's more a
validation of the general
trends. So as we look at these,
if there's anything that jumps
out to you is like, okay, that
one just seems completely out
of place to me. That's the kind
of guidance that we're looking
for. So with our cultural and
heritage priorities, the other
thing I should add is that this
section of the exercise is
really based around things that
we are already doing. This is a
status quo budget, activities
and initiatives that we already
generally have underway. There
will be an opportunity that
we'll get into a little bit
later here to talk about things
that are missing, that we
should enhance, and that would
be the next stage from
prioritization, from the
council as as we look at what
we want us to do next, how
would those rank against each
other? So the the leading
candidate under this one is the
Arts Hub maintenance contract,
followed by community event
permitting city events with
Inspire Vancouver and then
historic Reserve and trust
management coming up at the
bottom end of the scale. And it
doesn't mean that those are not
activities that are not
important. They are just ones
that would, relative to the
other one, the council would
consider the arts hub
maintenance contract, for
example, to be a higher
priority than historic reserve
and historic trust management.
So again, if there's any of
these that appear to be wildly
out of order, please let me
know. You can advance to the
next one. Tony. And I will also
admit that as a learning
opportunity for us in framing
this, acknowledging that
several of the City Council
members have provided feedback
that our internal shorthand for
what we call things may not
necessarily provide you enough
information to feel like, oh
yeah, I know what that project
is, or I recognize it right
away. So the next time we do
this, we will break it out and
provide more exposition. So on
the economic opportunity
priorities, we have the Startup
Investment Fund, the Andreessen
Economic Hub, and then Equity
in Contracting program that's
arising out of the disparity
study that was conducted
through procurement, to figure
out what we could do to make
sure that businesses and
companies that have not been
able to participate in being
vendors for the city in the
past have an easier path to be
able to do that.
>> I have a question.
>> Yes, councilor.
>> I think this was the slide
that prompted me to send the
message to say, I need more
information on these programs.
It's the first time I've heard
of the Andreessen Economic Hub.
Could you explain about that
project?
>> Yeah. So the Andreessen
Economic Hub is actually a
building that we had purchased
with the intent of being able
to use it to help as an
incubator for small businesses
out in the Andreessen area came
out of the Fourth Plain for all
project and was one of the
initiatives that we looked at,
the feedback from that. That
neighborhood was that they
wanted to see more economic
support and have more
opportunities. So this was one
of our responses to that.
>> And how much staffing and
cost is this program?
>> To see if we have anybody
from E, P, and H that can
address that?
>> Well, just in general, just
so that my colleagues know that
I asked a question just for,
you know, doing this exercise,
I, I submitted my comments, but
I felt as if I, I was some of
these like this one, I was just
making a guess as to what it
was and what the impact is on
other services. And I would
have appreciated having at
least a couple sentence
description of the project and
how many staff, and maybe even
a level of cost moving forward.
And I'd like you to respond to
me and said you'd send that to
me, but, you know, I almost
would plan to do the survey
again once I actually have
information on these.
>> Okay.
>> Amen.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Any other comments on
this one? All right.
>> So Councilor Harless has a
comment.
>> Go ahead.
>> Yeah. Second, what's been
brought up? And also if you
could include because as I'm
sitting here thinking about the
equity and contracting program,
one, I just remembered a very
specific detail that was a
conclusion from that
presentation that I feel like
that was like a year ago. So
that's the kind of where there
was a very significant
disparity in minority small
businesses, and that were being
awarded contracts from the city.
And so like those kind of
takeaways or like a link or
something would be incredibly
helpful.
>> All right.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So high performing
government priorities actually
spans several slides. So I
apologize for that in advance.
But there were a lot that fell
into this category. And I'll
just highlight that the top
three in general on this
section of it were strategic
planning, federal state
advocacy, and then annexation
strategy. Annexation strategy
is something that, you know,
we've had several conversations
with the City Council about.
