City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, May 12, 2026 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee Regular Meeting, March 10, 2026

packet pp.5–6

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 9:25 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-10-26 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (01) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. March 10, 2026 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

Street Standards - Frontage Improvements for Public Utility Projects COM 0211

45 min · Jim Jacobe, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.7–223

Topics: Transportation

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Mar 30, 2026

▶ Watch from 4:01 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The Administration recommends the Committee support adopting a revision to the Street Standards allowing the City Engineer to exempt water, sewer, and storm development and redevelopment projects from certain frontage improvements in locations when specific conditions are met.

2027-2032 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program COM 0212

45 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.225–303

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 6:43 Open packet at p.225 ↗

Staff report:

C. Project Pages D. Scored Project List E. Transportation Advisory Board Feedback

1845 segments .txt ↗

0:08 ↗ Welcome everyone. I, Council Member Joe,

0:10 ↗ call the May 12th, 2026 City Council

0:13 ↗ Mobility and Infrastructure Committee

0:15 ↗ meeting to order. There are no unexcused

0:19 ↗ absences. Thank you all for being

0:21 ↗ present. And just a welcome to Council

0:24 ↗ Member Boyd for joining our committee.

0:26 ↗ Um, the work you've been doing has been

0:28 ↗ exemplary. uh on council. We appreciate

0:31 ↗ you joining this committee to add your

0:32 ↗ talents here. Also want to welcome

0:34 ↗ council president uh to Martz. Um you

0:38 ↗ and I were talking before and you

0:40 ↗ haven't been on this committee since

0:41 ↗ what 2014

0:42 ↗ >> something

0:43 ↗ >> 2014. Nothing's really changed so you

0:46 ↗ should be fine. All right. That will

0:49 ↗ then take us that will then take us to

0:51 ↗ uh public comment. This is an

0:53 ↗ opportunity to provide general comments

0:54 ↗ to this committee. There'll there'll

0:56 ↗ also be an opportunity for public

0:57 ↗ comments on the agenda after each item

1:01 ↗ and presentation.

1:03 ↗ And um we typically do that after the

1:05 ↗ committee's question and answer period.

1:08 ↗ Madam clerk, are there any people signed

1:10 ↗ up or online that wish to speak?

1:14 ↗ >> Yes, I do have someone online who wishes

1:16 ↗ to speak uh and someone in the room who

1:18 ↗ is also signed up.

1:19 ↗ >> Okay. Comments can be made virtually or

1:22 ↗ in person. Those who have signed up in

1:23 ↗ advance will be called on first. If

1:25 ↗ you're joining virtually and would like

1:27 ↗ to make comments, please raise your hand

1:29 ↗ or send the host a chat message. If

1:31 ↗ you're on the phone, typically it's

1:32 ↗ press star three, excuse me, asterk

1:36 ↗ three. If you have joined by computer or

1:38 ↗ smartphone, look for the hand icon. Um,

1:41 ↗ if you're in the room and did not sign

1:42 ↗ up, there'll be an opportunity for you

1:43 ↗ to raise your hand later if you'd like

1:45 ↗ to speak before I close this portion of

1:47 ↗ the meeting. All right.

1:50 ↗ For those of you here make comment, we

1:52 ↗ welcome comments related to the TS

1:54 ↗ squad's programs, projects, services,

1:56 ↗ and events. Comments related to

1:58 ↗ political campaigns are not permitted.

2:01 ↗ When called upon, uh virtual attendee,

2:03 ↗ please unmute your microphone and state

2:06 ↗ your name and address in relationship to

2:08 ↗ the city. Speak clearly and limit your

2:09 ↗ comments to 5 minutes. Thank you for

2:11 ↗ sharing your input with us. Clerk,

2:13 ↗ please call on tonight's commenters.

2:16 ↗ >> Well, we have lost our virtual attendee.

2:18 ↗ Uh so I will I will call on our uh our

2:20 ↗ our uh person in the room who has signed

2:22 ↗ up as Jim Connixfeld with Samish Plateau

2:25 ↗ Water. Oh, we have our virtual attendee

2:27 ↗ back if you would prefer to pass for

2:29 ↗ now. Okay, I'll call in our virtual

2:31 ↗ attendee. I see uh Nav Otal. Uh I will

2:34 ↗ be uh promoting you to a panelist and

2:36 ↗ then you should be able to unmute

2:38 ↗ yourself and uh turn on your video.

2:44 ↗ Okay, I have promoted you to a panelist

2:46 ↗ now. You should be able to unmute and

2:48 ↗ turn on your video if you wish.

3:09 ↗ Sorry about that. Technical

3:10 ↗ difficulties. Thank you. Thank you.

3:13 ↗ Sorry I

3:15 ↗ was joined and waiting and then pressed

3:19 ↗ the wrong button. Um, thank you so much

3:22 ↗ for uh this public comment opportunity.

3:25 ↗ Good evening. My name is Nav Utal. I'm

3:26 ↗ the president of board of commissioners

3:28 ↗ of Sumeish Plateau Water District. The

3:30 ↗ district is redeveloping its existing

3:34 ↗ water facilities uh to add PAS treatment

3:38 ↗ uh facility and this facility is

3:40 ↗ essential for removing PAS uh also known

3:42 ↗ as forever chemicals and ensuring safe

3:44 ↗ drinking uh water for our customers.

3:47 ↗ It's not optional and the location is

3:48 ↗ also not discretionary. It must be cited

3:51 ↗ on the current facil uh water facility

3:54 ↗ for the mobility uh and infrastructure

3:56 ↗ committee meeting today. Sta city staff

3:59 ↗ um are recommending an update uh to

4:01 ↗ street standards agenda item a com 0211

4:05 ↗ that would one remove requirement that

4:07 ↗ public agencies building water sewer and

4:09 ↗ storm capital projects construct full

4:11 ↗ frontage improvements that is sidewalks

4:13 ↗ caroben gutter uh planters but it still

4:16 ↗ requires public agency to pay the cost

4:19 ↗ as a deposit on future construction and

4:22 ↗ also it leaves the requirement in place

4:25 ↗ uh that the public agencies pay to

4:27 ↗ underground existing overhead utilities

4:30 ↗ that is Comcast and PSC and others. I

4:33 ↗ mean we appreciate the staff's effort to

4:36 ↗ bring forward potential updates to the

4:38 ↗ street standards. This flexibility will

4:41 ↗ benefit not only the district's FIFA

4:43 ↗ facility but also city- owned facil uh

4:46 ↗ facilities. But the district needs a

4:49 ↗ full exemption for public agencies

4:52 ↗ building water sewer and storm capital

4:54 ↗ projects from from requirements for

4:57 ↗ frontage improvements and undergrounding

4:59 ↗ utilities for PAS treatment facility.

5:02 ↗ leaving the requirement that public

5:04 ↗ agencies build uh building public

5:06 ↗ infrastructure must pay cost to include

5:09 ↗ Comcast uh cost to underground uh

5:12 ↗ underground Comcast fiber network is

5:14 ↗ expensive, inequitable and unnecessary.

5:17 ↗ This project uh along with the street um

5:21 ↗ uh improvements would cost nearly a

5:23 ↗ million dollars more for our project.

5:25 ↗ It's also inequitable. The city projects

5:28 ↗ get deeply discounted undergrounding

5:30 ↗ rates because the city has a franchise

5:33 ↗ agreement under the franchise agreement

5:35 ↗ that the city um functions um under the

5:38 ↗ district does not get that discount. Uh

5:41 ↗ we understand uh that uh the city staff

5:44 ↗ is recommending options that leave

5:46 ↗ underground requirements but the uh the

5:49 ↗ requirement doesn't impact city projects

5:52 ↗ city's water sewer and uh storm in the

5:54 ↗ same way that um because of the those

5:57 ↗ franchise agreements. It's also

5:59 ↗ unnecessary uh the undergrounding

6:02 ↗ requirement would apply to only a tiny

6:04 ↗ stretch of frontage an isolated

6:06 ↗ comically short segment. It provides no

6:09 ↗ corridor level benefit uh since the

6:11 ↗ wires are above ground on either side of

6:14 ↗ our parcel and doesn't advance the

6:16 ↗ city's long-term infrastructure vision

6:19 ↗ and um it will not um and it doesn't

6:22 ↗ prevent future outages due to windtorms.

6:24 ↗ It is a really short segment um uh 250

6:28 ↗ ft. Um

6:30 ↗ so um we understand that the city um

6:34 ↗ didn't want to push for a full exemption

6:36 ↗ for public agency since it it may look

6:38 ↗ like asking for too much. But the

6:41 ↗ reality is that um the undergrounding

6:44 ↗ requirement simply doesn't affect city's

6:47 ↗ projects the same way that it does the

6:49 ↗ district. Uh we want to make sure that

6:51 ↗ you are aware of this disproportionate

6:53 ↗ impact

6:56 ↗ and underground um implementing

6:58 ↗ undergrounding in this peace meal away

7:01 ↗ imposes significant unnecessary cost to

7:04 ↗ the rate payers. Um it's a major expense

7:07 ↗ for an improvement that doesn't

7:09 ↗ meaningfully serve the city's

7:11 ↗ infrastructure goals. we are aligned on

7:13 ↗ long-term uh goals and we just need a

7:16 ↗ practical equitable path forward on this

7:19 ↗ project. Uh so the district is uh uh

7:22 ↗ request that the street standards are

7:24 ↗ modified to provide an exemption for

7:26 ↗ public agencies building water sewer and

7:29 ↗ storm capital projects both frontage and

7:32 ↗ undergrounding uh undergrounding

7:34 ↗ utilities for PAS treatment. Uh staff

7:37 ↗ today will present three options to you.

7:40 ↗ uh we encourage you to uh uh support

7:42 ↗ moving option three with modifications

7:45 ↗ forward to the full council for

7:47 ↗ consideration. This is a option that uh

7:51 ↗ uh reads as support modifying the street

7:55 ↗ standards to allow city engineer to

7:56 ↗ exempt water sewer and storm utility

7:59 ↗ development and redevelopment projects

8:00 ↗ from all street frontage improvements on

8:03 ↗ sidewalk uh tier three and four streets.

8:06 ↗ I really appreciate your time and your

8:08 ↗ attention to this very very important

8:10 ↗ topic. Thank you,

8:13 ↗ >> President Otel. Thank you for those

8:15 ↗ comments. Is there anyone else that

8:18 ↗ would like to speak online? Madam Clerk?

8:25 ↗ >> No, not at this time.

8:26 ↗ >> Okay, seeing none, we'll go to uh

8:29 ↗ in-person comments.

8:35 ↗ Okay, I have uh Jim Conixfeld, would you

8:38 ↗ care to add to what was already said?

8:42 ↗ >> Okay, I'm getting a no.

8:44 ↗ >> All right, thank you.

8:46 ↗ Anyone else online or in the room that

8:49 ↗ would like to add comments?

8:52 ↗ Thank you for the comments tonight. Uh

8:54 ↗ we uh appreciate the point of view that

8:57 ↗ you're bringing to us on the public

8:59 ↗ infrastructure requirements for the

9:02 ↗ project with Seamish sewer and water

9:04 ↗ platamish plateau water. And uh

9:09 ↗ as a reminder, written comments can be

9:11 ↗ submitted at any time to city

9:12 ↗ councilwa.gov.

9:15 ↗ And uh those comments are read by

9:17 ↗ council and council leadership.

