City Council Committee of the Whole · Monday, September 29, 2025 · City Council Digest

3. AGENDA ITEMS

Amendments to Financial Policy & Travel & Procurement Card Policies COM 0178

30 min · Kristin Garcia, Finance Director · packet pp.5–80

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Sep 5, 2017

▶ Watch from 0:45 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

At the November 10th, 2025 regular Council meeting, Administration will be making a

MetroFlex Contract Update COM 0176

45 min · Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.81–100

▶ Watch from 10:05 Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration does not recommend renewing the MetroFlex contract due to concerns about ongoing costs.

3078 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ Okay, welcome everyone. I, Council

0:07 ↗ President Walsh, call the September 29th

0:11 ↗ committee of the whole meeting to order

0:13 ↗ at 6:32 p.m. Um, as a reminder, we

0:18 ↗ continue to have years after the

0:20 ↗ pandemic. Uh, a remote aspect to our

0:23 ↗ meetings and both staff and members of

0:25 ↗ the public may be participating remotely

0:28 ↗ via WebEx. Um, there will be multiple

0:31 ↗ public comment opportunities at

0:33 ↗ tonight's meeting. First, there is a

0:35 ↗ general public comment opportunity at

0:37 ↗ the beginning of the meeting or you can

0:39 ↗ make comments after the presentation of

0:42 ↗ each of the items and the council

0:44 ↗ question and answer period on any of

0:45 ↗ tonight's agenda items.

0:48 ↗ So, um we will start with public

0:51 ↗ comment. Uh members of the public may

0:53 ↗ address council at this time in person

0:55 ↗ or virtually. Those who signed up in

0:57 ↗ advance to make comment will be called

0:59 ↗ on first. If you are joining us

1:01 ↗ virtually and would like to make

1:02 ↗ comments, please raise your virtual

1:04 ↗ hand. If you're on the phone, that's

1:06 ↗ going to be pressing star three. If

1:08 ↗ you're on a computer or smartphone, look

1:10 ↗ for the hand icon or you can send the

1:12 ↗ host a chat message. If you're in the

1:15 ↗ room and did not sign up, I will ask for

1:17 ↗ other speakers. Um, and

1:21 ↗ uh, clerk, we have people signed up.

1:23 ↗ Great. Um,

1:25 ↗ you are invited to address council

1:27 ↗ regarding matters that are directly

1:29 ↗ related to Isiqua's programs, projects,

1:32 ↗ services, or events. Comments related to

1:35 ↗ political campaign political campaigns

1:38 ↗ are not permitted. It's a lot of peace.

1:40 ↗ Uh, please direct comments to the whole

1:42 ↗ council and not individuals. And while

1:44 ↗ this isn't a question and answer

1:46 ↗ session, so we aren't able to reply to

1:48 ↗ you, we will contact you to follow up if

1:51 ↗ needed. And if you provide your

1:52 ↗ information when recognized. If you're

1:55 ↗ virtual, unmute your microphone. Or if

1:58 ↗ you're in person, step up to the lectern

2:01 ↗ and press the button so that the

2:03 ↗ microphone turns red. State your name,

2:06 ↗ address, and relationship to the city.

2:09 ↗ Speak clearly and pause frequently and

2:12 ↗ limit your comments to 5 minutes. Uh if

2:15 ↗ you're attending virtually and do not

2:16 ↗ respond to your name or phone number um

2:19 ↗ or if your connection is lost

2:20 ↗ unexpectedly, we will need to move on,

2:23 ↗ but please rejoin if you are able. Uh

2:26 ↗ personal attacks, obscene language,

2:28 ↗ derogatory remarks, and disruptive

2:30 ↗ behavior will not be permitted. Um

2:33 ↗ clerk, can you identify the first person

2:34 ↗ who has signed up to speak?

2:36 ↗ >> Yes, Kaylee Jake. Kaylee, come on up.

2:44 ↗ Hi. Um, my name is Kaylee Jake. I live

2:48 ↗ at 24706 Southeast 30th Street, Seamish,

2:52 ↗ and I'm the executive director of the

2:54 ↗ garage, and I'm here to make public

2:56 ↗ public comment. Please um regarding

3:00 ↗ Metrlex. So, I know that's on um your

3:03 ↗ docket for today. And I just want to

3:06 ↗ speak to you quick briefly about um the

3:10 ↗ point of view of teens that use

3:12 ↗ Metroflex.

3:14 ↗ So, uh we regularly have teens that use

3:17 ↗ it and they are using it so that they

3:20 ↗ can access resources at the garage after

3:23 ↗ school and then still get home. Many of

3:26 ↗ our teens can't access the activity bus

3:30 ↗ um and then um would be unable to get

3:34 ↗ back to their homes in time uh whether

3:37 ↗ it's working at a job or back home to

3:39 ↗ take care of their younger siblings.

3:42 ↗ And when they're at the garage, they're

3:44 ↗ accessing essential resources. So, we're

3:47 ↗ talking about case management, therapy,

3:49 ↗ basic needs such as food and clothing.

3:53 ↗ We're seeing more than a hundred kids

3:55 ↗ come through our our uh doors every day

3:58 ↗ now that school's up and running. And I

4:00 ↗ think Metrolex is really essential part

4:03 ↗ of what the community offers in in way

4:06 ↗ of support.

4:08 ↗ So I see this as an investment in the

4:11 ↗ community. And when I'm looking through

4:14 ↗ the presentation today, I understand

4:16 ↗ that $40 a ride is a lot to ask. But I

4:20 ↗ want you to consider that this is a

4:22 ↗ newer program. I think we could do a

4:24 ↗ better job of publicizing it, which

4:28 ↗ would if we had more riders, we would

4:30 ↗ see a lower cost per ride. And I also

4:35 ↗ want you to compare it to if I have to

4:38 ↗ um call a cab for one of the teams, I'm

4:41 ↗ spending $ 35 to $40 for that ride. So

4:46 ↗ when you invest in this, it might not be

4:49 ↗ equal, but it is equitable. And I think

4:52 ↗ that our community, I mean, not only is

4:54 ↗ it a green, we're moving towards green

4:57 ↗ transportation, but I actually think we

4:59 ↗ should be expanding Metrolex. There's

5:02 ↗ much more that we could be doing with

5:04 ↗ this to really provide some some

5:08 ↗ essential

5:10 ↗ um transportation services for our most

5:13 ↗ marginalized

5:14 ↗ uh community members. So, I'm just

5:16 ↗ speaking about teens, but I know our

5:19 ↗ seniors need to use this as well,

5:20 ↗ low-income folks as well. So, there's a

5:24 ↗ lot to consider, but I really would

5:27 ↗ encourage you to think about the

5:28 ↗ investment and the equitable investment

5:31 ↗ that this means for our city. Thank you.

5:35 ↗ >> Thank you, Kaylee. Do we have anybody

5:37 ↗ else signed up to speak?

5:38 ↗ >> Yes, Ann Fletcher and come on up.

5:52 ↗ Great. Good evening. I'm Anne Fletcher.

5:55 ↗ I'm a resident at 255 Southeast Andrew

5:58 ↗ Street and a member of People for

6:00 ↗ Climate Action. Uh I too would like to

6:04 ↗ speak about extending the or renewing

6:07 ↗ the Metrofflex contract. Um I believe it

6:11 ↗ should be re renewed for 2026 and 27

6:14 ↗ since it has to be a two-year contract.

6:16 ↗ I read um Metroflex I believe also is a

6:20 ↗ good investment in our uh Isiqua climate

6:25 ↗ action plan transportation

6:28 ↗ section because it encourages transit.

6:31 ↗ The map um that was in the report shows

6:35 ↗ that many people use it to get to the

6:38 ↗ transit center um otherwise may would

6:40 ↗ not be able to to um get there. Um and

6:44 ↗ um transportation is a really hard area

6:46 ↗ to reduce greenhouse gas emissions

6:49 ↗ because we don't have a lot of control

6:51 ↗ over some of the things like pass

6:54 ↗ through traffic and um when our light

6:57 ↗ rail is going to come. But we do have

7:00 ↗ some control over this. Um and it seems

7:03 ↗ we should use the and and address the

7:06 ↗ areas that where we do have control and

7:08 ↗ this is one area where we do. Um,

7:11 ↗ Metroflex scores well on equity, as

7:13 ↗ you've already heard, accessible to all

7:15 ↗ and especially helpful to those who may

7:18 ↗ not have other means, uh, disabled,

7:21 ↗ economically disadvantaged, and teens.

7:24 ↗ Um, I think it is, um, uh, I think that

7:28 ↗ that equity is a part of our climate

7:30 ↗ action plan, too. So, uh, we know it, it

7:34 ↗ it affects people differently.

7:38 ↗ So, Metroflex's contribution to economic

7:41 ↗ sustainability was not mentioned in the

7:43 ↗ report, but I would like to bring up the

7:46 ↗ idea that it the rides bring folks into

7:49 ↗ from outlying areas into central Isiqua

7:53 ↗ where they can um take advantage of the

7:55 ↗ businesses and shopping. And that's also

7:58 ↗ shown on the map. There's a lot of of

8:00 ↗ circles on the shopping areas that

8:02 ↗ people go to.

8:04 ↗ I think it's difficult to compare

8:06 ↗ Isiakiqua with other places that have

8:08 ↗ Metroflex. Um many of them have had

8:11 ↗ Metroflex for longer than Isiqua and um

8:14 ↗ they we don't know the size of the area

8:17 ↗ that they're covering and it may be

8:19 ↗ smaller than what we have to cover and

8:21 ↗ therefore they can get more more rides

8:23 ↗ in. ESO has not had the pilot long

8:27 ↗ enough I don't think to fully evaluate

8:28 ↗ it. So we've already invested some. Um,

8:31 ↗ I think we should continue to um invest

8:35 ↗ in it. Um, we should provide a couple

8:37 ↗ more years uh to try it out, tweak it,

8:41 ↗ and um collect data. Um, uh, the city

8:45 ↗ administration indicates that the person

8:47 ↗ in charge of initiating or promoting the

8:50 ↗ program is is no longer here. And so,

8:53 ↗ um, if needed, and maybe it's already

8:55 ↗ been done, another staff member could be

8:58 ↗ assigned to promoting it, um, and

9:00 ↗ collecting the data that the council

9:02 ↗ might need to to make a decision. The

9:05 ↗ city council previously directed the

9:06 ↗ administration to continue Metroflex

9:09 ↗ and, uh, we already have $200,000 for

9:11 ↗ 2026, so we need that that extra 58,000.

9:15 ↗ Um, uh, I I believe there's time to

9:18 ↗ explore priorities to adjust the 2027

9:21 ↗ budget to cover the rest of the

9:23 ↗ contract.

9:25 ↗ So, if the council decides to let

9:27 ↗ Metroflex expire, uh, that $200,000

9:31 ↗ um, needs to be thought about. Perhaps

9:33 ↗ it should be allocated to go toward the

9:36 ↗ ICAP actions that would reduce

9:38 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions.

9:41 ↗ Dropping Metroflex leaves a climate

9:43 ↗ congestion equity gap in our

9:45 ↗ transportation system without providing

9:47 ↗ a viable solution to replace it. Other

9:51 ↗ options listed on the chart uh in the

9:53 ↗ report have issues such as cost and risk

9:57 ↗ and e equity and so forth. Um but

10:01 ↗ advocating for more transit from

10:02 ↗ elsewhere

10:04 ↗ which is mentioned as an alternative has

10:06 ↗ been done for years without success. And

10:09 ↗ so sometimes I think we need to look to

10:11 ↗ ourselves.

10:13 ↗ Here is an opportunity for the

10:15 ↗ transportation department to partner

10:16 ↗ with the sustainability department

10:19 ↗ and think about other communities uh

10:22 ↗ like Northbend that are even smaller

10:24 ↗ than ours that support a locally run bus

10:27 ↗ or shuttle connections. There are other

10:29 ↗ examples in the report that I'm I sent

10:31 ↗ you um via email of other places that

10:34 ↗ are doing things that um help uh

10:38 ↗ increase the uh accessibility of

10:40 ↗ transit.

10:42 ↗ And so I believe that for the future,

10:45 ↗ yes, we need to work on other things,

10:47 ↗ tweak things, but for right now,

10:48 ↗ Metroflex is our best option. And

10:51 ↗ Isukqua is a strong environmental city

10:54 ↗ and should invest financially. And I am

10:57 ↗ done. Thank you. Perfect timing.

11:00 ↗ >> Thanks, An. Um, do we have anybody else

11:04 ↗ signed up to speak?

11:07 ↗ >> We don't. And we do have a few members

11:08 ↗ of the public with us virtually, but I

11:10 ↗ don't see them indicating a desire to

11:12 ↗ speak at this time.

11:13 ↗ >> Okay. Just a reminder that you can press

11:17 ↗ what is it? Star three. If you're on a

11:19 ↗ smartphone um or if you're on a phone or

11:22 ↗ if you are on a computer or smart

11:24 ↗ device, raise your virtual hand or send

11:28 ↗ the host a chat message. And I will just

11:30 ↗ wait a moment to see if anybody else

11:32 ↗ signs up,

11:34 ↗ but it's looking like not well. I know

11:38 ↗ council very much appreciates hearing

11:40 ↗ from members of the public. Um, and it

11:44 ↗ sounded like we had some strong advocacy

11:46 ↗ for the Metro Flex program for various

11:50 ↗ reasons there. Uh, moving on with our

11:53 ↗ agenda, we've got, uh, COM 0178,

11:57 ↗ amendments to financial policy and

11:59 ↗ travel and procurement card policies,

12:03 ↗ after which will come the Metrolex um,

12:06 ↗ piece. So, we will start with Kristen

12:08 ↗ Garcia, our finance director.

12:11 ↗ Thanks,

12:15 ↗ Thank you, Council President, and good

12:17 ↗ evening members of the council and good

12:19 ↗ evening members to the public that are

12:20 ↗ viewing virtually and those that are

12:22 ↗ attending um in person. Um Kristen

12:25 ↗ Garcia, finance director here at the

12:27 ↗ city. And tonight I'm going to talk to

12:29 ↗ council about proposed amendments to the

12:32 ↗ financial management policies, meals and

12:35 ↗ travel policy, and the procurement card

12:37 ↗ policy.

12:38 ↗ uh the p purpose of the policy updates

12:41 ↗ are to address ambiguities. Sometimes

12:44 ↗ there's situations that come up that the

12:46 ↗ policies doesn't specifically address or

12:49 ↗ the policy language isn't clear. And

12:51 ↗ while we can't accommodate every unique

12:54 ↗ situation in the financial policies, we

12:57 ↗ want to try to provide as much

12:59 ↗ clarification as we can to those common

13:02 ↗ occurrences that happen. Uh we also want

13:04 ↗ to reflect current practices and

13:07 ↗ processes. Our financial management

13:09 ↗ policies are intended to provide an

13:11 ↗ internal control and oversight while at

13:14 ↗ the same time we want to make sure that

13:16 ↗ those aren't so restrictive and

13:17 ↗ cumbersome that we're prohibiting the

13:20 ↗ departments from operating effectively

13:22 ↗ and efficiently. And we also seek

13:24 ↗ internal feedback because policy updates

13:27 ↗ can have impacts onto the operations of

13:30 ↗ the departments. So we want to consider

13:32 ↗ their feedback on anything that is

13:33 ↗ brought forward. And of course we also

13:36 ↗ want to consider past and current audit

13:38 ↗ recommendations and best practices again

13:41 ↗ to make sure that we're um managing the

13:43 ↗ appropriate level of internal control.

13:47 ↗ So for tonight administration is seeking

13:50 ↗ input from the committee of the whole on

13:52 ↗ the proposed updates uh for the

13:54 ↗ financial management policies, the

13:56 ↗ travel and meals policy and the

13:58 ↗ procurement card policy.

14:00 ↗ Just a little bit of background before I

14:02 ↗ get started in the updates. The

14:04 ↗ financial management policies were

14:06 ↗ originally adopted in 2017 and have been

14:09 ↗ periodically updated um since that time.

14:12 ↗ The two most recent updates occurred in

14:14 ↗ January of 2024 when the updates uh

14:18 ↗ focused on grants, donations, and the

14:20 ↗ contracting thresholds. The policy was

14:23 ↗ then updated again in June of 2024 um

14:26 ↗ focusing on change orders and retainage.

14:29 ↗ The procurement policy and travel and

14:32 ↗ meals policy were both last updated in

14:34 ↗ 2021. So those those are actually due

14:37 ↗ for an update.

14:40 ↗ In terms of the financial management

14:42 ↗ policy updates, uh the ones that I'm

14:44 ↗ going to go over right now don't change

14:47 ↗ any um threshold or authority levels.

14:50 ↗ These were mainly intended to clean up

14:54 ↗ language and u provide some clarity. Uh

14:57 ↗ the first item, for example, we want to

14:59 ↗ update titles throughout the document.

15:02 ↗ It references chief financial officer.

15:05 ↗ The title that we're currently using is

15:07 ↗ financial director. Um we're also using

15:10 ↗ language like master plan throughout the

15:12 ↗ document. We're updating that to refer

15:15 ↗ to action plan as that is the current

15:17 ↗ verbiage that we're we're using. We also

15:20 ↗ want to incorporate current authority

15:22 ↗ levels for the presiding judge and court

15:24 ↗ administrator. This is not new.

15:26 ↗ authority. Um, those are equivalent to

15:29 ↗ director or manager level positions,

15:32 ↗ although those titles aren't

15:34 ↗ specifically named within the policy.

15:36 ↗ So, we just thought we would incorporate

15:38 ↗ those titles to make it absolutely clear

15:40 ↗ that that authority is granted to those

15:42 ↗ positions.

15:44 ↗ We also wanted to clarify some conflict

15:46 ↗ of interest and accepting of gifts. Um,

15:49 ↗ for example, there could be um an

15:52 ↗ employee attending a conference or

15:54 ↗ otherwise engaging in a vendor where

15:55 ↗ they might get a water bottle or a tote

15:58 ↗ bag or something to that effect that

16:00 ↗ doesn't really pose a conflict of

16:02 ↗ interest. Um, it doesn't result in

16:04 ↗ impersonal gain, but that is a common

16:06 ↗ practice that happens. And so, we just

16:08 ↗ wanted to clarify that in those

16:09 ↗ particular instances that those types of

16:11 ↗ things are okay. Uh, we also wanted to

16:14 ↗ add legal and other references like

16:17 ↗ references to specific RCWs that apply

16:20 ↗ to a part of the policy or references

16:23 ↗ like IRS publications.

16:27 ↗ So, the next part of the financial

16:29 ↗ management policy updates are

16:31 ↗ establishing new levels of authority.

16:34 ↗ Uh, we want to add a provision to allow

16:36 ↗ the city to use an indirect cost rate on

16:39 ↗ federal grants. Um, this is something

16:42 ↗ that the city does not currently have in

16:44 ↗ its policy and it hasn't been a pack

16:47 ↗ past practice. The purpose of an

16:49 ↗ indirect cost rate is to allow for cost

16:52 ↗ recovery for administration of the

16:56 ↗ grant. Um, it is allowed under the

16:58 ↗ uniform guidance at the federal level.

17:01 ↗ However, if the city does not have an

17:03 ↗ indirect cost rate included in city

17:06 ↗ policy, then if we do want to um add an

17:10 ↗ indirect cost rate to the grant

17:11 ↗ application, then we need to go to the

17:13 ↗ granting agency in order to include

17:15 ↗ that. So, for best practices, if it's

17:18 ↗ something that we think we might want to

17:20 ↗ do, um it would streamline the process

17:22 ↗ to have the policy included. Um the

17:25 ↗ policy would be um 15%. That's currently

17:29 ↗ what the the federal law allows.

