Welcome everyone. I, Council Member Joe,
call the May 12th, 2026 City Council
Mobility and Infrastructure Committee
meeting to order. There are no unexcused
absences. Thank you all for being
present. And just a welcome to Council
Member Boyd for joining our committee.
Um, the work you've been doing has been
exemplary. uh on council. We appreciate
you joining this committee to add your
talents here. Also want to welcome
council president uh to Martz. Um you
and I were talking before and you
haven't been on this committee since
what 2014
>> something
>> 2014. Nothing's really changed so you
should be fine. All right. That will
then take us that will then take us to
uh public comment. This is an
opportunity to provide general comments
to this committee. There'll there'll
also be an opportunity for public
comments on the agenda after each item
and presentation.
And um we typically do that after the
committee's question and answer period.
Madam clerk, are there any people signed
up or online that wish to speak?
>> Yes, I do have someone online who wishes
to speak uh and someone in the room who
is also signed up.
>> Okay. Comments can be made virtually or
in person. Those who have signed up in
advance will be called on first. If
you're joining virtually and would like
to make comments, please raise your hand
or send the host a chat message. If
you're on the phone, typically it's
press star three, excuse me, asterk
three. If you have joined by computer or
smartphone, look for the hand icon. Um,
if you're in the room and did not sign
up, there'll be an opportunity for you
to raise your hand later if you'd like
to speak before I close this portion of
the meeting. All right.
For those of you here make comment, we
welcome comments related to the TS
squad's programs, projects, services,
and events. Comments related to
political campaigns are not permitted.
When called upon, uh virtual attendee,
please unmute your microphone and state
your name and address in relationship to
the city. Speak clearly and limit your
comments to 5 minutes. Thank you for
sharing your input with us. Clerk,
please call on tonight's commenters.
>> Well, we have lost our virtual attendee.
Uh so I will I will call on our uh our
our uh person in the room who has signed
up as Jim Connixfeld with Samish Plateau
Water. Oh, we have our virtual attendee
back if you would prefer to pass for
now. Okay, I'll call in our virtual
attendee. I see uh Nav Otal. Uh I will
be uh promoting you to a panelist and
then you should be able to unmute
yourself and uh turn on your video.
Okay, I have promoted you to a panelist
now. You should be able to unmute and
turn on your video if you wish.
Sorry about that. Technical
difficulties. Thank you. Thank you.
Sorry I
was joined and waiting and then pressed
the wrong button. Um, thank you so much
for uh this public comment opportunity.
Good evening. My name is Nav Utal. I'm
the president of board of commissioners
of Sumeish Plateau Water District. The
district is redeveloping its existing
water facilities uh to add PAS treatment
uh facility and this facility is
essential for removing PAS uh also known
as forever chemicals and ensuring safe
drinking uh water for our customers.
It's not optional and the location is
also not discretionary. It must be cited
on the current facil uh water facility
for the mobility uh and infrastructure
committee meeting today. Sta city staff
um are recommending an update uh to
street standards agenda item a com 0211
that would one remove requirement that
public agencies building water sewer and
storm capital projects construct full
frontage improvements that is sidewalks
caroben gutter uh planters but it still
requires public agency to pay the cost
as a deposit on future construction and
also it leaves the requirement in place
uh that the public agencies pay to
underground existing overhead utilities
that is Comcast and PSC and others. I
mean we appreciate the staff's effort to
bring forward potential updates to the
street standards. This flexibility will
benefit not only the district's FIFA
facility but also city- owned facil uh
facilities. But the district needs a
full exemption for public agencies
building water sewer and storm capital
projects from from requirements for
frontage improvements and undergrounding
utilities for PAS treatment facility.
leaving the requirement that public
agencies build uh building public
infrastructure must pay cost to include
Comcast uh cost to underground uh
underground Comcast fiber network is
expensive, inequitable and unnecessary.
This project uh along with the street um
uh improvements would cost nearly a
million dollars more for our project.
It's also inequitable. The city projects
get deeply discounted undergrounding
rates because the city has a franchise
agreement under the franchise agreement
that the city um functions um under the
district does not get that discount. Uh
we understand uh that uh the city staff
is recommending options that leave
underground requirements but the uh the
requirement doesn't impact city projects
city's water sewer and uh storm in the
same way that um because of the those
franchise agreements. It's also
unnecessary uh the undergrounding
requirement would apply to only a tiny
stretch of frontage an isolated
comically short segment. It provides no
corridor level benefit uh since the
wires are above ground on either side of
our parcel and doesn't advance the
city's long-term infrastructure vision
and um it will not um and it doesn't
prevent future outages due to windtorms.
It is a really short segment um uh 250
ft. Um
so um we understand that the city um
didn't want to push for a full exemption
for public agency since it it may look
like asking for too much. But the
reality is that um the undergrounding
requirement simply doesn't affect city's
projects the same way that it does the
district. Uh we want to make sure that
you are aware of this disproportionate
impact
and underground um implementing
undergrounding in this peace meal away
imposes significant unnecessary cost to
the rate payers. Um it's a major expense
for an improvement that doesn't
meaningfully serve the city's
infrastructure goals. we are aligned on
long-term uh goals and we just need a
practical equitable path forward on this
project. Uh so the district is uh uh
request that the street standards are
modified to provide an exemption for
public agencies building water sewer and
storm capital projects both frontage and
undergrounding uh undergrounding
utilities for PAS treatment. Uh staff
today will present three options to you.
uh we encourage you to uh uh support
moving option three with modifications
forward to the full council for
consideration. This is a option that uh
uh reads as support modifying the street
standards to allow city engineer to
exempt water sewer and storm utility
development and redevelopment projects
from all street frontage improvements on
sidewalk uh tier three and four streets.
I really appreciate your time and your
attention to this very very important
topic. Thank you,
>> President Otel. Thank you for those
comments. Is there anyone else that
would like to speak online? Madam Clerk?
>> No, not at this time.
>> Okay, seeing none, we'll go to uh
in-person comments.
Okay, I have uh Jim Conixfeld, would you
care to add to what was already said?
>> Okay, I'm getting a no.
>> All right, thank you.
Anyone else online or in the room that
would like to add comments?
Thank you for the comments tonight. Uh
we uh appreciate the point of view that
you're bringing to us on the public
infrastructure requirements for the
project with Seamish sewer and water
platamish plateau water. And uh
as a reminder, written comments can be
submitted at any time to city
councilwa.gov.
And uh those comments are read by
council and council leadership.