9:21 ↗ The next public comments will now be

9:23 ↗ closed and the next item on the agenda

9:25 ↗ will be approval of the minutes. The

9:27 ↗ minutes were distributed in advance to

9:29 ↗ the committee. Are there any

9:30 ↗ corrections?

9:33 ↗ If no hearing none, then the minutes

9:35 ↗ will be approved as presented. The next

9:38 ↗ item of business is

9:41 ↗ page two like Paul Harvey. uh COOM0211

9:46 ↗ street standards frontage improvements

9:48 ↗ for public utility projects and um looks

9:52 ↗ like we have Jim Jacob, senior

9:54 ↗ transportation engineer to give us a

9:56 ↗ presentation. Welcome

10:42 ↗ Right.

10:51 ↗ Good evening, council members. Um, here

10:54 ↗ to my name is Jim Jacobe, senior

10:56 ↗ transportation engineer with city. I'm

10:58 ↗ here to present uh the street standards

11:02 ↗ uh frontage improvements for public

11:04 ↗ utility projects.

11:09 ↗ Too tall for the mic. Um,

11:13 ↗ so I'm I'm Jim Jacobe, senior

11:15 ↗ transportation engineer with city. I'm

11:17 ↗ here to present on the street standards

11:19 ↗ frontage improvements for public utility

11:21 ↗ projects.

11:26 ↗ So the purpose of our presentation

11:28 ↗ tonight is to consider a possible

11:30 ↗ revision to the street standards to

11:32 ↗ assist with development and

11:33 ↗ redevelopment of water, sewer, and storm

11:36 ↗ water projects.

11:40 ↗ And the direction we're looking for from

11:41 ↗ the committee is the administration

11:43 ↗ would like committee's policy input um

11:46 ↗ about this possible revision to the

11:47 ↗ street standards regarding frontage

11:49 ↗ improvements. Um that's again this is

11:52 ↗ for water, sewer and storm water

11:54 ↗ projects.

11:59 ↗ Uh some background

12:02 ↗ the this issue was brought to the four

12:05 ↗ by the Seamish plateau water PAS project

12:09 ↗ on 1st Avenue Northeast. It's a public

12:12 ↗ benefit project removing drinking water

12:14 ↗ contaminants uh funded by rateayers. The

12:17 ↗ project site is a mostly industrial and

12:19 ↗ commercial street with you know little

12:21 ↗ or no pedestrian traffic adjacent to the

12:24 ↗ site. uh adjacent properties do not have

12:27 ↗ street frontage improvements

12:30 ↗ largely

12:32 ↗ and are unlikely to be redeveloped in

12:34 ↗ the foreseeable future.

12:40 ↗ So here's a map of the the site.

12:44 ↗ The Seamish Plateau site is a the green

12:47 ↗ box with the arrow pointing to it. Um,

12:50 ↗ all the areas that you see in red are

12:53 ↗ areas where we do not currently have

12:55 ↗ sidewalk.

12:57 ↗ Uh, the area in yellow just across the

13:00 ↗ street is the one current section of

13:02 ↗ sidewalk on the street.

13:05 ↗ Uh, so that's not adjacent, but it is

13:07 ↗ across the street from the site.

13:09 ↗ the there's two spots in uh orange that

13:13 ↗ are

13:15 ↗ planned to have sidewalk um or are

13:18 ↗ currently in construction

13:21 ↗ right now.

13:23 ↗ And then in blue is the Isiqua Preston

13:26 ↗ Regional Trail that while not a

13:29 ↗ sidewalk, it you know is adjacent to the

13:32 ↗ road um further south of the site.

13:43 ↗ So the current street standards for uh

13:46 ↗ street frontage improvements reads um

13:50 ↗ essentially all new developments and

13:52 ↗ redevelopments

13:54 ↗ and the improvements may include but not

13:57 ↗ be limited to curbon gutter sidewalk

14:00 ↗ uh storm drainage illumination traffic

14:04 ↗ signal modification

14:06 ↗ utility relocation and undergrounding,

14:08 ↗ street trees, landscaping, uh, bike

14:11 ↗ facilities, and street widening.

14:17 ↗ There is an existing exemption in the

14:20 ↗ street standards for short plats.

14:23 ↗ Um,

14:25 ↗ however, the street standards do not

14:27 ↗ currently have an exemption for these

14:30 ↗ types of water, sewer, and storm water

14:33 ↗ utility projects.

14:35 ↗ Um the existing exemption for street

14:38 ↗ plats allows the city engineer to wave

14:41 ↗ most street frontage improvements,

14:43 ↗ sidewalk, storm drainage, etc. But it

14:48 ↗ specifically excludes utility

14:49 ↗ undergrounding.

14:51 ↗ Um and it has several requirements, a

14:53 ↗ couple of which are listed here. You

14:55 ↗ know, adjacent street footage

14:56 ↗ improvements are unlikely to be

14:58 ↗ installed in the future and the city has

15:01 ↗ no documented street plan for that

15:03 ↗ street.

15:09 ↗ So, regarding underground utilities, the

15:12 ↗ city's comprehensive plan has a couple

15:15 ↗ of goals that mention uh utility

15:18 ↗ undergrounding and touch on this. So,

15:21 ↗ new policy E1 requires undergrounding of

15:24 ↗ all new electrical distribution lines

15:26 ↗ where reasonably feasible and encourages

15:28 ↗ conversion of existing overhead systems

15:30 ↗ to underground systems.

15:32 ↗ And then policy E6 establish new or

15:35 ↗ expanded sites for public facilities,

15:39 ↗ utilities and infrastructure in a manner

15:41 ↗ that ensures disaster and climate

15:42 ↗ resiliency and public service recovery.

15:45 ↗ So both of these sort of hint or imply

15:50 ↗ that

15:51 ↗ um utility undergrounding is is a goal

15:54 ↗ of the city and specifically for

15:57 ↗ disaster and climate resiliency.

16:04 ↗ Um, and council members will likely

16:06 ↗ remember the bomb cyclone about a year

16:08 ↗ and a half ago. We got a a pretty good

16:11 ↗ reminder of why having utilities

16:14 ↗ underground is

16:16 ↗ uh beneficial.

16:18 ↗ You know, many residents were without

16:20 ↗ power for days, um, sometimes more.

16:24 ↗ And you know, utilities being

16:26 ↗ underground means they're a lot less

16:28 ↗ likely to be taken out by falling

16:30 ↗ branches during windtorms or snowstorms,

16:34 ↗ etc.

16:36 ↗ Um, not to mention, you know, o down

16:38 ↗ overhead lines are extremely dangerous,

16:42 ↗ especially power lines.

16:45 ↗ So,

16:46 ↗ um, utility undergrounding is

16:49 ↗ preferable.

16:52 ↗ So, some options for the committee's

16:55 ↗ consideration,

16:56 ↗ you know, option one, make no changes to

16:58 ↗ the street standards.

17:00 ↗ Option two, support modifying the street

17:03 ↗ standards to allow the city engineer to

17:05 ↗ exempt water, sewer, and storm water

17:07 ↗ development and redevelopment projects

17:09 ↗ from street footage improvements except

17:12 ↗ utility undergrounding on sidewalk tier

17:15 ↗ three and four streets.

17:17 ↗ Um, and as a reminder, sidewalk tier

17:20 ↗ three and four is areas outside of

17:22 ↗ central Isiqua,

17:25 ↗ uh,

17:26 ↗ Oldtown and Isiqua Highlands and streets

17:30 ↗ that are not within a quarter mile of

17:33 ↗ community amenities like schools and

17:35 ↗ senior centers.

17:38 ↗ And then option three, support modifying

17:41 ↗ the street standards to allow city

17:43 ↗ engineer to exempt um these public

17:46 ↗ utility projects for all street frontage

17:48 ↗ improvements on sidewalk tier three and

17:50 ↗ four streets.

17:56 ↗ So the administration's recommending an

17:58 ↗ exemption be added to the street

17:59 ↗ standards for frontage improvements on

18:02 ↗ public utility projects that meet the

18:03 ↗ following conditions. Um the project is

18:06 ↗ a public drinking water, sanitary sewer

18:08 ↗ or storm water development or

18:09 ↗ redevelopment

18:11 ↗ located on sidewalk tier three and four

18:13 ↗ streets for the mobility action plan.

18:17 ↗ Again, these are low traffic volume

18:19 ↗ streets outside of um central Isiqua,

18:22 ↗ Oldtown and Highlands and not within a

18:25 ↗ quarter mile of school, senior centers

18:27 ↗ and other community amenities.

18:30 ↗ Um,

18:33 ↗ also, uh, adjacent street footage

18:35 ↗ improvements are unlikely to be

18:37 ↗ installed in the future, and the city

18:39 ↗ has no documented street plan for the

18:41 ↗ subject street.

18:47 ↗ So, timing and next steps. If the

18:49 ↗ committee would like to pursue a a

18:52 ↗ revision to the street standards,

18:54 ↗ um a draft would be

18:58 ↗ uh created and presented to council for

19:02 ↗ approval.

19:03 ↗ Committee does not wish to move forward

19:05 ↗ with revising the street standards. No

19:07 ↗ further action required.

19:13 ↗ So again, uh the administration is

19:15 ↗ looking for the committee's policy input

19:17 ↗ on possible revision to street standards

19:20 ↗ for frontage improvements on these

19:23 ↗ public utility projects.

19:25 ↗ Um and looking for

19:29 ↗ your uh your input.

19:32 ↗ >> Thank you.

19:33 ↗ >> Thank you.

19:35 ↗ Um

19:37 ↗ there was a amendment to the agenda

19:41 ↗ um that

19:43 ↗ sent a map to us with the overhead

19:47 ↗ lines on the map. Um Cassie, you sent

19:50 ↗ that out to us, did you not?

19:52 ↗ Um, I was wondering if you have that and

19:55 ↗ can put that up there just so the

19:57 ↗ committee has a better idea of how the

20:02 ↗ structure infrastructure is for overhead

20:04 ↗ and underground

20:05 ↗ lines in that particular area. We're

20:08 ↗ requiring the water district to put a

20:12 ↗ line underground there um at Frontler

20:15 ↗ property.

20:17 ↗ Are there other um underground lines in

20:20 ↗ that area that you can point out or are

20:23 ↗ are they all overhead there?

20:27 ↗ So there are quite a lot overhead. Um

20:32 ↗ I put together this map. Uh yeah, we can

20:36 ↗ see it on the screen now. Uh so

20:39 ↗ currently everywhere you see

20:42 ↗ red lines and the yellow lines there are

20:46 ↗ uh overhead transmission.

20:49 ↗ Um all the areas in red also have

20:54 ↗ you know communications and

20:57 ↗ direct connection to different

20:58 ↗ properties.

21:00 ↗ So,

21:02 ↗ as you can see, it continues all the way

21:04 ↗ down the street in front of the site and

21:07 ↗ then takes a turn towards Juniper and

21:09 ↗ then continues down through the public

21:11 ↗ works facility.

21:15 ↗ Just to give you an idea of what that

21:17 ↗ looks like,

21:19 ↗ these are some street view photos of the

21:23 ↗ project site.

21:25 ↗ So, for reference, there are the much

21:30 ↗ taller overhead transmission lines.

21:33 ↗ Those do not get undergrounded. Um, but

21:37 ↗ as you can see, they're taller than most

21:39 ↗ of the trees anyway. Um, so what we'd be

21:42 ↗ talking about are these lower

21:46 ↗ utility lines here on this this other

21:48 ↗ pole.

