City Council Workshops

0:00 (upbeat music) - Good afternoon, welcome to Vancouver City Council. Our meeting today, oh, well first of all, this is June 1st, 2026, and our meeting today is back in chambers. Thank you staff for working so well to make this happen. We can, can you all hear us in the back of the room? Yay, how wonderful. So, gosh, this is kind of exciting, isn't it? New colors, new floors, screens everywhere. And Stacy, you get to be number one on this day. Let's go ahead and talk about

0:59 the Inspire Vancouver program update. - All right, well thank you so much. I'm honored to be the first speaker in the new space, so thank you mayor and city council for having me here, and I'm excited to give you an overview on the Inspire Vancouver program. You will see a series of pictures throughout the presentation that are reflective of some of the types of programs that this Inspire Vancouver funding could program. So, just wanted to let you know that. Okay, for our agenda, we'll be discussing an overview of the program. You've already heard from us several times in the past, so this is a little bit of a higher level overview. Our progress to date, the community engagement efforts to date, and the work ahead and next steps.

1:58 As you know, Inspire Vancouver is a publicly funded grant program that invests in community-based arts, culture, heritage, and science experiences for the public. You'll see some simple definitions included on this slide of what is included in each of these categories. These categories are an important part of the identity of this program. Inspire Vancouver is one of several cultural access programs across the state that were created to make sure more people can participate in meaningful arts, culture, heritage, and science experiences in their local communities. The cities of Tacoma and Olympia, as well as King and San Juan counties, all have cultural access programming. Inspire Vancouver isn't just about funding individual projects, it's about strengthening the overall cultural ecosystem for our community. It's a game changer for Vancouver. It marks a major commitment to expanding access to arts, culture, heritage, and science,

2:58 supporting the local organizations, and investing in creative experiences that bring people together and strengthen our community. It removes barriers like cost, transportation, and accessibility, so more residents, especially youth and underserved groups, can take part in meaningful cultural experiences. In response to the ordinance adoption, the city's Cultural Arts and Heritage Commission, along with city staff, was charged with developing the policy to guide the administration and distribution of the funds. Now, we really need to talk about eligibility because that's most of the questions that we receive when we're out in the public. The eligibility criteria for Inspire Vancouver are guided by the state law and adopted into our program policy. One of the most important eligibility factors is that an organization's primary purpose must be to advance arts, culture, heritage, or science in Vancouver.

3:57 Primary purpose means an overall mission and programming, not just the project being proposed. Organizations will be asked to provide documentation that confirms their primary purpose. This could include a published mission or value statement, or the nature of business description form that they filed with the Washington Secretary of State. It also needs to align with the goals of Inspire Vancouver, to increase access, to strengthen community connection, to invest in the cultural ecosystem, and to encourage creativity and learning. Applicants should be 501(c)(3) nonprofits. If they're not a nonprofit, they may be able to apply with a nonprofit fiscal sponsor that accepts funds on their behalf and handles the financial and administrative tasks for the project. There are also some important location considerations because this program is funded through the Vancouver-specific tax. The applicant must be located within Vancouver city limits or provide at least 55% of their programming

4:56 within city limits to be eligible. In cases where there are dual primary purposes in an organization, for example, preservation of culture combined with social services for that specific cultural identity, staff will request a programming summary chart so that we can look at the year prior's past programming to help us decide if they're eligible. They also need to provide public programming for residents of Vancouver as part of the public benefit requirement. If they aren't sure whether a location, if their location is within city limits, there will be a link on our website. There actually is a link currently on our website for the online mapping tool where they can determine if they're within city limits. We absolutely do not want anyone to self-eliminate. We have an eligibility tool on our website currently that helps people understand if they're eligible. And if they're still questioning, we really want people to reach out to program staff so we can have a conversation with them

5:54 about their organization, the type of programming they have, and the type of program they're suggesting for funding. So that's a big part of what we're wanting to do is really engage with one-on-one conversations. In the first year of collection, the cultural access tax has raised approximately $7 million. So we are right on track with what we were estimating. We now officially have two Inspire Vancouver staff on board. Kirsten Hull, our grant program coordinator, has been working on the program over the past year. And we now have Diana Betancourt, who is with us today. And today is actually her first day, and she will be the program supervisor. So we're super excited to have her on board and be leading the team.

6:46 All right. Our communications specialist, we're doing interviews for that position. No, that position actually starts next week. And we have one last position that is the school program grant coordinator. We're interviewing applicants this week for that, and we hope to have them on board by the end of June. And then that will round out our team of four staff to help manage and run this program. We're balancing the need to create effective systems and processes with a strong value for distributing money and creating impact as soon as possible. In order to achieve this, staff is developing a proposal for a limited initial grant opening this summer. We are committed to offering grants in the impact, innovation, and comprehensive categories. The amounts available by category and the timelines involved will be presented to the Cultural Arts and Heritage Commission in the near future. While the amounts and timelines in this first round

7:45 may not reflect the full program policy objectives, while we establish the program, we will ensure that the limited opening flows smoothly into the full grant cycle program in 2027. And so starting in 2027, the grant program cycle will be July to June cycle. So this initial program cycle that we're hoping to start this summer, potentially end of July, will be applications opening this summer, grant review process, awards funded in October, and nine months to spend the awards before we start the regular grant cycle in July of '27. The first wave of community outreach for Inspire Vancouver is off to a strong start. Right now, our primary focus is connecting with people

8:44 and organizations who are eligible to apply for grants. We want to make sure that they have enough time to learn about the program and begin considering grant opportunities before the applications open later this summer. We're using social media and email to encourage people to follow Inspire Vancouver social media to visit our website, join the mailing list, and attend one of our community information sessions. We've held five information sessions in May, with more scheduled for June. We've welcomed between 10 and 25 people at each of the sessions. And the information sessions include a short presentation and Q&A. After that, staff and ambassadors. We've trained several people to be ambassadors for this, including some of our commissioners. We stick around to meet people who are there and try to answer questions at that time, and also encourage them to email the program staff so we can set up more proper meetings to really hear more about their ideas.

9:42 There's a lot of learning happening both ways at these information sessions. We're there to educate them about the program, but we're also really learning a lot from them about, you know, really about questions for the whole community. It's real-time feedback, and it's already identified new information for us that we need to consider as we're building out the website and the program. After the grants are awarded in the fall, the outreach strategy will broaden to include the whole community as we start promoting all the exciting new arts, culture, and heritage science experiences that the Inspire Vancouver program has made possible in Vancouver. We'll be launching the grant management software program soon. Kirsten Hall is working really hard on that, and she's also been facilitating a grant process work group that includes myself, two cultural arts and heritage commissioners, and several community nonprofit representatives.

10:42 We've been developing the application, the scoring rubric, and guidelines with the cultural arts and heritage commission feedback. The commission works with Inspire Vancouver staff to make sure the program meets its goals and delivers public benefits to Vancouver residents. They also make the final decisions on which organizations receive funding based on recommendations from the volunteer grant review committee. We'll be working with them on the grant review committee selection process. Grant review committee members will be selected for their knowledge of the arts, science, heritage, and community needs. This depth of expertise allows the committee to evaluate applications more thoroughly against established criteria, such as public benefit, organizational capacity, and alignment with program goals. We also want people who are benefiting from the community to be members on this review committee. It's important for them to have a chance to make decisions about what types of opportunities are being funded.

