Good evening. Welcome to
Vancouver City Council. It is
July 27th, 2026. This afternoon
we had a short workshop with
Joy Fowler. Our engagement and
access director. Joy brought us
up to speed on the work that
she and her department staff
have been doing in a number of
different areas, and after a
quick dinner, we are back here.
So please stand and join me in
the Pledge of Allegiance. I
pledge.
>> Allegiance to the flag of
the United States of America
and to the Republic for which
it stands one nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> Thank you. Please call the
roll.
>> Councilmember. Harless.
Perez Fox here. Paulson here.
Over here. Hansen present. Mary
McEnerny Ogle present.
>> Thank you. Our colleagues
will join us shortly. We'll
move into community
communication. I do not have
any cards for anyone who would
like to testify on the items on
the agenda. So that means that
we will close community
communications and we are into
the consent agenda. We have
seven items. Councilors, are
there any of these items that
you would like to pull?
>> Item number four.
>> Item four. Any other items?
Hearing none, I'll entertain a
motion for items one, two,
three, five, six and seven.
>> Futureproof.
>> Hansen seconded by Fox.
Those in favor say aye. I
opposed motion passes. Thank
you, Counselor Stover. Go ahead.
Item number four.
>> Thank you. Mayor. We have
been talking about the. New
operations center for probably
close to eight years. At this
point. It was a major part of
the discussions of of stronger
Vancouver. At that point in
time. It was, I believe, a a
around $100 million project.
And at that time, we received a
lot of comments from. From
developers in the in the
community raising concerns
about what were the costs at
that time. And here we are
about 7 or 8 years later. And
those costs from back then are,
are really dwarfed with what
we're currently confronting in,
in May, when we had May 11th,
when we had the workshop. I had
brought, I had raised the
question of what, because back
way back in the olden days,
there had been a commitment to
having a review committee from
the community involved, and I
had asked what happened to that?
And the. My recollection is
that it was that that was
replaced by having this
relationship that we did with
Skanska. The issue, though, is
Skanska doesn't live in
Vancouver. They don't live in
Clark County. And our local
contractors do. And while maybe
the pitchforks haven't come out
yet, there, I can hear them
being rattled in the yard next
door. I appreciate that staff,
based upon things I shared with
the city manager, I appreciate
the staff released a memo to us
this week, but I remain
concerned because that memo
covered $20 million worth of
costs and a $225 million
project. There are concerns
that I continue to feel at this
point about where we're at in
this project, and just feeling
there needs to be some good
review before we go forward.
One, we need to hear from the
community. We need to hear the
what they have to say, what
their concerns are. Two, I need
to see what does $225 million
mean for our water rates, our
our sewer rates? What does $225
million mean for impact on the
on the general fund? And what
are the trade offs and, and I
really want to see a good
review of what potentially can
be done to, to lower these
costs. And, and tonight is a
pivotal point. Like tonight's
contract takes it from level
and starts creating something
that comes up and, and we
really become committed to the
current project after the
approval of this contract. So
I'm not there yet is the best
way to say it. And I understand
there are unique things about
this project. There's there's,
there are. That that the
purpose and need for this is
different than, than purpose
and need for many other
construction projects in Clark
County around the state. But I
still think there there that we
need to do some more due
diligence before we fully
commit to, to what we've got
right now.
>> Mayor.
>> Thank you.
>> Yes.
>> Councilor Fox.
>> What's one piece of the, I
guess, history that was not
related just now was that
before we even decided on the
approach, this project was that
staff put together a project
charter and that project
charter basically discussed
just that. How are we going to
interact throughout the project?
What were the touch points with
council? Who's in charge of
making what decisions? I mean,
that's what a project charter
is all the way to delivery. So
it seems as if Lisa maybe
should have included in the
folder that she shared with you
that project charter, and
perhaps, maybe even before we
unwrap the entire bundle we
have here, that might have been
something we should be
revisiting more often to see
where we're at in that project
charter. Given that it was such
an immense piece of work that
was intended to guide us
through to delivery, is that
something staff could bring
forward?
>> Well, any other comments
from council before we turn it
over to staff for their
presentation? Okay. Please.
>> Jean, Facilities capital
project manager.
>> We're going to have to turn
on your mic. There you go.
>> There it goes.
>> That should pick it up.
>> Thank you. Jean Singer,
facilities capital projects
manager so yes, we can bring
back the charter and send that
back this week for revisit.
We've been intentional with
reading it and making sure we
were coming to council on those
intentional points. So our last
workshop was that update in
terms of where we were with the
design and the budget. So we
did that partially in May and
then also in July. So happy to
share that back. There was any
specific questions? What I
think what I would offer,
though, is the projects are
competitively bid. So every
component of this is sent out
to the market, and the market
decides what the prices are
with these. And there is local
bidding. We've had the
opportunity to work with
several local bidders that have
actually bid on the work, and
then also received the work. So
while the estimates are there,
it's really the market that
decides what the prices are
going to be. We use Skanska to
be strategic with those
packages are to make sure
they're leveraging what the
best opportunities are to
deliver those pieces, and
they've broken them out
sequentially. And that's why
you've seen this come to you in
many different parts to make
sure that we are being
efficient with delivering the
project as they can move
through the site since we have
a green site, and then also
about what competition will
bring the best value for the
different pieces of work. So
that's the only thing I would
offer at this point in terms of
that context. So while it's a
big number, each of those
pieces are sent out in the
market, decides how much they
cost.
>> Councilor thank you. And I
do appreciate that. But there's
an underlying design that is
that is driving what those
packages are. And that's where
I'm questioning like, so we
have a design that has a
flyover bridge, right? What
does that flyover bridge mean
for water rates in the future?
And that's those are the kind
of questions that I think
should be asked is, is this.
Beautiful design? No doubt
beautiful design? Is this the
design that that is? Is making
sure that we're stewarding the
resources of the city for, for
decades, 75, 80 years to come.
And, and, and I'm, I'm also not
priest saying, I'm not saying
that this isn't the design that
we shouldn't end up building
the end. But there's feedback
coming and it's going to
continue to come and taking a,
a pause to make sure we're,
we're we're good. And, and I do,
and I, again, I don't feel
comfortable not knowing what
this does to water rates. And
am I missing something that is
some analysis happened that I
missed it.
>> Somebody from Public Works
would have to speak to that. My
understanding is that the model,
the rate model as is, does have
the cost accommodated in it. So
that's my understanding. And
the pedestrian bridge. So I'll
offer why that's there. That's
actually for safety. It's to
decouple the pedestrian traffic
between the two buildings from
the vehicular traffic around
the site. And so that's why
it's there. It was actually an
elegant solution so that we did
not have people walking between
those buildings while we had
vehicles moving through there.
So that's why that was there.
>> But should all the office be
in one building? So there's no
need to go back and forth.
>> Okay. Geraldine, you had a
comment.
>> I think Jean answered most
of it. We are at this pivotal
point. I guess I would pose the
question back. What? What
review are you interested in? I
would point out that in
addition to the 20 million
that's affiliated with the site
and sustainability, there's
also we are holding a
significant amount of
contingency. And if you add
that in, that's like 40 million
that you could take off the 225
to get back down to a
comparable with where we at,
where where we were about two
years ago. I would highlight
that we switched a few months
ago from doing metal buildings
back to tilt up as a cost
saving measure. And that is a
benefit of our partnership with
Skanska and the local subs that
they have at the table. We were
going forward with our
outbuildings, with metal
buildings. Those proved to be
extremely more expensive than
anticipated and we were able to
pivot. And you saw a package,
it's outlined in your memo,
come in and then come back out
with concrete tilt up instead.
So we are pivoting along the
way as a cost savings to and
looking for more information as
to the review you're looking
for. That would still allow us
to advance the project, to stop
it now, to stop it
significantly will require
demobilization, will require
significant changes to where
we're headed, which will likely
result in us not delivering on
this project in 2028, which
will delay it further, which
will impact costs further.
>> Any other comments from
staff on this item? Any
comments from the council chair?
Mayor Councilor Fox?
>> Go ahead. Yeah. The reason I
brought up the charter is
exactly for this to avoid this
particular conversation
happening midway through a
project, because part of the
discussion with the charter was
us as council agreeing to the
path forward, the check ins,
the when the design decisions
would be made. And we've made
the design decision. So I'm not
interested in us stopping this
project at this point, wasting
taxpayer money and redesigning
a project. That is exactly what
we've been asking staff to
deliver to us.