21:49 ↗ And as you can see, there's, you know,

21:52 ↗ tree branches intermingled with with

21:55 ↗ these lines currently.

21:58 ↗ And here's kind of a view of the other

22:00 ↗ side. So again, these

22:03 ↗ um higher uh higher power transmission

22:07 ↗ lines would not be undergrounded and it

22:10 ↗ would would just be talking about these

22:12 ↗ lines that are

22:14 ↗ kind of right here in the trees.

22:17 ↗ Okay, that's a little bit interesting

22:19 ↗ because

22:21 ↗ if I'm hearing you correctly, we would

22:23 ↗ have lines that go across and then on

22:26 ↗ this uh plateau water district property,

22:31 ↗ it would go underground for a little bit

22:33 ↗ and then would jag back up as it heads

22:36 ↗ over toward our public works facility.

22:38 ↗ Is that a correct kind of picture of

22:40 ↗ what we're looking at?

22:42 ↗ >> Correct.

22:43 ↗ >> Okay. And let's talk about the utilities

22:46 ↗ for those uh poles. Um

22:52 ↗ when the pole gets taken out and and

22:54 ↗ it's dead, the uh company PSC will come

22:58 ↗ and cut the top off and then we have to

23:01 ↗ remove the utilities off of each one of

23:03 ↗ those. That could be Comcast, AT&T,

23:05 ↗ Verizon, Ziply, Zo, Astound. All those

23:10 ↗ companies are ones that might have

23:12 ↗ equipment on there. And um if we have

23:16 ↗ the water district do that, it's my

23:19 ↗ understanding they have to get a rideway

23:23 ↗ permit

23:24 ↗ for each of the comp each of the

23:26 ↗ companies would need a rideway permit

23:27 ↗ and a traffic control plan and then

23:29 ↗ would have to

23:32 ↗ schedule their time to take that

23:34 ↗ equipment off. Um, and then once the top

23:38 ↗ company was off, let's say it's Comcast,

23:40 ↗ you have to go to the next one, which

23:42 ↗ might be Ziply, and then the next one

23:44 ↗ after that. Um, have you had any

23:46 ↗ experience in terms of how long those

23:49 ↗ delays can be for uh taking down a pole

23:53 ↗ and then making it go from overhead to

23:56 ↗ underground?

23:59 ↗ >> Uh, my experience, it can take several

24:02 ↗ months.

24:03 ↗ >> Okay.

24:04 ↗ Um, in my, uh, other job, um, I've had

24:10 ↗ builders that have, it's taken 9 to 12

24:12 ↗ months to get a line underground. So,

24:16 ↗ you're you're about in the right

24:17 ↗ ballpark there. Another challenge that

24:19 ↗ can happen and and I'm just going to

24:21 ↗ talk about and see if I'm right about it

24:24 ↗ is that if Comcast has to take their

24:27 ↗ their items off of the pole and

24:30 ↗ underground it, there could be a

24:31 ↗ situation where they don't have relay

24:34 ↗ stations that are close enough or they

24:36 ↗ don't have other equipment that can

24:37 ↗ support that underground unit and often

24:40 ↗ times they might have to re-engineer

24:43 ↗ uh some of the distribution and the the

24:46 ↗ systems there. Have you ever had that

24:47 ↗ kind of experience and and can you tell

24:49 ↗ us a little bit more about that?

24:51 ↗ >> Um I have not personally

24:55 ↗ >> director Moon.

24:57 ↗ >> Okay. Um that kind of goes into the same

25:00 ↗ experience that our builders have talked

25:02 ↗ about a little bit on my other job. Um

25:04 ↗ so I just want the committee to be aware

25:06 ↗ of that. Um taking that system down

25:08 ↗ could be 9 to 12 months uh along the way

25:11 ↗ that could add to costs. So, um just a

25:15 ↗ bit of information on that. Now, are

25:17 ↗ there plans to underground any of the

25:21 ↗ public works

25:22 ↗ um lines and how far out in the future

25:26 ↗ might that be if we're talking about

25:29 ↗ trying to have a cohesive continuous

25:31 ↗ system that'll give good power to our

25:34 ↗ EOC and our public works in the event of

25:36 ↗ a natural disaster?

25:40 ↗ >> Emily Moon, public works director. There

25:42 ↗ are no current projects right now on the

25:45 ↗ CIP that would require that. But as the

25:49 ↗ committee members, council members know,

25:52 ↗ uh there has been a longstanding plan

25:54 ↗ for a phase 2 expansion of the public

25:57 ↗ works facility. And there's

25:59 ↗ contemplation about other public

26:01 ↗ utilities that might need to be cited in

26:03 ↗ the vicinity. And uh through those

26:07 ↗ projects development redevelopment

26:10 ↗ city, depending on how the council feels

26:12 ↗ about this proposal would have to also

26:15 ↗ underground those facilities.

26:17 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that.

26:20 ↗ Questions from other committee members.

26:23 ↗ Council President Marts.

26:25 ↗ >> Thank you, Chair Joe. Uh can you talk a

26:28 ↗ little bit just about the rationale on

26:31 ↗ um recommending some but not all of the

26:34 ↗ exemptions that were sought by Seamish

26:37 ↗ Plateau Water.

26:40 ↗ Yeah. So I I br I brought up the the

26:43 ↗ current exemption for short plats and

26:44 ↗ mentioned that that one does not include

26:46 ↗ undergrounding. Um, so essentially we're

26:49 ↗ trying to craft a very limited scope

26:53 ↗ exemption, you know, uh, tier three and

26:57 ↗ four sidewalk streets,

26:59 ↗ um, only public utility projects and

27:03 ↗ sort of following the same sort of

27:05 ↗ guidelines that are already in the

27:07 ↗ street standards for that uh, short plat

27:09 ↗ exemption.

27:12 ↗ >> Okay, thank you.

27:15 ↗ Other

27:19 ↗ questions?

27:21 ↗ Okay. Um,

27:24 ↗ in terms of the project itself,

27:27 ↗ um, I understand that it, uh, is

27:30 ↗ necessary because we're trying to remove

27:33 ↗ POS from our water system overall and

27:36 ↗ this is, um, the water district's, uh,

27:40 ↗ effort to do that. Can you tell us a

27:42 ↗ little bit more about uh their effort to

27:44 ↗ do that, how this facility will achieve

27:47 ↗ that and then how it fits in with our

27:49 ↗ overall plan for removal of POS from our

27:52 ↗ system that mayor Paulie was so diligent

27:55 ↗ in starting during her time as mayor.

28:02 ↗ uh committee that the Seamash Plateau

28:04 ↗ Water District is pursuing a similar

28:07 ↗ sort of facility much bigger uh than we

28:11 ↗ have at the Gilman Wells. So this will

28:14 ↗ be uh to the best of my understanding a

28:16 ↗ granular granular activated carbon

28:19 ↗ filtration system and uh so it will

28:23 ↗ function a lot the way the way that our

28:25 ↗ Gilman wells uh filtration does and it

28:29 ↗ will service their water supply area. It

28:33 ↗ will hopefully enable them to get u some

28:36 ↗ wells back online that are currently

28:38 ↗ offline uh because of the presence of

28:42 ↗ PAS above um regulated levels or soon to

28:46 ↗ be regulated levels. Uh

28:49 ↗ that uh has uh no I think impact um on

28:55 ↗ our projects and our process for uh

28:58 ↗ treating is aqua service area. Um but

29:03 ↗ clearly we uh operate in similar spaces.

29:06 ↗ We have uh similar I think um concerns

29:11 ↗ about PAS and the drinking water supply

29:14 ↗ and and both parties are taking uh as

29:17 ↗ many steps as possible to try to

29:19 ↗ mitigate for that.

29:21 ↗ >> Great. Thank you. Other questions from

29:24 ↗ the committee before I open it up for

29:25 ↗ public comment?

29:28 ↗ Okay. Not seeing any uh for COM 0211

29:33 ↗ street standards. We'll open this up for

29:36 ↗ uh public comments on the agenda item.

29:39 ↗ As stated earlier, comments can be made

29:41 ↗ in person or virtually. Those who have

29:42 ↗ signed up in advance will be called on

29:44 ↗ first. Madam clerk, do we have anyone

29:46 ↗ online that would like to make comment

29:48 ↗ on this particular item?

29:52 ↗ >> Yes, chair, we do.

29:53 ↗ >> Okay.

29:56 ↗ >> Okay. Miss Hotel, I will be promoting

29:58 ↗ you again to a panelist. You will be

30:00 ↗ able to unmute your microphone and share

30:01 ↗ your video if you wish.

30:10 ↗ >> Hi there. Thank you. Thank you for

30:12 ↗ allowing for uh additional comments. Um

30:15 ↗ what I would like to emphasize is that

30:18 ↗ um even the uh proposed exemption for

30:22 ↗ street front improvements doesn't really

30:24 ↗ reduce our costs for that. we still

30:27 ↗ would have to pay um uh in advance for

30:30 ↗ improvements that may not happen for a

30:32 ↗ long long time. So even that that

30:35 ↗ exemption that is uh um allowed for um

30:39 ↗ short plats it it does not have as much

30:42 ↗ of a benefit um as we um as we'd like.

30:46 ↗ But what really has a huge impact but

30:48 ↗ that and the undergrounding and again uh

30:52 ↗ it does not move the uh the city's

30:55 ↗ vision for um uh undergrounding

30:57 ↗ infrastructure uh one bit based on the

31:01 ↗ area that we're talking about. So I

31:03 ↗ really implore you to consider a full

31:06 ↗ exemption not just a um uh not just a

31:10 ↗ payment in advance or uh uh not

31:13 ↗ including exemption for undergrounding.

31:15 ↗ Thank you.

31:17 ↗ >> Thank you. Anyone else online that would

31:20 ↗ like to make comment?

31:22 ↗ >> No, chair.

31:23 ↗ >> Okay. In person comment, please.

31:29 ↗ >> If you could step up and identify

31:31 ↗ yourself, and we'd appreciate hearing

31:32 ↗ your comments.

31:35 ↗ >> Uh, my name is Jim Kaningsfeld. I am

31:37 ↗ with the Smeamish Plateau Water. I am

31:40 ↗ the project engineer for the PAS

31:42 ↗ treatment a well-known PAST treatment

31:45 ↗ project. Um I was going to let NAV do

31:48 ↗ all the talking but you brought up some

31:50 ↗ of questions about the project I want to

31:52 ↗ fill you in on. Uh regarding the trees,

31:55 ↗ we are going to remove a bunch of the

31:57 ↗ trees on our property along the frontage

31:59 ↗ as part of this project because actually

32:01 ↗ the sidewalk and storm was going to

32:04 ↗ impact the root structure. Um, if we

32:07 ↗ didn't have to do that frontage

32:08 ↗ improvements at this time, I'd probably

32:12 ↗ still remove those trees and replace

32:14 ↗ them with others as part of the project

32:16 ↗ because they are, you know, they are um

32:19 ↗ they're overgrown for the area that they

32:21 ↗ serve. Not all of them, but uh we were

32:24 ↗ required to put those in when the

32:26 ↗ original building was built. So, they

32:27 ↗ are overgrown. If you look at the photo

32:30 ↗ that was provided, the power lines are

32:33 ↗ high up, not the transmission, but the

32:35 ↗ distribution lines are above the tree

32:37 ↗ lines. What's going in between are the

32:40 ↗ Comcast and one unknown fiber. Um, to

32:46 ↗ relocate the power and com uh Comcast is

32:51 ↗ like $500,000.