11:42 Having a review committee make recommendations to the commission, rather than having the commission review and award grants directly, creates an important separation of responsibilities that strengthens the integrity of the program. The committee handles the time-intensive, detail-oriented work of application review, allowing the commission to focus on its broader governance role and exercise final decision-making authority with the benefit of well-researched recommendations already in hand. This will be a subcommittee of the commission and we'll be reviewing this with the commission on June 11th at their meeting to help determine the process for recruitment and approval of review members. Our cultural arts and heritage commission has several key initiatives in their work plan and having a review committee will really help them balance the work that they have to do with the Inspire Vancouver program and the work they have to do with the Vancouver Arts Hub and the public art program,

12:41 the different major work plan items that they are focusing on. Program staff will host grant application workshops and one-on-one support for applicants. We really want to ensure that they have an understanding of the process and we can remove any barriers that might be getting in the way. And we recognize the importance of providing necessary resources, infrastructure, technical support to navigate these opportunities. We don't want to create any unnecessary barriers. And I'm happy to take any questions. - Thank you very much. Councilors. Councilor Hanson, go ahead. - Really looking forward to what is going to be accomplished here and also thinking of some of the projects to beautify the city as well. And some of us up here might have a bit of an issue with graffiti that happens throughout the city.

13:39 And I think one of the projects that always stands out to me is that project on I-5 right there off of 4th plane where we were able to bring in some art in an area that really needed it because it was getting the treatment that we didn't want. So maybe we could look at some projects like that as well throughout the city. - We can definitely discuss that with our cultural arts and heritage commission. And they'll be considering all of the important needs in the community. So we can definitely bring that up with them. - Yep, thank you. Councilor Paulson. - Thank you, mayor. City Councilor Eric Paulson speaking. - Thank you for the reminder. - Yes. Stacy, thanks for the update. Really excited about the ongoing progress that's being made and also I really liked the way that you've created this first award cycle so that we can get money out of the community quickly rather than waiting until next June,

14:38 even if it is an abbreviated nine month funding cycle. It's still something out in the community and to the comment that you made, it's also proof of concept. So we can promote the folks who have gotten those awards in the next grant award cycle when we're seeking broader applications from more folks. So great concept. - Also, I liked the idea of the grant review committee. I think that makes a ton of sense, especially in terms of balancing workload, as you mentioned. I will defer to some of my colleagues who actually serve on the LTAC. But one of the things I understand that the LTAC has done, lodging tax advisory commission. - Thank you. - Is that they have developed a rubric, a scoring rubric, so that it's very clear how things are being scored. And especially if the grants review committee is forwarding recommendations to the cultural arts and heritage commission for ultimate review and approval. I think the culture arts and heritage commission members would be well served to be able to see

15:37 what the scoring rubric produced in terms of scores and what some of the decision making criteria are so that they can make a well informed decision. And there's a little bit of sort of showing your work on the part of the grants committee rather than just having a subjective process. But other than that, I'm very excited about where we are and where we're going and looking forward to the ongoing work and thank you for your leadership and that of the culture arts and heritage commission and congratulations on the new staff, the new team and looking forward to the work that they'll produce. Thank you. - Thank you and if you don't mind me adding, we have taken our scoring rubric card to the commission for review and they have given us feedback and we'll be taking it back to them in June for final approval. So we totally agree with you. It's really important to have their buy in and advice on what we should be looking at in scoring. So thank you. - Councilor Perez. - Thank you, I'm really excited about this program. A couple of questions.

16:36 One is you said $7 million has been raised the first year and that that was on track with what you estimated. Is this an annual estimation of $7 million per year? I see Dave shaking his head back there. - Okay, so and the question really was about is the intent to grant the full 7 million within this year alone? - Right, that's a great question and yes, we estimated between six and 7 million so we're very thrilled. We're thrilled to have that upwards of 7 million. In this first round because it is a shorter timeline, only nine months to spend this funding and it is an opportunity to learn about, to ensure that what we're presenting is working well for the community. We won't, we most likely will not be granting the full 7 million because we wouldn't want an organization

17:34 say with a comprehensive grant to apply for a $300,000 grant and only have nine months to spend that out. We really wanna set them up to succeed so we're going to be thoughtful in the amount that we're able to fund in this shorter timeline. But then, and then moving forward, the commission will have the opportunity to decide how, you know, like we'll always have that hopefully 7 million and 10% will come to administration, 10% will go to the schools for field trips and access to venues and then each grant category has a minimum amount that they need to receive from that and that will probably leave about 30 to 40% of that 7 million to be determined by the commission how it should be spent. So they may determine that they received several comprehensive grants and they might want to give a little bit more to those in that funding year

18:33 or maybe a little more to a capital grant in that funding year. So it will be up to the commission to kind of decide how they want to spend the full amount and if they decide that we don't have enough applicants to spend the full 7 million, they can be carried over and kept safely in that fund for the future year. - Okay, and I imagine that as this effort to learn from this program that there will be a proper communication with the people who advocate or organizations to advocate to improve their applications so that we're continuing to move forward with a more robust outreach and organizations being able to apply. And I'm interested in the impact that the applications that do get granted and how that intersects or connects back to the rubrics deciding effort.

19:30 And so if there's any feedback loop to improve that 'cause I know sometimes it could be too rigorous of a system for our organizations to apply for a limited amount if it's just a three month or whatever. So I'm curious as to how we're going to work with our community organizations to make it easy to apply, understandable, and that we're able to track the impact to be able to ensure that we're being responsible with the tax dollars that are coming into this. - Yeah, I really appreciate that question. One of the things staff has been talking about for quite a while is to ensure that we have a process set up so that we are working with the applicants every step of the way. So while the grant application is open, there'll be opportunities for our staff to start reviewing the applications to make sure they're not missing any key pieces. And so we'll be able to get in touch with them to say,

20:29 "Hey, your application's looking great. "We just need you to continue to fill out "this certain section." Or we'll help them to make sure that it is a complete application and they're not being excluded from something that they didn't fully understand. So throughout that process, we'll be working very closely with them. Once the grant funding is awarded, we'll be staying in close contact with them. Not too much. We don't want to create stress or barriers around reporting. We will have reporting processes in place. If it's a one-year grant, depending on what the project is, there may be a midpoint report that they need to do. At the very least, staff will be reaching out to them midpoint to check in, see how they're doing, to see if they're staying on track with the proposal that was in their grant application. And then there will always be a year-end report that is shared with us. And then we will review that and we'll compare it

21:28 to the application, the contract that they signed and agreed to, the scoring rubric as well. And we'll consider all of that in conversation with our Cultural Arts and Heritage Commission to see if there are any adjustments that we need to make. We totally understand that this needs to be low barrier and easy access and an equitable process. And that's something we've heard over and over from the community and something we highly respect. Kirsten's been working hard with our grant process work group to create an application that isn't necessarily narrative heavy that creates a lot of stress for nonprofits that might not have the capacity to put in a lot of time into an application if they-- or they just don't have a lot of experience with that. So we plan on staying in connection with them all throughout the process. All right. Thank you, Stacy. Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Fox. Yes.

22:25 Just a couple of questions about the grant program itself. Is this a progress-- are they able to bill as like a progress billing grant program? Or is it going to be deliverable based? This is deliverable based, right? They will not need to report along the way. So we'll be looking at the program that they suggested in the application at the end to make sure that it's in alignment with what was proposed in their application. Typically, organizations that don't have a lot of capacity typically lean towards more of the progress billing, or there's something built into the grant that has funding that's allowed kind of up front as like small deliverables to get them to the end line. Is that then? I'm sorry. Yeah. We are at this-- Yeah, OK. We will be for the impact innovation and comprehensive grants.