>> Any other comments? Yes,
Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you, mayor and Council
member, I see your point. What
is the number that we would
what if it was 300 million? 400
million? What. At what level do
we get to to where we have to
say, well, let's take a look
here because it seems like
really at this point, almost
any number could come back. And
then if we're still going to
move forward, we're still going
to move forward. I have
concerns about that because,
you know, if you liken this to
where could we go? What what
cuts have been made to this
point as far as what's needed
and what's not needed? Maybe a
workshop.
>> Seth, could you remind us of
the timelines that you're
working under right now?
>> So this, this package was
bid we if it's not approved, we
there are statutes around how
long bid bids are good for. And
so I think we're within about a
week of that. So if we extend
it beyond that, these bids
won't be good anymore. And we'd
have to rebid. So we would lose
that. These packages are
intentional to keep the project
moving as well. So there'll be
a delay in terms of them
starting construction work. And
there are costs with that as
well. So in terms of where we
are in the design, we are in
the middle of finalizing the
design, getting through permits
right now with the hope to go
out and bid the rest of the
project in the fall. So it
would be a delay to change it.
At this point, we could bring
back what we have already cut.
We have done quite, quite a bit
of cutting already, so and we
could bring that back and share
that so we could see where the
delta is on that if that would
be of interest.
>> But is could you do that by
next Monday and still meet your
contract deadlines?
>> Probably could do the list
of. Yeah, we could probably.
Well, overall in the project,
we probably could we could go
through where we've what we've
already cut out of the project
in the past as well. We could
probably pull that together in
a week.
>> And would that still keep
you on your contract deadline?
>> It would be close.
>> City manager. The question
has come up from two councilors
about additional information on
this project. What do we do? We
have an opening next Monday.
>> Yeah. Let's see. I mean, if
council's desire is to table,
as long as it's not going to
put us outside of that bid
threshold where the bids would
still be good, I think we'd be
safe to table and do the
consideration. On Monday, I
flagged a couple of things from
the conversation. One is to
follow up with the analysis on
the rate impacts we just
discussed, providing some
information about the items in
the in the project that have
already been cut, and I if I'm
intuiting a little bit from a
little bit of the conversation,
perhaps about that, reiterating
the cost analysis on the steel
buildings versus the tilt up
building and where that
economic delta was, we can we
should be able to provide that
as well.
>> Are there two additional
councilors that would like to
table this to next Monday? I
have two councilors. I know a
no. One. No, no. The decision
will be tonight. Then we will
not postpone the decision. The
decision is forwarding to
tonight. You do not have four
votes to table. So any
additional comments on item
number four? I'll entertain a
motion on item number four.
>> To table to date. Certain of
next Monday.
>> I have a motion. Is there a
second. Second motion and a
second. Any further discussion?
Hearing none. Roll call. Vote
please.
>> Council member Harless I
Perez I Fox.
>> This is a motion to table.
>> So, councilor Perez, did you
just say?
>> To table.
>> To table to next Monday I.
Continue with roll call please.
>> Council member Fox.
>> Said no.
>> Paulson. Stover I Hansen. I
mayor McEnerny Ogle.
>> No motion passes will table
it till Monday. Thank you. All
right. So staff, thank you very
much. Moving on to the public
hearing, please. This is a
resolution related to the
extension of a development
agreement approved pursuant to
chapter 36.70, be extending the
date of vesting of various
development regulations under
which the Hewlett Packard Inc
section 30 development may
occur, authorizing the City
Manager to execute an amendment
to the Development Agreement
and providing for an effective
date and staff, please. Hi.
>> Good evening. My name is Kim
Shann co Real Estate project
Manager with the Economic
Prosperity and Housing
Department. So as the mayor
said, we have before you the
HPHP Development Agreement
amendment to extend the term of
the agreement. So there we go.
So we'll provide some
background context on why this
is in front of you today, as
well as some of the history. Go
over a bit of the approved
master plan, the current
development agreement, the
proposed modifications, our
staff analysis, and then open
it up for discussion as well.
HP has John Birkin. Hopefully I
pronounce that correctly. In
the audience, if questions
arise specifically for HP. So
the context. The master plan
for the. The HP site in section
30 was originally approved in
2023, and then a subsequent
plan for the second half of the
property was approved in 2025.
Combined, this covers a acreage
of 98 acres in section 30 and
is an approves up to one point
5,000,000ft² of mixed office
research and development and
other supportive uses. As well
as improvements such as parking
and landscaping. So they have
recently completed phase one of
this master plan approximately
215,000ft² of of office and R&D,
which is a gorgeous mass timber
building. And that is about 14%
of the overall master plan. So
there's still quite a bit of
the plan that needs to be built
out as part of phase one, the
city has invested $3.5 million
per the master per the
development agreement in
infrastructure. So this went
towards roads and a sewer pump
station that were necessary to
support the building. And in
future phases, per the
development agreement that
already exists today, the city
is committed to investing an
additional $6.5 million in
additional infrastructure work.
As of to date, we haven't
received any additional
submittals for building permit
for any future phases, but that
with the extension, we expect
that to be coming. So once
again, just providing a visual
of the approved master plan, we
have the original plan that was
approved in 2023, providing the
plan for the west side of the
site. And then later in 2025,
the plan for the east side of
the site. So the current
development agreement was
established on December 16th,
2020, 2019. Sorry for a 15 year
term with an optional five year
extension. Assuming council
extended it at that time, it
vested a allowed mix of uses
and standards, defines the
process for the master, defined
the master planning process and
building review process, as
well as fees, reserve
transportation and utility
capacity, as well as
identifying needed improvements.
Details, the impact fee,
credits and required city
infrastructure investment. That
was the 3.5 and 6.5 million
invested by the city, and those
were tied to certain thresholds
of development activity as well
as provided business license
surcharge, which has since
expired in 2024. So the change
in front of you today is simple
amendments, keeping all the
terms of the existing
development agreement. The same
with the with only extending
the development agreement by an
additional 11 years now to
expire in 2045, in stead of
doing about 2034, hopefully I
did that math right in my head
and maintaining the five year
extension, subject to council
approval at the 2045 date. So
from from our analysis, we
believe this aligns with the
city's goals and priorities,
particularly around supporting
living wage jobs as it provides
support in ensuring that HP is
able to develop the full master
plan. The extension allows for
a more realistic timeline for
the full development to occur.
As we saw, the development
agreement was was executed in
2019. We're in 2026, phase one
just completed, so that it
takes time to build out these
large, large projects. And the
extension allows for a cohesive
build out, ensuring that
utility, transportation
capacity and design language is
able to maintain consistency
throughout the full buildout of
the of the site. And with that,
that's everything I have, and
I'll open it up to discussion.
>> Thank you. That is a very
old picture. We need the new
picture of that finished
building. How gorgeous it is.
Now. Councilors questions. Then
let's go ahead and open up the
public hearing for individuals.
These are applicants of h p
here to answer questions and a
couple that would like to come
up and speak. So John. Bracken
and Jennifer, did you want to
come up also? And Anderson, did
you want to come on up? So,
John, you wanted to speak a
little bit.
>> Yeah.
>> First, I want to thank you
for having a long term vision
for Vancouver and especially
for the section 30. We
appreciate all the partnership
you've had. And as that vision
continues to take shape and
become a reality, I also think
City Council, the mayor and the
city staff members who have
worked alongside us every step
of the way. The collaboration
and support has been invaluable
throughout the whole process.
City staff has once again
prepared for you guys some
information on this. And so we
just wanted to make ourselves
available to answer any
questions you may have about
this.
>> Thank you. Okay.
>> Comments or questions from
the council. Quick question,
probably to the city attorney.
When this master plan was
agreed to quite some time ago,
we were at the beginning of our
conversation about climate
goals and standards and green
building and such. The
particular building that was
just shown exceeds those
standards. But what happens in
20 years when the standards
change even more so, is h p
required to meet the codes at
that time?
>> Mayor.
>> If if.
>> It's okay with council, I'd
like to defer to my colleague
Kerry Driscoll, who has worked
closely with H. P on behalf of
the city, and he's available
online.
>> Thank you.
>> Kerry, you're muted. You'll
have to unmute.
>> And could we go ahead and
bring Kerry's picture up and
get rid of the three minutes?
There he is. Thank you. I like
your background, Kerry. Thank
you.
