← Back to City Council Digest

Transportation Advisory Board Auto captions

Thursday, February 17, 2022

6:00 PM · 2h 0m
Topics tracked across meetings:
Solid Waste Contract Electric Vehicle Joint Feasibility Study Memorandum of Understanding AB 8864 1/4
2023-2028 Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program AB 8331 1/5
Section
1. CALL TO ORDER
1a
Commission Membership
packet pp.3
Staff report:
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Staff Liaison Isabel Diaz, Senior Engineer About Email Isabel Diaz Created in 2017, the board provides additional expertise and advice on the City's Regular Members transportation system and goals. The board is 2022 – Vacant also the lead advisory group on the 2022 – Micah Zeitz-Chua implementation and management of the City’s 2023 – Kristi Tripple Master Mobility Plan (MMP). 2023 – Dave Waggoner 2023 – Joseph Zhang* 2024 – Cynthia Krass Membership 2024 – Janie Walzer The Transportation Advisory Board is 2025 – Erika Boyd comprised of nine regular members, and up to 2025 – Tom McDonald three alternates. All members are appointed by the Mayor and subject to confirmation by Alternate Members the City Council. Terms expire April 30 of the 2022 – Jeri Bernstein year listed. For more information, 2022 – Vacant see IMC 2.92 and Rules & Regulations. 2023 – Julian…
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2a
Minutes of Dec. 16, 2021
packet pp.5–7
Staff report:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 12-16-21 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Virtual Meeting December 16, 2021 MINUTES
4. REGULAR BUSINESS
4a
Vice Chair Elections
Action · 10 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.9–13
Staff report:
Public Works 1775 – 12th Ave NW | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 425-837-3400 issaquahwa.gov
4b
Neighborhood Safety Improvements Program (D)
30 min · John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.15–33
Topics: Public Safety
Staff report:
Consistent with the Mobility Master Plan (MMP) implementation process (MMP, pages 40- 42), City staff has initiated several steps following MMP adoption. Some of these steps included policy updates already discussed with the TAB (Pedestrian Crossing and Traffic Calming Guidelines) and program implementation. The development of a Neighborhood Safety Improvement Program (NSIP) has been identified as one of the required next steps. As part of the program development, City staff will be working with the TAB to design a program that empowers neighborhoods to work collaboratively to identify, prioritize and address pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in Issaquah neighborhoods.
4c
7:00 PM Annual Update (D)
50 min · Jon Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager
5. REPORTS
5a
Board Work Plan
packet pp.83
Staff report:
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Annual Update Transit Study Intro Update Performance Metrics Intro Update ADA Transition Plan Intro Concurrency Update ITS Study Intro Parks Projects Update Metro Update Parks Wayfinding Update 2023 Comprehensive Plan Update Mobility Master Plan (MMP) Review 2023 Board Work Plan Review
5b
Staff Report
packet pp.85–87
Staff report:
The purpose of this informational memo is to update the Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) on the Parking and Circulation sections within the Title 18 land use code update.
5c
Chair Report
5d
Youth Report
0:01 good evening
0:03 my name is cynthia cress and i welcome
0:06 you to the february meeting of the
0:08 transportation advisory board i'm
0:10 currently serving as the chair
0:12 and
0:13 we will
0:15 before i open the meeting
0:17 and get to the first item um
0:20 minutes i just want to recognize that
0:23 we have we do have a quorum we have
0:26 six regular members and then
0:28 we have a couple at least one excuse
0:30 absence that i know of and then that
0:31 would make jerry who's currently
0:33 technically an alternate um
0:36 bumped up to regular member for the
0:38 purpose of this evening so just wanted
0:40 to recognize that
0:42 and with that i will
0:45 um and i always like to write down
0:46 exactly i'm seeking approval of the
0:48 minutes by unanimous consent as
0:50 presented i did read them and
0:53 seeking
0:56 rule i'm not seeing any objection i'm
0:58 seeing some nods
1:00 i'll consider the minutes approved thank
1:02 you
1:03 um that's pretty simple looks like we've
1:05 got some public comments so i will turn
1:09 it over to our
1:10 host it's like
1:12 john has a
1:14 variety of duties this evening both
1:16 technical and substantive in nature are
1:18 you able to you're hosting so you're
1:20 able to boost
1:22 to promote the
1:24 public comment members i know
1:27 people often like to be seen come up on
1:30 video so if that's possible that would
1:31 be great
1:32 okay
1:34 i will
1:35 start off by promoting david kepler it's
1:38 the
1:39 first one in there and then move on to
1:41 ann fletcher
1:48 thank you i'm just actually an observer
1:50 tonight um
1:52 but there's lydia in this other room
1:53 who's i'm going to be speaking and i've
1:56 read her material and i agree with what
1:57 she has to say thank you
2:00 thank you for coming david
2:03 mr kepler and uh
2:05 john
2:06 you said we have another
2:08 ms fletcher
2:20 and i have promoted anne
2:25 and can you hear us
2:29 um yes i can hear you
2:33 i don't i think david kepler's still up
2:36 for video
2:40 can you hear me
2:41 yep yeah
2:43 okay great
2:44 we can hear you but we can't see you
2:46 would you prefer to be on video
2:48 sure that'd be fine
2:50 um it's up to you but uh i don't know if
2:52 john can make that happen
2:54 okay
2:56 if you don't mind holding on one second
2:57 john is that possible
3:00 to get the video on
3:19 great thank you
3:27 i am i don't see my name up there
3:30 it might be under issaquah or it might
3:33 be underhand fletcher we're seeing it um
3:36 ann fletcher we're seeing that but you
3:38 splashed on video briefly and then you
3:40 went away but the entire time i've seen
3:42 your name in one of the squares and now
3:44 i see your video okay
3:47 it's just as well i can't see myself oh
3:49 there it is okay great thank you so much
3:51 for for taking the
3:53 technical
3:55 time to
3:56 let me
3:57 be here as much as i can be
3:59 um my name is ann fletcher and i am a
4:01 resident of issaquah and uh with the
4:05 group people for climate action and the
4:07 iskwa chapter i'm really happy to be
4:09 here tonight uh thank you
4:11 for having the chance for public comment
4:14 um i'd like to comment on the second
4:17 item
4:18 um on the agenda tonight the
4:20 transportation improvement projects
4:24 and i've been looking for connections
4:26 between the climate action plan which
4:28 was approved after the
4:31 mobility master plan
4:33 and
4:35 have found in
4:36 climate
4:38 climate was mentioned in goal two of the
4:40 master mobility plan and i found some
4:42 really great connections there so i was
4:45 really pleased to see that
4:48 and i was looking for some connections
4:50 in the criteria
4:52 that the transportation advisory board
4:54 will use to recommend
4:57 the competing
4:59 transportation improvement projects
5:01 which i believe you're going to be
5:03 talking some about tonight
5:05 and
5:06 i was looking at the criteria categories
5:09 from the guiding principles and i
5:12 noticed that one of the guiding
5:13 principles is not a criteria and that's
5:16 called anticipate transformation
5:19 developing a transportation system that
5:22 enables new technologies emerging
5:24 transportation options and economic
5:27 trends
5:28 and
5:29 i wasn't sure why this one it seems like
5:31 maybe that's a difficult one to have as
5:34 a category in the criteria
5:36 however it does seem important for
5:38 something as future oriented as climate
5:42 so i just uh had uh wondered about that
5:45 and thought it might might be something
5:47 to consider
5:48 then the other thing is that i was
5:50 looking at the criteria themselves
5:53 um i found um just to find evidence for
5:57 for climate uh and environmental kinds
6:01 um criteria and i did see that in the
6:04 protect environment there are
6:06 quite a number of things that would
6:08 relate to climate uh it does not mention
6:11 um consideration of tree canopy or
6:13 carbon sequestration
6:16 as a consideration in the projects
6:19 but it does mention some other things
6:22 uh also the promotion of non-auto target
6:25 uh non-auto and drive alone
6:27 mode um
6:29 parts uh also relate to climate uh and
6:32 the regional connections uh with transit
6:36 bus transit um i think the light rail is
6:38 too far away for us to reach some of our
6:42 uh goals in the next two decades but
6:44 in any case as i was looking at at it it
6:48 seemed like at best climate and the
6:50 environment would count for maybe about
6:52 30 points out of the 78 total
6:55 and
6:58 my question or my concern was that the
7:00 point system using these criteria could
7:03 result in funding
7:05 more projects that would certainly have
7:07 many desirable aspects they're all
7:10 important things
7:12 but do not necessarily or sufficiently
7:14 contribute to the environment or climate
7:18 the goals in the mobility master plan
7:21 itself
7:22 do relate very well to climate in the
7:24 environment a lot of them do
7:28 it's the criteria themselves
7:31 where the actual funding happens
7:34 and that is seems to be weighted more to
7:37 the other important concerns and not
7:39 provide enough consideration of the
7:41 environment in climate
7:43 i think this could be improved uh by
7:47 perhaps looking at that numerical
7:49 weighting again
7:51 um adding more direct references to
7:54 climate goals
7:55 that are in the climate action plan that
7:57 was approved by the city
7:59 and including
8:01 possibly an anticipate transformation
8:03 category
8:05 i think this would help fisa class spend
8:09 a finite amount of funds that we have
8:11 wisely during these swiftly changing
8:14 times
8:15 thank you very much for this opportunity
8:17 to comment
8:21 thank you very much thanks for your
8:22 interest and thanks for being here
8:24 john do we have any other
8:26 comments
8:27 no one else is in the
8:29 attendee list we did receive a few
8:31 emails including one from this lecture
8:36 okay
8:37 i don't know if we summarize those or
8:39 some i guess you guys have all seen them
8:41 what we do for the official record or if
8:43 we include them in the minutes but i
8:45 didn't want to bring that up that we did
8:46 receive a couple emails
8:50 yeah let's um
8:52 let's let's move along
8:54 and then maybe make a note um
8:58 discuss that uh maybe in the next time
9:01 we meet in preparation for this meeting
9:02 and maybe uh take a quick check in with
9:05 a clerk because um
9:06 i do think it's
9:08 challenging to receive
9:10 additional
9:12 substantive material in that format on
9:14 the same day of the meeting and um i
9:17 just want to
9:18 maybe take that offline and just kind of
9:22 think about how we how we want to
9:23 approach those uh because they're a
9:25 little bit problematic i think to ask
9:28 volunteers who have day jobs to consume
9:31 additional information and i think the
9:33 best forum is to come to the meeting and
9:35 i know understand that people can't
9:36 always do that
9:37 um but
9:38 and i also think you get into trouble
9:40 when you summarize people's comments
9:42 um so uh i'm i'd like to table that if
9:46 that's okay john
9:48 okay
9:48 um and that brings us to item 4a on the
9:53 agenda which is the vice chair elections
9:55 and uh
9:56 john is going to be on firing on all
9:59 cylinders this evening
10:01 take it away john
10:02 thank you very much we have two
10:05 nominations for the
10:09 vice chair position
10:11 and those are
10:13 joseph and micah
10:17 and
10:19 is there any discussion about the
10:21 nominees
10:22 or on the nominees
10:29 this is cynthia again hey i just
10:30 realized and i don't know if this is
10:32 appropriate but i believe that when we
10:34 did chair um and vice chair nominations
10:37 in the past we invited the nominees to
10:39 say
10:40 you know 30 seconds on why they were
10:42 interested in this and now i'm putting
10:43 them on both on the spot they both
10:45 obviously submitted materials um so they
10:48 couldn't get some thought but um
10:50 perhaps that was a miss and that's
10:52 something we should have um
10:54 submitted in advance but um
10:57 maybe just uh i think it should be
10:59 either both or neither but um
11:02 micah and joseph did you wanted to say a
11:05 couple's
11:06 moments sentences about why this is
11:08 interesting to you i it's not entirely
11:10 fair to ask you this on the spot
11:13 oh tom has something to say let's hear
11:15 what tom has to say
11:20 tom you're on mute tom you're on mute
11:28 i really want to know what those hand
11:29 waves are but did anyone else hear tom
11:32 no no they i'm very curious the funny
11:35 thing is i was saying tom you're on mute