17:32 ↗ The second item is we're removing

17:34 ↗ secondary council approval for purchases

17:36 ↗ of supplies, materials, and equipment

17:38 ↗ for items specifically identified in the

17:40 ↗ budget. What that means is, for example,

17:43 ↗ we have a fleet replacement schedule.

17:47 ↗ So, we have identified all the different

17:49 ↗ pieces of vehicles and equipment. Um, an

17:52 ↗ estimated timeline of when that needs to

17:54 ↗ be replaced and estimated cost for

17:56 ↗ replacement. That schedule is is used as

17:58 ↗ a tool then as we prepare the budget. So

18:01 ↗ we identify in the budget how much we're

18:04 ↗ intending to spend for vehicle

18:06 ↗ replacement under this policy. Uh for

18:10 ↗ example, if we had five police cars and

18:13 ↗ a dump truck that were identified on a

18:14 ↗ fleet schedule for 2026, we included

18:17 ↗ those costs in the budget. Council

18:19 ↗ adopted the budget at the time of

18:21 ↗ purchase. It wouldn't require staff to

18:23 ↗ come back then and ask for secondary

18:25 ↗ approval to to purchase those pieces of

18:28 ↗ equipment. When council would need to

18:31 ↗ approve a purchase is if a say a backhoe

18:35 ↗ was planned for replacement in 2029.

18:38 ↗ Staff decided they wanted to replace

18:40 ↗ that in 2026. Well, those costs um that

18:44 ↗ wasn't identified in the 2026 schedule.

18:46 ↗ Those costs weren't included in the

18:47 ↗ budget. That item would have to come

18:49 ↗ before council for approval.

18:52 ↗ The last item is adding language to

18:54 ↗ allow administrative approval with prior

18:57 ↗ notice to council up to $50,000. Um what

19:01 ↗ this would look like is if there's a

19:04 ↗ minor but monetary collective bargaining

19:07 ↗ agreement adjustment that needs to be

19:09 ↗ made um up to a $50,000 that could be

19:13 ↗ administratively approved with notice to

19:15 ↗ council. So it wouldn't require formal

19:17 ↗ council action, but council would

19:19 ↗ certainly be informed and have input

19:21 ↗ into that decision.

19:26 ↗ Next part of this policy updates relate

19:28 ↗ to travel and meals. And most of this is

19:31 ↗ except for one item is just clarifying

19:34 ↗ our current practices and cleaning up

19:36 ↗ language. We wanted to add language to

19:38 ↗ confirm documentation that's required

19:40 ↗ for claiming reimbursement. um

19:43 ↗ departments already know what that

19:44 ↗ documentation is, but we thought we

19:46 ↗ would take an opportunity and just kind

19:48 ↗ of spell that out to make sure it's it's

19:50 ↗ really clear on what documentation is

19:51 ↗ required for those things. We also want

19:54 ↗ to incorporate current unauthorized

19:56 ↗ expenses. Again, these aren't new. These

19:59 ↗ have already been um prohibited

20:01 ↗ purchases. Things like trip insurance,

20:03 ↗ seat upgrades for airfare, alcohol,

20:05 ↗ fines, forfeits have currently been

20:08 ↗ unauthorized. But since we were doing

20:10 ↗ policy updates, we just wanted to make

20:11 ↗ it super clear and and add that language

20:13 ↗ in there. Uh, also wanted to do

20:16 ↗ clarification on perdm rates. Um,

20:19 ↗ current it's been current practice and

20:20 ↗ in policy to allow exceptions for the

20:24 ↗ perdeium rates if the accommodations are

20:26 ↗ part of a conference. Um, conference

20:28 ↗ meals do not meet the employees dietary

20:31 ↗ restrictions or the traveler can the

20:33 ↗ traveler can claim less than the perdm

20:35 ↗ rate and receipts aren't required. What

20:38 ↗ is new is we're proposing an exception

20:41 ↗ to exceed the perdm rates by 20% if an

20:45 ↗ explanation is provided in city

20:46 ↗ administrator approval. Excuse me. Um

20:50 ↗ what that would look like is there are

20:52 ↗ certain instances at the executive and

20:55 ↗ the and the elected level where you have

20:58 ↗ regional meetings, the venue and the

21:00 ↗ meal might not be an option. um the food

21:05 ↗ the food might not be an option in terms

21:08 ↗ of cost and so we don't want to prohibit

21:11 ↗ the conduct of business. So we want to

21:13 ↗ make sure that we have a provision where

21:15 ↗ you can still attend those things where

21:17 ↗ business is being conducted while still

21:19 ↗ meeting the parameters of the law. Thank

21:20 ↗ you.

21:25 ↗ Excuse me. Okay.

21:27 ↗ Procurement card policy updates. Um most

21:30 ↗ of these are um again clarifying and

21:33 ↗ there's a couple of new items that we've

21:35 ↗ included. We wanted to add a procurement

21:37 ↗ card custodian agreement. So what our

21:40 ↗ current practice is we have instances

21:43 ↗ where we issued a procurement card to an

21:46 ↗ individual. Those are individuals that

21:49 ↗ do um more purchasing than others. So

21:52 ↗ they they have a card directly issued to

21:54 ↗ them and they have a user agreement. We

21:56 ↗ also have situations where we issue a

21:59 ↗ card at the department level and there's

22:01 ↗ a custodian that checks out the cards to

22:03 ↗ individuals on an asneeded basis. The

22:06 ↗ direct card holder and the custodian

22:08 ↗ have a varying levels of responsibility.

22:11 ↗ So we thought it would be a best best

22:13 ↗ practice to have a custodian agreement.

22:15 ↗ A new and a new internal control that

22:18 ↗ we're adding is that the finance

22:19 ↗ director will inventory procurement

22:21 ↗ cards at least once every two years. We

22:24 ↗ wanted to add that in there as an extra

22:26 ↗ lay layer of internal control. U

22:28 ↗ procurement cards tend to be at a higher

22:31 ↗ risk for fraud and and theft. So uh we

22:34 ↗ thought that would be a good practice to

22:36 ↗ incorporate that. Uh we also want to

22:38 ↗ give a little bit more flexibility to

22:41 ↗ departments um when vendors are

22:43 ↗ requiring payment of time of service. So

22:46 ↗ in the case of someone needs to um make

22:50 ↗ a purchase for advertising or a sign um

22:54 ↗ oftentimes the vendor will not start

22:56 ↗ work unless the vendor is paid at time

22:58 ↗ of service. Under our current practice

23:00 ↗ and policy, if a vendor has a an account

23:05 ↗ or relationship already with the city of

23:07 ↗ Isiqua, um that vendor invoices us that

23:10 ↗ goes through the accounts payable

23:11 ↗ process and then we cut the check. that

23:14 ↗ can take a couple of weeks to go through

23:16 ↗ that process. Well, if a department is

23:18 ↗ needing that sign to be to be done and

23:21 ↗ finished before that amount of time,

23:23 ↗ that's prohibiting them from getting

23:25 ↗ their done work on a timely manner. So,

23:27 ↗ what this policy would do will allow

23:29 ↗ that in in certain circumstances for the

23:32 ↗ procurement card to be used at time of

23:34 ↗ service to make sure that the

23:36 ↗ departments can operate a little bit

23:37 ↗ more effectively and timely.

23:42 ↗ So that concludes the policy updates in

23:45 ↗ terms of timing and next steps. Uh

23:47 ↗ pending uh committee feedback, the

23:49 ↗ policy amendments will be brought to the

23:51 ↗ city council on November 10th for

23:53 ↗ adoption.

23:55 ↗ And then at this time, I'd be happy to

23:58 ↗ take input, answer any questions. Uh, we

24:01 ↗ also want direction on whether this item

24:04 ↗ can return on consent agenda or it

24:07 ↗ should or if it should be on a regular

24:08 ↗ business item on November 10th.

24:12 ↗ >> Thank you. Uh, looking to council, do we

24:15 ↗ have any questions? I know some were

24:17 ↗ asked over email, so some things have

24:20 ↗ been clarified. Um, but is there

24:22 ↗ anything we want to ask questions here?

24:26 ↗ >> Council member Ray,

24:28 ↗ >> I'd love to get us started.

24:30 ↗ Um

24:32 ↗ what's the current audit process for the

24:34 ↗ pecards?

24:35 ↗ I'm sorry. What's the current audit

24:37 ↗ process or review process for the

24:39 ↗ purchasing cards?

24:41 ↗ >> It's uh quite thorough. So it usually

24:44 ↗ just uh starts at the department level.

24:46 ↗ So it's submitting at the department. So

24:48 ↗ they do a review, they submit it to our

24:51 ↗ procurement um and AP accounts payable

24:54 ↗ person um and they do a review and then

24:57 ↗ at some levels I also do a review before

25:00 ↗ it's um approved. That is specifically

25:05 ↗ related to the purchase itself. That's

25:08 ↗ why we're adding the additional control

25:10 ↗ of reviewing the inventory

25:13 ↗ um credit limits and and those types of

25:15 ↗ things. So there and this is fine. I'm

25:18 ↗ glad we're adding it, but there's no

25:20 ↗ existing kind of review of the inventory

25:22 ↗ of cards and credit limits right now. It

25:24 ↗ so the controls are really on managing

25:26 ↗ the the the spend post

25:29 ↗ >> post post spend.

25:30 ↗ >> There's not like a formal

25:33 ↗ periodic review. Correct.

25:35 ↗ >> That was that was my question. Thanks a

25:36 ↗ lot.

25:37 ↗ >> Yes.

25:40 ↗ Any other questions from council

25:42 ↗ members? No. Okay. Um, and it sounds

25:47 ↗ like you want to make sure I think we're

25:49 ↗ probably okay to go on consent unless

25:52 ↗ anyone has a reason it should go on

25:54 ↗ regular business.

25:58 ↗ Oh, that's a good point. Public comment.

26:01 ↗ Do we have any public comment on our

26:04 ↗ financial, travel, and procurement card

26:07 ↗ policies?

26:09 ↗ Maybe not as enticing to the community

26:12 ↗ as Metrolex, but you know, we're doing

26:15 ↗ the important work here. Um, I am not

26:19 ↗ seeing any and none online. So, uh, any

26:23 ↗ concerns with going on consent?

26:26 ↗ >> Um, I don't know. But do you want any

26:28 ↗ other comments, too?

26:29 ↗ >> Oh, yeah. I'll take other comments.

26:32 ↗ >> Do I appreciate it.

26:33 ↗ >> This is my thing. Um and and I'm just

26:36 ↗ going to I'm I'm going down a track and

26:38 ↗ I I um

26:41 ↗ I think procurement cards are a super

26:44 ↗ valuable uh tool for any any

26:48 ↗ organization and but they're also super

26:51 ↗ risky. And so my only thinking is is I'm

26:55 ↗ not sure that two years is certainly

26:57 ↗ better than not doing any kind of uh

26:59 ↗ reviews and inventory. I'm just not sure

27:01 ↗ that two years is uh frequent enough.

27:04 ↗ Um, so I wouldn't be um at all opposed.

27:07 ↗ Matter of fact, I'd be um very

27:09 ↗ supportive of the notion of doing

27:11 ↗ something um on an annual basis. Um so

27:14 ↗ that was my my really my only thought

27:17 ↗ about the policy was how do we build the

27:19 ↗ controls in because

27:22 ↗ though we hire the bestest people um you

27:25 ↗ know every once in a while you get a bad

27:27 ↗ actor and then bad things happen and and

27:29 ↗ we want to prevent that from being an

27:31 ↗ opportunity.

27:32 ↗ >> Okay. I'm happy to make that change um

27:34 ↗ in the the policy that'll be brought

27:36 ↗ forward to council November

27:37 ↗ >> 10.

27:38 ↗ Madam chair, madam council president,

27:41 ↗ just to ask council member Ray, what are

27:43 ↗ you getting at? What's what's the

27:45 ↗ concern that cards are because an

27:49 ↗ inventory would be I think my

27:51 ↗ understanding is to see physically see

27:53 ↗ the cards. Um are you concerned? I

27:58 ↗ explain to me more what the concern is.

27:59 ↗ My my concern is about good financial

28:02 ↗ policy and good financial controls and

28:04 ↗ implementing a control every two years

28:06 ↗ doesn't seem adequate to me. So if and I

28:09 ↗ believe there's a need to inventory the

28:10 ↗ cards and make sure that we know who has

28:12 ↗ the cards and make sure that the people

28:13 ↗ who have the cards have a need to have

28:15 ↗ the card. And so putting a control in

28:18 ↗ that you're going to do every two years

28:20 ↗ um is is um is a big gap. And so I would

28:26 ↗ like to see some control put in that has

28:28 ↗ a shorter time frame than every two

28:30 ↗ years if we think that that's an

28:32 ↗ important control. And I personally

28:33 ↗ think it's a super important control

28:36 ↗ because they're credit cards and you can

28:38 ↗ do things and if

28:42 ↗ no controls are in place, then how do we

28:45 ↗ know that we're not having bad actors?

28:47 ↗ >> So maybe this got lost in the

28:49 ↗ presentation, but but each statement is

28:51 ↗ reviewed by the supervisor every month.

28:55 ↗ So every transaction

28:58 ↗ is reviewed by by someone who's their

29:01 ↗ boss. I mean, for example, I review how

29:04 ↗ many do I review? 12 15 credit card

29:07 ↗ statements a month.

29:09 ↗ >> Yeah. So

29:10 ↗ >> if it's not a problem, then you don't

29:12 ↗ know to do it every two years. If it is

29:14 ↗ a problem or if it is a a risk, then

29:17 ↗ consider doing it something more

29:18 ↗ frequent than every two years. So if

29:20 ↗ you're telling me it's not a risk, then

29:22 ↗ that's fine.

29:23 ↗ sort of. But if it is a risk, then I

29:27 ↗ don't think two years is adequate.

29:29 ↗ >> And and I'm I'm just trying to figure

29:32 ↗ out what are we reviewing more regular.

29:35 ↗ Are we reviewing the person who's

29:37 ↗ holding the card and how because we're

29:39 ↗ reviewing every transaction every month?

29:41 ↗ >> Yeah. Um so I think the the answer goes

29:44 ↗ back to you. What were you planning on

29:46 ↗ reviewing every two years?

29:49 ↗ And I think it was just to make sure

29:50 ↗ that for those cards that weren't being

29:52 ↗ used at all because we're only obviously

29:55 ↗ looking at the transactions for things

29:57 ↗ that are happening. If they're not

29:59 ↗ happening, then we could say, "Okay,

30:01 ↗ does this person still need a card?" I

30:03 ↗ think that's what you were looking to

30:04 ↗ do. And if you're concerned about that,

30:06 ↗ then we can absolutely do that once a

30:07 ↗ year. But as far as just oversight, we

30:10 ↗ oversee every month, every transaction.

30:15 ↗ A supervisor is reviewing every

30:17 ↗ transaction. and then has the

30:19 ↗ opportunity to question each

30:21 ↗ transaction. Now, it's all post fact,

30:23 ↗ but if there's fraud, we're seeing it

30:26 ↗ before the bills are paid because what

30:27 ↗ the process is is that the supervisor uh

30:31 ↗ sees the bill before payment is

30:33 ↗ authorized. So, we can catch something

30:35 ↗ before the the credit cards actually

30:36 ↗ paid off.

30:39 ↗ I'm just trying to figure out exactly I

30:41 ↗ want to do what you want. I'm just

30:42 ↗ trying to understand it better.

30:44 ↗ >> No, I think you understand it. Um, I

30:46 ↗ don't think that's actually true at all.

30:48 ↗ I mean, if if it's important, do it

30:51 ↗ regularly. If it's not important, don't

30:53 ↗ do it. So, two years is a ridiculous

30:55 ↗ amount of time to if to to do anything.

30:58 ↗ Um, it's just so long. So, if this is

31:01 ↗ something important to inventory the

31:02 ↗ cards, like you say, then do it annually

31:05 ↗ at least. Um, if it's not important,

31:07 ↗ then don't do it. Um it's I you know if

31:10 ↗ you if we feel like the financial

31:11 ↗ controls are in place to make sure we

31:13 ↗ don't make bad payments great. Um but

31:16 ↗ it's um don't do something um that's u

31:21 ↗ performative or peruncter do it so it

31:24 ↗ has an impact.

31:26 ↗ >> So we'll review the cards once a year.

31:29 ↗ >> Okay. That language will be reflected.

31:35 ↗ >> Okay. uh made a good point about making

31:38 ↗ sure that I collect any feedback. Is

31:41 ↗ there any other feedback that anybody

31:43 ↗ had based on this policy?

31:47 ↗ No. Okay. Um Kristen, very much

31:49 ↗ appreciate that you are pulling this

31:52 ↗ together for us. Love seeing you do the

31:54 ↗ work as a new finance director and all

31:57 ↗ of those areas. Um I think it's probably

31:59 ↗ okay to go back on consent. So I'll give

32:02 ↗ you that direction as well. Anything

32:04 ↗ else you need from us? That's it. Thank

32:06 ↗ you so much. I appreciate it.

32:07 ↗ >> Okay. Thanks.

32:10 ↗ >> Okay. So, that was our first item. Our

32:12 ↗ second item on our agenda is COMM 0176,

32:16 ↗ the Metro Flex Contract Update,

32:18 ↗ presented by Andrea Lerner, our deputy

32:21 ↗ city administrator. Andrea, take it away

32:24 ↗ for us. Thanks. Hi, good evening. Thank

32:26 ↗ you so much. I am Andrea Leonard, deputy

32:29 ↗ city administrator. With me this evening

32:32 ↗ are uh a couple of uh um our um

32:38 ↗ representatives from King County Metro

32:40 ↗ including Amanda Pleasant Brown and

32:41 ↗ Meredith Samson and I just want to

32:44 ↗ extend thanks uh for making the trip to

32:47 ↗ Isiqua and um for all their help in

32:49 ↗ preparing this presentation.

32:53 ↗ Next slide please Tisha. Thank you. Uh

32:55 ↗ so the purpose of this evening is for us

32:57 ↗ to provide an update on the metrlex

33:00 ↗ services uh for council, how they've

33:03 ↗ been operating over the past uh year.

33:06 ↗ And we also would like feedback as to

33:09 ↗ whether the city should renew our

33:11 ↗ contract with Metro um King County Metro

33:14 ↗ for Metroflex uh for the 2026 and 2027

33:18 ↗ years.

33:21 ↗ And so that is the direction that we are

33:23 ↗ seeking tonight. should the

33:25 ↗ administration proceed with renewing the

33:27 ↗ metro services metrlex services

33:29 ↗ contract. And just a note that it is a

33:32 ↗ two-year contract and so if council

33:35 ↗ provided us that direction this evening,

33:37 ↗ we would need to identify an additional

33:39 ↗ 57 almost $58,000 for 2026. We have some

33:43 ↗ money budgeted for a transit services

33:45 ↗ contract. Um but we did not fully fund

33:48 ↗ it uh last year when the council adopted

33:50 ↗ the budget. So, we would need to find

33:52 ↗ some additional funds and then it would

33:54 ↗ also include fully funding the contract

33:56 ↗ in 2027, uh, which is another about

34:00 ↗ $260,000.

