I don't have the agenda on my
screen yet.
>> Just in case you need it.
Okay. Agenda.
>> I had it on for a moment ago.
Hello. Good evening everyone.
I'm Sarah Fox, I'm the mayor
pro tem, and I'll be running
the meeting tonight. It's 630.
We're going to get started as a
reminder to anyone who's
testifying tonight. You need to
make sure you have your your
microphone on. And when we do
have time for folks to speak,
we have a council policy 132
for all speakers to not exceed
a three minute time period. And
also that they need to speak on
matters that pertain to city
business. So if you exceed
those that time frame, I'll ask
you to conclude your remarks.
If you continue speaking, I'll
again ask you to stop speaking
and warn you that failure to do
so will result in the
suspension of your privilege to
speak to council for 90 days.
And finally, if you continue
beyond that warning, you'll be
issued a written notice of the
90 day suspension of your
ability to provide testimony at
council meetings. So hopefully
everyone heard our rules for
tonight and how to communicate
when you're up at the at the
desk there, if you have any
other questions, you can always
reach out to staff. And with
that, let's begin with 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.
>> All right, Miss Maroon,
could you give us the roll call?
>> Council member. Harless.
>> Present.
>> Perez present. Mayor Pro tem
frock's.
>> Present.
>> Paulson. Here. Stover here.
Hanson present. Mayor.
McInerney. Ogle.
>> Moved to excuse. Mayor
McEnerny Ogle.
>> Got a motion and a second.
All in favor? I any opposed?
All right. She has been excused.
All right, moving on to our
next item. This will be fun for
me. We have three proclamations
tonight. We have. The first up
is the International Week of
Deaf People. And who do we have
tonight to accept the
proclamation? Kelly Saruta, is
that right? I'm sorry. Please
let me know how to say your
name. Do we have Kelly here
tonight?
>> Yes.
>> Wonderful. You can come up
to the desk if you'd like.
>> Other members of that school.
I bring them up with me.
>> Yes, please. Sitting is
great. All right, I'll read the
proclamation. Whereas the
Washington Center for Deaf and
Hard of Hearing Youth and the
Washington School for the deaf
serve the state of Washington
in our community to support the
education of deaf and hard of
hearing students. And whereas
the fourth week of September is
recognized internationally as
an opportunity for communities
to come together and celebrate
deaf individuals, their
language and culture, as well
as their accomplishments and
goals for the future. And
whereas the deaf community is
enriched by American Sign
Language, which is communicated
through hands, facial
expression and body movements.
And whereas, the City of
Vancouver recognizes every deaf
individual as a human being
with the ability to achieve
anything like anyone else, and
the deaf community is a vibrant
cultural group with a rich
history and language that
greatly enriches the diversity
of our city. Now therefore, I,
Sarah Fox, Mayor Pro Tem of
Vancouver, Washington, do
hereby proclaim the 21st
through the 27th of September
as International Week of Deaf
people in the City of Vancouver
and call upon the people of
Vancouver to honor this
observance with appropriate
programs, ceremonies, and
activities. All right. Usually
I come.
>> Down and, well, I don't.
This will be my first time.
Would you like to have a photo
taken or do you want to take a
photo? Yeah, I like to say
something. Thank you so much.
>> All right. Thank you so much
for being here tonight. Our
next proclamation is Food Waste
Prevention Week. Let's see. All
right. Meg Johnson and Will
elder, we're going to join us.
All right Meg. Okay. Whereas
approximately one third of all
food produced in the world is
wasted. And in the United
States, over 29% of the food
supply available went unsold,
was wasted or uneaten. And
whereas Washington generates
1.1 million tons or 2.2 billion
pounds of food waste annually,
including 400 000 tons of
edible food disposed of in the
landfill, resulting in hundreds
of billions of dollars in
economic loss annually. And
whereas food waste has
considerable climate impacts
through its production,
handling and transportation,
which generates significant
carbon dioxide emissions,
releases excess methane gas
when sent to the landfill,
which contributes to climate
change and enormous resource
loss. And whereas, Vancouver's
Climate Action Framework and
Strategic Plan provide policy,
support and guidance for
preventing food waste and
diverting organic materials
from the landfill and is
consistent with Washington's
goal of reducing food waste by
50% by 2030. And whereas
preventing food waste is a
valuable way, community members,
businesses and organizations
across the city can best use
food well, reduce harmful
greenhouse gas emissions, and
increase food security for our
most vulnerable populations.
Now, therefore, I, Sarah Fox,
Mayor Pro Tem of Vancouver,
Washington, do hereby proclaim
September 28th through October
4th, 2026 as Food Waste
Prevention Week in the City of
Vancouver and encourage all
community members and
businesses in our community to
join me in this special
observance and consider
learning about and taking
meaningful actions to prevent
and reduce food waste. All
right.
>> Let's do we. Is this out of
order? I feel.
>> Like this is out of order,
but you guys.
>> Tell me, well, doing great.
Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council members.
It's very long winded. Good job
Sarah, I'm Meg Johnson, a solid
waste analyst in public works
solid waste department here at
the City. Food Waste Prevention
Week is a global, celebrated
event that gives an opportunity
to reduce food waste and
reconnect with the true value
of food and the role that it
plays in all of our lives.
Through this proclamation,
Vancouver joins our regional
partner, Clark County, and
other cities across the state,
along with Governor Ferguson,
to affirm the commitment to
preventing food waste and
raising awareness of the cost
of wasted food not just dollars
and cents, but social and
ecological costs. For example,
emissions from food waste are
estimated around 10% of all
global emissions more emissions
than from the entire airline
industry. So some perspective
there. Food Waste Prevention
Week is a great opportunity to
recenter our food priorities
using food well, eating
leftovers, preserving food,
storing food correctly, grocery
shopping with a plan, and using
what's already on hand. When
food is viewed through the
perspective of the months of
growth, care, and resources
that make up every single bite,
we respect the efforts of
farmers, producers, and workers
who make those bites possible.
The City of Vancouver aligns
with the state goal of reducing
the amount of organic material
going to the landfill by 50% by
2030. By making small changes
in our daily lives around food
and using food well, we can
make an impact and difference
in our community. And a quick
plug for Clark County's Waste
Buster Challenge that starts on
the first day of Food Waste
Prevention Week, September 28th.
Next Monday. It's a 21 day
challenge with prizes that
helps folks reduce food waste.
Seek out more information
through Clark County's Green
Neighbors website. And thank
you so much for your support
and commitment to our food
system and community waste
prevention strategies.
>> Thanks all.
>> Thank you. All right. Our
next proclamation is Week
Without Driving. Jean Anne
Edwards, Darina Hatch and Adam
Argo. They're here. Might as
well join us up here. All right.
This proclamation begins with.
Whereas access to mobility is
fundamental to health, safety,
economic opportunity and
community connection, enabling
community members to reach
education, employment, medical
care, food, recreation, faith
communities and social networks.
And whereas many people cannot
afford the cost of a car, and
nearly a third of the people
residing in the U.S. do not
drive either because of
systemic barriers to driving
their age or a condition that
does not allow them to drive,
including elders and people
with disabilities. And whereas
transportation represents the
largest source of greenhouse
gas emissions in the United
States, in our region and in
Vancouver, and to meet our
city's climate and greenhouse
gas emissions reduction goals
of net carbon neutrality by
2040, we must reduce emissions
in our transportation sector.
Whereas the 2024 to 20 2044
2044 Transportation System Plan
envisions a city where
vancouverites can travel safely
and efficiently by all modes,
sets policy to encourage the
adoption of non drive modes and
invest in projects and programs
to expand transportation
options. And whereas,
participate in week without
driving by taking some or all
trips via a non driving mode to
build an understanding of the
needs of our neighbors and
increase awareness of ways we
can continue to improve our
transportation system. Now
therefore, I, Sarah Fox, Mayor
Pro Tem of Vancouver,
Washington, do hereby proclaim
the week of October 1st through
October 8th, 2026 as week
without driving in the city of
Vancouver and encourage
community members, community
organizations, businesses and
public officials to participate,
reflect, and work toward a
future where everyone,
regardless of age, ability or
income, has safe, affordable
and sustainable transportation
options. Okay, I'm going to
walk down there again, so.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Who wants to go
talk to us first?
>> I will be glad to.
>> Thank you all for these
proclamations. It does make a
difference to those of us who
are trying to make sure we
showcase things. And thank you
for a lot of the commissioners
who I know joined us last year
in week without driving, and I
hope you do again this year. My
name is Jean Ann Edwards. I'm
the executive director at
Community of Motion. We're
helping the city this year try
to put a bigger focus on week
without driving, and have
several things going on
throughout the week, but I just
wanted you guys to think about
your morning routine. We wake
up, we grab our coffee, we get
ready, and then we head out the
door. And for most of us, that
means getting in our car and
driving to work in southwest
Washington. As we said, close
to 80% of the people. That is
their main way of driving or
getting to where they need to
go. So we don't even think
about it anymore. Driving has
become a default setting for
modern life. It's an invisible
thread that connects our homes,
our workplaces, grocery stores,
and our schools. But for the
first week of October, we're
asking people to challenge
themselves to do something
radical, something deeply
challenging, and something
incredibly rewarding.
Participate in the week without
driving. This week is not just
about leaving your car in the
driveway. It's about shifting
your perspective, opening our
eyes, and experiencing our
communities from the ground up.
For many of us, participating
in this challenge is a
temporary experiment. It's a
lifestyle choice we're making
for one week, but for nearly
one fourth of the people in our
communities, every single week
is a week without driving. When
we designed our community
strictly for cars, we
inadvertently built walls
around people who cannot drive.
Our elders have given up their
keys. Teenagers trying to get
after school jobs, people with
physical, mental or visual
disabilities, and low income
families who can't afford the
financial burden of a car
ownership. When a community
lacks safe sidewalks, enough
reliable public transit, and
protected bike lanes, we're not
just creating traffic, we're
cutting people off from
opportunity. We make it harder
for them to reach a doctor, get
to a grocery store, or to hold
down a job. This week is an
exercise in empathy. Stepping
out of our cars allows us to
step into the shoes of our
neighbors. Inside a car, the
world moves fast. Your climate
controlled bubble shows a blur
of concrete signs and
taillights. You might be
stressed by traffic or for
looking for a parking spot, but
when you walk, take a bus or
ride a bicycle. The world opens
in a different way. You notice
your neighborhood. You see
local businesses that you might
not even notice. When you're in
your car, you notice which
streets have beautiful, mature
trees and which ones are
completely exposed to the
elements. You notice the
infrastructure gaps. You
realize where the sidewalk
suddenly ends. When you step in
that puddle, you learn how
little 12 seconds is when
you're trying to cross a six
lane road. You connect with
others on a bus. You're
surrounded by your community.
You experience the diversity in
a different way. You exchange
greetings with your neighbors,
share a smile with a child, or
simply read a book instead of
gripping the steering wheel.
We've been conditioned to
believe that car ownership
equals freedom. But when we
look closer, our total
dependency on cars has a
staggering cost. There's the
environmental toll.
Transportation is one of the
leading contributors to
greenhouse gas emissions. Every
mile we walk or bike instead of
drive is a breath of cleaner
air for the future community.
There's also the financial toll.
Owning a car is incredibly
expensive, estimated at 12000 a
year for monthly payments, fuel
insurance and unexpected
repairs. Think about what
families can do with $12,000 a
year. There's the toll on our
physical and mental health. We
spend hours sitting in traffic,
sedentary and stressed. Chronic
loneliness is on the rise and
sedentary lifestyle that comes
from driving everywhere,
parking up close and closing
yourself inside a box doesn't
help that humans were meant to
move, to walk and to interact.
So surviving and thriving
during this week of without
driving starts with preparation
and a little bit of patience.
So download C-TRAN transit app,
map out your routes ahead of
time, give yourself some extra
time to get to your destination
and treat it as an adventure,
not an inconvenience. Research
is the best way to to secure
your bicycle while you're at
work or the grocery store, but
mostly, keep a mental log of
your experience. When you find
a transit route that was
seamless and efficient,
celebrate it when you find a
street that feels dangerous to
walk down, remember it and when
the week's over, hopefully you
don't just forget about your
experience, but become an
advocate. Share our experiences
with urban planners, C-TRAN,
and the city to make
transportation better for all.
I hope you'll embrace this
challenge. Enjoy the fresh air.
Appreciate the extra steps.