11:37 while i was on mute so uh tom i don't
11:39 think anybody heard you but we're very
11:41 curious
11:43 still not hearing you i'm seeing your
11:45 lips move
11:46 how about now now yes
11:48 okay i have like five microphone choices
11:51 i'm like where'd all these come from
11:53 so i was trying to find a hands up thing
11:55 down below so i just raised my hand
11:56 because i couldn't find it
11:58 i i saw like a little write-up and maybe
12:01 it was in the agenda
12:03 for today from each
12:05 uh but it would be good to have them
12:07 just you can reiterate that and talk a
12:09 little bit what you were saying
12:11 about um
12:12 just
12:14 just talking a little bit about why
12:15 they're looking for the position
12:18 right
12:19 i also think that's a great idea but i'm
12:21 feeling remiss of not getting them any
12:23 notice and so i feel a little bad about
12:25 that so it's more of a process thing um
12:27 micah and joseph are you guys okay with
12:29 just taking a couple minutes maybe just
12:31 on and say okay great uh
12:33 sorry about that but um
12:35 joseph why don't you go ahead and start
12:40 yeah of course um actually i wrote
12:42 something that i want to say um so i'll
12:44 just say that really briefly uh hi
12:46 everyone um of course you all know me as
12:48 your
12:50 youth chair member um actually last week
12:52 i turned 18 so i'm not sure whether or
12:55 not i still qualify as a youth but i can
12:56 just pretend that i'm youth i guess
12:59 um as you all know i'm interested in
13:01 running as the vice chair of the board
13:03 and the main reason why i was hoping to
13:05 do so is that
13:07 i want to work with
13:08 you all to use your input along with
13:10 community input to help further
13:12 implement and advocate for the
13:14 transportation needs of our growing city
13:16 and on top of that i want to help speak
13:18 up for voices that are often overlooked
13:20 in city planning um and help to
13:23 implement everyone's feedback so that we
13:25 can help make transportation
13:27 infrastructure equitable and
13:28 comprehensive um of course if you do not
13:31 choose vote for me as your vice chair i
13:34 would still love to definitely work
13:35 alongside all of you as your young adult
13:38 member
13:38 and i've had a really great time
13:40 learning while serving on this board and
13:42 i'm sure that micah would do a great job
13:44 as a vice chair thank you
13:50 thanks so much and thanks for your your
13:52 efforts and your interest micah go ahead
13:56 i guess uh just talk a little bit
13:58 briefly about first of all i joined this
14:00 board i've always been interested in
14:03 serving my community
14:05 when i was actually
14:07 around just the stage it was on the
14:09 redmond youth partnership advisory
14:11 committee
14:13 and that was just that was
14:15 what we had available as i've always
14:17 sort of thought that i have a obligation
14:20 um and an interest in doing what i can
14:23 and part of that is is including my
14:26 voice but part of that is also trying to
14:27 represent other people and and add to
14:30 that conversation and so that kind of
14:32 leads to what i think of as the vice
14:34 chair role because i was thinking about
14:36 this when i was you know nominated you
14:38 know what what exactly is the vice chair
14:39 and and i wrote up a little thing about
14:42 and to me the vice chair of course is to
14:44 support uh cynthia as the chair
14:47 uh and whatever you know duty that that
14:50 entails but also the the vice chair as
14:53 we all uh have this role you know we're
14:55 an advisory board
14:57 we're here to bring our own opinions and
14:59 to represent others represent parts of
15:01 our community and to also be thoughtful
15:04 about the parts of our community that
15:05 are not represented
15:06 and so
15:08 to me that vice chair role is just to
15:10 aid in that conversation
15:12 uh to try and
15:14 bring in
15:15 pieces and points of view that may
15:18 otherwise not not be included
15:21 and so i'd be happy to
15:23 been interested of course and serving on
15:25 the board in that role and i would
15:27 also continue to be happy to serve as
15:30 just a
15:31 you know regular board member as well so
15:34 thank you
15:39 thank you guys john
15:42 do you know what to do next
15:44 yes
15:46 and
15:47 just i guess we'll continue is there any
15:49 discussion on the nominees
15:53 i have a question this is janie
15:55 um joseph are you going to college and
15:57 are you going to still be able to be
15:59 with us
16:01 um yeah so i'm going to college in the
16:04 fall uh next or this year
16:06 um if i'm correct i should still be able
16:09 to attend meetings but i'm not 100 sure
16:13 okay
16:16 you're going to witch college
16:20 oh yeah um
16:21 washington university in st louis
16:24 oh congrats it's very exciting
16:27 thank you
16:37 i'm not hearing any other discussion
16:42 was i supposed to say something john no
16:44 no no you are absolutely right and the
16:47 script says if there is no further
16:50 description or discussion we will now
16:52 vote on the nominees in the order they
16:54 were nominated
16:58 could i just bring up something so now
17:00 that you have a quorum your full members
17:03 are here then i should not this is jerry
17:05 i should not be voting correct
17:10 sherry uh
17:11 now that
17:12 yeah i didn't notice i know that we do
17:14 have a quorum up a couple people popped
17:16 in late
17:17 right i don't actually know how that
17:18 works um
17:21 it's fine
17:23 you know
17:24 i'm not really a real member of the
17:26 board are we considering the real member
17:29 but i do know i appreciate being asked
17:32 um and i i suspect that somewhere
17:35 somebody like the clerk
17:36 could have a clear objective answer to
17:39 this if the meeting starts and the
17:41 regular member's not there but then
17:43 jumps on there's probably a right answer
17:45 i don't know what that answer is um and
17:47 that's a great i will abstain from
17:50 voting because of that very generous of
17:52 you i hope you can know to check out
17:55 that thank you because it's not the
17:57 thing is it's a lot to ask people to
17:59 come and put all this in and then not
18:00 really understand their status so i'll
18:02 make a commitment to get a little better
18:03 educated on that so thank you for saying
18:05 that
18:07 okay
18:08 and the way this works is
18:10 we vote on the first nominee and then we
18:13 vote on the second nominee and it's
18:15 going to be a roll call vote so i'm
18:17 going to say your name and you will vote
18:20 i for yes or no
18:23 and
18:27 it also says as a reminder if you wish
18:29 to vote for a later nominee you will
18:31 need to vote no for all other nominees
18:36 if you want to vote for the second
18:38 nominee say no the first time and vice
18:40 versa you can't have two yeses
18:44 and then
18:48 the way it works is
18:50 the first nominee receiving a majority
18:53 vote is elected to the position and
18:56 we'll repeat until that happens
19:08 david
19:09 uh oh oh who was nominated first
19:14 i believe it was joseph i think he okay
19:19 the first vote is to
19:22 on whether to elect joseph as vice chair
19:26 through
19:28 april
19:29 30th i think i'll double check
19:38 john point of order john i didn't hear
19:42 that date
19:43 oh i'm double checking it i think i know
19:46 it's in april
19:49 the memo
19:53 yes
19:54 the term will end on april 30th
19:57 2022
19:58 and we're going to do a roll call vote
20:02 whether to
20:03 uh joseph's nomination and david you'll
20:07 be the first to vote
20:12 i vote yes
20:18 erica hi
20:24 cynthia
20:26 hey
20:30 joseph
20:35 wait did you say my name
20:36 yes
20:38 oh i guess i
20:42 julian
20:44 right
20:48 micah
20:50 okay
20:52 tom
21:00 i couldn't hear you i'm going to click
21:02 on youtube that works tom
21:04 sorry yes i mean was that through this
21:06 year board next year
21:07 it's through april 30th 2022 this so
21:12 basically two months from now
21:14 say yeah
21:19 and jamie
21:26 add it up
21:36 and that is
21:38 six yeses
21:40 and two no's
21:42 which according to the instructions
21:45 would make joseph the vice chair
21:49 congratulations joseph
21:53 congratulations awesome
22:00 well we get to do that all over again in
22:03 do we do that in april or do we do that
22:04 in may we must do that in april 4 to
22:06 prepare for may
22:08 i would think maybe because when the new
22:11 terms begin in may
22:13 well i was just
22:14 thinking that then you would be without
22:16 in the in between the april and the may
22:18 meeting
22:21 another good question for the clerk's
22:22 office
22:24 it ends in april i would think we would
22:25 do it in april again for
22:27 the name meeting
22:30 right so there'd be a two week lame duck
22:33 chair in my chair
22:40 okay well very well well good job team
22:44 i'm excited that there was a contested
22:48 process that's great um it's a i think a
22:51 sign of a healthy board and i think it's
22:53 really great there's so many you guys
22:54 are so engaged or we're all so engaged
22:57 um with that i think we will
23:00 move along to um
23:03 item 4b
23:07 john you ready to
23:10 start on that yeah
23:14 i do notice that we have a um we we do
23:16 have one of the members of the public is
23:18 still promoted to a participant
23:24 which
23:25 isn't particularly oh
23:27 okay
23:28 actually it was a good thing i've been
23:30 trying to figure that out because in
23:32 order to make
23:33 her video camp on i made her a presenter
23:36 but it wasn't until i made myself the
23:38 presenter just now that the option
23:41 to put back as an attendee not allowed
23:43 to kick off your presenter i guess okay
23:47 [Music]
23:49 i'll turn it over to you to talk about
23:50 the neighborhood safety improvements
23:52 program
23:54 thank you very much cynthia
23:56 i'm going to go ahead and share my
23:57 screen and go through the presentation
23:59 for the neighborhood safety program
24:09 is it showing the
24:10 screen or the note screen
24:15 it's showing the screen the presentation
24:18 what we're supposed to see
24:19 yeah thank you very much
24:21 tonight i'm here to talk about the
24:23 neighborhood
24:24 safety improvement program that
24:28 the city of issaquah has been working on
24:30 implementing
24:32 tonight i'll talk about an overview for
24:35 the
24:39 the mobility master plan implementation
24:42 when the mobility master plan was
24:44 drafted and adopted it had a number of
24:48 items to implement including the
24:50 neighborhood safety program
24:52 and
24:53 talk about a little bit about what that
24:55 program is and to get some feedback from
24:57 the board
24:59 the feedback or direction that we need
25:04 are three items one is the proposed
25:07 process
25:08 adequate to start the program
25:10 other criteria
25:12 for project evaluation
25:14 and any changes to the program timeline
25:21 this slide shows
25:23 visually
25:24 the different items that are in the
25:26 mobility master plan implementation
25:30 the transit system discussion
25:33 is something that the city is going to
25:34 be starting very soon with the
25:37 work to do a transit study
25:40 we've been
25:41 talking we talked to the tab
25:44 recently about
25:46 pedestrian crossing guidelines complete
25:48 streets traffic calming
25:50 and
25:52 the engineering staff and updating the
25:53 street standards as parts of
25:56 doing policy and standards updates to
25:59 align with the mobility master plan
26:04 another item is
26:06 the reviewing of projects which we did a
26:09 lot last
26:10 summer slash early fall
26:13 we're going to talk about later on
26:14 tonight
26:16 in the transit study
26:19 looking at funding
26:22 and things like that but
26:26 another one of them is the neighborhood
26:28 safety program
26:29 and that is what i'm here to talk to you
26:31 about tonight for this item
26:34 the the purpose of the neighborhood
26:36 safety program
26:38 is to re-energize or empower
26:40 neighborhoods to work in collaboration
26:43 with the city to try and make small
26:46 improvements
26:47 especially prioritizing
26:50 safety for pedestrians and bicyclists
26:56 the
26:58 neighborhood safety program
27:00 is proposing to have
27:02 five community volunteers
27:05 or coordinators from different
27:06 geographic
27:07 zones so that way we could have a
27:09 representation of the whole
27:11 city
27:13 and
27:14 to work with that
27:16 group in the community to
27:18 identify and prioritize neighborhood
27:21 safety improvement programs
27:24 or projects to implement
27:30 project ideas would come from
27:32 suggestions from the community
27:34 coordinators who would be plugged into
27:36 the program
27:37 it also would come from residents
27:39 throughout the city using our
27:41 c-click-fix system i don't know if any
27:43 of you have tried using that system but
27:46 the secret fix is
27:48 a website that the city of its client
27:50 uses for a variety of things it could be
27:54 you have a neighborhood traffic concern
27:56 and you want the city to evaluate
27:58 whether your street qualifies for
28:00 traffic calming or maybe there should be
28:02 no parking sign it also goes beyond
28:06 transportation and can be used for
28:13 maybe litter in a park
28:20 all kinds of different things
28:23 and
28:26 that's another intake system for the
28:28 neighborhood safety program
28:30 and
28:33 the community coordinators would
28:34 prioritize community zone projects and
28:38 with the intent of not doing all the
28:40 projects in one
28:42 neighborhood we want to try and spread
28:45 throughout the city
28:48 the proposed
28:49 categories for evaluation when
28:52 considering
28:55 ranking the neighborhood safety
28:58 projects once they have been submitted
29:01 would be safety
29:03 users
29:04 community support
29:06 equity
29:07 connectivity
29:08 and sustainability
29:13 the proposed timeline for the
29:15 neighborhood safety program
29:18 is to develop the program this spring
29:22 which that's what we're here tonight and
29:25 as well as next month at the tab meeting
29:30 put together the draft of how it would
29:31 work
29:32 form the time type person committee
29:38 and then
29:40 in the
29:42 summer slash fall
29:44 put together the project list so
29:47 once kind of in between those steps
29:49 would be to get the
29:51 project submitted whether it's from the
29:53 evaluation committee or the seekbook fix
29:55 or staff recommendations
29:57 and
30:00 get those projects score them
30:03 prioritize the funding of them
30:06 and then
30:09 work with the city council in the
30:10 budgeting process to get the projects
30:13 budgeted for construction
30:15 in 2023
30:17 also while they're under construction
30:20 as part of this program develop some
30:21 performance metrics
30:23 to evaluate the program and then in 2024
30:26 we start the program and make any
30:29 updates based on experience of
30:32 what worked well and what needs to be
30:34 improved
30:38 as i mentioned the direction needed
30:40 tonight are is the proposed process
30:42 adequate to start a program
30:45 other criteria to consider for
30:46 evaluation
30:48 and any changes to the timeline
30:52 and with that i'm going to
30:56 stop sharing my
31:02 screen so we can have a discussion
31:13 so uh before you go julian i do want to
31:16 just encourage you to use the chat it's
31:17 a little easier to track when there's
31:19 multiple people it's fine when there's
31:21 one person but it's not very scalable so
31:22 julian go ahead
31:24 yeah um just preliminary comments i
31:27 really appreciate
31:29 this kind of participatory
31:31 sort of budget
31:33 in terms of neighborhood safety program
31:35 that that the staff is implementing
31:38 i think
31:39 participatory budgeting is is pretty
31:41 useful
31:44 and uh just a question what kind of
31:46 projects would be
31:48 under this project's purview just some
31:50 basic
31:51 uh traffic calming
31:53 stuff
31:55 so here's what i envisioned and i think
31:58 it's up for discussion
32:01 and
32:01 i'll base it on the experience with what
32:04 we get through our c-click-fix system
32:06 because a lot of that i think would
32:08 really
32:09 qualify for this kind of program where
32:13 it could be
32:16 a neighborhood has a busy crosswalk next
32:19 to a park
32:20 and it's unmarked there's no other
32:24 improvements at it and
32:27 they would want to
32:28 nominate it for
32:31 consideration to be
32:33 improved in some way
32:34 and i think there would be a vetting
32:36 process but
32:39 by crossing or it could be
32:42 maybe there's a street where
32:45 there's 50 feet of sidewalk missing
32:48 where that could be improved or
32:50 maybe it is a street where we've
32:52 identified there is a speeding problem
32:54 and it is time to move it
32:56 past the education
32:58 component of traffic plumbing to
33:00 actually install a physical device but
33:04 the whole point would be focused on
33:06 pedestrian and bicycle safety
33:09 within a neighborhood setting so maybe
33:12 not
33:13 i wouldn't anticipate a project on front
33:15 street or east lakes mamas parkway
33:19 but
33:20 something that would really
33:22 be more in a neighborhood setting
33:39 ika has a question
33:42 go ahead
33:44 after
33:45 a project is submitted through secretfix
33:49 what's the process does that person get
33:51 contacted because you know they may just
33:53 type it in and that description is not
33:55 you know really the detail that's needed
33:57 is there
33:59 are they going to be
34:01 contacted or did this this group is idea
34:04 they would just run with that initial
34:07 comment
34:08 yeah great great question and
34:11 a couple of things once something is
34:13 submitted into earth in the c-clickfix
34:16 system what we're proposing is we'd
34:18 actually have a category
34:20 and we can work with the communication
34:22 staff to
34:23 advertise this through the social media
34:25 avenues
34:26 and someone could also see it but
34:29 another thing that could
34:31 so let's go through that scenario and
34:33 then i'll go through another scenario
34:35 and
34:36 so if you were to put in a c-click fix
34:39 and request
34:42 an improvement
34:45 somewhere within the city of issaquah
34:47 that
34:50 there's a team of us that actually meets
34:52 every month or every week on monday
34:54 morning and you get a response which
34:57 would kind of it'd probably be a canned
34:59 response which would outline the process
35:01 and the timeline so you know what to
35:03 expect and then there would be periodic
35:05 updates
35:06 to let the resident know where it was at
35:09 and so we can communicate that way it
35:12 also allows the resident to also order
35:15 other residents to add to it
35:18 and additional comments
35:21 another way where a secret fix could be
35:23 used for it is a lot of times we get a
35:26 neighborhood traffic concern
35:28 and
35:30 it may or may not qualify for the
35:33 it may not be big enough
35:36 for the neighborhood safety improvement
35:37 program
35:38 maybe all it is is putting a new street
35:40 sign somewhere
35:41 and that we wouldn't actually run
35:43 through the neighborhood safety program
35:45 we would just put in the work order and
35:47 get the
35:48 street sign installed
35:51 where i think this could be beneficial
35:53 from a staff point of view is a lot of
35:56 time we'll get things in c-click fix
35:58 that are bigger than just putting up a
36:00 street sign
36:02 and
36:03 there's
36:05 let's say there's a dozen requests
36:08 and they're all warranted being done but
36:10 then how to prioritize and evaluate
36:13 because maybe we only have the capacity
36:14 to get six done now and the rest will
36:17 have to wait a little bit and i think
36:19 that's another way where the
36:20 neighborhood safety program
36:21 could really help
36:23 because
36:25 as a staff one of the things i'm worried
36:27 about is
36:30 inequitable distribution of how we
36:32 respond to
36:34 these kind of things and i think having
36:37 the five-person committee would really
36:38 help on items that are bigger than just
36:42 putting in a street sign where there'd
36:44 actually be worth hiring a contractor to
36:46 do a little bit of work but not such a
36:49 big fix that it required its own
36:51 standalone project
37:00 that answer your question
37:03 okay
37:04 um i was next but i'm gonna skip oh uh
37:08 is it a follow-up like okay different
37:10 okay i'm gonna bump myself down because
37:13 i want to hear what other people have to
37:14 say so erica go ahead and then we'll um
37:16 have janie go after that
37:20 how does this how do you anticipate this
37:22 fitting in
37:24 with the idea of
37:26 i might be completing my plans and terms
37:28 and things it's a really long day but i
37:30 think with complete streets or with the
37:32 fact that you know there's how many
37:33 miles of um spots in a squad that don't
37:37 have like paved sidewalks
37:40 uh like so i guess how does something
37:41 like a neighborhood program
37:43 fit into completing
37:45 [Music]
37:46 that those gaps
37:52 i think it can help although
37:55 when i looked at the
37:57 and i'll say the tier 1 and tier 2
37:59 sidewalk gaps
38:03 i think it can help a little bit with
38:05 those but a lot of times for the tier
38:08 one and tier two sidewalk gaps
38:10 there's a reason why we already don't
38:12 have sidewalk there and it's a difficult
38:14 one so
38:16 i think this can help sometimes with
38:18 those situations and i even can think of
38:21 an example
38:25 but i have seen one spot in this aqua
38:28 that actually
38:29 technically is in a
38:30 year one or two here two sidewalk gap
38:33 it's a short stretch where maybe this
38:35 project could actually
38:37 help connect it but
38:39 i think this would be
38:42 i don't think this would make a big dent
38:44 on this i think it could improve other
38:46 areas of the community but a lot of
38:48 those
38:49 tier 1 and tier 2 sidewalk gaps i think
38:52 are going to take a bigger effort just
38:54 because
38:56 it could be that the side
38:58 the street has a steep slope or a
39:01 wetland or
39:04 other factors that
39:05 make it why we don't already have
39:07 sidewalk fares and this is a
39:08 generalization of what i've observed
39:17 did that answer your question oh yeah
39:18 that was my question okay great
39:21 thanks um let's go ahead and go to genie
39:24 yeah
39:26 so i'm sorry if i missed it but i'm
39:28 wondering if
39:29 is there a way that projects will be
39:31 addressed if someone doesn't submit them
39:34 to see click fix but
39:36 it's
39:37 an issue in the city that would qualify
39:40 for this
39:41 program um because i'm thinking there
39:43 might be parts of the city that would
39:45 really benefit from this
39:46 but people might not know about it or
39:48 have
39:50 the education like where do i go to
39:52 submit the project so
39:55 oh that that's a great one
39:57 and
39:58 just thinking of
40:00 how best to do that
40:03 [Music]
40:04 two thoughts are
40:06 the five coordinators can help do that
40:08 and dominate projects and
40:12 i think it also would be
40:14 okay for staff to nominate projects
40:17 and i say that
40:19 not wanting to control the process but
40:21 be able to maybe bring in some insight
40:23 of hey this is something we've seen
40:27 it might be a good candidate and then
40:30 let the process of how they would get
40:32 evaluated take over
40:34 yeah i think it would be good to not
40:35 solely rely on
40:38 the community to recommend
40:41 checks
40:46 thanks janie so i bumped down along and
40:47 i'm gonna jump back into the line here
40:49 and go next um this is cynthia and i um
40:52 just gonna i have a couple of quick
40:54 comments and one of them actually segues
40:56 nicely into what genie just said and
40:57 that's that
40:58 um i do think we need to figure out
41:02 how to make sure that and i saw there
41:05 were five different neighborhoods and i
41:07 don't know
41:08 how those neighborhoods
41:10 shake out in terms of um
41:13 where our most vulnerable populations
41:15 are our
41:18 lower income populations are within
41:20 those five i don't know if they're
41:21 equally distributed but i want to make
41:23 sure that we think hard about that and
41:27 i'm all for this kind of program and
41:29 like julian said at the beginning the
41:31 idea of getting people more engaged
41:33 in taking ownership and i think there's
41:35 that's a really powerful notion
41:38 but i also know that typically
41:41 uh lower income people
41:43 don't have the time to participate in
41:46 city government
41:47 and so
41:48 you know
41:49 perhaps
41:51 there's
41:52 somebody paid to do that in if if they
41:56 can't and and that's what equity is it
41:58 doesn't mean everyone has identical
42:00 treatment it means that if a community
42:02 is further behind they might need some
42:04 shoring up and maybe somebody can't do
42:07 this as a volunteer because
42:09 that's just not an option so i don't
42:12 know exactly i'm not trying to prescribe
42:14 an exact
42:16 solution but i want to be really careful
42:19 that we don't inadvertently
42:21 turn this back into traditional city
42:23 government with the loudest voices the
42:25 oldest whitest people
42:27 have get what they want um so that was
42:30 my first comment um
42:33 my second comment is this is a little
42:34 bit nitpicky and um
42:36 uh but i just noticed it in the the
42:38 discussion about the program objectives
42:40 i think we um just need to add the term
42:43 safety in there because the objective
42:45 isn't just to engage people i mean you
42:47 could throw a carnival in the
42:48 neighborhood just to engage people we
42:50 want to engage people on safety
42:53 um and so i just think that we should
42:55 make sure that's part of the opening
42:57 remarks so i'm being a little bit uh
42:59 quibbling over words and semantics there
43:01 but i just don't want to forget that
43:03 um as we're describing this program that
43:06 safety is the primary goal and