34:04 ↗ Background for Metrlex actually extends

34:08 ↗ way way uh farther into the past than

34:11 ↗ 2021. Council may recall that uh the

34:14 ↗ city of Isiqua used to have a different

34:16 ↗ type of partnership with Metro. We had a

34:20 ↗ circulator uh within Isiqua mostly on

34:24 ↗ the valley floor but also extended to

34:25 ↗ the highlands in the later years called

34:26 ↗ the route 200. That was a a circulator a

34:30 ↗ shuttle service that was just within

34:31 ↗ city limits. that was free to uh riders

34:35 ↗ to use. And uh the really the

34:37 ↗ partnership started off with the city

34:39 ↗ covering the fairbox portion um of

34:42 ↗ revenues for Metro. And then in the

34:44 ↗ later years, Metro stopped requiring

34:46 ↗ that of us. And so it was free uh for

34:48 ↗ the city and free for any of the riders

34:51 ↗ to partake. That circulator route, the

34:54 ↗ route 200 got cancelled in 2020 with a

34:56 ↗ lot of other transit cancellations.

34:59 ↗ um and uh and you know was was not

35:04 ↗ highly utilized which is why it was

35:06 ↗ cancelled and hadn't been um really

35:09 ↗ since its inception but we had been

35:10 ↗ really wanting it to be successful and

35:13 ↗ had worked hard with Metro and trying to

35:15 ↗ make that route successful. So, route

35:16 ↗ 200 got cancelled and uh we had been

35:20 ↗ looking at what are these other options

35:22 ↗ especially to try to connect the

35:24 ↗ neighborhoods of Talis and Squawk better

35:26 ↗ to the transit center and better to

35:28 ↗ services on the valley floor since there

35:30 ↗ really were um no transit services in

35:33 ↗ those neighborhoods. And so that is what

35:36 ↗ kind of spurred a lot of our

35:37 ↗ conversations and looking at how can we

35:39 ↗ provide better transit connections for

35:42 ↗ folks. And as you see from this

35:44 ↗ timeline, that really led to the fall of

35:47 ↗ 2023 launching Metrolex. We considered a

35:51 ↗ lot of options between uh 2020 and 2023.

35:55 ↗ I'll get to those in the next slide. Um

35:57 ↗ but that's when uh we decided on

35:59 ↗ Metroflex and it and it launched in fall

36:01 ↗ of 2023. So,

36:04 ↗ uh, last year, as council may recall,

36:06 ↗ uh, it was a tough budget cycle for us

36:09 ↗ and, um, we had to make a lot of cuts to

36:12 ↗ our expenditures, including layoffs and

36:14 ↗ cuts to staff, and that included

36:16 ↗ reducing the metroflex budget, and the

36:18 ↗ administration came to council last year

36:20 ↗ with concerns about funding for this

36:22 ↗ service.

36:24 ↗ Um, we also, uh, as part of our budget

36:27 ↗ decisions laid off the staff member that

36:30 ↗ supported this program.

36:33 ↗ Uh we also had applied for a grant to

36:37 ↗ help fund the sitter city portion of

36:39 ↗ these services but we were unsuccessful.

36:42 ↗ And here we are and at the end of this

36:45 ↗ year uh the metroflex contract is set to

36:48 ↗ expire which brings us to here tonight.

36:51 ↗ Should we renew? Should we not renew?

36:53 ↗ Some of the options we explored in 2021

36:56 ↗ we really looked at three different

36:57 ↗ options. One is this ondemand pilot

37:00 ↗ partnership with Metro that turned into

37:02 ↗ Metrolex.

37:04 ↗ The other that council contemplated was

37:06 ↗ a cityrun shuttle that we would invest

37:09 ↗ in a third party system directly instead

37:11 ↗ of through Metro.

37:14 ↗ And we also looked at uh we also looked

37:16 ↗ at a partnership with a company like

37:19 ↗ Uber or Lyft to provide ondemand rides

37:22 ↗ in Isiqua. And uh at the time we used

37:25 ↗ these criteria to evaluate them. We had

37:27 ↗ conversations with the transportation

37:29 ↗ advisory board and the mobility and

37:31 ↗ infrastructure committee and ultimately

37:32 ↗ council and there are different concerns

37:35 ↗ um which uh led us to uh TAB at the time

37:40 ↗ transportation advisory board highly

37:43 ↗ preferred metrlex and council uh ended

37:46 ↗ up agreeing with them. As you can see

37:49 ↗ these are all uh this is the same table

37:51 ↗ that we used in those conversations in

37:53 ↗ 2021. So what that means is a cost to

37:56 ↗ city per year. For example, if you look

37:58 ↗ at that column, the the metroflex

38:02 ↗ square says estimates the cost to be 100

38:04 ↗ to 200,000. Well, now we know it's about

38:07 ↗ 260,000 per year. So um these is this is

38:11 ↗ not a current table. This is the table

38:13 ↗ that we used at the time to help us

38:15 ↗ evaluate options. That means that if we

38:18 ↗ wanted to revisit some of these options,

38:20 ↗ we would need to have a little bit more

38:22 ↗ time to be able to update the cost

38:24 ↗ estimates especially and to explore um

38:27 ↗ other partnerships like with Uber

38:29 ↗ andyft. So we have not uh we have not

38:32 ↗ updated this table or talked to Uber or

38:35 ↗ Lyft um or any other or examined a a

38:38 ↗ cityrun shuttle since 2021.

38:45 ↗ So little update on how the service is

38:47 ↗ going in the city. As you can see from

38:49 ↗ this chart from the first quarter of 24

38:52 ↗ through quarter the second quarter of 25

38:56 ↗ um ridership has somewhat been stable

38:59 ↗ between uh 2600 to um maybe about 3,400

39:05 ↗ rides per quarter.

39:10 ↗ And uh popular pickup locations. These

39:13 ↗ vary depending on a time of year. I

39:16 ↗ think uh if we were to give this

39:17 ↗ presentation last year, we had different

39:19 ↗ pickup locations that were popular. This

39:22 ↗ is really looking at more recent data

39:24 ↗ and the top spots include the Isiqua

39:27 ↗ Transit Center, the Isiqua High School,

39:29 ↗ Isqua Commons, and the Rose Crest

39:31 ↗ Apartments in Talis. So you can see from

39:34 ↗ this map um the gray dots are uh the

39:38 ↗ less popular pickup spots. all the way

39:40 ↗ up to the large purple um and dark

39:43 ↗ purple spots. Those are the more popular

39:44 ↗ pickup spots.

39:51 ↗ Um some recent uh performance as well.

39:55 ↗ So if we look at rides on a weekly basis

39:58 ↗ on average that's about 40 rides on a

40:01 ↗ weekly basis and rides we also look at

40:04 ↗ per vehicle hour per van. So that's

40:06 ↗ about 2.1 rides. It's important to note

40:09 ↗ that in Metroflex uh there that there's

40:12 ↗ also shared rides. And so as we look at

40:14 ↗ percentage of shared trips, that's 55%

40:17 ↗ of all trips for Metroflex in Isiqua are

40:19 ↗ shared with another rider. Um and that

40:23 ↗ helps us get towards the goal of

40:24 ↗ reducing congestion and reducing

40:26 ↗ greenhouse gases. Um cost per ride, this

40:30 ↗ is a total cost per ride for Metro and

40:32 ↗ the city at $40.71.

40:36 ↗ Um, so that's not the cost to the city,

40:38 ↗ that's the total cost of providing the

40:40 ↗ service. If we looked at the cost to the

40:42 ↗ city, the city provides about 70% of the

40:45 ↗ costs of Metrolex services. And so it is

40:48 ↗ less um and it's more around 30 bucks uh

40:53 ↗ per ride and of course that changes

40:56 ↗ depending on wrership.

41:00 ↗ Um, also on this chart you see

41:02 ↗ percentage of trips in EPAs. EPA's here

41:05 ↗ means equity priority areas. So there's

41:08 ↗ a number of factors that determine an

41:10 ↗ equity priority area including incomes

41:13 ↗ and other things. Um so we know that the

41:17 ↗ percentage of trips 25% of the trips on

41:21 ↗ metroflex in Isiqua are in equity

41:24 ↗ priority areas

41:26 ↗ and average wait time from when they

41:28 ↗ hail the ride to when the ride shows up

41:30 ↗ is 23 minutes.

41:35 ↗ Um, another another piece of information

41:38 ↗ for council's consideration is how well

41:40 ↗ is performing compared to its peers.

41:42 ↗ Metroflex services are offered in other

41:44 ↗ communities across King County. And we

41:47 ↗ have one of among the lower utilization

41:50 ↗ rates if we look at vehicle um rides per

41:53 ↗ vehicle hour. And so we can see that

41:55 ↗ we're just below Seamish there. Um also

41:58 ↗ looking at um again what is that

42:01 ↗ percentage of uses within the equity

42:03 ↗ priority areas. Of course our launch

42:06 ↗ date was uh in October 2023. It's a

42:09 ↗ little bit later than some cities but uh

42:12 ↗ most recently Northshore is a new city

42:14 ↗ or new area that's been added.

42:19 ↗ So really there's there's two options

42:22 ↗ that we're asking for council to

42:24 ↗ consider tonight. renew or not renew the

42:27 ↗ metrlex co contract. There may be other

42:29 ↗ guidance council gives us about other

42:31 ↗ options, but that's really the essential

42:33 ↗ question for us tonight. So, as we look

42:35 ↗ at um whether we would renew, part of

42:38 ↗ those new terms includes 3,700 vehicle

42:42 ↗ operation hours, same as the current

42:44 ↗ contract, no changes there. Also, the

42:47 ↗ days and times Monday through Friday,

42:49 ↗ 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9 to

42:52 ↗ 6.

42:53 ↗ The cost is a little different though.

42:55 ↗ Um our our current contract is $262,000

43:00 ↗ and change. Um the cost per year is

43:03 ↗ going down a little bit with the new

43:05 ↗ contract and that's because it doesn't

43:06 ↗ include the startup costs that were

43:08 ↗ required for the first time around. So

43:10 ↗ you're able to save on some of those

43:11 ↗ startup costs even though um the cost

43:14 ↗ per hour is uh has increased slightly

43:17 ↗ from the current contract.

43:23 ↗ as we look at those costs of service and

43:26 ↗ do a breakdown to determine how how are

43:29 ↗ King County Metro and the city of Isiqua

43:31 ↗ sharing some of these costs. As I said,

43:33 ↗ the city of Isqua accounts for pro about

43:35 ↗ 70% of the costs. Uh Metro uh that

43:40 ↗ accounts for about 30% of the cost. That

43:42 ↗ doesn't include all of Metro's overhead.

43:45 ↗ That's really looking at just the

43:47 ↗ operation of the vehicle. So it doesn't

43:49 ↗ include our our friends here tonight and

43:51 ↗ their time necessarily. Um

43:55 ↗ and so we can see the difference in cost

43:57 ↗ between the current contract and the

43:59 ↗ proposed contract again going from

44:01 ↗ $262,000

44:04 ↗ uh to uh $257,000

44:06 ↗ as the city's portion.

44:12 ↗ Uh so um our recommendation tonight at

44:16 ↗ this point the administration does not

44:18 ↗ recommend renewing the metroflex

44:20 ↗ contract due to our ongoing funding

44:22 ↗ concerns. Our our funding situation has

44:25 ↗ not changed since uh council adopted the

44:28 ↗ budget last year and we're concerned

44:29 ↗ about the ability to continue to pay for

44:31 ↗ these services in relation to other city

44:34 ↗ and community needs.

44:38 ↗ uh should we proceed uh with the

44:40 ↗ administration's recommendation that

44:42 ↗ means that the contract would expire on

44:44 ↗ December 31st. The city would of course

44:47 ↗ continue to advocate for metro and sound

44:49 ↗ transit service expansion in Isiqua but

44:52 ↗ we just would not be subsidizing this

44:54 ↗ service and we would be losing the

44:55 ↗ metroflex services within the city

44:57 ↗ limits.

45:02 ↗ Uh so direction needed again is uh

45:05 ↗ should the administration renew the

45:08 ↗ metroflex services contract or um should

45:11 ↗ we not renew the contract?

45:17 ↗ To renew or not to renew that is the

45:20 ↗ question. Sorry I had to uh we will

45:23 ↗ start with council question and answer.

45:26 ↗ Um so would anybody like to start us

45:29 ↗ out?

45:32 ↗ Okay, great. Uh,

45:35 ↗ Council Member Hall, then Council Member

45:37 ↗ Jen.

45:39 ↗ >> Okay, I have a couple, but that's okay.

45:41 ↗ Um, so I sent you one Oh, thank you for

45:43 ↗ the presentation. Thank you for all the

45:44 ↗ work and thanks for being with us

45:45 ↗ tonight. Um, I sent you one question

45:48 ↗ over email um around um writership

45:52 ↗ broken out by um Squawk and Talis which

45:56 ↗ were like like you said some of kind of

45:57 ↗ the main problem we were trying to solve

45:59 ↗ was that last mile between those

46:00 ↗ neighborhoods and you sent me back the

46:02 ↗ map and I just want to make sure I was

46:03 ↗ reading it right. So it looked like

46:06 ↗ there is like you said there's that

46:07 ↗ apartment complex in Talis that does

46:09 ↗ have high ridership um and is

46:12 ↗ participating in the program but maybe

46:13 ↗ not so much Squawk. Did I read that map

46:15 ↗ right?

46:17 ↗ >> That's correct.

46:17 ↗ >> Okay. Um

46:20 ↗ Okay. So, next question. Um so, the

46:24 ↗ grant that we applied for, we were

46:25 ↗ unsuccessful in that. Just generally, um

46:28 ↗ what's our sense of kind of general

46:31 ↗ grant availability in this space? What

46:33 ↗ does that landscape look like right now?

46:35 ↗ >> Not great, getting worse. Uh that's the

46:38 ↗ general that's the general uh summary.

46:40 ↗ Other communities are more successful in

46:42 ↗ getting grants. Um I know there was a

46:44 ↗ mention of uh our neighbors to the east

46:48 ↗ largely that's because they have access

46:50 ↗ to um different types of grants due to

46:53 ↗ the rural nature of those communities um

46:56 ↗ and also income uh or average income for

47:00 ↗ those communities that we just do not

47:02 ↗ have.

47:04 ↗ >> Okay, thank you. Um, and then I'm just

47:06 ↗ curious, does Metro

47:09 ↗ survey Metrolex users on some sort of

47:12 ↗ cadence at all? I'm just curious if

47:14 ↗ there's any isoquad data or maybe that's

47:17 ↗ something coming up.

47:18 ↗ >> Metro does a regular rider and non-riter

47:22 ↗ survey. Um, they can speak to the

47:24 ↗ cadence of that survey and they are able

47:27 ↗ to pull out some of the data to reflect

47:30 ↗ um, isqua and some metrlex use. So, um,

47:35 ↗ they do have some of that. If you have

47:37 ↗ more specific questions, I would love to

47:39 ↗ refer to them.

47:40 ↗ >> That would be great. Yeah. Cuz I'd be

47:41 ↗ really curious if there are any

47:43 ↗ questions that are asked around what

47:46 ↗ would you do otherwise like if if this

47:48 ↗ service was provided, what is

47:51 ↗ do you have a way to get to the transit

47:53 ↗ center to get to where you need to go?

47:55 ↗ Or if there are any other kinds of

47:56 ↗ questions that help us kind of peak into

47:58 ↗ the mind of the writer a little bit.

48:01 ↗ Hi uh Meredith Samson, transportation

48:03 ↗ planner with King County Metro. Thanks

48:05 ↗ for having me. Um we do the rider

48:08 ↗ non-riter survey that Andrea mentioned

48:10 ↗ twice a year. We haven't asked questions

48:13 ↗ specific to Metro Flex on that in the

48:15 ↗ most recent surveys. Um, but I know in

48:19 ↗ probably a year and a half to two years

48:21 ↗ ago, we did ask that question of what

48:23 ↗ would you do otherwise, but um, it

48:25 ↗ probably won't get at the Isiqua

48:27 ↗ community given that Metroflex here has

48:29 ↗ been running for two years. Um,

48:31 ↗ additionally, we just released a survey

48:34 ↗ to Metroflex riders. Um, learning more

48:37 ↗ about demographics of of our ridership

48:40 ↗ um and

48:42 ↗ uh, main trip purposes, how and why

48:45 ↗ people are using the service. Um, and we

48:47 ↗ are still kind of working through those

48:49 ↗ results. We got over a thousand

48:50 ↗ responses, which we thought was pretty

48:52 ↗ great. Um, and we are working through

48:54 ↗ breaking those down by service area and

48:56 ↗ where riders um, which service area

48:59 ↗ riders use most. Um, so we are asking

49:02 ↗ those questions.

49:03 ↗ >> Okay, thank you very much.

49:06 ↗ >> Is that it for your questions? Okay,

49:08 ↗ Council Member Jen.

49:09 ↗ >> Um, okay. I also have a few. I'm

49:11 ↗ curious, what's the average or median

49:13 ↗ length of a metrlex ride in Isiqua?

49:17 ↗ Do you know in terms of time or miles or

49:19 ↗ whatever?

49:23 ↗ Um I in term I don't know off the top of

49:25 ↗ my head in Isiqua so I can get back to

49:27 ↗ you with that but I know over the over

49:30 ↗ programwide uh our rides are about three

49:32 ↗ miles.

49:33 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then to I mean

49:36 ↗ in Isquaso I saw you know we have the

49:38 ↗ two rides per van hour. I'm curious what

49:41 ↗ percentage of the time the vans are you

49:43 ↗ know doing a ride or driving to a ride

49:44 ↗ versus like being idle.

49:49 ↗ um the way that the kind of the backend

49:52 ↗ algorithm works for Metrolex, there's

49:54 ↗ very little idle time because of the

49:56 ↗ demand we see in in Isiqua and Seamish

49:59 ↗ for Metrolex. Um so I don't have the

50:01 ↗ exact amount of time that vans are just

50:03 ↗ kind of idally sitting, but if they are

50:05 ↗ for too long, they'll be pulled to a

50:06 ↗ different service area for Metroflex to

50:08 ↗ be in use. So we don't have a ton of

50:10 ↗ downtime. We're kind of using the vans

50:12 ↗ to their highest capacity right now.

50:15 ↗ Okay, that makes sense because I guess

50:16 ↗ kind of the idea that I had in my head

50:18 ↗ was that there were four that were, you

50:19 ↗ know, like assigned to our area and

50:21 ↗ would stay in our area, but you know,

50:23 ↗ just based on demand, they could be

50:24 ↗ reallocated to different metroplex

50:25 ↗ areas.

50:26 ↗ >> Correct.

50:26 ↗ >> Okay, that makes sense. Um, one other

50:28 ↗ question I had was what percentage of

50:30 ↗ these rides serve people with

50:32 ↗ disabilities?

50:35 ↗ >> Do you have data on that? We do have

50:36 ↗ data in terms of um like wheelchair

50:39 ↗ accessible van usage because we do have

50:42 ↗ wheelchair accessible Metro Flex vans. I

50:45 ↗ don't know off the top of my head how

50:46 ↗ many what percentage of those rides are.

50:50 ↗ Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I just like

50:52 ↗ thought at these while we were talking.

50:53 ↗ I should have uh given them earlier, but

50:55 ↗ it's all good.

50:57 ↗ >> Okay. Uh Council Member Joe,

51:02 ↗ >> thank you for the presentation tonight.

51:03 ↗ Um, uh, Andrew, if you would move to

51:06 ↗ page 7 of 13, the pickup location map.

51:10 ↗ Just had a question about it. Um, and

51:12 ↗ I'll just keep talking really slow as

51:13 ↗ soon as the map gets pulled up. So, the

51:17 ↗ map does show up pickup locations, top

51:20 ↗ pickup locations in the area or the

51:23 ↗ Isiqua um area, uh, Transit Center High

51:27 ↗ School, Isqua Commons, and Rose

51:28 ↗ Apartments in Talis. Um, I was wondering

51:32 ↗ if

51:33 ↗ we had a map of where people were being

51:36 ↗ dropped off. Now, I I'll just just say

51:40 ↗ that that I often get picked up um when

51:43 ↗ my car is in the shop. Uh, it was in the

51:45 ↗ shop three times in about 3 weeks and I

51:49 ↗ use the metro service to get up to

51:51 ↗ squawk rather than walking the two miles

51:53 ↗ there. So, I'll go ahead and let you

51:54 ↗ answer and see what we come up with.