Look your fellow commuters in
the eye. Take pride in the fact
that you are part of a movement
towards a cleaner, kinder, and
more accessible world. If you
can't do the entire week, what
can you do and how can you get
around differently? Thanks.
>> Thank you.
>> And I just want to thank you
for coming up and talking about
the transit app, because to
some folks, it can be a little
bit intimidating as far as
planning your trips. Download
the transit app and you will
find out just how easy it is to
plan your trips. And also have
a shout out to our CEO of
C-TRAN back there. Hi, Lehan.
>> Hi.
>> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.
>> Sure.
>> All right, that concludes
all of our proclamations for
tonight. Thank you, everyone
for being here. We'll wait just
a minute. Yes, folks that would
like to stay and continue being
here are still here. All right.
Our next item on the agenda is
community communication. And
this is the time to speak to
the items one through ten. It
doesn't include any of the
public hearing items. So just
to make a note of that and the
only person, unless we do we
receive anything else, any
other.
>> I believe you have one. Just
one preregistration that's
listed on your.
>> All right. So we have we'll
go with the person who's here
in person. So it's Carmen de
Lehan. So speaking to items one
through ten. Carmen.
>> Hello. All right. It's
working. So speaking to items
one through ten. So I'm going
to kind of make them all
together because let's see item
like love outreach is for like
homeless, right? And let's see
the other outsiders operation
of the safe stay community
homeless. And there's a bunch
of stuff about homeless. So I
would like to say that all
these things put together, you
know, they should not even be
having to do it if churches
practice what they preach.
Because like I've said, I've
seen basketball court
fellowship halls empty all week
long that can be filled with
the homeless, and the churches
own billions of dollars in
property because they're exempt.
So I don't even think this
should be an expenditure. I
think that the churches should
practice what they preach, and
in order to have an exempt
status, they should show you a
solution for homelessness so
that all this becomes obsolete
and put it where the, you know,
the do gooders can do good and
walk the walk, not just talk
the talk. And when you're
talking about the homeless, I
was wondering about the mobile
service because I haven't seen
it once. I haven't seen that
mobile service. Nowhere on the
streets since it's been, oh,
big deal. They're going to do a
homeless are coming to the
homeless community. Where I
drove around there, I saw tents.
I saw nobody else helping.
Anyways, what was number seven?
Was that it? Nope. That was
bridge shelter. But there's
this thing about the parks,
right? Isn't there? Number two?
Was it two about the parks?
>> There is. Yes.
>> Okay. So how come the parks
hopefully. I didn't see all of
it. But I have been to the new
ones and they got fake grass.
And if you've never skied on
fake grass, it burns. Natural
grass is for humans. Fake grass
is for nobody. So if you guys
are going to do upgrade
so-called upgrades to these
parks, can you make it go back
to what's good and decent and
just a basic swing and monkey
bars instead of this new stuff
that is, there's some pole that
goes around in circles. All
you're doing is making your
kids dizzy. You want them to
have, what do they call those?
Those, you know, they do it in
training for the army, the
ropes and you and you walk up.
You climb up the ropes, you
build upper body strength for
these kids. You don't let them
just be sitting around getting
fat and lazy. You have to make
them sweat. Otherwise they're
going to get confused. You got
to work it off, man. So when I
say upgrades to the parks, I
mean solar powered lights and
real grass and homes for the
bees built into the park homes.
I mean, you want to make a
structure that's welcoming bird
houses, like the ones I've seen
down there that that welcome
homes for the Eagles. We have
like 3 or 4 eagles living over
there off. What is it called?
Like you're going to Vancouver
Lake and why can't we do that
in all the parks where we make
it be friendly, bird friendly,
and make those children sweat
to get their mind off of the
the TV and all that, because
that's just destroying them.
They need to get physical. And
I don't mean by just going
around in circles.
>> All right. Thanks for your
testimony, Carmen. All right.
Online we should have Kimberly
going Elbon.
>> Kimberly going Elbon. So has
anybody ever been in a perfect
storm? Well, I locked my keys
in my car yesterday. I didn't
have a chance to go to the
library to print off, which I
normally do, the agenda and
anything else that I was
interested in speaking on. But
the perfect storm part of it is,
is, is I'm still waiting for my
locksmith, but I usually for
the last 5 to 6 years that I've
been speaking here at these
council meetings, have been
able to be on my telephone, my
phone, my, my cell phone for
looking up agendas. And I can
usually tap on things. So I
want to let you know that my
phone is, I think, being
targeted. I think it's being
blocked. And I'm not sure why.
I know that. I spoke to Melo
here yesterday and she tried
her phone and laptop and it was
not. The agendas are grayed out.
I can go to the let me pull it
up again here. I can go to the.
I. I go to the meeting files
where it has a little paper
clip has shows absolutely
nothing. It's all grayed out.
Then I go over to the meeting
overview, which is, you know,
numbers one through ten or
whatever it is and shows the
public hearings and things. And
I can tap on staff reports or
redetachments on, on for the
last two weeks. Now I tap on it
and it comes up all gray. So
there's absolutely no way that
I've been able to access your
agenda tonight. I'd like
somebody to fix that. It's not
my phone. And I've turned it
off and and done all that. But
it happened last week too. So
that's kind of why I didn't
speak last week. But I need
somebody to look into that. And
I did leave a message with
Sarah on her recording. She's
not there until Wednesday, I
guess. And then so I need
somebody to look into that. I
want to mention that Vancouver,
when when Pro Tem mayor was
warning everybody about how to
speak and that they only get
three minutes of stuff, I'm
thinking, wow, she's talking to
me and mellow because nobody
else is there. So I kind of
find that a little bit humorous.
We've been through quite a bit
of a war zone, haven't we, as
far as food waste, you know, I
don't hear anybody talking
about how clean or dirty our
food is, not only through the
water that we're that's
polluted with PFAs, fluoride,
people's whatever else they
take as far as medications. So
food has become almost
poisonous. And I think you need
to educate the people on that.
You know, if you really cared,
and I'm sure you'd like to
think you do, that's for sure.
So yeah, food waste is a big
deal.
>> All right. That's the end of
your three minutes. We have no
other cards for testimony on
the community communication
portion of this meeting. So
we'll move on to our consent
agenda. Counselors, do you want
to pull any items from the
consent agenda tonight? We have
items one through ten. Okay.
Then I'll look for a motion.
Motion by Councilor Hanson.
>> Second Perez.
>> Second by Perez. All in
favor?
>> Aye, aye.
>> Any opposed? All right.
Motion passes. All right. Next
up, we have public hearings and
our first public hearing is
item 11. It's the 2025 HUD
Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation report. They'll
be using the acronym caper
quite a bit in this
presentation. We'll start with
the staff summary. If you could
introduce yourself to staff.
>> Hello.
>> I am Tasha Slater. I'm
senior housing planner with
Economic Prosperity and Housing,
and I will be going over the
2025 HUD Consolidated Annual
Performance and Evaluation
report, also known as the caper.
The slides aren't.
>> Oh, there.
>> We go. The overview will be
just a review of our HUD
process, the 2025 expenditures
and outcomes. And then at the
end, we'll have discussion and
public comment. So every cycle
starts with a five year
consolidated plan. Right now
we're in the 2024 to 2028. And
then each of the five years is
broken into one year annual
action plans that go from July
1st to June 30th. And then the
report, the caper is kind of
ties up the end of the year. So
today I'm reporting on the 2025
caper, which will be the second
year of the consolidated plan
that went from July 1st, 2025
to June 30th, 2026. Our five
year plan goals are broken into
four main categories affordable
housing, economic opportunity,
stability and poverty reduction,
and neighborhood livability.
Okay, so our first is Cdbg
expenditures Community
Development Block grant. We
broke it up into the different
activities home economic
opportunity, homeowner rehab,
which is our city rehab program,
housing services, which is in
partnership with our tenant
based rental assistance. HUD
allows a 15% cap or has a 15%
cap on public services. So we
did that. And then section 108
is a payment for our loan for
the fourth plane Commons. Those
activities with admin went to a
little over 1.6 million. And
then our home expenditures are
for home buyer assistance and
our tenant based rental
assistance program. I also
included our home ARP services.
Home ARP was awarded or
American Rescue Plan was
awarded $2.5 million, but it is
tied to our 2021 plan. We were
given until 2030 to spend out,
and in 2025 we spent 213,000.
So a little over $1 million
spent with home funds. Okay.
That first category, affordable
housing we spent or we served
five, we rehabbed five homes
using our city program. That
number is a little bit smaller
than it is in typical years,
and that's because we received
Arpa funding. And so our rehab
team spent half the year
rehabbing mobile homes in the
fourth plan area. And just
because that's a different
funding source, it's not
included in this report. But I
did want to highlight that. And
next year, we expect our number
to go back to what it's been in
normal years. And then 32
households were served with
rental assistance, and then 12
homeowners became first time
home buyers. And I have a story
from Evergreen Habitat for
humanity's program. So
Evergreen Habitat for humanity
builds new affordable homes and
partners with local developers
and the Vancouver Housing
Authority to take existing
homes, rehab them, and sell
them using home down payment
assistance funds. One of the
households that received the
down payment assistance was a
veteran who receives VA
benefits. She also picks up
several shifts per month as a
youth care specialist at a
local nonprofit, in order to
save money and give back to our
community. Through this program,
she was able to purchase a
rehabbed home on her relatively
fixed income. The next category
is economic opportunity. In
2025, 240 businesses were
Microenterprise businesses were
assisted. I also have a story
of a local child care provider
who recently opened a licensed
family home, the homeowner or
the owners were new parents and
had a background as an educator
in Cuba, and they wanted to
find safe, reliable childcare
and took this as an opportunity
to maybe open their own child
care business. So they worked
with Hispanic Metropolitan
Chamber and Self and received
support with Business Planning,
registering their LLC,
navigating business licensing
requirements and developing
their marketing strategy and
online presence. The path to
opening their business was not
easy, and they faced some
obstacles from finding a home
that could meet child care,
licensing requirements and
navigating a lengthy licensing
process. In August 2026, Little
Prince Academy became fully
licensed and is now offering
high quality care to local
families. Okay, and finally, is
our housing stability and
poverty reduction. We serve 246
people, 109 of those were
through Community Mediation
Services, Landlord Mediation
Assistance Program, and 137
people were through the Dynamic
Diversion Program with Council
for the homeless. I also have a
story with Council for the
Homeless Dynamic Diversion
Program. They were working with
a client that had steady
employment but was laid off
after ten years of service. He
did his best to keep up with
expenses, but without income,
his situation worsened. He was
eventually forced to move out
of his home and live in his
vehicle, and after a year, his
car was repossessed and he
began living in a tent near the
freeway. Despite these
challenges, the client
maintained employment while
living in the tent. After
several months, he felt ready
to explore housing options
again. He contacted council for
the homeless hotline and was
referred to dynamic diversion
for support. After weeks of
navigation and small financial
assistance for moving costs, he
was able to secure a studio
apartment that fit his budget
and provided long term
stability. And then again, we
have the hallmark outcomes.
They're important to note, even
though they're part of the 2021
action plan. I just wanted to
show that Council for the
Homelessness Coordinated
Outreach Program served 64
households in partnership with
our safe state communities.
Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. All
right. So what we will first is
does Council have any questions
for Tasha? All right. Then
we'll open the public hearing
portion and we can bring it
back for other questions and
discussion. We have signed up
for public hearing. Carmen.
Carmen, you have three minutes.
>> Yeah. Hey, thanks. It's me,
Carmen Molodih Lehan again. And
I read through this thing, too.
And maybe I'm not so easily
impressed because according to
their own. Expenditures account,
we're looking at, I don't know,
a million, a million and a half
ish, 1.67 million, you know,
and they helped a total of,
what was it, 246 people, really?
And you're going to give them
more money really? Because
according to this, obviously
they helped 12 people. That's
one a month, one a month with
habitat for humanity, which
I've discussed before that that
should have been burnt out and
used a long time ago, but they
use it a whopping once a month
for a year, and they're getting
paid in the millions. AM I the
only one delusional here? And
what does it say? Re
homeownership, rehab, housing
services, whatever. I don't
really care what it says. As
for all of that, individually,
I just get worried because the
administration fees is 2.200
000 and almost 40, almost
almost a quarter million on
administration fees. But yet
the housing rental assistance
was 400 000. So you're pretty
much paying more in
administration fees than
actually housing people,
helping them with rental
insurance and payments and all
of this. So I do have a problem
with this. Let me see. Where's
the rest of it? Yeah, let's see
250 people. Oh, and then she
said about the child care and
does that count. Can I talk
about child care?