32:54 ↗ Comcast is starting out at $300,000.

32:57 ↗ They have 800 pairs of fiber optics for

33:00 ↗ 5,000 ft that have to be relocated

33:03 ↗ uh for this project. And so along

33:06 ↗ Juniper, anytime one of those properties

33:09 ↗ was to cuz everything turns on Juniper,

33:12 ↗ anytime like Minute Man was to develop,

33:15 ↗ you'd go underneath the ground. The next

33:18 ↗ property is a um electrical company I

33:21 ↗ think or air conditioning if they which

33:24 ↗ they never they're not planning on

33:26 ↗ redeveloping. They already improved

33:28 ↗ their septic system. And then you got

33:30 ↗ the cannabis. So none of that will be

33:32 ↗ undergrounded for a long time. So we

33:35 ↗ would be 230 ft of uh work that Comcast

33:39 ↗ would have to do. that would have to

33:41 ↗ half of that would have to be redone for

33:43 ↗ any other property because all that

33:45 ↗ cable would have to be pulled back out,

33:48 ↗ put back in and re-placed. So, it's just

33:51 ↗ a it's a lot of money for something

33:54 ↗ that's not going to provide a lot of

33:56 ↗ benefit. Thank you.

33:59 ↗ >> Thank you for your comments.

34:02 ↗ Anyone else in person or online that

34:04 ↗ would like to comment?

34:09 ↗ All right. Seeing none, we will close

34:11 ↗ public comments on this particular uh

34:14 ↗ item. Uh now we're to the point of

34:17 ↗ deliberation. Council members,

34:20 ↗ who wants to go first?

34:25 ↗ >> All right, Council Member Boyd.

34:27 ↗ >> Um

34:30 ↗ sorry. Uh,

34:34 ↗ I have a lot of thoughts and I think I'm

34:35 ↗ just um

34:38 ↗ still scattered. This is my first

34:40 ↗ committee. So, um, thank you for your

34:42 ↗ patience with me.

34:46 ↗ I don't quite know who to ask this to.

34:47 ↗ I'm not sure if it's uh you, but um,

34:51 ↗ would normally would something like this

34:53 ↗ come before the transportation advisory

34:55 ↗ board or not because it's it's one

34:57 ↗ single project and property and Okay.

35:00 ↗ Thank you. That's helping understand or

35:03 ↗ just helping me understand it. Um

35:10 ↗ I'm curious how this fits into

35:14 ↗ the administration has highlighted um

35:17 ↗ that waiting to build things tends to

35:20 ↗ make them more costly. And so I know

35:22 ↗ that

35:24 ↗ there isn't any long-term plan uh for

35:27 ↗ this to be redeveloped or the other

35:29 ↗ properties surrounding it, but um

35:33 ↗ I don't know. Are we I guess are we

35:34 ↗ kicking the can down the road for like

35:36 ↗ generations down? I know it's only that

35:38 ↗ small amount of you know 200 ft and

35:41 ↗ change. Um,

35:43 ↗ and then can I get some clarity too on

35:46 ↗ the um

35:49 ↗ what we're deliberating is a blanket

35:51 ↗ proposal for any and all future

35:55 ↗ utilities.

35:58 ↗ Okay.

36:01 ↗ I'm a little wary of that just

36:03 ↗ initially, but I'd love to hear your

36:06 ↗ thoughts, committee members.

36:09 ↗ >> Okay. Um, just so we have a record, um,

36:16 ↗ you nodded your head or gave a response,

36:18 ↗ but could you give oral responses so it

36:21 ↗ gets on the tape for everyone that might

36:23 ↗ be listening in?

36:29 ↗ >> Sure. U, so yes, the the proposal is or

36:33 ↗ the recommendation is for um, you know,

36:37 ↗ kind of a a broad

36:40 ↗ exemption possibility for public utility

36:43 ↗ projects. Again, it's narrowed because

36:47 ↗ it's only applies to those sidewalk tier

36:49 ↗ three and four streets. So, you know,

36:51 ↗ most of the core of the city would not

36:54 ↗ um this would not be applicable. Um but

36:57 ↗ yes, it it would apply for future city

37:00 ↗ projects.

37:03 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you, Council President.

37:06 ↗ Yeah, I I I will need to ask the uh

37:08 ↗ director a question. If we go with

37:10 ↗ option three, is that a problem? Like

37:13 ↗ there will be will there be nashing of

37:14 ↗ teeth and rending of of departments?

37:20 ↗ >> I don't think there will be nashing of

37:22 ↗ teeth. Uh clearly we wanted to make sure

37:25 ↗ it was understood and uh your questions

37:27 ↗ tonight demonstrate it is understood

37:30 ↗ that this exemption would apply to the

37:32 ↗ city. you are all aware that we operate

37:36 ↗ right down the street and that there are

37:39 ↗ future plans contemplated um so the city

37:42 ↗ would benefit from um an exemption

37:46 ↗ whether it's partial or the full um when

37:49 ↗ we get to the point where we're ready to

37:51 ↗ develop um

37:54 ↗ that's a policy question you know

37:55 ↗ whether whether you want to treat us and

37:58 ↗ other utilities as a developer

38:01 ↗ differently than you might treat other

38:03 ↗ types of developers in the community.

38:07 ↗ >> Thank you for that explanation. I think

38:09 ↗ I'm in favor of option three at this

38:11 ↗ point. You know, I've been doing this

38:13 ↗ long enough to remember when it was the

38:16 ↗ Smamish Plateau Water and Sewer District

38:19 ↗ and um the city has not always had a

38:21 ↗ great relationship. Uh and we don't have

38:24 ↗ to go into all those details um but I'm

38:27 ↗ pleased that we do now. And I feel as a

38:29 ↗ fellow utility uh provider

38:33 ↗ um this is a section of town that um you

38:37 ↗ know I won't be around before all the

38:39 ↗ other parcels on all sides of this uh

38:43 ↗ are developed and uh have have

38:48 ↗ um underground

38:50 ↗ services. So I think that the risk of um

38:54 ↗ you know the benefit for the district is

38:56 ↗ high uh to to give them exemption um on

39:00 ↗ all the pieces of it and the and the um

39:03 ↗ detriment to the city is low and so

39:05 ↗ that's my that's my thought.

39:08 ↗ >> Thank you. Council member Boyd would you

39:10 ↗ like to comment on your thoughts?

39:14 ↗ Um

39:16 ↗ yeah, this is a

39:18 ↗ I feel like this shouldn't be as much of

39:20 ↗ a so tough for me that it is worth it is

39:23 ↗ a um how would you put it that the the

39:25 ↗ benefit is very high. I understand that

39:27 ↗ as someone who is in this manage plateau

39:29 ↗ water district like I understand um the

39:32 ↗ effect to rateayers because I'm right

39:34 ↗ there with them

39:36 ↗ and I think I'm just struggling with the

39:38 ↗ principle of um exempting what I see as

39:42 ↗ ourselves and or utility districts our

39:44 ↗ partner utility district um

39:47 ↗ but

39:50 ↗ I understand

39:52 ↗ the why.

39:55 ↗ Okay. Thank you. Um,

39:59 ↗ like Council President Mars, I I

40:02 ↗ remember in 1999 and 2000 when I was

40:05 ↗ first on council, the nature of the

40:07 ↗ relationship between the city and the uh

40:11 ↗ Plateau Water and Sewer District was not

40:14 ↗ uh the the greatest. um since I've been

40:17 ↗ serving on Cascade Water Alliance as our

40:20 ↗ representative had an opportunity to um

40:23 ↗ get to know and work with uh members

40:26 ↗ from

40:27 ↗ uh the water district and uh I think the

40:31 ↗ relationship is certainly as you

40:32 ↗ characterize a lot better. Um, I would

40:35 ↗ agree that the uh benefit to a public

40:39 ↗ utility that is providing a service of

40:42 ↗ removing a dangerous chemical or at

40:44 ↗ least a cancer-causing chemical from the

40:46 ↗ water. Um, by doing the upgrades to this

40:49 ↗ particular property has a a a high

40:52 ↗ benefit to our citizens in town that are

40:55 ↗ um customers, but also those in Smamish

40:59 ↗ that are customers. and it overall helps

41:02 ↗ the the well-being and health of of the

41:04 ↗ community. Also, the fact that it's a

41:06 ↗ rather short area of area of sidewalk

41:10 ↗ that we're asking them to underground

41:12 ↗ also um plays into my support for option

41:16 ↗ three. Um moreover, the the costs, as I

41:20 ↗ pointed out, can be quite high and the

41:22 ↗ delays in the plan can be quite high.

41:25 ↗ Um, and that is not something that uh I

41:28 ↗ I want to have for this particular

41:30 ↗ project. Um, lastly, looking at the

41:33 ↗ pictures, thanks for the pictures of the

41:34 ↗ power line. Even if we do take down the

41:37 ↗ power lines that are the low ones that

41:39 ↗ we're asking to have taken down, the

41:40 ↗ high ones will still be there uh anyway.

41:44 ↗ Um so um we don't really gain that much

41:48 ↗ in terms of um improvement of uh the

41:52 ↗ scenery or improvement of the general um

41:56 ↗ wooded hillside views etc along the way.

41:59 ↗ So I am inclined to support

42:02 ↗ option three as well in this particular

42:04 ↗ case. Um and uh I think if we're all in

42:09 ↗ agreement that would be the

42:10 ↗ recommendation that we would ask the

42:12 ↗ administration to bring back to um the

42:16 ↗ commit to the full council at an

42:18 ↗ appropriate date. Does that seem like

42:20 ↗ the action we would like to take? Oh, go

42:22 ↗ ahead. Count

42:24 ↗ >> uh so the trees are being removed and

42:27 ↗ I'm I I'm asking because I don't want to

42:29 ↗ assume that there's a requirement for

42:31 ↗ them to be replanted.

42:34 ↗ Okay. Okay. Thank you.

42:36 ↗ >> What was the answer to that? Is there a

42:37 ↗ requirement for street trees?

42:40 ↗ >> Yes, I I believe that is a is a a land

42:42 ↗ use requirement that any trees taken

42:44 ↗ down have to be replaced.

42:46 ↗ >> Okay. But we have made um some progress,

42:49 ↗ let's say, in terms of the types of

42:51 ↗ trees that we plant along the streets

42:53 ↗ such that um we know that they won't

42:57 ↗ grow too high or too fast to disturb the

43:00 ↗ lines quickly and the root systems are

43:03 ↗ not um close to the ground and such that

43:06 ↗ they will buckle uh the sidewalk or the

43:09 ↗ streets. Is that your understanding as

43:11 ↗ well?

43:12 ↗ >> That that is my understanding. Yeah.

43:13 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. With that, did that

43:16 ↗ answer everyone's questions? And are we

43:18 ↗ okay supporting it? It can be a 2-1, it

43:22 ↗ can be a 3 0. It um or it can be a

43:26 ↗ denial of three and we go back and

43:28 ↗ discuss some more. So, um no one is uh

43:32 ↗ obliged to vote anyway in particular,

43:35 ↗ but I think we have two votes for three

43:37 ↗ and then um Council Boyd, if you'd like

43:40 ↗ to express your point of view.

43:48 ↗ I think I'm just really struggling with

43:49 ↗ a blanket uh a blanket change.