51:57 ↗ We we do um I'm I'm sorry. Uh it was

52:02 ↗ sent out right before this meeting over

52:04 ↗ email in response to another council

52:06 ↗ question. So you should be able to have

52:08 ↗ it in email. I can't pull it up on my on

52:12 ↗ my slides uh this evening, but perhaps

52:16 ↗ the clerk has access to it. I do see

52:20 ↗ >> I do see it in my map and I noticed it

52:23 ↗ was quite dispersed in terms of um where

52:27 ↗ people are getting dropped off. It seems

52:29 ↗ that it's everywhere in the city. And um

52:35 ↗ uh what do you as an administrator and

52:39 ↗ maybe our our metro folks, what do you

52:43 ↗ see that or interpret that as telling

52:46 ↗ us?

52:48 ↗ >> Good question. What my theory would be

52:52 ↗ is that for example, if we look at the

52:55 ↗ the um

52:58 ↗ the pickup locations like the transit

53:01 ↗ center for example, then they're taking

53:03 ↗ it to be dropped off back at home or isa

53:06 ↗ high school um then they're going home.

53:09 ↗ So that's that's how I would interpret

53:11 ↗ that is that they're not always two-way

53:14 ↗ trips necessarily. there's some other

53:16 ↗ car pooling or some other way that

53:17 ↗ they're getting around and then only one

53:20 ↗ part. Um, so they're using it's not a

53:23 ↗ symmetrical service.

53:28 ↗ >> Okay. Um, it let me throw a theory out

53:33 ↗ that that maybe the pickup locations are

53:36 ↗ in the the central locations that we

53:39 ↗ would kind of expect, but the drop off

53:41 ↗ locations are kind of everywhere around

53:44 ↗ the city. kind of indicating to me at

53:46 ↗ least and maybe you could comment on it

53:48 ↗ that that um people are using it for all

53:52 ↗ sorts of reasons whether it's the

53:54 ↗ reasons that our high school kids use it

53:57 ↗ for but um you know I'm using it to

54:01 ↗ get from the car shop back home and uh

54:04 ↗ so that people are going just all over

54:06 ↗ the city and and using it for a wide

54:09 ↗ range of reasons and not just for

54:11 ↗ perhaps what we might have in our mind

54:14 ↗ as as uh what the service is being used

54:17 ↗ for. And I' like to hear if you have any

54:19 ↗ comments on that.

54:21 ↗ >> I I think that's that's a reasonable

54:23 ↗ conclusion. I recall when we did a lot

54:25 ↗ of surveying

54:27 ↗ um this might be 2019 when we were

54:31 ↗ looking at the future of the route 200

54:33 ↗ and looking at other, you know, other

54:35 ↗ options and alternatives. We did a lot

54:37 ↗ of survey work with folks who were using

54:39 ↗ the route 200, folks who um were just,

54:43 ↗ you know, residents and also people um

54:46 ↗ we targeted the food bank, senior

54:48 ↗ center, other places like that. And what

54:51 ↗ we heard from uh people who wanted to

54:54 ↗ have this type of transit service is

54:56 ↗ that they wanted to use it to go to

54:58 ↗ doctor's appointments. They wanted to

55:00 ↗ use it to go grocery shopping. Um, and

55:04 ↗ so it it I think that there people are

55:06 ↗ using it in all kinds of ways.

55:10 ↗ >> Thank you very much,

55:14 ↗ >> Council Me or Deputy Council President

55:15 ↗ D. Michelle.

55:16 ↗ >> Thank you. So, um, and correct me if I'm

55:19 ↗ wrong. Um, is the map just Isiqua or is

55:23 ↗ it the Isiqua Seamish?

55:25 ↗ >> Well, uh, so you'll see that part of the

55:28 ↗ service area, it's kind of I think it's

55:30 ↗ highlighted in pink. um that that

55:32 ↗ service area does extend into Seamish.

55:34 ↗ And so before Isiqua started uh

55:38 ↗ subsidizing the service and expanding

55:41 ↗ the service area more into Isiqua, there

55:43 ↗ was a little bit of that Seamish service

55:44 ↗ area that came into Isiqua really to the

55:48 ↗ um Isqua Highlands Park and Ride in that

55:50 ↗ area. So um we do have an overlapping

55:52 ↗ service area with Seamish at this point

55:55 ↗ because of the city's subsidy. It covers

55:57 ↗ much more of the city of Isiqua.

55:59 ↗ >> Okay. And um so have we tracked how many

56:03 ↗ people go back and forth to Samish and

56:06 ↗ how many people from Samish come to

56:07 ↗ Isiqua or not?

56:10 ↗ >> I I don't believe we have tracked that

56:13 ↗ specifically, but I'm going to refer to

56:15 ↗ Metro staff if we have

56:22 ↗ >> not not the most satisfying answer here.

56:24 ↗ We can track that, but I don't have the

56:27 ↗ the numbers right here for you. But we

56:28 ↗ can see um the percentage of trips that

56:31 ↗ start in Samishamish and end in Isiqua

56:33 ↗ or start in Isqua and end of Seamish.

56:35 ↗ When we are talking about Isiqua

56:36 ↗ ridership though, it's all the it's the

56:38 ↗ start points.

56:40 ↗ >> That's the writership we're talking

56:41 ↗ about has to start in Isqua to count as

56:42 ↗ an Isiqua ride.

56:44 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you.

56:51 ↗ >> Uh Council Member Ray,

56:53 ↗ >> thanks. I I am kind of listening to uh

56:57 ↗ Council Member Jiang and Joe J&J. Uh

57:01 ↗ yeah, it is. And I have um it sparked a

57:04 ↗ question about um

57:06 ↗ not so much idle time, but dead head

57:08 ↗ time going from one from one drop off to

57:12 ↗ the next pickup. Do we have any data on

57:14 ↗ on what that looks like in terms of um

57:18 ↗ how much time, how many miles, what

57:21 ↗ percentage of their time is moving

57:22 ↗ between drop offs and the next pickup.

57:28 ↗ >> Um that is something I don't know if we

57:32 ↗ track. I wouldn't be surprised if we do,

57:34 ↗ but I don't um I haven't seen those

57:36 ↗ numbers before in terms of just

57:38 ↗ >> any any kind of just rough estimate of

57:40 ↗ what it might be 10% of the time, 20% of

57:43 ↗ the time, 100% of the time.

57:44 ↗ >> Honestly, don't know if I can give you

57:45 ↗ an estimate. I'm sorry.

57:46 ↗ >> That that'd be great.

57:50 ↗ Council

57:53 ↗ member Chill,

57:55 ↗ >> if uh Council Member Ray would allow me

57:57 ↗ to give kind of a experience answer, I

58:02 ↗ can let him know what what I've seen

58:05 ↗ when I um request the Metroflex. Um, in

58:12 ↗ both my experiences, the Metroflex was

58:14 ↗ already up in the Highlands area and um,

58:19 ↗ my wait time was about 20 to 23 minutes.

58:23 ↗ During that time, the Metrlex picked up

58:27 ↗ and dropped off at least three other

58:29 ↗ people before getting to me during that

58:31 ↗ time. So the way the route is set up or

58:34 ↗ the way the drivers are instructed is

58:37 ↗ they pick up a person, they take it to

58:39 ↗ the next location, drop off that person,

58:41 ↗ unless there is an overlapping kind of

58:43 ↗ situation where two routes kind of run

58:46 ↗ the same. Um,

58:48 ↗ and then so there were about four stops

58:50 ↗ before they came and picked me up. Um,

58:53 ↗ there was another occasion where I got

58:55 ↗ picked up at my apartment and there was

58:57 ↗ another person in the van. We were going

58:59 ↗ the same direction.

59:02 ↗ I got off at my stop before he got off

59:05 ↗ and he continued on on his journey. So,

59:07 ↗ there's some overlap there and and dead

59:09 ↗ time is not necessarily

59:11 ↗ um a measure in a sense because it look

59:14 ↗ it looks like to me that there's always

59:16 ↗ someone either being carried or they're

59:18 ↗ going quickly to that next person. So,

59:21 ↗ maybe it's that dead time after a stop

59:23 ↗ between stops that might be there. But

59:25 ↗ it seemed to be pretty efficient in

59:26 ↗ terms of the um circular route that it

59:29 ↗ was taking to get to me and to pick me

59:31 ↗ up was my experience.

59:35 ↗ >> Council member Ray, I would also offer

59:37 ↗ perhaps as a proxy would be the wait

59:39 ↗ time that that riders would experience

59:43 ↗ since we don't have data and you're

59:45 ↗ looking for a ballpark estimate. average

59:47 ↗ wait time from hail to the ride coming

59:50 ↗ is uh I think in that range that council

59:52 ↗ member Joe suggested 20 to 23 minutes.

59:54 ↗ It was in a previous slide.

59:57 ↗ >> Yeah. No, I think that's I think that's

59:59 ↗ great. Um but then if I want to use

1:00:01 ↗ another proxy, I look at the number of

1:00:02 ↗ trips per hour and and then I factor in

1:00:07 ↗ average trip length of three miles. So

1:00:09 ↗ let's say traffic is really bad. Um so

1:00:12 ↗ maybe that's 10 minutes. Um, so I got 40

1:00:15 ↗ minutes I'm trying to account for. So

1:00:18 ↗ just just trying to understand the uh

1:00:21 ↗ utilization. It's a it's a 100%

1:00:23 ↗ utilization question.

1:00:28 ↗ >> Any other questions?

1:00:30 ↗ Okay, I will ask mine. So, in the email

1:00:34 ↗ that you sent out um about

1:00:38 ↗ drop off locations, you also provided a

1:00:42 ↗ table showing the unique riders in 2024

1:00:45 ↗ and 2025. So, there was 98 unique riders

1:00:48 ↗ in 2024 and 742 in 2025 so far. Um do we

1:00:55 ↗ have any sense of how that compares to

1:00:59 ↗ other um writership areas? I'm trying to

1:01:03 ↗ understand is this being utilized by

1:01:07 ↗ fewer people more frequently or more

1:01:12 ↗ people less frequently and how that

1:01:15 ↗ relates to our potential for growth.

1:01:19 ↗ Um I don't have that information today

1:01:22 ↗ and I don't think that our yeah our

1:01:24 ↗ partners at Metro do either.

1:01:26 ↗ >> Is is that information that we can try

1:01:29 ↗ to provide? Okay. Okay. And then the

1:01:32 ↗ drop off location map um that you

1:01:35 ↗ provided also had a um

1:01:40 ↗ not table of contents like an index that

1:01:43 ↗ said what the colors meant which

1:01:45 ↗ suggested that the

1:01:49 ↗ um locations of like the transit centers

1:01:52 ↗ were seeing

1:01:54 ↗ 300 to 400

1:01:58 ↗ and I assume that's number of visits

1:02:03 ↗ um off of that. I would also be

1:02:06 ↗ interested to understand how that

1:02:08 ↗ compares and whether or not that

1:02:11 ↗ um is the same.

1:02:16 ↗ What is the word? I'm thinking of the

1:02:21 ↗ the table off of No, like the table that

1:02:24 ↗ you see on a map that indicates legend.

1:02:27 ↗ Thank you. if that's the same legend as

1:02:29 ↗ the one in our um PowerPoint.

1:02:34 ↗ >> So the PowerPoint

1:02:35 ↗ >> if the colors mean the same numbers.

1:02:37 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:02:38 ↗ >> Okay. I I think we might have to just

1:02:41 ↗ verify.

1:02:43 ↗ >> Yep.

1:02:43 ↗ >> Okay. Okay.

1:02:44 ↗ >> Okay.

1:02:45 ↗ >> Great. Um next question.

1:02:50 ↗ uh through this evalu evaluation

1:02:53 ↗ process. Did this go through the

1:02:55 ↗ transportation advisory board? And if

1:02:57 ↗ not, when was the last time they

1:03:00 ↗ discussed Metroflex?

1:03:01 ↗ >> The the last time they discussed

1:03:03 ↗ Metrlex? Um so I the last time that the

1:03:07 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board provided

1:03:10 ↗ recommendations on Metroflex was in uh I

1:03:15 ↗ believe 2021. I'm just thinking back to

1:03:18 ↗ that timeline. So we have not gone back

1:03:21 ↗ to TAB to talk about performance

1:03:23 ↗ necessarily. Um

1:03:26 ↗ we have not come to them with a policy

1:03:28 ↗ question on Metrolex services.

1:03:34 ↗ >> Great. That's a good question. Then um

1:03:37 ↗ with this contract um is there a

1:03:39 ↗ possibility of adjusting our boundary

1:03:42 ↗ lines? for example, dropping areas that

1:03:45 ↗ have less usage and adding areas that

1:03:48 ↗ maybe like the Isco Highlands that have

1:03:51 ↗ increased density that could provide

1:03:53 ↗ more rides per hour. That is a

1:03:56 ↗ possibility to change the service area.

1:03:58 ↗ If we were to add to the service area

1:04:00 ↗ without subtracting from the service

1:04:02 ↗ area, um that would probably require us

1:04:05 ↗ to get another van and therefore

1:04:06 ↗ increase the cost of the service. And so

1:04:09 ↗ we have to we we talked about options.

1:04:12 ↗ um within you know how much we could

1:04:15 ↗ change that service area. Could we

1:04:17 ↗ reduce the service area and reduce the

1:04:18 ↗ cost to the city for example? Um but at

1:04:21 ↗ this point the service area is what it

1:04:23 ↗ is for really one van to operate. Uh so

1:04:26 ↗ if we were to add we would need to

1:04:28 ↗ subtract from a different part of the

1:04:30 ↗ service area. Okay. Great.

1:04:33 ↗ Okay. Checking in. Another question.

1:04:36 ↗ Council member Ray.

1:04:37 ↗ >> Thanks. What's our drop dead date on

1:04:38 ↗ making a decision on this? The contract

1:04:41 ↗ expires December 31st. So we need to

1:04:43 ↗ make a decision before then.

1:04:45 ↗ >> So no lead time, no uh time before

1:04:49 ↗ notification on terminating the contract

1:04:51 ↗ or not renewing the contract.

1:04:53 ↗ >> We we can let the contract expire. I

1:04:56 ↗ don't think we need to we don't need to

1:04:57 ↗ notify Metro, you know, 90 days before

1:05:00 ↗ expiration. It can just expire.

1:05:02 ↗ >> Okay.

1:05:06 ↗ >> Okay. Good set of questions. Um, next

1:05:09 ↗ part of all of this is looking to public

1:05:12 ↗ comment, seeing if there are any

1:05:14 ↗ additional public comments. You know,

1:05:16 ↗ obviously we heard from folks at the

1:05:18 ↗ beginning, but now you've got more

1:05:20 ↗ additional information. So, if there's

1:05:22 ↗ anything that um you would like to

1:05:25 ↗ express, anyone want to make any

1:05:27 ↗ additional public comment? No.

1:05:30 ↗ Kaylee, come on up.

1:05:34 ↗ >> Okay. Just a couple things. I just

1:05:37 ↗ wanted to again

1:05:39 ↗ um go back to some of the slides that we

1:05:42 ↗ were presented. Um Isiqua was 2.1

1:05:47 ↗ while the four above that was 2.3 2.4.

1:05:52 ↗ We're not out of the scope of service

1:05:55 ↗ that. So I think that's important to

1:05:57 ↗ keep in mind. Also, I want to go back to

1:05:59 ↗ council member Ray

1:06:01 ↗ and you were talking about the dead time

1:06:03 ↗ and if we're thinking about it's not 40

1:06:05 ↗ minutes, right? It's two rides. So,

1:06:07 ↗ that's 40 minutes of rides, 20 minutes

1:06:11 ↗ of dead time. And that's if we're not

1:06:13 ↗ picking up more people. So,

1:06:16 ↗ and then

1:06:18 ↗ I would be remiss if I didn't say one

1:06:20 ↗ more time that this isn't just about

1:06:26 ↗ what's the best utilization of a

1:06:28 ↗ service. I think it's really important

1:06:31 ↗ for us, especially right now, to be

1:06:34 ↗ thinking about our most marginalized

1:06:36 ↗ people and how we support them and

1:06:39 ↗ provide services to them. And so I think

1:06:42 ↗ this is something that it it needs to be

1:06:45 ↗ equitable and and Metroflex is

1:06:48 ↗ equitable. Thank you.

1:06:50 ↗ >> Thank you. And it sounds like we have a

1:06:54 ↗ member online who would like to make a

1:06:56 ↗ comment.

1:06:58 ↗ >> Yes, Ken Eastman is with us and Ken,

1:07:03 ↗ I've just made you a panelist and you

1:07:05 ↗ can you should be able to unmute and can

1:07:08 ↗ choose to turn your video on.

1:07:18 ↗ Okay, I think I've pushed the correct

1:07:20 ↗ buttons.

1:07:21 ↗ >> You have. Thanks, Ken.

1:07:25 ↗ >> Um, Ken Eman, uh, I'm resident of

1:07:27 ↗ Isiqua,

1:07:29 ↗ uh, 2473 Northwest Stony Creek Drive.

1:07:33 ↗ Um, and, uh, thanks for the

1:07:36 ↗ presentation.

1:07:38 ↗ Uh, I've looked at the Metroflex usage

1:07:41 ↗ data that was in the presentation

1:07:43 ↗ and I think Metroflex

1:07:46 ↗ is an interesting idea, but it just

1:07:48 ↗ doesn't seem to pencil out. Uh, the

1:07:51 ↗ taxpayer subsidy, you know, is way out

1:07:54 ↗ of line with the benefit $40.71.

1:07:59 ↗ And let's all remember, you know, if you

1:08:02 ↗ live in Isiqua, you're not only an

1:08:03 ↗ Isiqua taxpayer, you're also a King

1:08:05 ↗ County taxpayer. So, um, that whole $40

1:08:10 ↗ sooner or later comes through to each

1:08:13 ↗ resident in Isiqua.

1:08:16 ↗ Um, you know, the city is looking for

1:08:19 ↗ additional funding. There's talk about

1:08:21 ↗ raising the sales tax uh to fund public

1:08:25 ↗ safety, uh, you know, which is

1:08:27 ↗ important. We got Metroflex funds and a

1:08:31 ↗ program that just doesn't seem to be

1:08:33 ↗ working uh in in terms of the benefits.

1:08:37 ↗ Um and we shouldn't forget that

1:08:40 ↗ lowincome people are also being taxed in

1:08:43 ↗ order to pay for Metroflex. I mean they

1:08:47 ↗ pay taxes, they pay sales taxes. Uh so

1:08:51 ↗ um you know uh we we should remember

1:08:54 ↗ they're funding it as well uh if we're

1:08:56 ↗ concerned about that. So let's talk

1:08:58 ↗ about idle time. Uh 2.1 trips

1:09:02 ↗ approximately 3 miles when you got to

1:09:05 ↗ believe that there is idle time there.

1:09:08 ↗ Single ridership is troubling 45%.

1:09:12 ↗ Um you know it's been a fair amount of

1:09:15 ↗ time for this pilot. It's been six

1:09:17 ↗ quarters. I just don't think it's likely

1:09:21 ↗ that the readership is going to change

1:09:23 ↗ very much.

