Good afternoon and welcome to
Vancouver City Council. Today
is Monday, October 5th, 2026.
And this afternoon we're going
to start off with a state
legislative draft legislative
agenda. City manager, any
additional information?
>> Thank you mayor. As you know,
when the legislature reconvenes
next year, this is
traditionally the time of year
where we start to narrow down
the scope of things that we
want to prioritize for our
legislative agenda. We're only
able to pursue a limited number
of items each year. And so we
go through a process to
identify which ones should be
our top priorities. We've done
some of that work, but always
want to bring it back to
council for your validation and
vetting before we finalize that.
So we're joined this afternoon
by Catherine Kelly, our policy
and program manager, and Brian
Enslow with our Buddhist
Consulting, who represents the
city in Olympia.
>> Hey. Good afternoon.
>> Good afternoon, mayor and
council. I don't have anything
really to add besides what City
manager just stated. So I'm
going to pass this over to Mr.
Enslow.
>> Great. Good afternoon. Thank
you for the opportunity to
speak before you. It's it's I
haven't been in this room since
this new configuration. It
looks great. Can't return to
the same river. It's not the
same, and you're not the same,
right? And so if I accidentally
call you Councilor Soelberg,
let me forgive me once. And
then if I do it again, because
you guys have flip flopped too.
So anyhow, as city manager said,
we are here to provide just
some context about kind of what
the session is going to look
like and some of the things
from kind of the Olympia
perspective. We do have a
preliminary agenda and some
agenda items here to kind of
vet with you and get some input.
And then just kind of briefly
talk about what the staff
process is going to be moving
forward and then interacting
with you as a council. We're
about a month out from the
elections now. There's some
obviously very large social
issues with this council is
aware of, but there's also some
meaningful fiscal issues on the
ballot, particularly the
millionaire's tax, and whether
that's going to be either
repealed by the voters or
upheld by the voters. And that
clearly has significant
potential financial
implications for the state and
its state budgeting process. I
don't expect you to remember my
presentation at the conclusion
of last session, because I
hardly do. But one of the
points I made was the state
kind of has a four year budget
cycle. Their current two year
budget cycle is was predicated
on like existing revenues and
transfers and things like that,
where that millionaires tax
assumption is really key is in
the year three and year four.
So it wouldn't have like
instantaneous disruption, but
looking out, it would create
some very significant holes
moving forward for the state if
the voters were to repeal that.
So that's kind of one of the
biggest kind of fiscal issues
on the on the on the ballot in
November. And then also, you
all are very aware of kind of
your local elections and then
the and then the state. So
every, every House, house seat
is up this year. You know, half
of the Senate seats. We'll see
what happens in November based
on the primaries. It's fair to
say that it looks unlikely that
there will be a significant
change in the makeup of the
legislature in terms of the
majorities and the size of the
majorities. It looks like the
House will be retained by the
Democrats. It looks likely that
the Senate will be retained by
the Democrats, and it also
looks like they'll still have
some large margins, if not even
larger. But again, a lot can
change between now and November.
And and I'm sure we'll we'll
provide you some varied,
significant reporting on that
as it comes up. Revenue
continues to kind of. I think
the last couple of times I've
told you it's been bumpy. I
think it's fair to say it's
some some adjective worse than
bumpy. The most recent revenue
forecast was down about $1
billion. Again, that's on a two
year biennial base of around 80.
So that is not a huge
percentage, but it is a it's
still a significant number
that's combined then just
generally with. A corresponding
increase in just the cost of
providing the existing service.
So when the state goes to put
together their budget, they
look at the revenues coming up,
and then they also look at
what's called the maintenance
level, which is just to say, if
I wanted to do tomorrow what I
do today, what's it going to
cost me? And, and, you know,
and, and those costs are
associated with the, the cost
of providing benefits to state
employees and things like that,
and the cost of fuel and energy
and all those other things that
have gone up for everybody,
right? Much like our household
budgets are challenging to
continue to do tomorrow. What
we did today, or I don't know,
I can't, you know, I don't buy
organic milk anymore. I buy,
you know, like, you know, the
store brand half and half
because those are the choices
we're all making. Right? And
the state is looking that at
that as well. And then some of
the kind of the kind of the key
themes that as we talk with
staff and as we've worked on
our agenda and we think about
where are the opportunities for
the city as well, many of the
same things that have been
around are returning around
housing. I think liability from
a state perspective is
continuing to come more into
focus. Washington state is
somewhat uniquely positioned in
terms of our liability exposure
as governments. There's a
complete waiver of sovereign
immunity. There's a policy
which is referred to as like
joint and several, which means
like, if we're partially
responsible for a negative
outcome, but we are the largest
financial institution, then we
are wholly responsible for it.
And then also we have no caps
on non-economic damages. So, so
that kind of creates some
fairly significant liability
issues. And we've we've been
seeing it with, you know, like
the rates, you know, our
self-insurance premiums and
things like that. And the state
is experiencing it as well,
particularly around some of
their older, like youth
facilities and foster care
system and like JRA and other
like long standing cases which
are coming back up. So they are
looking at that with a finer
lens than perhaps they have in
the past. And I think there's
probably some opportunities for
us to dovetail with their
concerns. Resources broadly, I
mentioned that the budget
shortfalls, I think there's
going to be some challenges
there. And of course, as I
mentioned, November, if, you
know, if some if the
millionaires tax were to be
repealed, that would clearly
generate the need from a state
perspective to look at
resources again. And then, you
know, AI and privacy and, and
energy is it's no longer
emerging. It is, but it is
continuing to elevate in the
kind of level of priority for
the legislature. So with that,
that's kind of the context.
What was our framework city
manager mentioned? Narrow. I'm
going to get paid $0.50. Every
time I say narrow, it's like a
not a residual, but. And, and,
and of course, every time I put
pressure on the system to
narrow it, it keeps expanding.
So I haven't been successful
yet, but I'm going to like,
we're going to try to continue
to narrow and narrow. It has,
in my experience, been. A
uniquely challenging
environment to represent local
government and kind of the
ability to have kind of like a
broad agenda and kind of not
push those things through, but
it's gotten much harder. So I
think part of the reason why
I'm encouraging everyone to
kind of narrow our focus is
because I think we'll have a
better time being successful on
kind of a fewer issues than
perhaps in the past, where,
quite frankly, we have been
pretty successful having a
large, like scatter plot
approach where we could just
say, let's, let's try a bunch
of things and see what sticks.
I'm here. October, October 4th.
Is that right? Fifth. Fifth?
It's fifth. Thank you. I'm here.
I got the date right. I got the
day right. Even I can't get the
date right. But. So we're
trying to get earlier, starting
starting earlier to continue to
build to to kind of get the
delegation engaged earlier to
get the community engaged
earlier coalitions earlier. And
again, all with the that we, me
and the staff team need to do a
better job of, of doing
everything we can to help make
the city be successful. We're
looking for alignment. I think
I mentioned that on the
liability issue, and there's
going to be some other issues
as we talk about like, where
can we find opportunities where
we're not necessarily working
against what's happening in
Olympia, but we're working with.
And then again, we need to
educate, recruit and expand
City Champions, which is both
within the legislature. But I
also need to do a better job of
working on working with you and
helping you with the
relationships you have, and
really utilizing those and
focusing those and honing those
in order for the city to be
more successful. And that's
somewhere where I need to do a
better job. So that's kind of
the context for how we were
kind of putting this agenda
together. I like buckets, I, I
like to organize things. So we
kind of try to and, and so we
try to kind of focus on a
couple key, what I'd call what
I'm perhaps crassly calling
buckets, but just like
organizational frameworks. And
the first one we have here is
preserving core community
services. And what I'm really
talking about is how do we as a
city, continue to have the
resources we need to do to
focus on the essential
functions that we already
provide? And so some of those
are revenue related ideas. And
then some of those are also
then cost containment. And we
have, you know, reduced and
reduced local government
liability. Again, shows up here.
That's on the on the cost side,
there's probably opportunities
for additional cost savings
that I have not identified. But.
Some of the current kind of
policy priorities that we've
identified is looking at an
additional city utility tool.
I'm going to take a breath and
I don't want to. I'm actually I
do want to I'm going to put
city manager on the spot. I
don't know if you want to jump
in here. If you don't, we can
just keep going. But I, I know
this is something that I've
talked to you about quite a bit,
and I think that it might be
helpful for them to hear from
you just a little bit.
>> Yeah. So one of the things
that we would be specifically
seeking is there's kind of two
schools of thought around the
state code, where cities are
given authorization to do
utilities depends on whether
you consider it to be
prescriptive, in that you can
only have city utilities for
the ones that are specifically
in the code, or whether or not
those are examples. And cities
can create additional ones
beyond that. But as you look
for the landscape of how local
government is financed in other
areas besides Washington, you
can find examples of other
types of utilities that have
been set up. And one of the
appeals of those is that rather
than something like property
taxes or sales taxes, where the
fee on, for example, on
property tax, what you charge
for property tax doesn't
necessarily have any
relationship to that property's
consumption of municipal
services or the means of the
people that own it. Utilities
really give you the opportunity
to do that. So we'd be looking
for the state to add to the
menu of ones that cities would
be able to implement across the
across Washington.