23:24 They will get funding upon award for the comprehensive grant. It is a two year grant, so it might be a partial funding upon award, and then the second awarding of funds partway through their project or program. OK. And then kind of zeroing in a little bit on the grant committee reviewers. Did I hear you say that they will be a subset of our arts and culture committee? Yes. OK, so they're not new volunteers that we're recruiting then? No, they will be new volunteers that we're recruiting, yes. And they'll be reporting to the commission, and they'll have-- there may be a commission member on that. But it will be local community members who are nonprofits in the cultural arts and heritage community, as well as we're hoping to get members from the public who can sit on this so they can have a voice in the type of funding

24:23 that their tax dollars are-- type of programming that their tax dollars are funding. I guess I have a few concerns around a new committee being formed, especially given all the consideration and thought that we've put into recruiting the arts and culture commission and ensuring that it has a really balanced group of individuals. And not saying that this new committee wouldn't be as balanced, but I would say council members have weighed in on the folks that are sitting on that committee already. And this new committee doesn't sound like we have any role as far as recruitment or approval of this new group that would be overseeing, perhaps, $7 million. That's correct. And it will be the cultural arts and heritage commission that helps select the members of the review committee, yes. Because the program is set up with the cultural arts and heritage commission overseeing the grant funding, we felt it appropriate that they be

25:22 the ones that are able to select the review committee members as well. Could you explain more of the reasoning why there needs to be a separate committee? Is there a time concern with the arts and art commission actually reviewing them themselves? Yes, with this type of funding, we really anticipate upwards of 50 to 70 applications, if not more, once the program really takes off. This first round, there may be only around 50. But as the word spreads and people start to understand eligibility, we fully anticipate a number of applications that would increase the workload of the commission tremendously if they had to review all of them and also make the decision and be able to continue the other work that is on their plates. So we're trying to create a way to help keep them at a level

26:22 where they have a lot of say in every step of the process with this, but can rely on a review committee that can recommend applications at a very high level. And when we have the review committee there presenting the recommendations, they can have the applications with them. And if there are questions from the commission, they can look at the applications and answer the questions hopefully very promptly with the commission. Yeah, I guess I'm still a little concerned just given how important this grant program will be for the community, understanding, again, as I just mentioned, the role that council's already paid forward in terms of recruiting the members of the commission and giving them our full trust in the work that they're doing. And having a new committee formed feels like a lot of time that staff's

27:19 going to have to invest in this new subcommittee. The training, the vetting, all of those things feel like perhaps a bigger workload than needed. I have lots of ideas on how to get through 60 to 100 grant applications without it requiring a ton of work. Perhaps there's ideas on breaking up the one group, three of them reviewed 10, then the other three have reviewed 10. There's lots of ways to break up that perhaps amount of applications that might arrive at the city so that we can just retain our original commission and their overall review of these applications, again, knowing that they've had so much time and attention even put into creating the grant program itself. I don't know if I will, unless my colleagues share my concerns, I'll let it drop, but I've voiced them. No, I appreciate that.

28:16 And we do recognize it will be a heavy lift for a review committee, and our staff and the staff that we're bringing on board are committed to that work. And I appreciate what you're saying that we can continue to discuss. Thank you, appreciate it. Any other comments? City manager, Mayor Pro Tem brings up a good point. If I'm right, I believe we have five different ways the community receives grants from the city of Vancouver. We have LTAC, and so we have a group that works on that. We have housing, CDBG Home, all of those. We have neighborhoods that receive money. We have traffic calming with transportation,

29:13 and now we have Inspire. I'm wondering if we could get staff to put a spreadsheet together just real quick so that we can kind of see who, what, where, when, why, how many are applying. What type of money is going out the door? Who is at the different levels of decision making? So I know LTAC-- housing has always been kind of a question of who is meeting to help Sam, and then that comes forward to us. So here we have Inspire. How many are we expecting to get? How much money? Kind of a timeline here in that decision making process. So if we could look at that along with neighborhoods and traffic calming. Counselors, am I missing any other grant opportunities that are going out to our community?

30:12 Yeah, it would be nice to see more of a comparison of our processes across the city. Yes, Counselor, go ahead. Counselor Eric Paulson. Thank you, Mayor. I believe that this program is unique among the programs that you just named in that we have empowered the Culture, Arts, and Heritage Commission to have ultimate decision making authority. And so that's a distinction. And while I appreciate the comments of the Mayor Pro Tem, I think that having more voices involved in that process makes a lot of sense to me. And I would just say this is what empowerment looks like, is giving a commission who has ultimate decision making authority over a program the ability to enlist additional members in that decision making process so that they have a well vetted program. And that also provides them relief because they do have a lot of other things that they're focused upon, including the Arts Hub and many other things. So I'm supportive of the program that's

31:12 been proposed acknowledging that some concerns have been raised. And this is part of what we are, a lean organization that learns as we do. And so we will learn as we do. And if we have concerns or issues, we can address those issues. Yeah, great. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, Counselor Stover. Thank you, Council Member Ty Stover. So I hear the Mayor Pro Tem. I am less concerned in this instance because it will be a board that we have appointed appointing the committee. Where I get concerned is where staff starts appointing committees. And I feel like in those instances, we've given up our authority at that point. But I'm more comfortable when I can trace back a lineage back to decisions that were made by council.

32:10 So thank you. OK, any other comments? Yes, Counselor, go ahead. Counselor Harless. Thank you, Council Member Harless. For this subcommittee, what kind of structural supports would be given, whether that's a stipend or other supports in training, if we're trying to get a real diversity of members? I think about folks with kids, school schedules, all the things that I know you're aware of. That can be barriers to a diversity that would be present on this. I was curious what additional supports would be given to the subcommittee. Yeah, thank you for that. It is really important. And we do want to make sure that there is a stipend that will be offered. We will be looking into bias training as well. We'll be working with scheduling and see what the commission's thoughts are around any of the training

33:08 that they would like to see from them as well. These are all really important factors as we consider the selection of this. And hopefully, we'll be able to set up meetings where they aren't necessarily all in person, and they'll have flexibility to have some hybrids what works with their schedules. But we are taking all of this into consideration. Counselor Perez. Counselor Diana Perez, thank you so much. I agree with and support the commission doing the work for the subcommittee and identifying that. What I would like to make sure is that the council sees the list of the folks that are being recommended or appointed. And if we have any suggestions, that we're able to provide that recommendation to the commission to consider as well. And also, if we have any concerns, we'll be able to communicate that also.

34:07 So both, I think, is a good thing. But final recommendation would need to come from us. I appreciate that. Stacy, thank you so very much. And keep us abreast of the news as things progress. Good job. Thank you for your time. Let's go ahead and switch over, Dave Perlick, with Parks and Rec and the Clark County Sustainable Funding Team update. Mayor, I was going to do a quick little intro for folks, if I may. We would appreciate that. And then we'll go through the presentation. Thank you. Council Member Diana Perez here. I want to appreciate the council and my colleagues for making me work-- not making me,

35:05 but identifying me-- work with the Regional Parks Funding Task Team. One thing that became very clear throughout the process for me was that our park systems does not stop at the jurisdictional boundaries, and that neither do the people who rely on our parks. Our Vancouver residents benefit every day from regional destinations like Vancouver Lake, Frenchman's Bar, Lucia Falls, and the trails in our natural areas throughout Clark County, just like the residents from across the county use our Vancouver facility, recreational facilities, community spaces, and our urban parks. So what's important is that this collaboration that we have right here recognizes that our communities are deeply connected. And that maintaining safe, accessible, and high quality parks and recreation opportunities requires a more coordinated regional conversation, which

36:04 is what we did here. And I'm excited about today's workshop presentation from staff, who's going to walk through the data, the funding challenges, the benchmarking, and the models that we have looked at as a task team. And I'm excited for you all to hear that and ask the questions. Hand it over to you now. Well, great, thanks. Hi, Dave Perlich, Director of Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Services for the city. I'm going to do some intros with me as Ross Hoover, Director of Clark County Parks and Nature. I think I got that right. I want to recognize and acknowledge County Councilor Glenn Young, who's here today, who's participated throughout the process with this task team. A member of our Parks and Rec Advisory Commission, Jim Loose, has been monitoring this process closely. And I want to acknowledge Evelyn Ives, Clark County staff member, who you'll see some of the data in this report. Really has done an excellent job supporting us and pulling some of that together.