The next public comments will now be
closed and the next item on the agenda
will be approval of the minutes. The
minutes were distributed in advance to
the committee. Are there any
corrections?
If no hearing none, then the minutes
will be approved as presented. The next
item of business is
page two like Paul Harvey. uh COOM0211
street standards frontage improvements
for public utility projects and um looks
like we have Jim Jacob, senior
transportation engineer to give us a
presentation. Welcome
Right.
Good evening, council members. Um, here
to my name is Jim Jacobe, senior
transportation engineer with city. I'm
here to present uh the street standards
uh frontage improvements for public
utility projects.
Too tall for the mic. Um,
so I'm I'm Jim Jacobe, senior
transportation engineer with city. I'm
here to present on the street standards
frontage improvements for public utility
projects.
So the purpose of our presentation
tonight is to consider a possible
revision to the street standards to
assist with development and
redevelopment of water, sewer, and storm
water projects.
And the direction we're looking for from
the committee is the administration
would like committee's policy input um
about this possible revision to the
street standards regarding frontage
improvements. Um that's again this is
for water, sewer and storm water
projects.
Uh some background
the this issue was brought to the four
by the Seamish plateau water PAS project
on 1st Avenue Northeast. It's a public
benefit project removing drinking water
contaminants uh funded by rateayers. The
project site is a mostly industrial and
commercial street with you know little
or no pedestrian traffic adjacent to the
site. uh adjacent properties do not have
street frontage improvements
largely
and are unlikely to be redeveloped in
the foreseeable future.
So here's a map of the the site.
The Seamish Plateau site is a the green
box with the arrow pointing to it. Um,
all the areas that you see in red are
areas where we do not currently have
sidewalk.
Uh, the area in yellow just across the
street is the one current section of
sidewalk on the street.
Uh, so that's not adjacent, but it is
across the street from the site.
the there's two spots in uh orange that
are
planned to have sidewalk um or are
currently in construction
right now.
And then in blue is the Isiqua Preston
Regional Trail that while not a
sidewalk, it you know is adjacent to the
road um further south of the site.
So the current street standards for uh
street frontage improvements reads um
essentially all new developments and
redevelopments
and the improvements may include but not
be limited to curbon gutter sidewalk
uh storm drainage illumination traffic
signal modification
utility relocation and undergrounding,
street trees, landscaping, uh, bike
facilities, and street widening.
There is an existing exemption in the
street standards for short plats.
Um,
however, the street standards do not
currently have an exemption for these
types of water, sewer, and storm water
utility projects.
Um the existing exemption for street
plats allows the city engineer to wave
most street frontage improvements,
sidewalk, storm drainage, etc. But it
specifically excludes utility
undergrounding.
Um and it has several requirements, a
couple of which are listed here. You
know, adjacent street footage
improvements are unlikely to be
installed in the future and the city has
no documented street plan for that
street.
So, regarding underground utilities, the
city's comprehensive plan has a couple
of goals that mention uh utility
undergrounding and touch on this. So,
new policy E1 requires undergrounding of
all new electrical distribution lines
where reasonably feasible and encourages
conversion of existing overhead systems
to underground systems.
And then policy E6 establish new or
expanded sites for public facilities,
utilities and infrastructure in a manner
that ensures disaster and climate
resiliency and public service recovery.
So both of these sort of hint or imply
that
um utility undergrounding is is a goal
of the city and specifically for
disaster and climate resiliency.
Um, and council members will likely
remember the bomb cyclone about a year
and a half ago. We got a a pretty good
reminder of why having utilities
underground is
uh beneficial.
You know, many residents were without
power for days, um, sometimes more.
And you know, utilities being
underground means they're a lot less
likely to be taken out by falling
branches during windtorms or snowstorms,
etc.
Um, not to mention, you know, o down
overhead lines are extremely dangerous,
especially power lines.
So,
um, utility undergrounding is
preferable.
So, some options for the committee's
consideration,
you know, option one, make no changes to
the street standards.
Option two, support modifying the street
standards to allow the city engineer to
exempt water, sewer, and storm water
development and redevelopment projects
from street footage improvements except
utility undergrounding on sidewalk tier
three and four streets.
Um, and as a reminder, sidewalk tier
three and four is areas outside of
central Isiqua,
uh,
Oldtown and Isiqua Highlands and streets
that are not within a quarter mile of
community amenities like schools and
senior centers.
And then option three, support modifying
the street standards to allow city
engineer to exempt um these public
utility projects for all street frontage
improvements on sidewalk tier three and
four streets.
So the administration's recommending an
exemption be added to the street
standards for frontage improvements on
public utility projects that meet the
following conditions. Um the project is
a public drinking water, sanitary sewer
or storm water development or
redevelopment
located on sidewalk tier three and four
streets for the mobility action plan.
Again, these are low traffic volume
streets outside of um central Isiqua,
Oldtown and Highlands and not within a
quarter mile of school, senior centers
and other community amenities.
Um,
also, uh, adjacent street footage
improvements are unlikely to be
installed in the future, and the city
has no documented street plan for the
subject street.
So, timing and next steps. If the
committee would like to pursue a a
revision to the street standards,
um a draft would be
uh created and presented to council for
approval.
Committee does not wish to move forward
with revising the street standards. No
further action required.
So again, uh the administration is
looking for the committee's policy input
on possible revision to street standards
for frontage improvements on these
public utility projects.
Um and looking for
your uh your input.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Um
there was a amendment to the agenda
um that
sent a map to us with the overhead
lines on the map. Um Cassie, you sent
that out to us, did you not?
Um, I was wondering if you have that and
can put that up there just so the
committee has a better idea of how the
structure infrastructure is for overhead
and underground
lines in that particular area. We're
requiring the water district to put a
line underground there um at Frontler
property.
Are there other um underground lines in
that area that you can point out or are
are they all overhead there?
So there are quite a lot overhead. Um
I put together this map. Uh yeah, we can
see it on the screen now. Uh so
currently everywhere you see
red lines and the yellow lines there are
uh overhead transmission.
Um all the areas in red also have
you know communications and
direct connection to different
properties.
So,
as you can see, it continues all the way
down the street in front of the site and
then takes a turn towards Juniper and
then continues down through the public
works facility.
Just to give you an idea of what that
looks like,
these are some street view photos of the
project site.
So, for reference, there are the much
taller overhead transmission lines.
Those do not get undergrounded. Um, but
as you can see, they're taller than most
of the trees anyway. Um, so what we'd be
talking about are these lower
utility lines here on this this other
pole.