43:54 ↗ So,

43:58 ↗ I think I won't be voting in the same

44:00 ↗ direction.

44:02 ↗ >> Okay.

44:03 ↗ >> But I'm looking forward towards the

44:04 ↗ discussion.

44:05 ↗ >> Would you like a 2-1 vote registered or

44:08 ↗ a two and an abstain?

44:10 ↗ >> A 2-1.

44:11 ↗ >> A 2-1. Very good. Madame clerk, could

44:15 ↗ you record a 2-1 vote for support of

44:17 ↗ option number three and direct it back

44:20 ↗ to council for their deliberation at an

44:23 ↗ appropriate date?

44:24 ↗ >> Yes, chair.

44:25 ↗ >> All right. Does the administration have

44:26 ↗ everything they need?

44:28 ↗ >> Okay,

44:28 ↗ >> we do. Thank you.

44:29 ↗ >> Thank you.

44:30 ↗ >> Thank you.

44:33 ↗ >> All right. That takes us to COOM0212,

44:36 ↗ the six-year transportation improvement

44:38 ↗ program.

44:40 ↗ And here staff will make a presentation

44:42 ↗ just as we did in the last one. And then

44:44 ↗ there'll be an opportunity for questions

44:45 ↗ and then public comment on the topic.

44:48 ↗ Then after the committee will deliberate

44:49 ↗ and make recommendations. So, uh,

44:52 ↗ Director Moon, is this yours or is this

44:54 ↗ John's?

44:55 ↗ All right, John. Thank you.

45:02 ↗ Good evening, Mobility and

45:04 ↗ Infrastructure Committee. I'm John

45:05 ↗ Mortonson, city of Isqua, transportation

45:07 ↗ engineering manager. Give me a few

45:08 ↗ minutes. So, I'll get the presentation

45:10 ↗ up.

45:42 ↗ All right. I'm glad to be here tonight

45:43 ↗ to talk to you about the six-year

45:45 ↗ transportation improvement program.

45:50 ↗ The purpose of tonight's item is to

45:53 ↗ review the updates to the 2027 to 2032

45:57 ↗ transportation improvement program and

45:59 ↗ to receive committee feedback on the

46:02 ↗ project updates and update thememes.

46:16 ↗ The direction needed from the committee

46:18 ↗ tonight are

46:21 ↗ with regards to the major themes and

46:23 ↗ changes with this update. Specifically,

46:25 ↗ the emphasis on small smaller scale

46:28 ↗ projects prioritizing maintenance over

46:31 ↗ new construction and the more extensive

46:34 ↗ use of transportation benefit district

46:37 ↗ backed debt.

46:40 ↗ Just a little bit of an overview of

46:41 ↗ where this all fits in. The city has the

46:44 ↗ comprehensive plan including the

46:46 ↗ transportation element which has the

46:48 ↗ vision and the goals for the

46:50 ↗ transportation system.

46:51 ↗ >> Excuse me for just a second. Um, Cassie,

46:53 ↗ is it possible to get the presentation

46:55 ↗ as the biggest window up there? Thank

46:58 ↗ you.

47:03 ↗ And underneath the comprehensive plan

47:05 ↗ are functional plans like the climate

47:07 ↗ action plan and the mobility action plan

47:10 ↗ which have strategies and actions and

47:12 ↗ resources which then feed into things

47:15 ↗ like the transportation improvement

47:18 ↗ program and the capital improvement

47:20 ↗ plan.

47:22 ↗ Little bit of a background on this

47:24 ↗ update. The city updates the

47:28 ↗ transportation improvement program or

47:29 ↗ tip every year as required by state law.

47:33 ↗ Now the way we do it is in odd number of

47:37 ↗ years like last year it's done basically

47:39 ↗ as a chapter within the capital

47:41 ↗ improvement plan.

47:45 ↗ And so last year the council adopted the

47:47 ↗ 2027 to 2032 capital improvement plan.

47:51 ↗ And that's really a time for larger

47:55 ↗ updates because it's a time for council

47:58 ↗ to look at all the capital projects as a

48:00 ↗ whole whether it's a facility or an IT,

48:03 ↗ a park, a transportation utility, and to

48:07 ↗ look at the big picture. And for the

48:09 ↗ most part in even number of years like

48:11 ↗ this year the updates are done as a

48:14 ↗ standalone to only the transportation

48:16 ↗ improvement program and it's a limited

48:19 ↗ update.

48:21 ↗ These projects they also feed into how

48:25 ↗ traffic impact fees are calculated as

48:27 ↗ well as bicycle and pedestrian

48:29 ↗ mitigation fees are set. And the

48:32 ↗ projects in the tip improve facilities

48:35 ↗ for anticipated impacts of growth and

48:37 ↗ development and respond to community

48:39 ↗ needs.

48:43 ↗ The TIP or transportation improvement

48:45 ↗ program. It is a six-year list of

48:48 ↗ planned transportation capital

48:50 ↗ improvement projects. Includes a summary

48:52 ↗ of the projects, project costs,

48:56 ↗ potential funding sources, and when the

48:58 ↗ projects may occur. It is not a budget.

49:01 ↗ It is a planning document to help

49:04 ↗ prepare a budget.

49:07 ↗ And so some of the reasons why the

49:09 ↗ projects are included in the TIP, they

49:12 ↗ satisfy the goals of the mobility action

49:14 ↗ plan or the transportation element of

49:16 ↗ the comprehensive plan or other plans or

49:18 ↗ studies like the transit study that the

49:21 ↗ city did a few years ago. Sometimes

49:23 ↗ projects are a result of requests that

49:25 ↗ are received from the public through

49:28 ↗ cclick fix or other communication

49:30 ↗ methods. Sometimes they're also in there

49:34 ↗ to meet the goals of the administration

49:36 ↗ which for this goound is maintenance

49:39 ↗ smaller scale projects with an immediate

49:42 ↗ benefit including congestion relief as

49:46 ↗ well as to update projects to align with

49:48 ↗ project revenues

49:51 ↗ with the forecasts

49:56 ↗ tip project prioritization from the

49:58 ↗ mobility action plan. The mobility

50:00 ↗ action plan has a scoring criteria that

50:04 ↗ we look at when we evaluate projects

50:06 ↗ which really look at improving mobility

50:09 ↗ within Esqua today, preparing for

50:11 ↗ growth, creating regional connections

50:13 ↗ and environmental sustainability.

50:23 ↗ One of the things that was really

50:24 ↗ considered as updating the proposed

50:27 ↗ transportation improvement program were

50:29 ↗ the revenue and expenditure pressures.

50:33 ↗ There have been some

50:35 ↗ delays in the school zone safety camera

50:38 ↗ deployment on Newport Way and that has

50:40 ↗ reduced the revenue in the school zone

50:43 ↗ safety fund from what was in last year's

50:45 ↗ capital improvement plan.

50:48 ↗ Also, the administration is proposing to

50:51 ↗ use debt from the transportation benefit

50:53 ↗ district to fund projects.

50:56 ↗ And then another thing that went into

51:00 ↗ play is when the CIP was developed last

51:03 ↗ year that there were over prescribed the

51:09 ↗ real estate excise tax. And so we had to

51:12 ↗ align the transportation improvement

51:14 ↗ program to better align with the real

51:19 ↗ real estate excise tax revenues. And

51:23 ↗ then there's a lot of regional,

51:25 ↗ national, and global economic factors

51:27 ↗ creating uncertainty. The economy is

51:29 ↗ slowing down, which when that does

51:31 ↗ happen, usually that's results in more

51:34 ↗ competitive bids and lower construction

51:36 ↗ costs, which is well, I wouldn't say an

51:40 ↗ economic slowdown. It's a good thing,

51:41 ↗ but when you're just looking at

51:42 ↗ construction costs, that is a good

51:44 ↗ thing. But then we have oil which is

51:46 ↗ very important for the cost of our

51:49 ↗ projects whether it's the diesel fuel

51:51 ↗ for the excavator or the liquid asphalt

51:54 ↗ for the paving that that's going high.

51:56 ↗ So um lots of uncertainty on where the

52:00 ↗ project costs will be going.

52:05 ↗ So now I'm going to go over some of the

52:06 ↗ updates to the six-year transportation

52:09 ↗ improvement program.

52:16 ↗ Some of the projects that were added to

52:18 ↗ the transportation improvement program

52:21 ↗ were the front and sunset left turn

52:24 ↗ improvements project, which I'm going to

52:27 ↗ that's a project that will it it's been

52:30 ↗ a concurrency project for years, but

52:32 ↗ then it also came out of the transit

52:34 ↗ study that the city did a few years ago

52:36 ↗ that it would improve

52:38 ↗ what's currently the 554. I believe

52:40 ↗ it'll be the 556 come the fall, but the

52:44 ↗ bus, one of the major buses that goes

52:47 ↗ through Isiqua and it also will provide

52:51 ↗ congestion relief at a very congested

52:53 ↗ intersection. And then the Northwest

52:56 ↗ Gilman Bridge Rehabilitation Project.

52:58 ↗ It's the first time

53:02 ↗ in this document, but council has

53:04 ↗ already approved the project in the

53:06 ↗ budget and the grant. So, it's more of a

53:08 ↗ technicality why it was added. And then

53:10 ↗ some projects were moved up. The traffic

53:13 ↗ signal project at Front Street and

53:15 ↗ Dogwood has been moved up to

53:19 ↗ have it be parallel and maybe even

53:21 ↗ combined with the front and sunset

53:23 ↗ improvement project

53:25 ↗ as well as the project to repair the

53:29 ↗ pavement on the if you're heading up the

53:32 ↗ hill from Cougar Mountain Zoo, you get

53:34 ↗ to 190th place and 191st Avenue that we

53:37 ↗ have a pavement repair project there and

53:40 ↗ that was moved up because

53:43 ↗ of changes to the storm water

53:45 ↗ requirements that would make the project

53:46 ↗ a lot more expensive. So, the goal is to

53:49 ↗ submit a permit application before July

53:51 ↗ of next year. That way, the project can

53:55 ↗ be designed and constructed with the

53:58 ↗ current storm water manual. Chair Joe, I

54:00 ↗ see you have a

54:01 ↗ >> Yes. If if I could could you comment a

54:04 ↗ little bit more on TR066, the Northwest

54:06 ↗ Gilman Bridge rehabilitation, why uh

54:09 ↗ we're doing it in terms of the load that

54:11 ↗ that bridge can handle and how it

54:14 ↗ impacts our emergency vehicles. Great

54:17 ↗ question. The reason why we're doing the

54:19 ↗ project is it's a seismic retrofit.

54:21 ↗ There's a couple things going on. As you

54:24 ↗ mentioned, emergency vehicles. Right

54:25 ↗ now, it's load limited to

54:28 ↗ emergency vehicles of a certain size.

54:31 ↗ And so this project will increase the

54:33 ↗ capacity where that load limit can be

54:35 ↗ removed and help emergency vehicles

54:38 ↗ respond to emergencies more quickly. It

54:41 ↗ also will

54:44 ↗ help the bridge in a seismic event.

54:46 ↗ It'll that's the main purpose of it is

54:48 ↗ to prepare for a seismic event. This is

54:51 ↗ I believe the city's oldest bridge. It

54:53 ↗ was designed by Lacy Morrow. And if

54:55 ↗ you're driving to Seattle and you're

54:57 ↗ going over the I90 floating bridge, that

54:59 ↗ is named after Lacy Morrow.