And so but it could have a
profound impact on the
organization moving forward.
Vancouver for all is the
efforts that are being done by
our engagement and access team
to really move beyond working
internally, facing on how we we
behave in relationship to our
community, how our workforce
reflects our community, and
adding that externally facing
component to it. So are there
any in this area that any of
the council members might feel
like are not adequately scored
or should be given more
consideration?
>> Yes. Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. This is not in
response to your question, City
Manager. It's more of a
observation of some of the
feedback that my colleagues
have given so far. I have the
blessing and curse of having
gone through business school,
where things are put into
quadrants with an X and a Y
axis, you know, like impact and
cost and those kinds of things.
And this is bringing those to
mind because you were asked
questions about what's the cost
of this and what's the staffing.
And those weren't reflected
here. And the same is true here.
And so you could conceivably
put some of these items into,
you know, a quadrant type chart
and say, for example, and I'm
just making this up, audio
description services could be
low priority but low cost and
still make it into the budget
very easily. Whereas if it was
a low priority, high cost, then
that would be a different
decision making criteria. And
so in that way, so as a
respondent to this survey, it
feels a little bit one
dimensional. And I think begs
the question to you, how do you
intend to use the feedback that
you've received?
>> That's an excellent question.
And so the feedback from this
really in combination with what
we'll do in a little bit as far
as talking about new priorities,
we'll really be used when we
get to the point where we take
a look at the budget. And I'll
just use an example. If the
City Council wants us to be
more deliberate and intentional
and stand up programs to be
more supportive of child care
across the community, we've
already talked about the option
to be able to use the children
and family sales tax to do that.
But if you tell me, based on
what you've seen for public
sentiment in your own personal
values, that you want us to
create that program, but you do
not want to create additional
revenues to do that. Then I'll
take a look at this list, and
I'll take a look at the ones
that you have told me are the
lowest priorities and see are
these things that we should
still be in the business of
doing? Is it something that
needs to be moved out to be a
priority and moved off into the
parking lot, but really inform
those ones that when you think
about the budget and you think
about the things that we have
to do statutorily and
contractually, they're going to
go down the list of funding
first, and then we'll get down
into the ones that are the ones
that we are doing based on
council discretion or that are
discretionary, but we're going
to run out of money at some
point, and what's going to fall
above and below the line. And
so that's what I'll use,
because to me, the budget
should be reflective of your
priorities. So if you tell us
that public safety and climate
and equity are three of the
universal policy themes for the
city, I should be able to point
at the budget and show you
every department. All of our
activities should have a link
to one of those three
priorities. Some of these in
here, though, would fall
further down that list than
others.
>> Okay. Other comments on this
slide.
>> Okay.
>> Evidently not. Okay.
>> So the next one on high
performing government
priorities starts with the
Public Works Asset Management
program development content
strategy for the website,
newsletter and postage. And
then the bottom one down there
is adding capability to workday
to support city specific
business processes. And now
that I read that one again, boy
does it sound jargony.
>> Councilor Soelberg.
>> Go ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. Again, I
don't I don't know where
workday is currently lacking. I
don't know where it's stopping,
where we are struggling to
perform core tasks,
administrative tasks in the
city. And yeah, and so it just,
it, it, I, it just naturally
falls to the bottom because I
don't know.
>> Mayor councilor, go ahead.
>> I guess I should probably be
more clear. For me, this
exercise does not have value.
This part of our presentation.
And because of what I've
already raised and, you know,
and when you look at a list
like this, I really do want to
know those additional details.
I was I mean, it really is.
I'll just bring it back to my,
my day to day job where I spend,
you know, the 40 hours of my
week. But when you put a title
on a program, I think it might
be very disheartening for your
staff in particular to see that
City Council is weighting
something merely on the title.