And as you can see, there's, you know,
tree branches intermingled with with
these lines currently.
And here's kind of a view of the other
side. So again, these
um higher uh higher power transmission
lines would not be undergrounded and it
would would just be talking about these
lines that are
kind of right here in the trees.
Okay, that's a little bit interesting
because
if I'm hearing you correctly, we would
have lines that go across and then on
this uh plateau water district property,
it would go underground for a little bit
and then would jag back up as it heads
over toward our public works facility.
Is that a correct kind of picture of
what we're looking at?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And let's talk about the utilities
for those uh poles. Um
when the pole gets taken out and and
it's dead, the uh company PSC will come
and cut the top off and then we have to
remove the utilities off of each one of
those. That could be Comcast, AT&T,
Verizon, Ziply, Zo, Astound. All those
companies are ones that might have
equipment on there. And um if we have
the water district do that, it's my
understanding they have to get a rideway
permit
for each of the comp each of the
companies would need a rideway permit
and a traffic control plan and then
would have to
schedule their time to take that
equipment off. Um, and then once the top
company was off, let's say it's Comcast,
you have to go to the next one, which
might be Ziply, and then the next one
after that. Um, have you had any
experience in terms of how long those
delays can be for uh taking down a pole
and then making it go from overhead to
underground?
>> Uh, my experience, it can take several
months.
>> Okay.
Um, in my, uh, other job, um, I've had
builders that have, it's taken 9 to 12
months to get a line underground. So,
you're you're about in the right
ballpark there. Another challenge that
can happen and and I'm just going to
talk about and see if I'm right about it
is that if Comcast has to take their
their items off of the pole and
underground it, there could be a
situation where they don't have relay
stations that are close enough or they
don't have other equipment that can
support that underground unit and often
times they might have to re-engineer
uh some of the distribution and the the
systems there. Have you ever had that
kind of experience and and can you tell
us a little bit more about that?
>> Um I have not personally
>> director Moon.
>> Okay. Um that kind of goes into the same
experience that our builders have talked
about a little bit on my other job. Um
so I just want the committee to be aware
of that. Um taking that system down
could be 9 to 12 months uh along the way
that could add to costs. So, um just a
bit of information on that. Now, are
there plans to underground any of the
public works
um lines and how far out in the future
might that be if we're talking about
trying to have a cohesive continuous
system that'll give good power to our
EOC and our public works in the event of
a natural disaster?
>> Emily Moon, public works director. There
are no current projects right now on the
CIP that would require that. But as the
committee members, council members know,
uh there has been a longstanding plan
for a phase 2 expansion of the public
works facility. And there's
contemplation about other public
utilities that might need to be cited in
the vicinity. And uh through those
projects development redevelopment
city, depending on how the council feels
about this proposal would have to also
underground those facilities.
>> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.
Questions from other committee members.
Council President Marts.
>> Thank you, Chair Joe. Uh can you talk a
little bit just about the rationale on
um recommending some but not all of the
exemptions that were sought by Seamish
Plateau Water.
Yeah. So I I br I brought up the the
current exemption for short plats and
mentioned that that one does not include
undergrounding. Um, so essentially we're
trying to craft a very limited scope
exemption, you know, uh, tier three and
four sidewalk streets,
um, only public utility projects and
sort of following the same sort of
guidelines that are already in the
street standards for that uh, short plat
exemption.
>> Okay, thank you.
Other
questions?
Okay. Um,
in terms of the project itself,
um, I understand that it, uh, is
necessary because we're trying to remove
POS from our water system overall and
this is, um, the water district's, uh,
effort to do that. Can you tell us a
little bit more about uh their effort to
do that, how this facility will achieve
that and then how it fits in with our
overall plan for removal of POS from our
system that mayor Paulie was so diligent
in starting during her time as mayor.
uh committee that the Seamash Plateau
Water District is pursuing a similar
sort of facility much bigger uh than we
have at the Gilman Wells. So this will
be uh to the best of my understanding a
granular granular activated carbon
filtration system and uh so it will
function a lot the way the way that our
Gilman wells uh filtration does and it
will service their water supply area. It
will hopefully enable them to get u some
wells back online that are currently
offline uh because of the presence of
PAS above um regulated levels or soon to
be regulated levels. Uh
that uh has uh no I think impact um on
our projects and our process for uh
treating is aqua service area. Um but
clearly we uh operate in similar spaces.
We have uh similar I think um concerns
about PAS and the drinking water supply
and and both parties are taking uh as
many steps as possible to try to
mitigate for that.
>> Great. Thank you. Other questions from
the committee before I open it up for
public comment?
Okay. Not seeing any uh for COM 0211
street standards. We'll open this up for
uh public comments on the agenda item.
As stated earlier, comments can be made
in person or virtually. Those who have
signed up in advance will be called on
first. Madam clerk, do we have anyone
online that would like to make comment
on this particular item?
>> Yes, chair, we do.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Miss Hotel, I will be promoting
you again to a panelist. You will be
able to unmute your microphone and share
your video if you wish.
>> Hi there. Thank you. Thank you for
allowing for uh additional comments. Um
what I would like to emphasize is that
um even the uh proposed exemption for
street front improvements doesn't really
reduce our costs for that. we still
would have to pay um uh in advance for
improvements that may not happen for a
long long time. So even that that
exemption that is uh um allowed for um
short plats it it does not have as much
of a benefit um as we um as we'd like.
But what really has a huge impact but
that and the undergrounding and again uh
it does not move the uh the city's
vision for um uh undergrounding
infrastructure uh one bit based on the
area that we're talking about. So I
really implore you to consider a full
exemption not just a um uh not just a
payment in advance or uh uh not
including exemption for undergrounding.
Thank you.
>> Thank you. Anyone else online that would
like to make comment?
>> No, chair.
>> Okay. In person comment, please.
>> If you could step up and identify
yourself, and we'd appreciate hearing
your comments.
>> Uh, my name is Jim Kaningsfeld. I am
with the Smeamish Plateau Water. I am
the project engineer for the PAS
treatment a well-known PAST treatment
project. Um I was going to let NAV do
all the talking but you brought up some
of questions about the project I want to
fill you in on. Uh regarding the trees,
we are going to remove a bunch of the
trees on our property along the frontage
as part of this project because actually
the sidewalk and storm was going to
impact the root structure. Um, if we
didn't have to do that frontage
improvements at this time, I'd probably
still remove those trees and replace
them with others as part of the project
because they are, you know, they are um
they're overgrown for the area that they
serve. Not all of them, but uh we were
required to put those in when the
original building was built. So, they
are overgrown. If you look at the photo
that was provided, the power lines are
high up, not the transmission, but the
distribution lines are above the tree
lines. What's going in between are the
Comcast and one unknown fiber. Um, to
relocate the power and com uh Comcast is
like $500,000.