>> Thank you so much. I knew
Lannen would do a better job
than me. We've also looked at
the Transportation Benefit
Authority. There was a bill
last year that would have kind
of extended the weight in which
it was applicable to, which
really makes sense in light of
kind of the electrical
electrification. Easy for me to
say or, or hydrogen, quite
frankly, some of the, some of
the heavy machinery that we're
now using that actually is, you
know, like just trucks and, and
maintenance stuff that's,
that's now heavier because of
batteries, quite frankly, would
be captured under that. And
that if you kind of extend the,
the, the top end of the weight
collection higher, you would
collect more revenue and also
just the ability to apply it is
running out. So we need to look
at extending that moving
forward to the future. And then
I have kind of this laundry
list of ideas. I'm not
suggesting that we go after all
of those things. What I'm
suggesting is that there's
quite a few. Opportunities to
generate the ability to
continue to support our core
services that aren't
necessarily property tax or
sales tax. And why is that, Mr.
Enslow? Well, you know, we've
had property tax and the 1% cap
on property tax on our agenda
for quite some time. We
continue to be told by the
governor and the legislature
that that is not a politically
viable solution. So some of
this is we're listening. And
how do we pivot. We've seen
sales tax options. From the
legislature as recently as last
year, with the additional one
tenth of 1% for child care
services and things of that
nature. And and I think at the
staff level, we were sensitive
to two things. One, were
sensitive to just the general
regressive nature of sales tax
and, and wanting to, to be
aware of that. And the second
thing we've noticed is, you
know, this, this we are talking
about like just again, trying
to provide the service we
provide today, tomorrow and
acknowledging that there's
additional costs associated
with it now and finding
resources for that. One of the
things that we've seen is sales
tax authority or options often
comes with a, with a, with a
duty, whether it's and, and you
have taken up those duties many
times, whether it's the mental
health one tenth or whether
it's the housing one tenth. But
in some respects, that's that
is mission creep, right. That
is us taking care of our
downtown because the other
entities that we're supposed to
perhaps have not met our
standards, right. And things of
that nature. And so those are
some of the reasons why we
haven't necessarily identified
a sales tax or necessarily
property tax, even though
you're like those, those make
sense. However, given those
caveats, we tried to focus on
some other some other options
and tried to be a little bit
more creative, quite frankly.
>> So, Ryan, why fireworks? We
don't allow the sale of
fireworks in the city. So I
think we need to take that one
off the list.
>> That's fantastic.
>> There you go.
>> Great. Before I advance to
the next slide, in addition to
the correction from the mayor
about taking things off, which,
by the way, I love the spirit
of taking things off. So if
there's other things that don't
make sense, let me know. Are
there things that I've missed?
And I see that there's a hand
up.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> Thank you. Ryan, can you
elaborate on the vacant land
tax? I have a little bit more.
And then consideration for
commercial vacancy tax. Is that
just a difference between the
two and where you think both of
those would fall?
>> I see them as very similar.
And so conceptually we're
talking about is there is there
support for housing or unhoused
by creating an additional tax
on either just vacant parcels
or commercial parcels that are
vacant? I know there's been
some conversation in the
legislature about commercial
vacancy. There's also been some
conversation around just like,
you know, like underutilized
spaces such as parking, you
know, what's what's essentially
parking lots. So I see them
very similar. I think as the
details would emerge, we would
brief you on those. But I think
generally it's I don't I don't
see a significant distinction
in my mind between kind of the
concept of what you're getting
at and the outcome you're
trying to achieve.
>> Okay. Keep going.
>> Great. Thank you. Planning
for Vancouver's future. So this
is kind of the ideas
surrounding either kind of like
how we're growing with, with
respect to our urban growth
areas, and then also then how
we're planning our existing
footprint and whether it's
redevelopment of areas or
neighborhoods and density and
housing types and things of
that. So. Within that, kind of
like from a principle
standpoint, like a statement is
we're looking to promote tools
and policies that enable
stronger cooperation between
cities and counties within the
urban growth area. And on the
next slide, we have some ideas
that support that and then
support policies that help all
Vancouver residents maintain or
achieve access to housing and
community resources. And again,
on this next slide, which I'm
going to go to, we have some
some kind of specific action
items. So one of the most
critical ones is. Extension of
the existing sales tax credit
for annexations. That was
something that the city had
championed several years ago.
At the time, it was House Bill
1425, and we had worked to get
sales tax credit that would
provide state resources to help
incentivize us moving towards
annexation. That is set to
expire. And this isn't the work
session to talk, to go through
all the reasons why annexations
have have yet to proceed. But
quite frankly, it's it's, you
know, it's it's a necessary but
not sufficient element is what
I would say. And then also
we've been looking at creating,
advancing a pilot project that
would actually allow cities
like Vancouver to access that
sales tax credit prior to
annexation. And there's kind of
two schools of thought behind
that. There's both the kind of
infrastructure element which,
you know, as it is now, you
would only receive the
additional the sales tax credit.
You know, when you annex, which
means then you're responsible
for all the infrastructure that
isn't currently up to Cyndie
standards. And quite frankly,
the potential consequences
associated with that. So, so
could we get a head start on
upgrading some of the whether
it's sewer or septic or
sidewalk or street lights or
whatever it is as appropriate
prior to actually having to
fully kind of bring that into
the city. There's also the
labor side of it, which is
there's likely a workforce that
you're going to have to bring
forward to meet again, some of
our response times and things
like that. And it takes it
takes a while to get people on
and get them trained up. And,
and so ought it not make sense
to have some window prior to
actually annexing that you can
access those resources so that
the moment you annex, you're
actually more prepared and, and
in a, in a better spot. So
that's some of the thinking
behind there. And then I know
this, Madam Mayor, I know you
in particular, I know this
council as well. We've had a
lot of conversations around the
Housing Trust Fund and how we
have a number of incredible
community projects that are
ready to go and are just
waiting on state resources to
make them a reality. I know
just behind me, I know Lorne's
there. They can probably
correct me, but it's over 600
units is just, you know, like,
and so we know that that is a
priority number one. So. Those
are some of the ideas that we
have identified for this
specific policy area. And I'm
going to see. Do I ask. Yes, I
thought so. I wanted to make
sure. And so then we have some
other ideas within this. Again,
this is kind of we've we've
worked with staff, we've
expanded, you know, we've kind
of just like at some point, I'm
just throwing it all out there
and saying, here's some of the
things we're considering. I
don't know if there's any of
these ideas that are
specifically to resonate to, to
you as individuals. That
feedback would be really
helpful. We're starting to get
the state budget requests in,
and there is some additional
funding for the Chip program in
the Connecting Housing to
Infrastructure program. Within
the commerce budget. So that's
a good sign. But again, I don't
necessarily want to go through
all these items, but here is
kind of a snapshot of the
thinking from your legislative
team and your staff team.
>> Councilors. Do you have any
questions on Alaska? Yes,
councilor Paulson, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor councilor
Paulson here, Brian, these are
these are all this is a great
list, and I'm not against any
of them, but some stand out for
me more than others because
what we consistently hear from
the building community is how
slow it is to put projects, and
how that also can then affect
the pro forma in today's
interest rate environment. Time
is money. So as I look at this
and I think about things that
could help with speed to market
streamlining CIPA at the top of
the list is one of them.
Eliminating document recording
fees for low income covenants
would help with the low income
math. Development. SDC waivers
without backfill would be huge
for us. Tod would be helpful.
But then the last one, the Tiff
tax Increment Finding Authority
Financing authority would also
be super helpful. So I just
wanted to underscore those
particular items because they
stood out to me when I was
looking at this list as ways
that we could get speed to
market for our housing. Yeah.
Thank you.
>> Councilor Harless.
>> The bullet you have there
about regulating junk fees, is
this specifically about like
rental units or other junk fees
besides that?
>> I would have to go back to
staff to understand that
distinction. I didn't get this.
I, I. I thought it was a, I
actually don't know now that
you asked the question, I know
that the legislature has
considered various tenant fees
in the past and addressed that
issue. And I know that this
Council has had that
conversation. And broadly, I
would say the direction I've
received from this Council is
to. With respect to fees and
other costs, is to advocate. On
the tenant side, I would say
broadly from a policy, I think
there's some nuance there, but.
So let me get I, I apologize
for for not having that in my
notes, but let me make sure I
get get back to you on that.
>> Yeah, there's a lot of
advocacy going on. I mean,
there has been, but I've
noticed specifically has kind
of ramped up the last couple of
months. And I know that I've
brought it up here for us to
potentially start looking at
and maybe even get ahead of the
state, a lot of fees, it's, you
know, instead of increasing
rent, it's diverted to adding
additional fees, which is one
way that some landlords are
getting around rent
stabilization and whatnot. But
it also, for me, especially as
we roll out our rental
registration, it's not really
capturing the true cost of rent
when there's all these
different various fees
throughout our community. So
that's one way that I also look
at it is having elimination of
a lot of those junk fees gives
us a real, the real data for
what rent actually looks like
in this community and sets an
equitable playing field for all
folks that are renters.
>> And that is very consistent
with what I've. I feel I've
heard from this council over
the last at least 18 months, if
not longer.
>> So Councilor Perez, go ahead.
>> I did want to chime in a bit
on the on the junk fees,
particular around the
manufactured home areas and
mobile home parks. I know that
that's a big issue, at least
from some of the constituents
that I've been working with.
The other point, and this might
be something to monitor as we
move forward with our work with
the county regarding
cryptocurrency ATMs, at ATMs
and the community safety of our
vulnerable elder population, I
know that surely we're not the
only ones in Spokane isn't the
only ones dealing with that,
but I'm just wondering if if
that's going to pop up at the
state level that for us to keep
an eye on that, or if there's a
different position we want to
take as a city with that voice,
again, monitoring with where
the county is moving on that
and where we would be. So just
thinking about that, I would
love to get a list of those
projects that you said that
you're waiting for state
resources. Is that possible to
just send a list of what those
projects are?