1:09:25 ↗ Um and quite frankly it does strike me

1:09:28 ↗ that in a lot of cases this is just a

1:09:31 ↗ taxpayer subsidized Uber for affluent

1:09:33 ↗ people. I mean 75%

1:09:36 ↗ are non um uh EPAs which is very

1:09:41 ↗ different than some of the other metrlex

1:09:44 ↗ areas uh that have higher ridership.

1:09:49 ↗ Uh I don't think it's unreasonable to

1:09:51 ↗ walk from the high school to the garage.

1:09:53 ↗ you know, the kids are should be able to

1:09:55 ↗ do that. I don't think that's much of a

1:09:58 ↗ stretch. And even walking to shopping

1:10:00 ↗ shouldn't be that much of a stretch.

1:10:03 ↗ And, you know, if it's high school kids

1:10:05 ↗ that are too cool to take the yellow

1:10:07 ↗ school bus, uh, you know, that's not

1:10:10 ↗ something that I think the taxpayers

1:10:12 ↗ should subsidize either. Um,

1:10:16 ↗ you know, I would just comment if this

1:10:19 ↗ Metrolex program is truly dynamically

1:10:23 ↗ uh moving the vans around to other

1:10:25 ↗ service areas, then we should have a

1:10:28 ↗ cost in Isiqua that reflects that and it

1:10:31 ↗ doesn't seem to do that. So, I'm a

1:10:34 ↗ little bit uh reluctant to believe that

1:10:37 ↗ there's all that much efficiency there.

1:10:39 ↗ I just uh end this by saying the city

1:10:42 ↗ council's got the responsibility, you

1:10:44 ↗ know, to residents to be fiscally

1:10:46 ↗ responsible. It's admirable that we

1:10:49 ↗ piloted this Metroflex, but our city

1:10:52 ↗ leaders need to have the courage to

1:10:53 ↗ cancel a program that just doesn't make

1:10:56 ↗ sense. I mean, we've all heard that term

1:10:59 ↗ tax and spend politicians. I think you

1:11:02 ↗ need to ask yourself, do you do you want

1:11:04 ↗ to be remembered as having the courage

1:11:07 ↗ to to uh cancel a project that was

1:11:12 ↗ admirable, but it just didn't pencil

1:11:14 ↗ out? Um, or do you want to have the

1:11:17 ↗ reputation of just being tax and spend

1:11:19 ↗ politicians that chase bright and shiny

1:11:22 ↗ objects um that just don't make sense?

1:11:25 ↗ Thank you for your time.

1:11:28 ↗ >> Thanks, Ken. Do we have anyone else

1:11:31 ↗ online indicating a desire to speak?

1:11:34 ↗ Okay. Well, we appreciate the public

1:11:37 ↗ comments on those areas. Let me get back

1:11:40 ↗ to my agenda.

1:11:43 ↗ So, council direction on this. Um, the

1:11:48 ↗ administration does not recommend

1:11:51 ↗ continuing this program. They have asked

1:11:53 ↗ for our feedback particularly as we are

1:11:56 ↗ looking at the 2026 midbian budget

1:12:00 ↗ portions and then also a potential to

1:12:04 ↗ extend this contract into 2027.

1:12:07 ↗ Anyone want to start out? Council member

1:12:09 ↗ Jen. Um I'll just start by saying I

1:12:12 ↗ really don't appreciate how this was

1:12:15 ↗ brought to us. you know, kind of 3

1:12:17 ↗ months before the end of the contract,

1:12:20 ↗ we knew that this cliff was coming up

1:12:22 ↗ when we passed the budget a year ago.

1:12:24 ↗ And so we could have spent this time

1:12:25 ↗ thinking about, you know, okay, if our

1:12:27 ↗ budget for these types of transportation

1:12:29 ↗ solutions is $200,000, what could we do

1:12:31 ↗ with that $200,000 if not metrlex? So I

1:12:34 ↗ think if the question being, do we do

1:12:36 ↗ Metroflex or not? I think the question

1:12:38 ↗ is what types of alternative

1:12:40 ↗ transportation options could we come up

1:12:41 ↗ with in $200,000?

1:12:43 ↗ and maybe metrx is more than that. So,

1:12:46 ↗ we need to find other options. I really

1:12:48 ↗ agree with Kayle's points on, you know,

1:12:51 ↗ funding for equitable transportation

1:12:52 ↗ options. I do think especially you know

1:12:55 ↗ for an organization like the garage

1:12:57 ↗ potentially having even like more

1:12:58 ↗ targeted types of things where it's like

1:13:00 ↗ okay you know for those folks maybe part

1:13:03 ↗ of the part of the cost of providing

1:13:05 ↗ services is actually you know having

1:13:07 ↗ funding for you know cab rides for kids

1:13:09 ↗ that really need it to access the

1:13:11 ↗ services because I feel like that you

1:13:13 ↗ know is somewhat more targeted. Um,

1:13:14 ↗ also, you know, with Rose Crest up in

1:13:16 ↗ Talis, that one to me is also like just

1:13:20 ↗ fundamentally it's kind of a land use

1:13:21 ↗ issue where we chose to put affordable

1:13:23 ↗ housing far away from transit 20 years

1:13:25 ↗ ago and now we're kind of, you know,

1:13:27 ↗ reaping the consequences of that. So, I

1:13:29 ↗ think there's other options. You know,

1:13:31 ↗ there's other equitable transportation

1:13:32 ↗ solutions that actually have grant

1:13:34 ↗ funding. For example, I just talked with

1:13:36 ↗ the sustainability team like a couple

1:13:39 ↗ weeks ago about a grant from washdot to

1:13:42 ↗ set up like an ebike lending library run

1:13:44 ↗ by community organizations. That could

1:13:46 ↗ be a really good fit for something like

1:13:47 ↗ Rose Crest and Talis where presumably

1:13:49 ↗ some of those folks are literally just,

1:13:50 ↗ you know, going to shop shop at Target

1:13:53 ↗ or whatever the case may be and you know

1:13:55 ↗ for a two-mile trip it's great for an

1:13:57 ↗ ebike you can get back up the hill no

1:13:59 ↗ problem. And so just like I think I

1:14:03 ↗ would really like to see us be a bit

1:14:05 ↗ more creative with how we can actually

1:14:06 ↗ spend this money to you know because we

1:14:09 ↗ do have $200,000 budgeted and so you

1:14:13 ↗ know how can we like what are some of

1:14:14 ↗ the different options and cobbling

1:14:16 ↗ together some of the first and last mile

1:14:17 ↗ issues cuz ultimately you know from a

1:14:19 ↗ climate perspective in terms of climate

1:14:23 ↗ emissions it's like we have to reduce

1:14:24 ↗ vehicle miles traveled right so it's

1:14:27 ↗ like if you're and so obviously the best

1:14:29 ↗ thing to do is to get people out of

1:14:31 ↗ cars, you know, for transit, going from

1:14:33 ↗ point A to point B, like going from

1:14:36 ↗ Isiqua to Seattle or something like

1:14:37 ↗ that. I think that makes a lot of sense.

1:14:39 ↗ I think for shorter trips, making it so

1:14:41 ↗ that people don't have to get in any

1:14:42 ↗ kind of vehicle is obviously ideal. Um,

1:14:44 ↗ and obviously, you know, coming up on

1:14:46 ↗ winter, that makes it more difficult. Um

1:14:50 ↗ there's but I just feel like we really

1:14:52 ↗ do need to have a you know kind of

1:14:54 ↗ broader view of what the solutions are

1:14:57 ↗ to first mile last mile

1:14:59 ↗ um service instead of just being like oh

1:15:02 ↗ you know this is either yes or no and

1:15:03 ↗ then if it's no we have nothing else

1:15:05 ↗ even though we still have this $200,000

1:15:07 ↗ in the budget that is then not going to

1:15:08 ↗ be doing anything instead of spending it

1:15:10 ↗ on something that might you know have a

1:15:12 ↗ better potentially better cost benefit.

1:15:14 ↗ I will say also, I mean, you know, in

1:15:16 ↗ terms of the cost per ride, I went and

1:15:20 ↗ checked out, you know, because I live up

1:15:21 ↗ in Talis, so kind of at the edge of the

1:15:23 ↗ service area, it's like, oh, if I wanted

1:15:24 ↗ to go to Smamish, how much would it cost

1:15:26 ↗ for me to take an Uber? And it was like

1:15:27 ↗ $30. So, I think if we're really a, you

1:15:31 ↗ know, if we want to do a better like

1:15:34 ↗ cost effective, equitable transportation

1:15:36 ↗ thing, I really think maybe we should

1:15:37 ↗ be, you know, funding the garage and

1:15:39 ↗ giving them a grant to, you know, have

1:15:42 ↗ their students um use that service. But

1:15:45 ↗ I think we just I don't again, you know,

1:15:48 ↗ I don't appreciate that it's kind of

1:15:50 ↗ like a binary yes no when there should

1:15:51 ↗ be various different other options that

1:15:53 ↗ we're looking at.

1:15:59 ↗ Okay. Anybody who wants to go next?

1:16:01 ↗ Council member Ray.

1:16:03 ↗ >> Very much like to go next. And I'd like

1:16:04 ↗ to um say that I agree with council

1:16:08 ↗ member Jang extensively, but I was uh

1:16:12 ↗ thinking about a couple things like what

1:16:14 ↗ are the policy objectives of Metrolex?

1:16:16 ↗ And I came up with three that I've heard

1:16:18 ↗ about tonight. One is um reduce traffic

1:16:21 ↗ congestion slash uh climate impact. The

1:16:24 ↗ other is last mile for transit and then

1:16:26 ↗ the the third is equitable

1:16:28 ↗ transportation options. So when I look

1:16:31 ↗ at uh traffic congestion uh climate

1:16:33 ↗ impact, I'm I'm not convinced yet and

1:16:36 ↗ then I don't have any data to suggest

1:16:37 ↗ yet that we really have reduced traffic

1:16:40 ↗ um or uh had a positive impact on um on

1:16:45 ↗ um carbon emissions. So that makes me uh

1:16:49 ↗ scratch my head a little bit and say we

1:16:51 ↗ before um continuing this I would like

1:16:54 ↗ to have more definitive data that says

1:16:55 ↗ yeah this really does reduce traffic

1:16:57 ↗ congestion and does reduce carbon

1:16:59 ↗ emissions. Second is last mile to

1:17:01 ↗ transit. Hoay for Talis. I think we

1:17:03 ↗ we've got data that suggests that Talis

1:17:05 ↗ has been fairly effective in using it

1:17:07 ↗ for transit. I can extrapolate that from

1:17:09 ↗ pickups and drop offs. Um but it's less

1:17:11 ↗ so for squawk. Um, so, um, we get a get

1:17:15 ↗ a a passing grade, but not a a stellar

1:17:18 ↗ grade there. And then the, um, equitable

1:17:21 ↗ transportation options. I keep coming

1:17:23 ↗ back to, is there a more cost-effective

1:17:25 ↗ way to deliver more targeted services to

1:17:29 ↗ those marginalized populations that we

1:17:31 ↗ want to serve?

1:17:34 ↗ And I'm struck with a model that um a

1:17:36 ↗ large a number of large businesses use

1:17:39 ↗ um for providing transportation to their

1:17:42 ↗ employees um at very specific times. So

1:17:46 ↗ for instance, Microsoft has a bus that

1:17:48 ↗ um starts the day maybe out in um

1:17:51 ↗ Fremont and um picks up people along the

1:17:55 ↗ way and then delivers them to the campus

1:17:57 ↗ at a specific time because it's there's

1:17:59 ↗ an arrival time and a departure time.

1:18:02 ↗ and the similar thing at the end of the

1:18:04 ↗ day that everybody from the campus hops

1:18:06 ↗ on the bus and it takes them back the

1:18:07 ↗ other way. So there may be some options

1:18:09 ↗ where we can look at doing not

1:18:11 ↗ necessarily a generic connector but

1:18:13 ↗ maybe a very targeted program where we

1:18:15 ↗ can deliver services to some of the

1:18:17 ↗ communities that we think would benefit

1:18:19 ↗ from those. Um but I I think that the

1:18:23 ↗ biggest problem with Metroflex is is is

1:18:26 ↗ really not necessarily that it doesn't

1:18:28 ↗ do good because I think it does. is just

1:18:30 ↗ it's really cost-effective. Is it really

1:18:32 ↗ cost- effective? And as we look at the

1:18:34 ↗ budgets in the next couple years, we've

1:18:36 ↗ got some tough you have some tough

1:18:38 ↗ trade-offs to make. Um and um and so if

1:18:43 ↗ we do this and we spend this uh half a

1:18:45 ↗ million dollars on Metroflex over the

1:18:47 ↗ next bianium, what are you not going to

1:18:48 ↗ do? And I think that that's a lens that

1:18:52 ↗ we need to look at the Metroflex

1:18:53 ↗ through.

1:18:56 ↗ That's all I got.

1:18:58 ↗ Deputy Council President D. Michelle.

1:19:01 ↗ >> Uh, thank you. So, thank you to my

1:19:04 ↗ fellow council members for their

1:19:06 ↗ comments. Um,

1:19:09 ↗ I'm really torn about this because, uh,

1:19:11 ↗ we're talking a big amount of money and

1:19:14 ↗ we all know that, uh, we're facing some

1:19:17 ↗ real challenges for our budget.

1:19:19 ↗ um the first year u the 57 or $58,000

1:19:24 ↗ uh we could uh you know find probably

1:19:27 ↗ find somewhere but it's the second year

1:19:29 ↗ and we're required to to sign a two-year

1:19:32 ↗ contract and $260

1:19:35 ↗ or $70,000 is the equivalent of two

1:19:39 ↗ probably two positions in the city. And

1:19:42 ↗ so we're and that we're likely that um

1:19:45 ↗ we would lose some people if we chose to

1:19:48 ↗ go ahead. So we have to weigh that uh

1:19:51 ↗ against

1:19:53 ↗ um the equity issues that have been

1:19:56 ↗ raised. And I think the people who have

1:19:58 ↗ raised those equity issues. Uh if we

1:20:01 ↗ just look at 3,000 rides or passenger

1:20:04 ↗ rides um that equals about 800 people

1:20:09 ↗ from uh equity priority areas who are

1:20:13 ↗ taking

1:20:14 ↗ um metrlex and may not have an option.

1:20:18 ↗ And I'd like to make a little bit of

1:20:19 ↗ clarity about the comments about equity

1:20:22 ↗ priority areas. um those are defined

1:20:25 ↗ areas on the map. You can live outside

1:20:28 ↗ of an equity priority area and still be

1:20:30 ↗ low income, still be disabled, still be

1:20:32 ↗ a teen. So that 25% number is a little

1:20:36 ↗ bit uh I mean we have to be cautious

1:20:39 ↗ about how we use it. Um we could have a

1:20:42 ↗ much higher number of low-income people

1:20:44 ↗ who are using Metroflex. Uh they just

1:20:46 ↗ don't happen to live in an equity

1:20:48 ↗ priority area. So uh let's be careful

1:20:51 ↗ with that 25% number.

1:20:54 ↗ Um the what bothers me about uh

1:20:57 ↗ cancelling Metroflex is that we really

1:21:00 ↗ don't have any viable options to replace

1:21:05 ↗ it. And I really want to thank uh Andrea

1:21:08 ↗ for responding to my questions about

1:21:10 ↗ other possible options. Uh and when you

1:21:13 ↗ look at each one, they really don't meet

1:21:15 ↗ the policy goals that we were hoping to

1:21:17 ↗ meet with Metroflex.

1:21:19 ↗ Um, we talked about, uh, I I asked about

1:21:23 ↗ Lift and Uber, which, uh, we looked at

1:21:25 ↗ before. There is a program at Metro, um,

1:21:29 ↗ uh, community van that possibly could

1:21:31 ↗ serve targeted populations. Uh, the

1:21:35 ↗ problem with community vans is you have

1:21:36 ↗ to find, uh, someone, a volunteer in the

1:21:39 ↗ community who's willing to be the

1:21:41 ↗ driver, and there's liability issues

1:21:43 ↗ around that and so forth. Also, just

1:21:45 ↗ finding someone who's qualified. Um and

1:21:48 ↗ then running our own shuttle like

1:21:50 ↗ Bellhop in Belleview or some other

1:21:52 ↗ things are enormously expensive and

1:21:54 ↗ probably more expensive than what we are

1:21:56 ↗ proposing to pay for Metrolex.

1:21:59 ↗ So again I I agree it does bother me

1:22:02 ↗ that um we if we cancel this we are

1:22:06 ↗ leaving a number of people who are are

1:22:09 ↗ reliant on Metroflex without really any

1:22:12 ↗ other viable option. So, yeah, I'm torn.

1:22:16 ↗ And I I think I'm I I think that uh

1:22:21 ↗ Kaylee Jake made a very good um

1:22:24 ↗ uh point when she said that um equity.

1:22:28 ↗ This is not equal, but this is equity.

1:22:31 ↗ Um and so I guess I am leaning towards

1:22:36 ↗ let's try to find a way to keep Metrolex

1:22:38 ↗ going. Um, I'd like to know what we're

1:22:41 ↗ going to have to give up if we can start

1:22:44 ↗ to define that. What would that $275,000

1:22:48 ↗ where would we be taking that away in

1:22:50 ↗ the budget and what would we lose

1:22:51 ↗ because of that? Um, and maybe we can

1:22:54 ↗ better weigh what we're

1:22:57 ↗ planning to do if we have more of that

1:22:59 ↗ information or if you know we start

1:23:02 ↗ discussing our budget issues now. what

1:23:05 ↗ what does the council want to remove for

1:23:08 ↗ that $280,000?

1:23:11 ↗ So, right now I uh I am persuaded by the

1:23:15 ↗ equity issues and the also the issues

1:23:18 ↗ that were raised by an Fletcher in terms

1:23:20 ↗ of our uh commitment to um the um

1:23:27 ↗ climate action plan. So, thank you.

1:23:32 ↗ >> Yep. Council member Hall. Uh, sure.

