[0:03] Drew. Yeah,
[0:04] >> it was good. We were coming started
[0:07] showing me some more photos to
[0:08] >> Oh, did they I'll have to send them some
[0:10] more and it has the line app. But yeah,
[0:16] they were
[0:18] so homework.
[0:22] Yeah, I recognize that handwriting.
[0:25] We are thinking we're wrap up at one or
[0:27] which we were so taken back to take
[0:29] that.
[0:30] >> We'll see how long the conversation goes
[0:33] but we may be a little bit after one.
[0:37] I would have never imagined
[0:41] we don't have to finalize anything
[0:42] today. It's just more of kind of giving
[0:44] that initial brainstorming what we
[0:46] really want to dive into the next.
[0:52] » Yeah.
[0:53] It's really hard to if you
[0:54] haven't, you know, if you're not used to
[0:55] hearing a non-native English speaker
[0:58] trying to talk through and sometimes,
[0:59] especially Morami, he can be like overly
[1:02] confident in English sometimes.
[1:03] >> Oh, no. He was teaching us Japanese.
[1:05] Okay.
[1:05] >> That was the lesson we had.
[1:07] >> Well, good luck with that. Yeah,
[1:08] >> I didn't teach you. I failed it in high
[1:11] school. you know.
[1:12] >> Yeah.
[1:13] That was the funny thing in my
[1:14] lesson is like I'm speaking you well
[1:16] enough now they think I know more than I
[1:17] know. And so they'll just start going
[1:19] off and definitely like I know like
[1:20] every third word you're saying like yeah
[1:22] can we dial it back a little bit. So
[1:25] >> but I appreciate
[1:25] >> I did ask him three times what he did.
[1:29] Oh,
[1:30] >> he dodged the question third time. He
[1:33] said, "I have erased my memory." I was
[1:36] like,
[1:39] "Oh, well sounds like a professional
[1:42] landscaper. He's amazing."
[1:43] >> Yes. Yeah. He was showing us.
[1:45] >> Yeah. Trying to think,
[1:48] but I can't remember.
[1:54] It was
[1:59] » Paul is an associate pler there right
[2:02] now.
[2:02] >> Oh, really?
[2:03] >> Coordinating with them and getting him
[2:05] connected.
[2:05] >> Very nice. Yeah. Well, when they come
[2:07] here, whoever comes, having to help us.
[2:12] >> Yeah. I was like, "Oh, you came to
[2:13] Vancouver, you saw our fort, right, for
[2:16] our history compared to the large
[2:18] Buddha, right?
[2:21] >> The fort's pulled up."
[2:22] >> Absolutely. Absolutely. Yes.
[2:25] >> Haven't seen it before. Look like
[2:27] everyone else had gone there kid.
[2:29] >> Yes. Exactly.
[2:30] >> New and exciting.
[2:30] >> Well, what we had temple after temple
[2:34] visit. So,
[2:36] >> well, no, they were very he was very
[2:38] complimentary about his time and how
[2:40] generous you were with your time, too.
[2:42] >> Yeah. That's the note takingaking. Oh.
[2:55] back to Tokyo.
[2:59] Ready to go?
[3:00] >> All right, we're ready to go, guys. Um,
[3:02] welcome to our tax advisory committee
[3:05] meeting. And today, what are March 11th?
[3:09] All right, let's get started with a roll
[3:11] call.
[3:13] Right. Uh, chair Fox here. Janick Nevki,
[3:19] >> Mike Fo,
[3:21] >> present.
[3:22] >> Carrie Robinson
[3:24] >> here virtually.
[3:26] >> Uh, Kyle Bird
[3:28] >> here virtually.
[3:30] >> Temple Lens
[3:33] >> here virtually
[3:34] >> and Christy Russ
[3:36] >> here.
[3:40] Right. Do we need to excuse any
[3:42] absences?
[3:45] Janet. Do we She's not going to join us
[3:48] for sure. Okay.
[3:51] Would anyone like to make a motion?
[3:54] to excuse. Janet.
[3:57] >> Seconds.
[3:58] >> Second.
[3:58] >> All right. Got a motion and a second to
[4:01] excuse Janet from the meeting. All in
[4:04] favor?
[4:05] >> I.
[4:07] >> Any opposed?
[4:10] » Okay. Uh Janet's excused.
[4:14] All right, let's move on to approval of
[4:17] the minutes. Did everyone get a chance
[4:18] to read the minutes?
[4:22] >> Yes,
[4:25] » I did one small amendment that I sent to
[4:27] Cali already. So, I don't know if we
[4:29] need a formal amendment or anything, but
[4:32] noting that.
[4:33] >> Okay. What was the amendment?
[4:34] >> Just a name change or name correction on
[4:37] attendees. So,
[4:39] >> never mind. Yeah.
[4:40] >> Okay.
[4:40] >> So, it's just a spell.
[4:42] Did we get the uh the changed minutes
[4:46] sent to us?
[4:46] >> Um not yet. I just fixed them and then I
[4:50] was like, "Okay, I'll right after."
[4:52] >> Okay. Well, why don't you make a motion
[4:53] then to amend the minutes?
[4:54] >> Move to amend the minutes to correct the
[4:57] board members present to Mike Bumar from
[4:59] Matt Bart.
[5:02] >> All right. I'll second that. Um any
[5:06] discussion?
[5:10] No, you can't change your name.
[5:14] >> All right. All in favor of of
[5:17] the amendments.
[5:19] >> I
[5:22] >> That's unanimous. All right. Now, a
[5:24] motion to approve the amended minutes.
[5:27] >> So moved.
[5:28] >> All right. Second.
[5:30] >> Second.
[5:30] >> All right. Motion and a second. All in
[5:32] favor?
[5:33] >> I
[5:36] >> That's unanimous again. All right, we'll
[5:39] move on to community communications
[5:43] >> and no one contacted.
[5:45] >> No contact. All right, we don't have
[5:47] anyone that wanted to join us or
[5:49] communicate with us today other than
[5:50] ourselves. So, we will move on to the
[5:53] next item. All right, number four,
[5:55] contract status.
[5:58] >> Yes. Um, so this will be a pretty quick
[6:01] update. um uh the community career
[6:04] network opted not to move forward with
[6:06] um submitting a an updated application
[6:08] at times. So their money will be just
[6:11] carried forward to future grant cycles.
[6:14] Um,
[6:16] and as far as the rest of the
[6:18] contracting status, uh, we have all the
[6:20] contracts out with the exception of one,
[6:22] which is the October best. And it's just
[6:24] a matter of getting the updated budget
[6:26] from the applicant to reflect what their
[6:28] actual award amount was and how they
[6:30] want to use the ELAC funds with the
[6:32] reduced dollar amount relative to what
[6:34] their application stated. So, um, yeah,
[6:38] pretty quick and easy on that one. Um,
[6:40] >> do they have a deadline for when they
[6:42] have to send amendments to just sure
[6:44] that it's all final?
[6:46] >> Um, I need to put a harder deadline on
[6:49] them with this at this point in time.
[6:51] Email communication has been a bit
[6:52] spotty. That's been the biggest
[6:54] obstacle. So, I think putting a hard
[6:56] firm date hopefully would encourage
[6:59] response.
[7:00] >> Maybe the date can be related to the
[7:03] date that we advertise for the next
[7:05] round of grants.
[7:06] >> Okay. Yeah. So we know how much funding
[7:08] we have and
[7:09] >> Yep. Yeah. And it's not something that
[7:12] we leave that out there in perpetuity.
[7:13] It's just since their event is later in
[7:15] the year, it was not as high of a
[7:17] priority to push it through with the
[7:18] earlier in the year contracting events.
[7:20] But yes, I do think that we would want
[7:21] to have execute everything executed
[7:23] before we even start talking about next
[7:24] year's funding available to us.
[7:29] » All right.
[7:30] >> Any questions or thoughts?
[7:36] » No. Okay. Uh, moving on to program
[7:38] requirements, past guidance, and
[7:40] context.
[7:41] >> Yeah. So, today, um, I I know this feels
[7:44] like a bit of a deep dive into some
[7:46] pretty heavy content, especially for the
[7:47] newer folks. Um, so we're going to be
[7:50] providing some background and context on
[7:51] this. Um, really what this is diving
[7:54] into is what you all expressed as the
[7:56] priority of creating more formalized or
[7:59] at least updated, uh, program criteria
[8:02] and those pieces. Um,
[8:07] keep in mind,
[8:10] um, so what we're going to do is we're
[8:12] going to look at some of the past
[8:14] guidance that we've had around what ELTC
[8:16] requirements were. Um, then we're going
[8:18] to touch base on why there would be a
[8:20] need for an update, which is the the for
[8:22] the new folks, we went through a whole
[8:24] um grant revisioning process in 2024.
[8:27] And so we've gone through two cycles of
[8:29] grants at this point in time with the
[8:31] new approach. Um, so I want to kind of
[8:34] talk about what those approaches are.
[8:36] Um, how scoring may have changed since
[8:38] then. Um, and then how that would impact
[8:42] what kind of um, requirements we would
[8:45] want to put on grant applicants going
[8:46] forward. So this, like I said, this is
[8:48] kind of a deep dive into content, but
[8:50] hopefully um, I will be able to provide
[8:52] you enough background and context and
[8:54] also ask any questions um, and I will do
[8:57] my best to answer them so that we can
[9:00] move move this forward. Um but and then
[9:04] we have kind of an open-ended couple
[9:05] slides at the end of this that are a
[9:07] little bit more working slides yet
[9:08] again. Um the intent of this meeting is
[9:10] just to kind of have a rough outline of
[9:13] the things that we really want to
[9:14] address and then our next meeting how I have things planned out at this
[9:18] point in time would be that more deep
[9:20] dive workshop of actually finalizing
[9:23] what we want to what we want to put on
[9:26] um our grant recipients as far as
[9:28] requirements. Um so yeah, we'll run
[9:30] through just kind of some of this
[9:31] background first. Um and I'll highlight
[9:33] the things that we that have been
[9:36] brought up by the committee um as far as
[9:38] things that we may want to look at
[9:39] evaluate uh changes from the past. So um
[9:44] the eligible applicants um that's pretty
[9:47] straightforward.
[9:50] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, so I know we've talked
[9:52] about this quite often, but I didn't um
[9:56] understand that we had definitively said
[9:58] they must be a marketing organization,
[10:01] municipality, or a nonprofit. Um, so did
[10:06] we determine that they can't be a
[10:08] corporation?
[10:09] >> So, so this this slide right here, the
[10:11] content is pulled from a document that
[10:13] was created in 2019, okay,
[10:14] >> as the program guidelines. And I should
[10:16] have explained that context.
[10:17] >> Okay. Um so
[10:20] um
[10:22] that is an RCW piece with a bit of
[10:25] flexibility within it. Um
[10:28] >> when we reviewed with legal in the past
[10:29] year there um they they did mention that
[10:33] it doesn't necessarily have to be a
[10:35] nonprofit
[10:36] >> as far as a grant recipient. That was
[10:38] just a program specific requirement that
[10:39] we put on folks. And that's that's part
[10:41] of what this dialogue and conversation
[10:43] about like how much of these do we want
[10:44] to maintain? what areas need may need to
[10:47] change and then we want to double check
[10:48] that to make sure that it's allowable
[10:50] within the RCW.
[10:51] >> Sure. Sure. So for those that are newer
[10:54] to the community, my concern is if
[10:56] eliminating a corporation, you know,
[10:59] each destination has very distinct
[11:02] amenities that they can offer. So a
[11:04] large corporation could come here and we
[11:07] may not have something that another
[11:08] destination has or a large sporting
[11:11] event might be a corporation like a
[11:14] triathlon. And so to use the word must
[11:18] is what I feel like we might limit
[11:20] ourselves some from something much
[11:22] bigger that as a destination we may need
[11:24] to help contribute to get it here.
[11:29] >> That's a good point.
[11:32] Thank you.
[11:34] Um
[11:36] the other piece is we've also talked
[11:38] about what other kind of financial
[11:40] commitment we want to see from our
[11:41] applicants. How much would be supported
[11:43] by ELTAC versus those things? Um in the
[11:46] past it was encouraged but not required.
[11:48] Do we want to build out a more formal
[11:50] structure around mass requirements
[11:52] um or
[11:54] um kind of keep it more loose as it is
[11:57] right now? Uh in the past they also
[11:59] stated a grant minimum. We do not have
[12:01] that at this point in time. Um,
[12:04] obviously I think with the length of our
[12:05] application and pieces like that, people
[12:07] are probably not filling it out for
[12:08] $500, but um, at the same time, again,
[12:13] that was something that was put forward
[12:15] in the past as a requirement. We do not
[12:17] have that in place at this point in
[12:18] time. I don't know if we need to or want
[12:20] to do that.
[12:21] >> Um, the next one is something that we've
[12:24] talked about a lot. Um, would be the
[12:26] idea of where the event is located. Um,
[12:29] so this is one of the key pieces that we
[12:31] talked about wanting to formalize this
[12:33] year of if an event happens outside of
[12:35] Vancouver. Um, what is our comfort level
[12:38] funding something like that or what if
[12:39] we are interested in funding events that
[12:42] happen outside of the city limits of
[12:43] Vancouver? Um,
[12:46] what kind of requirements would we want
[12:47] to put on the applicants? We do have a
[12:49] current grant right now that happens
[12:51] outside of the city limits of Vancouver.
[12:54] um we put the requirement on them asking
[12:57] them to uh have a block of rooms
[13:00] reserved within the city limits of
[13:01] Vancouver so that there is still the the
[13:04] benefit within the tax collection area
[13:06] but that was not a formalized use
[13:11] » I don't know if you want me to ask
[13:12] questions at the end so I don't want to
[13:14] keep interrupting
[13:15] >> um so one thing to keep in mind is that
[13:18] we do have a very large facility within
[13:20] the county the county's event center and
[13:23] So, if we restrict to the city limits,
[13:26] then we would be eliminating any
[13:28] opportunities. I think there was a large
[13:30] bodybuilding um uh event that didn't end
[13:34] up applying but was looking at us for a
[13:37] destination and there's not a lot of
[13:40] hotel rooms in that area. So, we could
[13:43] then require anything that was getting a
[13:45] grant for the event center to have the
[13:47] guest rooms in the city limits, which
[13:49] would be kind of a natural selection for
[13:52] them.
[13:57] Um, also within the the previous old
[14:00] requirements, it stated that the grant
[14:02] funds had to be expended within the
[14:04] calendar year uh of the award year. So,
[14:07] um, if we if it was a 2026 grant, all
[14:10] funds needed to be expended within that
[14:12] year. Um, we we've had a little bit
[14:15] different flexibility or approaches with
[14:17] some of that. Um, again, we have a
[14:19] current pending contract for a an event
[14:24] that will be happening at January of
[14:26] 2027.
[14:27] So, the expenses will happen in 2026,
[14:31] any of the marketing and those pieces,
[14:33] but the event won't happen until 2027.
[14:36] So, do we want to have kind of a
[14:37] criteria around how to handle those
[14:39] early in the year events to give them
[14:41] more flexibility with what they need?
[14:43] Um, another piece with that is obviously
[14:46] when we're talking about more of the
[14:47] capital projects and those pieces when
[14:50] uh more of those proposals come through,
[14:52] that's not going to get done within a
[14:53] calendar year most likely. Um, an
[14:55] example of that would be the civic plaza
[14:57] that was approved um for Waterfront
[15:01] Gateway two years ago. At this point in
[15:04] time, those funds have not been
[15:05] expended, but there is still the plans
[15:08] to move forward with that project and
[15:10] utilize th those funds to support that
[15:12] process.
[15:14] >> Do we have u going back to kind of the
[15:17] reporting that we need to do from the
[15:18] state side, is there a restriction on
[15:20] how long we can hold funds and not spend
[15:23] them?
[15:26] » Is there a limit to how much of a kind
[15:28] of bankroll we can have? Um from what I
[15:31] have seen there is not we can do a
[15:33] little bit of additional research on
[15:35] that. Um
[15:37] one of the the pieces of extra
[15:39] consideration with that is um
[15:43] the city is required to maintain a
[15:45] reserve to support debt service for the
[15:47] convention center center. Um, so it
[15:50] doesn't state that it has to be from the
[15:52] tourism fund, but if that is the the
[15:54] decision that is made, then x amount of
[15:56] dollars need to be held in reserve to
[15:58] support future debt service obligations
[16:00] for that. Um,
[16:05] so we we are sitting on older funds at
[16:08] this point in time. Um, there's not a
[16:10] timeline of if it's collected within
[16:12] this year, it needs to be extended. And
[16:14] you're not sure if all of that reserve
[16:16] is entirely funded by this fund.
[16:21] >> I I know that there is a cash reserve
[16:23] for the tourism fund which is what funds
[16:26] the ELAC activities. Um
[16:30] in the past information that was shared
[16:31] with the committee in 2024 is 9.4
[16:34] million of that was being held in
[16:35] reserve for debt service obligations for
[16:37] the convention center.
[16:41] So just for clarity on the funds must be
[16:44] spent within the calendar year of award
[16:45] year that is the current policy or
[16:48] >> that is the 2019 policy. We've been a
[16:52] bit more flexible with that and
[16:54] >> Okay.
[16:54] >> Yeah.
[16:55] >> So there are we do anticipate what I
[16:58] heard is that there's some that have
[17:01] previously received it that we'll be
[17:02] spending in either this year or future
[17:04] years and that we're accounting for that
[17:06] appropriately.
[17:12] And and so with that piece too, that's
[17:14] also how we would communicate with folks
[17:17] through the grant process of if if they
[17:20] have that flexibility, we probably
[17:21] should share that. That way some of the
[17:24] bigger events like the the one that's
[17:25] looking at happening in January is um a
[17:28] soccer tournament. And so obviously that
[17:30] takes a pretty substantial amount of
[17:31] planning, that takes a lot of time to
[17:33] market. Um, so
[17:38] if they know, they'll know in far enough
[17:40] in advance that they could apply for a
[17:42] grant at an earlier date just to make
[17:45] sure that they have those secured funds
[17:46] and can plan larger events like that.
[17:50] Um,
[17:52] another area that has come up for
[17:53] discussion um is also the idea of credit
[17:57] for lodging tax expenditures. Um, in our
[18:01] contract we state that it is a required
[18:03] thing that all written materials will
[18:05] credit the city of Vancouver lodging tax
[18:08] committee. Um, or lodging tax grant. Uh,
[18:12] the amount of enforcement on that has
[18:15] been variable. Um, so we would want to
[18:17] talk about maintaining that requirement.
[18:20] Um, how we would want to enforce it. Um,
[18:23] those those kind of considerations
[18:25] around that.
[18:26] >> Yeah. Do we have a logo for our
[18:28] committee?
[18:29] >> They they use the city of Vancouver.
[18:34] » Do we provide that proactively then when
[18:36] somebody receives a grant?
[18:38] >> Um that that would be a piece of the
[18:40] process that be good for process
[18:42] improvement. Yes.
[18:48] Uh let's and then again looking at the
[18:51] old requirements um the demonstrate
[18:54] potential to result in economic benefit.
[18:56] This is a part of our evaluation. This
[18:58] is a piece of why I sent out like the
[18:59] scoring rubrics of some of the
[19:01] additional evaluation that we do for all
[19:03] of this. Again, didn't expect you all to
[19:05] read that. I wanted to kind of touch on
[19:07] them at a high level here. But um I I
[19:10] feel like that was helpful background
[19:12] and context especially for for people
[19:14] that are trying to catch up to
[19:15] everything that we're trying to do here.
[19:17] Um
[19:18] so that's a high level just kind of the
[19:21] past program requirements. Uh the next
[19:24] step the next slide will be going into
[19:26] just kind of why now is the good time to
[19:29] re-evaluate this and change. Um and as I
[19:32] mentioned we went through in 2024 we
[19:34] went through kind of a reinvisioning of
[19:36] grant process. through that we changed
[19:38] the structure of our grants pretty
[19:39] considerably. The amount of money that
[19:41] we have available to us is quite a bit
[19:43] more as well. Um I just recently did a
[19:45] five-year um analysis of funds or
[19:49] lodging tax and just the tourism fund in
[19:51] general. Um and back in 2021 we were we
[19:54] only awarded about $250,000.
[19:58] And so this last year we awarded
[20:01] uh for 2026 we awarded a little bit over
[20:03] $1.7 million. So this this grant program
[20:06] has grown a lot. So with that, I think
[20:09] formalizing and updating our
[20:10] requirements to kind of reflect that
[20:12] increased financial capacity is really
[20:13] important. Um
[20:17] Andrew, was that a reflection of COVID
[20:19] or pandemic impacts in terms of capacity
[20:21] or are there other factors that you
[20:24] would
[20:24] >> um it it was I believe a big piece of
[20:27] that was building the the fiscal reserve
[20:29] for the debt service piece. So um the
[20:32] amount that was made available to
[20:34] committee was not necessarily equal to
[20:37] um the amount of revenue that was coming
[20:39] in.
[20:41] >> Yeah.
[20:41] >> And also occupancy in Vancouver grew
[20:44] substant substantially with the
[20:46] waterfront hotels from that time.
[20:49] >> Thanks.
[20:50] >> Probably new hotels have opened too
[20:53] maybe.
[20:54] >> Yes.
[20:58] » All right. Um, so with this new vision,
[21:01] uh, we divided things up into four
[21:03] different categories. There's different
[21:04] requirements for each category. Um,
[21:08] again, all of this is on the the web
[21:09] page, but I'll I'll dive into it just at
[21:11] a high level just so we can get to kind
[21:13] of the next step of talking about what
[21:15] we want to do next. Um, what we really
[21:17] want to address. But, um, with these
[21:19] four different grant types, uh, the
[21:21] cultural enrichment grant is meant to be
[21:22] kind of more of an incubator grant. It's
[21:24] smaller scale. This one is the only one
[21:26] that we have a grant maximum. That is a
[21:30] recommendation, not a firm amount. Um,
[21:35] but there, like I said, there at this
[21:37] time there's no minimums. In the past,
[21:38] they stated a minimum of $5,000 for the
[21:41] cultural enrichment grant. The cap is at
[21:43] $5,000.
[21:45] um unless there is a demonstrated
[21:48] need and justification for additional
[21:50] funds and there are funds available and
[21:52] Eltech recognizes the significance
[21:54] behind those
[21:56] >> or we can encourage them to apply for
[21:58] the large event. Right.
[22:00] >> Right. Yeah.
[22:00] >> Yeah. Yeah. The large event and festival
[22:03] is a little bit more open-ended. Um
[22:05] cultural enrichment grant also another
[22:06] key element that we don't necessarily
[22:08] need to formalize within our standards and criteria but we do
[22:14] would want to finalized as we get closer
[22:17] to the grant process. Um if the cultural
[22:20] enrichment grant has three year we asked
[22:23] that they received the grant no more
[22:24] than three times. Um so there is term
[22:28] limits in theory with that as well. Um
[22:31] the large event we stated two years so
[22:33] we have different or two times receiving
[22:36] the award. So we have different numbers
[22:39] of awards that based on the category.
[22:41] Um, and now that we're in year two of
[22:44] following these new standards and
[22:45] criteria, we are actually coming up to
[22:47] the deadline where we'll have to start
[22:49] making some of those tougher decisions
[22:50] about how we want to enforce that
[22:53] two-year limit um or how we want to
[22:56] evaluate um this because we do state
[22:58] that if there's a 20% increase, if they
[23:01] can demonstrate new programming that
[23:03] result in a 20% increase in attendance
[23:06] or reaching a a different um population
[23:11] or dem demographic um that they would be
[23:14] able they'll be able to continue
[23:16] applying for the grant. So, we'll need
[23:19] to formalize a little bit more of that
[23:20] process as we get closer uh to the grant
[23:24] timeline. Um if it if we have the time
[23:26] and bandwidth to incorporate all of that
[23:28] into our policies and procedures, we can
[23:30] do that now. Um I feel like that's a
[23:33] pretty nuanced question and it's going
[23:34] to take a lot of um a lot of extra work
[23:37] on our part. Um, really quick, I'll just
[23:39] kind of run through uh the folks that
[23:41] will be impacted by this going forward.
[23:45] Um,
[23:46] we have the four days of Aloha um that
[23:49] has received the grant two times since
[23:51] we implemented this policy. Um they have
[23:54] been a year after year recipient
[23:57] applicant recipient
[23:59] delivering
[24:01] um as one of the committee members last
[24:02] time stated kind of a marquee event for
[24:06] the the Vancouver area. So if we're
[24:09] looking at no longer funding them, we
[24:11] are funding them at $50,000 this year.
[24:13] That would be just a consideration that
[24:16] we would want to have of what kind of
[24:18] impact taking away a funding source like
[24:20] that may have on some of those events.
[24:22] Um
[24:23] >> with that one too, we they've been
[24:25] longstanding in addition to our
[24:27] requirements, but believe we um weighed
[24:30] heavily that they were adding new
[24:32] programming with the what was the drain
[24:34] machine.
[24:35] >> Um yeah. So, um I don't know if we'd
[24:39] want to consider if they received it one
[24:42] year, grew attendance by 20% one year,
[24:45] then didn't grow again, would they be on
[24:48] year two of whatever we're measuring
[24:52] them on?
[24:54] >> Yeah. And does the does the time the
[24:57] count start over increase by 20%. And
[25:00] then
[25:01] >> Yeah.
[25:01] So, just formalizing all those
[25:03] elements of how we want to enforce those
[25:05] limits. Um, Vancouver Go Fest will be at
[25:08] year would be at year three for this
[25:10] application. Um, Vancouver Holiday
[25:13] Market as well. Um,
[25:16] Vancouver Arts and Music Festival. Uh,
[25:19] and there they receive
[25:22] they received $95,000 this year. So
[25:25] again, that's another um big piece of
[25:29] funding, but also um the impact on the
[25:32] event. uh Apple Tree Marathon has
[25:34] received it two years since we've
[25:36] implemented this. Same with the Columbia
[25:38] River Triathlon.
[25:41] So, u just thinking about that context
[25:44] as we're looking at um those things and
[25:47] I we can provide a little bit more
[25:49] financial analysis as we dive into this
[25:51] a little bit more um as far as how much
[25:53] of the event funding is coming from
[25:56] Eltac versus um what they're able to
[25:59] generate through ticket sales or other
[26:00] event revenue.
[26:02] Um, so but again, I just wanted to give
[26:06] you kind of a general overview of what
[26:07] kind of events will we may be facing
[26:10] some tougher decisions on this year.
[26:14] Um,
[26:16] the tourism program and facility pieces,
[26:19] that's kind of two separate projects,
[26:21] but they fall under the same
[26:24] um grant category. The tourism program
[26:26] is a short-term marketing program um to
[26:29] boost tourism and there's no caps on
[26:33] that as well. Um for facility that needs
[26:35] to be either a city-owned
[26:38] or public facilities districtowned
[26:41] facility for capital improvements. Uh if
[26:44] it's just operating then it can be a
[26:47] tourism organization that's operating a
[26:49] facility. But as far as capital
[26:51] improvements to a facility, that needs
[26:53] to be municipal or public facilities
[26:55] district owned.
[26:57] >> When you say tourism organization, I
[27:00] know we just had the one tourism
[27:02] organization,
[27:03] >> but I remember the Aloha group, they had
[27:07] also proposed a van and I was wondering
[27:10] if they if that was could maybe in the
[27:13] future be considered kind of a tourism
[27:15] organization if they are just doing van
[27:18] tours, right? I I think I mean we can
[27:20] look a little more closely at the RC but
[27:22] I think I mean it's it fulfills the
[27:25] tourism promotion element which is the
[27:27] primary requirement for Eltech. So I
[27:29] mean tourism organization is really
[27:30] whoever's delivering.
[27:32] >> That's not a special designation by the
[27:34] state or something.
[27:35] >> No. um not like the um not like the
[27:39] destination um marketing organization
[27:44] that visit Vancouver does have a special
[27:47] designation and that's what the tourism
[27:49] organization operating
[27:51] um grant program is for those with that.
[27:55] >> Oh, so the ban would not fit that
[27:58] tourism organization operating category.
[28:01] >> No, it would be a tourism program. Yeah.
[28:10] Sorry, I misunderstood that question.
[28:14] Um, and then also, uh, just jumping into
[28:17] the scoring criteria as well, which
[28:19] would I feel like if we're scoring folks
[28:21] on things, we probably should have some
[28:22] policies or at least criteria about how
[28:25] that is working. We do have that
[28:27] outlined a little bit in the scoring
[28:29] rubric, but um this is an opportunity
[28:32] for us to improve the process of sharing
[28:33] that with applicants so there's a little
[28:35] bit more transparency of what they're
[28:36] being measured on and make it a little
[28:39] more formal as well. Um so just at a
[28:42] high level, the alignment with the visit
[28:44] Vancouver destination master plan. Um so
[28:46] that's those elements um are outlined in
[28:49] the application for folks. They have
[28:51] access to that um process. Um, and then
[28:55] we're talking about the alignment of the
[28:56] city strategic plan. I did this to
[28:58] shorten the number of bullets on here,
[28:59] but that encompasses a large amount of
[29:01] what our scoring criteria are. So, that
[29:03] would be the equity piece. That would
[29:05] be, um, the sustainability,
[29:09] um, climate change initiatives, uh,
[29:11] transportation,
[29:13] all of those pieces are tied into the
[29:15] city of Vancouver strategic plan.
[29:21] See,
[29:23] we also are evaluating the seasonality
[29:26] and location part. Um, that's been
[29:29] stated by the committee that that's a
[29:30] huge priority of really driving more
[29:34] non- peak season events and more events
[29:37] outside of the city of Vancouver. So,
[29:39] how can we communicate that more
[29:40] effectively with grant recipients? How
[29:42] can we create policies or criteria that
[29:46] truly is moving that forward with growth
[29:48] would be a part of the kind of the
[29:50] dialogue around that. Um we do measure e
[29:54] economic impact. Um this last year we
[29:58] provided an opportunity for folks to
[29:59] consult with visit Vancouver as part of
[30:01] their application to go through just
[30:03] kind of the a more um an algorithm
[30:06] analysis of what the financial impact of
[30:08] their events would be. Um,
[30:11] so I I think we may want to look a
[30:14] little bit more closely about what kind
[30:17] of impact we're trying to make. Um, and
[30:19] also
[30:21] um
[30:22] what level of confidence do we have in
[30:24] some of those those measures? Um,
[30:28] also how much do we really want to
[30:30] emphasize and priority local vendors and
[30:32] those kind of considerations and what
[30:35] can how can we communicate again as part
[30:37] of our criteria and standards? How can
[30:39] we communicate that with grant
[30:40] recipients? Make that clear from the
[30:43] start.
[30:43] >> Last year, we only had a few that
[30:46] actually met with Visit Vancouver,
[30:48] right? Out of all of the applications.
[30:51] >> Yeah, I'm not sure the the actual
[30:53] number.
[30:53] >> I think it was only like three or four.
[30:55] >> Okay.
[30:56] >> Do you guys remember? I think more did
[30:59] than what they represented. And it would
[31:01] be great to see how they retained or was
[31:04] executing that advice or guidance too in
[31:08] a presentation. So I don't know if
[31:09] there's more suggestions we can put into
[31:12] I don't want to require more things if
[31:14] they don't have that ability but uh
[31:17] suggest for them to include that in the
[31:20] presentation.
[31:24] » And then um a couple other scoring
[31:26] criteria would be just the uniqueness of
[31:28] the event
[31:30] and the marketing reach. a demonstrated
[31:33] marking plan showing that they are
[31:35] intentionally trying to draw folks from
[31:36] outside of the area which are some of
[31:38] the key measures for the state
[31:39] reporting. Um
[31:43] >> Andrew, can you help me understand
[31:44] uniqueness a little bit and the value of
[31:46] having a unique event? I mean I get it
[31:48] from an injury standpoint but not
[31:50] necessarily from an impact.
[31:53] >> Yeah. So the idea is um
[31:58] bringing in events that are not just the
[32:01] same ones. Like if we're looking at a
[32:04] lot of times we'll have four or five
[32:06] applications for a marathon or a 10K or
[32:09] something like that. Obviously that's
[32:11] not an exceptionally unique um
[32:13] application. So something that's
[32:16] providing something new or the
[32:18] opportunity to draw a different
[32:19] population to be
[32:22] >> there was a time where you could see a
[32:24] lot of the events in Esther Shore Park
[32:26] not related to Eltech funds but it was
[32:29] like a brewfest after brew fest after
[32:31] brewfest which they were all great but a
[32:34] little bit of diversity in there would
[32:35] be good.
[32:36] >> Yeah I think what you said about
[32:37] reaching different populations or
[32:39] different interest groups has I can see
[32:40] the value in that so that's helpful.
[32:42] Thank you.
[32:44] What just to put this out there um to
[32:47] tie this back to the to the rate payers
[32:52] um is is there an opportunity to um have
[32:55] consideration for the overnight stays
[32:57] that it would generate or is that in the
[33:00] alignment with the strategic plan?
[33:05] » Um yeah, so the paid lodging nights is a factor on the scoring criteria. Um,
[33:11] >> okay.
[33:12] >> It's probably
[33:15] >> Yeah, that was a little bit more of a
[33:17] straightforward cut and dry. I mean, we
[33:19] could also look at how what kind of
[33:21] requirements we do want to put on that.
[33:24] Um, but the scoring rubric does break it
[33:27] down. Uh, let's see. Um,
[33:30] if it generates less than 25 rooms a
[33:32] night, it would receive one point in the
[33:34] scoring criteria. If it does 26 to 50
[33:37] night room nights, it would get two
[33:39] points. Um and just kind of a scale from
[33:41] there up to five points. Um
[33:45] >> Oh, that's great. Thank you.
[33:46] >> Yeah. Uh again, that can be evaluated a
[33:50] little bit more. Um that is one of the
[33:53] largest fiscal impacts of if people are
[33:56] actually coming in town and staying
[33:57] overnight, eating in our restaurant,
[33:59] shopping and the shops. So definitely is
[34:03] a big um element. So, it is captured in
[34:05] a couple different areas because that
[34:06] also does factor into the economic
[34:08] impact measure as well when you're
[34:10] looking at um the overnight stays. So,
[34:17] let's see.
[34:18] Uh yeah. So, are at this point I know
[34:22] I've run through a lot of different
[34:23] things and a lot of different
[34:24] information. Is there any other
[34:26] questions, concerns? Uh, do we feel
[34:28] comfortable jumping into just kind of
[34:30] seeing talking about what areas we want
[34:33] to address or
[34:39] » one question real quick? Do we distill
[34:41] or break down the strategic plan at all
[34:43] within the application or provide a link
[34:45] or is there a summary or do they have to read the entire strategic
[34:48] plan essentially to figure out?
[34:50] Yeah, there there is a link um and I
[34:54] think I believe there's a fact sheet
[34:56] that at least identifies like the highle
[34:58] pieces of what the elements are. I don't
[35:04] I would be very surprised if anyone sat
[35:06] down and read through the whole
[35:07] document. Um but I I'll look a little
[35:11] bit more closely than they should. was
[35:12] actually
[35:13] >> it was originally me.
[35:15] Um
[35:16] >> maybe I need to leave the room so you
[35:18] guys can talk about me.
[35:24] » Um but yeah, so a link is provided and I
[35:30] do think there is that high level
[35:31] summary of what at least the main areas
[35:34] that we're trying to address right
[35:36] within that. So
[35:41] right um I think we are at the point
[35:44] where we could just jump into doing some
[35:47] work. Uh no other questions at this
[35:49] point in time.
[35:52] All right. Um I'll I'm going to take
[35:54] over the sharing screen really quick and
[35:57] hopefully it's really quick.
[36:02] and team. I'm gonna have to excuse
[36:04] myself for a a personal um situation.
[36:07] So, uh but I'll look forward to the
[36:10] recording in the in the minutes. Thank
[36:12] you.
[36:13] >> Thanks, Carrie.
[36:13] >> Thanks, Gary.
[36:16] >> All right. Um, so this is um a pretty
[36:20] similar um
[36:23] setup to what what what I did last time
[36:25] is I have a couple ideas on here for
[36:28] things that we
[36:30] just kind of prompt to start the
[36:32] conversation. Um,
[36:35] but yeah, I I'd like to open it up. Like
[36:38] I said, I know we just worked through a
[36:40] whole bunch of background information.
[36:42] Um,
[36:43] just yeah, I' I'd like to hear your
[36:46] thoughts about what we may want to keep,
[36:48] what we want different, um, or things
[36:52] that we may not have even talked about
[36:53] at all that are important to add in.
[36:58] Well, with your first the grants
[37:00] minimum. Um, I think that based on just
[37:04] the variations of the grants and where
[37:06] our festivals are at, I don't know if we
[37:09] need a minimum or maximum with the
[37:12] exception of the festival or the the
[37:15] cultural events since they we are more
[37:17] generous with our flexibility of rating
[37:19] them because they're just starting to to
[37:22] um
[37:24] get their feet under them.
[37:29] Does um so if no minimum is needed as
[37:34] far as the stated criteria um does
[37:38] continuing to have a maximum or at least
[37:40] a recommended maximum amount for the
[37:43] cultural enrichment grant continue to
[37:45] make sense to everyone? I think it helps
[37:48] convey to the grantee what they can
[37:52] expect is if they're coming in and
[37:54] thinking they're going to get a $100,000
[37:57] grant.
[37:59] >> Yeah. And we doubled it. It started out
[38:01] at $2500. So increasing it to the 5,000.
[38:09] » So I'm tracking appropriately. We
[38:11] currently or previously had had 5,000 as
[38:14] a minimum. Correct. And we're saying we
[38:16] don't need that. Have we ever before the
[38:18] recent history not had a minimum
[38:22] um
[38:25] the level of enforcement on some of
[38:27] these program guidelines was always a
[38:30] little bit um so I would say even going
[38:32] back over the last four years we've had
[38:33] grants under $5,000 the last four or
[38:36] five years so even when we had that as a
[38:40] stated requirement it didn't always be
[38:42] enforced. Maybe instead of it being a
[38:45] requirement, maybe it's just putting out
[38:47] what the amount of the grants could be.
[38:49] So again,
[38:51] someone applies for a grant and we turn
[38:53] around and say, "We'll give you a
[38:54] thousand." Like now they felt like they
[38:57] wasted their time, right?
[38:59] >> Yeah.
[39:03] I think similar to councelor B's
[39:05] comments, I would just want to set the
[39:06] right expectations and use whatever
[39:08] guidelines we have. set the right
[39:11] expectations and and for from
[39:12] administrative side not getting a lot of
[39:14] $100 grant requests or things like that
[39:16] too.
[39:18] To your point, there's kind of a
[39:19] built-in with the application probably
[39:20] the deterrence there, but want to see
[39:24] 200 applications or something
[39:27] that follow the spirit of the 10.
[39:35] Um I uh I think that having a minimum
[39:39] can be helpful uh again for expectation
[39:42] setting. Also um for the most part
[39:46] larger and more established
[39:47] organizations aren't going to ask for
[39:49] less than 5,000 anyway, but if it's a
[39:51] smaller organization that does uh the
[39:54] city also does have other grant
[39:56] programs. They have the community I
[39:58] don't remember the exact name for it,
[40:00] but the community grants that can I
[40:01] think could be 500 or 5,000.
