Cross_cutting + Forests_green_space

18:53 to go out and really hear from as many people as they absolutely could. I know that there's been a lot of feedback in the Columbian criticizing some of the work of Vancouver staff, maybe not being inclusive enough. And I want to say that personally in my experience I've never seen a city entity go out and do as much groundwork with as much intention and foresight to really try and create a plan or a program that really was truly inclusive and reflective of as many community voices as they possibly could. So I just want to share my appreciation and gratitude for those staff especially and encourage you as we get close down here to the final hour for the comprehensive plan to kick that sucker across the finish line because it's been done just exceptionally well and I'm excited to continue to work to see Vancouver become an even more equitable and prosperous and diverse city. Thank you.

19:52 That concludes our community communication. We'll now move into the consent agenda. I'll be pulling item number six. Are there any other items that you would like to pull? Item three. Last call. I'll entertain a motion to approve items one, two, four, five and seven. Moved to approve. Stoeber. Stoeber seconded by? Perez. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. Item number three, mayor pro tem go ahead. Item number three is about a landscape service that is landscaping and janitorial services

20:48 for the waterfront area and I'm recognizing that there's been multiple amendments to this and I don't remember and I feel like maybe I've asked this question before so it's all right to remind me that I have but what is our obligation, how many years of obligation do we have to pay 70% of the landscaping fees along the waterfront? So I'll take that, Dave Perlich, director of parks, recreation and cultural services. This arrangement is established in one of the development agreements with waterfront partners LLC. There is not an expiration on it. We would have to go back and have a conversation to change that. So this arrangement where the city takes responsibility as lead to contract and deliver those services and the developer pays 30% does not have an end date. And is there a limit to that 30%?

21:48 Is that 30% of the costs only for maybe landscaping around those particular buildings or the janitorial services around their specific building area or is it for the entire waterfront park? It is for the entire waterfront park. Basically all of the billings we receive we pay those and we send an invoice for 30% to our partners. And my final question, although I feel like it might be an obvious one, are there cost savings to the city with this arrangement moving forward versus whether or not we do the same level of services using our permanent staff? >> In a prior amendment to the contract, we synced it to the city's biannual budget process. While no decision had been made, we wanted to make sure that we could understand our budget situation.

22:46 You received an update on that today. And could make those decisions, one of those could be insourcing. We certainly need to have a conversation with our partner and we would. But we'll be looking at that in the second half of 26, which is exactly why we wanted to sync up the contract to again any changes could be approved through an amendment that would be part of the updated 2728 city biannual budget. >> That's really helpful to know because I do think about the equity of our parks throughout the city and just concerned that we spend, could be spending, I don't know so I won't put it out there, but an extraordinary amount of funding on the waterfront but perhaps not at some of our other parks that are equally well loved. So I look forward to that discussion with the budget then. Is that what I was hearing? >> Yes. Yeah.

23:46 So again, if we're just at the very beginning of that conversation, but we can look at alternatives and options both insourcing and continued outsourcing of that, again we want to be respectful and have that conversation with waterfront partners as well because they're a partner in this, but we should be looking ongoing at both cost methods and appropriateness of methods as we continue to evolve our approaches as well. >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any other questions? Nope. All right. Thank you so much. I'll move to approve item number three. >> Fox seconded by Stober. All those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Janie, will you join us for a little bit? This is not something we usually do. We usually make an appointment. People sit in the back of the room. It's a consent agenda item. It moves on.

24:43 But you are in a unique position. You were on one of our other committees. And you made a decision and asked subcommittee one to change why the library. >> So I have loved libraries as long as I've loved parks ever since I was a child. When I had kids, both became very relevant. My husband started working from home and needed us out of the house as much as possible because he was telecommuting. And so I discovered parks and libraries. If it was nice out, we went to the parks. If it was rainy out, we'd go to the libraries. And fell in love with both of them. My friend happened to tell me about prac. And that was how I ended up on prac. I've always loved libraries. It's amazing. I'm a nonfiction favorite fan.

25:38 So I will absorb and read as much as I possibly can with regards to nonfiction. My kids just -- it was -- it's wonderful to see kids in park spaces and in libraries because their curiosity is just piqued, their creativity, their imagination in both places. So both parks and libraries hold a very special spot. >> You do realize this is a five-year commitment. >> I do realize that, yes. >> Bless your heart. Thank you so very much. >> You're welcome. >> I move approval of item number six. >> Paulson seconds. >> Paulson seconded it. All those in favor say aye. >> Mayor. >> Discussion? >> Yes. Thank you. So I also wanted to pull this because there's some confusion in the memo and staff -- the staff memo and the two documents were included.

26:32 It starts and ends with council -- with council subcommittee one. And in the middle of the document, it talks about council subcommittee two. So just wanted to give credit that this was council subcommittee one all the way through. >> Thank you. >> Subcommittee two did not play a role in this. Thank you. >> But they so wanted to. Going back to the motion, I have a motion and a second. Those in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you, Jamie. >> Thank you. That concludes the consent agenda, brings us into the public hearing. This is an ordinance relating to management of public rights-of-way granting to fat beam LLC and its affiliates, the Washington LLC, a non-exclusive and revocable franchise to

27:29 install, operate, maintain a telecommunications system in, on, over, upon, along and across public ways of the City of Vancouver, Washington, establishing certain rights, duties, terms and conditions with respect to the franchise and setting and effective date and conditions. Grantee and city are sometimes collectively referred to as the parties. How many of these have we done? Is this number nine? Every time we turn around. >> Tough report, Aaron, how many of these are lined up waiting to put this in our dirt? >> So well, good evening, mayor and council, Aaron Landy, assistant city manager. I don't actually know the answer to how many we've done, and I can tell you we've got another one coming next month. So, I'll see you again soon. But just so you all know, and just a little bit of background for those who are joining us.

28:24 In its stream, the city recently received a request from Fat Beam LLC and its affiliates for the city to grant them a telecommunications franchise for their fiber system. Fat Beam has agreed to the city's standard non-exclusive franchise, including for a ten year term with a mutual option for five additional years.