1:23:35 ↗ Thank you. Um, well, first I've always

1:23:37 ↗ liked the Metroflex program a handful of

1:23:40 ↗ times to get to the transit center. Um,

1:23:42 ↗ and it's been really helpful, especially

1:23:44 ↗ where I live. Um, and although we are

1:23:46 ↗ kind of a lower performing um, service

1:23:49 ↗ area, I think 2,600 to 3,400 rides a

1:23:52 ↗ quarter isn't nothing. I mean, that's

1:23:55 ↗ um, a good amount of rides, but um, I

1:23:57 ↗ also think $250,000 a year isn't nothing

1:24:00 ↗ either. Um, so I agree with you, Deputy

1:24:03 ↗ Council President. I'm torn as well. Um

1:24:05 ↗ I agree that the need is clear, but I

1:24:08 ↗ think I lean toward um renewing the

1:24:11 ↗ contract. Um but I'm not without

1:24:13 ↗ concern. So there are a couple ways that

1:24:14 ↗ I've been thinking about this. I wanted

1:24:15 ↗ to just go through. So going back to

1:24:16 ↗ kind of what problem are we trying to

1:24:18 ↗ solve? Um it seems like that question

1:24:20 ↗ has evolved a little bit over time. It

1:24:22 ↗ started at as this last mile problem,

1:24:25 ↗ especially for our neighborhoods in the

1:24:26 ↗ hills in Squawk and Talis. Um but it's

1:24:29 ↗ also made sense over time to kind of tie

1:24:30 ↗ in some of this data related to our

1:24:32 ↗ climate goals. Uh reducing single

1:24:34 ↗ occupancy vehicle trips. Um these equity

1:24:38 ↗ um priority access areas, access to the

1:24:40 ↗ garage has been brought up to us many

1:24:42 ↗ times um um from a variety of public

1:24:45 ↗ commenters over the years. And so I

1:24:48 ↗ think for the price tag here, we just

1:24:50 ↗ need to be really clear about this about

1:24:52 ↗ what problem exactly are we trying to

1:24:54 ↗ solve? Um so we know what success looks

1:24:56 ↗ like in the long term. So uh and and

1:24:58 ↗ because being clear might also help us

1:25:00 ↗ pull out and identify what those kind of

1:25:02 ↗ alternatives

1:25:04 ↗ um more targeted solutions over time

1:25:06 ↗ might be. Um so I think kind of policy

1:25:09 ↗ process is important um here and then

1:25:12 ↗ also I think for the price tag it's um

1:25:15 ↗ pretty difficult to sustain not

1:25:16 ↗ impossible but but certainly difficult

1:25:18 ↗ as has been alluded to. I'm um really

1:25:22 ↗ worried about um heading into the next

1:25:24 ↗ bianual budget. Um, and it makes me

1:25:27 ↗ think, you know, more generally, what

1:25:29 ↗ could we do potentially more of with

1:25:32 ↗ $500,000

1:25:34 ↗ a bianium within some of our other

1:25:37 ↗ priority policy areas as a council and

1:25:40 ↗ it's really it's just really hard to

1:25:41 ↗ answer that question outside of the

1:25:43 ↗ budget process. Um, so we're kind of

1:25:45 ↗ entering a little bit of the unknown

1:25:46 ↗ here, right? Um, so again, I lean

1:25:48 ↗ towards renewing the contract because of

1:25:50 ↗ um some of the points that have been

1:25:51 ↗ brought up tonight. um especially around

1:25:53 ↗ equity and equity does require

1:25:54 ↗ leadership and leadership sometimes

1:25:56 ↗ requires putting your money where your

1:25:57 ↗ mouth is there. So um but I would like

1:26:00 ↗ to see so I would like to see a version

1:26:02 ↗ of this in the midby. I don't know if it

1:26:05 ↗ would be impossible to see

1:26:08 ↗ multiple versions of the midby with it

1:26:10 ↗ or without it. So, we can kind of or

1:26:12 ↗ maybe it's even just more of a

1:26:14 ↗ discussion that council needs to have

1:26:16 ↗ about other potential priorities

1:26:18 ↗ weighing against um um what success

1:26:22 ↗ would look like in $500,000 spent this

1:26:25 ↗ way. Um

1:26:27 ↗ um so that but also just us as a council

1:26:30 ↗ better defining what it is we're trying

1:26:31 ↗ to achieve here. what are the problem or

1:26:33 ↗ problems that we're trying to solve?

1:26:35 ↗ What does achievable success look like

1:26:37 ↗ to tell us that the money that we're

1:26:38 ↗ spending is having the desired outcome

1:26:40 ↗ that we wanted uh it to? And then just

1:26:42 ↗ be specific about those. So, and it

1:26:44 ↗ sounds like we have some open questions

1:26:46 ↗ too that Metro is going to get back to

1:26:47 ↗ us on. So, um I would hope we would have

1:26:49 ↗ a kind of a forum for council to get um

1:26:52 ↗ in the weeds and kind of be able to

1:26:54 ↗ define that clearly. I don't know if

1:26:56 ↗ that's best during the midby or if it's

1:26:58 ↗ best to kind of take half an hour right

1:27:00 ↗ now and and kind of get into the weeds

1:27:02 ↗ there, but that's what I'm I'm hoping

1:27:04 ↗ for and thanks for all the work,

1:27:09 ↗ >> Council Member Joe.

1:27:12 ↗ >> Thank you. Um,

1:27:15 ↗ great discussion tonight. It's difficult

1:27:17 ↗ to um kind of visualize what the

1:27:21 ↗ decision is, I think, as Deputy Council

1:27:23 ↗ President D. Michelle pointed out and as

1:27:26 ↗ as council member Hall pointed out if if

1:27:29 ↗ we do spend 50,000 this year, the

1:27:33 ↗ 200,000 plus in the next year um and

1:27:36 ↗ renew the contract for that 2-year

1:27:39 ↗ period. What are we forgoing? What is it

1:27:42 ↗ really going to be? Two FTEEs and public

1:27:45 ↗ works that we're going to not have

1:27:47 ↗ available to us. And and I'm I'm not

1:27:49 ↗ asking the administration to give us

1:27:51 ↗ specific examples, but perhaps just an

1:27:53 ↗ order of magnitude if we fund this

1:27:56 ↗ program and choose to do it out to the

1:27:59 ↗ program to the contracts and what are

1:28:02 ↗ some of the things that we might not be

1:28:04 ↗ able to do. And that could be we won't

1:28:07 ↗ be able to do this particular road

1:28:09 ↗ project, for example, or we wouldn't be

1:28:11 ↗ able to have these two people in parks.

1:28:14 ↗ We wouldn't be able to acquire this kind

1:28:16 ↗ of land. just to give us a context of

1:28:18 ↗ what the decision means for us in terms

1:28:21 ↗ of things that we would not be able to

1:28:24 ↗ do and serve our city um through through

1:28:27 ↗ making this decision. Um, I I have I've

1:28:32 ↗ been uh on the wreck lawn out in front

1:28:34 ↗ of the community center and I I've

1:28:37 ↗ watched the kids uh walk down from the

1:28:39 ↗ high school and go to the garage and and

1:28:42 ↗ start taking part in the programs and um

1:28:46 ↗ as executive director for the garage,

1:28:49 ↗ Kaylee just points out points out that

1:28:51 ↗ many of the students are doing

1:28:52 ↗ counseling. they're doing um um the the

1:28:57 ↗ programming that's there to help benefit

1:29:00 ↗ their mental health and their social and

1:29:03 ↗ um their social health as well. Um and

1:29:07 ↗ then the Metroflex gives them the

1:29:09 ↗ opportunity to still um go to the go

1:29:13 ↗ home in the evening or or go to work if

1:29:16 ↗ they have an after school job. Um the

1:29:19 ↗ the school bus, the activity school bus

1:29:22 ↗ leaves the high school um usually before

1:29:27 ↗ some of these programs are done or

1:29:28 ↗ before the students from the garage will

1:29:30 ↗ be able to do their program and then

1:29:32 ↗ walk back up to the garage. Um uh if you

1:29:36 ↗ have a student that's in um an

1:29:39 ↗ afterchool production like a play or a

1:29:41 ↗ musical um and they don't drive, you're

1:29:44 ↗ picking them up at anywhere between 6

1:29:48 ↗ and 10 at night. Um and the garage

1:29:52 ↗ certain I mean, excuse me, the um

1:29:54 ↗ Metroflex certainly is a good option for

1:29:56 ↗ students that may not be able to get a

1:29:58 ↗ ride. from an equity point of view. Uh

1:30:01 ↗ you know, I think we touched on the the

1:30:03 ↗ fact that number of the pickups and the

1:30:06 ↗ um trips are from the affordable housing

1:30:10 ↗ area in Talis. That's certainly one

1:30:12 ↗ element to consider. I also as a person

1:30:15 ↗ that is um getting up in years um would

1:30:20 ↗ see myself using it to go to medical

1:30:22 ↗ appointments. And I think that if you

1:30:24 ↗ look at the maps, you see that there are

1:30:25 ↗ number of drop offs or a pretty intense

1:30:27 ↗ number of drop offs at the hospital. And

1:30:29 ↗ I think if we mapped out all the medical

1:30:32 ↗ offices that are generally there, there

1:30:34 ↗ would be a correlation, I think, between

1:30:36 ↗ some of the more um intense use of uh

1:30:39 ↗ this service. So, um, thinking about our

1:30:44 ↗ elderly population and and, uh, how

1:30:47 ↗ we're making sure that they stay

1:30:49 ↗ healthy. We talk about in our transitory

1:30:53 ↗ development, uh, project off of 900, the

1:30:56 ↗ need to have medical services right

1:30:59 ↗ there, right near the affordable housing

1:31:01 ↗ if we can, right in the first floor. Um,

1:31:04 ↗ but if we can't do that, I see this as

1:31:07 ↗ an alternative that allows people to

1:31:09 ↗ still get to those medical appointments

1:31:11 ↗ without having a car. And if they're a

1:31:13 ↗ little bit um slow uh in their movement,

1:31:17 ↗ it can be very helpful, too. Um I

1:31:20 ↗ recently uh had a bout of gout and uh my

1:31:25 ↗ left toe was um hurting to the point

1:31:27 ↗ where it was very difficult to walk and

1:31:30 ↗ I became very aware of ramps and

1:31:34 ↗ elevators and electric doors and finding

1:31:38 ↗ routes that I could get to the doctor.

1:31:42 ↗ And I was very thankful that the ramps

1:31:43 ↗ were there and they weren't steep. And

1:31:47 ↗ um those of us that are having mobility

1:31:50 ↗ challenges um getting around I think

1:31:52 ↗ have a a different view of the world at

1:31:55 ↗ times and having something like

1:31:57 ↗ Metroflex available um can be the

1:32:00 ↗ difference between going and getting

1:32:02 ↗ that medical attention and then the

1:32:04 ↗ alternative is to just um tough it out

1:32:07 ↗ so to speak and live with the pain. Um

1:32:11 ↗ and that's not a really good alternative

1:32:13 ↗ for the health of our community. What

1:32:15 ↗ are some of the comments that have been

1:32:16 ↗ going through my mind as I've been

1:32:18 ↗ considering this? Um, like council

1:32:20 ↗ member Hall, I'm leaning toward um

1:32:23 ↗ evaluating this carefully and

1:32:25 ↗ potentially um trying to find a way to

1:32:28 ↗ um continue the program, but um I'm

1:32:32 ↗ still open to more information,

1:32:34 ↗ additional presentations that the

1:32:36 ↗ administration and others might come

1:32:37 ↗ forward with. Thank you.

1:32:41 ↗ >> Great. I think I will make some

1:32:44 ↗ comments. Andrea, before I make

1:32:45 ↗ comments, um, just a question. If I

1:32:47 ↗ remember correctly, when we were talking

1:32:48 ↗ about this during the previous budget

1:32:50 ↗ cycle, there was an out option for the

1:32:55 ↗ two-year contract. It was a rather large

1:32:57 ↗ notification period. Do we know what

1:32:59 ↗ that is?

1:33:02 ↗ I don't off the top of my head. I'm not

1:33:05 ↗ sure if our partners do.

1:33:11 ↗ Hi, Amanda Pleasant Brown. I'm shorter

1:33:13 ↗ than you.

1:33:16 ↗ I do government relations for Metro and

1:33:18 ↗ so we will follow up with certainty, but

1:33:19 ↗ I believe it's 6 months, 180 days.

1:33:22 ↗ >> Fantastic. Okay. Um, one of the reasons

1:33:25 ↗ I ask about that is because as we are

1:33:27 ↗ looking at this evaluation, not just for

1:33:31 ↗ the 2026 period, but also as a 2-year

1:33:35 ↗ contract, there is more uncertainty for

1:33:38 ↗ us on what our budget looks like in

1:33:41 ↗ 2027.

1:33:42 ↗ Um, but given a sixmonth period of time,

1:33:47 ↗ I think that gives us a little bit more

1:33:50 ↗ time to do an evaluation. And so, one of

1:33:54 ↗ the things I would like to do as we look

1:33:57 ↗ at this is figure out what are our goals

1:34:00 ↗ and our criteria for this because we

1:34:03 ↗ haven't so far really taken that and

1:34:07 ↗ figured out what is working, what isn't

1:34:10 ↗ working. Because I think what I've heard

1:34:12 ↗ from council is a variety of things of

1:34:15 ↗ hey, equity is really important to us

1:34:18 ↗ and having a set of transportation

1:34:22 ↗ options that understand the needs of

1:34:26 ↗ some of our underserved communities,

1:34:29 ↗ some of our members who are either

1:34:31 ↗ disabled, unable to drive, too young,

1:34:35 ↗ older that cannot drive. Those are

1:34:38 ↗ populations that I think we see using

1:34:42 ↗ this service and using this service in a

1:34:44 ↗ way that there aren't many other

1:34:47 ↗ options. So that would be one thing I

1:34:50 ↗ would um keep in mind. I think the other

1:34:52 ↗ thing that we've looked at with this is

1:34:55 ↗ hey maybe this is a little bit expensive

1:34:57 ↗ per ride. And so I think that's a great

1:35:00 ↗ piece of feedback for us but it's not an

1:35:04 ↗ end point. That's just us saying, "Okay,

1:35:07 ↗ maybe this is a little expensive." I

1:35:08 ↗ will note the $40 per ride is the whole

1:35:13 ↗ cost, but in the memo it said our cost

1:35:17 ↗ as a city was $20.31.

1:35:21 ↗ And from my perspective, that's actually

1:35:24 ↗ a fairly effective cost to providing

1:35:28 ↗ something that gives equity service. Um,

1:35:32 ↗ the other thing I would look at is if

1:35:35 ↗ we're talking about 2600 to 3,000 rides

1:35:38 ↗ per quarter, that's 11,000 rides per

1:35:42 ↗ year that we are able to provide out of

1:35:46 ↗ our budget and going to these areas.

1:35:50 ↗ That doesn't even count the number of

1:35:51 ↗ rides that are coming from Seamish into

1:35:55 ↗ Isiqua to use some of our very nicely

1:36:00 ↗ placed um businesses that provide us

1:36:04 ↗ with property and sales tax. So I think

1:36:08 ↗ there are other benefits to this service

1:36:12 ↗ that don't come out in the wash of just

1:36:15 ↗ cost per ride. So, what I would like to

1:36:20 ↗ suggest is I would love to hear if we

1:36:22 ↗ can take a look at um our boundaries

1:36:26 ↗ because I think we do have some areas

1:36:28 ↗ that aren't being as utilized and we

1:36:32 ↗ have other areas. Again, I will say as

1:36:34 ↗ an advocate from the Highlands, the

1:36:36 ↗ Highlands has some of our largest um

1:36:39 ↗ percentage of affordable housing units.

1:36:41 ↗ And one of the things we've heard from

1:36:43 ↗ many folks that are up farther on the

1:36:46 ↗ hill is that they feel very stranded up

1:36:50 ↗ there. And so I would like to take a

1:36:52 ↗ look at maybe taking out some of the

1:36:55 ↗ areas of squawk that we have evidence

1:36:57 ↗ from this pilot aren't as highly

1:36:59 ↗ utilized and add in areas of the

1:37:02 ↗ highlands. Even if you can't get it all

1:37:04 ↗ the way up to the top, if you could get

1:37:07 ↗ it closer to Central Park and um the

1:37:11 ↗ elementary school area, I think that

1:37:13 ↗ could provide a really good additional

1:37:17 ↗ area that could provide a high set of

1:37:21 ↗ usage by people that um frankly need

1:37:26 ↗ this. So, one, I would like to look at

1:37:29 ↗ changing our boundaries. And while we

1:37:32 ↗ wouldn't be able to in this time period

1:37:34 ↗ calculate how that might reduce our cost

1:37:37 ↗ per ride, I think that's something that

1:37:39 ↗ then we could evaluate within this time

1:37:42 ↗ frame and utilize that to really have a

1:37:46 ↗ databased analysis and also a

1:37:50 ↗ goals-based analysis. Um, I think it

1:37:52 ↗ would also allow us to take this back to

1:37:56 ↗ the transportation advisory board and

1:37:58 ↗ get them uh the ability to evaluate

1:38:01 ↗ based on criteria that we are able to

1:38:04 ↗ set. Um, and then when we're talking

1:38:07 ↗ about the budget portion, I think the

1:38:08 ↗ feedback that I would have on this is

1:38:12 ↗ right now because we currently have this

1:38:14 ↗ in our budget, we wouldn't be looking at

1:38:17 ↗ $250,000 per year of cuts in the next

1:38:22 ↗ budget. It's just a lack of $250,000 of

1:38:26 ↗ increases

1:38:28 ↗ if we add this on. Because if we

1:38:31 ↗ consider this an established base of

1:38:34 ↗ service, we're not saying by adding this

1:38:37 ↗ or by continuing this we have to cut two

1:38:40 ↗ employees. That was the decision we had

1:38:43 ↗ to make previously. Right now to

1:38:45 ↗ continue our service levels here, both

1:38:48 ↗ within city employees and within the

1:38:51 ↗ Metro Flex program, there wouldn't be

1:38:55 ↗ additional trade-offs. The trade-offs

1:38:57 ↗ would be what else could we not do? And

1:38:59 ↗ I think that's an a very important

1:39:01 ↗ evaluation point. But typically when we

1:39:04 ↗ do that, we do that within our two-year

1:39:06 ↗ budget cycle, not at this point in 2026

1:39:11 ↗ in our mid bienium. So my feedback on

1:39:15 ↗ budget is hey absolutely let's take a

1:39:18 ↗ look at this but I think there's some

1:39:21 ↗ things that we can do in the meantime to

1:39:24 ↗ adjust this program maybe to take more

1:39:29 ↗ of those signs and put them out in front

1:39:32 ↗ of

1:39:33 ↗ you know other service areas that people

1:39:36 ↗ might utilize this a little bit more and

1:39:38 ↗ see if we can get that wrership up a

1:39:41 ↗ little it and also evaluate um some of

1:39:44 ↗ our goals. And then

1:39:47 ↗ if we're going to be evaluating that in

1:39:50 ↗ a future time, I would love to look at

1:39:52 ↗ alternatives like ebike subsidies. I

1:39:55 ↗ think that could be a really good

1:39:57 ↗ opportunity. I just at this point

1:40:00 ↗ without a viable alternative

1:40:03 ↗ and a way to evaluate

1:40:06 ↗ a viable alternative, I see this as a

1:40:09 ↗ strong program that provides a lot of

1:40:12 ↗ benefits to our community and a lot of

1:40:14 ↗ equitable benefits that I don't feel

1:40:18 ↗ comfortable at all cancelling on this

1:40:22 ↗ concept, especially when we could look

1:40:24 ↗ at this and do a six-month out at a

1:40:26 ↗ future time. So my feedback would be

1:40:30 ↗ continue with modifications and create a

1:40:33 ↗ robust way to evaluate this in the

1:40:36 ↗ future based on our goals.

1:40:39 ↗ So now that we have heard from

1:40:41 ↗ everybody, yeah, I would love to go back

1:40:43 ↗ and get another sense from folks because

1:40:45 ↗ it seems like we're

1:40:47 ↗ fairly divided slash maybe we don't have

1:40:53 ↗ effective feedback for your budget. um

1:40:57 ↗ evaluations.

1:40:59 ↗ Anything you want to ask us before we go

1:41:01 ↗ back through another round?

1:41:04 ↗ >> Uh thank you. Um

1:41:07 ↗ so Mayor Paulie uh this recommendation

1:41:10 ↗ is really coming from her. Um she's very

1:41:12 ↗ concerned about the cost. She's very

1:41:14 ↗ concerned about uh future issues. And so

1:41:19 ↗ um you know, one of the things we're

1:41:20 ↗ staring down is the 2026 budget. And so

1:41:24 ↗ at the very least there would be $50,000

1:41:26 ↗ of reductions in 2026 that would have to

1:41:30 ↗ happen. So if the council is agreeable

1:41:33 ↗ uh to that coming up with what you think

1:41:35 ↗ those reductions are, uh certainly Mayor

1:41:37 ↗ Paulie will I'm sure watch the tape if

1:41:39 ↗ she's not otherwise watching this

1:41:40 ↗ evening. Um and we'll make

1:41:42 ↗ recommendations of what would be cut

1:41:45 ↗ from the 26 budget. And so then if the

1:41:48 ↗ council agrees to that and we do a

1:41:50 ↗ two-year budget, it sounds like the

1:41:52 ↗ council's saying that, you know, you

1:41:54 ↗ would definitely want that six month

1:41:56 ↗ out. Um, and so then it's been 6 months

1:41:59 ↗ to review that. We currently have no

1:42:01 ↗ staff to do that. And so we would also

1:42:03 ↗ have to put in the budget next year in

1:42:05 ↗ addition to the $50,000 some increment

1:42:08 ↗ of dollars to do all the work that you

1:42:10 ↗ all described this evening because

1:42:11 ↗ currently again we had a staff member

1:42:13 ↗ that staff member position was

1:42:15 ↗ eliminated in order to balance uh the

1:42:17 ↗ current banium budget. So, uh, we would

1:42:19 ↗ come back, I would guess, then with not

1:42:22 ↗ only $50,000 in 26, but also some

1:42:26 ↗ increment. I'm not sure how much John

1:42:28 ↗ Larson Friend's position was.