>> You can talk about anything.
That's part of this particular
public.
>> Okay. Because she said about
child care on this. And from a
personal point of view, I found
it much better to stay at home
and raise my own child than pay
just to work, to have somebody
else raise my child and make
them all kind of confused. I
did it myself. So, I mean, it's
great that you want to provide
child services, but it should
be free because if you're going
to give your child's brain up
to somebody else and you're
actually going to pay for it,
it doesn't make any sense
because I've lived in countries
where I've seen mothers with
their children digging out of
the garbage to get their dinner.
There's mom and her kids
digging through the garbage
trying to find their food. And
the sad part is, I used to
think that was in Guatemala.
But now I come to United States
and I see people digging out of
the McDonald's garbage is
looking for those tossed out,
half a hamburger, half a
cheeseburger to eat. We're
becoming this close to a third
world country if we're not
already there. So we're
demoting ourselves from a first
world nation to a third world
nation. Take it from somebody
who lived overseas various
times. I used to kiss the
ground when I came to United
States. I said, that's never
going to happen here. And what
do I have? Tent city.
>> All right. Our next public
hearing testimony is Kimberly.
Is she online for this one? All
right. Three minutes. Kimberly.
>> Please unmute your mic if
you'd like to speak.
>> Oh, sorry. God. Good evening
again, Kimberly. Well, to make
the storm even worse, caller
was calling in. So I, you know,
end call, hold call, no God.
And then it wouldn't go away.
So anyway, it was my locksmith,
you know, and I brought it up
to before and did bring it up.
I, I just hope that the public
listens to this because
millions of hard earned tax
dollars have gone into housing,
mostly to administrative. And I
think this last six years has
been a total rip off. We want
to make sure I heard Build
America, Buy America Act. I'm
hoping that that's actually
happening, that we're not being
a sanctuary city and don't
really care about the
constitutional rights of
America and this and that, that
you might go outside of America.
Some people hate America, don't
they? But there are strict
federal compliance rules. So I,
I just basically have been
wanting people to wake up and
audit. I think that Vancouver,
I think all of Clark County.
And that's all I really care
about right now, you know, is
Clark County that they get
audited. And we're going to
find out a lot of stuff,
especially because we are a
sanctuary county. Also, it just
when we vote people in, we want
to trust that they're following
the Constitution and the will
of the people. And we. And
recognize that we are a nation
under God. And when rogue
states or counties or cities.
>> Kimberly, are you are you
going to speak about the
consolidated annual Performance
and evaluation report?
>> Yeah, I am, I'm getting off
a little bit there. Yeah, I, I
think I'll just stick with the
fact that they're spending too
much money on administration.
And so let's, let's cut some of
that out. In fact, you're
wanting people to prepare to
not have cars. People don't
know that. But there's going to
be zero emissions in Vancouver.
Right. Or all these sanctuary
cities. But why don't you guys
prepare to not have a paycheck
or have such a huge government?
Let's cut down on the
government costs. Thank you.
And God bless.
>> All right. That concludes
our public hearing. We have no
other cards on file for this
particular item. So we'll bring
it back to council for any
discussion or further questions.
None from this side.
>> Move to approve.
>> I hear a motion to approve
from Council Member Hansen. Do
I have a second, second, second
from Councilor Paulson? All in
favor?
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed?
>> We need to do a roll call.
>> Unanimous. Oh, we need a
roll call. Vote. Sorry. All
right.
>> Council member Harless. I
Council member Perez I Fox. I
Paulsen. I Stover I Hansen I.
>> All right, the motion passes.
That concludes this public this
item on our agenda. We're going
to move to item number 12. And
item 12 is an appeal of the
hearing examiner's approval of
Swift Terrace infill
subdivision. PRJ169657 LUP
85734. And it's a resolution
denying Jonathan McLaughlin,
Joshua Grant, Kevin Devine,
Timothy Sherburn, Laura
Sherburn and Jason Vosburgh who
are all the appellants. An
appeal of the hearing
examiner's decision, granting
approval of a preliminary plat
to HNDC LLC for an 18 lot
subdivision to be located at
2410 North East 54th Street.
And with that read into, I
guess, the record, the title. I
will be recusing myself from
this item on the agenda as I am
related to one of the
appellants.
>> Mayor Pro tem will be
recusing.
>> As well.
>> So we have two members of
council recusing themselves,
and so I will ask that
Councilor Stober conduct the
hearing.
>> And you have two folks
testifying. Okay.
>> Good evening. So as
background as to how I come to
be sitting here, first of all,
as council policy number 100-32,
it states that if the mayor and
Mayor pro tem are absent, the
most senior member in
attendance at the meeting shall
act in the capacity as leader
of the meeting. So that would
be me. Secondly, the city
charter states that a majority
of council constitutes a quorum.
And so therefore, with four
members in attendance, we still
have a quorum for this.
Continuing on. The purpose of
this closed. Did we already did
she already read all that
section? Okay, good. The
purpose of this closed record
appeal hearing, which is now
open, is to consider the
appellant's appeal and decide
whether to either deny the
appeal and uphold the hearings.
Examiner's final order granting
approval of the land use
application, or grant the
appeal and overturn the hearing
examiner's final order, which
would result in denial of the
land use application. As this
is a quasi judicial appeal
hearing, with the council
deciding the outcome of a
specific application, it
implicates the appearance,
appearance of fairness.
Doctrine of chapter 42.36 of
the Revised Code of Washington,
requiring disclosure of any
communications by Council
members about the merits of the
proposal with proponents or
opponents of the application
outside of an open public
meeting. Therefore, I will ask
that our City Attorney
facilitate the appearance of
fairness inquiry required to
ensure public disclosure. City
attorney, will you please lead
us through this process?
>> Yes. Thank you, Council
member Stober. As Council
Member Stober has introduced,
you are conducting a closed
record appeal hearing for the
purpose of taking final action
on a land use application
submitted to the City of
Vancouver. Based on the public
record presented at this
hearing, including the
application, the Hearing
Examiner's final order,
appellant and the applicant
testimony and the information
included in your Council
materials, you will rely on
criteria set forth in Vancouver
Municipal Code to decide
whether to uphold the hearing
examiner's final order and deny
the appeal or grant the appeal
and overturn the hearing
examiner's order. Because this
appeal will determine the legal
rights, duties and privileges
of specific parties. Review of
this matter these matters is
deemed to be a quasi judicial
action. This means that for
purposes of this closed record
appeal hearing, Council is
acting more like a judge
deciding a case than a
legislative body directing
policy. Quasi judicial actions
give rise to the appearance of
Fairness doctrine set forth in
chapter 42.36 of the Revised
Code of Washington and Council
Policy. 139 The Appearance of
Fairness, Doctrine and Council
Policy 139 require Council
Members to give consideration
as to whether or not you have a
demonstrated bias or prejudice
for or against any party to the
proceeding. A direct or
indirect monetary interest in
the outcome of the proceedings.
A prejudgment of the issue
prior to hearing the facts on
the record or ex parte contact
with any individual, excluding
administrative staff, with
regard to an issue prior to the
hearing, and disclose any ex
parte contact with any
proponent or opponent of the
proposal, not otherwise
publicly disclosed. In response
to the required disclosure of
ex parte contact and in advance
of tonight's hearing, the city
records manager conducted a
public records search for
emails sent or received from
any current City Council member
between January 22nd, 2026
through September 14th, 2026,
containing the following words
Swift terrace, infill,
subdivision, Swifts terrace,
infill subdivision HNWDCLLC
Haven Northwest LLC, Lake
Mahlum 2410. North East 54th
Street PRJ-169. Excuse me,
PRJ-169657. LUP-85734AKS.
Engineering and Forestry Tax,
lot 14888 2000. Tax lot
148921000. Tax. Lot 148924000.
Jonathan D McLaughlin. Joshua
Ford Grant, Kevin P Devine,
Timothy Sherburn, Laura
Sherburn, Jason Vosburg my
office conducted a review of
those search results and did
not identify any council
communication, not otherwise
already publicly disclosed.
However, recognizing that the
public records search does not
capture verbal communications
or written communication, not
on public devices, I will give
each council member an
opportunity to respond
individually to this query.
Have you engaged in any ex
parte communications with
either proponents or opponents
of the application? That is,
any communication on the
proposal outside of prior
council workshops or meetings?
Not otherwise publicly
disclosed. Since the land use
application was submitted to
the city. If any of you respond
affirmatively, please also
state the substance of any such
communications for the record,
so that interested parties have
an opportunity to comment on
the information now publicly
disclosed during the public
hearing. Finally, if any
council member answers yes to
the above appearance of
fairness inquiry resulting in
disclosure of additional
information relevant to the
hearing, the applicant and
public in attendance at the
hearing will be asked if they
wish to challenge participation
by that Council member with the
statutory restriction. That
disqualification cannot result
in a loss of quorum and remove
council's ability to take final
action on this matter. Any
challenge must state the reason
for the disqualification
request, and the council member,
subject to the challenge, will
be given an opportunity to
recuse themselves from
participation in the hearing. I
now pose the appearance of
fairness query to each of you.
Do you have one? A demonstrated
bias or prejudice for or
against any party to the
proceedings, or a direct or
indirect monetary interest in
the outcome of the proceedings,
or a prejudgment of the issue
prior to hearing the facts on
the record? Or have you engaged
in any ex parte communication
with any proponent or opponent
of the application? Since the
land use application was
submitted to the city? Council
member, Stauber.
>> No, no to all the above.
>> Council member Perez.
>> No.
>> Council member Paulsen.
>> No.
>> Council member Harless.
>> No.
>> Thank you Council. That
completes our examination and
I'll pass it back to you,
Council Member Stauber, for
conducting the hearing. Thank
you all.
>> Thank you very much. City
Attorney Cook. I now invite
staff to present their staff
report summarizing the
background information and
recommendations on the matter
under consideration.
>> Hello, my name is Crystal
Sanchez. I'm a planner with the
Community Development
Department. I have some
background history on this
project. The applicant
submitted an application for an
18 lot subdivision within the R
nine zoning on January 22nd. It
was deemed fully complete on
March 27th, a public hearing
before the hearing examiner was
held on June 16th, the hearing
examiner issued a decision of
approval. On July 15th.
>> An appeal was submitted on
July 24th when an appeal is
submitted on a type three
application. It requires a
closed record appeal hearing
before the City Council. This
slide shows the location of the
subject property at 2410 North
East 54th Street. The site is
approximately 2.3 acres and is
currently undeveloped. The site
does have steep slopes, which
is designated as a critical
area under the Vancouver
Municipal Code. The applicant
was required to submit a
geotechnical and critical areas
report to address the steep
slopes. The staff found
proposal complies with
applicable critical area
requirements as conditions in
the staff report. The site. The
site is shown with the R-9
Zoning District with R-9 zoning
immediately to the north, south
and east and to the south west.
There is a lot zoned park. This
image reflects the zoning and
effect. When the application
was vested. This slide shows
the preliminary plot. The
proposal would create 18 single
family detached residential
lots. Primary access is
provided from a new private
street private road that will
be extending from north east
54th Street. The proposal also
includes public utilities,
stormwater facilities and other
infrastructure necessary to
serve the development. The
preliminary subdivision is
evaluated under a separate set
of criteria focused on whether
adequate provisions have been
made for public facilities and
services, including streets,
utilities, stormwater
infrastructure and emergency
access. Staff also reviewed the
proposal for compliance with
the city's development
standards, including lot layout,
access, easements, narrow lot
and infill development
standards. This slide shows a
summary of the appellants
concerns regarding bullet
number one. The application was
reviewed under infill
Development standards in title
20. Infill development allows
for smaller lots and single
family attached development in
the R-9 zone. The application
regarding number two. The
application was deemed fully
complete in March of this year,
so this application is vested
under the previous
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code. The application was not
reviewed under New Comp Plan or
the zoning code that went into
effect on July 31st this year.
