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 (6)

Barbara de Michele

Zach Hall

Kelly Jiang

Russell Joe

Chris Reh

Lindsey Walsh

Staff (3)

Wally Bobkiewicz, City Administrator

Andrea Snyder, Deputy City Administrator

Tisha Gieser, City Clerk

Excused

Tola Marts

Audience commenters (1)

Ann Fletcher