>> So one of the properties of
the development agreement is
that the they vested to certain
development, actually, much of
the development code that was
in existence at the time they
signed the city and h. P signed
that agreement in 2018. And so
we don't have the opportunity
to require them to comply with
the later adopted requirements.
>> Kerry, I'm sorry, I my old
hearing must have missed that
they signed an agreement to do
what with the requirements.
>> So part of the issue I'm
having. Okay, we seem to have
solved that. I was getting a
feedback echo. So part of the
development agreement is that
they vest to the the codes that
are in place at the time that
we entered into that in 2018.
And so we didn't we don't have
the opportunity to have them to
make them comply with the newly
adopted laws.
>> So when they start
development in 2045, we're
going back to the 2018 codes.
>> That's correct.
>> Councilor.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Fox.
>> Okay. We're not talking
about the building codes from
2019. We're just talking about
the land use development codes.
Correct. The building codes
have to be up to date at the
time of actually. Getting
approval for your building plan.
Correct.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> But maybe I misunderstood.
>> Go ahead. Kerry.
>> Sorry. Maybe I misunderstood
the nature of the question. I
thought we were talking
development codes. If the.
Green building, the I'm sorry,
the I'm getting so much
feedback, it's hard to focus on
what I'm saying.
>> Yeah. Kerry, from what I
understand, the mayor was
asking about climate change and
new regulations that could
occur between now and 2045, and
I was just distinguishing that
the building codes, if they
change between now and then,
they would have to comply with
the state's building codes,
which would very likely have
higher standards at that time.
>> That's correct. The building
codes are different than the
development codes. And if the
climate policy relates to the
building codes, then then they
do have to meet those current
requirements at the time they
put in their permit application.
>> Okay.
>> Can you do?
>> Is that one of your children,
Kerry.
>> Yes, one of the, one of the
wonderful things about working
from home.
>> Yes. That's okay. Give him a
hug. Can you give me an example?
And Councilor Fox, help me
understand this. A code that we
would have had in 2018 that
might not be appropriate in
2045 when this contract
continues, when this master
plan continues.
>> Well, I'll use a climate
change one. So perhaps we'll
have additional development
codes around the proportion of
EV charging stations within a
parking lot. Or maybe we might
have a code that says something
about some different
configuration or reduction in
parking, but those are
development land use code. But
if the building code says,
here's the energy code standard
that needs to be applied, and
the efficiency of the systems
and the type of windows that
need to be built and the type
of roofing, all of those are
considered within that building
envelope and would have to be
they don't get vested into 2019
building code standards. That's
how I'd explain it. Yeah. But
they might not have to do as
many EV charging stations or
whatnot in 2045 that we might
want them to do in 2045, but I
don't that's just an example.
Okay.
>> I just needed a couple
examples.
>> Mayor. It looks like Mark
person is raising his hand. I
can give him permission to
speak and display his camera to.
>> I'm sorry, who is this
individual?
>> He's one of our planners.
>> Oh, certainly. Thank you.
>> Good evening. Thank you.
Mark.
>> Sarah. Yeah. Thank you mayor.
I just wanted a clarification.
Maybe help out EV charging.
Electric vehicle charging does
live in the building code. So
if if that changes that would
not be vested.
>> Okay. Mark, is there a
particular code that would be
odd in 2045 that is cemented in
2018 that we would be concerned
about?
>> Mayor, I can't think of
anything off the top of my head.
Again, the, you know, the
current code that HB adjusted
to is nearly 20 years old,
right? It's from the section 30
of work of 2007, eight and nine.
So I, I, you know, the
development code is mostly
setbacks and height. Those
things don't typically change
as much over time. Mayor Pro
Tem Boerke did talk about the
parking minimums and maximums.
Those, you know, those do
change and those do live in the
zoning in the development code.
But EV, EV charging
requirements live in the
building code in Washington
state.
>> Thank you. Mark, do you have
a comment?
>> Yes, mayor, if I also may
add through the comprehensive
planning process, we also did
extensive outreach with HP
around the how the code would
apply to this area. The new
code, and it does align with
the vision. But this ensures
that this change ensures that
it. The very specific design
changes aren't impacting the.
The plan. But through our
engagement it does a lot like
our current code that's going
into effect next week is
aligned with the. The plan.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you as well.
>> That's reassuring. Okay. Yes.
Councilor Paulson, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor Council
Member Paulson, I'll start with
you. And if there are others
who are more appropriate to
answer this question, it's my
understanding that the facility
that recently opened exceeded
the codes that were in place.
Can you talk a little bit about
that?
>> Yeah, I might defer to Mark
on specifically on how it
exceeded, but the I think one
example is it is mass timber
building. And the mass timber
has a lot some significant
carbon benefits, particularly
around carbon sequestration and
to kind of provide a frame of
reference for how extensive
this is. The the building has
approximately the same amount
of board feet as the new
Portland airport expansion,
which is a very well known
project in the region. Very
impactful. So it is a large
scale, highly. And it's all
electric. Yeah, I guess they
will sue and HP would know the
details of the project, so I
might defer to them on the
sustainability features.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah, push the button.
>> There we go. So just to add
on to what she was saying is,
is the design sort of
anticipated the new Washington
Energy Code that I think the
dates of when that became
effective kind of was shifting
around at the time that we were
preparing the permit documents,
but we anticipated that. So the
EV charging counts are aligned
with the Washington Energy Code.
And then we went with all
electric for building systems.
So there's no gas to that
building solar. I think we've
got more solar than what is
required. And in terms of
regional, the mass timber plays
a big part in regional sourcing
for the. The construction
materials, landscaping as well
in terms of low maintenance
landscape, I think those are
some of the main ones. Anything
else, John, you wanted to add?
>> No. We also focus on making
sure we divert from landfills
and meeting all the goals
around that. I think we're at
about 90% right now diverting
from landfills on that. So we
try to make sure we achieve all
those goals as much as possible.
>> Thank you for sharing those
examples. And so my follow up
question would be, because we
hear this a lot when we talk
about changing our development
code and our building code, the
kinds of things that you just
mentioned that went above and
beyond what the requirement
were undoubtedly raised. The
cost of the project for h p why
would you incur that
unnecessary cost?
>> HP likes to see itself as a
very sustainable company, and
we're always focused on how we
can improve our footprint in
the future. So we see those as
costs just to help us as a
company, achieve those goals
and make sure we're providing a
better future.
>> Thank you. I did have one
question back to the earlier
conversation about things in
the code that may be outdated.
In a theoretical 2045 scenario,
we've moved away from parking
minimums as an example. And if
we if we stuck with our prior
code, HP would be compelled to
honor those parking minimums
unless an exemption was given.
Is that correct?
>> So regardless of the
development agreement, they
still have the option to opt in
to the new code. So at any time
they can develop under the
current code.
>> So they can use the old code.
But they could also use a new
code at their discretion. If if
for example, they wanted to
build less parking than the old
code would have compelled them
to do.
>> I, I believe so, Carrie, is
that accurate?
>> My understanding of the.
Sorry, I'm still getting that.
So in Washington, the developer
would have to choose either the
old code or the new code. They
would not be able to mix and
match the two codes.
>> For individual projects.
Right?
>> Correct. On a project by
project basis, they would have
to determine which code they
were going to use and go with
that. So they couldn't get the
advantages of one code and the
advantages of the old code and
new code. And so there has to
be consistency, either one or
the other.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
clarification. That's a bit of
a concern because we're
continually moving away from
parking minimums. And so my
hope for HP, as you're
continuing to have good
corporate citizenship, would be
that you would making those
kinds of decisions weigh that
pretty strongly because the new
code does not have parking
minimums in it. And so you're
not compelled to build as much
parking as maybe you otherwise
might have been. Thank you
mayor.
>> Thank you. You have gone
above and beyond, and we were
extremely pleased to tour the
facility to see all the
incredible work that you have
done. If there are no
additional comments, I will
move approval of this
particular item. Yes, councilor.
>> Thank you. So in was it 2018
or 2019? I saw I.
>> End of 2019.
>> End of 2019. Okay. So at
that point in time, we spent
quite a bit of energy talking
about climate goals because at
that point in time, the city
didn't have anything in
particular, but we were really
trying to. Figure out a way to
insert them. And we kind of
walked away with a pinky
promise from from HP. But
obviously HP is very much
exceeded. What would have been
in place. So thank you to HP
for that.