>> So Mr. Lande is behind me as
well. I can't see if he has a
laptop with him, but we do have
a one pager prepared on that
that has that information. So
it's already done, ready to go
and we will make sure you have
it okay. By the.
>> OClaire Linse.
>> All right. Great, great.
Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Lande.
>> Councilor Soelberg, go ahead.
>> Thank you mayor. Good to see
you, Brian. And like the new
haircut he. Several years back,
the state passed a commercial
pace program. And I'm not going
to be able to come up with what
the acronym stands for, but
it's a energy retrofit
financing tool. And my
understanding is that the time
Washington punted on
residential pace. In order to
see how it played out in other
states, it's now up and running
in 43 different states in the
District of Columbia, and would
love to get a a low down of
kind of where that stands and,
and what are potentials there,
because that is definitely
something, you know, helping
our residents meet energy
efficiency in their current
homes would be something that
would help us in our, our
climate action framework.
>> Yeah, great. Great question
and observation. I, I have not
seen a bill draft on that issue.
That doesn't mean one doesn't
exist yet. But what I and I and
by the way, yet I, I think I am
hearing quite a bit of
sensitivity around
affordability broadly, but
affordability specifically
around utilities, this seems
like something that will be
included in the conversation
and will be included in like
packages for consideration as
the majority caucuses move
forward and trying to address
affordability, particularly
around utilities. So if and
when I see a bill draft, I'll
certainly circulate it for you.
But it it I think it will. I
think it is more likely than
not that it will be part of the
conversation. This legislative
session, I think. So I think in
addition to that, though,
they'll be kind of looking at
continuing to accelerate and
automate access to like the
Working Families Tax Credit
program. Additionally, there
was, you know, like pots of
money in last biennium put into
Commerce's budget for utility
assistance. I would expect to
see a desire for more funding
around that as well. So I
suspect to see a kind of like a
package of ideas, including
policies such as this, to
address individual
affordability concerns around
utilities.
>> Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Let's continue.
>> Thank you. Great. Thank you.
>> Protecting vibrant, safe
community. I've lost it in
front of me. It does not look
like you have lost it in front
of you. And now I'm back. Great.
And I have a hard copy because
I'm old. Not just old school,
but so. So even if I don't have
a screen, I do have a hard copy
here, but protecting vibrant,
safe communities. So potential
policy priorities include
increased funding for indigent
defense. I'm very well aware of
of our current situation. I
probably didn't have to put
potential on this one, but we
are listening at first here.
Another small anecdote from
when I was here right after
session, and I mentioned that
there had been some work at the
statewide level on Emos, and I
think I had mentioned that
maybe that wasn't a concern in
Vancouver. And I think all
seven voices of the council
said, actually, Brian, it's a
concern here too. So there is
there will be legislation this
year introduced to further kind
of examine and define kind of
what an Emo is in order to then
clarify kind of policies and
enforcements around that. We
continue to have some pushback
on the urgency from the state
licensing agency, and they feel
like they need to like 2028 in
order to kind of like figure
this out. And I think, I think
there is a significant
coalition of local governments
that would disagree and would
like to find solutions in this
upcoming session. So we'll see
how that conversation goes. I
also have on this list the
harmonization of death benefits
for first responders. So to
level eyes, what firefighters
are getting commensurate with,
like the death benefit
associated with law enforcement
officers.
>> Brian, hold up. What does
that mean?
>> This is an this is an issue
that I believe you have spoken
to me directly about.
>> And so I thought we settled
that. So it is the same across
both firefighters and police.
>> Now that is settled.
>> Yes. It was unanimous in
both houses. Now it doesn't
mean it covers the cost, but we
brought it up to the minimum.
So if we would like to improve
it, that might be a
conversation. But it is the
same for both fire and police.
>> That's probably the nuance
that I missed from our
conversation where there was
work to be done.
>> Okay, let's, let's improve
it. But it is the same now
across both.
>> Great. Currently within the
child endangerment statute,
certain types of narcotics,
like methamphetamine, is
included, but fentanyl is not.
So there has been I've heard
from members of this council
some desire to include fentanyl
as part of the child
endangerment statute. We've
also looked at protecting
municipal employees from
threats like additional
penalties, and then seek
additional funding for local
emergency management. So those
are some of the potential
priorities that we've listed
here.
>> Yes, counselor. Go ahead,
counselor Fox.
>> Yes. On this list for sure.
We've talked about our support
as a council for promoting the
change to the law, to say that
fentanyl should be part of the
felony statute, the child
endangerment statute. I've also
been working with the
Children's Justice Center staff
on putting together kind of a
memo to better describe the
situation and efforts that have
happened to date in that arena.
And so I will be sharing that
back after the CJC has had a
chance to take a look and make
sure that we're all in
agreement with Path Forward. So
I'll be bringing that back to
council as well. But also, I
would say on this list that's
missing is city council. We've
already directed staff to bring
us back per, I'd say, a chance
to ban kratom sales in the city
limits. And to this list, I
would say I would hope that
Council would also be in favor
of banning kratom statewide.
And for those of you that are
not aware of the threat, kratom
could have been a very, you
know, I guess, safe. What is it
I want to say supplement or
whatnot that, you know, folks
used to use before, you know,
chemicals, they've been doing
these chemical modifications to
the drug. The way that they
sell it, of course, is not
something that the CDC or
anyone is actually monitoring.
And so this product ends up
being very desperate depending
on who's manufacturing it. And
the result is that we've had
people dying by taking this
supplement. We've had folks
getting addicted to it. And
then I also read recently that
the calls to the Poison Control
Center nationwide have
increased 1,200% over the last
five years. In response to
folks that have taken this drug
thinking again, perhaps they
bought it at a store. It's not
behind the counter. There's no
prescription needed, so it must
be safe. So I don't think I
need to convince my fellow
council members of the danger
of this particular item. But I
am hoping that you'll support
us adding it to our legislative
agenda.
>> I do. I support adding that
it's a community safety and
also a child endangerment issue
in my mind.
>> That's great.
>> I have seen a bill draft. I
believe it will be sponsored by
Representative Reeves that
would enact a statewide ban on
all synthetic kratom. So as you
mentioned, the modified product
that we're seeing, and it would
also preserve then a city's
ability to also create a ban on
on the net. I don't know if
natural kratom is the right
word, but non-synthetic, if you
wanted to go above and beyond
what is being proposed by the
state ban, you'd still retain
that local authority. So I'm I
mayor.
>> Just a moment, councilor
Brian, finish your sentence.
>> No, that's.
>> A good place to finish
because.
>> Yeah.
>> Yes. Councilor Hanson go
ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor Council
member Hanson here. I support
the efforts on kratom as well.
Thank you.
>> Before I was going to say, I
see a bunch of heads nodding,
and it was helpful to wait
until Councilor Hanson also.
>> Weighed in. Great.
>> Okay, Brian, you we are
running short of time. You have
six minutes and I think three
more slides.
>> I think we're great.
>> Okay.
>> I think we've used our time
exactly the way I wanted it.
Thank you. Here are what I
would identify as like future
policy ideas. And the reason
why we have them at Denver's
future is they are still very
important. There might be some
additional work locally that
needs to be done, sorted out or
timing wise. So obviously,
we're keeping the regional
public safety training center
front and center. I think
there's still some unanswered
local questions about that.
Before we move forward with the
legislative process. But there
what is true today might not be
true in January. So we've got
that on the list. Currently
it's future, but obviously we
can move those up as needed.
Again, we've kind of checked in
on the timing of kind of our
ideas around the performing
arts center. It sounds like
there's still some more work to
do locally with the kind of
like figuring out what is the
right tool, what is the right
mechanism, what's the right
type timing, and then we will
be identifying some capital
budget items that we think make
sense to ask the legislature,
but that will be probably then
when I'm back here in November.
So. So next steps. I'm going to
refine this based on some of
your input. We will based on
that, we'll start drafting and
stakeholder legislation. I said
November, but it's actually
December 7th. So I apologize
for that. And then of course we
will then outreach to our
legislative delegation prior
session. We'll probably do kind
of the breakfast meeting that
we've done in the past, but
also I'll be doing individual
outreach. What I would request
from this council is and is not
a dot exercise or a star
exercise. But when Councilor
Paulson on that ones laundry
list said, here's the ones that
here's the ones that kind of
jump out to me, I would
respectfully request in the
next week or two, as you have
time to review this
presentation and provide input
to staff, whether actually it's
not either to me or Catherine
or both, that'd be very helpful.
If there's kind of like some I
ideas there that are
particularly resonant to you,
or if, as you've had time to
kind of marinate on or engage
in the community, you've seen
some ideas that we've missed.
So we would. So although I
wanted to get input in this
setting and I have gotten some
input, I want some more, if
that's okay. All right. Thank
you.
>> Catherine, would you help
Counsel and Brian take those
items given to us, let us rank
them or do something with them.
Send it to us so we can get it
back before the end of the week.
>> Absolutely.
>> Yes. Thank you. And then
leave a little space down at
the bottom for other things
that we have forgotten.
Councilor Perez.
>> Brian, you mentioned that
there were unanswered questions
about the Regional Public
Safety Training Center. Just in
an effort to properly assess
what you've presented to us and
give you what we think are
really important. I'm curious
if you can just include
information on that. Sure. What
you mean by what are those
unanswered questions?
>> I think the biggest one is
where's the site? And yeah, I
think that's the biggest one is
where, where can we as a
community align on being a
permanent home? If that
requires a financial investment,
what would the partnership on
that financial investment? I
think, I think sorry if I was
sometimes I intentionally talk
in code, sometimes I
unintentionally talk in code.
So I apologize for being a
little obtuse on that one. But
that's I think that's the
biggest one is like, where can
we as a community coalesce
around? Where's the right spot?
And then, and then to the
extent that it would require
resources potentially to access
land or not, like who's going
to help be a partner and what
does that look like? So that's
the, that's the biggest hurdle
in my mind as I see it now. And
I've seen some nodding that
agrees that I've captured that
correctly.
>> Thank you so much.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. Thank you. And
let's go ahead and get Lisa and
Catherine up here to talk about
the budget lawn. Any additional
info?
>> Yeah, just we scheduled this
as a supplemental budget work
session to follow up. After we
did the budget preview with the
City Council. As you recall,
the focus of that session was
really to give you a high level
preview of what we were
anticipating proposing in the
budget, but also to assess, you
know, on any of the items that
were included. What did the
City Council want for follow up
information to feel like you
were fully equipped to make
your best decisions? And also,
if there was anything that was
proposed in there that raised
any flags or gave the council
any serious concerns about
whether or not they should be
included in the budget. So
following that session, we went
back and put together
supplemental information and
also made a few fairly
significant changes to the
crafting of the budget, and
just wanted to follow up with
the City Council today to kind
of walk through those. And with
that, I will turn it over to
Lisa and Katie.
>> Hey, good afternoon, Mayor
and Council. Katie Skylee,
Chief financial officer, joined
by Lisa Randall. As John
mentioned, we're here today to
provide some follow up on the
issues and items that council
raised during the City
Manager's recommended Budget
preview on September 21st. And
also, as Lannen mentioned, you
will notice that most of our
slides today are really just
kind of covering the memo that
you all received on September
25th. So we're kind of
following that kind of through
by through on the, the memo
that you received. So lawns, I
believe, provided his opening
remarks. Did you have anything
else you wanted to add there?
Lawn. Okay, cool. So we will go
ahead and just jump in to the
review of follow up items. And
the first thing that we wanted
to touch on was around the
usage and sufficiency of the
public safety sales tax. And so
the council had asked for some
additional information about
how the public safety sales tax
is recommended for allocation
in the 2728 biennium. And about
the overall sufficiency of that
resource to support new
investments over time. And I
think, as you all know very
well, at this point in time,
there are kind of three new
revenue sources. Proposition
five, the HB 2015 Public Safety
grant, and the public safety
sales tax, sales tax. They're
all supporting new public
safety investments in the 2728
biennium. And we've had our
fantastic staff in the
communications department put
together this graphic to kind
of help graphically, kind of
explore how these things relate
to each other. What pieces are
from proposition five, the
public safety grant, public
safety, sales tax, and then
also kind of highlight which
which of these components are
considered one time and ongoing.
I'm sorry.
>> We're missing a screen here.
Go ahead Katie, we'll get it
back.
>> Great.
>> Yeah.
>> So proposition five support.
You can see there in 2026 that
was the 13 officers in 2027.
We've got an additional six
support staff in VPD and some
equipment costs. And the public
safety grant, that's $7.8
million. There are two
components of that grant. One
is for support for 16
additional officers and related
equipment, and the other is for
infrastructure investments
related to that real time
operations center or
information center. Right? Yeah.
Okay. And then we have the
approximately $7 million in
public safety sales tax, and
that will be the continuation
of the support for those 16
police officers. The ongoing
support for the real time
information center. And then
because we kind of have this
potential overlap between the
grant resources and the sort of
implementation of that public
safety sales tax, we do have
the the balance of some one
time resources that our police
headquarters and support for
the increase in public defense
that you've heard Lorne and
Lisa talk about. So that is our
summary for you, all of kind of
where these resources are going.
And then we wanted to spend a
little bit of time talking with
you all about the sort of
sufficiency of the public
safety sales tax in general,
and kind of thinking this
through. We thought that the
best way to talk about this
with you all was to think about
the cultural arts tax. That's
kind of the most relatable, if
you will, source of revenue
that we have right now. It
applies the same 0.1% sales tax
rate. And we took a look at the
year to date cultural arts
sales tax from January to June
to look at those collections.
There are about $3.5 million
for that first six months of
the year, and our current
projections are about $7
million at year end. In
comparison, our public safety
sales tax revenues in 2027 are
budgeted at 6.74 million. So
under that current year end
projection and a little over 7
million at 7.5 million in 2028.
So so right around that $7
million mark. So and on the
expense side, if you take a
look at that, our recommended
budget currently has about $6.5
million in expenses allocated
towards the public safety sales
tax in 2028. So in general
terms, we're under allocated by
about half $1 million in 2028.
And by leaving some of that
resource unallocated, the city
has flexibility to respond if
those revenues don't
materialize as we're currently
projecting, even if they do
materialize, as we're
projecting, we obviously know
that our expenses are going to
grow more quickly than our
revenues over time. And so it
kind of leaves some flexibility
on that side as well. I will
also note that while the
information that we share with
you from our memo was based off
of the first six months of, of
the current fiscal year, our
more recent information from
the September sales tax data is
continuing to show that we're
going to show that we're
trending to end the year on
track for our sales tax revenue.
So that's positive and
encouraging news. But we'll
continue to monitor our revenue
projections against actual
performance and continue to
provide you with quarterly
updates. I will pause there and
see if y'all have any questions
on the use of the public safety
sales tax or the the
sufficiency of that sales tax.
>> Nope. Keep going.
>> Okay. Sounds good. So the
next item that we wanted to
talk about from the memo that
we shared with you is around
staffing at a high level. The
city manager recommended budget
in in 2028 has 1432 full time
equivalent positions. That's
about a 2.3% increase from the
2026 authorized count. And as
part of our session on the 21st,
you all requested position
description information for the
net new positions that are in
the recommended budget. And
hopefully, you saw in the memo
that we shared a very detailed
attachment that included all of
that information. The the FTE
count is inclusive of limited
term positions, which, as you
know, may not be carried from
year to year. So we're trying
to pull out some of this key
information for you in that in
the attachment to that memo,
including department, regular
limited term status, and then
the start year of those
different positions. But in
broad terms, there are 41 new
regular positions that were
added in the 27, 28 recommended
budget and five limited term
positions that are going to be
carried through all the way to
2028. The majority of those new
regular positions, 23, are
being added in the police
department, and we just talked
through many of those new
positions. They're covered by a
mix of proposition five, HB
2015 and the public safety
sales tax revenue. Other areas
of note for the council, there
are nine limited term positions
that are added in the Homeless
Response Program. Those are all
funded by private donations,
and only one of those is fully
carried through to 2028. The
rest of those sunset in 2027.
There are six new positions
that are added in public works,
two of which are utility
maintenance workers that are
going to be supporting heart
coordinated cleanups. And there
are other positions that are
added to various departments
across the city, including
general Services, the city
manager's office,
communications, the finance
department, engagement and
access kind of sprinkled
throughout different
departments across the city.
And one other item to note, if
you're kind of looking through
that attachment to the memo, is
that all positions are costed
for nine months in 2027 and 12
months in 2028. Kind of on the
assumption that it will take
some time for that job posting
and recruitment to, to take
place in 2027. And so saving
that money for nine months
alone in 2027 and the full 12
months in 2028. And we'll have
some additional time at our
October 12th work session on
the operating budget to talk
about positions in more detail
as well, but I'll pause there
and see if you guys have any
questions on what we've shared
today or what was on the memo.
>> So, Katie, looking at the 41
new positions. The 23, 15383,
are there three divided between
the six other departments, half
a person in each department?
Are there pieces of people in
the remaining other departments?
>> What we're trying to flag
here is just kind of like a
high level summary. So what
we're saying is that there are
of the 41, there are 23 that
are in police, and that's most
of them. There are nine limited
term positions that are in the
homeless homelessness program
that are not included in that.
41 we just want to flag that
because that's a pretty
significant number. The next
highest number of regular
positions after the 23 that are
in police is in public works.
And then the remainder from
that. 23, the six out of that.
41 those are the ones that are
interspersed in the other
departments.
>> Okay. I would like to know
what we're buying in the
Remainder departments. How much
of a person in communication,
how much in community
prosperity, how much in the
city manager's office? Not
general, but more specific as
to what you're looking for.
>> Sure. I wonder if it would
make sense to pull up the
attachment to the memo itself.
>> Yep, yep. Because it's not
just for the council here, it's
for the audience. And everyone
who is watching need to have
that opportunity to see this.
>> Sarah, is there a way you
can pull up that attachment
that was in the memo for this
work session?
>> We're waiting to ask a
question.
>> Certainly. Go ahead,
Councilor Fox.
>> Well, you know, in reviewing
the memo that was part of this
packet, I think one of the
questions that I read that is
still to come to us, unless I
missed it, was a better
understanding of the proportion
of managers to to our regular
staff. And so again, looking at
this and seeing, you know, a
new assistant city manager, I'm
wondering why we need another
assistant city manager when we
have multiple assistant city
managers, you know, so those
questions are raised for me,
you know, along with some of
the other questions I raised
last time about, you know,
adding, you know, management
staff to the parks Department
versus, you know, understanding
again, a deficit, it seems in
folks actually perform the
tasks and the duties that we
need out in the field. So this
chart, although it shows a
detailed, you know, layout of,
of where the proposed staff
would be, the, the why isn't
there or the understanding of
that proportion need of, of the
structure of these departments
being how many managers do you
need to manage X number of
staff? You know, what are you
shooting for here?
>> Yeah, thanks for the comment
and I'll just share that we are
working with Human Resources on
a memo to the council about
span of control ratios for the
different departments from 2019
through 2026, and we should
have that ready for the council
by this Thursday.
>> Okay.
>> So I'm sorry.
>> Councilor Perez, go ahead.
>> Yeah, just to piggyback a
little bit on this topic too,
there was discussion about
where we can look at
centralizing some of these
program management duties
across the different
departments so that not each
department is working in a silo,
but we're a little more
efficient in departments
working together. So just doing
that assessment to see where is
that possible.
>> We can do that. So if I may,
I can start a little bit here
with the city manager's office.
Since we're here to address
some of the questions
pertaining to the positions
that are being requested to be
added. So the assistant, the
request for the new assistant
city manager would be focused
on the annexation program and
would report to the deputy city
manager, my colleague. And then
the request for the other two
assistants to the city manager
would be working on. I have my
notes here annexation strategy
and primary duties relating to
the annexation strategy, comp
plan implementation,
homelessness support and
outreach, and also climate. And
the two management analysts.
One would be focused on the
annexation program relating to
Clark County, and that would be
funded through an Ila, which is
coming forward to the City
Council in a future agenda. And
the other one is proposed to be
funded through an increase to
the utility tax, and that would
be work focused on the Climate
Action framework. But if you
have any further questions on
these positions, I think we're
all here that that Lorne or
Jeff are here that could answer
any questions to those
positions specifically. This is
a good opportunity to ask. I'll
pause here.
>> Yes, councilors. Councilor
Fox, go ahead.
>> Well, let's just focus on I
guess the question that I
raised is this assistant city
manager. You know, that salary
is going to be almost $300,000
a year. And you said that their
main focus is planning for
annexation. I'm just wondering
why this isn't more of a
project management level person
versus an assistant manager,
city manager position.
>> Thank you for the question.
I think I'm going to defer that
to our city manager for this
question.
>> Yeah. So with a project, the
size and scope of the
annexation, this is something
that is going to touch every
department across the
organization. And for being
able to marshal the resources
that you've got across all 16
city departments, and
occasionally to compel people
to meet deadlines and be able
to have them answerable to
somebody as a part of the team.
I figured that that would be
difficult for somebody in a
project management role to do,
and you really needed somebody
to have more of the weight of
the city manager's office
behind it. As one of the
council's top two priority
initiatives over the coming
biennium. And so we looked at a
way to put together a team that
could really drive this forward,
in addition to being able to
compel those resources
internally. Also, somebody then
who would be able to have the
level of experience needed to
navigate the issues that are
likely to be brought up with
the county, both operational
and political. And in just
evaluating the criteria at that
level, they needed to be at
least somebody who would be
like a peer to a department
head. And then the other roles
that you're talking about would
be filled by those assistant to
the city manager roles, and
then the management analyst
roles that would help to
support the overall program.
>> So the proposal then is to
add basically three staff, all
focused on annexation, correct?
>> Yeah. And this is really
centralizing it. I mean, the
ultimate impact to the
organization would likely to be
the same if we were to
distribute it out to other
departments. But rather than
adding 0.2 FTE here or 0.5 FTE
here, we wanted to make sure
that we really had a dedicated
core team. And this is a
project that we're looking at
as being something that's
probably likely to take up to a
decade, a decade to get
completed anyway. And it's of a
scale that is equivalent to,
say, the IBR or to the
comprehensive plan in scope.
And each one of those has had
dedicated teams made up of
multiple, multiple individuals
in order to be able to
realistically move them forward.
>> The last time we talked
about staffing, it was because
I raised a question about the
Parks Department adding a
management staff, and the
response at that time was that
that new manager would be
focusing on annexation. From
the Parks Department standpoint.
So now we have perhaps
proposing two deputy or
assistant manager level
salaries, and then two more
assistant staff for this
project.
>> So on a couple of these, I
just want to make a
clarification that when we have
a budget in here, you know,
that salary that is not just
salary, that would be the fully
loaded cost for the position.
So that salary benefits
overhead everything. So that's
not a $298,000 wage level
position. It would be below
that. And part of what we have
been endeavoring to do is when
I arrived at Vancouver, one of
the things that I noted is that
during one of the prior HR
exercises, it looked like we
>> He had gone through, and any
position description that
wasn't currently occupied had
actually just been removed from
the organization. And so
inadvertently, what that did is
it removed opportunities for
progression or removed
opportunities for people to
follow a career ladder up
through the organization. So
some of what we've been trying
to do, particularly with ones
like the assistant to the city
manager and these management
analyst positions, is also to
restore those opportunities
across the organization for
people to be able to move up.
So when we try to look at these,
we do attempt to solve multiple
issues within the organization
at the same time.
>> Well, one of my kind of
shifting, but in the same vein
here on the conversation of
staffing, is digging in a
little bit to the proposal for
the staff staffing of our youth
commission. And, you know, the
idea of, again, you know,
perhaps the way we save money
is that we contract out for
these particular skills as well.
So looking at something that
could be considered a limited
term project, perhaps for
annexation, wondering if there
could be some savings there
with contracting out, similar
to the Youth Commission, that
one. In fact, I'm not sure if I
should pause. I'll just keep
going. Is the idea of, you know,
creating a partnership with
organizations that are fully
invested in, you know,
supporting our youth in the
community. And if we had an RFP
out there that described that
an additional duty that we
would like their organization
to take on would be managing
our youth committee, it seems
as if that would save us the
time and resources of hiring
and recruiting and keeping a
staff person at the city when
we could leverage the the
talents and abilities of other
organizations out there that
are already out there doing
similar work.
>> And normally when we do
these, we do do an evaluation
to see whether or not there's
likely to be any cost savings
by contracting these out. And
there would be, for example, on
the annexation, still an
allowance there for
professional services, because
we know that there are going to
be disciplines and things that
we just don't have the capacity
to be able to model or to be
able to. Do you think if you
think back with the
comprehensive plan, we over the
scale of the Comprehensive plan,
had contracts with several
different firms to provide
support like WSP. But I can say
that, you know, we do try to
make sure we achieve that
balance and take a look at
whether we expect it to be less
expensive to utilize to do the
work using internal staff
versus contracting out. And
that does go into these
proposals. So having looked at
that, this was the conclusion
that we came up with would be
the one that would fit the best
and achieve that best balance
of being able to most
effectively use our resources.
>> Okay. I all I have to.
>> Say on.
>> This.
>> Counselor Perez.
>> Thank you. Just can I can't
see the screen Sarah here. And
that is way too small. So just
a quickly. Lisa. The difference
between project management
salary versus the assistant
city manager salary, what would
that be?
>> Have that information with
me. A project manager salary. I
don't have that.
>> I just trying to guess if
it's 100,000 or what have you.
So if.
>> I wouldn't yeah.
>> I like the proposal that
Counselor Fox brought forward
to consider perhaps a project
management role versus
assistant city manager. And I
appreciate the comment. City
manager about having to wrangle
a lot of people and the
importance of this project and
having that assistant City
Manager title really helps do
that. But city management sets
a tone and sets the leadership
and performance and
expectations in a title should
not be used as a responsibility
to get the work done. So that's
why I'm particularly interested
in the difference between
project management cost versus
assistant city manager and
opportunities for upward
mobility really is based on
experience and work performance.
And I think that this if that's
what we want to do, I think
it's a great opportunity for
those working on annexation to
highlight on their resume with
the concept of contracting out
or using public private
partnerships. Would love to see
that cost analysis breakdown
and see what savings or what
more costs it would be. Even if
we did do RFP and contracted
out, what does that cost
analysis difference? Just
wanted to get a better idea on
that one.
>> Yeah, that's something we'll
have to do a little bit of
digging and send you some
follow up information on. I'd
hate to just give you some
numbers off the top of my head,
and then find out later that I
quoted the wrong ones.
>> Counselor Harless.
>> Yeah, it's hard to I know
there's already been a request
to get a better understanding
of that ratio of management
versus direct staff that are
implementing work. So it's kind
of hard to provide all the
feedback I want to be able to
offer without that those that
in front of me. But it does. I
have the same sort of worry as
well, especially as we hear
about programs elsewhere,
because I assume this is
general fund that would support
these roles. Correct. And so
that general fund, you know,
it's really mobile and there's
a lot of other areas and a lot
of other departments where
we're lacking that direct staff,
whether that's keeping our
parks clean and safe. I know
that we also, in addition to
public defense, also have an
issue with our Co-response not
necessarily working because
Corissa hasn't been able to or
sorry, not cross the Columbia
River. Mental health hasn't
always been able to have folks
that can respond to those calls
quick enough. And so I know
that's something that I have
been interested in as well. So
when there's those emergent,
you know, things that are
affecting people's everyday
lives versus annexation, which
we don't even know if we're
going to move forward with or
not because we don't have that
plan. But I realize it's a, I
don't know, like catch 22, so
to speak, where we don't really
know unless we evaluate. But I
know we've had some staff that
we've approved in the past to
do some early evaluation. So
there are already Ph.D working
on this, right?
>> We did have a position
approved in the last biennium,
but that was not filled. So
that position was eliminated.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
reminder. That's helpful. And
then, you know, this reminds me
of a conversation we just had
with the state of like, you
know, we need help to figure
this out. You know, we need
that financial support. And I
also know it's easier if you
know what you're asking for too.
So those are kind of some of
the thoughts I'm thinking about,
but I do have this hesitation
because of that, those emergent
needs that are affecting
everyday people's lives versus
planning. Right. So thank you.
>> Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor, some
really great comments from my
colleagues. I, I guess I'll
just put a little bit finer
point on it. From my
perspective. I, I read the
first three job descriptions,
which are all the same and very
broad. It's almost like a
laundry list of everything the
city manager's office does. So
it doesn't really give me a
sense of what the role is. I'm
sitting here thinking about the
fact that six years ago we had
one city manager, and now we
have two deputies, plus an
assistant city manager. I would
presume that there would be
more capacity in the city
manager's office to take on big
initiatives with that much more
resources, understanding that
the city has grown in that time.