37:03 So I hope I didn't miss anybody, but it has been a team effort. And I think right off the bat, those introductions are important. What we've been doing is really at the request of the County Council to look at funding throughout the county. And so the presentation that you'll see today is a briefer version of a presentation. It was delivered to the County Council about a week and a half ago. And so if we could move on to the next slide, I guess I'd do that. Quick agenda, we want to talk about the discussions we've had and some of the findings. That includes comparativism to some natural benchmarks to say, how are we doing across the county and as individual agencies? That work has advanced to looking at some funding model options. We'll talk about that in brief terms today. And there's a recommended set of next steps. This is not a go, no-go decision. This is really an opportunity to update you, make sure that we're in alignment with council values and the information you need as we move forward

38:03 in this process. And so with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ross. Thank you, Dave. Thank you, mayor, councilors. So the task team met over about six months, met 10 times, had some really deep discussions, a deep dive into the data, comparison against national data, so that benchmarking exercise. Some interesting insights came out that we found that led to the specific recommendations that we presented to county council a week and a half ago. On this slide, I wanted to share that one of the findings is that the county park system is simply not meeting its needs. There's a lack of available funding. There are rising costs, as we're all experiencing, rapid population growth on top of that. And so for the past five years, and on this bar chart, you can see the revenue expenditure for Clark County Parks. You can see this gap.

39:01 This gap has required the county to draw upon funds to make this whole on an annual basis, because there just simply isn't enough revenue in the system to support the operational needs.

39:17 Yeah. And so I wanted to talk in brief terms about some of the evaluation that we did against national metrics. So on the slide, I'll try to orient this well. What you see is seven reporting agencies-- Clark County and seven cities in the county that took part in this process. The National Recreation and Parks Association publishes a comprehensive report. We've identified some of those standards to compare ourselves. So we've got really a deep resource information that we can compare against. So on this chart, you can see that Clark County and those six participating cities on the measure of operating expenditures per capita. Again, this is a nationally recognized average that we can compare ourselves against. The orange bar shows actual expenditures from the base year 2024. And the blue line shows the gap that we fall short of that national average. I want to note, you'll see some different numbers at the top

40:17 on median values. There's a lot of data here. That data set actually segments by community size. So really, the information is relevant to the size of the community, provides more comparability, and I think rich information. What you can see is no one's meeting that operational expenditure average. In fact, we all fall a bit short to some degree or another. I do want to really make sure and make a note that the Vancouver numbers, for the purposes of comparison, we did not include our recreation and cultural services program. Because those are services that we've got a much more robust program than other cities. So for an apples to apples comparison, we did it this way. But we also had a lot of discussion with the group around the additional services this city has in its parks inventory. And if you add our recreation and cultural services program,

41:14 we would be at $85 of operational investment per capita. So still below the national average, but above the other communities. And so another measure is the full time employees per 10,000 residents. And so this chart shows those numbers for each of the cities again. The orange bar being the agency data and the blue section showing the gap between national median average. Again, you can see that all communities in this county fall short. In fact, are below half the national median average. Again, if you added Vancouver's recreation and cultural services function, we would move up from 1.6 to 3.7 full time employees per 10,000 residents. But again, still less than half the national median. These national metrics are not meant to be a rigid standard or necessarily a goal. We know that communities are different.

42:13 However, I think it was clear to everybody who was participating that Clark County agencies are concerned about funding, particularly as growth is occurring. And the data reinforces that at this point, we are not meeting the goals that we've set for our own communities. And that growth concern raises the anxiety around that. And really has created a great discussion around how do we create a sustainable funding plan that we can look to the future with confidence. So as Dave just mentioned, growth is a real part of our picture. People want to come to Clark County in part because of the amazing parks and natural amenities and natural beauty. From the state projections, the county is expected to grow 34% over the next 20 years. The park system needs to grow and adapt and change to the needs of those future residents and our existing residents as their needs change. Given our operational gaps that you just

43:10 saw in the previous two slides, we need to find a solution. And so that was the next body of work of the task team to look at specifically where other communities, other areas, other regions throughout the country that have encountered the same challenge, and how did they respond? What specific steps did they take? What mechanisms did they use? And so we had a good opportunity to look at some of those funding models and mechanisms. We landed on two that were particularly interesting. And you could see the various characteristics of those two funding models. One, a metropolitan park district funding structure. And two, a regional levy, a county-wide levy. So some of the regions that are utilizing these tools, one of them in particular is just to our north, King County. They passed a regional levy in 2005

44:07 when they had a position similar to the county's and similar to the city position in Clark County, where that operating expenditure was far below the national median. So they put a regional parks levy on the ballot. It passed, and it has been renewed every cycle until just recently this last August was renewed. That levy provides funding for King County parks, but also through an arrangement where the county enters into an interlocal agreement with the cities is shared with the cities subsequently. So it benefits not just the county system that provides the large regional parks and the regional trails, but also the city needs, the city-specific needs. So that was particularly interesting. The second item or mechanism that we looked at was a metropolitan park district funding structure. And we'll talk on the next slide just a little bit

45:02 about what that might look like in Clark County. So the metropolitan park district that currently exists within Clark County is called the Greater Clark Park District. It exists essentially close to the urban growth boundary of the city of Vancouver. So just north of the existing city limits and just south of that UGA northern boundary. So this metropolitan park district was passed by voters. It collects a property tax. That property tax is dedicated specifically to park acquisition, development, operations, maintenance, programs, and services only within this boundary. And so thinking back to that past slide, those two options we have available to us. I mentioned the levy option, the model that King County uses, would extend to the boundaries of the county

46:01 and would function as a source not just for the county system but also the city systems. But a levy would overlay this metropolitan park district, this GCPD or Greater Clark Park District, creating an area within the county where folks inside the district would be paying for park services and maintenance operations and acquisitions twice. The levy and the metropolitan park district. And it's for that reason that we heard from cities that that one's less-- that option, that levy option is less favorable. Back to the second option that we looked at, and that's the metropolitan park district option. So the notion is that the boundaries of the existing Greater Clark Park District could be expanded to the extent of the county limits and could act as a funding source for the county park system, regional parks and regional trails, and the local city park systems through an interlocal agreement where the revenue is shared.

46:58 And that brings us to the recommendations from the report of the regional parks funding task team. And these recommendations were provided to county council a week and a half ago. County council directed staff to move forward on these three bodies of work, these three actions. So action one is conducting market research, really understanding how does this fit, asking the key questions of our residents, of our business owners. Does this type of a mechanism work? Is this an investment we want to see within Clark County? Within number one, you'll also see public education and the opportunity to provide the detail, the information about what this mechanism could do for our residents, for our business owners, and what it won't do. So that public education component is crucial.

47:57 Item number two, determining viability and process. What does this look like to extend the boundary of a metropolitan park district? Do we have a viable pathway? What are the legal implications? We need really a formal legal review. We want to hear from folks about whether this is functional or not, not just from the county, but also the cities. And then number three, to develop a framework for revenue sharing. To pull together all of the parks agencies, all the cities, and develop a framework and a subsequent interlocal agreement, whereby the revenue from a greater Clark Park district expanded, could be shared at the local level. [PAUSE] And so that's a lot of information coming at you in a pretty short presentation. We wanted to leave time for questions and comments. I mean, ultimately, we want to, again,

48:57 make sure that we're in alignment as we move forward, as we're talking to other agencies in the county. So we've added a few prompt questions. But we'll pause, look for your feedback, and let us know if there's any specific questions that you have for us today. Great. Thank you very much. Dave, the city of Vancouver imposes park impact fees. Correct. Does the county and the other cities do that? Yeah, we dug into that information. And we found that, yes, the county imposes impact fees-- and I'm going to say within an urban growth boundary, which is what's allowed under GMA. Formally, the city and the county administered that program within Vancouver's urban growth boundary consistently. And really, many of those same provisions still exist today, even though we're not working through a formal joint agreement. And we looked at the other cities. And we provided information. We looked at the rates.

49:53 So yes, generally speaking, those other large cities in the county all have impact fees. And we're all administering that program. But the provisions aren't exactly the same. So does that mean the other cities do not have park impact fees? They do have park impact fees. OK. Yes. What happens to those impact fees? Yeah, so that is just another funding source for parks. It would be factored into the need behind either a levy or a metro park district. Ultimately, all of the metro park districts that I'm aware of are in communities that also impose impact fees. Impact fees paying for the proportionate share that new growth is demanding on the system often matched by the metro park district revenue. And the programming and ongoing maintenance and rehabilitation of the system then becomes the sole responsibility of other funding sources, which primary one in those cities

50:53 would be the metro park district. They work hand in hand, if that makes sense. Well, I like the matching idea. Yeah. But I would not be accepting the fact that the city charges impact fees. Therefore, we would get less funding from the metropolitan park district or whatever. That would not be a good compromise. Counselors, let's go backwards. Councilor Fox-- Mayor Pro Tem Sarah Fox. That's right. I did have one of your follow-up questions here is what specific information would be useful. And when I was looking at the chart on the FTE comparison, what I was wondering is more information about what type of services are included in that national comparison. Given, building upon the mayor's comments, the different services that each of our cities

51:51 provide when it comes to park services and the county itself include the city actually has recreation centers. And we have programs associated with those recreation centers. And there's a lot of other specialties that our particular park system supports versus the county that doesn't have those things. Some of the cities don't have recreation centers, right? So just curious more about how do you really compare the apples to apples on that FTE numbers and the gaps potentially? If you have an answer now, it'd be great. If not, that would be information I'd be looking to hear more about. Yeah. Again, I need to note-- I need to reintroduce David Perlich, Director of Parks Rec Culture Services. The data set is actually rich. We can look at specific agencies and see what they reported. I mean, I think ultimately the main measure is breaking it apart by community size

52:46 helps balance out some of those typical differences. But I think that we need to work together as agencies within the county through that interlocal discussion and apportionment of money. What are the various needs, opportunities, and responsibilities? I know Council Member Perez can vouch that we had robust discussion about how frequently people from outside the city use our community centers. And so we really made that front and center that when you're the only game in town, certain services get used. And we do have a non-resident fee rate, but it doesn't always fill the gap. So I think I can say we'll be discussing that. That's already been discussed and needs to be discussed more in this discussion of allocation of resources. OK, so I have a couple more questions based on this particular piece around services. So understanding that we've talked a lot about-- this is Mayor Pro Tem Fox-- understanding that we have had a lot of discussions

53:46 around the annexation topic and acknowledging that if the city annexes in more of our urban growth area, then we have a responsibility to provide those services that have not been provided, like recreation centers or improving parks to the level that our city residents enjoy. So I'm wondering, when we're thinking about this new organization, are we bringing more of those services to those areas in the county? Are we going to have a new rec center in other areas of the city or the county? Yeah, thank you. Good question. Ross Hoover, Clark County Parks and Nature. So one of the sort of recurring themes that we heard from cities across the county was that each city is conducting their own parks system plans, development, and parks, recreation, open space plans, that 20-year look out, that vision document that

54:46 provides for the blueprint for the future of the system, and that the cities in our conversation repeated over and over again that each city should have autonomy to direct funds that are shared from a metropolitan park district for the specific investments that their own community has identified and the specific priorities within their own community. And so that was just one piece that we heard from cities in this discussion that was really important. And my final question is around the funding allocation piece as well, understanding that we're the largest city in the county. And often, I think there are folks that perhaps are not super excited about looking at a funding scheme where the city of Vancouver might get proportionally more funding based on our size than the rest of the county. So I'm wondering how that discussion has moved forward

55:43 given that particular lens. Certainly not something that we discussed in detail. And so that's really some of the key work yet to come through that ILA and revenue sharing framework that we need to develop. Really a cooperative effort, and we really need to hear from all cities about what their desires, needs are, specific to their own community. What that looks like in that final product, I could only guess at this stage. When we reconvene that group, the cities who are interested in participating in developing that ILA, we'll have some more clarity for what that might look like. But certainly, I think you certainly, I think, touched upon the key, the heart of that discussion is over revenue sharing and what is the proportion and what are the mechanisms that decide who gets what share.

56:39 Councilor Perez, did you have any questions or comments? Just to add that, thank you, Ross. There was really good communication across the cities, in particularly ensuring that there is this autonomy to manage their own park system with their own budget. But getting that commitment and continuing the conversation, what does that proportional distribution look like if we were to go into an ILA? And so we've touched on that conversation. We've asked that question. And taking a step back, wanted to ensure that we have these other steps so that we can move forward to have that discussion. But from my sense with this group was that, OK, we're poised to have that conversation once we get all these first recommended steps done. But I feel confident about it.

57:37 I think we will be able to get to a good place where we will be able to work through that. Councilor Harless, any comments? Yeah, I'll be particularly interested in that number three about revenue sharing and the nuances that could be included in that. For example, like heat mapping, where are people actually at? Where is the higher proportionality of people that do not have yards, of folks that have an entire need for natural spaces, where people are going for work, having the need of natural spaces during your lunch breaks. So those nuances being included in there. And Vancouver, I would assume, would have a higher proportion of individuals without their own backyards or access. And so making sure that's included in that revenue sharing model. And the number of folks that are coming here for, again, work

58:34 and employment and also accessibility would be really important too in how that distribution is shared. If it's going into a region where there's less access to the entire region, then that needs to be considered as well. Because then that's not accessible to the entire region, including that as part of it. So I know you mentioned community size. Of course, that's a good baseline. But I'd be very interested in the details that go beyond that as a baseline. But really excited about this conversation and this work. And thank you for including these numbers. It really sets that better understanding of where we're behind. And I know that our own parks-- continuously, it is one of the things that comes up most often to potentially be on the chopping block because of the revenue sources. And so I don't want to see that anymore. I want to see more sustainable funding

59:33 throughout the entire region. And so I'm excited that we're having this conversation. And thank you. Councilor Bart Hansen. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Bart Hansen, definitely a tough nut to crack when you take a look at your revenues. You're looking at REIT. You're looking at-- this is going to be a very similar conversation to what we're having with Ryan here in a few minutes. But you're looking at those two. They're not going to cover what you're looking to do. And also, if we're looking at, what was it, 36% over the next 20 years as far as growth, the concern that I have is, are we able to meet our current needs? Because to look at the growth and say, yeah, we want to expand into this particular area, build this community park. We want to build these pocket parks, which is great. But at the same time, if you can't fund what you have-- because I mean, what are we looking at for an acre for operating costs of a park?

1:00:32 Yeah, I don't really have that. It's just off the top of my head. I remember it was a number I was like, wow, well, when you think about it, everything that goes into it, the number makes relative sense. So I think that's one of the concerns. And what I'm totally interested in moving forward to finding out this information, also, I think we have a bit of an identity issue, where folks don't quite realize that when you go to Frenchman's bar, you go to Vancouver Lake, this isn't just funded out of the city of Vancouver. You have Vancouver police arrive. You'll see VPD rolling up. But where is this actually coming from? Because those parks are used-- they get a high usage, especially when you look at the covered areas, where you can have large families gather. So just my point, great job. Please move forward. Thank you, Mayor. Councilor Ty Stober? Thank you, Mayor, Council Member Ty Stober.

1:01:28 So I think I've gotten this answered, but we'll continue to be interested to see how this matches with our charter's requirement that we have a Parks Department. And I'm not prescribing, just making sure that we're aware that we have something in our charter that says we have to have a Parks Department. The other thing is I look at the map. There are a lot of county properties, park properties, that exist outside of these urban growth areas. And so wanting to understand how that plays in to this whole conversation. Thank you. Councilor Eric Paulsen? Thank you, Mayor. I'll say at the outset that I'm supportive of continuing the conversation, and I think that those are the correct three areas of work.

1:02:24 And Ross, you said, look to the future with confidence. And I think that's an important anchoring point for this conversation because we all know that all of our jurisdictions are increasingly under significant revenue pressure. We are not keeping up with our expenditures. You had some data on that, but there's a lot more data that can be used to illustrate that point. We are in a budget year. When we get to the end of this budget year, inevitably there will have to be compromises made. And sadly, although we know that folks move here and stay here because of the natural beauty and the parks, parks often is, as Council Member Harless mentioned, one of the things that is easy to make cuts in. And so sadly, it's one of the things that often is cut in challenging fiscal times. And for the foreseeable future, we're looking at challenging fiscal times. And so one of the things that I'm really excited about with this conversation

1:03:22 is that it provides some additional revenue in the system to help buffer some of that. And I do think that the real trick here is going to be that interlocal agreement because we have different jurisdictions with different philosophies, different autonomous systems that they want to run their own way. We have different philosophies about who should get what. Some people feel that they should get exactly out of the system what they put into it. Others are a little bit more of a we're in this together. Sometimes it's, what is the time frame that we're talking about? And whenever we have these interjurisdictional agencies, those are the kinds of conversations that we wind up in. We've been having those similar conversations around transit, for example. And so we've got communities that are emerging in vastly different ways, too. Vancouver is becoming increasingly urban. And you've heard some comments from some of my colleagues

1:04:22 about the ways in which that manifests and how that affects our park standard. It's an urban park standard versus a suburban park standard versus a rural park standard. What are the needs financially and otherwise in the system? And then how can you then compare an urban park system to a non-urban park system and come up with an interlocal agreement that's equitable, that meets everybody's needs, understanding that everybody's needs are slightly different within this system. And so that's going to be a real trick. I'm optimistic that we can find a way to do that. Other jurisdictions have. We're not unique. And having an urban area within a broader county that's not as urban-- King County is the same way. And so it can be done. I hope we can do it. It's going to take leadership. But ultimately, when we get through this conversation and we get to a solution that everybody can agree with, we're all going to be better off. Because as has been mentioned before and we mentioned at the outset, folks don't know where the city limits are when they go to a park.

1:05:20 Wildlife doesn't know where the city limits are when they look for a place to build their nest or what have you. And so while it's good to remind folks that we have a system and there are different jurisdictions providing different services, in the end, what we want to have is a system where everybody has access to recreation and to parks and to green space that they can enjoy regardless of where they happen to live within the county. So thank you for the good work that's been done so far. And look forward to the ongoing conversation. Councilor Stover. Thank you, Mayor, Councilman Ty Stover. Again, the other thing I was thinking is many times we look at these national benchmarks. And they're helpful, but they're not always practical. And so I would add to this list of things-- and maybe it's part of one of these three already--

1:06:18 but what is that target level that we're going to really shoot for, realistically, at least in the next 20 years? And so we can still push ourselves, but not feel overwhelmed that we're never going to achieve this national average, which I'd love to. And maybe we will, but I think that conversation needs to happen. Thank you. One last comment. You've heard a lot about finance. I need more specific information on governance. As we look at governance of C-TRAN, governance of the library system, governance across the county, as was pointed out by Councilor Paulson, we have different ideas of what things should look like.

1:07:17 I'll need some more information about governance, representation and governance. Thank you so very much. All right. We have less than an hour, but we're going to bring in Kate and Ryan LaPosa and jump into our transportation improvement program. Thank you so much.

1:07:45 Thank you. I know. Sunglasses next week. All right. Who's kicking this off? Kate or Ryan? Ryan, you each pointed to each other. OK. Go ahead, Kate. Hello, and thank you for having us today. I'm Kate Drennan, transportation planning manager and community development. And Ryan LaPosa, transportation manager with Public Works. And we are here today to begin the process of our annual update to the transportation improvement program. So today we'll do a brief reminder on the basics of the transportation improvement program, including what elements make up the plan. Then we'll get into the changes to the work program, including some project highlights. We'll touch on the inputs into the prioritization process,

1:08:44 transportation finances, and then next steps for council adoption. So I'll get us started with the first few elements, and then I will hand it off to Ryan. So the transportation improvement program is an annual program required by law. It really acts as kind of a six-year work plan for all of our transportation projects and investments. It includes the capital projects that we plan and build, programs that fund activities, and ongoing work, such as pavement maintenance. The plan includes an overview of our finances, including project costs and sources, both internal and external, such as federal and state grants. And each year, we update the plan to remove the projects that have been built or are under construction and will be completed within the year, and projects that have changed

1:09:43 or been amended, and of course, projects that have been added. And so projects will move between an unfunded to partially funded to a fully funded list. The TIP, or Transportation Improvement Program, is really vital for coordinated planning within our regional transportation council and the State Department of Transportation. Often when we apply for grants, we need to ensure that these projects are on these lists so that everyone knows they've kind of gone through a process. And we do this program update annually, as I said, and council approval is required by July 1. So this graphic on the screen is really meant to depict that there are various mechanisms for a project to reach the Transportation Improvement Program, as well as many touch points of community input. So this top row includes plans that speak to a comprehensive and long-term vision of the transportation system.

1:10:42 The transportation system plan, the strategic plan, various sub-area or corridor plans all identify needed project investments that take both near-term and long-term vision. However, I'll note that projects can also come about from private development. When we have development that generates substantial new trips on the system, it triggers the need for transportation investments and projects to accommodate those new trips. So now we're in that bottom line. So we have private development, of course. We hear about projects from the public, from council and other staff input, and via planning projects that come through our Transportation and Mobility Commission. So outreach really happens throughout the entire project lifecycle, including in the project identification within these larger plans, in the design elements, in construction notifications, and more.

1:11:41 And we also solicit feedback on the Transportation Improvement Program itself, although we don't typically receive as much engagement on this plan, since it's really a list of projects and priorities of which the community has already advocated for and engaged with us on them. So what's new in this year's 2027 to 2032 Transportation Improvement Program? We will note that this is the final year of this plan that has projects beyond the six-year horizon. We call it a six-year work plan, but we've typically had projects that are longer than that. Once we adopt the comprehensive plan, which is nigh, those long-term projects will be moved off because they'll now reside on the capital facilities plan, which is the 20-year plan within the comprehensive plan. So that will be a change in the TIP for next year.

1:12:40 So we have updated project scoring and prioritization. That happens whenever we add new projects to the list. As mentioned before, projects get added and removed, so those changes are clearly outlined. We have arterial map classification changes. This is where we identify what those changes are. In this case, all roadway changes this year were just to match the federal functional classification to make sure that ours match what the federal functional classification is. And so we just want those to be aligned. And then we have public comments that are included in full within the Transportation Improvement Program. They were primarily about speeding on arterials and collectors, a desire for safer crossings for pedestrians, quite a bit about pothole repair. And we received some comments in support of the Evergreen Highway Path.

1:13:39 I just want to note, again, that the Transportation Improvement Program has been shared out. It's online. We've collected most of our public comments via that online dashboard. But we've also shared out information about this through Neighborhood Association newsletters, social media, Be Heard, and via three different meetings with the Transportation and Mobility Commission. And with that, I'm going to move you to some of the project highlights. Thanks, Kate. So a few key project highlights that you'll see in this year's tip update. We obviously are underway with the Heights, the Mill Play MacArthur intersection. We had a nice groundbreaking ceremony there last week, which my apologies for missing that. I was home nursing a very severe illness. But it sounds like it went well. So first of the Heights projects that are getting underway. So that's highlighted in the tip.

1:14:38 Another Heights project that's an even bigger project is our Grand Loop project. And that's the project that's funded with our RAISE grant. So that one is also highlighted in the tip. And again, that project will get underway later this fall. We'll go to bid, and then it'll start this next year. Another project that's of its significance is the Northeast 18th Street project. This is a segment between 97th Avenue and 107th Avenue. So this is west of 205. That project is ready for construction. We're just teeing up some funding with RTC and are actually very close to getting that one ready to go to bid. So wanted to highlight that project as well. We have our project at 192nd Avenue, which will be the final phase of that corridor. So from Southeast 1st, Costco area,

1:15:38 up to Northeast 18th Street. So we're in design now, looking to move into the environmental and right-of-way phase later this year. We have another segment of the Northeast 18th Street corridor that has gotten underway. And that's between 141st Avenue and 162nd Avenue. And so we're getting underway with the design phase for that. And I do believe that's an item that's on this evening's agenda to execute or approve a contract for design services for that project. And then just a number of what we now call corridor improvement projects. These are what we used to call complete street projects. We call them corridor improvement projects. So these are the projects where they start out as a corridor that's going to be receiving a pavement management treatment. But we pause a bit, and we go through some processes

1:16:38 and some efforts and some studies to determine how can we make that corridor work better, not only for the cars that have traditionally used the corridor, but also for those that use other modes of travel, such as walking, biking, small mobility, as well as transit. So we have a number of those types of projects highlighted in the tip, projects that are currently underway in varying phases, as well as projects that will start up within that six-year time period. Scoring and prioritization has been a key component of the tip here in recent years. And so we've developed what is a very systematic process to actually rank each of the projects in the tip and to determine are we moving through our projects in alignment with the city's overall goals and objectives

1:17:37 that council has set forward for us. And so you'll see in phase one where to invest. So we look at things like equity. We look at crash history, collision history around the community. We look at essential places. Are there specific areas in the community that investment is needed? And then we also look at future growth areas, such as the heights and other areas that we know are going to be undergoing changes and are going to require investments in transportation. Phase two is when to invest. So are there opportunities to do a project in conjunction with another time or scheduled effort, such as a pavement management project? So can we do one of our corridor projects in conjunction with a pavement project?

1:18:37 Are there opportunities to coordinate with other initiatives? Perhaps we've had cases where development is happening. And while the development may not necessarily be the sole trigger for doing the improvement, it's an opportunity to make something better in the vicinity of that development by partnering with that project to do that work. What we call quick wins, or just something that we can do very quickly to address a problem, kind of the low-hanging fruit. Places where we have right-of-way impacts, site distance issues, clear zone issues, and then environmental impacts. Situations where something is happening relative to the transportation asset that's having an environmental impact. Phase three is our cost versus benefit portion of our prioritization. So we'll look at the overall cost of the project.

1:19:36 And then we'll look at what kind of benefit that solution or that completed project will offer. And that allows us to then determine how that score plays into the rank. So as we group all of those together, that helps to identify what we call near-term, medium-term, and long-term priorities. So the higher-scoring projects start to get lumped together into our near-term list. And then we look at blocks of those that are falling in the middle. Those become our medium ones. And those that are falling below-medium become more of our long-term priorities. As Kate mentioned, for as many years as I've been with the city, and in fact as many years

1:20:33 as I've been doing transportation improvement programs in Washington state, we've always thrown every project we could think of into the TIP. Whether we had funding for it or not, whether it fit within the six-year horizon or not, that is something we want to change with next year's TIP and focus more on the projects that we're actually working on within the six-year horizon. So this prioritization process will continue. But it'll look a little different because we'll have fewer projects that we'll be working with in terms of ranking and scoring. Quick picture of our revenue. So this pie chart represents all of the different sources of revenue that we use to fund transportation. Excuse me.

1:21:30 The lion's share of our funding is a combination of general fund and our dedicated street funding strategy, which represent about 44% of the total revenue. The dedicated street funding is a combination of our transportation benefit district dollars and other resources, savings as we've paid down our debt that we've taken out against transportation projects in the past. We're reinvesting those funds back into our program. So that makes up our dedicated street funding. We have our traffic impact fees. What's very impressive on this graph is nearly a third of our total revenue package comes from grants. So dollars that come to us from outside of the city, both at the state and federal level.

1:22:29 I would say we have one of the most talented groups of folks that I've ever worked with that are helping us to go out and look for and secure grants for our transportation program. And we've been very, very successful in bringing those dollars in to help leverage our local dollars. And then motor vehicle fuel tax and real estate excise tax. This is how we break out the expenditure side. So a good chunk of that, 63%, goes to the capital side, which are the projects that you see in the TIP. We take about 12% and put that towards our pavement management program, which includes all of the different types of pavement work that we do, as well as the ADA curb ramp work that we do in conjunction with our pavement program.

1:23:26 And then 22% is basically our operations and maintenance program associated with our street system. And then a very small fraction, 3%, is the debt service that we are using to pay down that debt that we've accrued over years. So as a next step, we will be back in two weeks for our public hearing on-- it's on your agenda. And just to note that this did go through our transportation and mobility commission. It had two different workshops. And they did make a formal recommendation to adopt this at their last meeting on May 5. So I think with that, we will be happy to answer any questions that you have. - Councilors? Yes. Councilor Bart Hanson. - Thank you, Mayor. In the memo, in the council packet information,

1:24:25 you had a link to the dashboard. It's fantastic. I got so sidetracked on that, looking at all the different projects that happened throughout the city. That's one of the things I wanted to mention. But yeah, this looks great. Thank you, ma'am. - Councilor Ty Stober? Councilor Eri Paulson? Councilor Sarah Fox? Mayor Pro Tem. - Just a few questions. I was just looking at the changes to this TIP. And I noticed the waterfront way traffic calming was listed as a, quote, "complete" in 2026. But I didn't see it in the funded list. So I'm wondering, well, what is the funded cost of this project? And I guess, what is the complete look like? - So we had included the waterfront way traffic calming in the TIP for, I believe, two or three cycles. We had received funding.

1:25:23 I believe it was low income tax funding through one of the low income programs, where they pay into-- and I'm going to butcher the description here. But essentially, we had a program that, if they paid into a public benefit, they received an exception to taxes over a period of time. And what's important to that is, for that particular project, the benefit at the time was we needed to do more in the waterfront with regards to traffic calming. So we took that fund and set that aside. And I was essentially using that to address all of these different types of issues that were cropping up within the waterfront. So it was used to fund traffic calming that we ended up installing on waterfront way. It was used to fund the domes that we ended up

1:26:20 putting on the traffic circles down at Esther Street and waterfront way, and then down at the end of Columbia way. So we essentially deemed it complete, because we've not identified any further engineering or structural solutions that could be derived to use those funds on. As I think most of council knows, we're working with BPD and other partners on some other strategies to address some of the issues that have been happening down there. But we've exhausted all of the engineering options that we believe would lead to solving some of those issues. I would say I've been having conversations with the developer of the waterfront about the existing traffic calming on waterfront way.

1:27:18 We're not entirely confident that it's performing as intended. So there is an idea to redo that traffic calming this year. But in this case, the developer has agreed to actually pay to have that done. So we'll take those existing speed tables out. We'll put something in that's a little bit more assertive, would be a good way to put it. And hopefully, when waterfront way is open, those will help to keep cars slowed down. But again, the developer is going to pay for that. So no cost to the city there. And just one point of clarification. So projects that are funded and will be completed in 2026 are not in this program. They're in the 2026 through 2031. And so this is really for projects starting in 2027 or that will have action in 2027. So other projects you might be expecting to see this year being built would not

1:28:17 be in the TIP if they'll be completed this year. They would be in last year's TIP. So just out of clarification, so Council Member Fox. So the traffic calming has been installed, whether or not it functions the way intended or not. That project fully funded from last year being done might be some other things coming. So it really has nothing to do with the conversations that we've been having with closing part of the street down or any of that. That's not any future funding that we are aware of. Correct. OK. And then my other question is more of two questions on two projects. One is, I still haven't seen anything really around the St. John's pedestrian-- well, I'd say active modes of transportation solutions that we've discussed before at council--

1:29:13 folks trying to navigate down St. John's towards downtown. And the way that entire system is set up is people are going high speeds and having even-- some sections don't even have sidewalks, right? So just wondering maybe why that project, even if it's unfunded, isn't listed on this list yet. So we do have some work planned for the St. John's, St. James corridor. We have some paving work that's occurring. So we are planning to go in and do some of the work that was identified when we did our planning study in that corridor. I believe that's actually slated for this year. So that might be the reason why it doesn't show up in this particular tip, because again, this particular tip starts in 2027. And then as we do further future work along that corridor,

1:30:13 we'll continue to implement those solutions that were identified in that planning study. So we're essentially doing most of the work that came out of that planning process as a part of other existing programs, such as our pavement management program, and as that work comes up on schedule. Are we monitoring or planning to monitor the speeds in that corridor? Because if you're saying that the work is pretty much done or will be done, I would say that this isn't working when you're setting the high speeds. We haven't started anything yet. So we'll be doing work later this year. And then yes, as we complete our corridor projects, then we do go into a monitoring phase. We'll monitor speed, we'll monitor post-project crash history, and so forth to see if what we did achieved the desired outcome. Could you send me those project numbers

1:31:11 so I can better track them moving forward? Yeah. OK, thank you. Councillor Perez. Councillor Diana Perez, thank you for your presentation. On the line of monitoring, I'm curious as to, for example, the projects on the east side of Vancouver on 34th Street. And I understand that that is currently being monitored. And I'm intersecting that with the development on that side of the city and its impact and how we would adjust in the future in how that is embedded into this TIP plan or this TIP effort or in the future TIP. I don't know that we've actually formally kicked off the monitoring phase on 34th Street. We're just barely done with the actual project. But as we go through that monitoring,

1:32:11 we're looking, again, looking at all of the same metrics that we looked at during the planning phase. And really the idea is did we make a difference? Did we improve what we set out to improve? We know particularly in that corridor that we have, yes, a lot of active development that's going to be happening within the former HP site. And so we're going to be looking at that closely and seeing how that influences what's been done on 34th Street. Make sure that we're still getting what we had hoped for. And if there's something that's not working, what might need to be done to make small pivots, small changes to make it so that it will work. And on the intersection of Highway 14 and 164th,

1:33:04 going from 164th up north to get on westbound 14, a high rate of accidents there currently happening and waiting to happen as the line to-- the light stays green. And you're trying to get on 14 going east from 164th. But then you've got another line going from trying to get on Highway 14 going west from the bottom under 164th. So I'm just wondering if that has been on your radar or how those types of intersections along 14 with all that development in the area working with WSDOT and if that is a unique thing to that particular site, or is that outside the scope of TIP? No. Things that we've become aware of

1:34:02 happen the way it just happened, which is you sharing that observation. So we'll definitely take a look at-- and my hunch is that's probably something that happens more during rush hour times, especially in the morning. So we can definitely take a look at that. We can determine what's happening, why it's happening. If there's something that could be changed operationally to make it work better, there might be some changes that could be made to how the signals operate there. That is a WSDOT interchange. So we would be working closely with them to understand what's happening there. But yeah, when Kate mentioned in the one slide, talks about how do we find out about projects, how do projects get into the TIP, one of those boxes was council and other public suggestions. And that's exactly how some of these projects often come to be.

1:34:59 We are partnering right now with WSDOT on an improvement to the interchange of Highway 14 and 192nd Avenue. Again, lots of development happening, lots of trips being sent to that interchange. There's some things that need to be done. So we're working-- we're collecting funds from developers that send trips to that interchange to help make those improvements. And then we're partnering with the state to implement those improvements. I appreciate you looking into that. I've several times almost having accidents there, trying to get on 14 going-- coming here to the meeting because there is no green arrow just to turn left. And the two lanes are going south to get on 14 going east. We'll definitely take a look at that. Thank you for taking a look at that from our residents. OK. Councilor Harless? Ryan, could you bring us up to speed on the new freight

1:35:57 corridor in Fruit Valley? I can. And for whatever reason, dry mouth has just completely taken over. So the freight corridor project in Fruit Valley-- we have called it the Northwest 32nd Avenue project in the past. It would be a new corridor that would primarily carry freight north and south. It would connect Lower River Road up to Northwest 78th Street by way of literally a new alignment. In 2019, we did a feasibility study that identified what we considered a preferred alignment, which took the corridor from where Northwest 32nd Avenue currently terminates at La Fronboise, would continue north through the Vancouver Lowlands up. It would eventually cross over the Burlington Northern rail line. It would then line up with existing Fruit Valley Road. And then it would follow Fruit Valley Road up

1:36:54 to Northwest 78th Street. We are now looking at potentially a change to that alignment. That 2019 alignment really impacts a lot of the Lowlands and a lot of the floodplain within that part of the Vancouver Lake area. And we just felt like that could be more of a challenge than what we might be able to undertake. So over the last year, we've had a consultant looking at what we consider a shorter alignment, something that would still take off from the end of existing Northwest 32nd Avenue within the Port's Industrial Park, but that would come back on line with Fruit Valley Road sooner. Hypothetically, maybe somewhere around just north of Frito Lake, for example. One of the goals of that project has always been to get as much of the freight traffic

1:37:53 off of Fruit Valley Road that currently passes through the Fruit Valley neighborhood by the school, by the park. A shorter alignment still accomplishes that, and that's a goal we still have in mind when we look at a shorter alignment. But a shorter alignment would be less impacting to the Lowlands, would be less impacting to the floodplain, and be a lot more consistent with the city's climate action framework. So I think we're close to getting ready to roll that alignment out, and then we'll go out and we'll have some conversations with the community. We want to go out and meet with Fruit Valley Neighborhood Association. We want to have some conversations with the local freight companies through the corridor, and then just start seeing if there's general consensus around the idea of that new alignment. We have secured design funding from the state's freight mobility strategic investment board,

1:38:52 I believe to the amount of roughly $15 million. It's a line item, I believe, in the 2029 state legislative budget. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get these, what I consider, housekeeping things done so that we can get an alignment secured, and then we can be ready to receive those dollars and start the formal design process on this project as soon as those FEMSA dollars are available to us. I'm going to challenge you to check that amount from FEMSA. As I look at this project, it's over a decade old. It has been on the books for quite some time. We just had an information workshop about Fruit Valley and the neighborhood association and an update for that. The equity index on this is extremely high. And if we need to check in, I think,

1:39:51 city manager getting additional support to break that project into chunks for FEMSA, the road, the bridge, two different categories, but a new freight corridor to get trucks not only away from Fruit Valley Elementary School, but the Vancouver Housing Authority and a park to boot is long needed. But let's check on that FEMSA money. I'm not sure that we got the right answer there. Well, and again, the FEMSA money I spoke of is just for the design portion of the project. We're still looking at a potential six figure-- excuse me, $100 plus million project to do this work. And so the idea is to get the design far enough along and then to really start looking for the bigger dollars, which are the construction funds.

1:40:51 Past conversations with FEMSA have suggested they're ready to fund construction. We're also looking at our other partners, transportation improvement board, as well as RTC. Great. Looking forward to seeing all of that. Counselor, is there any-- Counselor Stolberg, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. Who used to come and talk to us about the tip? Was it-- Chris Malone. OK. I used to give Chris a hard time every year-- hard time is not really the right word-- about how does somebody submit an idea. So I want to give props that the website now very clearly says with a button, submit an idea. I hope communications can get that out in other places on the website so that people can easily find it.

1:41:46 But I'm very happy that that button now exists. Thank you very much. I think it was like one of the last things he did before he retired was to get that button put in. So yeah, it's been very helpful. And we get those when people push that button or when they fill out the comment fields within that tip area. That happens, and those come to us throughout the year. They come directly to me, and we respond to every one of them. And so when you look at that section of the tip, you'll see different things that folks have shared, and then you'll see our responses to them. But it's a very helpful tool. It lets us know what folks are thinking about, where they're seeing issues and challenges, where we need to be focusing our attention. But we want to make sure that they know that they've been heard and that we're looking for ways to make that work. Because I used to go after Chris on is that I, as a council member, didn't

1:42:45 know how to get things on or off the tip. And so how was anybody else supposed to? So I'm really glad that's there. Thank you. All right, counselors. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ryan and Kate. We'll go ahead and dismiss ourselves, head back, and grab a bite to eat, and we'll see you at 6.30 for a regular meeting. Thank you.