55:04 ↗ >> Thank you very much.

55:05 ↗ >> All right. And then a couple projects

55:07 ↗ that were moved out into the future. The

55:09 ↗ I90 crossing is one that was moved out

55:11 ↗ into the future. The administration

55:13 ↗ recently completed a planning study that

55:15 ↗ recommended a

55:18 ↗ preferred

55:19 ↗ crossing location and the ad the council

55:23 ↗ had a lot of questions about it,

55:25 ↗ especially the costs and the impacts to

55:28 ↗ Gilman. And so that project has been

55:30 ↗ moved out into the future to look at

55:32 ↗ later as well as the transit signal

55:36 ↗ priority pilot project. And the reason

55:38 ↗ why that one was moved out, not that

55:40 ↗ transit signal priority, so that's um

55:43 ↗ when the traffic signals are designed so

55:46 ↗ that way they give priority to transit

55:48 ↗ such as buses. And the reason why was to

55:52 ↗ align with King County Metro's transit

55:55 ↗ signal priority guidelines that King

55:58 ↗ County Metro has a certain threshold of

56:02 ↗ buses at an intersection that the city

56:04 ↗ does not currently have. So, we

56:06 ↗ currently don't have any locations to do

56:08 ↗ a pilot. And King County Metro's

56:10 ↗ guidelines also

56:12 ↗ much prefer doing these improvements

56:14 ↗ along a corridor rather than at one

56:17 ↗ location, which is what the pilot

56:19 ↗ project would have done. So instead, the

56:22 ↗ administration is proposing when the

56:24 ↗ time is right to study a corridor for

56:26 ↗ transit signal priority rather than to

56:30 ↗ just spend the money on a pilot when a

56:32 ↗ pilot and according to the guidance from

56:35 ↗ King County Metro would not be the

56:37 ↗ recommended action.

56:44 ↗ I'd mentioned the front and sunset left

56:47 ↗ turn improvements project and what this

56:50 ↗ project would do is

56:53 ↗ change the configuration on there's two

56:57 ↗ phases depending on how the project

57:00 ↗ budget comes. But what it would do on

57:03 ↗ the west leg for traffic heading east

57:06 ↗ towards the Highlands in Oldtown is it

57:09 ↗ would add a right through lane and then

57:13 ↗ make it so that way there would be a

57:15 ↗ left turn lane. And then on the opposite

57:18 ↗ side,

57:20 ↗ the project would convert the existing

57:22 ↗ right turn lane into a right through

57:25 ↗ lane and then it would have a left turn

57:27 ↗ lane. And this project would

57:29 ↗ significantly reduce the amount of delay

57:31 ↗ at this intersection.

57:40 ↗ Some of the primary drivers for changes

57:42 ↗ to the existing projects. A number of

57:45 ↗ the projects including two of the

57:47 ↗ projects along Newport Way were um

57:51 ↗ staggered in shown into phases um to

57:56 ↗ show for transparency how they would be

57:59 ↗ constructed. So, for example, um the

58:02 ↗ Newport Way projects,

58:04 ↗ I'll go with Newport Way SR 900 to 54th

58:07 ↗ because that's going to be the first one

58:09 ↗ to go to construction. That rather than

58:12 ↗ trying to show the project as one whole

58:15 ↗ project, we've broken them down into

58:17 ↗ what I call tiplets where they are like

58:21 ↗ TR23A,

58:22 ↗ TR23B, and so forth. and to show them in

58:28 ↗ projects that are more easily to

58:30 ↗ construct rather than long

58:34 ↗ astronomically expensive projects. And

58:36 ↗ then the strategic small capital project

58:39 ↗ was broken out to identify some specific

58:42 ↗ small capital improvements. This is a

58:45 ↗ project that came out of the strategic

58:47 ↗ plan in order to implement the mobility

58:50 ↗ objective of making small improvements

58:53 ↗ to the mobility system. But we wanted to

58:55 ↗ identify small projects that could then

58:58 ↗ be paired with grants so that way we

59:00 ↗ could do bigger small projects. And so

59:03 ↗ that's why we now have

59:06 ↗ TR58 C through F.

59:10 ↗ And then um I mentioned earlier about

59:14 ↗ the road up from the zoo that we're

59:17 ↗ wanting to accelerate that project in

59:19 ↗ order to meet the permitting

59:22 ↗ requirements.

59:24 ↗ And then the black nugget retaining wall

59:27 ↗ showed additional funds going to the

59:29 ↗ project to cover additional project

59:33 ↗ needs um in order to

59:37 ↗ address the retaining wall along Black

59:38 ↗ Nugget Road near the Fred Meyer. And

59:41 ↗ then the a lot of the IT replacement

59:45 ↗ projects TR890 91 and 92 those are just

59:49 ↗ updated based on the current replacement

59:51 ↗ schedules.

59:58 ↗ Council President,

1:00:10 ↗ >> Council President, you

1:00:11 ↗ >> I'm sorry. Can you talk me through um

1:00:13 ↗ TR33, the Black Nugget retaining wall?

1:00:16 ↗ How big is that project? How much has

1:00:17 ↗ been done? How much is left to do? Why

1:00:19 ↗ do we have 1.8 listed? And I fear that

1:00:22 ↗ 1.8 is nowhere near the cost of that

1:00:24 ↗ wall.

1:00:25 ↗ >> I'm going to phone a friend because I'm

1:00:26 ↗ lucky enough to have the project manager

1:00:28 ↗ here.

1:00:33 ↗ >> Again, Jim Jacobe, senior transportation

1:00:35 ↗ engineer. Um, so yeah, the I believe the

1:00:38 ↗ 1.8 million is the increase in cost that

1:00:43 ↗ we're estimating now. The project is

1:00:45 ↗ currently uh just past 60% design level.

1:00:48 ↗ Um, so we're hoping to construct next

1:00:51 ↗ year, but um, obviously costs have have

1:00:54 ↗ gone up since, you know, the the project

1:00:57 ↗ was initially estimated.

1:00:59 ↗ >> So, so what's the total cost of the

1:01:00 ↗ project and do we have money for it?

1:01:04 ↗ >> Uh, I don't recall the exact number off

1:01:07 ↗ the top of my head, but I believe

1:01:09 ↗ >> it's an eight-digit number, right?

1:01:11 ↗ >> Yeah, we're we're looking at clo No, I

1:01:14 ↗ believe it's six million and change.

1:01:18 ↗ Okay. Um,

1:01:20 ↗ and

1:01:22 ↗ I'm sorry, what was the other part of

1:01:23 ↗ the question?

1:01:23 ↗ >> Uh, just do we do we have it? Do we have

1:01:26 ↗ the money for it? Do we know how

1:01:27 ↗ >> Yes, that's right. Uh, we don't. Um,

1:01:30 ↗ this would need to be likely a uh public

1:01:34 ↗ works bond. Um, so it would be debt

1:01:38 ↗ funded.

1:01:39 ↗ >> And I'm going to ask what's going to

1:01:40 ↗ sound like a silly question, but I'm

1:01:42 ↗ going to ask it anyhow. Can we get any

1:01:43 ↗ of the money from the county because

1:01:45 ↗ it's their wall. We inherited it.

1:01:49 ↗ >> Uh that that is a good question. Um I

1:01:52 ↗ don't know that.

1:01:54 ↗ >> Can we ask? I mean, we can't hurt to

1:01:56 ↗ ask. They can tell us no. But really

1:01:59 ↗ truly, this was this was for people who

1:02:01 ↗ don't know. This was unincorporated King

1:02:03 ↗ County that got annexed into the city.

1:02:05 ↗ There's little pockets of it around and

1:02:06 ↗ this retaining wall was one of those

1:02:09 ↗ pockets. So, I think we should ask our

1:02:11 ↗ friends at the county. Again, the worst

1:02:12 ↗ they can say is no. But they kind of

1:02:15 ↗ it's their it's their problem. I mean,

1:02:17 ↗ now it's our problem, but it was their

1:02:18 ↗ problem. They gave it to us.

1:02:21 ↗ Thank you.

1:02:32 ↗ This slide talks about the projects that

1:02:34 ↗ are recommended for transportation

1:02:37 ↗ benefit district back debt. Those

1:02:39 ↗ include the

1:02:42 ↗ Front Street and Dogwood intersection

1:02:44 ↗ project, the Newport Way Maple to Sunset

1:02:48 ↗ project, the Northwest Mammoth Road

1:02:50 ↗ non-motorized improvement project,

1:02:53 ↗ TR99 which is the Southeast 56th Bridge

1:02:57 ↗ Scour Repair Project, and TR 101, the

1:03:01 ↗ 190th and Place and 191st Avenue

1:03:05 ↗ Southeast project.

1:03:10 ↗ else present.

1:03:11 ↗ >> Talk to me about TTRO28, Northwest

1:03:14 ↗ Seamish Road Nonmotorized Improvement

1:03:15 ↗ Project. Um, I see a total cost of $19

1:03:18 ↗ million. Uh, I see something like a

1:03:21 ↗ million5 in the um in the line item for

1:03:25 ↗ this upcoming year. Um,

1:03:28 ↗ what's the status of this project?

1:03:32 ↗ >> Great question, Council President. The

1:03:34 ↗ project is 90% designed. The city has

1:03:38 ↗ applied for permits from itself in order

1:03:40 ↗ to be able to construct the project and

1:03:43 ↗ right now the administration is working

1:03:45 ↗ with the franchise utilities on the

1:03:48 ↗ details of their utility relocation

1:03:50 ↗ including undergrounding the overhead

1:03:52 ↗ utilities. The washed out dot fish

1:03:55 ↗ passage project is building the bridge

1:03:58 ↗ that in the middle of the project

1:04:00 ↗ including and it's a forward compatible

1:04:02 ↗ bridge that will work with the

1:04:03 ↗ improvements that this administration

1:04:06 ↗ has planned and next year in the work

1:04:09 ↗ plan for this project is to acquire the

1:04:12 ↗ temporary construction easements to

1:04:14 ↗ construct the project with construction

1:04:16 ↗ scheduled in 2028.

1:04:19 ↗ >> So what of all those things you just

1:04:21 ↗ said is currently funded?

1:04:24 ↗ The utility coordination is currently

1:04:27 ↗ funded

1:04:28 ↗ and the design to the current point is

1:04:31 ↗ currently funded and that next year's

1:04:34 ↗ ask will be to take the design the rest

1:04:37 ↗ of the way to have an ad ready package

1:04:40 ↗ and to acquire the temporary

1:04:41 ↗ construction easements.

1:04:44 ↗ So, of the $19 million, I'm assuming it

1:04:46 ↗ says $19 million because that's what we

1:04:48 ↗ think the whole project is going to

1:04:49 ↗ cost, which is about three times what we

1:04:52 ↗ thought it was going to cost when we

1:04:53 ↗ first approved it. But, um, what

1:04:55 ↗ fraction of that $19 million is

1:04:57 ↗ currently funded.

1:05:04 ↗ >> So, let me just I'd have to look at Can

1:05:07 ↗ I get back to you on that specific

1:05:09 ↗ question? I don't want to.

1:05:11 ↗ >> Okay. I I think I know the answer, but I

1:05:13 ↗ want to make sure I give you an accurate

1:05:14 ↗ answer.

1:05:14 ↗ >> So, like 10 years ago, we we promised

1:05:17 ↗ this community two things. We said we

1:05:19 ↗ were going to put a light in at uh up at

1:05:23 ↗ the top of

1:05:24 ↗ >> Providence Point.