ET cetera. ET cetera. But to
then see three more positions
being added with job
descriptions that are so broad,
it it's hard for me to be
supportive based on the
information provided. Thank you.
>> Councilor Hansen or Stober.
Do you have additional comments?
>> Yes, mayor, I, I would agree
with Paulson's comments on this.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councilor Stober
any comments?
>> I would also agree. Thank
you.
>> Okay, so it appears that
we're going to need some more
work on those five positions
there.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. You bet. All
right. Next page. Or going back
to our presentation rather.
>> And I did want to share, we
just heard from our HR director
that the assistant city manager
can share all of this and
follow up information as well.
But we did get the, the
midpoint for several different
positions that were just asked
about. So the assistant city
manager midpoint is $218,000.
The planning manager midpoint
salary would be $140,000. And
then the capital project
manager would be $171,000. So
we'll share all that again. But
I just want to put that out
there.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, so we have spent some
time talking through the
positions, the new regular
positions. I think we've got
some follow up to do for the
council, especially on some of
those city manager positions,
which we will get back to you
on one last note that we wanted
to share with you. We did have
some information for you on the
parks Deputy director position
that was included in that
attachment, but just wanted to
flag for folks in case it was
not clear that that is a
reclassification of an existing
vacant position rather than a
new position. So just wanted to
make sure that was clear for
folks there.
>> Yes, Councilor Paulson.
>> Mayor Pro Tem made a comment
earlier, and I'd like to have
some clarification around it.
So it had been her prior
understanding that that Parks
and Rec position was to support
annexation. But reading the job
description and the attachment
there, it sounds like it's more
related to the Metropolitan
Parks District and park
planning. I wonder if you could
clarify what is the true
purpose of that role? Is it
related to annexation, since we
just heard about several other
positions that are also related
to annexation, or is it
something a little bit more
park specific, separate and
apart from annexation? And if
you don't have the answer now,
if you could get back to us,
that'd be helpful.
>> I think Dave is here. Can
answer your question, Councilor
Paulson.
>> Yes, thanks. I appreciate
the question. Ability to
explain a little more quickly,
Dave Perlick, director of Parks
and Cultural Services, as is
included in the attachment.
It's really a number of things.
Annexation is part of that. So
the statement is correct, but
that's really only a part of
the role. That would be more of
a coordinator and leader of
that effort within the
department. But we're also
anticipating updating the Parks
Rec cultural Services comp plan
that would support the recently
adopted citywide comprehensive
plan. We're working on a a
variety of funding efforts,
including a county wide
initiative that's going on
right now evaluating the
sufficiency or opportunity to
create a Metro Park district.
And we're also looking at.
Council received an update on
fees development fees in recent
weeks. So we're also looking at
the park impact fee program. So
I think it's all of those
things. And there are some
relationship there. And there's
really an opportunity to do
that at the same time. But that
parks specific request isn't, I
would say a majority of the the
intended assignment is not
annexation. It is only to be a
coordinator on that effort.
>> Thank you, Dave, and follow
up question. The mayor pro tem
had also asked about the fact
that we're giving up planning
capacity, and we still are
planning for parks. And so
could you speak to that a
little bit as well?
>> Yeah. You know, and so we I
would also add the Parks
Department is reduced
management positions over time,
really commensurate with
exactly what you're saying. We
need a, a really a clear focus
on delivering core services and
being as efficient as possible.
And I think the opportunity
today is to in the need is to
increase the amount of planning
that that allows us to be
presenting opportunities to the
Council and the community
around. How do we increase
services in the parks are. And
what are those options? So I
don't know if I'm answering the
question, but I think there are
a number of efforts going on
right now that create a real
opportunity to a need and an
urgency to review our planning
and present options to the
community.
>> Maybe I'll restate what I
thought I heard you say and see
if you can affirm that that's
what you said. So it's it's a
different kind of planning. The
need for planning within the
parks, broadly speaking, is
goes way beyond just planning
for individual parks, but
planning for a lot of other
things, some of which you named,
others of which are yet to be
determined. And so having a
little bit more holistic
approach to the planning that
we have, the capacity for
planning, we have in the Parks
Department, rather than just a
planner who focuses on planning
for new parks. Is, in your view,
the best use of that resource
at this time?
>> Yeah, I agree, that's very
well stated. Thank you for the,
the effort. And, and I think
it's really we use the term
comprehensive plan is kind of
jargon, but it is really to
look at the entire system. And
what does 45,000 new housing
units and over 80,000 new
residents envisioned in the
comprehensive plan? How does
that change what we do from a
systems standpoint, from
building and capital and
operating as well?
>> Okay, we're on slide seven.
We have, oh my gosh, six more
to go. Let's see what we can do.
>> Okay, so moving on. There
are two revenue topics that
were raised for the council at
the City Manager preview. The
first one we wanted to touch on
today was the children and
family sales tax proposal. At
the budget preview, the council
has some questions about the
allowability of the use of that
sales tax to fund existing
programing and the Children's
Justice Center, and kind of
shared some overall concerns
about the financial burden of a
new tax on city residents. And
at this point in time, the
children and families sales tax
has been withdrawn from the
city manager's recommended
budget. Staff will follow up in
the future with a more
comprehensive legal analysis
about allowable uses, as well
as an updated revenue estimate
for council consideration.
Moving on to the city utility
tax increase and rate
comparison. So, as you'll
recall, the city manager's
recommended budget includes a
0.09% increase in the utility
tax, going from 28.9% to 28.99%.
The intent of that is to raise
a little over $200,000 to fund
a position management analyst
in the city manager's office to
focus on execution of climate
action framework goals. And in
just a moment, we'll go ahead
and show that chart that you
all had requested in terms of
comparing our. Utility rates to
comparison jurisdictions in
kind of look at that relative
to our jurisdictions for 2026,
kind of see where we're
stacking up relative to other
local jurisdictions. Before
jumping into that, I wanted to
share that just some background
information on the utility tax,
noting that the overall utility
tax is incorporated into the
rates that are charged to
consumers, and kind of noting
that that that increase is not
going to be immediately passed
on to consumers. Basically, the
the level of increase that
we're talking about for the
city utility tax will be
absorbable within the overall
rate model in the near term,
kind of based on the way the
public works moves the rates
over time. So based off of this,
the overall blended rate is
still at this point in time
proposed to stay just under
that 6% for 2728. That said, it
obviously really does put
pressure on the public works
rate model overall and
eventually does get passed on
to ratepayers. And so wanted to
note for council, in addition,
that Public Works has engaged a
consultant to assess the city's
overall approach to rate
development, and that more
information is going to be
coming, as well as some policy
considerations for the council
during the 2027 2728 biennium
around rate development for
public works. So with that, go
ahead and take a look at the
rate comparison. So what we're
looking at here is the single
by bimonthly rate comparison.
You can see Vancouver in 2026,
Vancouver in 2027. Relative to
our comparison jurisdictions.
Generally speaking, we're still
on the lower end of the rates.
And I will pause there for
questions and discussion on
this topic. And I think we have
the Public Works Director here
as well. If there are further
questions.
>> Councilors, any questions on
this piece? We've seen this one
before. Let's continue. Mayor.
Thank you. Thank you, Councilor
Stover.
>> Yeah, just really quickly, I
appreciate this chart being put
together and and encouraged to
see where we continue to land.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Okay, so moving on to youth
civic engagement. So during the
city manager's budget preview,
a decision point was raised for
the council around inclusion of
a 1.0 program coordinator, FTE
that would establish and
support a youth advisory
council. That coordinator
position has an estimated cost
of about $137,000 annually. Its
position can be added to the
budget if that's the council's
sort of preferred approach
around youth civic engagement
at this point in time. Like I
mentioned, it's not in the city
manager's recommended budget. I
did want to flag, you know, in
case there's any confusion that
the youth advisory coordinator
position is distinct from the
boards and commissions. FTE
that is recommended for
inclusion in the city manager's
recommended budget. The Youth
Advisory Coordinator position
has a skill set that's pretty
distinct from that one. So I
just wanted to clarify this
sort of uniqueness between
those two positions. Even
though, one, they're both
program coordinator positions.
One of the items that was
shared with you was a
alternative approach, a
different proposal from the
city's engagement access.
Director Joy Fowler developed a
cost neutral approach to
enhance youth representation in
city matters. That proposal
would take a kind of a
different approach to enhancing
youth civic engagement by,
instead of establishing a youth
advisory Council by inviting
youth to participate in the
city's existing boards and
councils. Notably, it would
exclude those boards and
councils that have a sort of
financial or regulatory
component to them, but would
take kind of a phased approach
to welcoming youth onto our
existing boards and councils,
essentially. And so we do have
a. Q and A from from Joy Fowler
that she put together.
Unfortunately, she was not able
to be here today. She's
traveling to answer questions.
So Lisa and I can try to take
any questions you guys might
have around the alternative
approach that Joy put together.
Generally speaking, though, it
would be wonderful to get
council direction on the either
or approach that that that we
could take on youth civic
engagement here.
>> Councilor Fox, go ahead.
>> Yes, I appreciate the
alternative approach that was
presented in our packet. I also
recognize that in this way
you're you're allowing youth to
be, learn and be mentored by
adults on those committees and
commissions. I myself have been
on boards and commissions
throughout, you know, growing
up from high school to, you
know, college. I was on a
housing authority board and
just being at the table with
professionals that are doing
things that I was hoping to do
some day in my life. I thought
that was very beneficial. So I,
I do appreciate this approach,
but as I mentioned, I also kind
of proposed an alternative
myself of saying, you know, we
do have some great community
organizations out there that if
we tell them what we need, this
could be something added to
their book of work and could
perhaps even better support
youth on these boards and
committees than us hiring a
person full time.