Regarding the third bullet
point, staff reviewed the
proposal against the applicable
Critical area requirements and
found that it can meet the
requirements as conditioned in
the staff report. Per the
geotechnical report, the
engineer recommended
recommended that the review and
that he review the finalized
grading plan to verify that his
recommendations were being met,
and whether further analysis
would be needed. As such, city
staff conditioned that this
occurred prior to any
construction permits would be
approved. And regarding bullet
point number four, subdivisions
are required to comply with the
CW. The applicant demonstrated
compliance by providing a
letter from the Vancouver
Public School District, which
identifies. The students will
be bussed and the designated
bus stops they would utilize
and for staff recommends denial
of this appeal. Upholding the
decision made by the hearings
examiner.
>> Thank you to staff. I will
now open the testimony and we
will start with the appellant.
The the appellant will decide
how the how they will split
their 15 minutes of testimony.
Please join us. Yes.
>> Good evening. Mark Erickson,
attorney at law, appearing for
the applicants to the
appellants. And I represent
John McLaughlin, Joshua Grant,
Kevin Devine, Timothy and Laura
Sherbeck and Jason Rossberg,
all of whom own residences
within the neighborhood. My
clients recommend proposal be
denied for the following
reasons, and I'll go very
briefly on this substantive due
process. Neighborhood character.
The final decision and the
authorizing ordinance M 4517
and the resulting. Chapter
2920VMC deprive the appellants
of substantive due process by
allowing single family attached
residences known as infill
development in existing single
family detached neighborhoods.
I won't go into all of
substantive due process because
you don't actually have
jurisdiction to rule on
constitutional issues, but
governments, local governments
have the ability to change
their behavior to avoid
constitutional constitutional
violations. I would note that
prior cases such as Duckworth B
City of Bonney Lake held that
the city of. The general
purpose of zoning is to
stabilize uses, conserve
property values, preserve
neighborhood characters, and
promote orderly growth. There
are a litany of cases. That
support the preserving
neighborhood characters, but
again, I would rather move
forward and perhaps come back
to that. Regarding violations
of the code as to procedural
due process and vesting, the
final decision erred in
reviewing the proposal,
determined to be fully complete
on March 27th, 2026, under a
comprehensive plan not then
effective in clear violation of
vesting requirements provided
in the Municipal code. Now here
we're talking about VMC 2154OF,
which says that an application
determined by review authority
to be an application determined
by the review authority to be
fully complete, is vested under
regulations in effect at the
time of such determination,
regardless of subsequent
changes to the development
regulations. So at the time,
this was vested, the 2011 to
2030 Comprehensive Plan was in
effect, and it was in effect at
the examiner hearing that that
plan provides the following
housing policy, which was
violated by the final order.
Encourage innovative housing
policies that provide for
affordable housing and maintain
neighborhood character. Here
we're putting tiny little
single family detached homes
look just like townhouses in
amongst single family detached
homes on normal sized lots. The
lot size was a minimum of
5000ft under the prior code.
Before adoption of this
violating infill ordinance. I'm
also looking at procedural due
process, concurrent decision
making. The final decision
violated VMC 2741 30 by failing
to require compliance as part
of the application. That
section provides that
development in non-disturbance
areas shall be prohibited in
other areas, developable in
landslide and erosion hazard
areas and their buffers shall
be prohibited, except where the
applicant has demonstrated
compliance with the following
standards or requirements. This
would be sub D drainage pattern
shall not be altered such that
the potential for damage or
risk to the proposed project,
geological hazard area or other
critical areas or buffers is
increased and a road through or
across a landslide or bank
erosion hazard shall not be
steeper than 15% grade. The
geotechnical report admits that
slope stability is incomplete.
All of the slopes are
oversteepened and will likely
need to be addressed during the
site grading and construction.
That's the true North Geodetic
geotechnical report at page 15.
Notwithstanding that the site
is dominated by landslide and
erosion hazardous areas, the
city has proposed conditions of
approval which postpone
analysis and decision as
follows. Prior to civil plan
approval, provide an updated
Critical areas and geotechnical
report. Once geotechnical
consultant has been able to
review updated grading plans to
verify conformance with
recommendations and can
determine whether a
quantitative slope stability
analysis is required prior to
final grading. A final summary
report by the Geotechnical
Engineer of Record shall be
prepared and submitted to the
City of Vancouver that states
that the project soils are
prepared in accordance with the
governing geotechnical report,
construction documents and
provide a current report with
lot specific conditions and
compaction test results by
final grading final order at 62
and 64. The foregoing
requirements effectively
exclude the appellants from
final review process. There's a
case that's come down in 2011.
Knight v City of Yelm, which
held that a local decision
making body cannot
conditionally approve a
preliminary plat and then
disapprove a final plat
application for a project that
conforms to the conditions of
the preliminary approval. But
that's what they did. They
approved a preliminary plat
that hadn't been reviewed for
those engineering conditions.
The failure to challenge
environmental issues at the
preliminary plat stage could
result in decisions by the
local Land use authority that
have a binding impact on
interested parties without
their consent or participation.
If the decision by the City
Council forecloses further
review of the city's evidence
of adequate water supply in
Knight v Elm, then it has
denied Knight any opportunity
to challenge the evidence and
the potential threat to her
water rights. Knight was
entitled to clarification of
the city council's decision and
an opportunity to challenge the
city's evidence of water
provisions before final plat
approval. That's not here. We
don't have that. If we had just
let this go, that would have
been done without our review.
In the present case, the final
order violated the Subdivision
Act, cited in Knight V Elm,
which provides in sub two. A
proposed division and
dedication shall not be
approved unless the city, town
or county legislative body
makes written findings that
appropriate provisions are made
for the public health, safety,
general welfare and for such
open spaces, drainage ways,
streets, roads, alleys and
other public ways. Transit
stops and other planning
features that assure safe
walking conditions for students
who only walk to and from
school. Well, on this record,
that's 58, 17, 110. Sub two
correspondence dated May 15th,
2026 from Gary Yarn, Facilities
Planning Analyst. Vancouver
Public Schools concludes that
the bus stop for Minnehaha and
Jason Lee students is currently
located at northeast 23rd
Avenue and 54th Street. The bus
stop for Hudson Bay students is
currently located at 2800 North
East 54th Street. These are
precisely the unsafe conditions
lacking curb, gutter and
sidewalk, which expressly
violate 58, 17, one, ten, one
and two. No curbs or gutters
exist on either side of
northwest 54th Street. You can
find that in the land use
narrative at four. Now the
respondent seeks what it terms
a minor road modification, but
again, no curbs or sidewalks
are on either side of the
street. The Vancouver Municipal
Code allows or provides. In
order for a modification to be
considered a minor deviation,
the modification proposal shall
meet all of the following and
two of them it cannot meet one
B is does not involve safety or
Off-Site impacts. One D does
not involve the broad public
interest. That's VMC 1181 60 B
one. The present proposal does
involve safety and Off-Site
impacts because many.
Elementary school is located to
the east of the proposal, with
northern frontage on North east
54th Street. Children from the
neighborhood face high safety
risks. Walking to school to and
from school without curbs,
sidewalks and other frontage
improvements. Moreover, there's
a broad public safety interest
in the safety of all PED
pedestrians on the city roads.
Hence the proposed modification
to North east 54th Street curbs,
sidewalks and other frontage is
actually a major modification
because. And this is 118160B3C
potential exists for material
material impacts to public
safety. G the proposed
modification modification can
be expected to generate
considerable public interest,
and H approval of the proposal
may have public policy
implications. The respondent
has not submitted sufficient
application material for a
major modification, and this
request must be denied. And
then finally. I'm looking at
procedural due process for
record maintenance and access.
The Revised Code of Washington
requires that agencies maintain
and provide public access to
subdivision application records,
a record of all public meetings
and public hearings shall be
kept by the appropriate city,
town or county authority and
shall be open to public
inspection. 5817 100 similar
requirements are contained in
the Vancouver Municipal Code.
The record shall consist of
testimony and deliberation at
the original hearing, as
recorded by audio, visual tape
or transcript certified, an
accurate, complete and any
other materials submitted into
the record and the final order
being appealed. That's VMC 2020
ten 2210 130C3B to the
appellants. Knowledge materials
submitted into the record have
never been organized into
exhibits nor paginated by the
city staff. For the purposes of
reference and citation by the
public, which deprived the
appellants and other members of
the public procedural due
process. In an attempt to
participate in reviewing the
proposal. Keep in mind when I
say due process and then I cite
you a local ordinance. It's
like a local ordinance that
you're violating and that you
can reverse based on. You don't
have to use the words due
process at all. The appellants
pray for reversal of the final
order and for denial of swifts
infill subdivision. Now, if
there's any time left, I would
like to mention briefly. I
think I would. Know I might
have covered it all. Oh. No, I
covered that. Any questions?
>> We'll take questions after
we hear from the applicant.
Thank you.
>> Is there any time left? Oh
right there.
>> You just we just restarted.
You were about four minutes and
30s.
>> Yeah. Got it. Oh, four
minutes and 30s left.
>> Four minutes and 30s. If
you'd like to take the
remaining time, we can reset
the clock to 430.
>> Now we've got nothing else.
>> Okay. Thank you very much
for your testimony. I now
invite up the applicant and
they as well will have 15
minutes to present their
testimony. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Council members.
My name is Michael Andreotti,
land use planner with ACS
engineering, Engineering and
Forestry representing the
applicant in this case. First
I'll speak to the vesting. It's
very clear in the staff report
and the decision that this
project was reviewed correctly
under the vested code. It was
reviewed under the
Comprehensive Plan designation
of Uhl, the zoning designation
of R nine and under the Infill
Development Code, which no
longer exist under the current
comp Plan and zoning code that
was adopted and enacted on July
31st. This shows that it was
clearly reviewed under the
correct code and Comp plan.
Represent or referring to
neighborhood character. The
section of the comp plan
referenced is innovative zoning
while protecting neighborhood
character, and the infill
development code was in place
since at least 2004 in
Vancouver's code, which means
that council and staff felt
that it met that requirement of
the comp plan to be innovative
for innovative zoning, for
providing housing and
protecting neighborhood
character. The homes that will
be constructed will be three
attached units for each
building, which are similar in
size to what a typical single
family detached home would be.
So they will fit fairly well
into the existing homes that
have been developed and not
look like an apartment building
in the middle of a bunch of
single family homes. And this
application falls into a unique
place where there was a change
in the development code that
was fairly significant. And if
this project were to be
developed under the new code,
if it were to be denied, it
would be required by the new
code to put in almost double
the number of units that are
there now, and it would be
allowed a maximum building
height of 75ft and would be
allowed through multifamily
development. So in protecting
the neighborhood character,
keeping the project as approved
is more protective of the
neighborhood character than if
it were to be developed under
the new code. Regarding the
critical areas, specifically
the geotechnical report and the
steep slopes, geotechnical
reports must be prepared early
on in the application process
to provide recommendations for
the engineer to design the
project. If they don't have
those recommendations, they
can't safely design the project,
and that is why staff put a
condition on the project that
the geotechnical engineer then
review the final design prior
to any final approval, and
allowing any construction to
move forward so that they can
ensure that their
recommendations were followed
and the design is safe. They
were also conditioned that the
geotechnical engineer review
the site during construction to
ensure that it's constructed
based on their recommendations
and the engineer's design to
ensure that it's constructed
safely and will not be harmful
to the neighboring properties.
This follows the general
industry process, as the
geotechnical engineer can't
review anything that doesn't
exist yet, and then also, it
should be noted that the site
has been designed to maintain
current drainage patterns.
Currently, it drains generally
to the stormwater facility.
That's the regional storm
facility to the southwest of
the site. That is where the
stormwater will continue to
drain following the
construction of this project,
no roads were are proposed.
Over 15%, and even though the
GIS mapping shows a large
portion of the site within a
landslide area, the site
investigation determined that
that wasn't the case, that it's
only a portion of the site
where the Oversteepened slopes
exist along the boundary of the
site, so the entirety of the
site, once investigated, is not
in a landslide hazard area, and
the road itself being
constructed is not within a
landslide hazard area.
Regarding the safe routes to
schools, as noted, the
Vancouver School District
provided a letter noting that
children from this area are
bused, and that is because
they've determined it's not
safe for them to walk. And the
safe walking route is for
children to only walk to school.
That's why the city decided to
bus. And they've also noted in
that same letter that they
provided that they will
reevaluate the existing bus
stop once this is constructed,
to ensure that that bus stop is
a safe bus stop, and they do
that annually as well.