1:05:25 ↗ >> Providence Point. Thank you very much.

1:05:27 ↗ And we were going to do this project.

1:05:29 ↗ And time goes by and time goes by and

1:05:31 ↗ time goes by and I am unlikely uh to

1:05:35 ↗ want to approve any capital projects

1:05:38 ↗ without understanding how we're going to

1:05:39 ↗ fund this especially as the costs

1:05:41 ↗ skyrocket. We have to do it. We have to

1:05:43 ↗ find the money. Um and I'm I understand

1:05:48 ↗ at this very minute it is not throttled

1:05:50 ↗ by money. It is throttled by the other

1:05:53 ↗ by the our partners' efforts. But it

1:05:57 ↗ feels less and less okay to not have I I

1:06:00 ↗ do this every couple of years and we

1:06:03 ↗ don't have the money and we don't have

1:06:04 ↗ the money. We made a promise. I as an

1:06:06 ↗ elected official made a promise. I take

1:06:08 ↗ that very seriously. We sat in a in a

1:06:11 ↗ committee room. We said these were the

1:06:12 ↗ two capital projects that were that were

1:06:14 ↗ most important to us. We went and did

1:06:16 ↗ the stoplight,

1:06:18 ↗ you know, but the folks on the west end

1:06:20 ↗ of town continue to have no pedestrian

1:06:23 ↗ way into town. It doesn't feel okay. I

1:06:25 ↗ It's not your fault, but I'm I'm at a

1:06:28 ↗ point where I'm about to dig my heels in

1:06:30 ↗ because year after year after year, we

1:06:31 ↗ don't figure out how to how to fund

1:06:33 ↗ this. Thank you,

1:06:34 ↗ >> Director Moon.

1:06:35 ↗ >> I would just like to reassure that this

1:06:39 ↗ has been on the near-term capital

1:06:41 ↗ improvement program. Now, city has been

1:06:44 ↗ working very diligently to get this in a

1:06:47 ↗ position where it can be constructed. We

1:06:50 ↗ put forward a multi-year plan to

1:06:53 ↗ implement the transportation benefit

1:06:55 ↗ district. We designated this as one of

1:06:57 ↗ the projects that would be a recipient

1:06:59 ↗ of those funds. Continues to be on that

1:07:02 ↗ list. As we've talked about this capital

1:07:05 ↗ project through the past iterations of

1:07:08 ↗ the CIP, we have also discussed how we

1:07:11 ↗ would use the transportation uh benefit

1:07:14 ↗ district funds uh to leverage and uh

1:07:18 ↗ grants uh if we were so lucky to get

1:07:21 ↗ them. And we've been applying and

1:07:24 ↗ researching options for that. So, we've

1:07:28 ↗ been actively working on the funding and

1:07:30 ↗ uh to use the TBD money as well uh for

1:07:33 ↗ any future borrowing uh to help pay off

1:07:36 ↗ those borrowing costs. So, there is a

1:07:38 ↗ plan and it is right around the corner

1:07:42 ↗ to be executed and it's coming up in uh

1:07:45 ↗ this bianual budget. So, it will be

1:07:47 ↗ coming to you very shortly. In the

1:07:49 ↗ meantime though, we've been getting the

1:07:50 ↗ project ready.

1:07:53 ↗ >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh John, you uh

1:07:58 ↗ tangentally

1:07:59 ↗ uh referenced the fish passage project.

1:08:02 ↗ Uh can you just give us a just a little

1:08:05 ↗ summary how those are going? Are they on

1:08:07 ↗ time? Are there any problems that have

1:08:10 ↗ been experienced? Uh I zigzag on the on

1:08:12 ↗ I90 every day, hoping that the freeway

1:08:15 ↗ will be straightened out someday. But if

1:08:17 ↗ you could uh just give us a brief

1:08:18 ↗ update.

1:08:20 ↗ Yeah, they're working on their design

1:08:23 ↗ and they're also doing the beginnings of

1:08:26 ↗ construction. I know right now one of

1:08:29 ↗ the biggest challenges is working with

1:08:30 ↗ the different utilities on their

1:08:32 ↗ relocations.

1:08:33 ↗ And

1:08:35 ↗ so I think right now that's the biggest

1:08:37 ↗ challenge that they're facing is getting

1:08:39 ↗ the utilities to relocate to make it so

1:08:41 ↗ they can get the improvements done on

1:08:43 ↗ time.

1:08:45 ↗ >> Thank you. I've noticed that at least on

1:08:48 ↗ the two side roads, Newport Way and then

1:08:51 ↗ Northwest Seamish, uh traffic seems to

1:08:54 ↗ be going relatively smoothly, even if

1:08:57 ↗ I90s blocked up in the morning heading

1:09:00 ↗ westbound. Um we haven't seen the

1:09:03 ↗ traffic armageddon that we uh feared. Um

1:09:06 ↗ so there's there's that feather in our

1:09:09 ↗ cap, so to speak. I hope we would keep a

1:09:12 ↗ close eye on that project going forward.

1:09:14 ↗ Thank you.

1:09:18 ↗ Okay.

1:09:23 ↗ And this is a table that shows the

1:09:26 ↗ transportation

1:09:28 ↗ benefit district um

1:09:33 ↗ plan to spend and including

1:09:37 ↗ TR 28.

1:09:40 ↗ And so it it shows up two places. one in

1:09:43 ↗ the 27 forecast and it also shows it in

1:09:46 ↗ the debt service for a worst case

1:09:49 ↗ scenario where the administration was

1:09:51 ↗ not successful in receiving any grants.

1:09:58 ↗ The timing and next steps. So going back

1:10:01 ↗ into

1:10:03 ↗ the past, this item went to council

1:10:06 ↗ member Boyd and the transportation

1:10:09 ↗ advisory board on March 25th and then as

1:10:13 ↗ required by city code, the

1:10:16 ↗ transportation improvement

1:10:18 ↗ program went to the environmental board

1:10:20 ↗ on April 16th. Tonight, the

1:10:23 ↗ administration is here to get the C

1:10:27 ↗ committee's recommendation to the

1:10:28 ↗ council. On June 1st, there will be a

1:10:31 ↗ public hearing and opportunity for

1:10:34 ↗ council to discuss the transportation

1:10:36 ↗ improvement program with anticipated

1:10:38 ↗ council adoption on June 15th, which

1:10:41 ↗ will then allow the administration to

1:10:43 ↗ submit the secure tip to the state as

1:10:46 ↗ required by state law.

1:10:51 ↗ a summary of the feedback that the

1:10:53 ↗ administration received at the

1:10:54 ↗ transportation advisory board meeting on

1:10:57 ↗ March 25th. Uh there was general support

1:11:00 ↗ for the transportation improvement

1:11:02 ↗ program updates. Members did question

1:11:05 ↗ the criteria that is from the mobility

1:11:08 ↗ action plan and increasing one to

1:11:11 ↗ increase the objectivity of that

1:11:13 ↗ criteria. They also

1:11:16 ↗ talked about the use of debt as a

1:11:18 ↗ financial practice and expressed concern

1:11:21 ↗ about additional nonp permeable pavement

1:11:25 ↗ being constructed. The board highlighted

1:11:29 ↗ safety concerns and a preference for

1:11:31 ↗ bicycle and pedestrian facilities as

1:11:34 ↗ priorities in the tip. The feedback from

1:11:37 ↗ the environmental board on April 16th

1:11:40 ↗ was generally supportive of the updates.

1:11:42 ↗ members noted several corridors for

1:11:44 ↗ additional bicycle facilities and

1:11:47 ↗ potential to protect and enhance the

1:11:49 ↗ tree canopy through the tip. And the

1:11:52 ↗ environmental board also had questions

1:11:55 ↗ about specific projects jurisdiction

1:11:57 ↗ working with King County Metro and ES

1:12:00 ↗ scooters.

1:12:02 ↗ The direction that is needed tonight

1:12:04 ↗ from the committee are with regards to

1:12:07 ↗ the major themes and changes with this

1:12:08 ↗ update. Specifically, the emphasis on

1:12:11 ↗ smaller scale projects, prioritizing

1:12:14 ↗ maintenance over building new, and the

1:12:17 ↗ extensive use of transportation benefit

1:12:20 ↗ district back debt.

1:12:23 ↗ And that concludes my presentation.

1:12:27 ↗ >> Any questions from the committee?

1:12:30 ↗ Council member Boyd.

1:12:32 ↗ Thank you, Johnny. Um, any can you go

1:12:34 ↗ into any detail on the bike corridors

1:12:36 ↗ that were highlighted by the

1:12:38 ↗ environmental committee?

1:12:41 ↗ >> I would have to go back and watch the

1:12:43 ↗ video. I do remember one specifically

1:12:45 ↗ which was front street between

1:12:50 ↗ let's see here. I want to say Bush and

1:12:53 ↗ Newport. And that was specifically

1:12:55 ↗ mentioned from one of the environmental

1:12:58 ↗ board me uh we were meeting at the

1:13:00 ↗ steelhead room which is between the

1:13:03 ↗ swimming pool and community center and

1:13:06 ↗ that member had biked and that was on

1:13:09 ↗ the front of his mind.

1:13:14 ↗ >> Other questions?

1:13:18 ↗ >> Go ahead.

1:13:20 ↗ Uh, I know there was a um the now board

1:13:23 ↗ or tab board chair um had some concerns

1:13:25 ↗ about uh a roundabout on or near Dogwood

1:13:29 ↗ and I don't know if you had any further

1:13:31 ↗ discussion uh with him on that. I I know

1:13:34 ↗ I think he wanted to just connect on

1:13:35 ↗ that offline because it was uh really

1:13:37 ↗ getting into the weeds during the

1:13:38 ↗ meeting.

1:13:39 ↗ >> Yes. Yeah. So, the vice chair for the

1:13:42 ↗ transportation advisory board had a lot

1:13:43 ↗ of questions about the traffic study for

1:13:45 ↗ the Newport Way Maple to Sunset project.

1:13:48 ↗ I met with him

1:13:51 ↗ earlier this spring and went over the

1:13:53 ↗ information from the traffic study. I

1:13:55 ↗ gave him copies of the traffic study and

1:13:57 ↗ he's taking them home and digested them

1:14:00 ↗ and had follow-up questions. So, I've

1:14:02 ↗ got a follow-up meeting scheduled for

1:14:04 ↗ later on this month.

1:14:07 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Other questions?

1:14:11 ↗ The question that I have is uh your

1:14:15 ↗ slide number five indicated that

1:14:17 ↗ projects in the tip are how traffic

1:14:19 ↗ impact fees and bike pedestrian

1:14:21 ↗ mitigation fees are set. Um if we do go

1:14:25 ↗ forward with the small projects that are

1:14:28 ↗ outlined and prioritizing maintenance

1:14:30 ↗ over building new and more extensive use

1:14:33 ↗ of transportation benefit district back

1:14:35 ↗ debt. Um will those traffic impact fees

1:14:38 ↗ in general go up or down?

1:14:43 ↗ I would say that the action for this tip

1:14:45 ↗ will not change the work that the

1:14:48 ↗ council has requested the administration

1:14:49 ↗ to do to look at lowering traffic impact

1:14:51 ↗ fees. I think that is a separate policy

1:14:55 ↗ discussion that the administration would

1:14:57 ↗ like to have with the council. I've got

1:14:58 ↗ a few ideas on how um that could be

1:15:03 ↗ done, but that

1:15:05 ↗ I think would be a future discussion.