>> Thank you. Councilor. Yes,
councilor Perez, go ahead.
>> Thank you. I don't think
that we're in a position to say
either or. I think that it
really depends on our long term
vision. And my vision was for
the city of Vancouver to have a
youth council. And whatever
approach we take right now,
will it lead us to that outcome?
And fundamentally, it is the
voices of the youth that we
value and need to consider when
we come up with policies that
are affecting them directly and
their families and their
neighborhoods. And I think that
a lot of the tremendous work
that we've done has been really
good in setting us up and to
improve our ways of
communicating and working with
youth in the area. I support a
position. If if it's a position
that we work towards while
we're on this, no, not adding a
new position, but as long as we
are working towards this vision
of having a youth council, as I
mentioned earlier, other
jurisdictions within the same
county with less population
have established a youth
council. And this is where I
believe the city needs to also
put itself in a vision of
establishing a youth council.
It will still take costs and
effort to work with
organizations to help us build
that pathway. And I think we
should do that and look at the
viability of doing that in the
long term success in
establishing youth council. But
I am in support of a youth
coordinator position to help us
manage on this firm pathway to
get to a youth council.
>> Any other comments? Yes,
Councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you, mayor, I
appreciate the mayor Pro Tem
comments and Councilor Perez's
comments, and sort of building
on Councilor Perez's comment
about how we we don't yet have
an aligned vision on where
we're going. It seems premature
to fund a position, so I would
be supportive of the
alternative proposal here or
other alternative proposals
that could help move forward in
this area in the meantime. And
if we reach a point where we
are in a position where we do
want to move forward with a
youth council, we have a vision
for it, and it's been defined.
We can talk about a position at
that time, but I think now is
probably premature for us to
fully fund a position. With
that in mind, thank you.
>> I would agree with that
comment. Having been working
with youth for more than five
decades, I'd like to see what
joy can do with the youth
membership to selected existing
boards and commissions. I agree
with Mayor Pro Tem having that
mentor opportunity to
understand and have their voice
equal in a board or commission
is extremely valuable. So I
will be supporting the
alternative proposal. Councilor
Stober Hanson, do you have
comments? Yes. Go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor. So for ten
years, so one I have long
supported integrating our youth
onto our existing boards and
commissions. And I think that
is a strong proposal. And I'm
very supportive of as far as
creating a new board of
commission for ten years,
probably, I have been
advocating for Human Rights
Commission, and there was an
attempt to try and just
integrate that into our boards
and commissions. But as a. We
receive. Council received a
pretty lengthy email from a
resident a couple weeks ago. I
don't think we're there, and I
think we have a lot of
residents who are still
struggling to figure out how
they fit into the city. So if
it's going to come down to a
new a new board, I am going to
to continue to be advocating
for a human rights commission
over a youth commission. Thank
you.
>> Any other comments, mayor?
Councilor Hanson, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Mayor. Council
Member Hanson. I agree with
Council Member Paulson and
yourself on the alternative.
Thank you.
>> We have just a few more
moments because we do have
another workshop. Let's go
ahead and move forward.
>> Sure. Okay. So we just have
our last slide here today,
which is a recap of our next
steps in our budget development
timeline. We'll be back before
you on October 12th for our
operating budget workshop,
October 26th for the Capital
Budget Workshop, November 2nd
for council consent of the
budget, and then November 16th
for the public hearing and
adoption of the budget. So we
have for you today.
>> We're going to need to get
have a conversation about those
FTEs. City Manager. So let's
figure out when that
opportunity can happen within
this timeline. Thank you. Thank
you very much. Let's move on.
And we're going to discuss
title 19.
>> Hello, Council and Mayor
Gabriel Montez, parking
district manager. I'm joined
today by my colleague Tyler
Lund, the parking project
coordinator. We're here to
follow up on our previous
workshop related to the title
19 code revision. So today we
will talk about we'll have a
brief recap of the September
14th workshop. From there, we
will have a high level overview
of the Scofflaw program code
language, which you should have
received in the packet the full
language. From there, we will
address previous council
questions related to mobility
lanes, border state authority,
scofflaw history, fine and fee
structure and success metrics.
And lastly, we will go into
next steps. So here is an
overview. High level overview
of the proposed Scofflaw
language. The which will which
will be 19.15.010 and 19.15020.
These are code additions. This
section mimics other Washington
state scofflaw and
immobilization programs. It
allows the creation of a
Scofflaw list with a threshold
of four or more unpaid
citations 45 days after
issuance. It outlines notice
requirements for vehicles to be
added to the Scofflaw list,
outlines what owner what an
owner can do upon receipt of
notice to prevent their vehicle
from being added to the
Scofflaw list. Establishes
payment plans and recourse for
addressing the Scofflaw
designation. It enables a
vehicle on the Scofflaw list to
be immobilized, exempts other
parking restrictions while
immobilized, and enables
impoundment after two business
days of immobilization. Here is
a list of the council questions
that we received back in
September on September 14th.
The first is do proposed code
changes address parking and
mobility Lannen second are.
Registration holds unique to
Washington. Do other
neighboring states have the
same restrictions? What is the
history of a Scofflaw program
in Vancouver? What went wrong
and what is. What are we
correcting? What is the
potential cost? In addition to
the fines that a person has to
pay to get their car back from
getting impounded? And lastly,
what is the experience of other
jurisdictions with Scofflaw
programs? So here is our first
attempt at the code update to
address the parking and
mobility lane and adding
reference to other forms of
mobility. We. We originally
expanded the definition of the
bike lane to include other
permitted permitted multiple
multimodal transportation,
excluding motor vehicles and
motorcycles, and we also
expanded the VMC of obstructing
traffic to include vehicular
traffic, bicycle traffic, or
safe pedestrian traffic upon
the travel portion of the
roadway, bicycle lane and
sidewalk. We also know that we
received feedback from Mayor
Pro Tem Fox regarding the
definition of a mobility lane,
and so we are working with the
transportation transportation
team, and we do have a working
definition that we can adjust
and add before the first
reading, which is scheduled for
November 9th, I believe. And so
we would we would like to get
some feedback if you would like
us to include the, the working
definition in our title 19
update, or if you would prefer
that we wait for the definition
for mobility lane in the TSP
update, but we can talk about
that after our presentation is
through. With regard to the
question about registration
hold, there is no state
reciprocity for reporting
parking violations. As
mentioned in the previous
workshop, the RCW we do have an
RCW that allows us to withhold
or prohibit renewal. Excuse me.
Prohibit registration renewals,
but that is exclusive to the
state of Washington. And our
research has found that there
are no comparable registration
statutes in Oregon, Washington,
Oregon or Idaho, or any other
state that we've seen so far.
There is also a R, c w that is
a nonresident violator compact.
This covers reporting traffic
violations across state lines,
but explicitly excludes parking
citations. With that, I'll pass
it along to Tyler.
>> Thank you Gabe.
>> Thank you.
>> Gabe.
>> The first question that came
up last workshop about the
Scofflaw program was about it
coming before council, before,
and the questions around what
happened to that effort. A
little bit of history. First,
primarily when we talk about
this in the past, it's
concerned city lots or off
street parking there. This
issue was raised several times
and culminated in the early 20
tens, 2011. With the current
code, we use VMC 1907030, which
allows for the removal and
impoundment of vehicles in off
street facilities, parking
garages and parking lots that
are repeated offenders, but
that does not cover on street
violators. The last effort to
bring the Scofflaw program to
council started back in 2014
around a series of community
concerns that were reported as
complaints to the department
and prompted research. At that
time, they performed research,
they reached out to comparable
cities, and they drafted
proposal and proposed code,
brought it to the parking
advisory committee and in a
council workshop. And then in
the same year, 2016, concerns
primarily around program cost
and revenue priorities stalled
the project out, and other
changes happening at the time
took priority. Here, we're
showing the state of the
parking system in 2016 when
that last proposal was brought,
versus the current status in
2016. The parking fund was not
self-sufficient. It required
subsidy from the general fund
to provide for parking
operations, and the proposal at
the time requested significant
technology upgrades to the
enforcement and citation
systems, as well as additional
staffing to man the Scofflaw
program. And then finally, the
30 day response rate for
citations at that time was 81%,
which as an industry standard,
is a sufficient level to not
have to provide additional
response to encourage payment.
Today, the current status is
that the parking operations are
self-sustaining with revenues
to support the program, the
required enforcement and
technology systems are already
in place, as are staffing.
Parking services is fully
staffed, including lead
officers that were added last
year, and there's capacity for
those officers to absorb the
additional work that a Scofflaw
program would require without
staffing being added. On top of
that, our current 45 day
citation rate, as we discussed
last time, has dropped to 52%,
down from 81% last time. The
study was conducted in 2016.
And that requires additional
measures and is below the
industry standard. And
furthermore, the emphasis is
now being placed on pre
scofflaw compliance,
encouraging payment and
cooperation with the system
prior to citations being
delinquent and prior to
requiring further action to be
taken, rather than on revenue
generated from the standalone
Scofflaw program itself. There
was also a question asked last
time around the fines and fees.
This. This diagram shows the
process on the left, starting
with the issue of the citation
fine and works through the
final step of impoundment. If a
vehicle were to go all the way
through the system, the first
three citation fine escalation
late fee and the collections
fees that are added are all
currently part of the process
and consist of either 25 to $50
for the citation fine, a $25
escalation fee, and then the
collections agency charges
17.5% and adds interest on top
of that as it accumulates over
the year. The three fees on the
left or on the right side would
be added by the Scofflaw
program and the steps it
includes including an
administrative fee for being
added to the Scofflaw list boot
fee once a vehicle is
immobilized and then an
impoundment fee, which would be
charged by the company. The tow
company performing the
impoundment of 279 or $297. A
few additional things to note
before I move on to the next
slide. All fees past that 45
day mark past the escalation
rate would be added to
delinquent citations, so only
the citation and the escalation
fee are part of city collected
fees. Everything past that or
sorry, that's incorrect. The
collections and impoundment
fees are charged by the service
provider. So the collections
agency and the tow company and
then the Scofflaw list and
immobilization fee would both
be added to delinquent
citations. Once in a vehicle is
immobilized by a boot or a
barnacle, depending on which
system was used, the registered
owner would need to pay the
entire outstanding amount. That
includes everything displayed
here up to the immobilization
step that can be done by
payment plan or in a block
payment. If a vehicle were to
be impounded, the only fee that
an owner would need to pay at
that time to get their vehicle
back would be the release fee.
The $297 charged by the tow
company. All of the other fees
would remain on their account,
and they'd remain on the
Scofflaw list and be eligible
to be rebooted if they park
downtown. But they would be
able to get their vehicle back
out of impound. This is an
example cost of what we just
looked at. The color coding is
meant to represent. The color
coding on the left is meant to
represent the progressive steps
that you take moving through
the system in terms of debt
collection. Steps one and two
here in the green are the fees
applied by the city. So for
four citations, the cheapest
fee we have currently is $25
for paid parking. If a vehicle
were to receive four of those
and have all four of those be
delinquent past the 45 days,
they would owe a total of $200.
Steps three and four would be
added by the Collections agency,
as we discussed before, 17.5%
and 12% per annum for interest.
And that's an additional 42 and
$29 each. Steps five and six
would be the steps added by the
Scofflaw program, $25
administrative fee for being
placed on the list, and then
the $50 boot fee once the
vehicle is immobilized, and the
final fee, step seven would be
the impound fee again charged
by the tow company. If a
vehicle were to move all the
way through the system to the
point where it had to be
impounded, the total fees on
the account at that point would
be $643.52, 270 151 of that
would be in city fees, and the
remainder would be due to or
owed to service providers. As
part of our research, we. In
the previous session, we also
had a question around similar
programs and how they measured
results, what the what their
success looked like. We
collected previous
conversations we'd had with
cities in Washington and also
reached out to the parking
professional network to get
some feedback from other states.
Spokane and Seattle, both. They
practice the focus of looking
at equity of curb access and
equity of enforcement, rather
than focusing on citation
revenue returned, but they were
able to share that they had.
Spokane specifically had a
success rate of 20%. Their
Scofflaw citations were reduced
by 20%, and vehicles were
reduced by 11% in the initial
rollout of the program. Further,
both Seattle and Spokane had
10% of the outstanding balance
of citations paid as part of
that initial grace period that
they ran prior to the start of
the program, Denver used a
different metric. They focused
primarily on the success of
their six officer team in
having 75% of payment
compliance happen prior to
being impounded. So once
vehicles were immobilized, they
had 75% of those never had to
finish the process. And then
Toronto and Upper Darby both
also shared their experiences
with their established programs.
We did meet with one final city
that's not on this slide. It
was after the deadline, but
that was Allentown,
Pennsylvania, which was
particularly interesting to us
because they have similar,
similar parking program,
similar population size and a
similar similar metropolitan
area size. They were able to
share with us that they do
focus primarily on that debt
recovery and citation
cooperation rate. And in the
prior year, 2025, they had a
citation return rate of 72%.
But due to staffing rates, they
were unable to continue their
booting program this year. And
that rate has dropped to 48%.
He didn't. He was unable to say
that the booting program was
entirely responsible for that,
but he did say that it was his
strongest correlation. And then
finally here, just building off
of our conversations with other
cities and some of the
information we showed last time,
I just wanted to provide a a
series of proposed metrics for
success for this program.
Returning to that emphasis on
increasing voluntary compliance
prior to requiring those extra
steps in the Scofflaw program
prior to booting and
impoundment. The goals long
term would be to decrease the
number of vehicles with four or
more outstanding citations, so
reduce the number of individual
scofflaws, increase the 30 and
45 day payment rate for
citations. So again, preventing
those citations from becoming
delinquent and building those
extra fines decrease the
average debt per vehicle,
reduce the rate of
immobilizations and impounds
required year over year. As the
program becomes successful and
encouraging compliance. And
then as part of the process,
Parking Services plans to
continue tracking the success
rates of those individual steps.
So pre enforcement at the
collections phase, once a
vehicle is immobilized and then
once a vehicle is impounded.
And I'll pass it back to Gabe
for next steps.
>> So so this slide here goes
over the next steps. So we are
planning to come back for a
consent agenda on the consent
agenda agenda November 9th. And
we and actually there is a
correction here. We are. We
bumped back to public hearing
to December 17th I believe.
From there the program set up,
if successful and passed the
program set up will begin in Q1
of 27, and then public outreach
will begin in Q two and go into
Q3 of 27. The grace period will
begin in Q three as well. And
lastly, the program will take
effect in Q4 of 2027. And with
that, we can take any questions.
>> Gabe, let's go back to the
question you had earlier on
slide. There. Thank you. Five
okay. Now please reiterate what
you what information you would
like from council on this one.
>> Sure. So the transportation
team confirmed that we do not
have currently have a
definition of mobility lane and
published anywhere. And so we
can work to update the
definition of the bike lane to
a mobility lane, with a few
other changes that are
suggested from the
transportation team. So we can
move forward with that and put
it in the packet for the
consent agenda. Or we can wait,
leave this definition as is,
and we can wait to the TSP
defines the mobility lane. And
then we could come back to you
and update our definition if
that's what you would prefer.
>> Okay. Councilor. Yes,
councilor Fox, go ahead.
>> Yeah. Just for background, I
really appreciate I'll start
with the things I really
appreciate first quickly is
just really appreciate having
the quick recap that you
provided of all of our
questions and then walking
through them. So really great
presentation on that. And, but
just for council's benefit, I
had reached out to staff
because I know that we've been
talking throughout the entire
update to our comp plan about
re phrasing the way we talk
about bike lanes and making
sure that we are referring to
them as multi modal lanes. And
so I asked staff about, you
know, I raised this at the last
meeting we had on this topic
about ensuring that we were
including the word multi modal
lane. But then I did a little
deeper dive and recognized that
our updates to title 20
actually didn't seem to reflect
the definition that we were all
using in public hearings and
meetings. And so I asked staff
if we, for a better
understanding of consistency
across title 18 and title 20.
And so that's why we're that's
why this is raised. And in
answer to your question, I'm
comfortable with us moving
forward with this kind of
hybrid approach until we can
come back and, and just kind of
work on that consistency across
the two titles and our
transportation plan. Thank you.
>> Thank you, councilor
councilor Paulson.
>> Thank you. Same. I'm in
agreement with Mayor Pro Tem on
on that question. And since I
had the mic and since our time
is limited, I just want to say
that, you know, for those of us
who pay to park, it's
infuriating to see how many
people don't and how frequently
they don't. And so I'm very
supportive of moving forward
with this Scofflaw program. And
I'm also looking forward to
hearing from you periodically
around the four measures of
success that you've outlined,
because policy should be
focused on achieving objectives.
This isn't just about
penalizing people who are
scofflaws. This is about
preventing people from becoming
scofflaws to begin with. And so
I'll be paying particular
attention to reducing the rate
of people who actually are not
paying. When we start to see
the metrics and the reporting
of our success. Thank you.
>> Councilor Perez.
>> The only thought that came
to mind was our definition of.
Of a bike use on this lane. And
I agree with the comment on
multimodal transportation, but
the excluding motor vehicles
and motorcycles, and how does
that translate then to the E
Moto Uhl issue that we're also
dealing with separately? So I'm
assuming that when we would
come back and amend this or
update it, that we would also
include the discussion about
electric bikes, that our motor
assist and go over 50mph and
just trying to help make sure
that there's consistency in
tearing across our codes when
it comes to those type of
transportation modes.
>> Gabe. I noticed the word
motor vehicles. And you did
that intentionally, didn't you?
>> Yes.
>> Thank you. While our folks,
because there's capacity for
our folks to look at parking,
we also have that other little
code that says parking can give
tickets for expired plates,
correct.
>> Expired tabs. We can give.
>> Yes.
>> Yes, yes.
>> Perfect. Just wanted to
confirm that. So I think you
have consensus that language
will work for us. Anything else
you need?
>> I think that's it. Unless
there's other feedback.
>> Councilor. Councilor Hanson,
I can't see any hands anywhere,
so I don't know if you have a
comment.
>> Mayor, Council. So one no
reason to have a parking
program if people can just. Get
around participating in it. So
excited about moving forward
there. And two, it has long
been an irritation for me to
see people parking in mobility
lanes. The big question is
going to be who's enforcing
outside the city center core?
You know, I. Saw the same tool
van parking on Fourth Plain
once a week in the mobility
lane. And so it's, it's, it's
not just a downtown core issue.
It's happening throughout the
city. So we'll be interested in
seeing how we can address that.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Councilor Hanson.
Any comments?
>> Thank you mayor. No, I agree
with the direction of council.
>> All right. Thank you so very
much. Thank you. Gentlemen will
excuse ourselves. We're going
into executive session
concerning the acquisition of
real estate. According to CW42
.3.1101. B will be in there
from six to almost 630 about
628. All right. Thank you.