Regarding the road modification,
the site only has 60ft of
frontage, and the road
modifications do not construct
sidewalk along that 60ft of
frontage. Since the majority of
the frontage is taken up by the
intersection construction that
will occur, there would only be
very short segments of sidewalk
that could be constructed, and
they would have nothing to
connect to, as the majority of
the surrounding neighborhood
does not have sidewalk.
Additionally, having to
construct sidewalk from the
site to the school or within
the surrounding neighborhood
would be disproportionate to
the project as the cost to
obtain additional right of way
that would be necessary to
construct the sidewalks and
complete the grading on
neighboring parcels. Private
property due to the steep
slopes would not allow for a
proportionate construction cost.
Of those, those improvements to
the development of 18 lots. In
regards to the record, the
staff report was available
online and sent to the parties
of record. There's an exhibit
list in that staff report, and
all the exhibits follow that
exhibit list, and they are
labeled at the beginning of
each exhibit with which exhibit.
They are the only two exhibits
that weren't specifically in
there were the Stormwater
Report and Geotechnical report,
and as noted in the staff
report, they were too large and
but were available to be
requested from staff. Nothing
further. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. That
concludes our testimony of the
applicant and the appellant
Council. This is now your
opportunity to discuss the
merits and appeal. The. Do.
>> We do have two people signed
up for public testimony.
>> I didn't see that indicated.
I mean, I didn't see it in the
script. And so. Take a step
back for a second.
>> This actually relates
directly to that. And I'm going
to point you to the VMC. 2210
130C3B which says arguments for
quasi judicial appeal hearings
are limited to the appellant,
the applicant and city staff.
>> Okay, there we go. So Mr.
Lehan, and I'm guessing. Miss
Elbon, this is not a measure
that you are able to speak to,
so I apologize. Okay, so that
concludes our testimony.
Council. Now is your
opportunity to discuss the
merits of the appeal and ask
any follow up questions you may
have of city staff or any of
the parties still on the line.
Members of council. Okay. So
Council, the question posed to
you based on Vancouver
Municipal Code sections 20.3 20
.040 20 .920.050 and 20.927
.030 is whether one you agree
with the recommendation to
approve the resolution. Denying
the appellant's appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision.
Granting approval of the Land
Use application or two. Instead,
disagree with the
recommendation to approve the
resolution denying the
applicant's appeal of the
hearing examiner's decision.
Granting approval of the land
use application. So one, you
agree with the application
that's been submitted, or two,
you disagree with the
determination of the hearings
examiner's. Report based on
council's consideration, the
information on Record Council
must make a final decision on
the appeal tonight by voting on
a motion to either one approve
the resolution as presented.
Upholding the hearings,
examiner's final order and
denying the appeal or two.
Grant the appeal and overturn
the hearing examiner's final
order, which permitted the
proposed Infill Development
Council. I will entertain a
motion.
>> Councilor Perez I move to
approve the resolution.
>> To agree with the the
recommendation to approve the.
>> The resolution and deny the
appeal.
>> Okay. Thank you for the
clarification. So motion by
Council Member Perez. Is there
a second?
>> Second Harless.
>> Second by Council Member
Harless. Are there any further
comments or questions? Yes.
Councilmember Paulson.
>> Thank you. Councilor.
Councilor Paulson here. This
hasn't been explicitly stated
this evening in layman's terms.
And so I think it's important
that it be laid out this way
before we take a final vote.
We're not making a decision
tonight on whether the zoning
decision should or shouldn't
have been made or, you know,
anything of that ilk. Sometimes
things come before us and we're
making those kinds of decisions.
The decision that we're making
tonight really is just whether
or not the hearings examiner
made an error in applying the
criteria that they applied in
denying the the appeal. And so,
as I've listened to the
testimony this evening, I've
been listening for indications
that an error has been made,
and I've heard none. And so
I'll be supporting the motion
and voting to deny the appeal
and approve the subdivision. So
thank you.
>> Any additional comments?
Questions. Okay. Seeing none.
Council Assistant Tony, will
you please call the roll?
>> Council member Paulson.
>> Aye.
>> Council member. Sawyer.
>> Aye.
>> Council member. Harless. I.
Council member.
>> Perez I.
>> Councils. That concludes the.
The. The quasi judicial hearing.
And the motion is passed. So
the matter is now closed. And
we will call our colleagues
back in. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> All right. Just give me a
second to log back in.
>> I went dark. Okay.
>> We are ready then to go on
to item 13. Item 13 is another
public hearing. It's an
amendment to Vancouver
Municipal Code 8.22
establishing a camping and
outside habitation impact area
around the City of Vancouver
Bridge shelter. All right. And
I will read the title into the
record. It reads an ordinance
of the City of Vancouver
amending Vancouver Municipal
Code, chapter 8.22 to prohibit
camping and outside habitation
within 1500ft of the City of
Vancouver Bridge shelter
property amending Vancouver
Municipal Code 8.22030
definitions and VMC 8.22040
unlawful camping and outside
habitation. Providing for
severability and setting an
effective date. All right. We
have staff. Would you like to
provide a summary?
>> Jamie Dillon okay, it is
still on. So this is just
continuation of last week,
which kind of talks about how
we we set a buffer, a no
camping buffer around all of
our city shelters. This one is
to establish, number one, the
definition of a bridge shelter,
because we don't have that in
our VMC yet. That will be
opening soon. So we needed to
add it and then sets the buffer
around that facility at 1500ft,
because it's a larger facility
versus the smaller facilities
that get 1000 foot. That's
pretty much it. All right. But
I'm happy to answer any
questions.
>> Do we have any initial
questions for staff? Okay.
Seeing none, we'll open the
public hearing. We have Carmen.
She's in the audience. She gets
to go first. You have three
minutes, Carmen.
>> Yeah, well, I just got to
say, I kind of agree with it
because, you know, they're
going to be camping everywhere.
And if anything, they should do
something about the people who
don't want to leave the the
railyards because they want to
live by the railroad so that
they can have their free travel,
you know, but I guess that's
allowed because you want to do
the shelter and have a 1000
foot whatever so that they
can't camp, but that means
they're going to camp
everywhere else. And really, we
should be allowed to camp
because to me, it's kind of
like freedom of speech. I mean,
I should be allowed to fall
asleep at the park without fear
of being arrested, you know?
But when you have this
situation, I can't help but say,
yeah, go ahead, let them have
their way because some people
don't want to be helped. They
don't want to clean up and they
don't want to, you know, pack
up the tent and be sober and go
be right. They have to be
pushed into it. And if they got
to be pushed, then push them.
So that's all I'm saying. I
really didn't prepare for this
because I didn't really see it.
But yeah, go for it. You know,
I just don't think that
everybody's going to like it.
>> All right. Thank you for
your testimony. We'll go to
online. Do we have Miss Elbon?
>> I'm sorry, the locksmith is
still here and I, I have no
comment, but God bless you and
God bless those that do not
have the love of money.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. We don't have any
other cards for this item on
the agenda tonight. So I'll
close the public hearing and
I'll return it back to council.
>> Move to approve.
>> All right. We have a motion
to approve by Counselor Paulson.
Do we have a second?
>> Second by Stober.
>> All right. All in favor.
>> We need to do a roll call
vote.
>> Oh, I keep forgetting. So
sorry. All right. I should just
follow the script that's in
front of me. All right. Could
you do a roll call?
>> Vote Council member Harless.
I Perez. I Fox. I Paulson. I
Stauber. I Hanson.
>> I.
>> Present.
>> All right. We have a
unanimous vote. This item has
is been approved. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. We will move on
to item 14. This is the
supplemental budget ordinance
related to Clark County Fire
District number five. It's an
amended agreement, and it is an
ordinance relating to the 2020
526 biennial budget and making
a supplemental appropriation to
account for revenue in excess
of initial budget projections
and to make certain necessary
expenditures to be incurred in
2020 526 that were not and
could not reasonably have been
foreseen at the time of
adoption. Of the 2025 2026
budget, declaring an emergency
and providing for an immediate
effective date. All right. We
it looks like Miss Shipley is
there for a staff summary.
>> Yes. Good evening, Mayor Pro
Tem and council members. Katie
Shipley Chief Financial Officer
Today we have a second reading
and public hearing for a
supplemental budget ordinance
related to the amended Fire
Services Agreement with Fire
District five that was passed
last week. In terms of agenda
will quickly go through. Do you
think.
>> You could move your mic
closer to your.
>> Absolutely, yeah. Is that
better?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. In terms of agenda,
I'll provide some brief
background on the purpose of
the ordinance. Go over the
scope of the ordinance. Touch
on the changes in the
expenditures by fund and the
related position changes, and
then open up for discussion. So
the purpose of this ordinance
is to make supplemental
appropriations during the
current fiscal year that could
not have reasonably been
foreseen at the time of
adoption. Anytime the city
increases appropriation or
staffing levels, obviously
council approval is going to be
required, and this is what we
would consider a special
supplemental, and that we're
bringing this forward for a
very specific reason related to
the Fire district five amended
agreement, rather than a city
wide supplemental that where
we'd be kind of making more
broad based changes across
multiple funds. And as you know,
last council session, the
council passed the amended fire
service agreement with Fire
District five. The terms of
that amended agreement
specified that fire the fire
department would move forward
with the hiring of seven
support positions during the
fourth quarter of 2026. And so
the purpose of this ordinance
is really just to align the
budget with that amended
agreement and receive council
authorization to adjust the
total appropriation for the
remainder of the year, update
the FTE and salary schedules to
account for those new limited
duration positions being added
in this fiscal year. So Fire
District five has agreed to
support 100% of the actual
position costs for those seven
limited duration positions
beginning this year through
December 2029. And assuming
this ordinance moves for this
supplemental, moves forward,
$258,408 will be added to the
fire fund in fiscal year 2026.
To account for these partial
year position costs for the
remainder of this year. Any
funds that are ultimately not
needed will not be expended and
will not be charged to fire
district five. And then lastly
here, those seven limited
duration positions with the
titles shown here are going to
be added to the full time
equivalent schedule for the
fire fund. The positions in
blue are also new
classifications that are going
to be added to the existing
salary schedule that we have.
So these are relatively minor
changes relatively late in the
fiscal year. But making these
changes now is going to help
ensure that the fire department
is able to proceed with hiring
in the fourth quarter, in
alignment with the agreement
that was amended with the fire
district five. So happy to open
it up for discussion or answer
any questions.
>> All right.
>> Does anyone have questions
for staff?
>> Go ahead.
>> Thank you. I was taking a
look at the presentation
materials from August 24th and
comparing it to today's
presentation materials, and was
wanting to get a better
understanding of the costs
between whether we call it a
chief of staff or a battalion
chief, what the benefit to the
residents are with either of
those and the benefit to our
employees. So I just wanted
some elaboration because I know
we've got the support positions,
but we don't talk about the
chief of staff or battalion
chief. And is that later? Is
that or is that in progress? So
just wanted to get a little
more clarity on that.
>> Sure. I can speak to that a
little bit. And I think we've
got the fire chief here as well.
The reason that you're not
seeing that as part of this
action is because that's been
handled with a sort of position
that already exists in the fire
department budget that's being
under-filled. So we're not
technically taking any action
or adding additional resources
that we're going to be
receiving from Fire District
five as part of the
supplemental budget ordinance.
That's before you today. But I
wonder if we've got John here
that maybe wants to talk about
the chief of staff position a
little bit more detail.
>> Good evening, Council
members, John. Good evening,
Council members, John Drake,
Fire chief, Vancouver Fire
Department. I would be happy to
elaborate on the differences
between the chief of staff
position and the seven
administrative positions
supported by Council District
five. The Chief of Staff is a
Battalion chief designated to
be, but which is an underfill
from the Deputy Chiefs position
that we currently have. So it
is actually more cost effective.
However, it is not the same
model as what you're
encountering with district five
because it is internal within
the city, and there just would
require a memorandum of
understanding between city
manager's office, labor
organization, etc. It is a
completely different model than
district five. They are not
financing this. This is a more
cost effective model that would
support upward mobility and
succession planning within the
VFD. Okay.
>> Thank you. That's why I was
wondering why focus on the
support positions. But we left
out that other position within
context of the larger budget.
So do we expect to this current
budget to cover that in the
future, or is are we coming
back to request funds for that
position?
>> I believe the current the
budget as allocated in the next
biennium will still cover that
because this is an under fill.