Comcast is starting out at $300,000.
They have 800 pairs of fiber optics for
5,000 ft that have to be relocated
uh for this project. And so along
Juniper, anytime one of those properties
was to cuz everything turns on Juniper,
anytime like Minute Man was to develop,
you'd go underneath the ground. The next
property is a um electrical company I
think or air conditioning if they which
they never they're not planning on
redeveloping. They already improved
their septic system. And then you got
the cannabis. So none of that will be
undergrounded for a long time. So we
would be 230 ft of uh work that Comcast
would have to do. that would have to
half of that would have to be redone for
any other property because all that
cable would have to be pulled back out,
put back in and re-placed. So, it's just
a it's a lot of money for something
that's not going to provide a lot of
benefit. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
Anyone else in person or online that
would like to comment?
All right. Seeing none, we will close
public comments on this particular uh
item. Uh now we're to the point of
deliberation. Council members,
who wants to go first?
>> All right, Council Member Boyd.
>> Um
sorry. Uh,
I have a lot of thoughts and I think I'm
just um
still scattered. This is my first
committee. So, um, thank you for your
patience with me.
I don't quite know who to ask this to.
I'm not sure if it's uh you, but um,
would normally would something like this
come before the transportation advisory
board or not because it's it's one
single project and property and Okay.
Thank you. That's helping understand or
just helping me understand it. Um
I'm curious how this fits into
the administration has highlighted um
that waiting to build things tends to
make them more costly. And so I know
that
there isn't any long-term plan uh for
this to be redeveloped or the other
properties surrounding it, but um
I don't know. Are we I guess are we
kicking the can down the road for like
generations down? I know it's only that
small amount of you know 200 ft and
change. Um,
and then can I get some clarity too on
the um
what we're deliberating is a blanket
proposal for any and all future
utilities.
Okay.
I'm a little wary of that just
initially, but I'd love to hear your
thoughts, committee members.
>> Okay. Um, just so we have a record, um,
you nodded your head or gave a response,
but could you give oral responses so it
gets on the tape for everyone that might
be listening in?
>> Sure. U, so yes, the the proposal is or
the recommendation is for um, you know,
kind of a a broad
exemption possibility for public utility
projects. Again, it's narrowed because
it's only applies to those sidewalk tier
three and four streets. So, you know,
most of the core of the city would not
um this would not be applicable. Um but
yes, it it would apply for future city
projects.
>> Okay. Thank you, Council President.
Yeah, I I I will need to ask the uh
director a question. If we go with
option three, is that a problem? Like
there will be will there be nashing of
teeth and rending of of departments?
>> I don't think there will be nashing of
teeth. Uh clearly we wanted to make sure
it was understood and uh your questions
tonight demonstrate it is understood
that this exemption would apply to the
city. you are all aware that we operate
right down the street and that there are
future plans contemplated um so the city
would benefit from um an exemption
whether it's partial or the full um when
we get to the point where we're ready to
develop um
that's a policy question you know
whether whether you want to treat us and
other utilities as a developer
differently than you might treat other
types of developers in the community.
>> Thank you for that explanation. I think
I'm in favor of option three at this
point. You know, I've been doing this
long enough to remember when it was the
Smamish Plateau Water and Sewer District
and um the city has not always had a
great relationship. Uh and we don't have
to go into all those details um but I'm
pleased that we do now. And I feel as a
fellow utility uh provider
um this is a section of town that um you
know I won't be around before all the
other parcels on all sides of this uh
are developed and uh have have
um underground
services. So I think that the risk of um
you know the benefit for the district is
high uh to to give them exemption um on
all the pieces of it and the and the um
detriment to the city is low and so
that's my that's my thought.
>> Thank you. Council member Boyd would you
like to comment on your thoughts?
Um
yeah, this is a
I feel like this shouldn't be as much of
a so tough for me that it is worth it is
a um how would you put it that the the
benefit is very high. I understand that
as someone who is in this manage plateau
water district like I understand um the
effect to rateayers because I'm right
there with them
and I think I'm just struggling with the
principle of um exempting what I see as
ourselves and or utility districts our
partner utility district um
but
I understand
the why.
Okay. Thank you. Um,
like Council President Mars, I I
remember in 1999 and 2000 when I was
first on council, the nature of the
relationship between the city and the uh
Plateau Water and Sewer District was not
uh the the greatest. um since I've been
serving on Cascade Water Alliance as our
representative had an opportunity to um
get to know and work with uh members
from
uh the water district and uh I think the
relationship is certainly as you
characterize a lot better. Um, I would
agree that the uh benefit to a public
utility that is providing a service of
removing a dangerous chemical or at
least a cancer-causing chemical from the
water. Um, by doing the upgrades to this
particular property has a a a high
benefit to our citizens in town that are
um customers, but also those in Smamish
that are customers. and it overall helps
the the well-being and health of of the
community. Also, the fact that it's a
rather short area of area of sidewalk
that we're asking them to underground
also um plays into my support for option
three. Um moreover, the the costs, as I
pointed out, can be quite high and the
delays in the plan can be quite high.
Um, and that is not something that uh I
I want to have for this particular
project. Um, lastly, looking at the
pictures, thanks for the pictures of the
power line. Even if we do take down the
power lines that are the low ones that
we're asking to have taken down, the
high ones will still be there uh anyway.
Um so um we don't really gain that much
in terms of um improvement of uh the
scenery or improvement of the general um
wooded hillside views etc along the way.
So I am inclined to support
option three as well in this particular
case. Um and uh I think if we're all in
agreement that would be the
recommendation that we would ask the
administration to bring back to um the
commit to the full council at an
appropriate date. Does that seem like
the action we would like to take? Oh, go
ahead. Count
>> uh so the trees are being removed and
I'm I I'm asking because I don't want to
assume that there's a requirement for
them to be replanted.
Okay. Okay. Thank you.
>> What was the answer to that? Is there a
requirement for street trees?
>> Yes, I I believe that is a is a a land
use requirement that any trees taken
down have to be replaced.