1:42:31 ↗ [Music]

1:42:32 ↗ 50 175 fully loaded. Um, so let's say we

1:42:36 ↗ needed 6 months of that. So that maybe

1:42:39 ↗ is an additional $100,000. So that's a

1:42:42 ↗ $150,000 ask in order to continue this

1:42:46 ↗ forward. So, if that's kind of what the

1:42:49 ↗ council's thinking, then that's $150,000

1:42:51 ↗ reduction in 26 in order to keep this

1:42:55 ↗ moving. So, if that's what you're

1:42:57 ↗ thinking, uh, we could take that and

1:42:59 ↗ come back to you as part of the

1:43:00 ↗ midbanium budget with $150,000

1:43:03 ↗ uh, reduction on top of anything else

1:43:05 ↗ that might come up. The council's

1:43:07 ↗ looking at public safety uh, sales tax

1:43:10 ↗ and so certainly that is helpful on the

1:43:11 ↗ public safety side. So, the reductions

1:43:13 ↗ would be coming from public works,

1:43:15 ↗ parks, recreation, community services.

1:43:17 ↗ Uh the planning um uh additional uh work

1:43:21 ↗ that you were looking to do, I think was

1:43:23 ↗ about $150,000

1:43:25 ↗ of additional planning contracts to do

1:43:28 ↗ some of the the whiteboard title 18

1:43:30 ↗ things. Um and so that would all go into

1:43:33 ↗ that mix. So, if that's what you'd like

1:43:35 ↗ to do, otherwise I'm looking at the

1:43:37 ↗ calendar. If you want to have an

1:43:38 ↗ additional discussion about this, we can

1:43:40 ↗ try to either have a special committee

1:43:44 ↗ of the whole to have a f further

1:43:45 ↗ discussion about this um or try to put

1:43:48 ↗ it on um some additional items or you

1:43:51 ↗ can send it to committee uh and either

1:43:53 ↗ have one of your committees. This is

1:43:55 ↗ probably transportation infrastructure

1:43:58 ↗ council committee and so uh I haven't

1:44:01 ↗ looked at their agendas but but perhaps

1:44:03 ↗ this could be added to a meeting in

1:44:05 ↗ October for them. So those are some

1:44:07 ↗ options. Happy to

1:44:10 ↗ >> whatever feedback you need.

1:44:11 ↗ >> So it sounds like just uh maybe a little

1:44:14 ↗ bit more focus on um what our budget um

1:44:18 ↗ what the information we would need, how

1:44:20 ↗ we would approach budget, things like

1:44:22 ↗ that. I for one certainly have heard

1:44:25 ↗ from the community that traffic is a big

1:44:28 ↗ problem and so I would not have a

1:44:29 ↗ problem with uh advocating for an

1:44:32 ↗ additional staff member focused on

1:44:34 ↗ transportation.

1:44:36 ↗ Um, so Council Member Cheng,

1:44:39 ↗ >> um, just on the funding question, are we

1:44:41 ↗ able to use the transportation benefit

1:44:43 ↗ district sales tax to fund Metroflex or

1:44:46 ↗ other those types of programs?

1:44:48 ↗ >> Those funds are already allocated to one

1:44:51 ↗ very large capital project. And so if

1:44:53 ↗ the council wished to look at that, we

1:44:56 ↗ probably could make some adjustments

1:44:57 ↗ there.

1:44:58 ↗ >> The it is eligible. So, we could council

1:45:02 ↗ could choose to spend the TBD revenues

1:45:05 ↗ on Metrolex. That's an eligible expense,

1:45:08 ↗ but as as city administrator Bob Kowitz

1:45:10 ↗ said, we would have to um those funds

1:45:13 ↗ those revenues are already budgeted for

1:45:16 ↗ use in 26 certainly and and even beyond

1:45:19 ↗ um per the council question

1:45:21 ↗ conversations that we've had and the

1:45:22 ↗ direction we've received from council.

1:45:23 ↗ So, we'd have to rethink that.

1:45:25 ↗ >> Yeah, that makes sense. Um, I'm curious

1:45:28 ↗ like what are the payment terms for the

1:45:30 ↗ Metroflex contract? So, is it like

1:45:32 ↗ annual or is it quarterly? Because in

1:45:34 ↗ theory, I'm thinking, you know, oh, with

1:45:36 ↗ a $200,000 budget, if we budget for like

1:45:39 ↗ three quarters and that would

1:45:41 ↗ potentially give us enough time to kind

1:45:42 ↗ of think through, you know, what some of

1:45:44 ↗ the other options are knowing that, I

1:45:46 ↗ mean, you know, given the 180day

1:45:47 ↗ cancellation period, we would actually

1:45:49 ↗ have to figure something out by the end

1:45:51 ↗ of Q1. But, yeah,

1:45:52 ↗ >> I believe we pay on a quarterly basis.

1:45:56 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

1:45:59 ↗ >> Anyone else? Council member Hall.

1:46:02 ↗ >> Uh yeah, just to ask a question. I don't

1:46:04 ↗ I don't know if it's clear to me what

1:46:06 ↗ this potential new position would do or

1:46:09 ↗ what they would be needed for.

1:46:11 ↗ >> We have no staff to do any of the work

1:46:13 ↗ you've described this evening. So, we

1:46:15 ↗ just need to find

1:46:16 ↗ >> looking at other options moving forward.

1:46:19 ↗ The the the council has listed a variety

1:46:21 ↗ of things. uh if you wanted to to fund

1:46:23 ↗ this in a different way or do a

1:46:25 ↗ different kind of

1:46:26 ↗ >> so like the table Andrea you were

1:46:27 ↗ showing us like going back and

1:46:29 ↗ refreshing that looking at what are the

1:46:31 ↗ other options on the table that that

1:46:33 ↗ would be the scope of work that we would

1:46:34 ↗ probably need an FTE for is what you're

1:46:37 ↗ saying

1:46:37 ↗ >> yes so anything outside of the metroflex

1:46:41 ↗ uh contract you know that's uh that

1:46:43 ↗ would require a lot more staff work so

1:46:45 ↗ we've heard um ideas tonight from

1:46:47 ↗ council like providing targeted

1:46:49 ↗ subsidies to specific segments ments of

1:46:52 ↗ the community or specific uh nonprofits

1:46:54 ↗ that serve segments of the community.

1:46:57 ↗ That would that type of work to explore

1:46:59 ↗ that program, what that could look like,

1:47:01 ↗ facilitate the conversation with

1:47:02 ↗ transportation advisory board and

1:47:04 ↗ council. That would require additional

1:47:06 ↗ staff. Um looking at other options with

1:47:10 ↗ Uber andyft and reigniting those

1:47:12 ↗ conversations that the administration

1:47:14 ↗ had with them back in 2021, that would

1:47:17 ↗ require another staff. So, um, or

1:47:20 ↗ certainly additional staff support than

1:47:22 ↗ what we currently have.

1:47:23 ↗ >> And so, it may also be eliminating other

1:47:26 ↗ projects that we're working on. So, it

1:47:29 ↗ may not be we and we'd have to go back

1:47:32 ↗ and discuss this with Mayor Paulie and

1:47:34 ↗ to see if there were projects that she

1:47:36 ↗ would recommend to the city council that

1:47:38 ↗ we stopped doing in order to pick this

1:47:40 ↗ up.

1:47:43 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. I'm still chewing.

1:47:47 ↗ Um, Andrea, can you remind me what the

1:47:49 ↗ project is that the transportation

1:47:50 ↗ benefit district is funding?

1:47:54 ↗ >> The transportation benefit district

1:47:55 ↗ primarily those revenues are used for

1:47:57 ↗ two things. One is uh the the Northwest

1:48:02 ↗ Smeish non-motorized uh project as well

1:48:05 ↗ as IT or intelligent transportation

1:48:07 ↗ systems.

1:48:09 ↗ >> Okay. And looking at the budget, we

1:48:11 ↗ bring in $2.2 $2 million per year off of

1:48:15 ↗ that, but we only have 1.4 and 1.1

1:48:20 ↗ million of expenditures each of the two

1:48:23 ↗ years of this budget. That's correct

1:48:26 ↗ because we were setting aside some of

1:48:28 ↗ those funds for uh the Northwest Mammish

1:48:31 ↗ non-motorized project.

1:48:33 ↗ >> Okay. So, it sounds like that could be

1:48:35 ↗ an option as we evaluate. Uh Deputy

1:48:38 ↗ Council President DM Michelle. So, one

1:48:41 ↗ thing I've heard uh from more than one

1:48:43 ↗ person is uh how aggressively are we

1:48:46 ↗ promoting Metrolex and since we have

1:48:48 ↗ Metro experts here, I think this is a

1:48:50 ↗ good time to ask this question. Um were

1:48:53 ↗ we to renew this contract? Uh what would

1:48:57 ↗ be the commitment from Metro Metro in

1:48:59 ↗ terms of uh promoting communications

1:49:02 ↗ u advertising and those sorts of things?

1:49:05 ↗ Is that part of the contract that we

1:49:07 ↗ sign or um is that a service that Metro

1:49:10 ↗ just provides?

1:49:14 ↗ >> Thanks for that question, uh, Deputy

1:49:16 ↗ Council President. So, marketing is a

1:49:18 ↗ part of the regular work of Metro and

1:49:20 ↗ certainly work we worked closely with

1:49:22 ↗ John Larson Friend. He's actually still

1:49:23 ↗ on our billboards.

1:49:26 ↗ And um I would have to go back and look

1:49:29 ↗ at um to look at the actual contract

1:49:32 ↗ language, but I will say from a mobility

1:49:34 ↗ agency, we have an interest in ensuring

1:49:37 ↗ that people know that there's accessible

1:49:38 ↗ services that they can use. So I would

1:49:41 ↗ I'm happy to take that back to

1:49:42 ↗ leadership and see how much we could

1:49:43 ↗ actually infuse into it. We've helped

1:49:45 ↗ market other services. We're facing our

1:49:47 ↗ own bud budgetary challenges, but we're

1:49:49 ↗ certainly able to do it. And then we

1:49:51 ↗ also have a team who can come out and do

1:49:52 ↗ indivi individualized education as well.

1:49:55 ↗ So um we have some additional services

1:49:57 ↗ to ensure that people know what services

1:49:59 ↗ exist and then how to use them. So if

1:50:01 ↗ there is a nonprofit and they want to

1:50:03 ↗ learn um how their residents can use it,

1:50:05 ↗ whether that be seniors, whether that be

1:50:06 ↗ youth, um we're happy to utilize those

1:50:08 ↗ services as well. But I can follow up

1:50:09 ↗ specifically to see if we would be

1:50:11 ↗ willing to infuse some additional

1:50:12 ↗ dollars into marketing.

1:50:16 ↗ >> Thank you so much.

1:50:20 ↗ Okay, more questions as we're kind of

1:50:24 ↗ processing through all of this

1:50:25 ↗ information, it sounds like. So, any

1:50:29 ↗ other feedback on

1:50:33 ↗ how we kind of approach this? Um,

1:50:36 ↗ anything we would need for decision

1:50:38 ↗ making

1:50:40 ↗ ahead of budget cycle etc.

1:50:48 ↗ From my perspective, I think the

1:50:49 ↗ transportation benefit district is a

1:50:51 ↗ really interesting point. Um because

1:50:54 ↗ right now the timeline for that

1:50:59 ↗ Northwest Seamish Road non-motorized

1:51:01 ↗ project is, you know, more extended than

1:51:05 ↗ we had initially thought um because of

1:51:08 ↗ Wash Dots's covert stuff. Um and so

1:51:12 ↗ trying to understand how that taking a

1:51:15 ↗ portion of that funding um during this

1:51:17 ↗ time to utilize for that would be what

1:51:21 ↗ the impact would be over the timeline

1:51:24 ↗ that would be really important um from

1:51:27 ↗ my perspective.

1:51:30 ↗ Is there other information or

1:51:34 ↗ ways you are thinking about this?

1:51:40 ↗ Yeah. Council member Hall.

1:51:41 ↗ >> Well, I'll just briefly say um

1:51:46 ↗ even considering use of TBD sales tax

1:51:49 ↗ dollars really concerns me. Um for the

1:51:52 ↗ Northwest Samish Road product, I imagine

1:51:54 ↗ we're saving some of that to help pay

1:51:55 ↗ debt service on council manatic bonds in

1:51:57 ↗ the future too. Right.

1:51:58 ↗ >> That's correct.

1:51:59 ↗ >> Yeah. So, so putting that project in

1:52:01 ↗ jeopardy is huge red flag for me. So,

1:52:04 ↗ definitely would like an answer to that

1:52:05 ↗ question as well. Um,

1:52:10 ↗ I think we need more time to to dig into

1:52:12 ↗ this as a council, too. And and I was

1:52:14 ↗ going to suggest I wonder if council

1:52:15 ↗ leadership could kind of pull questions

1:52:18 ↗ from our comments at tonight's meeting.

1:52:21 ↗ Maybe we could have another I mean, if

1:52:22 ↗ if mobility and infrastructure is the

1:52:24 ↗ right place for it, that's fine. I would

1:52:26 ↗ love to be able to have this at another

1:52:27 ↗ committee, the whole if if we have time

1:52:29 ↗ for for doing that before when do

1:52:33 ↗ actually maybe I'll ask this. When does

1:52:34 ↗ the midby discussion start? Is that the

1:52:37 ↗ next committee of the whole? I guess I

1:52:39 ↗ could pull up the planning calendar

1:52:40 ↗ myself. Um,

1:52:52 ↗ so you have a committee of the whole

1:52:54 ↗ currently scheduled for October 13th.

1:52:56 ↗ two items mid bienium budget the first

1:52:58 ↗ discussion and then also presentation

1:53:00 ↗ about another top council priority which

1:53:02 ↗ is funding north south uh transportation

1:53:05 ↗ improvements

1:53:06 ↗ >> so that's already going to be a long

1:53:07 ↗ committee the whole meeting I would

1:53:09 ↗ imagine um

1:53:12 ↗ I don't know I guess that's kind of

1:53:13 ↗ where my my brain sits is we need some

1:53:15 ↗ more time as a council to dig into this

1:53:17 ↗ including goals and objectives as as was

1:53:19 ↗ talked about including um trade-offs

1:53:23 ↗ with um costs as we head into the

1:53:26 ↗ budget. Uh, and it's not all just about

1:53:28 ↗ like what would we have to find cost

1:53:30 ↗ savings for, but also like Council

1:53:32 ↗ President Walsh was saying earlier like

1:53:34 ↗ the opportunity cost like of of this

1:53:36 ↗ funding too that we could potentially

1:53:38 ↗ put the whole the full $500,000 towards

1:53:41 ↗ something else that could potentially

1:53:44 ↗ have a more measurable impact, however

1:53:46 ↗ we're defining success. So, that's a

1:53:48 ↗ long I don't know. That's a long

1:53:49 ↗ conversation. So my only thought is I

1:53:51 ↗ think we need some more time in in a

1:53:53 ↗ different venue to talk about this.

1:53:57 ↗ >> So just a thought to council. It it

1:54:00 ↗ sounds like there's definitely a kind of

1:54:05 ↗ discussion point around, you know, how

1:54:08 ↗ effective of a program, what are our

1:54:10 ↗ goals, how are we utilizing our money,

1:54:12 ↗ etc. Um

1:54:15 ↗ perhaps this is a council retreat

1:54:20 ↗ um potential topic and toward that idea.

1:54:26 ↗ You know, I I guess the the place that I

1:54:29 ↗ am sitting is

1:54:32 ↗ because the administration has not

1:54:34 ↗ presented viable alternatives, has not

1:54:37 ↗ kind of come at this with, okay, we

1:54:41 ↗ think this is a problem and how you

1:54:44 ↗ solve it.

1:54:46 ↗ I'm I'm hesitant to break off from a

1:54:51 ↗ contract that we have that is being

1:54:54 ↗ utilized for 11,000 rides per year. Um,

1:54:59 ↗ without evaluating kind of where our

1:55:02 ↗ values are and where we would go with

1:55:04 ↗ this, especially given we can just do a

1:55:06 ↗ six-month outage on something like this.

1:55:10 ↗ Because if we were being given the

1:55:12 ↗ information or kind of evaluating other

1:55:16 ↗ ways that we might utilize our budget, I

1:55:19 ↗ think that's a very valid conversation

1:55:22 ↗ to have. Right now, we have a lack of

1:55:26 ↗ information in one area

1:55:29 ↗ and we have a set of utilization in the

1:55:33 ↗ other. And so we're kind of evaluating

1:55:38 ↗ a somewhat known against a question

1:55:41 ↗ mark.

1:55:44 ↗ And I think that's a difficult position

1:55:48 ↗ to put us in. So maybe I'll go back to

1:55:51 ↗ city administrator Bob Quitz. When we

1:55:54 ↗ are looking at this upcoming

1:55:58 ↗ budget adjustment,

1:56:02 ↗ at a minimum to keep this service going,

1:56:04 ↗ what we need to provide is the like

1:56:07 ↗ 58,000

1:56:09 ↗ from a budget standpoint.

1:56:12 ↗ >> I mean, that's really that's part of it.

1:56:14 ↗ And um again, the the mayor enters into

1:56:17 ↗ the contract. um you know the mayor is

1:56:20 ↗ not at this point willing to do that. Um

1:56:23 ↗ so I think the way this would work is if

1:56:26 ↗ the council puts the money in the budget

1:56:28 ↗ uh and then the contract comes to the

1:56:30 ↗ council with a recommendation not to

1:56:32 ↗ enter into it and the council approves

1:56:33 ↗ it anyway uh without a city attorney

1:56:36 ↗ here just my my able friend Andrea um uh

1:56:40 ↗ I think that's what how this would play

1:56:42 ↗ out. Um, so if the if the c the council

1:56:46 ↗ as the legislative body adopts the

1:56:47 ↗ budget, the council as the policymaking

1:56:50 ↗ budget body approves a contract. So

1:56:53 ↗ >> I'm sorry, are you suggesting that the

1:56:56 ↗ mayor would

1:56:59 ↗ choose not to sign a contract that the

1:57:02 ↗ council has

1:57:04 ↗ >> Oh, no, no, no.

1:57:05 ↗ >> expressed interest and budgeted for.