>> I'll second your motion.
>> Thank you, Councilor Paulsen.
Motion has been made and
seconded. All those in favor,
say aye. Opposed. Motion passes.
Thank you so very much for
joining us and for that
amendment. That concludes the
business portion. Let's move
into the communications from
the Council. Councilor Harless.
>> Yeah, a couple of things I
was going to bring up, but I
can wait till your your
communication period about the
police department memo related
to the lack of defense
attorneys. So we can certainly
wait until after we've done our
rounds. I'm having tabling that.
And I also wanted to bring up
something else police related.
And maybe Chief Price might
have an answer for this, since
bringing it to his attention
that there was a report of
potentially an Ice vehicle
being parked at our West
precinct. It's my understanding
that parking it is public
parking, but it's for police
business. There's a safe
exchange there, but it's not
just a public be used for
whatever you want. I was just
curious if you had found any
information about.
>> Yeah. Thank you. Price.
Vancouver police. I did have
someone reach out to one of our
sergeants probably about a
month ago, and inquired about a
vehicle in the parking lot of
the in the public parking area
of West Precinct, inquiring as
to whether or not it was an Ice
vehicle. And of course, we
can't confirm to the public the
the owners of those vehicles.
What I can tell you is that our
our position has been that we
do not assist Ice in their
operations. If they park a
vehicle in our parking lot, we
don't monitor for who's parking
there. But certainly they could
park there and leave and walk
away. Or they could park there
and come inside and make a
records request like any other
citizen, and we wouldn't
prevent that. So, so without a
little bit more information, be
hard to, to, to determine
exactly why someone was parked
in our lot or even confirmed
that that was a publicly
confirmed that that wasn't a
vehicle that belonged to Ice.
>> Thank you. Yeah, I know that
would be difficult. And, you
know, you don't know. Obviously,
there's so many other things
going on in our city to be
paying attention to than who's
parked in our parking lot or
not, but just reassuring the
community that, you know, we're
not working with, you know, the
last we heard recently, a
couple of weeks ago about how
there's a decrease in the
feelings of safety for persons
of color. And I would largely
attribute that to certain
things until we find details.
So the more that we can
communicate that our police are
not facilitating or helping or
in any way makes them less
likely to pause before calling
911. So that's my always my
fear is making sure that people
still feel comfortable calling
our officers if they are, you
know, experiencing violence or
anything. So I just want to
make sure that we're assuring
the public about that. So I
wanted to make sure to bring it
up and yeah, see if you had any
information. So thank you,
councilor.
>> I can just confirm that the
department has not changed
posture that we have said from
the beginning in terms of our
interactions with Ice agents in
their investigation of
immigration matters, that
simply isn't our bailiwick and
that rests with them.
>> Thank you, Councilor Perez.
>> Yes. Thank you. I just
wanted to share with my
colleagues that as our the
elected official for the City
of Vancouver, sitting on the
community advisory board, the
community needs assessment
that's conducted Triennially
has been done, and we'll be
having four community forums to
share the survey results with
the public, one in battleground,
one in Camas, one here in
downtown Vancouver at the
library, and then the fourth
one will be virtual. So this
would take place early in the
fall. It's an opportunity to
let community feedback on the
survey results. And city
manager. I'm hoping that we
could work with the county to
promote the event community
forum that's happening here at
the downtown library, because
many of our folks there to
participate. So that is it.
>> Thank you, Councilor Fox.
>> I just want to mention that
this week is, well, this
Thursday is the Children's
Justice Center meeting board
meeting that I'll be attending.
And one of the items that I've
been working on leading up to
the meeting is really trying to
plug into our state legislative
actions around the
criminalization of fentanyl
when it's involving children
and our vulnerable populations.
And so there has been a couple
meetings. There were still kind
of working. The angle of the
legislative session hasn't
started yet for next spring,
but I just wanted to let you
know that that topic is still
being worked on, at least with
our staff moving forward. And
I'll be there's a few ideas not
ready to air them, but would
like to talk them over with the
Children's Justice Center
Council on Thursday, and then I
can bring that back to all of
you. And then also the Lodging
Tax Advisory Committee met a
few weeks ago to discuss a
little bit of some changes to
scoring in the application
process to make it a little bit
clearer about the the items
that we're looking for in an
application that are kind of,
of higher importance to us. So
just being a little bit more
transparent with the applicants
about looking for more events
to happen outside of the summer
months. So they've, we've kind
of changed the scoring or the
scoring will look a little
different around that. So kind
of putting some emphasis on
bringing in more tourism
activity and outside activity
outside of the summer months,
getting more heads in beds, you
know, so also giving a little
bit more weight, kind of upping
the scores for if the event
does bring in more heads in
beds, heads in beds, that's
wrong. Heads on beds, something
like that. But anyways, just
wanted to share that update.
We're not meeting for a couple
of months because that
application process will be
live soon. And I think it's in
August. Please don't quote me
on that, but it'll be
advertised soon, and then we'll
be reconvening to review the
applications in October. That's
all I have.
>> Okay. Thank you, Councilor
Paulson.
>> Councilor Stuebe.
>> Thank you. Mayor. On Friday
night, I took the opportunity
to head out to the Port of
Camas Washougal Grove Field,
the other public airport in
Clark County, to listen in on
their kickoff of their airport
master plan. Kind of as a
preview to what our process is
going to be. And Meredith was
out there as well. And it is
highly likely we'll be working
with the same consultant. So
kind of excited about that
synergy that's going to happen.
What was going to bring this up
last week, but then got
sidetracked and forgot in my,
I'm assuming our baskets is the
Washington Public Works
magazine and Southeast First
Street received an award as a
project of the year. And so
congratulations to the to the
public, public works folks and
good job on Southeast first
Street. That was a that was a a
task years and years and years
and years to get there. So
congratulations and
congratulations on the award.
Councilmember Fox, you bringing
up fentanyl prompted something
else I recently heard from
somebody who experienced a
fentanyl overdose. They did not
know they were getting fentanyl.
You know, they had tested for
fentanyl. But there's now so
many different variations of
fentanyl that the test strips
don't catch. So public service
announcement, please, please,
please be very, very cautious
with whatever you're taking.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you mayor. Not this
Sunday, but the Sunday before
gave the opening to the concert.
And just want to thank staff
for doing a great job and
getting all those folks
together and putting on a great
show. Also, want to thank staff
for being so responsive. If we
have a question about anything
on the agenda, they're usually
really quick in getting back to
me, and I appreciate that. The
rest of my comments. I'm going
to go ahead and reserve for the
police memo.
>> Thank you. And we do have
lots of concerts, both at the
waterfront on Thursday night
and the Sunday concerts out at
Columbia Tech Center. So thank
you, counselors, for helping
introduce those. We had over
5000 people last night. Great
weather and the whole routine.
Four days of Aloha at Esther
Short Park were well received.
And this is the week for the
Truckey track and field days.
So if that is of interest to
you, let's see you out at
Skyview City Manager. Let's
move into your report.
>> Thank you. Mayor, I invite
Chief Price to come return to
the podium. And while he's
doing that, I'll just open with
some commentary about an item
that hit the news last week
that has caused a lot of
conversations out in the
community, related to some
updated guidance that was
issued to the police department
from the office of the chief.
And I first and foremost want
to emphasize that this is not
something that was done, that
we would expect to have a
negative impact on public
safety. Whenever you change a
procedure or change how
something is handled, that's
always the first concern that
pops to people's mind. And
that's not something that this
was designed to put people or
put businesses at risk. What it
was designed to do was to
address a critical shortage
that we're having of defense
attorneys right now. As I've
shared with the council in the
last couple of months, really
since the 2nd of June, we've
had 55 cases that were
dismissed because of lack of
defense counsel. And of those
55 cases, ten of them were
misdemeanor levels of domestic
violence. And so we viewed that
as something that was a
critical situation that we
needed to address. Thankfully,
the city attorney, due to the
fact that Washington caseload
standards were changed over a
year ago, has been monitoring
and looking at ways that the
city can adapt to the reduction
in the amount of cases that
your public defenders can take.
And so we've taken some action
in the past. One of the most
most notable ones being the
city council's adoption of an
ordinance that gave case
weighting to different
categories and types of cases
to free up capacity for
attorneys. But we ended up with
in a situation where we just
simply did not have enough
bodies available. It is cold
comfort that Vancouver is not
the only community that is
struggling with this problem,
but we were really looking for
ways to be able to address
operations on a temporary basis
that would allow us to preserve
capacity for those public
defenders, for the highest
level cases that qualify as
misdemeanors. So to give you
examples, some of the things
that were included in there
would have been items like
theft of recyclables, you know,
misuse of a of a dealer tag on
a vehicle that rather than
citing a lot of these offenses
now would get referred to the
city attorney's office for
their prosecutors to work on
the timing of making a charging
decision. When a button is
pushed to issue a citation out
in the field, that starts a 14
day clock ticking under which
the person must be arraigned.
And so you have to have a
public defender available
within those 14 days. What we
were running into is because
the court does them in the
order that they're listed on
the docket, you may have one of
those lighter offenses ahead of
the domestic violence one, and
the judge is just going to
assign the public defenders
down the list until they are
out. So we engaged with the
leadership at the department
over a period of several weeks,
worked on doing some training
about this, have been
endeavoring to answer questions
along the way, and then the it
became a public conversation.
And so we've since been trying
to work through details on from
the police department about how
does this work, when you would
apply it to this specific
situation? You know, I can
construct a what if scenario
that breaks literally any
procedure or law that we have.
So we tried to focus in on the
ones that they are most likely
to encounter. I know council
probably has specific questions
that may arise, but about
specific situations, and the
chief is the one who's best
qualified to be able to address
those. But I just want to
reiterate that this is
something that when we put it
together, it was carefully
crafted and tailored to try to
have the lowest possible impact
to people out in the community
to not in essence, I know
people get concerned that
you're quote unquote, granting
people permission to commit
crimes. That was not the intent.
It was to get us through a
temporary crunch on attorneys.
I can tell you that the staff
has been in continuous
recruitment mode since these
standards were changed. We have
a standing recruitment on our
website that has been there for,
I think, over a year. We have
reached out directly to firms.
We are cold calling attorneys
firms to see if we can find
people to do this. We have the
budget available. It simply
comes down to finding enough
people to be able to do the
work. And so I guess that I'd
open it up to the council and
see what questions you might
have for me or the chief.
>> City manager. I wonder if
you could kind of walk through
an example that keeps popping
up. And that is what happens if
a business owner has a
shoplifting incident. What can
they what should they do and
what can they expect?
>> Mayor, I'd love to answer
that question. I don't think
that they'll see
>> Anything different in terms
of on the front end, if someone
has a shoplifter, they should
call 911 and follow the normal
process. Our officers will
respond in accordance with our
policy already. We will come
out. We will deal with the
person and and if they want
that person trespassed, we'll
take care of as well. And so on
the front end, it won't look
different on our side of it.
What happens after that day is
a report will be produced by
the officers. It will be sent
over to the city attorney's
office. Then they'll start with
their process of determining
where and when to prosecute
that case.
>> Okay. And what can the
shoplifter or the accused
expect? What what should they
know could happen or.
>> I this is no different from
anything else. And other than
the timing. Normally this would
start a a citation would start
the 14 day clock and they would
expect to be in court within a
couple of weeks. That time
frame is is likely to be
extended a little bit.
>> Okay.
>> Counselors. Counselor Fox.
>> Well, I'd say there's a
couple of things that, you know,
came to mind right away when
the the news broke and we
received notice of this from
many different places. I mean,
one is, I think, pretty summed
up well with one comment we
received from a resident, which
I wrote down, but it was, you
know, rethink what you're
saying out loud, you know, and
so, you know, the message to
staff to our, our, our line
folks as to, you know, what,
what's happening next or what
the procedures are, you know,
filtered out into the community.
And, and perhaps we all
misunderstood perhaps. And so
I'm just wondering. Something,
you know, right away is how
could we have said this better
to our, our folks that are, you
know, working out in the field,
you know, handling these cases,
you know, from the minute the
crime is reported. But how
could we have communicated that
better so that it didn't come
out as a message that perhaps
the city of Vancouver will now,
you know, just let crime happen?
>> Yes, councilor. I believe
that we probably could have
been a little bit more clear in
our in our timing of execution.
And I think that's what may
have caught some of our our
employees off guard. I thought
they, in speaking with some of
them, they believed that the
conversations were going to
continue for a longer period of
time before we came to a point
of actually executing this plan.
And so I we do recognize that
that was that was a failure on
our part. And we'll do better
to, to communicate that type of
change to our folks, because it
is a large, a large scale
change for us operationally.
>> And then the other question
I had, perhaps I just want to
hear it out loud to maybe get
more things said out loud the
right way. But, you know, I
serve on the Children's Justice
Center Justice Council along
with you, chief, that leads the
group. And you know, my first
thought when I saw some of
these reports and saw the
reports saying that folks that
had committed domestic violence
were being released, you know,
I think that just felt like a
slap across the face. And I'm
sure a lot of others felt that
way. So just moving forward,
just to know that those would
be the cases that we are
prioritizing and that the
victims of the crimes would see
justice.
>> Yeah, absolutely. As far as
it is in in our hands to
control, we will be responding
to domestic violence reports of
domestic violence and violent
crime, just like we always have.
Our desire is that our hope is
that by taking the actions
we're taking right now, fewer
of those cases will be
dismissed by a judge somewhere
down the line.
>> That's what I want to hear.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you, chief, for being
here to help clarify some of
this information. A couple of
things that that I understand.
So one is the communication
piece, which you've
acknowledged. We could have
done better on that so that
nobody is surprised. Secondly,
one of the concerns that I
heard is actually of the police
officers. And do they know that
we will have their back, that
we still that there's no gray
ness here. You know, there's
there's this threshold, this
line that there needs to be
clarity that they could still
know that they are supported.
And then secondly, is this what
is what can a public resident
know that is different now with
this directive compared to
before? In light of all the
concerns with whether you're a
business, whether you're a
resident or whether you're a
police officer, what is
different now than before?
>> And thanks for asking that
question. Number one, do we
have our officers back? We
support all of our officers. I
think we go through a pretty
lengthy process to make sure
we're selecting the best people
to serve our community and and
then our policies and the laws
actually are what cover our
officers. And so as long as we
are operating within the
confines of policy and law, our
officers are supported. And and
you said the gray area. I had
an old sergeant who said, yeah,
we live in the gray. And that
that that is the challenge that
we live with day to day. But
our folks are supported and we
try and reaffirm them of that
support. Dayley in terms of
what the public is going to see.
And I think this this is the
the message that we really want
to make sure people receive.
And that is this Vancouver
police has not changed in its
pursuit of of criminal activity
and holding people accountable
for committing crimes in our
city. What has changed is the
method by which those people
are held accountable. So we can
do what we can do on the front
end, but on the back end, it
might take a little bit more
time for them to get in front
of a judge and have their case
heard. And that's what that's
what the public will see. It's
not one thing, something
they'll see visibly, but it's
something they'll understand is
happening in the background. We
there are crimes that we simply
for a variety of factors. We
can't take everyone to jail.
And there's some crimes we just
can't do that on. And that's
not because of this change
solely. This is also. This also
has to do with capacity at our
jail. It simply is. They've
been they have different levels
for allowing people to be
booked in. And they've been in
the red quite frequently lately.
And that means only the highest
level crimes are. Are they
allowing to come in the door?
So there's a this is more than
just one factor. It's not just
one thing. There are several
several things that come into
play, but I can't oversell this.
And that is. The Vancouver
Police Department responds to
911 calls from our citizens to
make sure that they're going to
be safe. We will come out and
address whatever the issue is
for the day. We'll do our best
to get that information into
the hands of the prosecutors so
that they can do what they need
to do.
>> In light of the article that
came out from the Columbian on
this, is there any follow up
messaging to the public on
where you could still kind of
call 911 still going to do
misdemeanors? We're going to
still respond to theft. Our
officers are still going to
have all the tools that they
need to do their job safely and
effectively. I feel like we
need to really come back out
with the messaging to counter
the, the misunderstanding or
the misstep that may have
happened.
>> Yes. And that is we do want
people to continue to call 911.
Don't hesitate. We will respond.
We will respond to those calls
for service. And our overall
goal is to keep our citizens
safe. We do realize that this
change that is happening
internally is going to affect
the speed at which some people
will receive, the
accountability that they that
that they are owed. But in
terms of our interfacing with
the public day to day, there
should not be a change.
>> Okay. And then lastly, I
want to make sure that we're
very clear and transparent with
the public on what we're doing
to address the shortage of
public defense.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you, Councilor Harless.
>> I think one thing that we
can say that the public should
expect to see is less DV crimes
being dismissed. I mean, that
is what the goal is, is that
those kind of situations aren't
happening again. And I think
that's an excellent goal,
clearly. And I would expect
that, you know, if I'm not
going to possibly fathom the
day to day life of an officer
or a deputy out there and
everything that they experience.
But I can make an assumption
that if I arrested someone for
domestic violence and later
found out that that case was
dismissed, I would be honestly,
you know, and you want to see
the victims, see justice. And
especially in things like
domestic violence, which, you
know, when it's that level,
it's a lower level. Domestic
violence could in the future
escalate to a different
situation. And so that's why we
want to be able to address
those cases. And so I think
this is a hard place for us all
to be. But I'm glad that
creative solutions are being
looked at. And I like hearing
that there's partnership
between the police department
and the attorney's office to
come up with solutions and
collaboration so that victims
are seeing that justice. And,
you know, it's also very
difficult for us when we can't
control what the title might be
of an article that doesn't
fully explain the situation.
And I think that was
unfortunate for the Columbian
to have done misguiding the
community on what was actually
happening. I had some questions,
and maybe these are more
questions for Lorne City
Manager. And it's about, you
know, what are our options on
potentially increasing the
rates that are set for public
defenders? Because part of it
is that they can get a better
salary elsewhere, because now
there aren't they aren't able
to take on as many cases. So
thus their overall salary is
reduced if they are doing
public defense. And is there a
potential need for increasing
the budget and exploring that
so we can make sure that we try
to fix this as soon as possible?
>> Would you like me to address
that now, or hold some of the
council questions here for a
bit, because there are a couple
that have been raised already.
Okay, so the the rates are, I
think, definitely an issue
because prior to the change in
the caseload management, the
the attorneys that have
contracts with us get paid a
certain amount for handling the
case, and then they get paid a
larger amount at the case goes
to trial because they aren't
allowed to take as many cases.
That does impact their earning
potential, which creates more
of an incentive for them to
look at joining law practices
or moving into another area of
legal practice. And so you
should expect to see a budget
proposal this fall that would
address that. I have some
flexibility through the course
of the year to be able to
address those. As long as I'm
staying within the current
budget that we are exploring
right now. We do have a couple
of firms, though, that are
under contract that will
continue to provide attorneys
at those rates. I would just
expect them to come back and
renegotiate once those
contracts are getting close to
expiration, or maybe make a
plea that we should adjust them
because of equity issues in the
meantime, that and that's one
potential solution. We are also
looking at changing how we are
metering the cases. There's not
really guidance in the state,
the state expectations about
how that could be done. The
risk with that is that while it
might give us more monthly
capacity to handle cases,
there's also then it introduces
the possibility that you could
run out before the end of the
year. If you would search, you
would find out that that
happened to Spokane County last
year. They got to, I think,
September and didn't have
public defenders available for
an extended period of time to
be able to address cases. We
don't want that to happen
either. We do have
authorization to bring on the
equivalent of at least two more
full time attorneys through the
course of the remainder of this
budget year, and continue to
work with our three primary
firms, in essence, to see who
can get them first so that we
have additional attorneys
available. It's a bit
unfortunate that, you know,
from the perspective of
Vancouver, this is kind of a
self-created problem that was
handed down to us that we're
attempting to do the best we
can to grapple with it. We've
already taken some pretty
extraordinary measures to be
able to allow attorneys to take
more cases on, and we will
continue to to look for those
options as we move forward.
>> Thank you, thank you.
Councilor Hanson.
>> Thank you. Mayor. Yeah.
Looking for that answer along
the same lines as the chief
here. When the chief needs more
police officers, obviously
they're going to put out
incentives and as other
departments have done, to get
more police officers, I would
look for this the same way in a
public defenders. So that's you
know, I'm counting on the fact
that you guys are going to come
up with some very creative
solutions to this problem, but
also to see this in advance,
because now you've seen the
repercussions of what can
happen in the public if that
message gets out and we haven't
thought, looked down or worked
out this problem, and that is
what I'm trying to avoid. This
could be an issue of public
defenders. It could be an issue
of police officers. It could be
an issue of jail space. There
are a lot of different factors.
It could be, but we know what
the factor is right now. So
really looking forward to see
what those solutions are going
to be.
>> Thank you, Councilor Stauber.
>> Thank you mayor. And I guess
kind of echoing the comments
that my colleague just said, I
my wish would have been that
the administration had utilized
council as partners in
confronting a challenge and
trying to figure out potential
solutions for that challenge.
It, you know, that's kind of
what we exist for, is to
confront challenges and think
through best ways forward. So
hopefully, again, opportunities
to have more of that
interaction in the future.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor, we've
covered a lot of ground, and I
don't really have a lot to add
other than just I think one of
the themes this evening has
been an opportunity to
communicate more effectively.
And in that spirit, there have
been a couple of phrases that
have been used this evening
that I'd love to give to
individuals a chance to
elaborate on. So, chief, when
you use the phrase front end
and back end, what specifically
does that mean?
>> I'm sorry, councilor, front
end is where our folks are
actually interfacing with the
public and and investigating
crime, responding to 911 calls.
I call that the front end. The
back end is what happens.
Everything that happens after
that with the prosecutor's
office, with the courts, with
the jail, with probation and
parole, all of those things
that come after our initial
contact in, in solving the
problem.
>> And so then to summarize the
point that you were making when
you use that nomenclature. And
thanks for elaborating on it.
There's really not much change
on the front end other than how
we may choose to triage things,
whether we're going to charge
or refer to the city attorney
for possible later charges. But
ultimately, we're still
receiving 911 calls responding
to 911 calls. We're dealing
with incidents as they occur,
as we would always do. It's
just that there's a different
decision making process about
how they will be dispositioned,
and then that then has
ramifications in your language
on the back end. Is that
correct?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. And then really, the
big changes are on the back end
where we have opportunities to
not force charges within 14
days to create some capacity
within the legal system, which
has been pretty well covered in
the conversation this evening,
as well as to combine charges.
So instead of having three, 4
or 5 charges from multiple
incidents with the same
individual, we can combine
those into one and make the
system work more efficiently as
a result. Is that also true?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then
City Manager, you just used the
phrase this is a self-created
problem. I wonder if you could
elaborate on what you meant
when you said that.
>> Yeah. So I mean, there are,
I think, a lot of opinions
about the way the state of
public defense in Washington.
But one of the issues that has
been identified throughout all
of this is that when these new
caseload standards were handed
down, they were handed down
irrespective of the experience
level of the defense attorneys
that were handling it. And so
they were just handed down that
a you know, someone who is a
first year attorney has just
passed the bar, is being
treated the same as an attorney
that has 15 years of experience
with these types of cases. And
it would seem to logically
follow that an attorney who has
a lot of experience would be
able to handle a case much more
expediently than somebody who's
having to learn the process
along the way. But the blanket
rule affects everyone, so
there's no allowance in there
for attorneys who have just
more built in capacity, more
ability to multitask. And then,
you know, the, the created the
standard, but there were no
tools or anything like that
given to cities or guidance on
how we should address this.
There wasn't, you know, I can
think of a lot of different
things that, you know, if you
want to do something like this,
there's a requirement that
every law firm has to handle X
number of public defense cases
as a condition of being
admitted to the Washington bar.
There are ways it could have
been addressed through policy
at the statewide level, rather
than just saying, we are going
to change the caseload
standards and now cities, since
you have to provide public
defense, you have to go deal
with the consequences of it.
>> One of the points that's
been made, but I don't think
has been underscored enough
this evening, is this point
that you're making right now.
City Manager. What were typical
prior caseloads prior to this
change in the Supreme Court
ruling that that put a cap on
annual caseloads?
>> You have that information?
Yeah, yeah.
>> I can speak to that. So the
there's limits have been in
place for, for quite some time,
and they've just been lowered
significantly. I think it was
400 misdemeanors and 150 some
odd felonies. And then those
have been both of those
categories have been reduced
significantly. I think the
misdemeanors are at 150. And
and felonies are are under 100.
>> And I think that the general
thinking there was that we
would get higher quality
representation because we were
not rushing things through the
system. Right. But, City
Manager, you've said that our
contracts pay on a per case
basis. It's a fixed contract.
So it doesn't matter whether a
person spends a day or a week
on a case, they just get a
fixed fixed payment for that
case. Correct? Correct. And
there's one rate for a
misdemeanor case and one rate
for a felony case. So if you're
an attorney and under the prior
system, you were handling 400
misdemeanors and 100 felonies.
And now you are in a situation
where you can basically your
caseload has been cut in half.
That means that you're doing
fewer cases, but your income
has also been reduced by 50%
because it's no different than
working in a factory. You're
getting paid on a per piece
basis, which is something I
think many of us can understand.
Going all the way back to
picking strawberries. And you
got a certain amount for every
flat that you turned in at the
end of the day, right? That's
when a lot of us realized the
brutality of capitalism. So, so
ultimately, when you say we
have a shortage of attorneys,
it's not that we have a
shortage of attorneys, it's
that we have a shortage of
attorneys who look at the work
that they're going to be asked
to do, and the maximum income
that they can earn from taking
on that caseload. And they say,
thanks, but no thanks. I can
make a better living for myself,
focusing my education and my
efforts and energies elsewhere.
Is that a fair assessment of
the situation?
>> Yes.
>> And so when we talked about
getting that renegotiating that
case amount up to somehow
create a better balance here,
that's what we're talking about,
is to say, let's pay the kids a
little bit more for each flat
of strawberries that we turn in,
so that more kids will ride the
bus up to the field and pick
the strawberries.
>> Yeah. And it's going to be
finding where the new
equilibrium is out there in the
market, because I think public
defense certainly has never
paid the same as being with one
of the elite law firms. So a
lot of the people that do it do
it because they're mission
driven, and it's their passion
to be able to provide public
defense, but they also need to
be able to justify the
investment in all of that time
and all of that education to be
able to, to make it work.
>> Great. Thanks for to both of
you for further clarifying some
of the nomenclature and
underscoring some of the key
thoughts here. Appreciate it.
Thank you, mayor.
>> Thank you, Councilor Paulson.
We're also not putting out a
whole bunch of new lawyers. So
we need more strawberry pickers.
>> And one thing I wanted to
address a little bit is I was I
am aware that the sheriff's
department does have a
different policy on how they're
going to continue to operate
business without knowing a
little bit more about how the
sheriff's the details about how
that works, I can't really
comment on it. It just occurs
to me that this when you think
about things like if that is,
these types of offenses are,
say, a tiny part of their
caseload, then it really
wouldn't have much of an
operational impact to make a
shift for the sheriff's
department. So I think this is
a case where it's kind of an
apples and oranges as far as
the what you would see doing a
lot of primary enforcement
between the two agencies.
>> Okay. Yes. City attorney,
please.
>> Thank you. Mayor, if I might
speak, if I could borrow the
chief's nomenclature a little
bit on the to the back end? Yes.
I think the chief and the city
manager made it very clear that
on the front end, the residents
of Vancouver should expect and
will receive the same level of
service from the Vancouver
Police Department that they've
always received. My experience
with the department in in the
past, specifically month, being
in discussion with them.
They're professional, they're
qualified, they're passionate
about protecting us. I also
want to emphasize that even if
a person is in. Conducting
criminal activity, as the chief
said, it's not as if they won't
have ramifications on the back
end. What will happen is the
Vancouver Police Department
will refer that charge to our
office. We will then have an
opportunity, more than 14 days,
to evaluate that charge and
also add additional charges to
that one case. So we have
examples in our office where
the same individual is charged
multiple times each week, say,
with possession of controlled
substance. Each time that
person gets charged and that
charge in given a citation,
that citation now goes to the
court. The court charges the
city of Vancouver an average
about $200 per case. That
person gets arraigned, must be
arraigned within 14 days, and
they either may not have
committed any other crimes, or
there's nothing else to add to
that possession of controlled
substance charge. They get an
attorney, assuming there are
some available for that one
charge. Vancouver Police
Department respond to a call
from a resident with that same
person. Possession of
controlled substance. The
following week. Same thing.
City of Vancouver gets charged
$200 by the court, an average,
and they get arraigned on that
second charge. They get a
second attorney for that second
charge. And I can give you
examples. Example, when we are
operating, when our prosecutors
are operating under that 14 day
clock, we don't get that same
opportunity to evaluate charges
and on one hand add them to the
current case. So that does two
things. That means they get one
attorney for all those charges
instead of three attorneys. It
also means if we're trying to
address the long term problem,
which Vancouver Police
Department and the city is
doing, if the long term problem
is addiction, as it often is,
if we have an opportunity to
have all these charges on one
case with one person, there's a
possibility we can get them
into community court, or we can
divert them to another program
so that we can address the
underlying issue, which is
often addiction and mental
health. So on. If I may speak
on the back end, the Vancouver
Police Department continues to
do an amazing job, and the
residents of Vancouver will and
can and should expect the same
level of service from VPD. We
are now just working a little
differently. So instead of VPD
handing Mr. Hansen Council
member Hansen a citation when
he goes through my recycling.
And says, you have a court date
within two weeks, VPD will say,
Mr. Hansen, leave the premises.
They will refer that charge to
us and then our prosecutors
will look him up and see there
are a variety of other things
he has been charged with within
the statute of limitations, and
charge him under one case for
all those counts. And he gets
one lawyer. So we have the
statute of limitations within
which to work. So it is true,
as the chief said, they won't
immediately be. Sometimes they
will, but they under this new
protocol, they won't
immediately be arraigned within
14 days. It might take some
time, but what will not happen
is what's happened in the past
three weeks, which is ten
domestic violence cases being
dismissed. We had defense
attorneys available and as the
city manager said, the court
will not. And believe me, we've
asked to prioritize. I'll just
use theft of recycling, let's
say, in a given day. And this
has been an example. This is
not a hypothetical. We had one
defense attorney available. The
court takes the cases as they
come on its docket. They'll
call the case for person Joe
Smith. That's theft of
recycling. Joe Smith says I
need a defense attorney. The
court appoints one. That last
defense attorney is now
representing Joe Smith for
theft of recyclables. The next
person up to get arraigned is
charged with DV assault, the
court says. Are there any
defense attorneys? No. That
suspect is that case is
dismissed. That suspect now
goes home. This is a terrible
situation we're in. I don't
mean to be. I mean, I am upset
about it. We all are. We're in
a very difficult situation. Our
communication most definitely
could have been better. We in
my office have promised, and in
the past few weeks, I've had 4
or 5 conferences with command
staff because understandably,
our officers in the field need
guidance. They need to know
they are operating within the
bounds of the law and the
procedures. They understand
that something has changed.
It's incumbent upon us. City
Attorney's Office, BPD, the
city manager's office, to make
sure our officers are aware of
where those boundaries are. I
don't think we gave them enough
notice, enough communication.
Maybe the same thing would have
happened in terms of the
guild's press release. Maybe
not. I know the chief had a
meeting scheduled with them. I
think they released it on
Tuesday. He had a meeting with
them scheduled on Thursday.
They made the choice to release
it. I don't begrudge them that.
What I'm here to say is my
office, the city attorney's
office, and the prosecutors
intend to prosecute these cases.
Of the 55 that the city manager
mentioned, there is one that we
cannot prosecute because the
statute of limitations has run.
We fully intend to prosecute
the other 45 when we have the
resources and the defense
attorney's to which the
defendants are constitutionally
entitled and we are keeping
track, we've got our
spreadsheets, we've got
everything in the system so
that if there is someone out
there listening that thinks the
doors are wide open and the
city of Vancouver, they're
going to learn the hard way,
and they're going to tell all
their friends that we are
mistaken. It's not open season
in the city of Vancouver. So I
am so sorry. On behalf of my
office, the city attorney's
office, and as the city
attorney, that I didn't do my
part to communicate better to
not only our officers. And the
chief has been an amazing
partner, but to the community
and the residents of Vancouver,
because we are here and we are
we've got your best interests
in mind and that's how we
intend to proceed.
>> Thank you so very much,
councilor.
>> Thank you. Mayor councilor
Paulsen, a nomenclature comment
and then a follow up
opportunity. DV assault is.
>> Domestic violence.
>> Thank you. I don't think
that deserves a shorthand that
it was given in this
conversation, given the gravity
of the point that you were
trying to make. So I appreciate
the comments that you've made,
City Attorney, about what this
is and what this isn't, but I
really want to give you another
opportunity to talk a little
bit more about that, because
you spent most of your time
talking about what you will do,
and you started right at the
end a little bit about what you
won't do. But I want to give
you a little bit of context,
because in the last 5 or 10
years, up and down the West
Coast, prosecuting attorney's
offices have made decisions not
to pursue charges for certain
types of crimes. And it's
widely believed that those
decisions led to an uptick in
crime and other urban issues.
And so a lot of people, in
hearing what they have been
hearing for the last week or so,
are justifiably afraid that we
are taking a similar posture.
So I'd like to give you the
opportunity to speak to what
this is and very importantly,
what this is not in that
specific context.
>> Thank you, Council Member
Paulsen. It is not open season
in Vancouver. Charges can still
be brought and prosecuted. So
there are lower level crimes.
They're still crimes. So for
example, if a Vancouver police
officer cites a person for
domestic violence assault, and
there are also other what we've
now called lower level crimes
associated with that. The
Vancouver. The VPD officer puts
all of those crimes in his or
her report. That entire report
gets sent to our office based
on those crimes. The prosecutor
makes a decision as to what
crimes to prosecute and what,
if any, offers they make with
the defense attorney. So the
crimes will be prosecuted. It
will just be prosecuted
differently in that it gives
the prosecutors now different
tools to go to trial, seek
higher sentences, and or have a
better opportunity to engage
with defense counsel, to ask
the client, the defendant, to
plead to the more serious
charges. If the prosecutor
chooses not to pursue the
lesser charge.
>> And if I may, just to put a
finer point on something that I
think Councilor Paulson may be
leading to on that is that it
is not our intent to not
prosecute and not hold people
accountable. Accountable. What
the city Attorney's office will
do is control when those
prosecutions occur and make
sure that they are occurring in
a way that's to the best
advantage of protecting the
public.
>> Any other comments?
Councilor Stober.
>> Thank you. So I still trying
to follow through terminology
being used. So there's charging
and then there's what we're
doing now is that investigating.
Is that reporting? What is that
terminology. And the second is
does the the city attorney's
office now have a database or
maybe already had a database?
Or how how is this tracking
occurring to know that? Okay,
we've got four things now
stacked up on this individual.
It's time to, I believe the
term would be charge. But yeah.
>> So chief, maybe on the front
end and then I'll pick it up in
the back end.
>> Thank you. On the front end.
And our officers will respond
to a call for service. For
service. They'll conduct an
investigation. They they create
whatever reports need to be
created to document everything
that happened. They'll collect
evidence that all gets bundled
and it gets sent to the city
attorney's office for review.
And there's also those
instances where there still
might be a citation that takes
that person to court. Those are
going to be more rare now just
because we're doing things a
little bit differently. But
after after we're to that point,
we're kind of out of the
process. Unless the prosecutor
needs additional work done, we
don't do anything else until
until there are court hearings
on the matter.
>> So so if I can dive deeper
here. So. Officer has a
computer terminal in their
vehicle.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So. Is there one
button that says. Citation
slash charge? That's what. And
a different one says submit
report or what? What's
practically happening in that
vehicle.
>> Thank you for asking. So
there is a computer that our
officers enter the information
into, and then they have an
opportunity to issue a citation
or to refer refer a case to the
City Attorney's office for
review for prosecution. What
has occurred to this point? And
I think what kind of brought
some of this to the head is the
opportunity to cite. And when I
say cite, issue a citation for
a person to show up in court
has been removed for certain
crimes.
>> So again, two different
buttons.
>> It's well, it's on the
screen, sir. It's yeah, it's a
click. It's a mouse. Click on a
button on the screen.
>> Okay.
>> And then on the back end, if
it's a citation. So the officer
has cited the person. That
citation goes to the court. So
now it's part of the court
record. My office gets that
same information. And within 14
days my that person has to be
arraigned. The citation that
the officers issued have a
court date on them. So they
show up at that date. They are
arraigned at that date and
given a defense attorney. If
there are some available,
distinguish that from. If this
officer does not issue a
citation and presses the refer
button and forgive me, I don't
know if there's actually a
button that says that. I don't
think so. Maybe there is.
>> It's a mouse.
>> Click okay, it's a mouse
click. If that charge, that
charge is referred to our
office, the court doesn't know
anything about it doesn't
charge the city $200 to open a
file. The person doesn't show
up in court. The victim doesn't
show up in court expecting
justice, only to hear that the
case has been dismissed. So
when the mouse click goes to
refer, that also comes to our
office. It is assigned to a
prosecutor. And yes, we have
elaborate software that we
utilize. It's actually the same
that the county does to make it
easy for our prosecutors and
our defense attorneys and our
judges. Everybody's on the same
system. We don't have access to
each other's system, but it's
the same setup. And then our
prosecutor gets assigned that
thing that happened, that VPD
officer referred to us and then
starts making some decisions,
looking to see what other
charges, if any, this person
has, looking to see if the
person is eligible for
community court or diversion.
Looking to see if there are
other charges bringing them all
in one case with different
counts in that one case, and
then making decisions about how
best to proceed.
>> So again now, okay, that's
the other word that was used
charges. So in my mind I'm
thinking a citation is a charge.
And but instead of citations
we're doing referrals. So is it
still a charge if we haven't
sent it to the court yet?
>> Referral is a charge, but
only if the prosecutor charges
it.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Versus a citation is an
automatic charge, correct?
>> Okay. Thank you, Counselor
Hanson.
>> Thank you. Mayor.
>> It's been a little difficult
to follow this, and we've been
asking some great questions,
and I've been hearing some word
salad, and I've been hearing a
little bit of criminal justice
engineering. I think the real
point is what are we going to
do to fix it? What are we going
to do with our defense for
folks? And I think it's also
important that you know how we
stand, because we are the ones
that are inevitably responsible
for this. And this is not
acceptable. So I'm looking to
you, city Manager, my one
seventh of this dais to say,
please, by all means, fix this.
>> It might be a legislative
fix that needs to happen. Also,
Councilor Fox, did you have a
comment? Councilor Perez,
Councilor Harless, you're the
last one tonight.
>> I don't know that this was
elaborated on or not. Is there
any community within or within
Washington? This was just
brought to my attention, so I
haven't looked it up myself for
means testing, so to speak, for
whether or not someone actually
needs they can't afford a
defense attorney.
>> I'm not familiar with what
happens in other areas. I do
know that we do not do means
testing here for indigent
defense. The person comes in
and makes the statement that
they cannot afford or need
representation and an attorney
assigned to them. I don't know
if that is a statewide practice
or if that is unique to our
area.
>> Councilmember Harless, if I
may follow up, that's something
that the chief has brought up
on a number of occasions, and
our intention in our office is
to address that with the court.
I understand that the court
does ask defendants to fill out
financial disclosure. I'll
loosely use that word. I am
unaware of any vetting or
follow up on that. They have
three choices. They are not
eligible for indigent defense
attorney. They are eligible or
a middle ground, or they have
some ability to pay. And when
I've asked my prosecutors what
level of inquiry goes into that,
there is that the prosecutor
sees for. Maybe the court has
engaged in some, but it has
resulted in the court
determining that everybody is
entitled to that. So one of the
things I mentioned to the city
manager just today is I'm going
to work with our city
prosecutor and the courts to
better understand what it is,
the vetting that they go
through, if any, and if there
is none. Encourage and ask the
court how our office can assist
in that. So again, trying to
address the number of people,
if they are entitled to it
constitutionally. Absolutely.
We have had at least my
diversion coordinator has
reported she's in charge of
making sure people are who are
on probation and doing what
they're supposed to do. She
sees their work history. She
knows this person has been
fully employed for three years.
Yet when the case first came
forward, this individual said
he was indigent and needed a
defense attorney and got one.
So we will also address getting
to Council member Hanson's
point and everyone's point.
What else are we doing? We're
also going to address who is
eligible. Make sure the people
who are eligible get one, but
the people who are not don't.
>> Thank you and look forward
to hearing back about the
possible lovers that and how we
might be able to help here as
well. Thanks.
>> Okay. Thank you chief. Have
a good evening, city manager.
Did you have any other
communications?
>> Nothing else for me tonight,
mayor.
>> Thank you. That concludes
our business and we will now be
moving into the community forum.
This is where we hear from our
folks on any particular item
that was not on the agenda.
However, I don't have any cards.
City clerk do we have any cards
for the forum this evening? No.
All right then, we thank you
for joining us this evening and
we're adjourned.