>> Okay. But we have made um some progress,
let's say, in terms of the types of
trees that we plant along the streets
such that um we know that they won't
grow too high or too fast to disturb the
lines quickly and the root systems are
not um close to the ground and such that
they will buckle uh the sidewalk or the
streets. Is that your understanding as
well?
>> That that is my understanding. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you. With that, did that
answer everyone's questions? And are we
okay supporting it? It can be a 2-1, it
can be a 3 0. It um or it can be a
denial of three and we go back and
discuss some more. So, um no one is uh
obliged to vote anyway in particular,
but I think we have two votes for three
and then um Council Boyd, if you'd like
to express your point of view.
I think I'm just really struggling with
a blanket uh a blanket change.
So,
I think I won't be voting in the same
direction.
>> Okay.
>> But I'm looking forward towards the
discussion.
>> Would you like a 2-1 vote registered or
a two and an abstain?
>> A 2-1.
>> A 2-1. Very good. Madame clerk, could
you record a 2-1 vote for support of
option number three and direct it back
to council for their deliberation at an
appropriate date?
>> Yes, chair.
>> All right. Does the administration have
everything they need?
>> Okay,
>> we do. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> All right. That takes us to COOM0212,
the six-year transportation improvement
program.
And here staff will make a presentation
just as we did in the last one. And then
there'll be an opportunity for questions
and then public comment on the topic.
Then after the committee will deliberate
and make recommendations. So, uh,
Director Moon, is this yours or is this
John's?
All right, John. Thank you.
Good evening, Mobility and
Infrastructure Committee. I'm John
Mortonson, city of Isqua, transportation
engineering manager. Give me a few
minutes. So, I'll get the presentation
up.
All right. I'm glad to be here tonight
to talk to you about the six-year
transportation improvement program.
The purpose of tonight's item is to
review the updates to the 2027 to 2032
transportation improvement program and
to receive committee feedback on the
project updates and update thememes.
The direction needed from the committee
tonight are
with regards to the major themes and
changes with this update. Specifically,
the emphasis on small smaller scale
projects prioritizing maintenance over
new construction and the more extensive
use of transportation benefit district
backed debt.
Just a little bit of an overview of
where this all fits in. The city has the
comprehensive plan including the
transportation element which has the
vision and the goals for the
transportation system.
>> Excuse me for just a second. Um, Cassie,
is it possible to get the presentation
as the biggest window up there? Thank
you.
And underneath the comprehensive plan
are functional plans like the climate
action plan and the mobility action plan
which have strategies and actions and
resources which then feed into things
like the transportation improvement
program and the capital improvement
plan.
Little bit of a background on this
update. The city updates the
transportation improvement program or
tip every year as required by state law.
Now the way we do it is in odd number of
years like last year it's done basically
as a chapter within the capital
improvement plan.
And so last year the council adopted the
2027 to 2032 capital improvement plan.
And that's really a time for larger
updates because it's a time for council
to look at all the capital projects as a
whole whether it's a facility or an IT,
a park, a transportation utility, and to
look at the big picture. And for the
most part in even number of years like
this year the updates are done as a
standalone to only the transportation
improvement program and it's a limited
update.
These projects they also feed into how
traffic impact fees are calculated as
well as bicycle and pedestrian
mitigation fees are set. And the
projects in the tip improve facilities
for anticipated impacts of growth and
development and respond to community
needs.
The TIP or transportation improvement
program. It is a six-year list of
planned transportation capital
improvement projects. Includes a summary
of the projects, project costs,
potential funding sources, and when the
projects may occur. It is not a budget.
It is a planning document to help
prepare a budget.
And so some of the reasons why the
projects are included in the TIP, they
satisfy the goals of the mobility action
plan or the transportation element of
the comprehensive plan or other plans or
studies like the transit study that the
city did a few years ago. Sometimes
projects are a result of requests that
are received from the public through
cclick fix or other communication
methods. Sometimes they're also in there
to meet the goals of the administration
which for this goound is maintenance
smaller scale projects with an immediate
benefit including congestion relief as
well as to update projects to align with
project revenues
with the forecasts
tip project prioritization from the
mobility action plan. The mobility
action plan has a scoring criteria that
we look at when we evaluate projects
which really look at improving mobility
within Esqua today, preparing for
growth, creating regional connections
and environmental sustainability.
One of the things that was really
considered as updating the proposed
transportation improvement program were
the revenue and expenditure pressures.
There have been some
delays in the school zone safety camera
deployment on Newport Way and that has
reduced the revenue in the school zone
safety fund from what was in last year's
capital improvement plan.
Also, the administration is proposing to
use debt from the transportation benefit
district to fund projects.
And then another thing that went into
play is when the CIP was developed last
year that there were over prescribed the
real estate excise tax. And so we had to
align the transportation improvement
program to better align with the real
real estate excise tax revenues. And
then there's a lot of regional,
national, and global economic factors
creating uncertainty. The economy is
slowing down, which when that does
happen, usually that's results in more
competitive bids and lower construction
costs, which is well, I wouldn't say an
economic slowdown. It's a good thing,
but when you're just looking at
construction costs, that is a good
thing. But then we have oil which is
very important for the cost of our
projects whether it's the diesel fuel
for the excavator or the liquid asphalt
for the paving that that's going high.
So um lots of uncertainty on where the
project costs will be going.
So now I'm going to go over some of the
updates to the six-year transportation
improvement program.
Some of the projects that were added to
the transportation improvement program
were the front and sunset left turn
improvements project, which I'm going to
that's a project that will it it's been
a concurrency project for years, but
then it also came out of the transit
study that the city did a few years ago
that it would improve
what's currently the 554. I believe
it'll be the 556 come the fall, but the
bus, one of the major buses that goes
through Isiqua and it also will provide
congestion relief at a very congested
intersection. And then the Northwest
Gilman Bridge Rehabilitation Project.
It's the first time
in this document, but council has
already approved the project in the
budget and the grant. So, it's more of a
technicality why it was added. And then
some projects were moved up. The traffic
signal project at Front Street and
Dogwood has been moved up to
have it be parallel and maybe even
combined with the front and sunset
improvement project
as well as the project to repair the
pavement on the if you're heading up the
hill from Cougar Mountain Zoo, you get
to 190th place and 191st Avenue that we
have a pavement repair project there and
that was moved up because
of changes to the storm water
requirements that would make the project
a lot more expensive. So, the goal is to
submit a permit application before July
of next year. That way, the project can
be designed and constructed with the
current storm water manual. Chair Joe, I
see you have a
>> Yes. If if I could could you comment a
little bit more on TR066, the Northwest
Gilman Bridge rehabilitation, why uh
we're doing it in terms of the load that
that bridge can handle and how it
impacts our emergency vehicles. Great
question. The reason why we're doing the
project is it's a seismic retrofit.
There's a couple things going on. As you
mentioned, emergency vehicles. Right
now, it's load limited to
emergency vehicles of a certain size.
And so this project will increase the
capacity where that load limit can be
removed and help emergency vehicles
respond to emergencies more quickly. It
also will
help the bridge in a seismic event.
It'll that's the main purpose of it is
to prepare for a seismic event. This is
I believe the city's oldest bridge. It
was designed by Lacy Morrow. And if
you're driving to Seattle and you're
going over the I90 floating bridge, that
is named after Lacy Morrow.
>> Thank you very much.
>> All right. And then a couple projects
that were moved out into the future. The
I90 crossing is one that was moved out
into the future. The administration
recently completed a planning study that
recommended a
preferred
crossing location and the ad the council
had a lot of questions about it,
especially the costs and the impacts to
Gilman. And so that project has been
moved out into the future to look at
later as well as the transit signal
priority pilot project. And the reason
why that one was moved out, not that
transit signal priority, so that's um
when the traffic signals are designed so
that way they give priority to transit
such as buses. And the reason why was to
align with King County Metro's transit
signal priority guidelines that King
County Metro has a certain threshold of
buses at an intersection that the city
does not currently have. So, we
currently don't have any locations to do
a pilot. And King County Metro's
guidelines also
much prefer doing these improvements
along a corridor rather than at one
location, which is what the pilot
project would have done. So instead, the
administration is proposing when the
time is right to study a corridor for
transit signal priority rather than to
just spend the money on a pilot when a
pilot and according to the guidance from
King County Metro would not be the
recommended action.
I'd mentioned the front and sunset left
turn improvements project and what this
project would do is
change the configuration on there's two
phases depending on how the project
budget comes. But what it would do on
the west leg for traffic heading east
towards the Highlands in Oldtown is it
would add a right through lane and then
make it so that way there would be a
left turn lane. And then on the opposite
side,
the project would convert the existing
right turn lane into a right through
lane and then it would have a left turn
lane. And this project would
significantly reduce the amount of delay
at this intersection.
Some of the primary drivers for changes
to the existing projects. A number of
the projects including two of the
projects along Newport Way were um
staggered in shown into phases um to
show for transparency how they would be
constructed. So, for example, um the
Newport Way projects,
I'll go with Newport Way SR 900 to 54th
because that's going to be the first one
to go to construction. That rather than
trying to show the project as one whole
project, we've broken them down into
what I call tiplets where they are like
TR23A,
TR23B, and so forth. and to show them in
projects that are more easily to
construct rather than long
astronomically expensive projects. And
then the strategic small capital project
was broken out to identify some specific
small capital improvements. This is a
project that came out of the strategic
plan in order to implement the mobility
objective of making small improvements
to the mobility system. But we wanted to
identify small projects that could then
be paired with grants so that way we
could do bigger small projects. And so
that's why we now have
TR58 C through F.
And then um I mentioned earlier about
the road up from the zoo that we're
wanting to accelerate that project in
order to meet the permitting
requirements.
And then the black nugget retaining wall
showed additional funds going to the
project to cover additional project
needs um in order to
address the retaining wall along Black
Nugget Road near the Fred Meyer. And
then the a lot of the IT replacement
projects TR890 91 and 92 those are just
updated based on the current replacement
schedules.
Council President,
>> Council President, you
>> I'm sorry. Can you talk me through um
TR33, the Black Nugget retaining wall?
How big is that project? How much has
been done? How much is left to do? Why
do we have 1.8 listed? And I fear that
1.8 is nowhere near the cost of that
wall.
>> I'm going to phone a friend because I'm
lucky enough to have the project manager
here.
>> Again, Jim Jacobe, senior transportation
engineer. Um, so yeah, the I believe the
1.8 million is the increase in cost that
we're estimating now. The project is
currently uh just past 60% design level.
Um, so we're hoping to construct next
year, but um, obviously costs have have
gone up since, you know, the the project
was initially estimated.
>> So, so what's the total cost of the
project and do we have money for it?
>> Uh, I don't recall the exact number off
the top of my head, but I believe
>> it's an eight-digit number, right?
>> Yeah, we're we're looking at clo No, I
believe it's six million and change.
Okay. Um,
and
I'm sorry, what was the other part of
the question?
>> Uh, just do we do we have it? Do we have
the money for it? Do we know how
>> Yes, that's right. Uh, we don't. Um,
this would need to be likely a uh public
works bond. Um, so it would be debt
funded.
>> And I'm going to ask what's going to
sound like a silly question, but I'm
going to ask it anyhow. Can we get any
of the money from the county because
it's their wall. We inherited it.
>> Uh that that is a good question. Um I
don't know that.
>> Can we ask? I mean, we can't hurt to
ask. They can tell us no. But really
truly, this was this was for people who
don't know. This was unincorporated King
County that got annexed into the city.
There's little pockets of it around and
this retaining wall was one of those
pockets. So, I think we should ask our
friends at the county. Again, the worst
they can say is no. But they kind of
it's their it's their problem. I mean,
now it's our problem, but it was their
problem. They gave it to us.
Thank you.
This slide talks about the projects that
are recommended for transportation
benefit district back debt. Those
include the
Front Street and Dogwood intersection
project, the Newport Way Maple to Sunset
project, the Northwest Mammoth Road
non-motorized improvement project,
TR99 which is the Southeast 56th Bridge
Scour Repair Project, and TR 101, the
190th and Place and 191st Avenue
Southeast project.
else present.
>> Talk to me about TTRO28, Northwest
Seamish Road Nonmotorized Improvement
Project. Um, I see a total cost of $19
million. Uh, I see something like a
million5 in the um in the line item for
this upcoming year. Um,
what's the status of this project?
>> Great question, Council President. The
project is 90% designed. The city has
applied for permits from itself in order
to be able to construct the project and
right now the administration is working
with the franchise utilities on the
details of their utility relocation
including undergrounding the overhead
utilities. The washed out dot fish
passage project is building the bridge
that in the middle of the project
including and it's a forward compatible
bridge that will work with the
improvements that this administration
has planned and next year in the work
plan for this project is to acquire the
temporary construction easements to
construct the project with construction
scheduled in 2028.