The deputy chief position will
be supplanted by the Battalion
chief position, which is a less
a lesser expense than the
deputy chiefs position.
>> Okay. All right. Thank you
for that clarification.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Do we have other
questions?
>> Move to approve.
>> Second.
>> Okay. We have a move to
approve. And a second, can we
have a roll call vote?
>> We need to open it up for
public hearing.
>> Oh, shoot. I was so ready to
do it right this time, and I
just didn't nail it again.
Sorry about that. All right.
Carmen is signed up for public
testimony on this item. Do you
have something? Carmen, you
have three minutes.
>> Left his light on. So
anyways. Yeah. Carmen de Lehan
Molodih Lehan I'm talking about.
Okay, so she's talking about
$250,000 for. Is that for just
one position? Wow. Okay.
Because I brought you guys a
picture this time. And it is
for these firefighting robots
that cost probably less than
their pension plans. So if you
want to fight fires, how's
about we invest in something
that won't cost human lives
like robots? And I'll be giving
you guys this. I'll be turning
it in so you can actually see
it. And like I've said in other
situations, and I've called it
watering the forest to put big
old to water the forest to
prevent forest fires, because I
even think that would be less
expensive than funding more
people to hire more people to
push more paper. When we don't
need more paper pushing people,
we need firefighting people.
And in order to save the
firefighting people, we can use
robots and we can have
instilled, I don't know what
you would call them. They just
look like the things on the
golf field that water all the
grass. But this time they're
watering the buildings and the
forests on a massive industrial
scale. We're talking shooting
out water 50ft, not ten on your
large yard. And that is in you
can supply it with water in the
forest by hooking up pumps to
the streams so that whenever
you know, fire comes on, you
flick the switch and then you
don't have people putting their
lives at risk. And that's my,
my main issue here is saving
lives. So that's why I'm saying
that they want to hire more
people. Are these people really
going to go out and fight the
fires, or are they going to
stay in there and do
administrative stuff the same
way? I'm seeing that the
administration over there cost
$1 million and only helped 250
people. So is this the same
situation with the firefighters
that they're just going to do a
bunch of paperwork? And when it
comes down to it, oops, we
don't have enough manpower to
to fight these fires. But if
you have something that can't
complain like a robot. And they
can't sue you for personal
injuries on duty, getting fire
burnt, you can for, I don't
know, $250,000. That's a lot of
money. And I don't know how
many you can buy, but I'm
telling you, the move of the
future is to fight fires with
robots, not humans. And you can
have fireproof buildings. Like
I've said before, hemp bricks
can stand 2000 Fahrenheit,
which means they're fireproof.
So you can have fireproof
buildings and you wouldn't even
need these guys if you had
fireproof buildings. But
nobody's listening to me when I
say mandate fireproof housing.
Everybody wants a cheap stuff
made in China goes up like this,
like a matchstick. But if you
really want to fight fires,
make hemp bricks a feasible
business here in the northwest
to to make fireproof housing
and save our firefighters by
making buying robots instead of
hiring a bunch of people.
>> All right. Thank you for
those ideas about firefighting.
Do we have Miss Elbon available
for comment? Okay.
>> If you are attending
remotely, please unmute your
mic.
>> Yeah. Good evening again. So
I'm kind of in a little
emergency. My dog got out. I
I'm taking her for her first
ride and she jumped out. So
here we are. Anyway, God bless
our firefighters. Let's not
have the love of money. Keep
your job. There was a few other
things I was going to say, but
let's just do things right
folks. Use our hard earned tax
dollars. We want you to have
food on your table too. Let's
do it right. By the way, I want
to mention that there is a real
thing of chemtrails, that the
dust goes down on our trees,
and that's why they ignite so
quickly. Not only the trees,
but the bushes around the
houses and possibly probably
roofs and this and that. So
maybe if somebody was there in
the fire firefighting position
to look into that, I'd greatly
appreciate it. And then what
you do is you become a patriot
and you speak up for the good
of the people. Thank you. God
bless. God is always good. Amen.
>> All right. That we do not
have any other cards for
testimony for this item. So
we'll close the public hearing.
Is there any discussion on this
item? All right. And we already
had a motion. And a second. Can
we have a roll call vote?
>> Council member Harless I
Perez. I Boerke. I Paulsen I
Stover. I Hansen.
>> I all right. That ordinance
passes unanimously. That
concludes all of our public
hearings for tonight. We're
going to move on to
communications from the council.
Council member Harless Council
member.
>> Perez none. For me tonight.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> It's Yom Kippur today.
>> Thank you, Councilor Stover.
>> I'll pass.
>> Counselor Hansen. All right.
I will also pass for tonight.
We will move on to the city
manager.
>> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, we
have two items under my
communications for tonight. One
was on the printed agenda, and
one was an item that came up a
little bit later, and we didn't
have the chance to add it on
there. So it's information only.
But the first one would be
community forum pre planning.
And that's a presentation by by
our access director Joy Fowler.
The planning for the session
next week. And then after that
we have William. And we would
have I'd ask Dave Perlick to
come up at the conclusion of
William's presentation to talk
to you about an item that we
have identified with the
administration of the inspire
grants for this year, and a
potential solution.
>> Okay, so we'll start with
the forum pre planning and
William, go ahead.
>> Oh good evening Council and
Mayor Pro Tem it's great to be
with you this evening. As we
have before all of our other
forums this year. Joy and I are
joining you a week before to
kind of talk through the plan,
review some of the materials we
put together. And just for
those joining at home, Joy
Fowler, our engagement director,
is joining online. I, William
Cooley, our community
engagement manager, is here in
person. Earlier this year, when
we met with each of you and
kind of sub quorum groups, we
talked about different plans
for this year and sort of
topics that might be of
interest to the council. And
one topic that was brought up
by multiple councilors was a
desire to have more connection
with young people in the
community. And so we're very
excited to announce that the
topic for this forum is focused
on young people. And we'll be
talking a little bit more about
our partnership that we're
using to kind of help us do
that. So with that, our agenda,
we'll talk a little bit about
outcomes. These are the same
kind of outcomes and goals that
we've set forth at the
beginning of the year. We're
driving toward across all of
our forums. We'll talk a little
bit about specific details and
the agenda and schedule for
this forum next Monday. And
we'll also end with discussion.
So across our forums this year,
we're really seeking to try to
increase engagement with the
community. This is an
opportunity for us to not only
listen and learn together, but
sort of foster that sense of
community for this forum.
That's of particular interest,
because what we hear from young
people, when we engage with
them, is often that they feel a
sense of community within their
school, might feel it within
social groups they're part of.
But that connection to the
broader city is something that
kind of grows over time or can
be elusive earlier in life.
We're also really working to
build trust, so providing
opportunities for people to be
in spaces together so that they,
of course hear and see us
listening, but also have a
chance to listen from each
other. That multidirectional
exchange has been a really
important feature over the
years of our community forums.
It's something we've tried to
emphasize for this forum as
well. And lastly, we want to
make sure we're gathering
community members ideas, their
questions, their opinions, some
of the young people that we
talked to in preparation for
this forum spoke to a, an
experience that's very common,
which is not always feeling
like they feel comfortable
sharing their story or kind of
raising their voice. And we
want them to know that when
we're there, we're listening,
we're gathering those opinions,
we're hearing from them. We
want to elevate their ideas.
This forum next Monday is going
to be held from 2 to 330 at
Rooted School of Vancouver on
Fourth Plain Boulevard. Doors
will open at 130. I wanted to
note that this is earlier than
our normal forums. I think this
is the earliest one we've had
since we started these a few
years ago, and that's been
intentional. It's a way for us
to include students. When we
met with students from the
associated student body at
Rooted, we asked them, what's
the best time during the day?
And for them, it's oftentimes
earlier in the day, earlier in
the afternoon. And that's
largely because many of them
have commitments in the
afternoon as well. So whether
that's sports, part time job,
helping care for a family
member, it's often hard for
them to be available sort of in
the late afternoon or at
dinnertime. And the forum on
Monday is going to be the
culminating activity of a
broader day long leadership day
with students. This is similar
for those of you who
participated in our earlier
Civic Minds program. It's an
opportunity for students to
learn from staff, to connect
with the city, to kind of think
about potential leadership
opportunities or career
opportunities. And our
activities are going to include
a morning coffee with the mayor,
which should be really fun.
Four different sessions with
city staff that students will
rotate through, and some time
for students to kind of explore
careers and those connections
to us and local government. I'm
excited to announce that in
addition to staff from our
department, engagement and
access, we're also going to be
joined by our equitable
development planning team from
Community Development, our
Climate Action team, staff from
our Homeless Assistance and
Resources team, as well as our
HR business partners who are
going to lead. Kind of an
interesting exercise for
students around bargaining and
what it looks like to enter
into negotiations. So looking
at our agenda, doors for the
forum will open at 130. The
earlier activity, which is
focused on the students at the
school itself, will go from 9
to 2:00. That 130 to 2:00 time
will be a bit of a transition
period for students. So we'll
open the doors, invite
community members if they'd
like to join us at 130 and
transition to the forum at two.
One thing that's a little bit
unique about this forum is that
rooted as a smaller community,
charter school does not have a
large gymnasium or as large of
a commons area as some other
schools. So one thing I just
wanted to note was that we're
thinking that we have to do our
welcome a little bit
differently. Instead of having
everyone all in one room, we're
likely going to be in separate
rooms when folks arrive. That's
simply because their largest
space doesn't accommodate
everyone. We're expecting to
have probably around 115 to 120
folks, including 100 students
there. Also, of course, a mix
of community members who might
be attending as well. So what
we'll do is we'll start the
sessions by inviting the
students and all of you as
councilors and the mayor to
give folks a warm welcome. They
will have been joining us,
obviously, earlier in the day.
So some of the student leaders
might quickly share a little
bit about their experiences.
They're also going to have gone
through a reflection activity
at lunchtime. So they'll be
very much kind of prepped and
ready for the conversation.
From there, we'll have our
table facilitators leading
conversations, just like we
have at our past forums this
year, inviting community
members and students who are
present to take part in the
small group discussions. And
then lastly, we'll close and
end at 330. We don't have to
get out of there instantly, but
we always want to make sure
we're not overstaying our
welcome. So what we'll do is
we'll encourage folks to make
their way out starting around
330, trying to make sure we're
out of the building by four.
And with that, across
conversations, we've typically
set clear expectations for
community members who are
participating in this case
because there's students
participating, we're also going
to be having some of their
teachers participate, which is
great. So in those
conversations, we're going to
be reminding everyone, whether
our students or community
members, is that we want to
communicate respectfully. So
allowing others in the group to
make sure they're speaking. If
there's someone who often is
kind of quick to raise their
hand or jump in, we invite them
to make sure everyone else has
a chance to share. We also want
them to be aware of time. So
just like we have for our past
forums, we want to encourage
folks to speak for about a
minute or two so everyone has a
chance to share. And of course,
stay on topic. We'll look at
our our conversation topics or
questions in a moment which
allow for some flexibility,
which was something the
students really were interested
in. But we want to make sure
that we're kind of staying
focused on the discussion at
hand as best we can. And then
lastly, we want to encourage
folks to be an active
participant. So this is an area
where I think for some of the
students who are joining us,
they're going to be challenging
themselves. Their school
community and their teachers
are going to be encouraging
them in that way, saying, hey,
this is a time for you to be
able to share your ideas
directly with the city Council
directly with other community
members. And with that, we had
the opportunity to work with,
as I mentioned, the associated
student body students to kind
of draft some questions. We
also had a chance to talk with
them about topics that were of
interest. And so we try to do
is create a series of questions
that allow students to
participate no matter where
they are. So we are going to
have freshmen, sophomores,
juniors and seniors, some
students who are right on that
cusp of getting ready to
transition from high school,
others who have just arrived in
high school and are trying to
kind of find their way in the
school community. And so our
questions are first, one is
designed to be very much an
icebreaker, but the students
are interested in talking about
their favorite places to go in
Vancouver and why they feel
that kind of special connection
to those places. We also want
to invite them to think about
life after high school,
thinking about their hopes for
the future. We're going to ask
what issues or topics are most
important to them and other
students in our community in
particular, wanting to
understand how those issues are
affecting them and other people
they know. And that's something
the students we already spoke
with were very passionate about.
They want you all to know, of
course, that they're paying
attention. They're experiencing
life in Vancouver, and they've
got a lot to share there. And
then lastly, we were curious
about what is something in our
community that we need that we
don't have now. We know our
young people bring a particular
interesting lens on that. They
have, of course, they travel
around the region, they have
perspectives and experiences,
and this is an opportunity for
us to think about that a little
bit more creatively. And with
that, any questions at all?
>> All right. Do we have any
questions from council seeing
none on this side. Okay. Go
ahead. Diana. Councilor Perez,
sorry.
>> Thank you. A couple of
thoughts. One, on the the
outcome. I think one very
important outcome is to share
how the city actually benefits
from hearing directly from
young people and what we intend
to do with their input. And
looking at the day agenda.
That's that's a pretty long day.
And did it get the lens of the
education instructor to see how
long of a day it is, especially
ending it with a community
forum? And if, if that if we're
truly going to get there. Most
attention at the end of the day
after having been here a full
day. So was there some input
from education perspective on
that?
>> Yeah, thank you for asking,
councilor. We've been working
closely with Doctor Singleton,
who's the director executive
director there at Rooted, as
well as one of their kind of
staff leads. And in addition,
talking to students, we've
talked with them extensively
about sort of what should the
day look
>> Like. And what's great is
that we've been able to sort of
mirror the normal school day
for students. So this won't be
a significant departure. And in
fact, we're going to have our
sessions earlier in the day,
kind of around the same time
that they would normally
transition from period to
period or class to class. We're
also going to be able to
preserve their lunch hour and
have some activities for
students who are not at lunch.
So students are going to go in
two different groups to lunch
time. But the nice thing is
ending at 330 is their normal
time for for ending the school
day. So we know there might be
a little bit of energy, you
know, kind of that takes a dip
after lunchtime. So we want to
try to get students as much as
we can, kind of reinvigorated,
but hopefully it'll be a very
positive way to end the day.
>> Okay. On slide number seven,
you have draft discussion
questions, but then your next
statement says identified a
range of discussion topics. So
there's questions and there's
topics. So I'm was a topic
really my favorite place to go
to in Vancouver. Or is that a
question we have for them?
>> Yeah, that was one of the
things that they were
interested in talking about
were sort of their favorite
spaces and places. I think part
of that comes from awareness
also at that student group that
we were working with, that kind
of co-design and plan, the
conversation is where that
there's going to be a diversity
of experiences kind of across
the school community. And these
questions also were designed to
help folks talk about the
topics that they identified. So,
for example, students talk to
us about their experiences with
housing and housing insecurity
or facing homelessness. They
talked about issues they found
in the community trying to get
a job. And what we try to do is
we try to create discussion
questions that would allow them
to talk about those different
diverse experiences,
understanding that some things
may, for example, one group, if
you're talking to a group of
seniors that their awareness
about life after high school
might feel very immediate. And
so they may want to take that
conversation a certain
direction. Whereas students who
are freshmen or new to the
school, that might be one that
we have to work with our
facilitators to kind of help
them into a little bit, but
trying to just recognize the
diversity of experiences.
>> All right. Thank you. That's
all the questions I have for
now.
>> Okay. Go ahead.
>> It was good bumping into you
the other day, and I asked you
about what sort of outreach
there might be for students
that don't attend this school.
And you know, what's been done?
And I, I do realize, like,
we're making a very intentional,
targeted approach, spending a
day with these, with these
students, these youth. And so
it is, it's kind of a different
approach than sort of like a,
you know, blast out and hope
people come to us. We're going
to them. Right. But I do know
that there are youth that found
out about this event. And, you
know, for many of them, they
can't attend this time. But
also what, what outreach may be
or proactive outreach may be
had been done, if any. I was
curious about so that students
could potentially still come
from other schools.
>> Yeah. Thank you counselor.
That's a great question. And
it's one I will say in our
department, we think about
engagement and access. It's
something that we struggle with
because when we're working,
whether it's with all of you as
a council or other colleagues
in other departments, there's
often this desire to include
everyone. And what we do is we
often confront trade offs there.
So there are trade offs around
either capacity, right? Like,
well, the room only fits a
certain number of people or
location. We can only get so
many people to one place at one
time. Timing and time of day,
time of week are often the
things that people ask us a
question which sounds like it
should be simple, which is
what's the best time to meet
with? Community members say,
well, each of them has a
slightly different best time
because they have different
obligations outside of school
or outside of work. And so we
just want to recognize that
first. And if there's someone
who's interested in being part
of future forums, would
absolutely welcome that. When
we've done our Past Civic Minds
program, we've invited students
from a variety of different
high schools here in Vancouver
to come to City Hall. So just
as you said, councilor, this is
sort of our way of going out.
But one of the things I'm
really hoping to do is, of
course, engage in a reflection
afterwards and would welcome
all of your thoughts about
whether or not this is
something the council would
want to continue in years
future, because there are many
different directions it could
go if it was of interest to the
council. There's ways we could
do this on a Saturday, for
example, to be a little bit
more available. There's ways we
could do it in concert with an
individual district and bring
students all to one site, but
those are really the things
we're trying to work through.
And I will say we benefited
greatly from partnership for
this conversation, but this is
hopefully the first of many,
not the only city or the only
city school partnership we
develop.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Councilor sober.
>> Yeah thank you, Mayor Pro
Tem. So I'm going to be honest.
I am a product of public
schools. And charter schools
have a controversial history in
our country. So I'm I'm nervous
walking into this situation. So
there's probably education that
needs to happen, but also kind
of piggybacking on Council
Member Harless comments, a
desire to make sure that we are
getting into the types of high
schools that I went to, because
that's an important value to me.
Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you councilor.
One thing I'll just note about
routed is they are a public
charter school, so they exist
in a slightly different place
in terms of kind of the broader
educational landscape. And also
part of why we're interested in
partnering with them is because
of their diverse student body.
So in many ways, they are
representative of our community
and the community that they
represent. Within the fourth
plane corridor. I think those
make them a really good kind of
partner. But absolutely
appreciate your comment because,
you know, when it comes to
education, there's a variety of
different settings. And that
impacts obviously not only the
way students participate, but
access resources the school has.
And that's something I'm sure
they would be very excited to
talk to you about.
>> All right. I think those are
all our questions. Thank you so
much, William, and thank you,
Joy, for joining us online. All
right. So next up is, I guess,
an update on the inspire grant
program. City Manager.
>> Yeah, I'll go ahead and move
this over to Dave Perlick. But
one of the things that we have
identified is we've been
working through our first round
of the grant process as a
potential issue that could be
problematic for getting those
approved on the schedule to
which we originally talked
about the community. Dave has
been working with our legal
staff and internal staff to
come up with a potential
solution, so we wanted to give
you a bit of a summary and then
also what we may be able to do
about it.
>> Yeah, hi. Thank you. Dave
Perlick, Director of parks,
Recreation and Cultural
services for the city. So I do
have some exciting information
to share. Want to provide an
overview of what's been going
on with Inspire Vancouver? I
also want to share, as Lorne
mentioned, an emergent
potential issue that we've
identified very recently and
what we options we could
propose to help resolve that.
So if I could first some quick
background just to make sure we
all have the right context,
inspire Vancouver is a cultural
access program authorized under
state law, allowing one tenth
of $0.01 sales tax dedicated to
supporting access to nonprofit
organizations focused on arts,
culture, heritage and science.
The Vancouver City Council
approved the program in 2024,
becoming the first city in
Washington to take advantage of
the council approval option. At
the time of adoption, one of
the decisions that was made was
to designate the culture, Arts
and Heritage Commission as the
so-called designated entity.
That means they would guide the
program and act as the approver
of grants. City staff are
assigned to serve in an
administrative capacity with
the program. In the last year
Plus program staff have worked
closely with the commission to
build out the overall program.
Things like. In holding
significant community
engagement to review, ask
questions, gain information,
learn from potential applicants
what they need, developing
criteria and equitable review
process, and also branding the
program as Inspire Vancouver.
Recently, as you may remember,
the council reviewed and
approved a proposal to
temporarily adjust some of the
policy guidelines in the
program to support a limited
year one grant program. This
allowed a shorter compressed
grant cycle. Lowered the
overall grant allocations to
prioritize making funds
available in 2026. While we at
the same time worked to prepare
for a larger grant rollout in
2027, the year one grant cycle
closed on September 9th. We saw
substantial community interest.
No one knew exactly what to
expect, but nobody had 129
grant applications across the
three categories in their radar
screen or on their bingo card.
I think it's a remarkable
achievement, given the short
timelines in the year one
program and the reminder that
program staff were not hired
until June 1st. So that's three
months ago. Kudos to the
commission staff and really the
community that's worked with us
on learning about the program
and providing feedback and
showing up to approve, to apply
for grants. We have a robust
review process beginning with a
grant review committee
comprised of eight community
members that was approved by
the commission. The process is
working as planned. The
potential problem is in
reviewing the final grant
recommendations by the
Commission. Let me explain.
This does involve some math.
The culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission charter identifies
nine commission seats. It also
requires that six are present
for quorum and uniquely, that
six vote in favor to achieve
consent on any individual
proposal. In the last four
months, we've seen two
resignations from this
commission. This leaves us with
nine minus two equals seven
commission members. So we're
just barely above quorum at
this point. Also, as program
staff have begun compiling
information to begin the review
process, we've noted that there
are four current commissioners
involved in applications that
are pending. I want to note
that there's no language in the
current charter, in the bylaws,
or in the grant policy that
says that commissioners may not
apply, so that has not been
addressed or covered. There is
no rule on that issue. I also
want to state clearly that
staff is not, and would not
appropriately provide guidance
or do an evaluation of conflict
of interest. However, we just
simply want to say we see a
potential for recusals. And
given the numbers of
commissioners that we have,
only two commissioners need be
absent or unable to vote in.
The culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission will be below quorum
and voting requirements.
Ultimately, the grants cannot
be approved under that scenario.
Therefore, we would like to
proactively propose an
immediate adjustment to the
program policy, which was
approved by council previously
and is within your purview. The
proposal is to indicate in
policy that no commissioner may
be part of an awarded grant
application. If council were to
move forward with this and we
have time for questions, the
current. We envision the
current commissioners who are
involved in grants would be
advised they could choose to
stay on the Commission knowing
that their grants could not
move forward, or they could
resign so that their grants
could be considered. If one or
more commissioners resign again,
we fall below quorum. But City
Council has the ability to fill
those seats. There aren't easy
answers here, but we feel like
this is the best approach to
ensure that we can move forward
with the grant, with the grants.
I do want to emphasize that
this is challenging, but that
timing is important, and the
current schedule calls for
recommendations from the grant
review Committee scheduled to
go to the culture, Arts and
Heritage Commission in October,
so that grants can be awarded
in November. Whether or not we
can stay on this timeline is
unknown, but we think that
there's a need to act urgently.
Certainly, applicants, review
committee members and
commissioners are all investing
significant time in the Inspire
Vancouver program. With this in
mind, we'd like to begin
immediate action and provide
this first touch to explain
this proposed solution to you
and begin scheduling time to
bring it forward. That is all I
have prepared, and I don't know
if the city manager or city
attorney have anything to add.
>> Well, how about I ask? Just
to recap. So when you asked us
to do our math, we are at seven
commissioners right now.
Correct. And four of them have
applications in for grant funds.
And so the the question is if
they were to proceed and review
these grant applications, at
least one commissioner, each
application that they review
would have to recuse themselves
and walk out of the room. So we
might have at six sitting in
the room at any time to review
these applications moving
forward. So and then they'd
have to unanimously agree on
that grant application. Is that
the correct math?
>> I think the math is correct.
But I do want to state that's
not how we view envision the
review and the action taken by
the commission to occur.
Similar to many of the grant
programs that that we go
through legislative action on,
we would not envision,
particularly with 100 grants,
doing individual grant
deliberation with the
Commission, rather, the grant
review Committee that I that I
mentioned, they are really
diving and doing all of the
review of all details in each
grant application, creating a
ranking list and a
recommendation to the
Commission to review and
deliberate on. Frankly, we
don't see a way to break it
apart to discrete decisions on
each grant because of the
number of grants that we have.
Again, we would ask the
Commission to vote on the
recommendations, and they could
make amendments, but they would
be voting on a recommendation
of grants by program category.
>> All right. Do you have a
question, councilor?
>> More or less comment for the
councilors.
>> Didn't we grant the mayor.
Unilateral powers to fill
boards and commissions in times
of an emergency?