1:15:08 ↗ Would you agree that the traffic impact

1:15:10 ↗ fees are determined in part by the

1:15:13 ↗ projects that get put in there? And it

1:15:15 ↗ seems like we're putting a few more

1:15:16 ↗ projects in there than we're taking out.

1:15:19 ↗ So, the traffic impact fees in a

1:15:21 ↗ calculation from the consultant at least

1:15:24 ↗ might be recommended to go up.

1:15:29 ↗ Yes and no. So in the traffic impact fee

1:15:33 ↗ rate study, it considers the future year

1:15:36 ↗ projects which are not shown in the next

1:15:38 ↗ six years. So if we take a project

1:15:39 ↗ that's in a future year and bump it to

1:15:41 ↗ the six-year period, that really doesn't

1:15:43 ↗ impact it.

1:15:46 ↗ The council can decide which projects to

1:15:51 ↗ um fund with traffic impact fees and to

1:15:53 ↗ include in the rate study. And so by

1:15:56 ↗ necessarily having them in the tip, that

1:15:58 ↗ doesn't necessarily

1:16:00 ↗ make it so that way they would drive up

1:16:02 ↗ the cost of the traffic impact fees. So

1:16:04 ↗ the there's a couple hypotheticals I'll

1:16:07 ↗ just quickly go over. The council could

1:16:09 ↗ say, "Okay, we're going to use other

1:16:12 ↗ we're going to keep the level of service

1:16:14 ↗ that's adopted the same and we're going

1:16:16 ↗ to come up with other revenues to

1:16:19 ↗ construct those improvements and then

1:16:21 ↗ that would reduce the traffic impact

1:16:22 ↗ fees." The council could also say,

1:16:24 ↗ "We're going to lower the level of

1:16:26 ↗ service." And then that could reduce the

1:16:29 ↗ need for projects, which would then

1:16:30 ↗ reduce the capital or the the traffic

1:16:33 ↗ impact fees. There there's a few other

1:16:35 ↗ ways to do it. There could be I'll go

1:16:37 ↗ over one more and I'm probably going way

1:16:39 ↗ too far into the weeds, but uh there's a

1:16:41 ↗ mode split assumption where the city

1:16:44 ↗ could say we're going to assume more

1:16:46 ↗ people are going to be taking transit,

1:16:47 ↗ walking, and biking and then there's

1:16:51 ↗ less need for the cap vehicular capacity

1:16:55 ↗ projects and that could lower the

1:16:57 ↗ traffic impact fees. So, those are just

1:16:58 ↗ a few quick ways off the top of my head

1:17:01 ↗ where traffic impact fees could be

1:17:03 ↗ lowered.

1:17:04 ↗ >> Thank you very much. It's one of the

1:17:06 ↗ questions that people stop and ask me

1:17:09 ↗ about when we're talking about why new

1:17:12 ↗ housing might not be coming to our city.

1:17:15 ↗ And uh we as elected officials need to

1:17:18 ↗ justify how the traffic impact fees are

1:17:21 ↗ set and what level of service we're

1:17:23 ↗ putting in as you point out to our

1:17:26 ↗ thinking on that. So I do appreciate

1:17:27 ↗ that information. Other questions from

1:17:29 ↗ the committee?

1:17:31 ↗ Okay. That then takes us to the point of

1:17:34 ↗ our meeting where we have asked

1:17:36 ↗ questions and now we're going to open it

1:17:38 ↗ up for public comment on the topic. Uh

1:17:40 ↗ madame clerk, is there anyone online

1:17:42 ↗ that has indicated a desire to speak on

1:17:45 ↗ this topic?

1:17:46 ↗ >> No, chair, there's not.

1:17:48 ↗ >> Okay. And it does not appear there's

1:17:49 ↗ anyone in the room that would like to

1:17:51 ↗ speak on the topic. However, however, if

1:17:54 ↗ there are people listening to this

1:17:55 ↗ meeting, watching this meeting that

1:17:57 ↗ would like to comment, again, city

1:17:59 ↗ council is always uh open to hearing

1:18:02 ↗ your comments and and we read your

1:18:05 ↗ emails and go ahead and send those to

1:18:06 ↗ city council at isquawwa.gov

1:18:09 ↗ and uh we'd be happy to respond to

1:18:11 ↗ those. All right, that takes us to the

1:18:13 ↗ portion of deliberation on this

1:18:16 ↗ particular topic. Um who wants to go

1:18:19 ↗ first? Uh council president.

1:18:22 ↗ So, uh, I am going to be, uh, pardon me.

1:18:28 ↗ I'm going to be yes on this plan this

1:18:30 ↗ evening. Um, I have huge concerns around

1:18:32 ↗ T028,

1:18:34 ↗ but I have worked with Director Moon for

1:18:36 ↗ a very long time and respect her quite a

1:18:38 ↗ bit, and if she tells me there's a plan,

1:18:41 ↗ um, then I am willing to, uh, wait to

1:18:45 ↗ hear the terms of that plan.

1:18:48 ↗ However, uh if we get to the budget and

1:18:51 ↗ we don't have a plan uh in place, then I

1:18:55 ↗ will move the entire $19 million as

1:18:57 ↗ council manic debt. And if that fails, I

1:19:01 ↗ will oppose the entire 2027 2028 budget.

1:19:05 ↗ The time has come to figure this out,

1:19:08 ↗ not push it off any further. It was a

1:19:10 ↗ huge commitment to the public and it

1:19:12 ↗ cannot wait any further and I will stake

1:19:14 ↗ my entire political relationship with

1:19:17 ↗ this city on solving this problem. So

1:19:20 ↗ there you have it. So, you're saying

1:19:22 ↗ that if there's not a plan in the

1:19:24 ↗ budget,

1:19:25 ↗ >> if we don't have it resolved, if I'm not

1:19:27 ↗ confident that we have it figured out by

1:19:29 ↗ the time we vote on a budget, I'm not

1:19:31 ↗ saying it has to be in the budget, but

1:19:33 ↗ if I'm not confident of the plan, then I

1:19:35 ↗ will move the $19 million as council

1:19:37 ↗ manic debt as part of the budget. I

1:19:40 ↗ realize that has impacts on ending fund

1:19:42 ↗ balance, but that's a thing we can do.

1:19:44 ↗ And historically, we've kept much higher

1:19:46 ↗ council manic debt. this administration

1:19:48 ↗ and previous administration chose not to

1:19:50 ↗ exercise council medicic debt. But when

1:19:52 ↗ you and I earlier in our careers, we

1:19:54 ↗ carried more council medicic debt. So we

1:19:56 ↗ can solve the problem that way. I don't

1:19:58 ↗ want to do it that way. I'm just saying

1:20:00 ↗ that we have to solve this problem and

1:20:02 ↗ we have to solve it this year. And if we

1:20:04 ↗ can't solve it, if I can't uh get my

1:20:08 ↗ satisfaction on this issue or if I can't

1:20:09 ↗ convince my fellow council members uh to

1:20:12 ↗ spend the money as a last resort, then I

1:20:14 ↗ will oppose the 2027 28 budget in

1:20:16 ↗ whatever form it is.

1:20:18 ↗ >> Okay.

1:20:19 ↗ >> Thanks.

1:20:19 ↗ >> Thank you,

1:20:21 ↗ Council Member Boyd.

1:20:25 ↗ >> Uh thank you, John, um for your

1:20:27 ↗ presentation. Um I'm also in favor of

1:20:29 ↗ this plan. uh uh uh based off of uh it

1:20:34 ↗ came before me in the tab, we had good

1:20:36 ↗ robust discussion. I do um I'd be remiss

1:20:39 ↗ if I didn't mention uh and John

1:20:41 ↗ mentioned this in the tab feedback that

1:20:43 ↗ um there was just some concern too about

1:20:46 ↗ um

1:20:47 ↗ uh making sure that bike ped um floats

1:20:50 ↗ to the top and that we don't lose sight

1:20:52 ↗ of that in our um in our quest to

1:20:55 ↗ address vehicular congestion. Um, and

1:20:58 ↗ so, uh, moving forward, I'll definitely

1:21:00 ↗ be keeping a keen eye on that, but

1:21:01 ↗ overall, um, I'm in favor of the current

1:21:04 ↗ tip.

1:21:07 ↗ >> Thank you. Um, I also am in favor of

1:21:10 ↗ moving this forward. Um, I appreciate

1:21:13 ↗ the administration's focus on smaller

1:21:16 ↗ projects both at uh Sunset and uh Front

1:21:21 ↗ Street and also at Dogwood and Front

1:21:23 ↗ Street that can help our citizens in

1:21:26 ↗ town do intr

1:21:29 ↗ um help them get from um a school to

1:21:34 ↗ Costco or across town to um pick up a

1:21:37 ↗ child from daycare. we have all the

1:21:40 ↗ traffic coming through that's that's

1:21:42 ↗ regional traffic, but um when we're

1:21:45 ↗ talking about traffic improvements that

1:21:46 ↗ we're spending money on, I appreciate

1:21:48 ↗ the fact that the administration is

1:21:50 ↗ focusing on projects that allow our

1:21:52 ↗ citizens to more easily get around town

1:21:55 ↗ and get the things done that they need

1:21:57 ↗ to do and let the regional traffic be in

1:21:59 ↗ its own lane, so to speak, or bucket

1:22:02 ↗ along the way. So, um the small projects

1:22:05 ↗ with immediate benefit uh seem to be a

1:22:08 ↗ good idea. Um, I also appreciate the

1:22:11 ↗ fact uh that uh council president has uh

1:22:15 ↗ put a stake in the ground in terms of

1:22:17 ↗ trying to make sure that the uh project

1:22:20 ↗ goes forward on uh that we've promised

1:22:23 ↗ our citizens and um I'm looking forward

1:22:25 ↗ to that conversation

1:22:27 ↗ um both at the the budget time and if we

1:22:31 ↗ have to go to a council bond um looking

1:22:34 ↗ to find ways to support that so that we

1:22:37 ↗ can get that project done for the

1:22:39 ↗ citizens on the west side of the city.

1:22:41 ↗ Um, so I would be in favor of the

1:22:43 ↗ project in general and um, I guess a

1:22:46 ↗ half-hearted thumbs up to council

1:22:49 ↗ president on his uh, idea to make sure

1:22:51 ↗ the northwest Samage project goes

1:22:53 ↗ forward uh, as well. Um, so it sounds

1:22:57 ↗ like we're recommending 30 for this to

1:22:59 ↗ go forward. Okay. Does the

1:23:01 ↗ administration and John, do you have

1:23:02 ↗ everything you need?

1:23:04 ↗ >> Yes, I do. Thank you very much.

1:23:05 ↗ >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. That

1:23:08 ↗ concludes that topic. Um, we now go to

1:23:12 ↗ uh see if any council members uh have

1:23:15 ↗ any announcements they would like to

1:23:16 ↗ make.

1:23:19 ↗ Okay. Um, there no there being no

1:23:21 ↗ further business, the meeting is

1:23:22 ↗ adjourned today at 7:53 p.m. Have a good

1:23:25 ↗ evening.

Minutes for this meeting haven't been published yet. Council and committee minutes are approved at the next meeting and embedded as a consent-calendar attachment in that meeting's agenda packet — they will appear here once that next packet is processed.