>> So what of all those things you just
said is currently funded?
The utility coordination is currently
funded
and the design to the current point is
currently funded and that next year's
ask will be to take the design the rest
of the way to have an ad ready package
and to acquire the temporary
construction easements.
So, of the $19 million, I'm assuming it
says $19 million because that's what we
think the whole project is going to
cost, which is about three times what we
thought it was going to cost when we
first approved it. But, um, what
fraction of that $19 million is
currently funded.
>> So, let me just I'd have to look at Can
I get back to you on that specific
question? I don't want to.
>> Okay. I I think I know the answer, but I
want to make sure I give you an accurate
answer.
>> So, like 10 years ago, we we promised
this community two things. We said we
were going to put a light in at uh up at
the top of
>> Providence Point.
>> Providence Point. Thank you very much.
And we were going to do this project.
And time goes by and time goes by and
time goes by and I am unlikely uh to
want to approve any capital projects
without understanding how we're going to
fund this especially as the costs
skyrocket. We have to do it. We have to
find the money. Um and I'm I understand
at this very minute it is not throttled
by money. It is throttled by the other
by the our partners' efforts. But it
feels less and less okay to not have I I
do this every couple of years and we
don't have the money and we don't have
the money. We made a promise. I as an
elected official made a promise. I take
that very seriously. We sat in a in a
committee room. We said these were the
two capital projects that were that were
most important to us. We went and did
the stoplight,
you know, but the folks on the west end
of town continue to have no pedestrian
way into town. It doesn't feel okay. I
It's not your fault, but I'm I'm at a
point where I'm about to dig my heels in
because year after year after year, we
don't figure out how to how to fund
this. Thank you,
>> Director Moon.
>> I would just like to reassure that this
has been on the near-term capital
improvement program. Now, city has been
working very diligently to get this in a
position where it can be constructed. We
put forward a multi-year plan to
implement the transportation benefit
district. We designated this as one of
the projects that would be a recipient
of those funds. Continues to be on that
list. As we've talked about this capital
project through the past iterations of
the CIP, we have also discussed how we
would use the transportation uh benefit
district funds uh to leverage and uh
grants uh if we were so lucky to get
them. And we've been applying and
researching options for that. So, we've
been actively working on the funding and
uh to use the TBD money as well uh for
any future borrowing uh to help pay off
those borrowing costs. So, there is a
plan and it is right around the corner
to be executed and it's coming up in uh
this bianual budget. So, it will be
coming to you very shortly. In the
meantime though, we've been getting the
project ready.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Uh John, you uh
tangentally
uh referenced the fish passage project.
Uh can you just give us a just a little
summary how those are going? Are they on
time? Are there any problems that have
been experienced? Uh I zigzag on the on
I90 every day, hoping that the freeway
will be straightened out someday. But if
you could uh just give us a brief
update.
Yeah, they're working on their design
and they're also doing the beginnings of
construction. I know right now one of
the biggest challenges is working with
the different utilities on their
relocations.
And
so I think right now that's the biggest
challenge that they're facing is getting
the utilities to relocate to make it so
they can get the improvements done on
time.
>> Thank you. I've noticed that at least on
the two side roads, Newport Way and then
Northwest Seamish, uh traffic seems to
be going relatively smoothly, even if
I90s blocked up in the morning heading
westbound. Um we haven't seen the
traffic armageddon that we uh feared. Um
so there's there's that feather in our
cap, so to speak. I hope we would keep a
close eye on that project going forward.
Thank you.
Okay.
And this is a table that shows the
transportation
benefit district um
plan to spend and including
TR 28.
And so it it shows up two places. one in
the 27 forecast and it also shows it in
the debt service for a worst case
scenario where the administration was
not successful in receiving any grants.
The timing and next steps. So going back
into
the past, this item went to council
member Boyd and the transportation
advisory board on March 25th and then as
required by city code, the
transportation improvement
program went to the environmental board
on April 16th. Tonight, the
administration is here to get the C
committee's recommendation to the
council. On June 1st, there will be a
public hearing and opportunity for
council to discuss the transportation
improvement program with anticipated
council adoption on June 15th, which
will then allow the administration to
submit the secure tip to the state as
required by state law.
a summary of the feedback that the
administration received at the
transportation advisory board meeting on
March 25th. Uh there was general support
for the transportation improvement
program updates. Members did question
the criteria that is from the mobility
action plan and increasing one to
increase the objectivity of that
criteria. They also
talked about the use of debt as a
financial practice and expressed concern
about additional nonp permeable pavement
being constructed. The board highlighted
safety concerns and a preference for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities as
priorities in the tip. The feedback from
the environmental board on April 16th
was generally supportive of the updates.
members noted several corridors for
additional bicycle facilities and
potential to protect and enhance the
tree canopy through the tip. And the
environmental board also had questions
about specific projects jurisdiction
working with King County Metro and ES
scooters.
The direction that is needed tonight
from the committee are with regards to
the major themes and changes with this
update. Specifically, the emphasis on
smaller scale projects, prioritizing
maintenance over building new, and the
extensive use of transportation benefit
district back debt.
And that concludes my presentation.
>> Any questions from the committee?
Council member Boyd.
Thank you, Johnny. Um, any can you go
into any detail on the bike corridors
that were highlighted by the
environmental committee?
>> I would have to go back and watch the
video. I do remember one specifically
which was front street between
let's see here. I want to say Bush and
Newport. And that was specifically
mentioned from one of the environmental
board me uh we were meeting at the
steelhead room which is between the
swimming pool and community center and
that member had biked and that was on
the front of his mind.
>> Other questions?
>> Go ahead.
Uh, I know there was a um the now board
or tab board chair um had some concerns
about uh a roundabout on or near Dogwood
and I don't know if you had any further
discussion uh with him on that. I I know
I think he wanted to just connect on
that offline because it was uh really
getting into the weeds during the
meeting.
>> Yes. Yeah. So, the vice chair for the
transportation advisory board had a lot
of questions about the traffic study for
the Newport Way Maple to Sunset project.
I met with him
earlier this spring and went over the
information from the traffic study. I
gave him copies of the traffic study and
he's taking them home and digested them
and had follow-up questions. So, I've
got a follow-up meeting scheduled for
later on this month.
>> Okay. Thank you. Other questions?