[40:04] um it's not a direct uh lodging tax uh overlap, but for a lot of these
[40:12] smaller nonprofits, they probably that
[40:14] intersection can probably work. So, if
[40:17] we're looking to um improve tourism in
[40:20] the community, I think it's reasonable
[40:21] to think that an organization should be
[40:23] looking for maybe more than more than
[40:25] 5,000. Um so, as a as a guideline, at
[40:29] minimum, uh a minimum could be good. Uh
[40:33] and on the on the maximum, I'd also
[40:35] suggest uh that helps with expectations. We do have
[40:42] applicants who will ask for
[40:45] uh as as much as possible. Um, and
[40:49] that's fine, but it uh it
[40:53] I think that conversations we've had in
[40:56] the past, and I know we have different
[40:57] folks on the committee, so it's worth um
[40:59] discussing what our goals are, but uh
[41:02] that these are supposed to kind of help
[41:04] things get started. They're not supposed
[41:05] to be full funding. Um that they're
[41:09] supposed to be a part of bringing this
[41:10] thing to to fruition. So, uh, some kind
[41:15] of a cap or recommended cap. Maybe a lot
[41:18] of these should be recommendations as
[41:20] opposed to requirements. That was my
[41:22] thinking on other parts of the list. Uh,
[41:24] we probably do limit ourselves if we put
[41:27] strict requirements on things, but I
[41:30] think some of these guidelines exist for
[41:31] a reason that we can talk about when we
[41:33] get to the other specific ones.
[41:40] I was I was thinking about the questions
[41:42] around the alignment to the strategic
[41:44] plans both to the cities and the um
[41:47] destination master plan. It didn't feel
[41:50] to me that most of the applicants had
[41:54] reviewed them or they didn't respond to
[41:56] them at all. And so as a reviewer I felt
[41:59] like I was doing some you know research
[42:02] to see if I could how much alignment I
[42:04] saw with their proposal. So I am
[42:07] wondering uh how valuable that is at the
[42:10] end of the day. Uh it felt like a lot
[42:12] more work on on me than than maybe I
[42:15] needed to do but because I wanted to
[42:17] give them some points. So versus I think
[42:20] if I was like a teacher, which I've
[42:22] never been a teacher, I would have just
[42:24] failed them and given them no points
[42:25] because they had not addressed it.
[42:27] Right. That's that was my role.
[42:29] >> Yeah.
[42:34] What did anyone else have any thoughts
[42:35] on that one?
[42:37] >> I have thoughts on you.
[42:39] >> Mine was going to be more on the
[42:40] maximums. I don't know if we'd put
[42:42] anything about typical grant ranges. Um
[42:44] I think I agree with with Temple's
[42:47] comments, but also just wonder if we
[42:49] could retain some flexibility by just
[42:52] like setting some expectations but not
[42:54] setting requirements. And there might be a way to approach it on the
[42:57] master plan. I agree. I think I my
[43:01] preference would be they do the work and
[43:03] articulate some way how that is tied to
[43:06] both. But
[43:08] >> and if they don't do the work, do we
[43:10] just not give them points? That's the
[43:14] >> I mean, I think that's fair. I haven't
[43:15] subject
[43:17] >> the wrath of a a upset applicant yet.
[43:20] So,
[43:20] >> well,
[43:22] I'll give you I'll give you an example.
[43:25] So let's say um the applicant didn't you
[43:28] know it's a pretty good application
[43:31] um you know they're scoring well on time
[43:33] of year and and number of heads in beds
[43:36] and so it's looking pretty good but they
[43:38] didn't fill out anything at all for the
[43:40] point value for strategic plan
[43:43] alignment. So now they've just lost some
[43:45] points and um and so now they might not
[43:49] be in the top 10 that we're going to
[43:50] fund. So, you're kind of like, well, but
[43:53] then you can clearly see from reviewing
[43:55] their application that they are in
[43:57] alignment with some of these. Of course,
[43:59] they are because they've scored well.
[44:01] Um, so that that would be my leaning for
[44:03] filling in where they didn't. But then
[44:06] we've also had a couple applications and
[44:08] these are perhaps some of those that
[44:10] were angrier with us. But they in their
[44:14] opinion thought that they met all of the
[44:16] all they were in full alignment with the
[44:18] entire strategic plans of both like they
[44:22] came in they came in strong and they
[44:24] said we meet every single one of these
[44:28] points that you have in your tourism
[44:30] destination master plan. Now whether or
[44:32] not we agreed with that or not was where
[44:34] again as a raider I was like well I
[44:36] don't really agree right and so I would
[44:37] I didn't give them full as full of
[44:40] credit as they thought they should get.
[44:42] So those are my two kind of not sure it
[44:45] was super valuable again given how much
[44:48] energy it was around that question.
[44:51] >> We have uh the opportunity to send it
[44:54] back to them for like reiteration. So,
[44:59] for example, the example that you gave
[45:01] where it was a good application, but
[45:02] maybe they missed linking it to the the
[45:05] plan, can you send it back and say,
[45:08] "Hey, we're missing this whole section.
[45:11] You know, you got 48 hours or something
[45:13] like that.
[45:21] Historically, we've not sent back
[45:23] applications. Um the the area that we've
[45:26] been able to get additional context on
[45:28] some of those things would be during
[45:29] presentations from the organizations and
[45:31] we have sent targeted questions that
[45:34] asking them to address those during
[45:36] their presentation.
[45:38] >> Um
[45:39] >> and they're able to make up points
[45:40] during that presentation then on
[45:43] evaluations or is that separate?
[45:48] >> It's more along the lines of how much
[45:50] funding.
[45:51] Usually the presentations are more about
[45:53] the funding level at that point. Yeah.
[45:58] >> Okay.
[45:59] >> Christie, you
[46:00] >> Yeah. Um the sustainability question um
[46:04] being in alignment with our
[46:05] sustainability goals sustainability is
[46:07] very important but to acknowledge that
[46:10] events it's very difficult to enforce
[46:14] sustainability and it's also very costly
[46:16] for an event and sometimes we're limited
[46:19] to the the um structure and the um the
[46:23] services that are around that event
[46:27] location. So I found it very
[46:29] challenging. Each one of them would say
[46:31] I'm using, you know, waste connections
[46:33] for example and we're going to have
[46:34] recycling. So that's a requirement of
[46:37] the event, but is that really focusing
[46:40] on some sustainability efforts? So I
[46:43] just by the nature of events, it's
[46:45] really hard to score them knowing what
[46:48] they're up against trying to be
[46:49] sustainable.
[46:52] there was
[46:53] >> that's something that everybody is going
[46:55] to have the same trouble with, right? So
[46:59] if if we have somebody though so
[47:01] everybody's going to get essentially the
[47:02] same score, but then if you have
[47:05] somebody that's able to do a better job
[47:07] or has better tools, then they would get
[47:10] more. So it's it doesn't really like
[47:12] hurt anybody
[47:14] abnormally, does it?
[47:16] >> That would be if we're all scoring the
[47:18] same.
[47:19] >> Oh, okay.
[47:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. And there are some events
[47:23] like for example the arts and music
[47:25] festival they heavily work with seat to
[47:28] encourage the wrership there versus
[47:31] parking and individual cars those types
[47:34] of things. So there are some that do
[47:36] extra effort to um reduce their um
[47:41] carbon footprint but for the most of
[47:44] them they just don't have necessarily
[47:46] the resources.
[47:49] Yeah, there was a a few proposals where
[47:51] they hire they were planning to hire uh
[47:54] this consultant group that had I
[47:56] actually looked up that group. I can't
[47:57] remember their name now, but they were
[48:00] supposedly known for
[48:03] adding that extra green sustainability
[48:06] element to events.
[48:09] But like I said, at what cost? I don't
[48:11] know. Mhm.
[48:12] >> Well, even just tickets, you know, there
[48:14] are several of them that are still paper
[48:16] tickets versus that's expensive to go on
[48:19] to like a ticket master system or
[48:21] whichever the electronic options. It's
[48:24] just a lot of extra expenses that they
[48:27] could be asking for funds for, but it
[48:29] just it's really hard on the event side
[48:31] to navigate through sustainability.
[48:37] But when I was looking at that
[48:39] particular one, I to your point, Kyle, I
[48:41] think most of them, it wasn't um it
[48:45] didn't hurt them if they just said waste
[48:47] connections as far as whatever base
[48:50] score I was giving them. All all of them
[48:52] that said waste connections all got the
[48:53] same score, but it was the ones that
[48:56] showed that extra effort that got more
[48:58] points. You know, they had hired that
[48:59] other firm or they mentioned Sean or
[49:02] they mentioned car pooling or something
[49:04] that they got additional points.
[49:08] I agree with that and um I think since
[49:10] it's one of the city's priorities to
[49:12] emphasize sustainability that that's
[49:15] part of the reason this is in here is to
[49:17] continue to make these um events align
[49:19] as best as possible with those city
[49:21] priorities. So part of it is having you
[49:24] know is ensuring that they're thinking
[49:26] about it uh and that they answer the
[49:29] question seriously. So whether or not
[49:32] they can I think I think it's true that
[49:34] you know or rather I agree with uh with
[49:38] uh councelor Fox I I the folks who
[49:41] really just did the bare minimum kind of
[49:43] got the same score. The folks who did a
[49:44] little bit more got more for me. The
[49:46] folks who didn't even acknowledge it did
[49:48] get less because they should at least be
[49:50] acknowledging it even if there isn't as
[49:52] much that they could do to align with
[49:54] those city priorities.
[50:00] Do we know if like the parks and
[50:02] recrecks department have any um
[50:05] resources or guidance on how to make
[50:08] your event more sustainable? So, we
[50:10] could put some supplementary documents
[50:13] on the site that encourages them to
[50:16] think about different things.
[50:18] >> I I can follow up with the events team.
[50:26] » Um see, are there any other
[50:36] The other piece we have is formalizing
[50:38] the criteria about being inside or
[50:40] outside the city limits. I've noted that
[50:43] we should talk about
[50:47] » yes. Um,
[50:50] >> and I I just put out that I at least
[50:53] from a lot of our discussions, it seems
[50:54] like we're all pretty much in alignment
[50:56] that uh if it's that we could we could
[51:02] be in favor of an event outside the city
[51:03] limits if and then the actual mitigation
[51:08] measure would be the room blocks. That's
[51:10] what I've been hearing from everyone.
[51:13] If you guys don't agree, it's time to
[51:15] talk.
[51:17] >> Yeah, I would definitely support if it
[51:18] didn't have a room if it's outside the
[51:20] city limits didn't have a dedicated room
[51:22] block that we wouldn't consider it. I
[51:23] think that's fair and reasonable.
[51:26] And my other question is just I don't
[51:27] know does any other jurisdiction collect
[51:30] besides Vancouver collect lodging tax
[51:32] funds like CAS or any other of those
[51:34] yet?
[51:37] >> Cameas does.
[51:38] Okay.
[51:39] >> But that's just because I work for
[51:40] Camas.
[51:41] So, we may also want to, and I don't
[51:43] want to get too far in the weeds, but we
[51:44] may also want to say, you know, we can't
[51:46] do it for anybody that collects, you
[51:48] know, so within another jurisdiction
[51:50] that also collects lodging tax or
[51:51] something like that, right?
[51:53] >> So, uninorporated is probably still in
[51:55] play, but maybe not other
[52:02] Sorry, I didn't articulate that great,
[52:04] but I think you know what I meant.
[52:11] Yeah. No, it makes sense.
[52:15] So the event would not be within other
[52:16] jurisdictions like Alic lodging tax.
[52:19] That's the theory is the resources are
[52:21] already there for them. Yeah. So yeah,
[52:27] I know Battleground collects lodging tax
[52:30] as well.
[52:33] But again, so many of the areas here,
[52:36] there's so few lodging options. What is
[52:38] the actual revenue stream? But Camas
[52:40] would have a revenue stream.
[52:44] >> Um, all right.
[52:45] >> I think generally that just kind of
[52:46] encourages to be as close as possible to
[52:48] I mean there's other economic benefits
[52:50] besides the the root blocks too. So I
[52:52] think that that is a fair limit.
[52:54] >> I think another easy one for us to cover
[52:57] would be that calendar year question.
[53:00] Mhm.
[53:01] >> So when you are advertising for these
[53:04] grants, is it just a matter of you
[53:06] saying that they need to utilize the
[53:10] funds within that calendar year? And so
[53:13] maybe we just need to say uh maybe
[53:16] within
[53:18] um I'd say, you know, because we're
[53:21] trying to hit that that winter, right?
[53:23] We want to have some winter events. So
[53:25] the event has to be between, you know,
[53:28] January 2026 and February 2027 or or
[53:33] something like whatever that, you know,
[53:36] 14 15 month time frame instead of a 12
[53:39] month time frame. Maybe that cover us or maybe we say it's between fe like if
[53:48] we're doing 2026 like a February 2026 to
[53:51] uh February 2027.
[53:54] Maybe that makes more sense. We just
[53:56] change our 12 month
[53:59] period.
[54:01] I don't know. Doesn't seem like it seems
[54:03] to matter from a accounting standpoint.
[54:11] And the only area that there there was a
[54:13] little bit of a sticking point and at
[54:15] this point it's a non-issue but it was
[54:18] going to require additional research or
[54:20] at least additional guidance from uh the
[54:24] reporting the state reporting mechanism.
[54:26] Um they the reports are what lodging
[54:29] taxes were expended this year what were
[54:31] the outcomes associated with those. So
[54:33] obviously if a lodging tax is expended
[54:34] in one year but the outcomes don't
[54:35] happen until the next year what would
[54:37] that reporting look like? But that being
[54:39] said the state has suspended all um
[54:42] reporting on launching tax dollars at
[54:44] this point in time. So um I will be
[54:46] giving additional guidance at least on
[54:50] what we should be colle if we need to
[54:53] continue collecting the same data and
[54:55] are there going to be other reporting
[54:56] requirements around that? Do we just
[54:58] need to maintain that record? Um, and
[55:01] then I can a little bit more to the
[55:03] bottom of like if there are expenses
[55:05] that happen one year, but outcomes
[55:06] another, but I'm I'm sure that's not a
[55:08] unique scenario. I'm sure they have a
[55:10] best practice of app report for that.
[55:13] So,
[55:16] >> yeah. So, it might be nice to just
[55:17] explore if we can change our 12 month
[55:20] period to not be a calendar year.
[55:24] Yeah, I'd certainly support any language
[55:26] that helps basically give enough runway
[55:28] for all seasons. That would make sense.
[55:31] I wonder if
[55:33] not making it too complicated, if you
[55:34] would just say any kind of the extension
[55:37] beyond that would require like Elac
[55:39] coming back to LTAC with an explanation
[55:41] of why you weren't able to so at least
[55:43] incentivizes them but doesn't block if
[55:46] there's some valid reason why they would
[55:48] need to extend.
[55:52] I think our last and new question which
[55:54] I've left for exactly one o'clock almost
[55:57] um was we were talking about what are
[56:00] they going to do about the regular
[56:02] events that are
[56:05] coming up on their two second year
[56:10] I wasn't I wasn't part of that original
[56:13] conversation so I am not definitely have
[56:16] no
[56:18] loyalty to two years and why why two
[56:22] years was picked. I guess maybe that
[56:24] would be a good place to start.
[56:26] >> Yeah.
[56:26] Um
[56:28] I think the for the history of these
[56:30] funds that have been received even
[56:32] before our committee, you know, even
[56:34] though there's a few of these that have
[56:37] um had the they're on the two-year mark,
[56:39] they're on a, you know, five 10. It was
[56:42] a significant year um of funding. But
[56:46] the caveat to that to not um eliminate
[56:50] them is to really show that growth that
[56:53] 20% growth. So I don't think we have to
[56:56] go into the mindset that these these um
[56:59] five are a no. It's that do we somehow
[57:03] communicate with them advance to say
[57:05] this is where you're at and your you
[57:08] know planning for the event really needs
[57:10] to focus on that 20% attendance
[57:13] increase. Um, what I recall a lot of the
[57:17] conversations about that and Temple can
[57:19] kind of chime in here too is that just
[57:22] trying to make sure that we were not
[57:24] just refunding the same events over and
[57:27] over again and giving other events that
[57:30] exposure, but we also aren't seeing an
[57:33] overwhelming amount of applications um
[57:36] for new large equivalent events, too.
[57:40] So, I don't know if you have any
[57:43] thoughts that
[57:44] >> Yeah, I um I I agree that that's that's
[57:47] where a lot of this came from is that um
[57:50] uh well, it came from seeing a lot of
[57:54] recurring applicants and
[57:57] being concerned both that continuing to
[57:59] fund the same organizations over and
[58:00] over limits opportunity for others to
[58:02] get in there. Um, and also I well coming
[58:06] from a nonprofit perspective, well of
[58:08] course one of the best things you can
[58:10] get is ongoing funding. Uh, if the
[58:13] nonprofits start to rely on that as
[58:17] recurring funding and begin to kind of
[58:19] think of that as always going to get it,
[58:21] then that creates a lot of instability
[58:23] actually. And so if it doesn't go and
[58:24] since this is a volatile funding source
[58:26] theoretically um where the amount we
[58:29] have available can change yeartoyear uh
[58:31] I don't think that it's responsible
[58:33] necessarily for us to create the
[58:36] appearance that this can become a
[58:38] sustainable recurring funding source um
[58:42] at risk of you know at risk of these
[58:44] nonprofits and their stability. But uh
[58:46] also though at the same time that that
[58:48] conversation was occurring as I recall
[58:50] the amount of funds that we were talking
[58:52] about dispersing was a lot lower. Uh
[58:54] some of the reason that fund was lower
[58:56] was because there weren't the new hotels
[58:58] those sorts of things coming out of
[58:59] COVID but also the amount that the city
[59:01] gave us access to was lower. So we were
[59:04] in that much smaller range. So when you
[59:07] have this more competitive pool of
[59:08] funds, um wanting to open it up to allow
[59:12] other opportunity was I think a part of
[59:14] it. Uh from from my perspective, I think
[59:18] that the adding some kind of a change,
[59:20] whether it's growth of event or adding a
[59:23] new component or program to show that
[59:25] it's continually changing is a is an
[59:27] interesting way to get about it. We're
[59:29] not saying this organization can't
[59:30] apply. were saying, "Show us how the
[59:33] event is changing from the benefit of
[59:36] these funds to allow that to happen."
[59:40] >> I did appreciate that as a challenge
[59:43] question to some of those uh events when they because it felt like they rose
[59:47] to the challenge and said, "Yes, because
[59:49] we we want to get continue getting this
[59:51] grant fund. Here's the new thing that
[59:53] we've proposed." And I thought that was
[59:55] actually pretty interesting.
[59:56] >> I don't know how many times we expect
[59:58] them to innovate, though. you know, I'm
[1:00:00] not an event person, so I don't know how
[1:00:03] difficult of a lift that is. It felt
[1:00:05] like felt like it might have been a
[1:00:07] pretty big lift.
[1:00:09] >> Uh, I agree with that. And coming again
[1:00:12] from the perspective of an agency that
[1:00:13] could could apply for some of these
[1:00:15] funds, that expectation of continue to
[1:00:17] innovate, continue to grow is pretty
[1:00:18] burdensome. But, uh,
[1:00:23] that's also from the perspective of I
[1:00:25] want to go back to this well over and over again and now they're
[1:00:28] telling me I can't, I'm upset about
[1:00:31] that. I mean, like, you know, we've had
[1:00:32] that conversation here. Um, but
[1:00:37] if part of our goal is to increase
[1:00:40] access and opportunity, we should cons
[1:00:43] we should consider that. I I can argue
[1:00:46] both ways.
[1:00:49] the the the part of growing the event um
[1:00:52] by the 20% too is that there are very
[1:00:55] few applicants that truly do hit the
[1:00:58] mark on the overnight guest rooms. And
[1:01:01] for them to attract that individual to
[1:01:05] actually stay the night, there does need
[1:01:07] to be some significant change to events
[1:01:10] because when we go through that
[1:01:13] evaluation process, you will see that's
[1:01:15] why we have started from 0 to 25, right?
[1:01:18] If you looked at the ratio of the funds
[1:01:20] that we're um distributing to the tax
[1:01:24] dollars that they're generating, it's
[1:01:26] very out of sync. So to challenge them
[1:01:29] to really get past that, to innovate I
[1:01:31] think is very important.
[1:01:36] » Yeah, I agree with what's been said. I
[1:01:38] would say perhaps we just note that
[1:01:40] either 20% growth or new audience like
[1:01:43] so something that's going to attract a
[1:01:45] new or out of area audience something
[1:01:47] like that
[1:01:48] >> would be consideration. Yeah. How are we
[1:01:51] comfortable with their estimation that
[1:01:54] they're going to bring in 20% more?
[1:01:57] >> That part to me, I wasn't really
[1:02:00] sure how
[1:02:02] >> again
[1:02:03] how what what's the basis? How are we
[1:02:05] saying we feeling confident that they
[1:02:07] truly are going to bring in 20% more?
[1:02:10] >> Yeah. Um that's a great question. I
[1:02:12] think for the example I would use that
[1:02:15] four days of aloha was one of them to
[1:02:17] reference that in where they said that
[1:02:20] they were targeting they haven't
[1:02:22] contracted yet but that new performer
[1:02:25] would then make me feel confident that
[1:02:27] they are um doing the efforts to
[1:02:30] increase that attendance. So I think
[1:02:32] we're looking for something very
[1:02:33] significantly changing that um structure
[1:02:38] that encourages it but of course it's
[1:02:41] hard to measure too. Right? So, if it's
[1:02:44] someone that has received it based on
[1:02:47] that, let's say um they said they were
[1:02:50] going to grow by 20%. Then if they were
[1:02:53] applying again, I would want to see some
[1:02:55] sort of proof and ticket sales um the
[1:02:58] measurements that Viz Vancouver is
[1:03:00] allowing them to have access to of that
[1:03:02] point in time data, those types of
[1:03:04] things.
[1:03:09] Do we have
[1:03:12] um any thoughts around the what is it
[1:03:15] called the cultural um kind of going
[1:03:18] back to that one why I was thinking we
[1:03:22] should go back to that is someone had
[1:03:24] said um I think it was temple but it's
[1:03:27] you know we don't want to be a fund that
[1:03:29] um folks totally rely on but then I was
[1:03:32] thinking if you are one of the the uh
[1:03:36] organizations that's proposing a new
[1:03:38] event. Um, you actually could use some
[1:03:42] stability. And so I'm wondering how
[1:03:44] comfortable we feel with and if we even
[1:03:47] can do this, but actually give them
[1:03:50] assurance that they've just won a
[1:03:51] two-year award instead of a one-year
[1:03:53] award. So, they're still getting a
[1:03:56] $5,000 award for one year, but they also
[1:03:59] now can count on that $5,000 award for
[1:04:01] next year. Just throwing it out there.
[1:04:04] like a stability for a new
[1:04:07] event to get going.
[1:04:11] >> I definitely can see that and um work
[1:04:14] often with groups that have a need for
[1:04:16] that. I would say we would really want
[1:04:19] to look at the contracting process of
[1:04:21] their venues. I think we've seen a lot
[1:04:24] of variation from application to
[1:04:26] actualization
[1:04:28] and I I'm not even sure if venues are
[1:04:31] contracting that far out. Um, so the
[1:04:34] commitments that they would need to make
[1:04:36] to say that they were going to actually
[1:04:38] do it under the that scope of work too,
[1:04:40] I think would need to be um part of our
[1:04:44] consideration.
[1:04:51] » Yeah, I think that's a lot of good
[1:04:52] things for us to discuss. Um, and just
[1:04:54] kind of
[1:04:56] hopefully the next meeting will get us
[1:04:57] to the point where we're closer to a
[1:04:59] final list. Um,
[1:05:01] I I just want to look really quick on
[1:05:03] the process improvement. I know we're
[1:05:04] past 1:00. Uh, I know we're technically
[1:05:06] booked until 1:30, but we'll I just want
[1:05:09] to do just kind of quick run through on
[1:05:12] some of the other process improvement
[1:05:13] items that we could talk about. Um, part
[1:05:17] of that is the credit clause obviously
[1:05:18] in our contract. Um,
[1:05:21] do are there any initial um, thoughts,
[1:05:24] feelings about how we would want to
[1:05:26] enforce that? Um,
[1:05:29] like I said, historically it's been a
[1:05:31] little hit or miss. Um, at this point in
[1:05:34] time, the idea is that we require them
[1:05:37] to submit any written materials that
[1:05:39] they've developed with our with their uh
[1:05:43] final report. Um,
[1:05:46] again, sometimes that might be a little
[1:05:48] late in the game to truly evaluate like
[1:05:50] we may have already reimbured them at
[1:05:51] that point in time. Um the other side of
[1:05:54] it too is it is a contracting clause but
[1:05:57] so how can we enforce that? Um or what
[1:06:01] is our level of interest in doing it as
[1:06:04] a punishment or would it be something
[1:06:06] that would potentially impact future
[1:06:08] applications like we saw that you
[1:06:09] received this award. We didn't see any
[1:06:12] credit on any of your marketing
[1:06:13] materials. This would result in this
[1:06:16] kind of impact on your scoring for your
[1:06:18] next round. Uh so just kind of multiple
[1:06:22] different ways that we can look at it.
[1:06:24] Again, we don't need to dive into it in
[1:06:25] incredible depth right now. Um
[1:06:29] next meeting, like like I said, it's
[1:06:31] going to be more of a final workshop to
[1:06:33] work through. Try to get as much final
[1:06:34] detail on these things as possible. Um
[1:06:37] and then from there we would um well
[1:06:40] I'll I'll do that on the final um on the
[1:06:42] next
[1:06:43] >> quick recommendation
[1:06:45] right now would be just kind of a
[1:06:47] percentage perhaps penalty if if it is
[1:06:50] caught before you fully paid the grant.
[1:06:54] And then if you have already paid the
[1:06:57] grant, then to your point, maybe it's
[1:06:58] the future application
[1:07:01] that where they get a a deduction.
[1:07:05] And yeah, if we have to want to fully
[1:07:08] discuss this next time, maybe that's
[1:07:09] something we can think about.
[1:07:12] >> Um, another piece that came up this year
[1:07:15] of just identifying the kind of things
[1:07:17] that would constitute a scope change.
[1:07:18] Um, obviously like when what we ran into
[1:07:21] with the Queer Community Network, um,
[1:07:24] them needing to scramble and find a
[1:07:26] completely different location or date or
[1:07:28] the combination of the two. Um, that was
[1:07:30] a pretty substantial scope of change.
[1:07:32] So, we wanted to have a little bit more
[1:07:33] of a formal process with it. Um, but it
[1:07:37] would be good for us to kind of build
[1:07:38] out how we want to approach those things
[1:07:40] in the future.
[1:07:42] Um, any other items that
[1:07:48] we feel like we would want to formalize
[1:07:51] a little bit more.
[1:07:55] I'm not sure if it falls under this
[1:07:56] category or not, but we've talked about
[1:07:58] a outside of the debt obligation, a
[1:08:01] reserve fund.
[1:08:02] And so I don't think it needs to be in
[1:08:04] an application or anything like that or
[1:08:06] for the process for the applicants, but
[1:08:08] >> or just our ability to have that
[1:08:11] flexibility, but not necessarily. We
[1:08:13] could talk more in depth about whether
[1:08:15] or not we want that, but
[1:08:17] >> that's interesting. particularly for
[1:08:18] like a catalyst type, you know, holding
[1:08:20] some type of non-restricted reserve fund
[1:08:23] for some larger catalyst, you know,
[1:08:24] where there's a sporting event, a FIFA
[1:08:26] type, you know, thing.
[1:08:27] >> Yes.
[1:08:31] » We know it's coming.
[1:08:34] >> Some of those have very long runways too
[1:08:35] on them.
[1:08:41] » Okay. Absolutely. Um or even for just
[1:08:45] years, right? So you think you know
[1:08:46] pandemic or some other outside force
[1:08:48] causes a lower number of hotels for for
[1:08:51] a single year just to create some
[1:08:52] stability to be able to generate not be
[1:08:55] lagging in terms of our ability to
[1:08:57] create some impact for future years.
[1:08:59] >> And that was one consideration with the
[1:09:01] awards this last year is um with the
[1:09:03] industry projecting 3% decrease in
[1:09:05] overnight stays, we held in reserve. We
[1:09:08] didn't fully fund all of the amount of
[1:09:10] dollars that we had available to us. And
[1:09:11] so, yeah, having a more strategic
[1:09:13] reserve like that makes a lot of sense.
[1:09:16] Um, okay. Uh, like I said, I know we're
[1:09:19] getting closer to time, so we don't need
[1:09:20] to spend a lot of time on this. We'll devote the majority of next
[1:09:24] meeting to talking about all of these
[1:09:26] topics again, but hopefully get it a
[1:09:27] little more clarity and true guidance of
[1:09:30] what we want to enforce. Um, so just a
[1:09:33] quick upstep overview. Next one's going
[1:09:35] to be that workshop style meeting where
[1:09:37] we're sitting down and hopefully having
[1:09:40] a final list and final decision on what
[1:09:43] each one of those items are. Um, we've
[1:09:46] kind of done that initial brainstorming.
[1:09:48] We presented some different ideas. Um,
[1:09:50] so we would want to get as close to
[1:09:51] final as that as possible. Um, from
[1:09:54] there the next step would be finalizing
[1:09:55] the standards and criteria. And we can
[1:09:57] talk about whether we want to do that as
[1:09:59] if we get it far enough in the next
[1:10:00] meeting. Is it just a matter of staff
[1:10:01] compiling the document and then sharing
[1:10:03] it out for approval or is it something
[1:10:05] that might require additional work still
[1:10:07] and then we might want to look at having
[1:10:08] a subcommittee work group to just kind
[1:10:10] of get things across the finish line
[1:10:12] take all the feedback from all of the
[1:10:14] different members. Um that would be a
[1:10:16] again staffled idea but we can talk
[1:10:18] about that next meeting what our comfort
[1:10:20] level with that is. Um, and then, uh,
[1:10:24] depending on that piece, um, if it is
[1:10:26] just something that staff can quickly
[1:10:27] compile, we'll be approving kind of the
[1:10:30] guideline document at the May 13th
[1:10:32] meeting. If it takes additional work, we probably be pushing that back to June
[1:10:36] 10th. That way, it's all ready and
[1:10:37] available for us for the next grant cycle that starts in August. Um,
[1:10:43] really quick, I'm gonna I just want to
[1:10:46] give you all a
[1:10:48] more thorough overview of kind of what
[1:10:50] the next steps are.
[1:10:53] add the contract
[1:10:54] >> and I I'll add to you um next meeting
[1:10:57] too is kind of what I had asked last my
[1:11:00] first meeting with you guys was um if we
[1:11:03] do have this scoring system and we feel
[1:11:05] confident with it would we actually have
[1:11:07] some applicants that are they've met the
[1:11:10] scoring um and they just immediately are
[1:11:12] awarded and they don't have to come in
[1:11:14] for the interview
[1:11:17] >> just throw that out there
[1:11:20] >> threshold the rest of you still
[1:11:22] >> we'll dive into the the grant process a
[1:11:23] little bit more in June as well. Okay.
[1:11:25] Um
[1:11:26] >> so some of those pieces might fall under
[1:11:28] a little bit more into the grant
[1:11:29] process, but um this is just kind of a
[1:11:31] highle overview of taking what you all
[1:11:33] shared with us last meeting. I wanted to
[1:11:35] give you a little bit of a quick
[1:11:37] picture. Um this is still not final. It
[1:11:39] can be adjusted. Um and this is very
[1:11:42] tiny. So see if I can get this big
[1:11:46] enough. Um anyways, so uh for the April
[1:11:50] meeting, we're looking at a standards
[1:11:52] and criteria workshop. Um then
[1:11:55] determining the next steps. May 13th at
[1:11:58] this point in time um visit Vancouver's
[1:12:01] going to come in and they'll do a
[1:12:02] presentation on just the state of
[1:12:05] tourism um and destination master plan
[1:12:08] progress for you all. Um also what I
[1:12:11] would like to do is I want to do kind of
[1:12:13] more of a partner recipient panel. Um,
[1:12:15] Visit Vancouver's already committed to
[1:12:17] being a part of that. I was thinking we
[1:12:18] could invite someone um like four days
[1:12:21] of Aloha to come in and um talk about
[1:12:24] what they're doing. Um maybe VDA to talk
[1:12:27] about um what I want to use this panel
[1:12:30] for is kind of an opportunity for us to
[1:12:31] pick people's brains about what has made
[1:12:34] the event successful or what is working
[1:12:36] in different areas of town that could be
[1:12:38] implemented to increase events outside
[1:12:41] of downtown or offseason events. Um, and
[1:12:44] also I was considering um, inviting Sean
[1:12:48] from Permit, the special events team,
[1:12:50] just to talk about maybe what facilities
[1:12:52] are available outside of the downtown
[1:12:53] area. Um, other barriers or obstacles
[1:12:56] that you may have run into working with
[1:12:58] people that are applying for permits um,
[1:13:00] for offseason or out of downtown events
[1:13:03] as well. Um, so if you all have any
[1:13:05] other ideas for folks that you might
[1:13:07] want to hear from, that's just kind of a
[1:13:09] rough outline of what I was thinking for
[1:13:10] the May meeting. Um,
[1:13:13] but yeah.
[1:13:14] >> Okay.
[1:13:14] >> And then for June, like I said, that's
[1:13:18] when we're going to really dive into a
[1:13:19] little bit more of the grant application
[1:13:21] process. Um, and just the budget
[1:13:24] picture. Um, all budget uh requests are
[1:13:27] due by June 21st. So, this meeting is a
[1:13:30] good is good time for that so that we
[1:13:31] can kind of formulate what kind of um
[1:13:33] requests we want to submit for the
[1:13:36] committee funds. At that point in time,
[1:13:38] I'll provide um a lot of the information
[1:13:41] that I that I've found from the
[1:13:43] five-year analysis and just kind of give
[1:13:44] you a current snapshot of what the
[1:13:46] fiscal picture is for the funds. Um what
[1:13:49] may be happening going forward and then
[1:13:51] we're going to do the goal strategies,
[1:13:52] those pieces uh for application. Um so
[1:13:56] this calendar that I built out, it's
[1:13:57] combination of meeting schedule, but
[1:13:58] then all the orange events are specific
[1:14:00] to the grant process. Um, at this point
[1:14:04] in time, this is they c they can be open
[1:14:07] to change, but we're looking at
[1:14:08] cancelling the July and August meeting.
[1:14:10] That way, you all have kind of the
[1:14:11] summer months to do your thing. We'll
[1:14:13] post and get the applications out very
[1:14:16] beginning of August because we're
[1:14:18] looking at getting them to council the
[1:14:19] first week of or um yes, the first
[1:14:22] meeting of December.
[1:14:25] So, second week, but first meeting of
[1:14:27] December.
[1:14:29] Um
[1:14:30] and then
[1:14:33] uh right before we start the scoring
[1:14:35] process uh we'll do um
[1:14:40] again we'll talk about just the grant um
[1:14:43] we'll look at what okay sorry um so in
[1:14:46] June um we'll kind of start that initial
[1:14:48] conversation of putting holds on
[1:14:49] calendars for the review process for
[1:14:51] presentations those kind of things
[1:14:54] understanding that things will change so
[1:14:55] we'll review we'll revisit that again in
[1:14:57] September just make sure there aren't
[1:14:58] any major conflicts that we need to
[1:15:00] change those dates or move things
[1:15:02] around. Um,
[1:15:05] I'm looking to get some guidance from
[1:15:06] the city manager's office at this point
[1:15:08] in time on just kind of funding
[1:15:10] priorities of the city. That way we can
[1:15:12] kind of get a a more general snapshot of
[1:15:14] really what areas they're trying to
[1:15:16] emphasize and what they envision these
[1:15:18] funds supporting. Um,
[1:15:21] >> city council.
[1:15:23] >> Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um, and then
[1:15:28] from there, uh, we'll probably do kind
[1:15:30] of an update of some of the city
[1:15:32] projects and priorities. Um, and then
[1:15:35] may may bring in, uh, parks again to
[1:15:38] talk about the permitting process. Um,
[1:15:40] we we'll see about time constraints or
[1:15:43] whether that fits or not. Um, and then
[1:15:47] October is going to be October, November
[1:15:49] is a heavy heavy two months for us. Um,
[1:15:51] at this point in time, I already I I
[1:15:55] noticed going through this process, we
[1:15:56] have a meeting scheduled for Veterans
[1:15:58] Day. That's we're going to have to
[1:15:59] cancel that. Um, but that is right in
[1:16:02] the middle of our whole application
[1:16:03] process reviewing time. So, I feel like
[1:16:05] we can fill that in when we're talking
[1:16:06] about the June event, um, the June
[1:16:09] scheduling just to make sure that we
[1:16:10] have enough days and holds put on the
[1:16:12] calendar. So, um, there there will there
[1:16:16] will be three LTE meetings most likely
[1:16:18] coming off of your calendar. uh the
[1:16:20] July, August, and November ones. Uh
[1:16:23] November will be replaced by multiple
[1:16:24] ones. Um and yeah,
[1:16:28] >> were you planning to be in front of city
[1:16:30] council like in May or June time frame?
[1:16:32] Is that how you're going to get
[1:16:34] feedback?
[1:16:36] >> Um or it would be more of a memo
[1:16:39] process. Um
[1:16:42] and yeah, if you want to help facilitate
[1:16:45] or give me ideas about how we can best
[1:16:47] do that, that would be
[1:16:48] >> all right. that would be helpful. Um
[1:16:51] that that way I mean we're making
[1:16:52] recommendations to city council. We want
[1:16:54] to make sure that that what we're
[1:16:55] recommending aligns with what forward.
[1:16:58] So
[1:17:00] that's just kind of a high level of
[1:17:01] where the year is going. Um if this it I
[1:17:04] can share this with you all if it
[1:17:05] doesn't meet what what you're thinking
[1:17:06] or what you're looking for. Um it's
[1:17:08] flexible and we move things around. Try
[1:17:10] to be somewhat intentional with how we
[1:17:12] built out the timeline and the process
[1:17:14] with it so it actually applies to what
[1:17:15] we're most focused on during that time.
[1:17:18] But yeah,
[1:17:19] >> that's where we're going. Um, and then
[1:17:22] just the last um just reminder for you
[1:17:25] all, we are still um recruiting for two
[1:17:28] new board members. Uh the very last
[1:17:30] slide of the presentation that I sent
[1:17:32] out to you all has a link to the boards
[1:17:34] and commissions web page. If you know
[1:17:36] anyone that you want to send that link
[1:17:37] to, great. Um I will also I'll be at an
[1:17:42] event next Wednesday or um just an open
[1:17:45] boards and commissions general
[1:17:46] openhouse. Um, so if you have anyone
[1:17:49] that's near the Cascade Park Library and
[1:17:51] you want to send them, I I can talk to
[1:17:54] them. So,
[1:17:57] >> well, I think that's all our business
[1:17:59] then, right?
[1:17:59] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:18:00] >> All right. Let's uh adjourn. Thank you
[1:18:02] everybody.
[1:18:03] >> Thank you.
[1:18:07] » So, are you familiar with the
[1:18:10] circulatory?
[1:18:14] » I've heard of it. that. So I would