I mean, if I was staff and I
knew that this was going to be
the exercise that City Council
was doing, I would have given
it a flashier title. You know,
like, hey, the CVTV viewer
survey is free or low cost or
something. And I'm not trying
to be sarcastic here, but I'm
just saying, I, you know, I, I
feel for some of these
prioritizations, given that I
don't have enough information
to tell you which one is more
important by title only.
>> Lannen I had on the previous
slide, New city website was
third from the bottom, but oh
no, you can go forward. But
here it's near the top. So
we'll need to figure that out.
>> What's the difference.
>> Between the content strategy
and a new website. So okay.
>> Okay. All right.
>> All right. Let's go to the
next slide.
>> Okay.
>> And the next one does get a
little bit more into specific
projects. I think not
surprising that the interstate
bridge would show up there as
the second one behind the
transportation with program
with public works. And then the
third one, these would that
would be arising out of fleet
is the City of Vancouver
vehicle data collection and
camera project.
>> Okay. Councilor.
>> Yeah. So again.
>> I'm sorry, I've been remiss
in not introducing you.
Councilor Stober.
>> Councilmember Tai Stober.
Look, multi-tenant office
building amenities. So this is
a multi-tenant office building.
There have, like I again, I
don't know what this is. There
have been previous discussions
about moving our permitting
team out of here and converting
the first floor into retail,
but I don't know if that's this
or, or, or if this is. We're
going to build a swimming pool
here in the in the building. So
it just keeps coming back to
this, this same theme. And, and
then annual Family Medical
Leave act administration feels
I it, I'm wondering how that's
even discretionary. To, to have
it be on this list. Okay. So.
>> All right, next slide.
>> All.
>> So here we're getting into
housing and human needs
priorities. I was not surprised
to see in this one that the
heart team and emergency
shelters were ranked very
highly by the city Council.
Those have been continuing
priorities now through several
budget cycles, and then
followed by the Bridge Shelter
Community Court, which are
associated programs with our
homelessness response.
Equitable, equitable
development is, of course, the
strategy that we've been
working on in our redevelopment
and investment projects to
ensure that we're not
inadvertently promoting
gentrification and actually
inadvertently harming the
neighborhoods that have been
underinvested in in the past by
making our levels of investment
more commensurate with the rest
of the community.
>> Councilor Soelberg.
>> City Manager. Where where
does our safe stay communities
land?
>> I would put the safe stay
communities in with the
emergency shelters. That would
be the second one.
>> Okay.
>> That was my guess, but I
just yeah, I wasn't sure.
>> Thank you. No.
>> No questions on that one. We
can move to climate and natural
systems. And on this one, the
green procurement policy
consultants came in at the tail
end with grounds maintenance of
the parks, trails and natural
spaces and right of ways being
the highest priority.
>> No particular comments.
>> And from here, we actually
move into the capital projects
side of the discussion. And I
think this one might be a
little bit more intuitive with
understanding, you know, what
they are versus some of the
other ongoing initiatives. So
with capital projects, there
are actually several different
categories here, but it starts
out with cultural and heritage,
economic opportunity. Did I go
I might have gone one extra
slide. Hang on. Yep. Safe and
prepared. Community priorities.
So the top two emergency
medical services with fire and
ambulance and then increasing
police officer staffing. This
one was specific to a
motorcycle unit for traffic
safety and fire suppression.
Those seem to be in alignment
with what the council has
expressed in the past around
this being one expression of
community safety development
review, followed by public
defense with fire
administration and training
being the last one on the list.
Again, these are not
necessarily indicators that
they do not have council
support or that they not are
not things that we should be
putting time and effort into.
But when we start thinking
about the three things that we
can bring to bear, which is
people, time and money, I think
the Council would expect us to
to and the budget to reflect
more of that and the top side
of the scale than the bottom
side of the scale.
>> Cyndie manager. Anne.
McEnerny. Ogle. The increase
police officer staffing. I also
put in my mind when I rank this
that that was for additional
neighborhood officers. Npos.
Okay.
>> Mayor.
>> Councilor.
>> Councilor Fox here on this
one I I'm going to repeat
myself, but on this one, the
citywide emergency, not that
one. Sorry. Real time
information center. You know,
I've had the the benefit of
being part of a lot of really
deep conversations in our, you
know, I guess, developing our
police program, new programs,
staffing and all of that. And
so I have a deep understanding
of what the real time
information center is. And when
ranking, you know, when you put
all of these police and safety
pieces in the same bucket,
again, interesting what you put
into the particular buckets to
compare them to. But if we're
looking for saving time and
money and perhaps multiple
co-benefits for such a system,
that would be a higher priority.
I think, if the rest of council
knew more about that program
than some of these others. So
it would be worthwhile to maybe
spend some time at a future
meeting to talk about what that
means, and then weight it
appropriately against some of
these other competing
priorities.
>> It is interesting that the
sorry. Anne McEnerny. Ogle. It
is interesting that the survey
we just discussed, the
emergency management plan and
public preparedness outreach
was a strong priority for the
community. Maybe we know more
than than the community on that,
but. The community thinks that
should probably go up the scale
a little bit.
>> Okay.
>> So moving on to the next one,
which is cultural and heritage,
economic opportunity, high
performing government. I was
not surprised to see affordable
housing production showing up
at the top of the list. And
then several of our more high
profile, longer term projects
like the Heights District and
Arts Hub showing up at the top
of the list on this one as well.
Then, you know, the one down
there at the bottom is the City
of Vancouver vehicle data
collection and camera project.
And just, you know, Councilor
Fox's comments about the
relative benefit of some of
these programs are very well
taken, because there could be
instances where there are
pieces that when we're looking
at these prioritizations
internally and looking at
bringing back to you a budget,
we may make a recommendation
that we do something that you
have lower on the list. But
what we need to be able to do
is to be able to articulate
exactly why that if it's
something that did show up on
this list as a lower priority
for council, it's incumbent
upon us to be able to
articulate to you why we would
make that particular
recommendation and what the
reasoning was behind it.
>> Okay.
>> There's nothing on that. We
can take a look at vibrant and
distinctive neighborhoods. And
this one starts off at the top
with youth and teen programing,
long range planning program,
volunteer programs with the
ones down at the bottom of the
sheet being fitness and adult
programing and the historic
trust agreement.
>> So Anne. McEnerny Ogle on
this particular piece, it goes
back to a statement that we've
been making all evening. If we
knew more about it, we would be
appalled by how few of our
children know how to swim and
swimming lessons are few and
far between. The aquatics
program needs to be
strengthened, but little did
everyone know the data on that
particular piece.
>> Okay.
>> So on the safe and prepared
community, the highest priority
for the council is to complete
the capital projects that were
mentioned as part of and funded
as part of proposition two,
followed by parks, capital
repair, public works operations,
campus, all programs that we've
put significant effort into
over the last couple of years
leading down to the police
department headquarters land
acquisition.
>> Question.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> Just curious on what the lot
two construction involves. It
seems as if we were like, I
didn't realize that that was a
project. Again, off Chumakov.
>> So we have the the Chumakov
buildings. When we completed
that acquisition, there were
two parcels. There's the one
that the building itself sits
on, and then there's another
parking lot to the rear of the
building. And when we started
looking at what we needed to do
to be able to support the new
officers that we wanted to
bring on through proposition
five and through the sales tax,
we needed more space for the
officers and for fleet, and to
be able to support the
activities that will take place
at Chocolove itself. So it's a
it's a a separate parking lot
that needs some security
enhancements and would also
include things like support for
EV infrastructure.
>> And isn't that the same
parking lot area that got
vandalized with EV
infrastructure that was there
previously installed?
>> Part of the need. Hence part
of the need for the security
enhancements? I don't I know
that the ones that were in the
lot next to the building were
vandalized. I'm not sure if
there were ones in this lot
that were vandalized as well.
>> Okay, thanks.
>> Taking a look at climate and
natural systems, the top vote
getter so far here has been
parks planning and funding,
followed by EV infrastructure
and then replacing the VPD
admin vehicles with E. S and
testing the EVs and the patrol
environment. The ones at the
bottom of this list are the
clean building capital upgrades
and then major park development.
And we are getting towards the
end, I promise there's only two
slides left.
>> Okay.
>> No comments. Darina.
>> On capital projects, on
transportation and mobility.
We've got vibrant and
distinctive neighborhoods,
waterfront gateway, and then
the transportation program
through Public Works and CDD,
the old Operations Center, the
current operations center, site
redevelopment, and then the Ada
transition plan in order.
>> Councilor Stoker.
>> Thank you, Councilman, over
here. But I this was also one I
was struggling with because it
feels like Ada is, is a
requirement that's put on us.
And so. Struggling to
understand. Understand how we
decide not to meet obligations
that have been put on us, not
that I. Necessarily know, I
know, I don't want to say that.
It just seems it feels
interesting.
>> But and I think in
particular for some of those
that we don't view it
necessarily as a level of
whether we were going to comply
or not. But some of these
things we have time on how long
it takes us to get there. So,
you know, we can do a lot more
improvements in a particular
year, or we can follow a 20
year Ada transition plan. If
you think about what we're
doing with like curb ramp
replacements and things like
that, we have a long term plan
for being able to address those
throughout the city. That is
something we're legally allowed
to do, but we'd always have the
option to be able to accelerate
that.
>> And. Okay. Thank you. And
the transportation program is
that our transportation system
plan? What, what exactly what
exactly is the transportation
program.
>> In this area? Transportation
program would be the for here,
the transportation, excuse me,
the transportation and mobility
program. So this would be our
complete streets, full mobility
systems.
>> As separate. Well, but a lot
of those are in the
transportation system plan. But
this is okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> All right. And the last one
is capital projects associated
with city services. I think you
here you can see the council's
prioritization on continuing to
add capacity to the police
department, and then the
willingness to look at a
separate unit in the VPD
dedicated to traffic safety.
Then you've got vehicle
equipment repair and
replacement emergency medical
services moving down the line
into the last ones, which would
be fire special operations and
fire marshal services. Again,
these are not to say that they
are not important or not
activities that the city is
going to continue to invest in,
but rather expressions of where
we would want to focus our
efforts. And again, not
surprised that hiring more
police officers is at the top
of the list.
>> Yes, councilor Perez.
>> Councilor Perez, City
Manager. Can you elaborate on
the fire? Special operations?
>> So when we look at the fire
department, there are several
different units that they have.
So you've got fire suppression,
fire training, fire special
operations would be operations
like hazmat teams, trench
rescue, you know, the
specialized training or
specialized water rescue, the
specialized training or the
specialized response units that
they have. But that's one of
those ones that there are
enough of them that asking the
council to rank them relative
to one another gets pretty
granular, versus just putting
that special operations
together in one bucket.
>> Okay. And I, I want to just
go back and give a general
comment. I appreciate the
effort to simplify a lot of
this, because I understand that
it could be information
overload with a lot of the more
precise information to better
articulate what actually we're
talking about with some of
these titles, because it's
always devil's in the details,
right? And I, I'm going to on
the side of, I need better
description of these titles. I
think I did my best in
prioritizing them, but I don't
know enough to be a well
informed person to prioritize
for a budget that's coming up.
And so I'm hoping that we can
do a little follow up with how
we all ended up collectively
prioritizing this. But now add
in a bit more information to
help us better understand what
exactly we're talking about.
For example, in fire training,
is there a specific training
that's offered once every three
years? Is there a new type of
training with the cameras and
and the data? What specifically
is that? I know there's a lot
of concern with flock cameras,
but, you know, how are we? So I
just feel like we need a little
just a bit more information
versus what's in the title here.
The titles.
>> Any last comments? Okay. New
and missing priorities. Oh. So
councilors, do you have any new
priorities or are there any
items that you were expecting
to see on the list or the
conversations that we've had
this evening that have a gap?
>> So there are a couple of
them that I know that have been
discussed by the City Council.
And, you know, just to run down
a few of them, annexation is
one, child care is another. I
know there are several council
members that have expressed
support for child care, but
it's not been 100% clear if
that is something that the
council wants us to make a
priority, and then you have
some new ones that have come,
come up based on outside
decisions. Like for me, I think
of things like the extension of
light rail to evergreen,
because that was something
that's not in the current IBR.
That would be something that we
should continue to invest in
public defense. While it's
something that is listed in the
priorities, is something that
is likely to require additional
investment from us in the
future in order to be able to
meet our legal obligations, to
be able to do that. And then
there have been discussions in
the community with council,
with the fire service, about
looking at a regional fire
authority, but that's nowhere
in our documentation yet at
this point. And then finally,
you'll get a presentation next
month about the strategic plan
that Vancouver Fire has put
together that would I would
expect the council to have some
support for that would be
reflected in the budget as well.
So outside of that list, are
there anything any others? I
think that you as a council,
feel like we haven't yet
captured. And again, this is
not prescriptive. This is not
your only chance to weigh in on
the budget and certainly not
your only chance to get more
detail on taking a look at
these. This is merely the first
step.
>> I'm sure something will come
to everyone at two in the
morning. Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you, mayor. Council
member Stober I. Another one
that's not been listed is the
Fruit Valley plan. And then I
would say only indirectly have.
And the comprehensive plan I
understand is meant to act as a.
Master subarea plan. But I
think there's still areas of
the city that could benefit
from some focused attention.
East Mill Plain is one. Yeah.
Upper Main Street, mid main
Street. Oh, upper Main Street
is not on here. So there's it
seems like there are some other
projects that have been
discussed that didn't make this
list.
>> Truth be told, there are
probably about 47 projects that
staff are currently working on
right now.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Go ahead. Revenue
tools.
>> All right.
>> So looking at revenue tools,
I really only wanted to focus
on the ones that I would
consider to be larger scale and
just I'm not asking council to
make decisions on those tonight,
but just again, to point them
out as we frame the budget up,
we've had significant
conversation on the law
enforcement sales tax. That's
the penny of sales tax that we
are authorized to do that would
accompany the state grants to
allow us to do our next stage
of hiring in in VPD, we have
the Children and Families
Services sales tax that is tied
to services for those specific
populations. And we're
investigating the application
of that to see for some of the
services that we already
provide, like support for the
Children's Justice Center, can
those be shifted to that which
would then in turn allow us to
free up dollars to go towards
other services on the business
and occupation tax. We have a
very limited implementation of
that one. Now we put a 0.1% of
the 0.2% that we are legally
allowed to do, and applied it
just to retailers. We're
currently estimating that
that's going to bring in about
$5.4 million in this budget.
But there is capacity there.
That tax is one that can be
selectively applied, but you do
have to make sure that you're
treating all businesses in a
category the same way. So we
could not, for example, say we
want retailers that are that
have a gross revenue of more
than $12 million per year to
pay this rate. And all the ones
under this to pay this rate,
retailers need to be to be
treated the same way across the
board. But council does have
flexibility on that. And it's
one of the tools that we have
not fully implemented on the
utility tax front. That's
something that's under
council's control. I know that
the council has not touched it
for a while. Current rate is
28.9% on our current estimates,
every 0.1% equates to about
$230,000. So, for example, if
you did 0.5% and said, we want
to fund this high priority,
we'll do that, 0.5% puts us at
29.4. And that would total up
about 1.15 million. And then on
some of the other ones, our
instructions to staff were that,
you know, if you've got
something that has dedicated
revenues or fees supported, we
can certainly take a look at
that with the decision packages
for the coming budget. Lisa, do
you want to cover next steps?
>> Thank you. Yes. So our next
steps are we did open a virtual
idea box for our city employees
for one month, and those are
streaming in. I will be
returning to you with our
financial policies and an
update to our investment policy
on August 24th. In addition to
a biennium budget update. And
then on September 21st, a
preview of the City Manager
recommended budget with the
publishing of the budget on
October 1st, which is required
by law. And then we have two
workshops on the budget for
capital and operating October
12th and 26 and Council consent
tentatively scheduled for
November 2nd, with public
hearing and adoption. So those
are the tentative next steps.
And we can schedule other
things subject to your
discretion, and we will be
providing information
periodically through updates
through the City Manager and
available to answer any
questions.
>> Councilors. Yes, councilor
Perez, let's go back to the
timeline, please, Tony. Thank
you, Councilor Perez.
>> Councilor Perez here. Quick
question. I love the virtual
idea box for city employees. I
think that's a great step. Is
there something similar for the
public, or have we had the
public be able to chime in on
any of what we have?
>> I is.
>> We heard.
>> Last Florida.
>> I'm going to ask Laura to
come up.
>> Laura Shepherd,
Communications Director,
Councilor Perez, we are
planning public engagement in
addition to the survey that we
just did. I'm working with the
city manager's office to
determine what that question
actually is. When we first
wrote the communications
strategy on the budget, it was
premised on a $29 million gap
to fill with a proposal to have
that largely filled. Now, the
question that we want to ask
the public will, will change.
So I'm still working with the
city manager and the budget
Committee to determine what
that's going to be. I was just
speaking with our Director of
Engagement and access earlier
today about what that could be.
So there will be more to come
for the public.
>> All right. Great. And that
will will come back to and
share with us what you have
planned.
>> Yes, councilor.
>> All right. Thank you.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> Well, I was reflecting that
city manager. You said you
weren't sure how many council
members shared the priority
around child care in the
community. And so I just wanted
to, I guess, make a pitch to
all council members and better
describe what at least I. I
believe the priority around
child care is. And one of them
is, you know, thinking back
about a couple of our meetings
when we were reviewing funding
decisions around Cdbg funds and
other funds that we manage and
ensuring that those future
decisions that come before us,
where we have the opportunity
to support more child care
businesses and availability of
child care in our community
that we are using those
particular, you know,
opportunities effectively and
not, I guess I know we had some
deep conversations about it. We
don't need to rehash them
tonight. But, you know, that
would be where I'm at, where I
would have preferred more child
care businesses were supported
through that last round than,
than other activities. Even
though all of them, you know,
it's hard to make choices, I
understand. And then also we
had some conversations, even
with our our current.
Congressional representative
had come to the city, I think
it was about a year ago and
held some conversations with
our emergency responders. And
we sat around the table and we
talked about their child care
needs being a little bit unique
and unaddressed, given that
they work some really long
hours, they work in the middle
of the night. Sometimes, of
course, they have to get up and
leave at odd times, and having
childcare available for all of
those makes it really hard for,
for a family. And, and so I
really thought we were going to
look more into potential
opportunities there, not only
to support our staff, but also
to support recruiting. Pretty
sure we had a discussion just
recently about kind of this
unending ability. You know,
police officers retire and we
hire, but we're not making
headway. And so when we think
about child care, it isn't
there's multiple reasons for us
to focus on it. And it's
internally and externally to
this council.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you, Councilor Fox,
for chiming in on on the
importance of child care. And,
you know, I support that value
in our community as well and
really helping the city define
what our role is in child care.
And I think that's what we're
in the middle of doing. And
part of that is starting with
these conversations and
assessing how we can better
support our first responders
with that and, and working with
the county to look at that, but
also elevating the child care
infrastructure and better
defining what our role is in
that. And part of that is being
able to influence the business
growth of it to maybe we look
at some future legislative
agenda item that we could
support. I think that we need
to also have a better
definition of our role under
our economic development plan
and what that looks like. I do
believe we also missed the boat
on helping direct child care
service with the last funding
that we had. If there's a way
to just bring an update or a
briefing on what is happening
with the partnership that we
have with the county on the
Impact Lab from the National
League of Cities addressing
child care, I believe some of
that can help better define
what our role could be, and
this is something that we
cannot do alone as a city.
Child care is something that we
have to do along with other
jurisdictions. And the
Children's Consortium and some
of the child care data centers.
So there's a difference between
child care providers and the
child care centers. So better
understanding where we can have
a greater impact in our role as
policy makers, I think, is some
of the work that we could and
should be doing.
>> Okay, councilor, seeing no
additional comments. Mayor.
Last Councilor Fox.
>> Sorry, but that was my point
with bringing up is that more
than two of us. He was asking
if more than two of us had
thoughts about child care. So
before we move on, could we get
some more conversation around
this? Or maybe that silence is
the answer?
>> Well, councilor, in my mind,
the city manager gave us a list
of 11 different items that we
could discuss and do a quick
survey on how many people want
to talk about child care versus
annexation versus a regional
fire authority. ET cetera. ET
cetera. I don't believe that we
have enough time to do that
right now. If city manager, if
you want to send out an
additional quick survey on that
long list of additional items
you're considering, let's go
ahead and do that. But as I
said earlier, there are 47 to
53 different projects that
staff are already working on
right now, of which all of
these may be on that list.
>> Yeah. And just to clarify, I
my general sense is that there
are at least four of you that
are in support of the city. Do
taking a more aggressive or
more forward thinking role in
child care, but what form that
takes will be part of the
budget discussions going
forward to Councilor Perez
point, is that something that
we should be seeking to do
directly, or is it something
where we should have a
partnership with another
organization to be able to do
those types of activities
versus taking it on as a new
responsibility? You know, and I
think about Vancouver and I
think about where we have been
and where we're going. If you
look at our budget, we have
taken on additional
responsibilities for things
that in the past may have
traditionally fallen to other
levels of government, and
whether it was that they ran
out of money or that they were
pursuing policies that we
didn't feel were effective, we
have gotten into lines of
business that we have not
traditionally been involved
with. And as we get larger as a
community, I would expect those
pressures to continue.
>> Mayor?
>> Yes, councilor.
>> Thank you. So, you know,
this has been an issue I've
long been interested in. We
have had for a very long time
the ability to do a child care.
Property tax. It's been in
state law for decades. The only
city, the only jurisdiction in
the state that has done that is
the city of Seattle. When we
were having these discussions
as part of Stronger Vancouver
prior to the pandemic, the
there was also conversations
having Greater Vancouver
Chamber of Commerce over the
same thing. For me. We. There
needs to be partnership. We
need to be a partner in
something. And we can provide
funding tools. But we need the
community, which includes our
our employers, to be also
asking us to deploy those tools.
And so I think there's still
work to be done on, on, you
know, and maybe that's the
coalition that's that's doing
work. But I, I know knowing the
severity of this issue, I'm
just surprised that it feels
like we're out here leading on
our own and needing. And I feel
like this is an issue that
needs we people should be
coming to us asking us to
deploy tools rather than us
saying
>> We're going to. And so I'm,
I'm looking forward to, you
know, how do we get there? How
do we how can we help get there?
How can we support the
infrastructure that's there in
order to get there? I think
there's a lot of steps. We I
think there's a lot of steps
still to happen in this process
before we get to the this is
how we're going to fund it.
Personal opinion. Okay.
>> Nothing else from me, mayor.
>> All right. Then we will
excuse ourselves and go into an
executive session. This is
according to our CW 42.3.1101 C.
We will be in there from 6:00
to 630, and then we'll be back
at 630 for our regular
Vancouver City Council meeting.
It is 555. We'll see you at
6:00. Councilors