The question that I have is uh your
slide number five indicated that
projects in the tip are how traffic
impact fees and bike pedestrian
mitigation fees are set. Um if we do go
forward with the small projects that are
outlined and prioritizing maintenance
over building new and more extensive use
of transportation benefit district back
debt. Um will those traffic impact fees
in general go up or down?
I would say that the action for this tip
will not change the work that the
council has requested the administration
to do to look at lowering traffic impact
fees. I think that is a separate policy
discussion that the administration would
like to have with the council. I've got
a few ideas on how um that could be
done, but that
I think would be a future discussion.
Would you agree that the traffic impact
fees are determined in part by the
projects that get put in there? And it
seems like we're putting a few more
projects in there than we're taking out.
So, the traffic impact fees in a
calculation from the consultant at least
might be recommended to go up.
Yes and no. So in the traffic impact fee
rate study, it considers the future year
projects which are not shown in the next
six years. So if we take a project
that's in a future year and bump it to
the six-year period, that really doesn't
impact it.
The council can decide which projects to
um fund with traffic impact fees and to
include in the rate study. And so by
necessarily having them in the tip, that
doesn't necessarily
make it so that way they would drive up
the cost of the traffic impact fees. So
the there's a couple hypotheticals I'll
just quickly go over. The council could
say, "Okay, we're going to use other
we're going to keep the level of service
that's adopted the same and we're going
to come up with other revenues to
construct those improvements and then
that would reduce the traffic impact
fees." The council could also say,
"We're going to lower the level of
service." And then that could reduce the
need for projects, which would then
reduce the capital or the the traffic
impact fees. There there's a few other
ways to do it. There could be I'll go
over one more and I'm probably going way
too far into the weeds, but uh there's a
mode split assumption where the city
could say we're going to assume more
people are going to be taking transit,
walking, and biking and then there's
less need for the cap vehicular capacity
projects and that could lower the
traffic impact fees. So, those are just
a few quick ways off the top of my head
where traffic impact fees could be
lowered.
>> Thank you very much. It's one of the
questions that people stop and ask me
about when we're talking about why new
housing might not be coming to our city.
And uh we as elected officials need to
justify how the traffic impact fees are
set and what level of service we're
putting in as you point out to our
thinking on that. So I do appreciate
that information. Other questions from
the committee?
Okay. That then takes us to the point of
our meeting where we have asked
questions and now we're going to open it
up for public comment on the topic. Uh
madame clerk, is there anyone online
that has indicated a desire to speak on
this topic?
>> No, chair, there's not.
>> Okay. And it does not appear there's
anyone in the room that would like to
speak on the topic. However, however, if
there are people listening to this
meeting, watching this meeting that
would like to comment, again, city
council is always uh open to hearing
your comments and and we read your
emails and go ahead and send those to
city council at isquawwa.gov
and uh we'd be happy to respond to
those. All right, that takes us to the
portion of deliberation on this
particular topic. Um who wants to go
first? Uh council president.
So, uh, I am going to be, uh, pardon me.
I'm going to be yes on this plan this
evening. Um, I have huge concerns around
T028,
but I have worked with Director Moon for
a very long time and respect her quite a
bit, and if she tells me there's a plan,
um, then I am willing to, uh, wait to
hear the terms of that plan.
However, uh if we get to the budget and
we don't have a plan uh in place, then I
will move the entire $19 million as
council manic debt. And if that fails, I
will oppose the entire 2027 2028 budget.
The time has come to figure this out,
not push it off any further. It was a
huge commitment to the public and it
cannot wait any further and I will stake
my entire political relationship with
this city on solving this problem. So
there you have it. So, you're saying
that if there's not a plan in the
budget,
>> if we don't have it resolved, if I'm not
confident that we have it figured out by
the time we vote on a budget, I'm not
saying it has to be in the budget, but
if I'm not confident of the plan, then I
will move the $19 million as council
manic debt as part of the budget. I
realize that has impacts on ending fund
balance, but that's a thing we can do.
And historically, we've kept much higher
council manic debt. this administration
and previous administration chose not to
exercise council medicic debt. But when
you and I earlier in our careers, we
carried more council medicic debt. So we
can solve the problem that way. I don't
want to do it that way. I'm just saying
that we have to solve this problem and
we have to solve it this year. And if we
can't solve it, if I can't uh get my
satisfaction on this issue or if I can't
convince my fellow council members uh to
spend the money as a last resort, then I
will oppose the 2027 28 budget in
whatever form it is.
>> Okay.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you,
Council Member Boyd.
>> Uh thank you, John, um for your
presentation. Um I'm also in favor of
this plan. uh uh uh based off of uh it
came before me in the tab, we had good
robust discussion. I do um I'd be remiss
if I didn't mention uh and John
mentioned this in the tab feedback that
um there was just some concern too about
um
uh making sure that bike ped um floats
to the top and that we don't lose sight
of that in our um in our quest to
address vehicular congestion. Um, and
so, uh, moving forward, I'll definitely
be keeping a keen eye on that, but
overall, um, I'm in favor of the current
tip.
>> Thank you. Um, I also am in favor of
moving this forward. Um, I appreciate
the administration's focus on smaller
projects both at uh Sunset and uh Front
Street and also at Dogwood and Front
Street that can help our citizens in
town do intr
um help them get from um a school to
Costco or across town to um pick up a
child from daycare. we have all the
traffic coming through that's that's
regional traffic, but um when we're
talking about traffic improvements that
we're spending money on, I appreciate
the fact that the administration is
focusing on projects that allow our
citizens to more easily get around town
and get the things done that they need
to do and let the regional traffic be in
its own lane, so to speak, or bucket
along the way. So, um the small projects
with immediate benefit uh seem to be a
good idea. Um, I also appreciate the
fact uh that uh council president has uh
put a stake in the ground in terms of
trying to make sure that the uh project
goes forward on uh that we've promised
our citizens and um I'm looking forward
to that conversation
um both at the the budget time and if we
have to go to a council bond um looking
to find ways to support that so that we
can get that project done for the
citizens on the west side of the city.
Um, so I would be in favor of the
project in general and um, I guess a
half-hearted thumbs up to council
president on his uh, idea to make sure
the northwest Samage project goes
forward uh, as well. Um, so it sounds
like we're recommending 30 for this to
go forward. Okay. Does the
administration and John, do you have
everything you need?
>> Yes, I do. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. That
concludes that topic. Um, we now go to
uh see if any council members uh have
any announcements they would like to
make.
Okay. Um, there no there being no
further business, the meeting is
adjourned today at 7:53 p.m. Have a good
evening.