>> I think that's just. For us.
That was for us. I thought.
>> We need somebody on C-TRAN.
It's like if we needed somebody
on C-TRAN and the primary and
the alternate weren't available,
the mayor has the unilateral
authority to pick somebody from
council to sit on C-TRAN, but I
don't believe it applies to
boards and commissions of the
city. That's my interpretation.
>> Good point, good point.
>> Yeah. Mayor pro tem yeah, I
did have a comment. Thank you.
>> Okay.
>> If you're finished,
counselor. Thank you. Dave.
Thanks for bringing the issue
forward and for starting a
conversation. You know, I
applaud the city for moving
quickly to try to move money
into the community quickly. And
I think that once we made that
decision, we knew that we
weren't going to have a
flawless process and that, but
that we would learn a lot from
the process and that we would
be able to quickly refine the
process as a result of we of
what we had learned, so that
when the full grant cycle
begins next year, we will be
able to apply those learnings.
What I'm hearing from you right
now is that we've got an early
learning that we want to
preemptively apply. I believe
strongly that we should not
have a culture, Arts and
Heritage Commission member
participating in a decision to
award a grant to an
organization that they're
affiliated with. I think that's
a clear conflict of interest,
my view. And so I would be
supportive of making an
administrative change to our
policies to clearly articulate
that. And if that means that
current members choose to
recuse themselves or step down
in order to be eligible for a
grant and no longer serve on
the culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission, I think that's okay,
because in the grand scheme of
things, what's most important
to me is that even though we
might not get it 100% right in
this first round, I think this
is a big one that we can get
right. And if we get it wrong,
it would have horrible
ramifications. And so what that
might mean is that we have to
push the award of those grants
out a little bit longer, so
that council could appoint new
members to the Cultural Arts
and Heritage Commission, and
they can participate in that
decision making process. But to
me, the trade off of a month or
more in this first go round is
well worth getting it this much
more correct. The first go
round. So I'm very supportive
directionally of where you're
going. I think it's unfortunate
that we've had this discussion.
I know that there were members
who, knowing that this program
was coming and knowing that
they were part of organizations
that they anticipated would
apply, actually preemptively
resigned, which is part of the
reason why we have some
openings. And there were some
that preceded that. Even so, I
think there was a general
understanding amongst the
culture, Arts and Heritage
Commission members at a certain
point in time that this
standard would be applied, but
it wasn't codified. And so this
is our opportunity to codify it,
make it very clear what our
expectations are, and set a
standard going forward. So
those are my thoughts. Thank
you.
>> All right. Do we have other
thoughts or questions? All
right. Councilor Harless.
>> So you said four are known
to be involved. So those would
be four additional potential
resignations with this new
approach. So we would need to
be we would need to sit three
people probably then okay. Just
making sure. And then without a
timeline in front of me, it's
kind of hard to see it all like
laid out, but I just wanted to
confirm that that was three.
Thank you.
>> All right, councilor.
>> Thank you. I want to make
sure that I understand your
solution clearly. So that's
appointing three new people by
what if if they resigned. But
worst case scenario, appointing
3 or 4 people, if they resign
by a certain time. So I just
want to make sure that we're
realistic on that timeline. And
I too, am okay with moving it
later in order for us to do
this correctly and do feel
strongly that we should not
have people applying sit on the
commission reviewing the on
their own grant applications.
So I am in support of what my
colleague Councilor Paulson has
laid out. But I also want to
know a timeline for this and
the process for us to appoint
new folks and what that would
look like, and then just ask
for some further clarification.
Use the time that we have to
get some clarification. City
manager, I had raised the
question of how we define the
word culture with many of the
organizations who are wanting
to apply or have been applying
and not getting success and
wanting to align ourselves with
how other cities are defining
culture as they apply this
program.
>> How about we address the
first question along timeline?
We're we're almost to October.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Could you address that
question first?
>> So we know that this will
require a first reading in
public hearing process. So it
would be two more touches we
could potentially I'd have to
review council timelines. We
could potentially bring it
forward October 5th. If not,
then October 12th. And have
that for your review with
approval at some point in the
midpoint of October. We have
been scrambling to look at
calendars. It won't align with
when the culture, Arts and
Heritage Commission would
regularly meet. So there's
certainly a special meeting in
in the coming, you know, if we
follow this path and it's
probably too early to really
nail down when that is. We
understand that the November
timeline is a goal that we may
not be able to fully address,
but we will clean up that
timeline if given the direction
that this is in the interest of
council to review further and
see a formal action request.
>> There was one more question
that you had, Councilor Perez,
that I said you had a secondary
question, right.
>> Secondary to that is
clarifying how we are
implementing the definition of
culture, as we have many
organizations that see
themselves meeting that
definition but are hearing that
they do not. And so there's a
question of how we are
interpreting that or see how
other cities are implementing
that definition. So just
aligning our, putting some time
and thought and aligning
ourselves with that.
>> Yeah, I'd be happy to ask
our program supervisor to bring
forward a more robust answer to
that. We are definitely working
with the two most established
programs, Olympia and Tacoma,
regularly. In fact, we found
that they've appreciated a lot
of our questions. And, and
we're we're all learning
together. So we're reviewing
that the many of the
definitions are embedded in
state law, and so are not the
choice of the local
jurisdiction and the type of
organization. You must be a
qualified 501 three C so what
people are interpreting as the
reason they're not qualified is
not always entirely accurate at
first blush. So I think there's
a whole conversation about that
because we've tried to be as
informative as possible and to
really work with organizations
to better understand what their
options are as well.
>> Just back to the first
question on the timeline for
process of us appointing 3 or 4
members, are you going to share
that process with us? Do we
have already a process in place?
>> This is such an emergent
issue. I'm going to look to my
left and see if there's any
comments or direction would
like me to share a couple of
options, but I don't want to
speak over the city manager.
>> Yeah. When Dave briefed me
about the issue, one of the
concerns that I had was, you
know, how many people do we
have kind of in our pipeline
for potential board and
commission applicants who were
interested in this? And while
the current recruitment
underway, I think, has only
brought about two people that
were interested, the earlier
one that I was was done in
April of this year. We still
have 26 people who had
indicated an interest in being
on the Cultural Arts and
Heritage Commission. So we've
got a pretty good bank of folks
who have indicated that they
would like to serve on it. So I
think the next step would be to
reach out, see how many of
those are still interested, and
then start to develop, you know,
kind of a list for the council
subcommittee to do interviews
on for future appointments. But
it will take us working pretty
quickly to get everything
scheduled.
>> Yes, councilor. We you had a
question first. Sorry,
councilor.
>> Just more of a comment. We
also have a procedure for doing
a special meeting. So also
consider that I'm I think and
you know, I'm in my fifth year
now. We've only ever done one
special meeting ever. So but I
know it is a tool. So worst
case scenario, that's also a
tool. I just want to make sure
you didn't forget that.
>> Okay. Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. I just wanted to
remind Council that when we
talked about boards and
commissions a meeting or two
ago, I made the point of having
an off cycle process to fill
openings on certain boards and
commissions. And this was
definitely one of the boards
and commissions that I had in
mind and named when I made that
point, because we have two
openings that have been open
for a while and could have been
filled during this time period
if we had an off cycle process
in place for certain boards and
commissions that have
autonomous decision making
authority like this one does.
And so part of the math problem
that Dave started off with
starts with, we're already too
short, and now we have four who
have applied for grants, right?
And so ultimately, when you're
thinking about potentially how
many we might have to appoint,
don't think in terms of 3 or 4.
Think in terms of 5 or 6, right.
Because we want to get it back
to nine, not just back to seven
again. And then going forward,
what I'd like for the city
manager to do is to help lead a
process by which we have a
parallel process for openings
on some of these keyboards and
commissions, together with work
that we can do with that
onboarding coordinator position
that we talked about earlier in
the budget conversation. We
have so much work to do when it
comes to onboarding and
training and ongoing support
for boards and commissions, and
I think that's a key role that
this boards and commission or
coordinators can fulfill in
ways that our current support
staff aren't able to do because
they don't specialize in that
in this individual would
specialize in that. So I think
we have an opportunity to make
yet further enhancements in our
board and commission process
through that staff position and
through revisiting some of
these policies. Thank you.
>> All right. It looks like we
have at least one decision for
sure to make, but I need a
little more clarification. So
when, when and if we pass this
change, are we offering the
commissioners the opportunity
to withdraw their grant
applications to stay on the
Commission?
>> Yes. We would propose to
provide them some some period
of time notification, some
period of time to make that
decision. They could they could
indicate I'm staying on the
commission. No further action
would be taken. Those grant
applications would then not be
considered for approval. If
they said, no, I'm committed.
You know, I think benefit to
the community weighs in in
favor of keeping the grant
application going. Then they
would be asked to resign from
the commission, but we would
provide them notification and
some time to make that decision.
>> All right. And then as soon
as we decide whether or not
we're moving forward with this
change, then we can talk a
little bit more clearly about
when the community and the
applicants can actually hear
from us on, on the success or
not of their applications. So
pushing this to probably
November, December or December,
January time frame.
>> We will really sharpen that
timeline given favorable
direction from, you know,
initial interest by council
will really develop that in
more detail. Try to put a more
specific range around that. And
we've got some communication to
do as well. We're distinctly
interested in maintaining the
highest level of credibility
and relationship building
through this year. One process,
and I think the community will
be understanding to a point,
but they've got plans and
they've got needs, and we're so
we really appreciate the
understanding and urgency by
council.
>> Okay.
>> Mayor Pro Tem.
>> Yes, councilor Stober.
>> Thank you. I just want to
express a little bit of concern
about where this conversation
has led to. When this topic, we
did not know there was going to
be a second topic under City
Manager communications until
just a few minutes ago. And
when it was introduced, it was
introduced as in for
information only. And therefore
it was not noticed. The public
was not able to give comment
during this meeting. So I, I,
I'm really I don't feel
comfortable giving any
direction tonight given the
circumstances. Thank you.
>> For clarification. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but the plan
would be for us to to provide
some direction to come back for
basically two readings. So we
have to have a first reading
and a second reading. Is that
correct?
>> Yes. We would have to have
two, two, two occurrences of
City Council to have this
approved.
>> So the public would then
have opportunity and notice to
speak at either one of those
upcoming two opportunities
before we make any actual
decisions.
>> Correct.
>> Does that help clarify
things?
>> Counselor? Absolutely does
not, because this was
introduced as a for information
only presentation. And there is
an implication that we will
provide direction to staff. And
I I'm not comfortable with that.
Thank you.
>> Okay. City manager and our
city attorney, do we have any
concerns with adding these to
future agendas?
>> I think the simplest way
respecting Councilor Stover's
wishes with something like this.
If there are two council
members that would like to see
this added to a future agenda,
just reach out to me after the
meeting and we will follow that
process to bring it forward for
a future discussion.
>> So you're saying bring it
back for a discussion only item
on the agenda, or bring it back
for a workshop? Or what is the
what is the suggestion you're
looking for from council?
>> Ideally, we would bring it
back for workshop and then
action for the two readings
after that. But look, I'll have
to look at the agenda. It could
come back as a formal agendized
item under City Manager's
communications. If workshop
time is awful.
>> Okay. All right. Go ahead,
councilor.
>> Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem and
I totally appreciate where
you're coming from. Councilor
Stober it when we take a look
at down the road and it comes
to city manager communications,
what what are we talking about?
What direction are we giving?
Where are we going? And should
we be notifying the public in
advance of this? I totally
appreciate where you're going.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Do we have any
councilors who would like to
recommend that this item be put
on a future agenda for
discussion or workshop?
Councilor Perez.
>> Yes, please bring it back in
the appropriate format that it
needs to be, so that we follow
our own process and allow the
public time to input and adjust
whatever timeline we need to do
to get us to where we need to
do so.
>> I second, adding it to a
future agenda.
>> All right. We have we have
two councilors that would like
it brought back and put on the
agenda. Is there anything else
that we need to discuss tonight?
>> Nothing further, Your Honor.
>> Okay. Anything from our city
attorney?
>> Nothing. Thank you. Mayor
Pro tem.
>> Anything from council staff?
No. All right, then, I think we
have we're getting ready to
adjourn this meeting and move
into our community forum. I
don't remember what I'm
officially supposed to say
other than this. Meeting has
adjourned, and we will adjourn
in a few moments without the
cameras on. Oh, wait, I do have.