Cross_cutting

24:56 I do not believe it's coming back. I think the motion is to move forward with it. If the city manager and the chief have the opportunity to look at other cost saving and time saving elements, that they could and would. Chief, go ahead. I'm sorry, if I may, just for clarity, we are asking for the extension till May, but we can cancel within 30 days with that vendor, with 30 days notice for your consideration. Great, thank you. That's helpful, thank you. So it's not necessarily an amendment, but an understanding that we're gonna try to expedite it and knowing there's a 30 day option is also helpful. So thank you for that clarity. Okay, motion and a second. Those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much.

25:54 Councilor Fox, item number seven. Item number seven is about our interlocal agreement. And I was struck by the fact that we hadn't updated the cost agreements since 2001. And one of the questions I had on this agreement is the language has it, we basically didn't update the cost for what, 25 years. And now we're coming to us with this new agreement and an increase, but also this one includes an expiration date, but it doesn't, I guess I'm wondering in this new agreement, where does it actually say that we'll look at the cost sharing again? 'Cause now it's going to expire if we don't renew it in five years, right?

26:53 Curtis Burns from the City Attorney's Office. Yes, it is going to expire in five years if we don't renew it. I think that at this point it would be, frankly, to our benefit to have it locked in at this particular rate for a period of five years. That's what I was thinking too. We've had a savings for 25 years. Thank you, I was just going to say that. This appeared to be a contract that none of the parties, including the other cities, were aware was just renewing automatically. And yeah, you're right, it came down to our benefit, so to speak, so yes. At the end of five years, there will be another discussion to determine if the costs have increased. And frankly, I think the real instrument and the real key factor will be whether the population has changed. Okay. Also, I was noticing, it seemed as if it was new

27:51 for them to declare that a person, or the prosecuting attorney, has six hours minimum to work on a case. Is that correct? I'm not quite sure how that worked. I don't think that's actually what they were saying. What they were doing was trying to provide us with an explanation as to substantiate the price increase, and that was based on the fact that they expect that the amount of time spent on the, collectively, the cities, would be an additional six hours. Okay. I apologize if I misunderstood your question. That was my question. I was trying to figure out, again, if they do come back to us and ask for an increase, how we would know if that, kind of the new hour estimate is actually accurate or not. But that was, you answered my question. And we can certainly explore that with, you know, in the future, absolutely. Okay. Those are all my questions, thank you. Thank you.

28:51 Do any other councilors have questions on item seven? I'll entertain a motion. Move to approve item number seven. Fox, seconded by Hanson. Those in favor say aye. - Aye. - Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you so much, Curtis. All right. Councilor Harless, item two. - Yeah, if we could have Jamie come up. Thank you, Jamie. This should be pretty, this is very straightforward. I just, I had someone come asking me about, you know, do good Multnomah, not being an operator at the site anymore, and concerns that they were, you know, doing a bad service. And I just wanted to publicly bring you up, so you can say, and it's also in the memo, that this, it's not, they've been a great operator, and it's not for any performance issues whatsoever. And just wanted you to be able to say that publicly here.

29:51 - Sure, I appreciate that. Yes, they've been a great operator. We, in fact, still plan to use them for the bridge shelter. It's really just a matter of kind of economies of scale. Our safe stays are very small compared to the bridge shelter and do good's infrastructure is just a little beefier than really is necessary for these sites, so it's just a place to save a little, particularly with bridge shelter being, you know, kind of everything that we've estimated for there. They are still all estimates, you know, so any cost savings is likely just gonna transfer right over to bridge shelter operations. So they've done a great job, still do a great job. - Okay. - Thank you, Jamie. - Any other questions, comments? I'll entertain a motion. - Motion to approve. - Harless, seconded by Perez. Those in favor, say aye.

30:50 - Aye. - Opposed? Motion passes, thank you, Ms. Spinelli. Moving on, that concludes the consent agenda. That brings us into the public hearings. Our first public hearing tonight is item number nine. This is a resolution adopting the City of Vancouver's comprehensive six-year transportation improvement program for 2027, 2032, and the city's arterial street system and classification map, thank you.

31:24 - Hi, welcome, council. - Kate, I'm sorry, go ahead and identify yourself. I didn't use your sign. - Of course. No problem, Kate Drennan, transportation planning manager with community development, and I am here to ask council to adopt our transportation improvement program, the 2027 six-year plan. I don't have a new presentation for you, nothing has changed in the document since we had our last workshop. We had positive reviews, and so we are looking to finalize this annual work program. - Thank you. Councilors, do you have any question