1:57:07 ↗ >> No, no, but but again, it would have to

1:57:09 ↗ come to the council with a negative

1:57:11 ↗ recommendation. And so the council would

1:57:14 ↗ have to authorize the mayor to execute a

1:57:16 ↗ contract that she's recommending not to

1:57:18 ↗ do. Something we don't see very often

1:57:20 ↗ here. But if you're looking for a path

1:57:22 ↗ to accomplish what the council wants to

1:57:24 ↗ accomplish versus what the mayor wants

1:57:26 ↗ to accomplish,

1:57:28 ↗ I' I've got the two angels on both of my

1:57:31 ↗ shoulders here. So um so that I think is

1:57:34 ↗ what you're facing. Um

1:57:40 ↗ >> Council Member Ray. So, I'm going to

1:57:42 ↗ just put a a bow around everything I've

1:57:44 ↗ heard tonight. And that is I think we

1:57:47 ↗ need to have some clarity around what

1:57:48 ↗ are the policy objectives we're trying

1:57:50 ↗ to achieve.

1:57:52 ↗ um with Metrflex or or maybe even larger

1:57:56 ↗ than Metrflex because we're we're

1:57:58 ↗ starting with a solution which is

1:57:59 ↗ Metrflex but kind of elevating our

1:58:01 ↗ discussions saying what are our policy

1:58:02 ↗ objectives and then I'm going to riff on

1:58:05 ↗ you council president and how do we

1:58:07 ↗ measure whether or not we're doing that

1:58:09 ↗ and being successful in that in the

1:58:10 ↗ short term and then over the long term.

1:58:12 ↗ I think that is the first and absolutely

1:58:14 ↗ essential first step we have to do

1:58:17 ↗ because we can't really have a

1:58:18 ↗ discussion about um the question marks

1:58:21 ↗ until we we put um a stake through what

1:58:24 ↗ it is we're trying to accomplish. And I

1:58:27 ↗ don't know that we um have a consensus

1:58:30 ↗ um or even a plurality on what that is.

1:58:33 ↗ And and and I know we've got all sorts

1:58:35 ↗ of things popping up like we want to do

1:58:37 ↗ this, we want to do that, we want to do

1:58:38 ↗ this. Um but but to what end and which

1:58:41 ↗ is more important and you know it is

1:58:44 ↗ hard to make priority decisions but that

1:58:47 ↗ I think that's why they pay us the the

1:58:49 ↗ large the large money is so that we will

1:58:51 ↗ be here and make those important

1:58:54 ↗ prioritization decisions about okay this

1:58:56 ↗ is more important than that and so we're

1:58:58 ↗ going to do that but we've got to nail

1:59:00 ↗ down what it is we're trying to

1:59:01 ↗ accomplish in these various areas and

1:59:03 ↗ there's clearly there's three that I

1:59:05 ↗ ticked off earlier and there may be more

1:59:06 ↗ but there is there's one about um access

1:59:09 ↗ to the transit system. So, the last

1:59:11 ↗ mile, there's one around equity and

1:59:14 ↗ providing mobility solutions to those

1:59:16 ↗ who are in marginalized um uh positions.

1:59:20 ↗ And then there is one around something

1:59:22 ↗ else. Oh, um traffic congestion and

1:59:26 ↗ climate action. And maybe there's four

1:59:28 ↗ more. I don't know. But those are the

1:59:29 ↗ three that I know of. But I think we got

1:59:30 ↗ to figure out what they are before we

1:59:32 ↗ really have any more discussion. Um much

1:59:35 ↗ as I love mobility and infrastructure

1:59:36 ↗ committee and I think it's an amazing

1:59:37 ↗ committee with amazing people on this is

1:59:39 ↗ really a cow cow discussion and I think

1:59:42 ↗ if we have to schedule a meeting to dig

1:59:44 ↗ into this before the end of the year

1:59:45 ↗ because we want to make a decision

1:59:47 ↗ before the end of the year then I think

1:59:48 ↗ we need to do that. If we feel

1:59:50 ↗ comfortable in saying let's let it um

1:59:52 ↗ slide into next year and we'll just um

1:59:56 ↗ go with a you know contract extension

1:59:58 ↗ with another six month out and looking

2:00:01 ↗ to do another you know what would be

2:00:02 ↗ another nine months of it you know

2:00:05 ↗ essentially kicking the can then I think

2:00:07 ↗ that's fine too.

2:00:12 ↗ >> Yeah I think that timeline portion is

2:00:15 ↗ the really important one. I agree with

2:00:18 ↗ your concept that this needs to stay at

2:00:20 ↗ a cow, but is this something that we

2:00:23 ↗ feel we can effectively evaluate without

2:00:27 ↗ an additional staff member um you know

2:00:30 ↗ who can really dig into things? Can we

2:00:33 ↗ evaluate this in this short time period

2:00:36 ↗ or

2:00:39 ↗ how do we feel about you know extending

2:00:41 ↗ a contract and then making the

2:00:44 ↗ evaluation?

2:00:47 ↗ >> Does that make sense?

2:00:49 ↗ >> Let me let me just uh have a

2:00:50 ↗ conversation about that. Um

2:00:54 ↗ I I don't see how it's really rational

2:00:56 ↗ to think that we are going to be able to

2:00:57 ↗ do all the things we just talked about

2:00:59 ↗ in three months, particularly since

2:01:00 ↗ December is generally a light month. And

2:01:03 ↗ also because we're going to have new

2:01:04 ↗ faces here in um in a month, at least

2:01:08 ↗ one new face in a month. So um I I I

2:01:12 ↗ think that, you know, this is one one of

2:01:16 ↗ six tonight. I will do my uh totem, but

2:01:18 ↗ I'm just one of seven, but I just don't

2:01:20 ↗ see how you get this done this year.

2:01:23 ↗ Yeah. And and the point of, you know,

2:01:26 ↗ potentially you're looking at new mayor

2:01:28 ↗ and new council members that, you know,

2:01:32 ↗ we'll have to,

2:01:35 ↗ yeah, be a part of the conversation

2:01:37 ↗ coming forward. Uh, deputy council

2:01:39 ↗ president.

2:01:40 ↗ >> Yeah. Um I'm I'm hopeful this this will

2:01:43 ↗ be a useful comment but uh I think we

2:01:47 ↗ have learned a lot from the uh

2:01:50 ↗ implementation of this project and um we

2:01:54 ↗ started off with the idea that we wanted

2:01:56 ↗ a first mile last mile solution and for

2:01:59 ↗ particular neighborhoods Squawk and

2:02:01 ↗ Talis and so that was we had a very

2:02:04 ↗ clear definition and then we put the the

2:02:07 ↗ uh buses out there we put out the vans

2:02:10 ↗ and people, actual people started

2:02:12 ↗ actually using them. And what the map

2:02:14 ↗ shows us is that they used them in a

2:02:16 ↗ different way than what we had

2:02:17 ↗ originally projected, but that doesn't

2:02:19 ↗ mean that the way they used them was an

2:02:21 ↗ invalid um learning experience for all

2:02:25 ↗ of us. So, uh I really appreciate what

2:02:28 ↗ council member Ray was saying about us

2:02:30 ↗ and actually I agreed with your with

2:02:32 ↗ your three points. Um, I think that the

2:02:36 ↗ the target has moved and has been moved

2:02:39 ↗ because actual people were riding in

2:02:41 ↗ actual vans and telling us what they

2:02:44 ↗ really were going to do and how they

2:02:46 ↗ were really going to use the system

2:02:48 ↗ rather than the way we were thinking

2:02:50 ↗ about how they would use the system. So,

2:02:52 ↗ I think we have a lot of data that we've

2:02:54 ↗ already received and we've learned a lot

2:02:57 ↗ from the practical implementation of

2:02:59 ↗ this of this project.

2:03:04 ↗ So, I'm not sure that it's going to take

2:03:06 ↗ a long discussion for us to uh analyze

2:03:10 ↗ what we need to do next.

2:03:13 ↗ >> Yeah. And toward that idea, utilizing

2:03:16 ↗ that data to maybe make some tweaks in

2:03:19 ↗ the writer wrership area and then be

2:03:24 ↗ able to utilize that. I'm gonna keep

2:03:26 ↗ coming back to it because I just think

2:03:28 ↗ that was a piss poor uh choice of map in

2:03:32 ↗ the first place. But I agree that the uh

2:03:37 ↗ the data necessarily changes the way we

2:03:40 ↗ look at what the problem is.

2:03:47 ↗ >> Council member Hall. So I guess

2:03:49 ↗ clarifying question then for council and

2:03:51 ↗ staff is the direction that I'm hearing

2:03:56 ↗ proceed with renewing the contract try

2:03:59 ↗ to adjust the service area and have a

2:04:03 ↗ deeper

2:04:05 ↗ uh objectives, goals, outcomes

2:04:07 ↗ conversation in the new year.

2:04:11 ↗ Is that what we're saying? Yeah, I think

2:04:14 ↗ that's the timeline question is um

2:04:16 ↗ Council Member Ray said, "I don't think

2:04:18 ↗ we can evaluate this in this three-month

2:04:20 ↗ period, especially with December being a

2:04:23 ↗ light month." And so I think I'm trying

2:04:25 ↗ to get a sense from the council. Do we

2:04:30 ↗ feel comfortable with doing an

2:04:31 ↗ evaluation in Q1?

2:04:34 ↗ What kind of information do we need from

2:04:37 ↗ that,

2:04:39 ↗ etc.

2:04:40 ↗ >> Okay. And I think this is the the

2:04:43 ↗ distinction. It's not an evaluation.

2:04:45 ↗ It's the beginning of the process,

2:04:46 ↗ right? We we need to just be clear about

2:04:48 ↗ what our goals and objectives and then

2:04:50 ↗ what we're looking for at the end of the

2:04:52 ↗ contract to be able to say that was a

2:04:54 ↗ success because we're at the we're

2:04:56 ↗ almost the end right now, right? So,

2:04:59 ↗ it's like almost pre-evaluation

2:05:01 ↗ preparing for an evaluation. I guess

2:05:02 ↗ it's all the same thing, nomenclature,

2:05:04 ↗ but um

2:05:07 ↗ I don't necessarily if if we're all

2:05:09 ↗ leaning towards yes, we think we should

2:05:11 ↗ renew the contract, I don't necessarily

2:05:12 ↗ see the value in having that

2:05:15 ↗ conversation

2:05:17 ↗ before budget um when we could have it

2:05:20 ↗ in the new year as we go into the new

2:05:24 ↗ contract. Does that make sense? You mean

2:05:27 ↗ you don't see it needing to happen in Q4

2:05:32 ↗ 2025 or cuz the other option as we're

2:05:36 ↗ looking at this is have a conversation

2:05:39 ↗ in Q1ish

2:05:43 ↗ 2026.

2:05:45 ↗ Figure out what our goals and criteria

2:05:47 ↗ are and then figure out a timeline for

2:05:50 ↗ doing that evaluation with some new data

2:05:53 ↗ on potentially a new map etc.

2:05:56 ↗ um versus

2:06:00 ↗ waiting until kind of our budget cycle

2:06:03 ↗ and doing the evaluation.

2:06:07 ↗ Maybe I'm messing things up by adding

2:06:10 ↗ other timelines, but big question really

2:06:14 ↗ for the rest of the council members

2:06:16 ↗ while you think on that is do we think

2:06:19 ↗ it's important to

2:06:21 ↗ do any kind of evaluation in Q4 or are

2:06:24 ↗ we leaning toward a renewal of the

2:06:28 ↗ contract with a commitment toward

2:06:32 ↗ evaluating what our goals are for the

2:06:34 ↗ service and what the data looks like in

2:06:36 ↗ 2026.

2:06:39 ↗ That one, that one, that one.

2:06:42 ↗ >> Yeah, I would say the ladder just

2:06:44 ↗ because, you know, cancelling it with no

2:06:46 ↗ other option does not seem like a good

2:06:48 ↗ idea at this point. So,

2:06:52 ↗ >> okay. I would also add again, you know,

2:06:55 ↗ my frustration is that we didn't have

2:06:56 ↗ this conversation back in March when we

2:06:58 ↗ knew that this was going to happen at

2:06:59 ↗ the end of the year and now we're kind

2:07:00 ↗ of in this period where it's like, well,

2:07:01 ↗ we don't have enough time to evaluate

2:07:03 ↗ options where we could have spent the

2:07:05 ↗ last like 6 months doing that.

2:07:08 ↗ Feedback received.

2:07:10 ↗ Um, anyone else want to chime in on

2:07:13 ↗ this?

2:07:15 ↗ Okay. It seems like maybe we're leaning

2:07:19 ↗ more toward a contract renewal with the

2:07:22 ↗ idea that we really wish we had been

2:07:24 ↗ able to do the evaluation in 2025 of

2:07:27 ↗ what our criteria and goals are. Um but

2:07:31 ↗ we are willing to look at that at the

2:07:34 ↗ beginning of next year.

2:07:37 ↗ So again, the challenges you'll have is

2:07:39 ↗ that uh the mayor enters into contracts.

2:07:42 ↗ Uh she would need to put this forward on

2:07:44 ↗ a council agenda. Uh currently the

2:07:46 ↗ administration is not recommending

2:07:48 ↗ moving forward with a contract. And so u

2:07:51 ↗ we would need to figure out a mechanism

2:07:53 ↗ for the council uh to place this item on

2:07:56 ↗ the agenda uh

2:07:59 ↗ requesting that the mayor uh negotiated

2:08:02 ↗ a contract and place it on the council's

2:08:05 ↗ agenda uh for action with her uh

2:08:09 ↗ recommendation not to approve. Uh and

2:08:11 ↗ then the council would have to uh amend

2:08:14 ↗ the bienium budget and uh identify

2:08:17 ↗ $50,000

2:08:19 ↗ of funds for this year. Uh you're then

2:08:22 ↗ committing a future council to the

2:08:25 ↗ second year. And so that becomes the

2:08:28 ↗ first I guess $260,000

2:08:31 ↗ of the next bianium budget other than I

2:08:35 ↗ guess what you're contractually

2:08:36 ↗ obligated to pay to Epher. Um so those

2:08:39 ↗ would be the two things that you would

2:08:42 ↗ be committing to then for the 2728. So

2:08:47 ↗ um we can convey this information to the

2:08:48 ↗ mayor. Uh we can work with the city

2:08:50 ↗ attorney and the city clerk over an

2:08:52 ↗ appropriate motion for the council to

2:08:55 ↗ place a contract on an agenda um

2:09:00 ↗ without the mayor's uh recommen with the

2:09:03 ↗ mayor's recommendation for denial. Uh

2:09:06 ↗ then the council if it chooses to

2:09:07 ↗ approve a contract and direct the mayor

2:09:09 ↗ to sign it. Um again pending

2:09:13 ↗ further clarification with the attorney

2:09:15 ↗ and the clerk. Um I think that you could

2:09:18 ↗ do that. And then the second piece would

2:09:20 ↗ be to identify funding with the

2:09:22 ↗ midbenium budget amendment. So, if

2:09:24 ↗ that's the your direction, we'll work

2:09:27 ↗ with the city attorney and city clerk

2:09:30 ↗ for the appropriate motion

2:09:32 ↗ >> um to direct the mayor to negotiate a

2:09:34 ↗ contract.

2:09:36 ↗ >> Yeah, I mean, I don't think it has to be

2:09:39 ↗ messy. Uh it it's coming through with

2:09:43 ↗ some council feedback on where we would

2:09:46 ↗ like to take the budget. And so I think

2:09:50 ↗ that is an important element of

2:09:53 ↗ governing in a dual system. So yes, any

2:09:58 ↗ other feedback on these issues? Uh,

2:10:00 ↗ Council Member Jen, I would just like to

2:10:02 ↗ say to your point that, you know, we're

2:10:03 ↗ committing to this being in the 2027

2:10:05 ↗ budget as well. That's I would like to

2:10:07 ↗ make clear that I don't necessarily want

2:10:09 ↗ to commit to that at this point. I want

2:10:11 ↗ us to commit to figuring out what we're

2:10:12 ↗ going to do in 2027 by June 30th of next

2:10:15 ↗ year so that we have time to pull out of

2:10:17 ↗ metrlex. If we can figure it out by, you

2:10:20 ↗ know, March 31st and make a decision for

2:10:23 ↗ the end of Q3 and, you know, do

2:10:25 ↗ something else starting at that point, I

2:10:26 ↗ think that would be great, too. But we

2:10:28 ↗ really do need to, you know, figure out

2:10:30 ↗ what some of the other options are.

2:10:34 ↗ And and again, Council Member Jane,

2:10:35 ↗ members of the council, my understanding

2:10:37 ↗ is that the the contract would be a

2:10:39 ↗ two-year contract. There would be

2:10:41 ↗ language for u the ability to cancel the

2:10:45 ↗ contract, but what would be before the

2:10:46 ↗ council over the mayor's objection would

2:10:49 ↗ be a two-year contract.

2:10:52 ↗ >> Correct. But I do appreciate the the

2:10:55 ↗ feedback of as much as that is

2:10:59 ↗ recognizing what the

2:11:02 ↗ terms are in that contract um that allow

2:11:05 ↗ for adjustments based on our budget

2:11:07 ↗ cycle um is an appropriate way to

2:11:11 ↗ respond and consider. And so having

2:11:14 ↗ >> before the council would be a two-year

2:11:15 ↗ >> certainly certainly but having the

2:11:17 ↗ feedback from council members saying

2:11:21 ↗ approval with the expectation that we

2:11:24 ↗ are able to effectively make a decision

2:11:26 ↗ by the end of June of next year

2:11:31 ↗ is is setting a a set of expectations

2:11:34 ↗ there which I think is important as

2:11:36 ↗ feedback.

2:11:39 ↗ Okay. Um any other pieces of information

2:11:44 ↗ off of this? Let's see. Looking through

2:11:47 ↗ the agenda.

2:11:49 ↗ Um

2:11:51 ↗ we have Oh, that's a tab. Uh good of the

2:11:55 ↗ order. Anything for good of the order?

2:11:58 ↗ Deputy council president.

2:12:00 ↗ Uh I'm just going to mention that I sat

2:12:02 ↗ in this morning on the audit exit uh

2:12:05 ↗ interview and uh it was all very very

2:12:08 ↗ good news and we should be really proud

2:12:09 ↗ of our finance department. Uh we had a

2:12:11 ↗ totally clean audit and um uh lots of

2:12:16 ↗ praise from the state uh auditors. So um

2:12:20 ↗ I think that uh it was very very well

2:12:23 ↗ done. Thank you.

2:12:26 ↗ >> Excellent. Any other Oh. Uh, Council

2:12:28 ↗ Member Joe,

2:12:30 ↗ >> thank you. Um, just a brief

2:12:32 ↗ announcement. I've received a

2:12:35 ↗ message that, uh, Christy Gerard had

2:12:37 ↗ nominated the Esqua Arts for Washington

2:12:40 ↗ State Tourism Award for the film

2:12:41 ↗ festival in the community impact

2:12:44 ↗ category and they were named a finalist

2:12:46 ↗ for that award. The awards are going to

2:12:49 ↗ take place Wednesday, October 8th

2:12:51 ↗ between 6:00 and 8:00 p.m. Uh, most of

2:12:54 ↗ us are in candidate forum, but I thought

2:12:56 ↗ um others could um try to watch in watch

2:13:00 ↗ and see whether or not they win. Thank

2:13:03 ↗ you,

2:13:06 ↗ >> President.

2:13:06 ↗ >> Yes.

2:13:07 ↗ >> Uh, just let you know, I did hear from

2:13:09 ↗ Council Member Mart. Um, he sends his

2:13:12 ↗ apologies that there was a schedule

2:13:14 ↗ mixup and so he was unable to attend.

2:13:17 ↗ Fantastic. Glad that he is doing okay.

2:13:20 ↗ Uh it is always a question mark when

2:13:22 ↗ we've got an empty seat of you know any

2:13:25 ↗ traffic related incidents. Okay. Um with

2:13:28 ↗ that uh we are adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

2:13:32 ↗ Thank you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (7)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Tola Marts (Absent)

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh