Vancouver City Council

0:00 (upbeat music) - Good evening, welcome to Vancouver City Council. It is July 27th, 2026. This afternoon we had a short workshop with Joy Fowler, our engagement and access director. Joy brought us up to speed on the work that she and her department staff have been doing in a number of different areas. And after a quick dinner, we are back here, so please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. - I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. - Thank you, please call the roll. - Council Member Harless? - Perez?

0:58 Box? - Here. - Paulson? - Here. - Stover? - Here. - Hanson? - Present. - Mayor McEnany-Ogle? - Present, thank you. Our colleagues will join us shortly. We'll move into community communication. I do not have any cards for anyone who would like to testify on the items on the agenda. So that means that we will close community communications and we are into the consent agenda. We have seven items, Councilors. Are there any of these items that you would like to pull? - Item number four. - Item four. Any other items? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion for items one, two, three, five, six, and seven. - Move to approve. - Hanson, seconded by Fox. Those in favor say aye.

1:58 - Aye. - Opposed? Motion passes, thank you, Councilor Stover. Go ahead, item number four. - Thank you, Mayor. We have been talking about the new operations center for probably close to eight years at this point. It was a major part of the discussions of Stronger Vancouver and at that point in time, it was, I believe, around a $100 million project. And at that time, we received a lot of comments from developers in the community raising concerns about what were the costs at that time. And here we are about seven or eight years later

2:55 and those costs from back then are really dwarfed with what we're currently confronting. In May when we had, May 11th when we had the workshop, I had brought, I had raised the question of what, 'cause back, way back in the olden days, there had been a commitment to having a review committee from the community involved and I had asked what happened to that. And my recollection is that it was that that was replaced by having this relationship what we did with SCANSA. The issue though is SCANSA doesn't live in Vancouver, they don't live in Clark County

3:50 and our local contractors do. And while maybe the pitchforks haven't come out yet there, I can hear 'em being rattled in the yard next door. I appreciate that staff, based upon things I shared with the city manager, I appreciate that staff released a memo to us this week, but I remain concerned 'cause that memo covered $20 million worth of costs and a $225 million project. There are concerns that I continue to feel at this point about where we're at in this project and just feeling there needs to be some good review before we go forward. One, we need to hear from the community.

4:46 We need to hear what they have to say, what their concerns are. Two, I need to see what does $225 million mean for our water rates, our sewer rates? What does $225 million mean for impact on the general fund and what are the trade-offs? And I really want to see a good review of what potentially can be done to lower these costs. And tonight is a pivotal point. Like tonight's contract takes it from level and starts creating something that comes up

5:41 and we really become committed to the current project after the approval of this contract. So I'm not there yet is the best way to say it. And I understand there are unique things about this project. There are that the purpose and need for this is different than purpose and need for many other construction projects in Clark County around the state. But I still think that we need to do some more diligence

6:33 before we fully commit to what we've got right now. - Mayor. - Thank you. - Yes, Councilor Fox. - What's one piece of the, I guess, history that was not related just now was that before we even decided on the approach to this project was that staff put together a project charter. And that project charter basically discussed just that. How are we gonna interact throughout the project? What were the touch points with council? Who's in charge of making what decisions? I mean, that's what a project charter is all the way to delivery. So it seems as if Lisa maybe should have included in the folder that she shared with you that project charter. And perhaps maybe even before we unwrap the entire bundle we have here, that might have been something we should be revisiting more often to see where we're at in that project charter given that it was such

7:32 an immense piece of work that was intended to guide us through to delivery. Is that something staff could bring forward? - Well, any other comments from council before we turn it over to staff for their presentation? - Okay, please. - Jean Singer, Facilities Capital Projects Manager. We're gonna have to turn on your mic. There you go. - There it goes. - That should pick it up, thank you. - Jean Singer, Facilities Capital Projects Manager. So yes, we can bring back the charter and send that back this week for revisit. We've been intentional with reading it and making sure we were coming to council on those intentional points. So our last workshop was that update in terms of where we were with the design and the budget. So we did that partially in May and then also in July. So I'm happy to share that back.

8:31 There was any specific questions. I think what I would offer though is the projects are competitively bid. So every component of this is sent out to the market and the market decides what the prices are with these. And there is local bidding. We've had the opportunity to work with several local bidders that have actually bid on the work and then also received the work. So while the estimates are there, it's really the market that decides what the prices are gonna be. We use Skanska to be strategic what those packages are to make sure they're leveraging what the best opportunities are to deliver those pieces. And they've broken them out sequentially and that's why you've seen this come to you in many different parts to make sure that we are being efficient with delivering the project as they can move through the site since we have a green site. And then also about what competition

9:30 will bring the best value for the different pieces of work. So that's the only thing I would offer at this point in terms of that context. So while it's a big number, each of those pieces are sent out and the market decides how much they cost. - Council. - Thank you, and I do appreciate that. But there's an underlying design that is driving what those packages are. And that's where I'm questioning. So we have a design that has a flyover bridge, right? What does that flyover bridge mean for water rates? In the future. And those are the kind of questions that I think should be asked is,

10:28 is this beautiful design? No doubt, beautiful design. Is this the design that is making sure that we are stewarding the resources of the city for decades, 75, 80 years to come? And I'm also not saying that this isn't the design that we shouldn't end up building the end, but there's feedback coming. And it's gonna continue to come. And taking a pause to make sure we're good.

11:23 And I do, and again, I don't feel comfortable not knowing what this does to water rates. And am I missing something? Some analysis happened that I missed. - Somebody from Public Works would have to speak to that. My understanding is that the model, the rate model as is does have the cost accommodated in it. So that's my understanding. And the pedestrian bridge, so I'll offer why that's there. It's actually for safety. It's to decouple the pedestrian traffic between the two buildings from the vehicular traffic around the site. And so that's why it's there. It was actually an elegant solution so that we did not have people walking between those buildings while we had vehicles moving through there. So that's why that was there. - But should all the office be in one building?

12:21 So there's no need to go back and forth. - Okay, Geraldine, you had a comment. - I think Gene answered most of it. We are at this pivotal point. I guess I would pose the question back. What review are you interested in? I would point out that in addition to the 20 million that's affiliated with the site and sustainability, there's also, we are holding a significant amount of contingency. And if you add that in, that's like 40 million that you could take off the 225 to get back down to a comparable with where we were about two years ago. I would highlight that we switched a few months ago from doing metal buildings back to tilt up as a cost saving measure and that is a benefit of our partnership with Skanska and the local subs

13:21 that they have at the table. We were going forward with our outbuildings with metal buildings. Those proved to be extremely more expensive than anticipated and we were able to pivot and you saw a package. It's outlined in your memo, come in and then come back out with concrete tilt up instead. So we are pivoting along the way as a cost savings too and looking for more information as to the review you're looking for that would still allow us to advance the project to stop it now, to stop it significantly will require demobilization, will require significant changes to where we're headed which will likely result in us not delivering on this project in 2028 which will delay it further, which will impact costs further.

14:14 - Any other comments from staff on this item? Any comments from the council? - Sure, mayor. - Councilor Fox, go ahead. - Yeah, the reason I brought up the charter is exactly for this to avoid this particular conversation happening midway through a project because part of the discussion with the charter was us as council agreeing to the path forward, the check-ins when the design decisions would be made and we've made the design decision. So I'm not interested in us stopping this project at this point, wasting taxpayer money and redesigning a project that is exactly what we've been asking staff to deliver to us. - Any other comments?

15:11 Yes, Councilor Hanson. - Thank you, mayor and council member, I see your point. What is the number that we would, what if it was 300 million, 400 million? At what level do we get to where we have to say, oh, let's take a look here because it seems like really at this point, almost any number could come back and then if we're still gonna move forward, we're still gonna move forward. I have concerns about that because if you liken this to where could we go, what cuts have been made to this point as far as what's needed and what's not needed? Maybe a workshop?

15:58 - Seth, could you remind us of the timelines that you're working under right now? - So this package was bid. We, if it's not approved, there are statutes around how long bids are good for and so I think we're within about a week of that. So if we extend it beyond that, these bids won't be good anymore and we'd have to rebid. So we would lose that. These packages are intentional to keep the project moving as well so there'll be a delay in terms of them starting construction work and there are costs with that as well. So in terms of where we are in the design, we are in the middle, we're finalizing the design, getting through permits right now with the hope to go out and bid the rest of the project in the fall.

16:54 So it would be a delay to change it at this point. We could bring back what we have already cut. We have done quite a bit of cutting already so and we could bring that back and show that so we could see where the delta is on that if that would be of interest. - But could you do that by next Monday and still meet your contract deadlines? - Probably could do the list of, yeah. We could, well overall in the whole project, we probably could, we could go through where we've, what we've already cut out of the project in the past as well, we could probably pull that together in a week. - And would that still keep you on your contract deadline? - It would be close. - City manager, the question has come up from two counselors about additional information on this project.

17:52 What do we, do we have an opening next Monday? - Yeah, let's see. I mean if council's desire is to table as long as it's not going to put us outside of that bid threshold where the bids would still be good, I think we'd be safe to table and do the consideration on Monday. I flagged a couple of things from the conversation. One is to follow up with the analysis on the rate impacts. And we just discussed providing some information about the items in the project that have already been cut. And I'm intuiting a little bit from a little bit of the conversation, perhaps about that reiterating the cost analysis on the steel buildings versus the tilt up building and where that economic delta was. We should be able to provide that as well. - Are there two additional counselors that would like to table this to next Monday?

18:51 I have two counselors, a no, a no, one, no, no. The decision will be tonight then. We will not postpone the decision. The decision is forwarding to tonight. You do not have four votes to table. So any additional comments on item number four? I'll entertain a motion on item number four. - Move to table to date certain next Monday. - I have a motion, is there a second? - Second. - Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. - Council Member Harless. - Aye. - Perez. - Aye. - Fox. - This is a motion to table. - Aye. - So Councilor Perez, did you just say,

19:49 to table to table to next Monday? - Aye. - Continue with roll call, please. - Council Member Fox. - Send. - Paulson. - Nay. - Stover. - Aye. - Hanson. - Aye. - Paulson. - No, motion passes, we'll table it till Monday. Thank you. All right, so staff, thank you very much. Moving on to the public hearing, please. This is a resolution related to the extension of a development agreement approved pursuant to chapter 36.70B, extending the date of vesting of various development regulations under which

20:46 the Hewlett Packard Inc. Section 30 development may occur, authorizing the city manager to execute an amendment to the development agreement and providing for an effective date. And staff, please. Hi. - Good evening. My name is Chim Joon Ko, Real Estate Project Manager with the Economic Prosperity and Housing Department. So as the mayor said, we have before you the HP Development Agreement Amendment to extend the term of the agreement. So, there we go. So we'll provide some background context on why this is in front of you today, as well as some of the history. Go over a bit of the approved master plan, the current development agreement, the proposed modifications, our staff analysis, and then open it up for discussion. As well, HP has John Burkeen, hopefully,

21:44 if I pronounced that correctly, in the audience if questions arise specifically for HP. So, the context, the master plan for the HP's site in section 30 was originally approved in 2023, and then a subsequent plan for the second half of the property was approved in 2025. Combined, this covers an acreage of 98 acres in section 30, and it's approved up to 1.5 million square feet of mixed office, research and development, and other supportive uses, as well as improvements such as parking and landscaping. So they have recently completed phase one of this master plan, approximately 215,000 square feet of office and R&D, which is a gorgeous mass timber building,

22:43 and that is about 14% of the overall master plan, so there's still quite a bit of the plan that needs to be built out. As part of phase one, the city has invested $3.5 million per the development agreement in infrastructure, so this went towards roads and a sewer pump station that were necessary to support the building. And in future phases, per the development agreement that already exists today, the city is committed to investing an additional $6.5 million in additional infrastructure work. As of today, we haven't received any additional submittals for building permit for any future phases, but with the extension, we expect that to be coming. So once again, just providing a visual

23:41 of the approved master plan, we have the original plan that was approved in 2023, providing the plan for the west side of the site, and then later in 2025, the plan for the east side of the site. So the current development agreement was established on December 16th, 2019, sorry, for a 15-year term with an optional five-year extension, assuming council extended it at that time. It vested a loud mix of uses and standards, defines the master planning process and building review process, as well as fees, reserve transportation and utility capacity, as well as identifying needed improvements, details the impact fee credits

24:41 and required city infrastructure investment, that was the 3.5 and 6.5 million invested by the city, and those were tied to certain thresholds of development activity, as well as provided business license or charge, which has since expired in 2024. So the change in front of you today is a simple amendment keeping all the terms of the existing development agreement the same, with only extending the development agreement by an additional 11 years, now to expire in 2045, instead of, sorry, doing about 2034, populated that math right in my head, and maintaining the five-year extension subject to council approval at the 2045 date. So from our analysis, we believe this aligns

25:39 with the city's goals and priorities, particularly around supporting living wage jobs, as it provides support in ensuring that HP is able to develop the full master plan. The extension allows for a more realistic timeline for the full development to occur, as we saw the development agreement was executed in 2019, or in 2026, phase one just completed, so that it takes time to build out these large projects, and the extension allows for a cohesive build-out, ensuring that utility, transportation capacity, and design language is able to maintain consistency throughout the full build-out of the site. And with that, that's everything I have, and I'll open it up to discussion. - Thank you, that is a very old picture.

26:36 We need the new picture of that finished building. How gorgeous it is now. Councilors, questions? Then let's go ahead and open up the public hearing for individuals. These are applicants of HP here to answer questions, and a couple that would like to come up and speak, so John Bracken, and Jennifer, did you want to come up also? And Anderson, did you want to come on up? So John, you wanted to speak a little bit. - Yeah, first I want to thank you for having a long-term vision for Vancouver, and especially for the Section 30. We appreciate all the partnership you've had, and as that vision continues to shape and become a reality. I also think the city council, the mayor, and the city staff members who have worked alongside us

27:35 every step of the way, the collaboration support has been invaluable throughout the whole process. City staff just once can prepare for you guys some information on this, and so we just wanted to make ourselves available to answer any questions you may have about this. - Thank you. Okay, comments or questions from the council?

27:58 - Quick question, probably to the city attorney. When this master plan was agreed to quite some time ago, we were at the beginning of our conversation about climate goals and standards, green building and such. The particular building that was just shown exceeds those standards, but what happens in 20 years when the standards change even more so? Is HP required to meet the codes at that time? - If it's okay with council, I'd like to defer to my colleague, Kerry Driscoll, who has worked closely with HP on behalf of the city, and he's available online. - Thank you.

28:57 - Kerry, you're muted. You'll have to unmute. - And could we go ahead and bring Kerry's picture up and get rid of the three minutes? There he is. I like it. - Thank you. - I like your background, Kerry. - Thank you. So one of the properties of the development agreement is that they vested to certain development, actually much of the development code that was in existence at the time they signed with the city and HP signed that agreement in 2018. And so we don't have the opportunity to require them to comply with the later requirements. - Kerry, I'm sorry, my old hearing must have missed that.

29:54 They signed an agreement to do what with the requirements? - So part of the issue I'm having, okay, we seem to have solved that. I was getting a feedback echo. So part of the development agreement is that they vest to the codes that are in place at the time that we entered into that in 2018. And so we don't have the opportunity to have them, to make them comply with the newly adopted laws. - So when they start development in 2045, we're going back to the 2018 codes? - That's correct. - Ooh. - Councilor Brennan, Councilor Fox. - Okay, we're not talking about the building codes from 2019, we're just talking about

30:53 the land use development codes, correct? The building codes have to be up to date at the time of actually getting approval for your building plan, correct? - That's correct. - Okay, all right. - Maybe I misunderstood. - Go ahead, Kerry. - Maybe I misunderstood the answer to the question. I thought we were talking about the development codes. If the Greenville, I'm sorry, I'm getting so much feedback, I'm just going to focus on what I'm saying. - Yeah, Kerry, from what I understand, the mayor was asking about climate change and new regulations that could occur between now and 2045. And I was just distinguishing that the building codes, if they change between now and then,

31:52 they would have to comply with the state's building codes, which would very likely have higher standards at that time. - That's correct. The building codes are different than the development codes. And if the climate policy relates to the building codes, then they do have to meet those current requirements at the time they put in the permit application. - Okay.

32:21 (muffled speaking) - Is that one of your children, Kerry? - Yes, one of the things about working from home. - Yes, that's okay, give him a hug. Can you give me an example? And Councilor Fox helped me understand this. A code that we would have had in 2018 that might not be appropriate in 2045 when this contract continues, when this master plan continues? - Well, I'll use a climate change one. So perhaps we'll have additional development codes around the proportion of EV charging stations within a parking lot, or maybe we might have a code that says something about some different configuration or reduction in parking. But those are development land use code.

33:18 But if the building code says, here's the energy code standard that needs to be applied and the efficiency of the systems and the type of windows that need to be built and the type of roofing, all of those are considered within that building envelope and would have to be, they don't get vested into 2019 building code standards. That's how I'd explain it. But they might not have to do as many EV charging stations or whatnot in 2045 that we might want them to do in 2045. But I don't, that's just an example. - I just needed a couple of examples. - Mayor, it looks like Mark Person is raising his hand. I can give him permission to speak and display his camera too. - I'm sorry, who is this individual? - He's one of our planners. - Oh, certainly, thank you. - Thank you.

34:16 - Good evening. - Thank you, Mark. - Thank you, Sarah. Yeah, thank you, Mayor. I just wanted a clarification, maybe help out. EV charging, electric vehicle charging does live in the building code. So if that changes, that would not be vested. - Okay. Mark, is there a particular code that would be odd in 2045 that is cemented in 2018 that we would be concerned about? - Mayor, I can't think of anything off the top of my head. Again, the current code that HP adjusted to is nearly 20 years old, right? It's from section 30 of work of 2007, eight and nine.

35:13 So I, you know, the development code is mostly setbacks and height. Those things don't typically change as much over time. Mayor Pro Tem Fox did talk about the parking minimums and maximums. Those, you know, those do change and those do live in the zoning, in the development code. But EV charging requirements live in the building code in Washington state. - Thank you, Mark. Ms. Shin, did you have a comment? - Yes, mayor, if I also may add, through the comprehensive planning process, we also did extensive outreach with HP around how the code would apply to this area, the new code. And it does align with the vision. But this ensures that, this change ensures that the very specific design changes

36:11 aren't impacting the plan. But through our engagement, it does a lot, like our current code that's going into effect next week is aligned with the plan as well. - Okay, thank you, that's reassuring. Okay. Yes, Councilor Paulson, go ahead. - Thank you, mayor. Council member Paulson, Jim Chun, I'll start with you. And if there are others who are more appropriate to answer this question, it's my understanding that the facility that recently opened exceeded the codes that were in place. Can you talk a little bit about that? - Yeah, I might defer to Mark on specifically on how it exceeded. But I think one example is it is mass timber building. And the mass timber has a lot, some significant carbon benefits,

37:08 particularly around carbon sequestration. And to provide a frame of reference for how extensive this is, the building has approximately the same amount of board feet as the new Portland Airport expansion, which is a very well-known project in the region, very impactful. So it is a large-scale, highly, and it's all electric. Yeah, I guess Sue and HP would know the details of the project. So I might defer to them on the sustainability features. - So just to add on to what Chairman Chun was saying is the design sort of anticipated the new Washington Energy Code, that I think the dates of when that came effective kind of was shifting around at the time

38:08 that we were preparing the permit documents, but we anticipated that. So the EV charging counts are aligned with the Washington Energy Code. And then we went with all electric for building systems. So there's no gas to that building. Solar, I think we've got more solar than what is required. And in terms of regional, the mass timber plays a big part and regional sourcing for the construction materials, landscaping as well in terms of low-maintenance landscape. I think those are some of the main ones. Anything else? John, you wanted to add? - No, we also focus on making sure we divert from landfills. And meeting all the goals around that, I think we're at about 90% right now diverting from landfills on that. So we try to make sure we achieve all those goals as much as possible. - Thank you for sharing those examples. And so my follow-up question would be,

39:07 'cause we hear this a lot when we talk about changing our development code and our building code, the kinds of things that you just mentioned that went above and beyond what the requirement were undoubtedly raised the cost of the project for HP. Why would you incur that unnecessary cost? - HP likes to see itself as a very sustainable company. And we're always focused on how we can improve our footprint in the future. So we see those as costs just to help us as a company achieve those goals and make sure we're providing a better future. - Thank you. I did have one question back to the earlier conversation about things in the code that may be outdated in a theoretical 2045 scenario. We've moved away from parking minimums as an example. And if we stuck with our prior code, HP would be compelled to honor those parking minimums unless an exemption was given. Is that correct?

40:05 - So regardless of the development agreement, they still have the option to opt into the new code. So at any time they can develop under the current code. - So they can use the old code, but they could also use the new code at their discretion if, for example, they wanted to build less parking than the old code would have compelled them to do. - I believe so. Kerry, is that accurate? - My understanding of the, sorry, I'm still getting that. So in Washington, the developer would have to choose either the old code or the new code. They would not be able to mix and match the two codes. - For individual projects, right?

41:01 - Correct, on a project by project basis, they would have to determine which code they were going to use and go with that. So they couldn't get the advantages of one code and the advantages of the old code and new code. And so there has to be consistency, either one or the other. - Okay, thank you for that clarification. That's a bit of a concern because we're continually moving away from parking minimums. And so my hope for HP as you're continuing to have good corporate citizenship would be that you would, making those kinds of decisions, weigh that pretty strongly because the new code does not have parking minimums in it. And so you're not compelled to build as much parking as maybe you otherwise might have been. Thank you, Mayor. - Thank you. You have gone above and beyond and we were extremely pleased

42:01 to tour the facility to see all the incredible work that you have done. If there are no additional comments, I will move approval of this particular item. Yes, Councilor. - Thank you. So in, was it 2018 or 2019, I said? - End of 2019. - End of 2019, okay. So at that point in time, we spent quite a bit of energy talking about climate goals because at that point in time, the city didn't have anything in particular, but we were really trying to figure out a way to insert them and we kind of walked away with a pinky promise from HP. But obviously HP is very much exceeded

42:58 what would have been in place. So thank you to HP for that. - I'll second your motion. - Thank you, Councilor Paulson. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. - Aye. - Opposed? Motion passes. Thank you so very much for joining us and for that amendment. That concludes the business portion. Let's move into the communications from the council. Councilor Harless. - Yeah, a couple of things I was gonna bring up, but I can wait till your communication period about the police department memo related to the lack of defense attorneys. So we can certainly wait until after we've done our rounds. I'm having tabling that. And I also wanted to bring up something else police related and maybe Chief Price might have an answer for this

43:58 since bringing it to his attention that there was a report of potentially an ICE vehicle being parked at our West Precinct. It's my understanding that parking, it is public parking, but it's for a police business. There's a safe extension there, but it's not just a public (mumbles) be used for whatever you want. I was just curious if you had found any (mumbles) - Yeah, thank you. Price, Vancouver Police. I did have someone reach out to one of our sergeants probably about a month ago and inquired about a vehicle in the parking lot in the public parking area of West Precinct inquiring as to whether or not it was an ICE vehicle. And of course we can't confirm to the public the owners of those vehicles. What I can tell you is that our position has been that we do not assist ICE in their operations.

44:57 If they park a vehicle in our parking lot, we don't monitor for who's parking there. Certainly they could park there and leave and walk away or they could park there and come inside and make a records request like any other citizen and we wouldn't prevent that. So without a little bit more information, it'd be hard to determine exactly why someone was parked in our lot or even confirm that that was a, publicly confirm that that wasn't a vehicle that belonged to ICE. - Thank you. Yeah, I know that would be difficult and you don't know, obviously, if there's so many other things going on in our city to be paying attention to than who's parked in our parking lot or not. But just reassuring the community that we're not working with. The last, we heard recently a couple weeks ago about how there's a decrease in the feelings of safety for persons of color and I would largely attribute that to certain things until we find details. So the more that we can communicate that our police are not facilitating or helping

45:57 or in any way makes them less likely to pause before calling 911. So that's my, always my fear is making sure that people still feel comfortable calling our officers if they are experiencing violence or there's anything. So I just want to make sure that we're assuring the public about that. So I wanted to make sure to bring it up and yeah, see if you had any information. So thank you. - Councilor, I can just confirm that the department has not changed posture that we have said from the beginning in terms of our interactions with ICE agents in their investigation of immigration matters that simply is in our bail wake and that rests with them. - Thank you. - Councilor Perez. - Yes, thank you. Just wanted to share with my colleagues that as the elected official for the City of Vancouver sitting on the Community Action Advisory Board,

46:55 the community needs assessment that's conducted triennially has been done and we'll be having four community forums to share the survey results with the public, one in battleground, one in Camas, one here in downtown Vancouver at the library and then the fourth one will be virtual. So this would take place early in the fall. It's an opportunity to let community feedback on the survey results and city manager, I'm hoping that we could work with the county to promote the event community forum that's happening here at the downtown library because many of our folks there to participate. So that is it. - Thank you. Councilor Fox. - I just wanna mention that this week is, well, this Thursday it's a Children's Justice Center meeting, board meeting that I'll be attending and one of the items that I've been working on

47:53 leading up to the meeting is really trying to plug into our state legislative actions around the criminalization of fentanyl when it's involving children and our vulnerable populations and so there has been a couple meetings. We're still kind of working the angle. Of course, the legislative session hasn't started yet for next spring but I just wanted to let you know that that topic is still being worked on at least with our staff moving forward and there's a few ideas, not ready to air them but would like to talk them over with Children's Justice Center Council on Thursday and then I can bring that back to all of you and then also the lodging tax advisory committee met a few weeks ago to discuss a little bit of some changes to scoring and the application process to make it a little bit clearer about the items

48:52 that we're looking for in an application that are kind of of higher importance to us. So just being a little bit more transparent with the applicants about looking for more events to happen outside of the summer months. So we've kind of changed the scoring or the scoring will look a little different around that. So kind of putting some emphasis on bringing in more tourism activity and outside activity outside of the summer months, getting more heads in beds. So also giving a little bit more weight, kind of upping the scores for if the event does bring in more heads in beds. Heads in beds, that's wrong. Heads on beds, something like that. But anyways, just wanted to share that update. We're not meeting for a couple months because that application process will be live soon and I think it's in August. Please don't quote me on that but it'll be advertised soon and then we'll be reconvening

49:49 to review the applications in October. That's all I have. - Okay, thank you. Councilor Paulson? Councilor Stewart? - Thank you, Mayor. On Friday night, I took the opportunity to head out to the Port of Camas by Shugel's Grove Field, the other public airport in Clark County, to listen in on their kickoff of their airport master plan, kind of as a preview to what our process is gonna be and Meredith was out there as well and it is highly likely we'll be working with the same consultants. So kind of excited about that synergy that's gonna happen. Was gonna bring this up last week but then got sidetracked and forgot.

50:48 In my, I'm assuming our baskets is the Washington Public Works Magazine and Southeast First Street received an award as a project of the year and so congratulations to the public works folks and good job on Southeast First Street. That was a task. Years and years and years and years to get there so congratulations and congratulations on the award. Council Member Fox, you bringing up fentanyl prompted something else. I recently heard from somebody who experienced a fentanyl overdose. They did not know they were getting fentanyl.

51:48 They had tested for fentanyl but there's now so many different variations of fentanyl that the test strips don't catch so public service announcement, please, please, please be very, very cautious with whatever you're taking. Thank you. - Thank you, Councilor Hanson. - Thank you, Mayor, not this Sunday but the Sunday before I gave the opening to the concert and just wanna thank staff for doing a great job and getting all those folks together and putting on a great show. Also wanna thank staff for being so responsive if we have a question about anything on the agenda. They're usually really quick in getting back to me and appreciate that. The rest of my comments I'm gonna go ahead and reserve for the police memo. - Thank you and we do have lots of concerts both at the waterfront on Thursday night and the Sunday concerts out at Columbia Tech Center.

52:45 So thank you, Councilors, for helping introduce those. We had over 5,000 people last night. Great weather and the whole routine. Four days of aloha at Esther Short Park were well received and this is the week for the Two Keys Track and Field Day so if that is of interest to you, let's see you out at Skyview. City Manager, let's move into your report. - Thank you, Mayor. I'd invite Chief Price to come and return to the podium while he's doing that. I'll just open with some commentary about an item that hit the news last week that has caused a lot of conversations out in the community related to some updated guidance that was issued to the police department from the Office of the Chief. And I first and foremost want to emphasize that this is not something that was done that we would expect to have a negative impact on public safety.

53:45 Whenever you change a procedure or change how something is handled, that's always the first concern that pops to people's mind and that's not something that this was designed to put people or put businesses at risk. What it was designed to do was to address a critical shortage that we're having of defense attorneys right now. As I've shared with the council in the last couple of months, really since the 2nd of June, we'd had 55 cases that were dismissed because of lack of defense counsel and of those 55 cases, 10 of them were misdemeanor levels of domestic violence. And so we viewed that as something that was a critical situation that we needed to address. Thankfully, the city attorney, due to the fact that Washington caseload standards were changed over a year ago, has been monitoring and looking at ways that the city can adapt to the reduction in the amount of cases that your public defenders can take. And so we've taken some action in the past. One of the most notable ones

54:45 being the city council's adoption of an ordinance that gave case weighting to different categories and types of cases to free up capacity for attorneys. But we ended up in a situation where we just simply did not have enough bodies available. It is cold comfort that Vancouver's not the only community that is struggling with this problem, but we were really looking for ways to be able to address operations on a temporary basis that would allow us to preserve capacity for those public defenders for the highest level cases that qualify as misdemeanors. So to give you examples, some of the things that were included in there would have been items like theft of recyclables, you know, misuse of a dealer tag on a vehicle, that rather than siting, a lot of these offenses now would get referred to the city attorney's office for their prosecutors to work on the timing of making a charging decision. When a button is pushed to issue a citation

55:42 out in the field, that starts a 14-day clock ticking under which the person must be arraigned, and so you have to have a public defender available within those 14 days. What we were running into is because the court does them in the order that they're listed on the docket, you may have one of those lighter offenses ahead of the domestic violence one, and the judge is just going to assign the public defenders down the list until they are out. So we engaged with the leadership at the department over a period of several weeks, worked on doing some training about this, have been endeavoring to answer questions along the way, and then it became a public conversation, and so we've since been trying to work through details from the police department about how does this work when you would apply it to this specific situation. You know, I can construct a what-if scenario that breaks literally any procedure or law that we have, so we tried to focus in on the ones that they are most likely to encounter.

56:42 I know counsel probably has specific questions that may arise about specific situations, and the chief is the one who's best qualified to be able to address those, but I just want to reiterate that this is something that when we put it together, it was carefully crafted and tailored to try to have the lowest possible impact to people out in the community, to not, in essence, I know people get concerned that you're "granting people permission to commit crimes." That was not the intent. It was to get us through a temporary crunch on attorneys. I can tell you that the staff has been in continuous recruitment mode since these standards were changed. We have a standing recruitment on our website that has been there for, I think, over a year. We have reached out directly to firms. We are cold calling attorneys firms to see if we can find people to do this. We have the budget available. It simply comes down to finding enough people to be able to do the work,

57:40 and so I guess with that, I'd open it up to the council and see what questions you might have from me or the chief. - City manager, I wonder if you could kind of walk through an example that keeps popping up, and that is what happens if a business owner has a shoplifting incident? What can they, what should they do, and what can they expect? - Mayor, I'd love to answer that question. I don't think that they'll see anything different in terms of on the front end. If someone has a shoplifter, they should call 911 and follow the normal process. Our officers will respond, and according with our policy already, we will come out, we will deal with the person, and if they want that person trespassed, we'll take care of that as well, and so on the front end, it won't look different. On our side of it, what happens after that day

58:37 is a report will be produced by the officers, it will be sent over to the city attorney's office, then they'll start with their process of determining where and when to prosecute that case. - Okay, and what can the shoplifter or the accused expect? What should they know could happen, or? - This is no different from anything else other than the timing. Normally, this would start a, a citation would start the 14-day clock, and they would expect to be in court within a couple of weeks. That timeframe is likely to be extended a little bit. - Okay. Councilors?

59:32 Councilor Flocks? - Well, I'd say there's a couple things that came to mind right away when the news broke and we received notice of this from many different places. I mean, one is, I think, pretty summed up well with one comment we received from a resident, which I wrote down, but it was, "Rethink what you're saying out loud." And so the message to staff, to our line folks as to what's happening next or what the procedures are filtered out into the community, and perhaps we all misunderstood, perhaps. And so I'm just wondering something right away is how could we have said this better to our folks that are working out in the field,

1:00:31 handling these cases from the minute the crime is reported, but how could we have communicated that better so that it didn't come out as a message that perhaps the city of Vancouver will now just let crime happen? - Yes, Councilor, I believe that we probably could have been a little bit more clear in our timing of execution. I think that's what may have caught some of our employees off guard. I thought they, in speaking with some of them, they believed that the conversations were going to continue for a longer period of time before we came to a point of actually executing this plan. And so we do recognize that that was a failure on our part and we'll do better to communicate that type of change to our folks, because it is a large-scale change for us operationally.

1:01:29 - And then the other question I had, perhaps I just want to hear it out loud too, maybe get more things said out loud the right way. But I serve on the Children's Justice Center, Justice Council, along with you, Chief, that leads the group. And my first thought when I saw some of these reports and saw the reports saying that folks that had committed domestic violence were being released, I think that just felt like a slap across the face and I'm sure a lot of others felt that way. So just moving forward, just to know that those would be the cases that we are prioritizing and that the victims of the crimes would see justice. - Yeah, absolutely. As far as it is in our hands to control, we will be responding to domestic violence,

1:02:27 reports of domestic violence and violent crimes, just like we always have. Our desire is that, our hope is that by taking the actions we're taking right now, fewer of those cases will be dismissed by a judge somewhere down the line. - That's what I want to hear, thank you. - Councilor Perez. - Thank you, Chief, for being here to help clarify some of this information. A couple of things that I understand. So one is the communication piece, which you've acknowledged we could have done better on that so that nobody is surprised. Secondly, one of the concerns that I heard is actually of the police officers and do they know that we will have their back, that we still, that there's no grayness here. There's this threshold, this line, that there needs to be clarity

1:03:23 that they could still know that they are supported. And then secondly, is this what can a public resident know that is different now with this directive compared to before in light of all the concerns with whether you're a business, whether you're a resident, or whether you're a police officer. What is different now than before? - Thanks for asking that question. Number one, do we have our officers back? We support all of our officers. I think we go through a pretty lengthy process to make sure we're selecting the best people to serve our community. And then our policies and the laws actually are what cover our officers. And so as long as we are operating within the confines of policy and law, our officers are supported. And you said the gray area. I had an old sergeant who said, yeah, we live in the gray.

1:04:21 And that is the challenge that we live with day to day. But our folks are supported and we try and reaffirm them of that support daily. In terms of what the public is gonna see, and I think this is the message that we really wanna make sure people receive, and that is this, Vancouver Police has not changed in its pursuit of criminal activity and holding people accountable for committing crimes in our city. What has changed is the method by which those people are held accountable. So we can do what we can do on the front end, but on the back end, it might take a little bit more time for them to get in front of a judge and have their case heard. And that's what the public will see. It's not one thing, something they'll see visibly, but it's something they'll understand is happening in the background. There are crimes that we simply, for a variety of factors, we can't take everyone to jail, and there's some crimes we just can't do that on. And that's not because of this change solely.

1:05:21 This also has to do with capacity at our jail. It simply is, they have different levels for allowing people to be booked in, and they've been in the red quite frequently lately, and that means only the highest level crimes are they allowing to come in the door. So there's a, this is more than just one factor. It's not just one thing. There are several things that come into play, but I can't oversell this, and that is the Vancouver Police Department responds to 911 calls from our citizens to make sure that they're gonna be safe. We will come out and address whatever the issue is for the day. We'll do our best to get that information into the hands of the prosecutors so that they can do what they need to do. - In light of the article that came out from The Columbian on this, is there any follow-up messaging to the public on where you could still call 911, still gonna do misdemeanors, we're just gonna still respond to theft.

1:06:19 Our officers are still going to have all the tools that they need to do their job safely and effectively. I feel like we need to really come back out with the messaging to counter the misunderstanding or the misstep that may have happened. - Yes, and that is, we do want people to continue to call 911. Don't hesitate. We will respond to those calls for service. And our overall goal is to keep our citizens safe. We do realize that this change that is happening internally is going to affect the speed at which some people will receive the accountability that they are owed. But in terms of our interfacing with the public day-to-day, there should not be a change. - Okay, and then lastly, I wanna make sure that we're very clear and transparent with the public on what we're doing to address the shortage of public defense.

1:07:17 - Thank you, Councilor Harless. - I think one thing that we can say that the public should expect to see is less DV crimes being dismissed. I mean, that is what the goal is, is that those kind of situations aren't happening again. And I think that's an excellent goal, clearly. And I would expect that if, I'm not gonna possibly fathom the day-to-day life of an officer or deputy out there and everything that they experience, but I can make an assumption that if I arrested someone for domestic violence and later found out that that case was dismissed, I would be honestly pissed, you know? And you wanna see the victims see justice, and especially in things like domestic violence, which, you know, when it's that level, it's a lower level domestic violence, could in the future escalate to a different situation. And so that's why we wanna be able to address those cases.

1:08:13 And so I think this is a hard place for us all to be, but I'm glad that creative solutions are being looked at. And I like hearing that there's partnership between the police department and the attorney's office to come up with solutions and collaborations so that victims are seeing that justice. And, you know, it's also very difficult for us when we can't control what the title might be of an article that doesn't fully explain the situation. And I think that was unfortunate for the Colombian to have done, misguiding the community on what was actually happening. I had some questions, and maybe these are more questions for Lon, city manager. And it's about, you know, what are our options on potentially increasing the rates that are set for public defenders? Because part of it is that they can get a better salary elsewhere

1:09:13 because now they aren't able to take on as many cases. So thus their overall salary is reduced if they are doing public defense. And is there a potential need for increasing the budget and exploring that so we can make sure that we try to fix this as soon as possible? - Would you like me to address that now or hold some of the council questions here for a bit? 'Cause there are a couple that have been raised already. Okay, so the rates are, I think, definitely an issue because prior to the change in the caseload management, the attorneys that have contracts with us get paid a certain amount for handling the case, and then they get paid a larger amount if the case goes to trial. Because they aren't allowed to take as many cases, that does impact their earning potential, which creates more of an incentive for them to look at joining law practices or moving into another area of legal practice.

1:10:10 And so you should expect to see a budget proposal this fall that would address that. I have some flexibility through the course of the year to be able to address those as long as I'm staying within the current budget that we are exploring right now. We do have a couple of firms, though, that are under contract that will continue to provide attorneys at those rates. I would just expect them to come back and renegotiate once those contracts are getting close to expiration or maybe make a plea that we should adjust them because of equity issues in the meantime. And that's one potential solution. We are also looking at changing how we are metering the cases. There's not really guidance in the state expectations about how that could be done. The risk with that is that while it might give us more monthly capacity to handle cases, there's also then it introduces the possibility that you could run out before the end of the year. If you would search, you would find out that that happened to Spokane County last year.

1:11:10 They got to, I think, September and didn't have public defenders available for an extended period of time to be able to address cases. We don't want that to happen either. We do have authorization to bring on the equivalent of at least two more full-time attorneys through the course of the remainder of this budget year and continue to work with our three primary firms, in essence, to see who can get them first so that we have additional attorneys available. It's a bit unfortunate that from the perspective of Vancouver, this is kind of a self-created problem that was handed down to us that we're attempting to do the best we can to grapple with it. We've already taken some pretty extraordinary measures to be able to allow attorneys to take more cases on and we will continue to look for those options as we move forward. - Okay, thank you. Councilor Hanson. - Thank you, Mayor.

1:12:08 Looking for that answer, along the same lines is the chief here when the chief needs more police officers. Obviously, they're gonna put out incentives and as other departments have done to get more police officers, I would look for this the same way in a public defenders. So that's, you know, I'm counting on the fact that you guys are going to come up with some very creative solutions to this problem, but also to see this in advance because now you've seen the repercussions of what can happen in the public if that message gets out and we haven't looked down or worked out this problem. And that is what I'm trying to avoid. This could be an issue of public defenders, it could be an issue of police officers, it could be an issue of jail space. There are a lot of different factors it could be, but we know what the factor is right now. So we're really looking forward to see what those solutions are going to be. - Thank you. Councilor Stover. - Thank you, Mayor.

1:13:06 And I guess kind of echoing the comments that my colleague just said, my wish would have been that the administration had utilized council as partners in confronting a challenge and trying to figure out potential solutions for that challenge. That's kind of what we exist for is to confront challenges and think through best ways forward. So hopefully, again, opportunities to have more of that interaction in the future. Thank you. - Councilor Paulson. - Thank you, Mayor. We've covered a lot of ground and I don't really have a lot to add other than just, I think one of the themes this evening has been an opportunity to communicate more effectively.

1:14:04 And in that spirit, there have been a couple of phrases that have been used this evening that I'd love to give to individuals a chance to elaborate on. So Chief, when you use the phrase front end and back end, what specifically does that mean? - I'm sorry, Councilor. Front end is where our folks are actually interfacing with the public and investigating crime, responding to 911 calls. I call that the front end. The back end is what happens, everything that happens after that with the prosecutor's office, with the courts, with the jail, with probation and parole, all of those things that come after our initial contact in solving the problem. - And so then to summarize the point that you were making when you used that nomenclature and thanks for elaborating on it, there's really not much change on the front end other than how we may choose to triage things, whether we're gonna charge or refer to the city attorney for possible later charges. But ultimately, we're still receiving 911 calls,

1:15:03 responding to 911 calls, we're dealing with incidents as they occur as we would always do. It's just that there's a different decision-making process about how they will be dispositioned and then that then has ramifications in your language on the back end, is that correct? - Yes, sir. - Okay, and then really the big changes are on the back end where we have opportunities to not force charges within 14 days to create some capacity within the legal system, which has been pretty well covered in that conversation this evening, as well as to combine charges. And so instead of having three, four or five charges from multiple incidents with the same individual, we can combine those into one and make the system work more efficiently as a result. Is that also true? - Yes, sir. - Okay, thank you. And then city manager, you just used the phrase, this is a self-created problem. I wonder if you could elaborate

1:16:01 on what you meant when you said that. - Yeah, so I mean, there are I think a lot of opinions about the way the state of public defense in Washington, but one of the issues that has been identified throughout of this is that when these new caseload standards were handed down, they were handed down irrespective of the experience level of the defense attorneys that were handling it. And so they were just handed down that if, you know, someone who is a first year attorney has just passed the bar is being treated the same as an attorney that has 15 years of experience with these types of cases. And it would seem to logically follow that an attorney who has a lot of experience would be able to handle a case much more expediently than somebody who's having to learn the process along the way. But the blanket rule affects everyone. So there's no allowance in there for attorneys who have just more built in capacity, more ability to multitask. And then, you know, they created the standard,

1:17:01 but there were no tools or anything like that given to cities or guidance on how we should address this. There wasn't-- you know, I can think of a lot of different things that, you know, if you want to do something like this, there's a requirement that every law firm has to handle x number of public defense cases as a condition of being admitted to the Washington bar. There are ways it could have been addressed through policy at the statewide level rather than just saying, we are going to change the caseload standards, and now cities, since you have to provide public defense, you have to go deal with the consequences of it. One of the points that's been made, but I don't think has been underscored enough this evening, is this point that you're making right now, city manager. What were typical prior caseloads prior to this change in the Supreme Court ruling that put a cap on annual caseloads? You have that information? I can speak to that.

1:18:00 So there's limits that have been in place for quite some time. And they've just been lowered significantly. I think it was 400 misdemeanors and 150 some odd felonies. And then both of those categories have been reduced significantly. I think the misdemeanors are at 150, and felonies are under 100. And I think the general thinking there was that we would get higher quality representation because we were not rushing things through the system. But city manager, you've said that our contracts pay on a per case basis. It's a fixed contract. So it doesn't matter whether a person spends a day or a week on a case. They just get a fixed payment for that case. And there's one rate for a misdemeanor case and one rate for a felony case.

1:19:00 So if you're an attorney, and under the prior system you were handling 400 misdemeanors and 100 felonies, and now you are in a situation where you can basically-- your caseload has been cut in half. That means that you're doing fewer cases, but your income has also been reduced by 50% because it's no different than working in a factory. You're getting paid on a per piece basis, which is something I think many of us can understand going all the way back to picking strawberries. And you've got a certain amount for every flat that you turned in at the end of the day. That's when a lot of us realized the brutality of capitalism. So ultimately, when you say we have a shortage of attorneys, it's not that we have a shortage of attorneys. It's that we have a shortage of attorneys who look at the work that they're going to be asked to do and the maximum income that they can earn from taking on that caseload. And they say, thanks, but no thanks. I can make a better living for myself,

1:19:57 focusing my education and my efforts and energies elsewhere. Is that a fair assessment of the situation? Yes. And so when we talked about renegotiating that case amount up to somehow create a better balance here, that's what we're talking about is to say, let's pay the kids a little bit more for each flat of strawberries that you turn in so that more kids will ride the bus up to the field and pick the strawberries. Yeah, and it's going to be finding where the new equilibrium is out there in the market. Because I think public defense certainly has never paid the same as being with one of the elite law firms. So a lot of the people that do it do it because they're mission-driven and it's their passion to be able to provide public defense. But they also need to be able to justify the investment in all of that time and all of that education to be able to make it work. Great. Thanks to both of you for further clarifying some of the nomenclature and underscoring some of the key thoughts here. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mary. Thank you.

1:20:56 Counselor Paulson, we're also not putting out a whole bunch of new lawyers. So we need more strawberry pickers. One thing I wanted to address a little bit is I am aware that the Sheriff's Department does have a different policy on how they're going to continue to operate business. Without knowing a little bit more about the details about how that works, I can't really comment on it. It just occurs to me that when you think about things like if these types of offenses are, say, a tiny part of their caseload, then it really wouldn't have much of an operational impact to make a shift for the Sheriff's Department. So I think this is a case where it's kind of an apples and oranges as far as what you would see doing a lot of primary enforcement between the two agencies. Yes, city attorney, please. Thank you, mayor. If I might speak, if I could borrow the chief's nomenclature a little bit to the back end.

1:21:56 I think the chief and the city manager made it very clear that on the front end, residents of Vancouver should expect and will receive the same level of service from the Vancouver Police Department that they've always received. My experience with the department and in the past specifically month being in discussion with them, they're professional. They're qualified. They're passionate about protecting us. I also want to emphasize that even if a person is in conducting criminal activity, as the chief said, it's not as if they won't have ramifications. On the back end, what will happen is the Vancouver Police Department will refer that charge to our office. We will then have an opportunity more than 14 days to evaluate that charge and also add additional charges

1:22:56 to that one case. So we have examples in our office where the same individual is charged multiple times each week, say, with possession of controlled substance. Each time that person gets charged and that charge, given a citation, that citation now goes to the court. The court charges the city of Vancouver and average about $200 per case. That person gets arraigned, must be arraigned within 14 days. And they either may not have committed any other crimes or there's nothing else to add to that possession of controlled substance charge. They get an attorney, assuming there are some available for that one charge. Vancouver Police Department respond to a call from a resident with that same person, possession of controlled substance the following week. Same thing. City of Vancouver gets charged $200 by the court, an average.

1:23:55 And they get arraigned on that second PCS charge. They get a second attorney for that second charge. And I can give you example as an example. When our prosecutors are operating under that 14 day clock, we don't get that same opportunity to evaluate charges and, on one hand, add them to the current case. So that does two things. That means they get one attorney for all those charges instead of three attorneys. It also means, if we're trying to address the long term problem, which Vancouver Police Department and the city is doing, if the long term problem is addiction, as it often is, if we have an opportunity to have all these charges on one case with one person, there's a possibility we can get them into community court. Or we can divert them to another program so that we can address the underlying

1:24:51 issue, which is often addiction and mental health. So if I may speak on the back end, the Vancouver Police Department continues to do an amazing job. And the residents of Vancouver will and can and should expect the same level of service from VPD. We are now just working a little differently. So instead of VPD handing Mr. Hansen, Council Member Hansen, a citation, when he goes through my recycling and says, you have a court date within two weeks, VPD will say, Mr. Hansen, leave the premises. They will refer that charge to us. And then our prosecutors will look him up and see there are a variety of other things he has been charged with within the statute of limitations and charge him under one case for all those counts. And he gets one lawyer. So we have the statute of limitations within which to work. So it is true.

1:25:49 As the chief said, they won't immediately be-- sometimes they will, but under this new protocol, they won't immediately be arraigned within 14 days. It might take some time. But what will not happen is what's happened in the past three weeks, which is 10 domestic violence cases being dismissed. We've had defense attorneys available. And as the city manager said, the court will not. And believe me, we've asked to prioritize. I'll just use theft of recycling. Let's say in a given day-- and this has been an example. This is not a hypothetical. We had one defense attorney available. The court takes the cases as they come on its docket. They'll call the case for person Joe Smith. That's theft of recycling. Joe Smith says, I need a defense attorney. The court appoints one. That last defense attorney is now representing Joe Smith for theft of recyclables.

1:26:47 The next person up to get arraigned is charged with DV assault. The court says, are there any defense attorneys? No. That suspect is-- that case is dismissed. That suspect now goes home.

1:27:08 This is a terrible situation we're in. I don't mean to be-- I mean, I am upset about it. We all are. We're in a very difficult situation. Our communication most definitely could have been better. We, in my office, have promised-- and in the past few weeks, I've had four or five conferences with command staff. Because understandably, our officers in the field need guidance. They need to know. They are operating within the bounds of the law and the procedures. They understand that something has changed. It's incumbent upon us, city attorney's office, BPD, the city manager's office, to make sure our officers are aware of where those boundaries are. I don't think we gave them enough notice and enough communication. Maybe the same thing would have happened in terms of the guild's press release. Maybe not. I know the chief had a meeting scheduled with them.

1:28:08 I think they released it on Tuesday. He had a meeting with them scheduled on Thursday. They made the choice to release it. I don't begrudge them that. What I'm here to say is my office, the city attorney's office, and the prosecutors intend to prosecute these cases. Of the 55 that the city manager mentioned, there is one that we cannot prosecute because the statute of limitations has run. We fully intend to prosecute the other 45 when we have the resources and the defense attorneys to which the defendants are constitutionally entitled. And we are keeping track. We've got our spreadsheets. We've got everything in the system so that if there is someone out there listening that thinks the doors are wide open in the city of Vancouver, they're going to learn the hard way, and they're going to tell all their friends that we are mistaken. It's not open season in the city of Vancouver. So I am so sorry on behalf of my office, the city attorney's office, and as the city attorney,

1:29:07 that I didn't do my part to communicate better to not only our officers, and the chief has been an amazing partner, but to the community and the residents of Vancouver. Because we are here, and we've got your best interests in mind, and that's how we intend to proceed. Thank you so very much. Counselor. Thank you, ma'am. Counselor Paulson, a nomenclature comment, and then a follow-up opportunity. DV assault is-- Domestic violence. Thank you. I don't think that deserves a shorthand that it was given in this conversation, given the gravity of the point that you were trying to make. So appreciate the comments that you've made, city attorney, about what this is and what this isn't. But I really want to give you another opportunity to talk a little bit more about that, because you spent most of your time talking about what you will do. And you started right at the end a little bit about what you won't do.

1:30:06 But I want to give you a little bit of context. Because in the last five or 10 years, up and down the West Coast, prosecuting attorney's offices have made decisions not to pursue charges for certain types of crimes. And it's widely believed that those decisions led to an uptick in crime and other urban issues. And so a lot of people, in hearing what they have been hearing for the last week or so, are justifiably afraid that we are taking a similar posture. So I'd like to give you the opportunity to speak to what this is, and very importantly, what this is not in that specific context. Thank you, Council Member Paulson. It is not open season in Vancouver. Charges can still be brought and prosecuted. So there are lower level crimes.

1:31:05 There are still crimes. So for example, if a Vancouver police officer cites a person for domestic violence assault, and there are also other what we've now called lower level crimes associated with that, the VPD officer puts all of those crimes in his or her report. That entire report gets sent to our office. Based on those crimes, the prosecutor makes a decision as to what crimes to prosecute, and what, if any, offers they make with the defense attorney. So the crimes will be prosecuted. It will just be prosecuted differently, in that it gives the prosecutors now different tools to go to trial, seek higher sentences,

1:32:03 and/or have a better opportunity to engage with defense counsel to ask the client, the defendant, to plead to the more serious charges if the prosecutor chooses not to pursue the lesser charge. And if I may, just to put a finer point on something that I think Counselor Paulson may be leading to on that is that it is not our intent to not prosecute and not hold people accountable. What the city attorney's office will do is control when those prosecutions occur, and make sure that they are occurring in a way that's to the best advantage of protecting the public. Any other comments? Counselor Stover? Thank you. So I'm still trying to follow through terminology being used.

1:33:00 So there's charging, and then there's what we're doing now. Is that investigating? Is that reporting? What is that terminology? And the second is, does the city attorney's office now have a database, or have you already had a database? Or how is this tracking occurring to know that, OK, we've got four things now stacked up on this individual. It's time to-- I believe the term would be charge. But, yeah. So Chief, maybe on the front end, and then I'll pick it up in the back end. Thank you. On the front end, our officers will

1:34:00 respond to a call for service. They'll conduct an investigation. They create whatever reports need to be created to document everything that happened. They'll collect evidence. That all gets bundled, and it gets sent to the city attorney's office for review. And there's also those instances where there still might be a citation that takes that person to court. Those are going to be more rare now, just because we're doing things a little bit differently. But after we're to that point, we're kind of out of the process, unless the prosecutor needs additional work done. We don't do anything else until there are court hearings on the matter. So if I can dive deeper here. So officer has a computer terminal in their vehicle. Yes, sir. OK.

1:34:56 So is there a button button that says citation/charge/what, and a different one says submit report? Or what's practically happening in that vehicle? Thank you for asking. So there is a computer that our officers enter their information into. And then they have an opportunity to issue a citation or to refer a case to the city attorney's office for review for prosecution. What has occurred to this point, and I think what kind of brought some of this to the head, is the opportunity to cite. And when I say cite, issue a citation for a person to show up in court has been removed for certain crimes. Two different buttons?

1:35:55 Well, it's on a screen, sir. Yeah. It's a mouse click on a button on the screen. OK. And then on the back end, if it's a citation. So the officer has cited the person. That citation goes to the court. So now it's part of the court record. My office gets that same information. And within 14 days, that person has to be arraigned. The citation that the officers issued have a court date on them. So they show up at that date. They are arraigned at that date and given a defense attorney if there are some available. Distinguish that from if this officer does not issue a citation and presses the Refer button. And forgive me, I don't know if there's actually a button that says that. I don't think so. Maybe there is. It's a mouse click. OK.

1:36:54 It's a mouse click. If that charge is referred to our office, the court doesn't know anything about it. Doesn't charge the city $200 to open a file. The person doesn't show up in court. The victim doesn't show up in court expecting justice, only to hear that the case has been dismissed. So when the mouse click goes to referred, that also comes to our office. It is assigned to a prosecutor. And yes, we have elaborate software that we utilize. It's actually the same that the county does to make it easy for our prosecutors and our defense attorneys and our judges. Everybody's on the same system. We don't have access to each other's system, but it's the same setup. And then our prosecutor gets assigned that thing that happened that VPD officer referred to us and then starts making some decisions looking

1:37:51 to see what other charges, if any, this person has, looking to see if the person's eligible for community court or diversion, looking to see if there are other charges, bringing them all in one case with different counts in that one case, and then making decisions about how best to proceed. So again-- OK, that's the other word that was used, charges. So in my mind, I'm thinking a citation is a charge. But instead of citations, we're doing referrals. So is it still a charge if we haven't sent it to the court yet? The referral is a charge, but only if the prosecutor charges it. Versus a citation is an automatic charge. Correct. OK, thank you.

1:38:51 Counselor Hanson. Thank you, ma'am.

1:38:57 It's been a little difficult to follow this. And we've been asking some great questions. And I've been hearing some word salad, and I've been hearing a little bit of criminal justice engineering. I think the real point is, what are we going to do to fix it? What are we going to do with our defense for folks? And I think it's also important that you know how we stand, because we are the ones that are inevitably responsible for this. And this is not acceptable. So I'm looking to you, city manager. My 1/7 of this dais to say, please, by all means, fix this. It might be a legislative fix that needs to happen also. Counselor Fox, did you have a comment? I did not. Counselor Perez, Counselor Harless. You're the last one tonight.

1:39:57 I don't know that this was elaborated on or not. Is there any community within Washington-- this was just brought to my attention, so I haven't looked it up myself-- for means testing, so to speak, for whether or not someone actually needs-- they can't afford a defense attorney. I'm not familiar with what happens in other areas. I do know that we do not do means testing here for indigent defense. The person comes in and makes the statement that they cannot afford or need representation, and an attorney is assigned to them. I don't know if that is a statewide practice or if that is unique to our area. Council member Harless, if I may follow up, that's something that the chief has brought up on a number of occasions. And our intention in our office is to address that with the court.

1:40:53 I understand that the court does ask defendants to fill out financial disclosure. I'll loosely use that word. I am unaware of any vetting or follow up on that. They have three choices. They are not eligible for an indigent defense attorney. They are eligible. Or a middle ground where they have some ability to pay. And when I've asked my prosecutors what level of inquiry goes into that, there is none that the prosecutor sees. Maybe the court has engaged in some, but it has resulted in the court determining that everybody's entitled to that. So one of the things I mentioned to the city manager just today is I'm going to work with our city prosecutor and the courts to better understand what it is, the vetting that they go through, if any. And if there is none, encourage and ask the court how our office can assist in that.

1:41:52 So again, trying to address the number of people, if they are entitled to it constitutionally, absolutely. We have had, at least my diversion coordinator has reported, she's in charge of making sure people who are on probation and doing what they're supposed to do, she sees their work history. She knows this person has been fully employed for three years. Yet when the case first came forward, this individual said he was indigent, needed a defense attorney, and got one. So we will also address getting to Council Member Hansen's point and everyone's point, what else are we doing? We're also going to address who is eligible, make sure the people who are eligible get one, but the people who are not don't. Thank you. And look forward to hearing back about the possible levers that and how we may be able to help here as well. Thanks. OK. Thank you, Chief.

1:42:52 Have a good evening. City Manager, did you have any other communications? Nothing else for me tonight, Mayor. Thank you. That concludes our business. And we will now be moving into the community forum. This is where we hear from our folks on any particular item that was not on the agenda. However, I don't have any cards. City Clerk, do we have any cards for the forum this evening? No. All right. Then we thank you for joining us this evening. And we're adjourned.