43:09 it's
43:10 getting the community involved in safety
43:16 i have two other quick comments and one
43:18 is um
43:19 it's really more of a question and going
43:21 through this
43:23 the mmp and i love the fact that we're
43:25 doing a good job linking today's topics
43:27 with with the mmp so it's not just a
43:29 document that sits on a shelf and it
43:31 collects dust but um
43:33 i wasn't sure how it went from safety to
43:37 bike ped safety
43:38 um there's even a thing in the mmp that
43:42 describes you know the vehicular acts or
43:44 i'm sorry the accidents in
43:48 you know our transportation system are
43:50 like you know
43:51 most obviously i'm all for
43:54 my pen and vulnerable uses users to be
43:56 the priority but i thought there was a
43:58 leap and i wasn't sure if that was
44:00 intentional did we did we have a
44:02 specific time when we narrowed it to
44:04 bike ped because the mmp if i read it
44:07 correctly didn't narrow the neighborhood
44:09 program
44:11 to um
44:13 bike
44:14 and ped there could be intersections
44:16 that are unsafe even for vehicles so
44:19 i guess that's a question john and if
44:21 you don't have the answer i understand
44:22 um but
44:25 i guess my question to you would be did
44:27 we somewhere along the line
44:28 intentionally narrow this to biped
44:31 or do you think that could have just
44:33 been some like an oversight or an
44:35 assumption
44:37 i don't know the answer i can take a
44:39 guess and my guess is
44:42 more of an oversight
44:44 and when we come back we can talk about
44:46 that i do personally see a benefit to
44:50 having it
44:51 not
44:52 only exclusive to bike pad but also
44:55 include the automobile
44:57 because when we evaluate the projects
45:01 i think a project that has a high
45:03 benefit to vulnerable users whether it's
45:05 pedestrians or bicyclists would score
45:07 better
45:08 than
45:11 project that
45:12 maybe is preventing property damage only
45:15 accidents with cars
45:17 but
45:19 still could see a benefit to it and
45:22 especially since we're going to be going
45:23 through a process of evaluating it
45:26 that rather than
45:28 eliminating
45:30 one mode from the comp from the program
45:33 we can include it and
45:35 then as we work through the scoring
45:38 criteria and the evaluation
45:41 then
45:44 i think the the projects will settle
45:46 themselves out
45:48 does that make sense yeah it does and so
45:50 i i'm making a comment and this is where
45:52 i want to pause for a moment and say
45:54 um i can't speak for the rest of the
45:56 board so
45:57 i would propose that we just take a
46:00 moment and see if people are agreeing i
46:02 would propose that vulnerable users
46:04 bikes peds and anyone else that we
46:05 consider a vulnerable user scores higher
46:08 and has a higher priority but i would
46:10 not be supportive of it being
46:13 ineligible if it were not that um but i
46:16 don't want to speak for the whole board
46:17 because if we're going to be giving
46:18 direction for staff we should be doing
46:21 it as a board and not as individuals um
46:23 certainly questions and clarifications
46:25 one-off you know one-on-one is fine but
46:27 i don't want to be giving i don't want
46:29 to make assumptions that others are
46:30 agreeing with me so i don't think we
46:31 need any formal action but maybe just
46:33 some nods or if anybody wants to
46:36 if anybody anybody disagrees
46:38 let's first maybe not or thumbs up if
46:40 you generally agree with that as giving
46:43 that direction to staff
46:46 okay
46:49 yeah okay so julian is on the fence so
46:52 uh and i david did you have a you have a
46:54 i can't read that you're in an agreement
46:56 okay so we can revisit it and let now
46:59 what i'm what i'm interpreting is that
47:01 most people seem generally in agreement
47:03 julian's kind of on the fence i didn't
47:05 see anyone else that disagreed um
47:07 certainly not making any decisions right
47:08 now but i um
47:10 we can have another discussion about it
47:12 julian you can you know try to pitch
47:14 your fellow committee members to move
47:16 the needle one way or another um and
47:18 then
47:19 i don't know if we ultimately take
47:20 action or not but i just this is sort of
47:23 an informal way to make sure that
47:25 i just want to make sure i wasn't
47:27 speaking
47:28 for the board
47:30 as a whole um
47:32 that was
47:34 um those were my comments and i know i
47:36 had one more but i think that's plenty
47:38 for now
47:42 and
47:42 uh let's see so that's
47:44 mine and then i now have to go back to
47:46 look at the chat i do believe micah was
47:48 next with a question
47:50 and then david um janie noticed that you
47:53 had a question so i'll have you go after
47:55 micah go ahead micah
47:57 yeah so my question was actually right
47:58 in line with the comment you had made it
48:00 was sort of looking at it from the
48:01 financial perspective of that whether
48:03 there's
48:04 some function of allocating funding
48:08 uh so that
48:09 you know you have a limitation built in
48:12 where you don't just have the you know
48:14 the squeaky wheel getting all the all
48:16 the funding
48:21 yes and i think as we draft the
48:24 program that's something to consider so
48:27 the
48:28 tonight's we're talking about it and
48:31 really focusing on
48:35 the feedback we need but i think
48:39 as we dive into the details and we'll
48:42 come back
48:44 to the
48:45 app
48:46 start to talk about
48:48 some of those details and part of the
48:50 funding will be ultimately decided by
48:52 council
48:54 but
48:55 and i can't remember what kirkland has
48:57 but i think it does make sense to maybe
49:01 put a cap on that
49:02 or i guess maybe it makes sense to
49:04 consider putting a cap on
49:06 the cost of a project because if it it
49:09 exceeds a certain amount of money that
49:12 to me seems like no longer neighborhood
49:14 safety improvement that seems like its
49:16 own project
49:18 that should be separately funded it's my
49:20 opinion but
49:21 i do want to get feedback from the board
49:23 on that
49:26 so i guess i meant more instead of
49:28 capping funding by project by
49:32 these five areas right neighborhoods
49:35 uh that or some other sort of uh
49:39 geographic based
49:41 funding because you know i think sorry
49:44 go ahead
49:46 you actually triggered a thought in my
49:47 mind
49:48 i recently
49:49 participated as an evaluator for the
49:53 transportation alternatives program that
49:55 the puget sound regional council or psrc
49:58 put on
49:59 and
50:01 it kind of gave me insight to what the
50:03 five volunteers might be going through
50:05 and it was a really good experience
50:08 and
50:10 it's
50:11 the way this competition worked is staff
50:13 at psrc had actually evaluated and
50:16 scored all the applications and then
50:20 had a group of
50:22 people
50:23 engineers and planners who worked for
50:25 different cities
50:26 and other jurisdictions in the region
50:30 consider the other factors the
50:32 geographic distribution
50:35 and
50:36 we had probably four hours of discussion
50:39 over team meetings and i think we spent
50:42 the most amount of our time actually
50:44 talking about
50:47 geographic
50:48 and we're we're trying to be careful to
50:50 call it distribution instead of equity
50:52 but basically how to make sure that the
50:55 different regions in this case it was
50:57 the four counties in the region but in
50:59 this case it'd be the different
51:01 neighborhoods
51:02 that
51:03 how we balance out the distribution of
51:05 those funds
51:07 to do exactly what you said and i think
51:09 that's really where that committee
51:11 probably would spend a lot of their time
51:13 is saying okay these are the really good
51:15 projects
51:17 and how do we balance spreading them out
51:19 throughout the city at least that's one
51:21 way where it could happen
51:23 depending on how the final program is
51:25 designed
51:31 micah did that answer your question
51:33 okay thank you um
51:35 so i uh let's see
51:38 david and then julian
51:43 hey john
51:44 my question is i'm looking at the
51:46 memorandum
51:47 about the coordinators and how those
51:50 coordinators are chosen
51:52 but what i don't see in the timeline
51:54 both in the memorandum and the slides is
51:58 where those coordinators
52:01 fall in to
52:03 go to work
52:05 or get what they're supposed to get
52:09 and
52:12 i guess the reason i'm really concerned
52:15 as a board member
52:17 and seeing some of the safety issues
52:20 around
52:21 the valley floor here
52:25 i really think that that coordinator's
52:27 job is really really important and i as
52:30 just a citizen would like to know when i
52:33 can talk to that coordinator to get that
52:36 information in front of
52:40 the
52:43 safety program and
52:45 as micah talked about
52:48 making sure that the dollars are
52:50 available to fix this
52:52 situation so i know that was kind of
52:55 long-winded but i just want to know when
52:58 those coordinators go to work
53:05 so when you say go to work are you
53:07 talking about
53:08 work on the neighborhood safety program
53:11 like their day job i just want to make
53:12 sure i understand
53:14 no not their day job as a retiree i'm
53:17 tired of hearing about day jobs um my
53:20 concern is
53:22 i'm seeing here that the coordinators
53:24 are picked by staff
53:26 and then
53:27 they uh fall into the
53:30 uh nsip projects
53:33 so when do they start getting those
53:36 projects
53:37 and uh doing what they do as
53:39 coordinators to get
53:43 that in front of
53:45 either the tab
53:47 the council or
53:50 however they're going to get this
53:52 highlighted i'm looking at the timeline
53:55 i don't see them in there
53:58 okay so the way i see the neighborhood
54:01 how about this i'm going to share my
54:03 vision for it but i want to make sure i
54:06 get the feedback from the board and so
54:08 what i'm saying if you guys have a
54:10 different vision
54:12 feel free to speak up i envision getting
54:14 the neighborhood recruiting the
54:16 neighborhood
54:18 coordinators fairly soon
54:21 however i see their role coming in
54:26 once the
54:28 i think
54:29 once we design the process and we want
54:31 to work with the tab to design the
54:33 process and the evaluation criteria to
54:37 me it makes sense for staff because we
54:39 have more time because these are
54:40 volunteers
54:43 score the projects according to the
54:44 evaluation criteria that's in the
54:47 program and then where the coordinators
54:50 would actually get into
54:52 is talking about
54:54 how to select the projects for funding
54:56 and other considerations and making sure
54:59 that there's an equal geographic
55:00 distribution but that's how i see it and
55:04 it's large part based on my experience
55:07 volunteering on the
55:08 transportation alternatives program
55:10 committee and that is one of the things
55:13 since you guys are actually volunteers
55:16 on a board that i would like the
55:17 feedback for
55:20 like do you think the volunteer is going
55:22 to want to be more involved
55:23 or is that the right amount of
55:25 involvement
55:26 i don't think we could have them less
55:27 involved and be truly effective but
55:31 i guess i'm kind of answering your
55:32 question with the question of
55:35 wanting to
55:37 and
55:37 know
55:39 the time commitment that we would be
55:40 getting from these volunteers and
55:42 thinking of yourselves not not that you
55:44 would be on this you're already very
55:47 committed to serving the city but
55:49 i do think it is a big ask of people and
55:52 wanting to
55:53 best utilize their time where they feel
55:56 like they're contributing but not so
55:59 overwhelmed with the time commitment
56:01 that they regret volunteering for it
56:07 can can i throw in one just one idea so
56:11 i'm looking at the schedule on the
56:13 slides and i see the project conference
56:17 early february of 2022
56:22 of course here we are
56:24 in late february
56:26 so um
56:28 i see those coordinators
56:31 really uh doing
56:33 being chosen
56:35 or selected and involved
56:38 probably right away which is now through
56:41 the april time frame but yet i don't see
56:44 that on the slide so my question was
56:46 really
56:48 where do they get involved when do they
56:50 become involved
56:52 the schedule's showing the
56:55 soliciting the committee in march
57:01 so i would say probably get involved
57:03 around april
57:09 so i i usually look at this idea where
57:11 they do get involved in march it looks
57:12 like the next thing they would do is uh
57:14 solicit committee and then
57:16 program drafters in april
57:19 and they started looking at the projects
57:21 in may and june
57:24 it's like an august system so that's
57:26 basically the schedule that they're
57:27 looking at
57:28 so by the time the budget process seems
57:31 coming in september october november
57:33 they'll be done
57:35 selecting the projects by the end of the
57:36 year
57:45 i'm sorry but i see the projects
57:48 announced
57:49 in mid-april so
57:51 if they're going to be involved the
57:53 coordinators really need to be
57:56 involved in this
57:58 probably march
58:00 latest
58:01 and
58:02 the way the wording was in the
58:04 memorandum it looks like staff
58:07 uh selects those coordinators
58:10 and uh
58:15 i guess i got my answer uh it looks like
58:18 they're gonna have to be on board pretty
58:19 soon
58:20 um i i see that julian has a question
58:23 you you um i i'm wondering if you're
58:26 looking at the kirkland page because the
58:28 the one that's an excel spreadsheet that
58:31 just has some colored bars and is very
58:32 simple
58:33 is what tom was referring to
58:35 but the
58:37 um the one that says 2022 neighborhood
58:39 safety program schedule with a big map
58:41 of kirkland has dates that are closer to
58:45 what you're describing
58:47 is that
58:48 possible it's cynthia and i was looking
58:52 at that
58:53 because there weren't really any dates
58:56 uh up in the memorandum
58:59 okay there's a separate single sheet
59:02 that says timeline um
59:05 and it's it's uh
59:06 right above the presentation on our
59:10 instagram i'm not sure if you want to
59:11 just share that
59:13 yeah
59:14 there you go
59:15 i got it now thank you of course
59:19 but still that my question is still
59:22 there
59:23 it looks to me because i'm seeing
59:25 that
59:26 we review up through april
59:29 but
59:30 if those projects are going to be
59:33 presented
59:35 soon after that the coordinators
59:37 definitely have to be on board and so
59:41 anyway i still have the question
59:45 i would say they need to be on on board
59:47 by may
59:49 that there's a lot of preliminary work
59:51 that can be done in april
59:54 and
59:55 this can float a little bit the big
59:57 driving concern or the driving force in
1:00:00 this is to actually get the list of
1:00:03 projects and the budgets
1:00:05 finalized in time to incorporate into
1:00:07 the budgeting process
1:00:10 and that is what we really need to hit
1:00:12 the rest of the details we can kind of
1:00:14 sort through the biggest one
1:00:17 is right here
1:00:19 september october and november and
1:00:21 actually a lot of times we start to
1:00:22 budget after even a little sooner so
1:00:24 we're gonna have to make some
1:00:26 approximations but to actually have
1:00:29 the finalized list ready to go
1:00:32 in time for when the budget gets
1:00:33 presented in the fall
1:00:35 that is what we really need to get done
1:00:40 and it is a little bit squished on time
1:00:43 for the first year
1:00:51 i think that we opened up some new
1:00:53 issues but i'm going to go ahead and
1:00:54 keep the discussion going so david did
1:00:56 you get your question at least addressed
1:00:58 should we
1:00:59 can i go ahead and move on
1:01:01 yes i did uh just one quick comment uh
1:01:05 they're going to have to hit the road
1:01:07 running
1:01:08 with those projects i i think there's an
1:01:11 issue here but i do want to um there's
1:01:13 there's starting to be people wanting to
1:01:15 speak in the chat so yeah i think you've
1:01:17 identified an important issue and i'd
1:01:18 love to come back to it but in the
1:01:19 meantime let's go to julian who's been
1:01:21 waiting patiently um and then tom
1:01:26 i was doing some research last year
1:01:29 about the participatory budget
1:01:32 process and um
1:01:34 in another blessed love which is the
1:01:36 town which is a city which is about the
1:01:38 size of issaquah
1:01:40 near my grandparents house in the czech
1:01:42 republic they
1:01:44 they do this process every year they've
1:01:46 been doing it for a while
1:01:49 the budget they have is pretty
1:01:50 significant for that
1:01:52 and i feel like
1:01:54 the time commitment
1:01:56 for the volunteers who are going to join
1:01:57 the board is only going to be as high as
1:02:00 as how meaningful the city thinks these
1:02:02 projects are
1:02:04 um this this um
1:02:07 this uh program is going to be
1:02:11 yeah i think i think would be useful to
1:02:13 in terms of the car car safety projects
1:02:16 i think it would be
1:02:17 very useful to
1:02:19 you know not detract as many resources
1:02:22 away assuming that this program is going
1:02:24 to be limited at least in scope for now
1:02:31 yeah another big important thing i think
1:02:33 is the recruitment process making sure
1:02:35 that we get people who aren't
1:02:37 as traditionally involved
1:02:39 in city processes
1:02:42 because and we'll see the same people
1:02:44 running the show
1:02:47 and let's see what else did i want to
1:02:52 and the
1:02:54 coordinators they should be
1:02:56 refreshed every year of course um and
1:02:59 yes i think it's much it's a little bit
1:03:01 squeezed this year
1:03:02 uh based on the less schedule they
1:03:05 spread out way more advertisement
1:03:07 throughout the whole summer of the
1:03:08 projects and you know public hearings
1:03:10 and things like that
1:03:13 it's way more spread out but i know this
1:03:16 is the first year so
1:03:18 hopefully next year it will be much more
1:03:20 spread out so
1:03:25 thanks julian uh tom i know you
1:03:29 put that in there quite a while ago but
1:03:30 we have had a good discussion so go
1:03:32 ahead was that turning that's more
1:03:36 focused i think that someone comes with
1:03:37 this hat as far as the uh
1:03:39 when the equity versus the needs
1:03:47 [Music]
1:03:52 okay thank you i'm going to read erica
1:03:54 why don't you go and read your note just
1:03:55 because these don't go into the record
1:03:57 um so go ahead and read that and also
1:03:59 just make a note that janie had to drop
1:04:01 off at 702. uh erica go ahead and read
1:04:03 your comments
1:04:04 yeah sorry i try to strike a balance
1:04:06 between like i want my questions
1:04:07 answered but i also know that we're kind
1:04:08 of over time for this particular topic
1:04:10 but um and it's uh okay if we can't
1:04:13 answer this question because it's all
1:04:15 really hypothetical still but i know i
1:04:17 believe the equity board for the town uh
1:04:19 has like a pilot program right now where
1:04:21 like i think those board members might
1:04:23 have been offered a possible stipend and
1:04:25 it's you know voluntary to choose like
1:04:27 take it or leave it right you don't have
1:04:28 to take it if you're on the board and i
1:04:30 believe council was floating that idea
1:04:33 of maybe expanding it to all boards
1:04:37 all the volunteer boards and so for me
1:04:39 that plays into this question of how
1:04:42 many hours do we kind of demand from
1:04:45 these volunteers like whether or not
1:04:46 they have access to that and again it's
1:04:49 voluntary to take it or not but
1:04:52 that that weighs in heavily for me
1:04:59 thank you erica um i'm gonna just make a
1:05:01 comment real quick and say that um
1:05:04 at two things to say one is i i support
1:05:06 that i wasn't aware that council is
1:05:08 doing that because i don't track things
1:05:10 that closely but we can make that
1:05:11 recommendation
1:05:13 that we include this because we keep
1:05:14 talking about equity um
1:05:16 and we all know that some people can't
1:05:18 afford to come to these so um
1:05:21 i would be supportive um but i also just
1:05:23 wanted to say that i'm i'm really
1:05:25 thinking about what david said and i
1:05:28 am just going to float this idea that i
1:05:30 think one of your questions was is the
1:05:31 timing
1:05:32 should we proceed and i think that on
1:05:35 the one hand it's great to just
1:05:37 you know build the plane while you're
1:05:38 flying it and just do something and
1:05:40 learn from that and move ahead but i
1:05:42 also think when you involve community
1:05:44 members
1:05:45 and in their first experience they
1:05:46 aren't really participating in the
1:05:49 organic development of the projects
1:05:51 it's kind of discouraging
1:05:54 and i'm wondering if we should have a
1:05:56 staff driven
1:05:58 dry run with as much outreach as is
1:06:01 feasible
1:06:02 um but that we don't actually have the
1:06:05 coordinator component of the program
1:06:08 because we're i just don't think it's
1:06:11 baked enough and i don't think we're
1:06:12 ready and i think it's going to be a bit
1:06:13 of a frustrating experience for those
1:06:16 people who do jump on and i'd rather
1:06:18 take our time
1:06:20 and have
1:06:21 people get to feel like they have more
1:06:23 ownership of it they have more time to
1:06:24 talk to their community
1:06:26 um you have more time to yeah so
1:06:28 so i don't is that an option john
1:06:34 well i would say
1:06:36 in your role as the transportation
1:06:38 advisory board
1:06:40 anything you guys want to get for advice
1:06:42 is an option and
1:06:46 especially because you're looking at it
1:06:48 from the point of view of people who
1:06:50 volunteer for the city and what you get
1:06:53 the most out of volunteering and
1:06:56 at least for you i'm hearing
1:06:59 the compressed schedule and involvement
1:07:01 would be discouraging and so that's
1:07:03 something to consider
1:07:05 as we draft it
1:07:07 and i'm curious about what other people
1:07:09 think about that too because yeah again
1:07:11 i don't want an interesting perspective
1:07:13 yeah i can't speak for everyone i'm i'm
1:07:15 suggesting that um i think that maybe we
1:07:18 should pause a moment i know we're well
1:07:20 over time and there's still a couple
1:07:21 other people uh joseph had a question
1:07:23 and a comment and jerry did
1:07:25 but i'm just gonna go ahead and pause
1:07:27 here for a moment and say
1:07:29 am i the only one that thinks maybe this
1:07:30 compressed schedule is um
1:07:33 maybe sub-optimal
1:07:35 um i agree with you cynthia so okay
1:07:38 thank you um
1:07:40 i don't have to be i don't have to it
1:07:42 doesn't have to be my way the whole
1:07:43 point is for us to act to support um is
1:07:46 there somebody who wants to make a pitch
1:07:47 that we
1:07:48 go ahead and proceed and run fast and
1:07:51 figure it out as we go
1:07:52 is somebody else thinking that that
1:07:54 would be preferable
1:07:57 couldn't you extend it over
1:07:59 two years i mean we could start it well
1:08:02 there's the budget process i think is
1:08:03 what he's saying so the
1:08:06 you would miss out on corrections next
1:08:08 year but we need to get it into the
1:08:10 budget
1:08:13 so what happens if if we just delay it a
1:08:16 year so we miss one budget cycle is that
1:08:19 really a problem
1:08:23 i wouldn't be supportive of delaying the
1:08:25 opportunity to do small projects in
1:08:27 neighborhoods
1:08:28 i would i trust the step personally this
1:08:30 is just my vote i trust the staff enough
1:08:35 do the first
1:08:36 go around
1:08:38 maybe in a model that just
1:08:40 doesn't have that i i don't know if it
1:08:42 would even work maybe it's not even the
1:08:43 same concept i don't know um sorry i'm
1:08:47 now we're all out of order which is what
1:08:49 makes it really hard usually in first if
1:08:51 you tip your card and all that um
1:08:54 let's go ahead uh i'm gonna stop you
1:08:57 guys know how i feel what i'm gonna do
1:08:59 is go back to the chat um so that
1:09:01 everyone has a chance to get heard
1:09:02 because i'm i think i responded and
1:09:04 interrupted jerry
1:09:06 but jose we kind of skipped joseph or
1:09:08 we'll go joseph and then jerry i don't
1:09:10 know if you had a different comment but
1:09:12 let's go to joseph and then give jerry
1:09:14 an opportunity after that and then work
1:09:15 our way through the list
1:09:17 getting control back over this
1:09:19 discussion sorry
1:09:20 i just want everyone to have a chance to
1:09:21 be heard uh joseph go ahead
1:09:24 yeah um i had a really brief comment um
1:09:26 aside from like what i guess was
1:09:28 proposed in terms of like outreach from
1:09:30 the staff to the public
1:09:32 in terms of getting more information on
1:09:35 i guess
1:09:36 i um issues like in neighborhoods that
1:09:39 need to be fixed i think that another
1:09:41 idea would be that i saw that
1:09:43 currently the idea is that there's five
1:09:46 coordinators but i feel like there could
1:09:48 it might be better to have more
1:09:50 coordinators
1:09:51 because when i look at the different
1:09:53 project areas for example i have lived
1:09:56 in west
1:09:58 in like newport but
1:10:00 i've only been to montreal a handful of
1:10:03 times and i've never really been
1:10:05 to south cove and telus so for me as
1:10:08 somebody who lives in like west is hard
1:10:10 for me to advocate for those
1:10:12 neighborhoods um in comparison to
1:10:14 newport and i feel like having the
1:10:16 presence of people who could
1:10:18 or more people who could advocate for
1:10:20 their different neighborhoods and
1:10:21 meetings would help give more diversity
1:10:24 and ideas and a more comprehensive
1:10:26 like list of different issues and
1:10:29 targets um
1:10:30 that can be addressed like through the
1:10:32 neighborhood plan
1:10:37 did you also have a question joseph
1:10:40 oh uh no it was answered okay
1:10:43 okay cherry i i think i interrupted you
1:10:46 or one of us
1:10:47 did you have a different comment than
1:10:49 the one you put in the chat
1:10:51 yeah he's been about two years
1:10:54 well i'm just
1:10:56 thinking that people were talking about
1:10:59 having
1:11:00 essaquah staff work on it
1:11:03 this year
1:11:04 and so also i think it'd be kind of
1:11:06 interesting to see
1:11:08 because we don't know ourselves what
1:11:10 projects have already been listed and so
1:11:14 i don't have a feel for how many
1:11:15 projects there really are out there
1:11:18 and so maybe
1:11:20 you try to find a coordinator perhaps
1:11:23 that has
1:11:24 you know
1:11:25 an area that i i get the feeling some
1:11:27 areas are gonna
1:11:29 um older neighborhoods are going to have
1:11:32 a greater need
1:11:35 newer neighborhoods so if you look at
1:11:37 montreal or
1:11:39 anything that's been built in the past
1:11:42 20 years
1:11:44 they've been built with safety in mind
1:11:46 whereas squawk mountain perhaps is going
1:11:48 to have a greater need
1:11:50 so maybe we just need to get the
1:11:53 coordinators involved based on what the
1:11:56 list is right now
1:11:58 and and and perhaps and then maybe have
1:12:01 the staff help more and provide more
1:12:04 guidance at this time
1:12:10 thanks jerry tom
1:12:16 okay because i know we're trying to move
1:12:17 on because i think
1:12:18 uh in my parents is once you start
1:12:20 looking at there might be some projects
1:12:22 that are easy and quick to do
1:12:24 and something may take a little bit time
1:12:26 so rather than delaying it here
1:12:28 they could take a look and see if there
1:12:29 are projects that could get done in the
1:12:32 cycle and be able to have a little bit
1:12:33 more time to see what's going to take a
1:12:35 little more time investigation to design
1:12:37 to put into the budget next year
1:12:39 so i think it's a very tight compressed
1:12:40 schedule but i think
1:12:42 the first things they could do is that
1:12:44 by the way you know the short term is
1:12:45 long term
1:12:46 uh a lot can get done this year
1:12:54 thanks tom julian go ahead
1:12:57 yeah um going back to your
1:13:00 proposition cynthia about making a staff
1:13:04 only process
1:13:05 i feel like we can make it more of a
1:13:06 staff driven process at this time
1:13:09 where a lot of the workload is driven by
1:13:11 staff because it's such a rush schedule
1:13:13 but i think it's just crucial to
1:13:16 have uh people from the community
1:13:19 do this that sort of stuff otherwise it
1:13:20 just becomes
1:13:23 uh yeah it doesn't become part of
1:13:24 participatory anymore you have to have
1:13:27 people from the community weighing in on
1:13:29 these issues
1:13:30 um so that's just my
1:13:33 comment there so
1:13:35 more staff should be doing a lot more
1:13:37 work this year and then next year they
1:13:39 drop off and then
1:13:41 i just think it's really important to
1:13:42 preserve the schedule as it is right now
1:13:45 and try to get these projects done by
1:13:47 the end of the year next year
1:13:53 okay we are definitely over time um you
1:13:55 guys have said i've kind of changed my
1:13:57 mind a couple times on this i think you
1:13:58 make a really good point julian i think
1:14:00 um david made up may brought up a really
1:14:02 good issue but i i yeah i'm sort of
1:14:06 you're kind of convincing me some maybe
1:14:08 and my vote is no
1:14:11 it's no stronger than anyone else's vote
1:14:13 on these substantive matters i'm we're
1:14:15 obviously not voting i use that term
1:14:16 loosely but i i guess
1:14:19 the the whole concept of the
1:14:20 neighborhood is fairly fairly important
1:14:22 but maybe it could be messaged where
1:14:23 these people get involved and it's an
1:14:25 imperfect process in the first year and
1:14:27 you do the best you can
1:14:29 and you bring them along as far as you
1:14:31 can and then commit to the second year
1:14:34 full year you know the first real
1:14:35 truthful year of the program they get to
1:14:37 be involved in a much more organic
1:14:39 and earlier stage
1:14:43 yeah um
1:14:46 well um
1:14:47 john how do we want to wrap this up i
1:14:49 mean we give you a lot of different
1:14:50 direction um
1:14:52 some of us changed your minds
1:14:54 throughout the process
1:14:56 um what happens next and do you have
1:14:58 what you need are we leading you with
1:15:00 conflicting thoughts that you feel like
1:15:02 we shouldn't leave move on until it's
1:15:03 been resolved
1:15:05 let me just look at the feedback we
1:15:07 needed
1:15:09 so i guess
1:15:11 the the first thing so we had three
1:15:13 questions which are
1:15:16 is the proposed process adequate to
1:15:18 start the program
1:15:21 we had a lot of discussion about that
1:15:23 and i think the conclusion we finally
1:15:26 reached and correct me if i'm wrong
1:15:31 it's an imperfect start
1:15:35 that we should let the volunteers know
1:15:37 ahead of time it's imperfect and maybe
1:15:41 once we get through it we can work with
1:15:43 them to say how can we improve this
1:15:45 process for the next time around too
1:15:48 and let them be a part of that
1:15:51 i think there are going to be some
1:15:53 speed bumps along the way
1:15:56 hopefully we can get their input
1:15:58 to make it better and we'll do the best
1:16:00 we can for the first year
1:16:05 are there other criteria that should be
1:16:07 considered for project evaluation
1:16:11 oh and i guess going back to the first
1:16:13 question we also talked about automobile
1:16:15 versus
1:16:17 just bike pad
1:16:20 the general consensus not everyone was
1:16:23 include automobile but there probably
1:16:26 would be a higher
1:16:28 priority for more vulnerable
1:16:30 but don't exclude the automobile from
1:16:33 this process
1:16:37 i don't remember a whole lot of feedback
1:16:40 other criteria to consider for
1:16:42 evaluation or if we think we got it
1:16:45 pretty good or
1:16:48 um and we're going to watch the replay
1:16:49 so if i did miss some of it
1:16:52 we'll be able to catch it then and then
1:16:55 any changes to the timeline it sounds
1:16:59 no one's really a fan of the timeline
1:17:00 but understand that
1:17:02 we do need to get these things done we
1:17:04 do need to get in the budget so next
1:17:06 year we can actually be constructing
1:17:07 these improvements
1:17:10 that is what i heard from the feedback
1:17:12 just kind of filtering through the
1:17:14 details
1:17:20 well you had a you're doing a double
1:17:22 duty there so good for you that's what
1:17:24 that seems like an excellent summary and
1:17:26 i'm seeing several nods um and we've
1:17:28 used up quite a bit of time on this um
1:17:30 and of course the next item is extremely
1:17:32 important
1:17:36 so i suggest we move on and
1:17:39 i am that was a really good discussion
1:17:43 really like finishing on time
1:17:47 so let's do a check-in um
1:17:50 i don't know if this can be compressed
1:17:51 effectively
1:17:55 but i'm going to turn it over to you
1:17:57 john and then we'll do a time check at
1:17:59 about 7 50 and
1:18:01 unless you know now that you absolutely
1:18:03 need feedback from us and then we can
1:18:05 take um
1:18:07 the temperature of the group and see if
1:18:08 we have extra time or
1:18:10 we want to wait just let's go ahead and
1:18:11 plow ahead and
1:18:13 let's flow ahead i think we can do it
1:18:17 i'll go ahead and get my screen shared
1:18:35 thanks everyone tonight talking about
1:18:37 the transportation improvement program
1:18:39 this is something we spend a lot of time
1:18:41 on last year this year we're moving
1:18:44 one year ahead
1:18:46 which means we're looking at the 2022
1:18:49 the 2028 transportation improvement
1:18:53 tonight i'm going to do just a refresher
1:18:56 on what the tip or transportation
1:18:59 improvement program is talk about the
1:19:01 funding sources
1:19:03 and then i want to go back to our
1:19:04 meetings that we had last year around i
1:19:07 want to say september or october or
1:19:10 august i can't remember exactly and
1:19:12 in the packet
1:19:14 we tried to summarize the feedback that
1:19:16 we got from the tab during those
1:19:18 meetings when we reviewed different
1:19:20 projects
1:19:21 and give you guys an opportunity to
1:19:25 tell us if we got the feedback right or
1:19:27 if there's something that we missed
1:19:30 and because we want to use that feedback
1:19:32 when we put together the
1:19:35 through 2028 yeah and then
1:19:38 when we also
1:19:40 met last
1:19:42 to talk about the tip there are just
1:19:44 some of the projects that
1:19:47 the feedback we got from the board is we
1:19:48 just need to evaluate this further
1:19:51 that it's a complicated situation
1:19:53 and i took that to mean we need a
1:19:55 planning phase and we've got a number of
1:19:57 those but we only have so much capacity
1:20:00 to do those so i want to talk about
1:20:02 prioritizing the planning phase
1:20:05 projects
1:20:06 as well as the next steps
1:20:09 as i mentioned the direction needed is
1:20:12 make sure we got the feedback right so
1:20:14 we can utilize it
1:20:16 and then
1:20:17 to prioritize the planning phase of the
1:20:20 project
1:20:22 every two years the city of essequa does
1:20:24 the capital improvement plan
1:20:27 and the transportation improvement
1:20:29 program or tip
1:20:31 is a basically a chapter of the capital
1:20:34 improvement plan
1:20:38 in order to prepare these documents the
1:20:40 city has its comprehensive plan and we
1:20:43 do all kinds of plans like the park
1:20:45 strategic plan that goes into it
1:20:49 the mobility master plan for the utility
1:20:52 projects there's great studies that go
1:20:53 into it and a whole bunch of documents
1:20:57 that go into putting together the six
1:20:59 year work program
1:21:03 when we talked about the
1:21:07 really tried to categorize the projects
1:21:10 into buckets we had
1:21:12 annual projects like the pavement
1:21:13 management program and the ada
1:21:16 improvements that we do
1:21:18 projects that are underway so some of
1:21:20 the things in the mobility master plan
1:21:22 was we need to continue or we chose to
1:21:25 continue with projects that were
1:21:26 underway we have mandated projects
1:21:30 whether it's
1:21:31 for safe like uh
1:21:34 i guess the ada improvement pro project
1:21:36 is a good example of that where we
1:21:39 really need to get it done in order to
1:21:40 be compliant with
1:21:43 in this case federal laws
1:21:46 the new priority projects that came from
1:21:49 the mobility master plan prioritization
1:21:54 long-term projects that we're going to
1:21:56 keep on the list but we're not going to
1:21:58 get to in the next six years but
1:22:01 they play an important part for what
1:22:03 we're trying to do for our
1:22:04 transportation system
1:22:06 and i'm going to just
1:22:08 skip over this a little bit we've got
1:22:10 the projects underway
1:22:12 we've talked a lot about those ones
1:22:14 whether it's the two newport projects
1:22:16 painting the signal hole poles and the
1:22:18 highlands as well as the northwest
1:22:21 sammamish road non-motorized project
1:22:23 that's a
1:22:25 project that we'll bring to the tab
1:22:27 later on this year
1:22:29 the annual projects i mentioned a few of
1:22:31 those like pavement management program
1:22:34 and the strategic small capital
1:22:36 project mandated responsibilities which
1:22:40 is actually most of the
1:22:42 annual projects and i wanted to share a
1:22:44 little bit of news which is why i struck
1:22:46 out the black nugget retaining wall
1:22:49 last year
1:22:50 we were actually chasing a grant
1:22:52 opportunity
1:22:53 and hired a geotechnical consultant to
1:22:55 do a little bit of
1:22:57 evaluation
1:22:58 and the evaluation came that we did not
1:23:00 need to replace that wall yet which was
1:23:02 great news because that was a very
1:23:04 expensive project to try and replace the
1:23:07 retaining wall behind fred meyer
1:23:09 but that also includes
1:23:11 slide repair projects like we've got a
1:23:14 retaining wall we're designing on
1:23:15 newport way near the king county
1:23:17 trailhead
1:23:20 would help prevent the slides that we
1:23:22 had earlier this year
1:23:26 we have a number of funding sources and
1:23:29 a lot of times what really drives what
1:23:32 we want to do
1:23:33 is being able to match a project up with
1:23:35 the funding source and
1:23:37 in a perfect world we'll get a really
1:23:39 high community priority that meets the
1:23:42 goals of the mobility master plan that
1:23:45 also competes well for a grant but
1:23:50 that's something that when we put
1:23:51 together the tip we really consider
1:23:53 whether it's a project that qualifies
1:23:55 for traffic impact fees
1:23:57 or the bicycle and pedestrian mitigation
1:23:59 fees from a city point of view
1:24:04 if it's one where we can apply for
1:24:06 external funding or sometimes in a
1:24:09 development agreement
1:24:13 right now there's
1:24:15 three projects that are a high priority
1:24:17 uh or i guess that are in the tip
1:24:20 in this current six year time period
1:24:23 that are traffic impact fee projects
1:24:26 which are the two projects on newport
1:24:29 well as a future crossing of i-90
1:24:31 located somewhere between 10th avenue
1:24:34 12th avenue
1:24:36 there's other projects that can use
1:24:39 traffic impact fees but those are more
1:24:40 of the long-term
1:24:43 not in the next well the i-90 crossing
1:24:46 won't be built in the next six years but
1:24:50 i think we'll do some planning work on
1:24:51 it within the next six years
1:24:53 the bicycle and pedestrian mitigation
1:24:57 those are ones where there's a when we
1:25:00 update our traffic impact fees we create
1:25:02 lists of the projects that are eligible
1:25:04 for bicycle and pedestrian mitigation
1:25:06 fees as well as traffic impact fees
1:25:11 right now we just have
1:25:13 really two projects that are still
1:25:15 really on there
1:25:18 we want to give an update to the tab of
1:25:21 this year we're updating we're doing a
1:25:23 technical update to the current currency
1:25:25 model it's not changing the currency
1:25:28 system it's just updating a number of
1:25:31 technical land use and traffic things
1:25:38 once that's done next year
1:25:41 the city will be able to update the
1:25:44 bicycle and pedestrian mitigation fees
1:25:46 as well as the traffic to impact fees
1:25:49 and i think we have an opportunity when
1:25:51 we create this tip to
1:25:55 be very
1:25:56 deliberate about the bicycle and
1:25:58 pedestrian
1:26:00 projects that we include in it because
1:26:02 those will be the ones that will go into
1:26:05 the new fee study which will then open
1:26:08 up those sources of funding
1:26:11 for being able to build these projects
1:26:18 i'm hoping that you guys had a chance to
1:26:21 look through the
1:26:23 memo the staff report that we wrote
1:26:25 where we summarized the feedback so i'm
1:26:27 not going to go through
1:26:28 all of it but this is just the list of
1:26:30 the projects that we received feedback
1:26:34 fall and when we get to the discussion
1:26:37 part we can come back to it and
1:26:40 maybe pull up this list or maybe even
1:26:42 pull up the memo or if you have notes
1:26:44 ready to present
1:26:47 the mobility master plan has an
1:26:50 evaluation criteria that assigns points
1:26:52 to projects
1:26:57 we have this is the current system that
1:26:58 we have that was put together when the
1:27:00 mobility master plan was adopted
1:27:03 just a little bit of a
1:27:06 input for or
1:27:08 thing to add
1:27:09 is that the plan has always been to
1:27:12 update this to make sure that our
1:27:14 evaluation criteria and the climate
1:27:16 action plan do align together it is on
1:27:19 the to-do list
1:27:20 it won't get done in time for this tip
1:27:23 update but it it
1:27:26 it'll get done
1:27:28 we just need the capacity to be able to
1:27:30 do it in the time wise that it it was
1:27:32 adopted on december 6th the climate
1:27:35 action plan
1:27:37 when we revisit the mobility master plan
1:27:39 later on this year that is one of the
1:27:41 things that will be part of the
1:27:42 discussion
1:27:48 it won't change any of the work that
1:27:49 we're doing over the next two or three
1:27:51 years so we do have time to
1:27:54 get to that later on this year we don't
1:27:55 need to rush
1:27:56 making sure that the climate action plan
1:27:58 is integrated with the mobility master
1:28:01 plan priorities but i did want to
1:28:02 mention that is something that is on our
1:28:04 to-do list
1:28:07 and then as part of our discussion
1:28:11 of the feedback that i would like from
1:28:12 the tab that is
1:28:15 the planning phase projects which
1:28:18 are the
1:28:19 we've got a project at frontend dogwood
1:28:22 and rainier is also right there and the
1:28:24 trolley tracks that
1:28:26 there's a lot to consider right there
1:28:30 something we need to take a look at
1:28:32 recently the city
1:28:34 through a development agreement
1:28:36 completed a new traffic signal at the
1:28:38 three trails crossing that's where the
1:28:41 scramble crosswalk is
1:28:43 as well as
1:28:46 the juniper trail the rainier trail and
1:28:49 the east lake
1:28:52 samamish trail that's why it's called
1:28:54 three trails because they all intersect
1:28:55 there but
1:28:56 the development agreement project only
1:28:58 built
1:29:01 part of the project but the second part
1:29:03 is to work on
1:29:05 jennifer and rainier
1:29:07 and how they approach the intersection
1:29:10 and so we need to do some work on
1:29:11 figuring out
1:29:13 how to finalize that project
1:29:16 sunset way
1:29:18 multimodal improvements at one point the
1:29:20 city had proposed
1:29:22 doing
1:29:23 a cycle track
1:29:25 we got some community feedback and
1:29:27 discussed but never came up with a final
1:29:32 concept for sunset way and that is one
1:29:35 where we need to do a
1:29:37 some sort of work
1:29:39 to figure out what we want for bicycles
1:29:41 and pedestrians whether it's a long
1:29:43 sunset way or block over
1:29:47 but we need to look at that and then
1:29:50 we talk to the tab about spock mountain
1:29:52 and doing some sort of non-motorized
1:29:54 improvement whether it's
1:29:56 a bike lane with a sidewalk
1:29:59 or just
1:30:00 a white paved shoulder but to try and
1:30:03 include some room from pedestrians and
1:30:07 the feedback that we got from the tab
1:30:09 was we need to evaluate this further
1:30:11 because
1:30:13 there's a number of concerns with the
1:30:15 topography
1:30:17 it would be such a big project that we
1:30:20 just really needed to look at it and it
1:30:22 we didn't feel a step that this is
1:30:24 something that we could just
1:30:25 easily take a look at
1:30:28 kind of
1:30:29 as we fit in that we need to
1:30:32 make some time to actually do it and
1:30:34 then earlier tonight i spoke about the
1:30:37 tier 1 and tier 2 sidewalk gaps and
1:30:40 trying to come up with a way to
1:30:45 prioritize getting those gaps filled and
1:30:48 to look at some of the challenges so
1:30:50 that way we can work towards
1:30:52 completing those gaps
1:30:55 the direction we need tonight
1:30:57 is to go back to the criteria that or
1:30:59 the feedback that we received last
1:31:01 september and october make sure we heard
1:31:04 it right so we can apply it to the new
1:31:07 as well as to prioritize the
1:31:10 planning phase project so we can start
1:31:12 incorporating that into our work plan
1:31:16 the next
1:31:18 steps following tonight's meeting
1:31:21 in this there's a few more we're going
1:31:24 meet as a tab in
1:31:27 march to finalize the tabs portion of
1:31:30 the input on the tip
1:31:32 a few other steps in between city code
1:31:35 says that the tip will go in front of
1:31:37 the environmental board and we're
1:31:39 getting that scheduled it'll probably be
1:31:42 in early april
1:31:44 there will be a council study session
1:31:47 most likely in early may
1:31:50 with a public hearing
1:31:52 after that
1:31:53 and council adoption
1:31:56 at the meeting following the public
1:31:57 hearing assuming all goes well
1:32:01 and at this point we can open up for
1:32:03 comments and discussion
1:32:06 and questions as well as going back to
1:32:08 the feedback so i'm going to stop
1:32:09 sharing my screen
1:32:21 thank you john you did a good job
1:32:22 getting through and um
1:32:26 sure i'm glad i did all my homework
1:32:27 there's a lot of material there
1:32:29 uh so who would like to start us off
1:32:32 surely there's questions and comments
1:32:38 oh julian go ahead
1:32:41 i suppose i'll start um i think you got
1:32:45 in the memo
1:32:47 our discussions back last year pretty
1:32:51 but you know in terms of the
1:32:53 weighing of the criteria
1:32:56 i think that has changed
1:32:58 especially with
1:33:00 the public comments we've received
1:33:02 from individuals and affiliation groups
1:33:05 i think it's
1:33:07 something to consider
1:33:09 maybe not that drastically we can change
1:33:11 a boat but we should
1:33:12 re-weigh something
1:33:14 um in terms of making like multi-modal
1:33:17 improvements and
1:33:19 making sure that environmental factors
1:33:21 are account for much more
1:33:23 heavily
1:33:26 and so and with the currency discussion
1:33:29 i think it's
1:33:31 at some point i think we have to talk
1:33:32 about
1:33:33 lowering the level of service
1:33:36 i don't know
1:33:37 at some point we're going to do that
1:33:39 down to
1:33:40 f i don't know but
1:33:42 that's for another day
1:34:01 i always have a question or comment but
1:34:03 i like to drag my feet to let other
1:34:04 people speak first but um
1:34:07 uh tom go ahead
1:34:09 i'll come back to me thanks
1:34:11 yeah i just uh
1:34:14 it's a comment about lowering the
1:34:16 level of service because that's
1:34:18 i mean from years of topic engineering
1:34:20 you just keep you know as
1:34:23 things are just always going to get
1:34:24 worse
1:34:27 so like to look at other alternatives
1:34:32 assumed lowering the level of service
1:34:34 you know throughout the throughout the
1:34:40 i'm looking at the station over here for
1:34:42 a marathon and it just lit my mind so
1:34:45 have to
1:34:46 come back when i can remember the other
1:34:48 comment that's gonna make
1:34:53 okay i'm gonna bring us back off a level
1:34:55 of service a meaty topic worthy topic
1:34:57 not tonight's topic um and i was just
1:35:00 gonna say john i think you guys did an
1:35:01 excellent job capturing everything that
1:35:04 i remember and short of going back and
1:35:06 listening to all of our meetings i think
1:35:08 he did a great job um i i had one really
1:35:12 minor comment but on the memo
1:35:15 uh item number three
1:35:17 was um
1:35:18 the point about the three trails
1:35:21 crossing
1:35:22 improvements the first bullet point
1:35:26 the i had this comment and i remember
1:35:28 seeing some nods because i think we all
1:35:30 do this thing where isabel was surprised
1:35:32 to hear that some of us um make a ride
1:35:35 on gilman and a left at that three
1:35:37 trails and duck up rainier
1:35:40 and so if you failed if people were not
1:35:43 allowed to
1:35:44 turn left then it may impact front
1:35:47 street traffic so i just was wondering
1:35:50 why that comment
1:35:52 i don't think it needs to be so general
1:35:53 i think there's a concern about
1:35:57 when it says the impact to other streets
1:35:59 there was just a concern about
1:36:01 unintended consequence
1:36:06 traffic who
1:36:07 habitually uses that as an alternative
1:36:10 to front street so we might as well call
1:36:11 it out i guess is all i was saying is um
1:36:14 because i don't think it's a broad issue
1:36:17 i think it's an issue for that one
1:36:21 you know
1:36:22 driver behavior and i remember seeing a
1:36:24 few other people
1:36:26 saying that they do the same thing so
1:36:28 not only is worth reopening but i just
1:36:30 suggested that um
1:36:32 that comment be made more specific so it
1:36:34 doesn't get lost
1:36:35 so someone doesn't say i don't know what
1:36:36 they're talking about and then kind of
1:36:38 move on so
1:36:40 um that was the only comment i had and
1:36:41 then looks like maybe tom um
1:36:44 oh and i guess i was just gonna say that
1:36:46 to the other part of the question about
1:36:47 the phase projects
1:36:49 maybe it's just the planner in me but i
1:36:51 think that um
1:36:52 it makes sense every time we have that
1:36:54 discussion it felt like we were not in a
1:36:56 position and so i would be supportive
1:36:58 but i also wanted to make sure that
1:37:00 something has
1:37:02 there were other planning efforts prior
1:37:04 to that design efforts were they just
1:37:06 not very robust
1:37:08 or did something else change is it just
1:37:10 the city grew or
1:37:13 what do we know now that we didn't know
1:37:16 i know each project is a little
1:37:17 different but
1:37:19 i just don't want to keep planning
1:37:20 planning planning planning i just want
1:37:22 to make sure we're not doing that
1:37:25 right
1:37:27 it's kind of a
1:37:29 project by project basis
1:37:33 sidewalk gaps
1:37:35 that's a new one
1:37:36 like we've kind of identified them but
1:37:38 that's more on a high level
1:37:41 do a few checks on gis and come up with
1:37:43 a map it's
1:37:45 it needs a lot of refinement for the
1:37:47 sidewalk gaps
1:37:48 the front street and dogwood
1:37:52 currently just at a technical level of
1:37:55 service and i won't dive too deep into
1:37:58 the concurrency but i will a little
1:38:02 what they do for concurrency is they
1:38:04 look at our existing system and i'm
1:38:06 going to skip that and then they look at
1:38:08 the land use and say between now and a
1:38:11 future year whether it's 2040 or 2050.
1:38:16 how much landis is available to be
1:38:18 developed
1:38:21 then they make some assumptions and
1:38:23 calculate the number of trips so we'll
1:38:25 have the let's say this many trips now
1:38:28 and then in 2040 this many trips
1:38:31 and then they do a take that's traffic
1:38:34 software modeling
1:38:37 it distributes the trips throughout the
1:38:40 city system
1:38:42 once the trips are generated throughout
1:38:44 or distributed throughout the system
1:38:47 they then take those trips and look at
1:38:49 the signalized intersections and
1:38:51 calculate the level of service
1:38:54 i suspect and i wasn't here then that
1:38:57 what happened is
1:38:58 they looked at it they realized they
1:39:00 needed an extra turn lane in order to
1:39:02 meet the level of service we now have a
1:39:05 project
1:39:06 within it eternally
1:39:07 but that
1:39:09 was a very simple
1:39:11 way of looking at it
1:39:13 and we have a unique situation because
1:39:16 this isn't a regular intersection
1:39:19 this is where we've got near coming in
1:39:21 at an angle we've got dogwood coming in
1:39:24 perpendicular to front street and we
1:39:26 have front street being front street
1:39:28 plus the trolley tracks right there
1:39:30 so it's
1:39:31 a unique situation we haven't done much
1:39:34 planning beyond saying we need an extra
1:39:37 current lane there in order to meet our
1:39:38 future level of service
1:39:41 if someone knows the history better than
1:39:43 i they might be able to
1:39:44 say something
1:39:46 the squawk mountain that really came
1:39:48 when we did the cip last year where
1:39:51 a number of residents were very
1:39:54 outspoken saying and we also see this in
1:39:56 secret fix where a number of people
1:39:58 would like to see non-motorized
1:40:01 improvements up there because they
1:40:02 really don't have much
1:40:06 as staff we don't know the solution
1:40:09 and we don't know what we can and can't
1:40:10 do and that's why we wanted to plan it a
1:40:12 little bit more the three trails
1:40:14 crossing
1:40:15 was always intended to be a bigger
1:40:17 project than what was built
1:40:20 with improvements on the southern end
1:40:23 which
1:40:26 would have been designed as one whole
1:40:27 package and looked at entirely but
1:40:30 because we now have
1:40:32 part of it built it gives us an
1:40:33 opportunity to
1:40:35 look at
1:40:36 it from a fresh perspective of saying
1:40:38 well this is partially built what's
1:40:40 working well where are there problems we
1:40:43 know we want to do some improvements on
1:40:46 southern leg of the intersection or
1:40:48 legs that what should we do so that way
1:40:51 we can better define a project and so
1:40:55 maybe more of a detailed planning of
1:40:58 let's come up with something that we can
1:41:00 a layout that we can actually
1:41:02 budget and build in the future and then
1:41:06 sunset way
1:41:08 i think that might have been part of the
1:41:09 rock and roll
1:41:10 plan but
1:41:12 i know there's some history from when
1:41:14 the city did a bond measure
1:41:17 i don't know enough to jump down that
1:41:18 rabbit hole but i know that
1:41:21 at the end i think the city never came
1:41:24 up with a preferred concept
1:41:27 kind of left it as is
1:41:29 but from a park strategic point of view
1:41:32 as they're looking at their green
1:41:34 necklace
1:41:35 getting to that part of town for walkers
1:41:37 and bikers is important because there's
1:41:40 a lot of trail access that way and so
1:41:44 that's a high priority
1:41:46 for the city
1:41:47 but we just don't know what we want to
1:41:49 do there and then it also italian as
1:41:52 development occurs on the sunset right
1:41:54 now we don't know what to tell them
1:42:00 thank you that was a very thorough
1:42:02 answer i appreciate it uh tom had a
1:42:05 couple of comments and then um julian
1:42:08 uh a comment on the three trails costing
1:42:11 improvement
1:42:12 um since we've been here that's been the
1:42:15 controversy so probably don't want to
1:42:17 change it because it'll give us
1:42:18 something to talk about for the next 25
1:42:20 years
1:42:24 there are two accesses that you can go
1:42:26 up the street and turn and go down
1:42:28 through the street and the tie-in to
1:42:29 where the conference podcast can come
1:42:31 back so
1:42:33 you could close that left turn exit or
1:42:35 the left turn where you take a right and
1:42:36 click left
1:42:38 and make that in the right end right out
1:42:41 new connection to that street and people
1:42:42 who know
1:42:44 go up and make return and
1:42:46 global block and then make the turn
1:42:48 then the other part is if you do close
1:42:52 there could be analysis done on the
1:42:56 hallway of the all light all red walk
1:42:59 where the walk could be coordinated with
1:43:02 the flow of traffic as opposed to
1:43:04 having an all walk
1:43:06 signal that would improve cafe flow or
1:43:08 people who met at that intersection
1:43:17 and that's the only one ever coming to
1:43:22 julian
1:43:24 yeah i remember with the sunset way
1:43:27 project that was proposed in 2015 there
1:43:30 was like the opposition mostly came from
1:43:32 you know the parking and then
1:43:34 a lot of people used the side streets so
1:43:36 they argued the
1:43:37 project wasn't needed
1:43:40 it is a bit of a bummer that
1:43:42 uh didn't go through because
1:43:45 that um other section of physical
1:43:49 prescent trail
1:43:50 going along i-90 um
1:43:53 kind of like from
1:43:56 basically all the way up to the you know
1:43:58 the fork to esco highlands it's closed
1:44:00 now until 2023 so it was a bummer that
1:44:02 didn't go through
1:44:05 but i think it could be
1:44:06 that project could utilize like a
1:44:08 combination of both safety improvements
1:44:11 on the streets and on the side streets
1:44:15 some combination of the two
1:44:19 i'm not sure if that's
1:44:21 the kind of input you were looking for
1:44:22 at this time though
1:44:25 throwing that out there
1:44:26 john if i understand correctly you are
1:44:29 just making sure that we all agree that
1:44:31 that needs a special its own specific
1:44:35 dedicated planning phase each of those
1:44:37 projects needs we all talked about
1:44:41 needing so the the answer is
1:44:44 all these are good ideas but really the
1:44:46 these are the list of projects that need
1:44:48 a a round of
1:44:50 a dedicated planning around
1:44:52 planning and design right
1:44:54 yes yeah
1:44:55 this will be kind of hard because we're
1:44:57 a little bit punched on time and i'm not
1:44:59 sure the best way in a format like this
1:45:02 to get it
1:45:04 trying to prioritize
1:45:07 which one to try and do first which one
1:45:09 to try and do second
1:45:14 what's the most important because
1:45:17 we won't have the capacity to do all of
1:45:20 them as soon as we would like
1:45:23 trying to
1:45:25 fit them into the schedule so we can
1:45:27 make sure that we get to the ones that
1:45:28 are the most important
1:45:30 and work our way down to the
1:45:32 ones that are
1:45:35 not as important
1:45:39 could we maybe
1:45:41 suggest
1:45:42 is it can that be kicked to the next one
1:45:45 because i think that we should have a
1:45:49 a process by which we like
1:45:52 i mean it doesn't
1:45:54 i'm only somewhat interested in what
1:45:56 each of us individually thinks is most
1:45:57 important i'm more interested in what we
1:46:00 think is a good way to decide
1:46:02 what is most important and we've done a
1:46:04 lot of work in the mmp with criteria and
1:46:07 there's been some suggested additional
1:46:08 criteria with regard to
1:46:10 environment and you know we always try
1:46:12 to add equity so um
1:46:15 i i'm
1:46:17 i would encourage us to if john if you
1:46:20 think that we can work this into the
1:46:22 timing
1:46:23 i'd like to have a discussion about how
1:46:25 we decide
1:46:27 um as opposed to just each of us well
1:46:29 that's my favorite project or i think
1:46:30 this one's important we each of us is
1:46:32 coming at it from um
1:46:35 you know just a more of a
1:46:37 one-off and i'd rather be more
1:46:38 systematic um and i see erica has a
1:46:41 comment so maybe she can help us
1:46:43 advance this
1:46:45 yeah no i agree with
1:46:47 that or like the prop we need to
1:46:49 talk about the process of how we're
1:46:51 deciding more and i i'm looking back at
1:46:53 my notes from
1:46:54 last year from february 4. and i
1:46:57 i guess at that meeting i had asked if
1:47:00 we had um
1:47:04 like a way of sussing out like the user
1:47:07 demographics and at the time the answer
1:47:10 was that we didn't but like it was being
1:47:12 worked on and so a year later i'm
1:47:14 wondering
1:47:15 where where things are with that
1:47:19 i would say
1:47:21 have that but let me make a note to
1:47:25 follow up on that more detail because if
1:47:27 we're talking about process like that
1:47:29 that's important to me but
1:47:42 well i think
1:47:44 what i'm hearing and
1:47:46 i'll look for head nods
1:47:51 these are all right let's hear what
1:47:52 david has to say or maybe he's got but
1:47:55 thank you i'm sorry to interrupt you go
1:47:56 ahead david
1:48:08 uh thanks
1:48:11 john i think you did a great job and to
1:48:13 answer the question on that
1:48:16 did the staff accurately understand the
1:48:18 feedback i think they did i mean the way
1:48:20 you presented it i'm i'm very clear that
1:48:23 you got that got to remember a year ago
1:48:26 i was brand new on this board
1:48:28 and it was like uh oh wow there's a lot
1:48:31 of stuff here so uh i think you've got
1:48:34 it clearly
1:48:36 uh but i agree with the comments that
1:48:38 have been made tonight
1:48:39 i think the prioritizing is going to be
1:48:43 tougher nut to crack and uh
1:48:47 and i think we've gotta put our heads
1:48:49 together
1:48:50 to figure out how we help the staff
1:48:53 in being able to prioritize
1:48:56 because i see your dilemma
1:48:58 very clearly we all
1:49:01 as erica said uh
1:49:03 one of you said
1:49:05 we've all got our favorite projects that
1:49:07 we'd like to see
1:49:10 is that the right way to go and i think
1:49:13 we got to look at that together to see
1:49:15 what it is and i don't i know we can't
1:49:18 do it tonight but is that going to
1:49:20 require an another meeting
1:49:24 well here's what i'm going to propose is
1:49:26 to come back because we're coming back
1:49:29 four weeks later to talk about the tip
1:49:33 talk about how to prioritize those
1:49:37 projects and as we
1:49:39 hear the presentation in memo
1:49:42 base it off of what we have in the
1:49:44 mobility master plan and use that as the
1:49:46 basis for the conversation
1:49:49 do a little bit of leg work to
1:49:52 say here's the criteria in the mobility
1:49:54 master plan what other criteria should
1:49:56 we look at this is how it applies
1:49:58 and have a
1:50:01 conversation that's led by the mobility
1:50:03 master plan that's what i would propose
1:50:06 and do that in four weeks
1:50:13 i think that makes a lot of sense and i
1:50:14 think that um if i understand
1:50:16 the process correctly
1:50:18 we can't change the mobility master plan
1:50:21 you can't change the criteria in the
1:50:22 mobility master plan because it's not um
1:50:25 it's not a website you don't just update
1:50:26 it you know willy-nilly um but that
1:50:29 doesn't mean that our recommendations
1:50:31 have to be 100 percent tied to
1:50:35 we can make recommendations that use the
1:50:37 mobility master plan they're informed by
1:50:40 it but may have additional criteria that
1:50:42 we all agreed to um
1:50:44 that you know we've talked about and i
1:50:46 don't think we're that far off
1:50:47 um but we've all kind of talked about a
1:50:50 few different things that maybe um i
1:50:51 mean the main you know is there enough
1:50:54 emphasis um on
1:50:56 informed by the climate action plan and
1:50:58 is there enough
1:51:00 emphasis on equity um would we do it any
1:51:03 differently if we were looking at
1:51:04 through an equity lens and those are
1:51:06 things i can think of but am i right
1:51:08 john we
1:51:09 absolutely we can't change the mmp but
1:51:12 if we think the criteria is lacking we
1:51:13 can just add that as we're making
1:51:15 recommendations
1:51:18 right
1:51:18 that's my understanding yes yeah we
1:51:21 can't go back and change the thing
1:51:22 that's been adopted by council but
1:51:25 well okay well that sounds pretty
1:51:27 reasonable
1:51:28 seeing lots of head nods and
1:51:31 um yeah this is i mean this is the
1:51:33 important work this is the good stuff
1:51:35 um so i
1:51:38 we want to get it right
1:51:39 um and we want to be
1:51:41 methodical and i appreciate everyone's
1:51:43 patience um because it's also kind of
1:51:45 fun just to dive into specifics um
1:51:50 okay um
1:51:53 i think that are we ready to close then
1:51:55 on that item john
1:51:57 yes anyone else okay
1:52:02 that brings us to the work plan
1:52:05 and i do have a very brief chair report
1:52:09 um and i don't know just if you have a
1:52:11 youth report but let's start with the
1:52:12 work plan
1:52:14 okay i'm going to quickly share my
1:52:16 screen and
1:52:18 short on time we'll go brief
1:52:27 the march meeting there will be an
1:52:30 update on the title 18
1:52:33 project that's the land use code but
1:52:36 specifically talking about circulation
1:52:38 and parking
1:52:40 we will continue the tip discussion and
1:52:43 thank you for the feedback tonight
1:52:47 dale in the city's finance department
1:52:50 she will be here to talk about
1:52:51 performance metrics
1:52:54 in april
1:52:56 looks like we're going to talk about the
1:52:57 neighborhood safety program we're going
1:52:59 to come back
1:53:00 that one
1:53:04 the northwest mammoth road non-motorized
1:53:06 project
1:53:07 the transit study
1:53:09 i'm not sure if we'll talk about it at
1:53:11 that meeting or not that might get
1:53:12 pushed out
1:53:14 and finally we will introduce the ada
1:53:16 transition plan that we're working on
1:53:18 this year
1:53:23 we'll just cover the next few months for
1:53:25 the work plan
1:53:30 do we have a staff report
1:53:33 yeah i'll go really quickly
1:53:35 there is a memo that stephen had
1:53:37 attached to the agenda if you have any
1:53:39 comments or questions feel free to email
1:53:41 him directly
1:53:45 the city made an offer to a
1:53:47 transportation program coordinator he
1:53:49 has accepted an anticipated start date
1:53:52 is march 1st and we're really excited
1:53:54 his primary responsibility will be the
1:53:58 spock palace shuttle that we are
1:54:00 piloting we're designing it this year
1:54:02 and piloting it next year
1:54:05 as well as helping out with the
1:54:06 neighborhood safety improvement program
1:54:09 and the city's commute trip reduction
1:54:14 that's it for the staff report
1:54:18 excellent um
1:54:20 okay i just have two quick things um so
1:54:23 as i mentioned before i'm serving on the
1:54:25 mayor's capital finance community task
1:54:28 force
1:54:30 and this is a an ad hoc committee we
1:54:34 have an assignment and we are getting
1:54:36 ready to deliver that assignment so we
1:54:37 will be presenting our recommendations
1:54:39 to council in early march
1:54:41 and i can provide
1:54:42 an update as to the final
1:54:44 recommendations on march 17th when we
1:54:47 meet again as part of my chairs report
1:54:49 or um and i'll just make sure that
1:54:51 there's enough time to do that so that
1:54:53 they'll be adequate um q a
1:54:57 david you've got a question
1:55:01 when in march cynthia
1:55:03 you know as i was writing these notes i
1:55:05 had i ran out of time to look it up it's
1:55:07 the case they're in their regular
1:55:08 council meeting so i
1:55:10 it's uh
1:55:12 it's the first one
1:55:13 what would that
1:55:14 it's on my schedule but i
1:55:18 it's in their regular council meeting
1:55:20 sorry i would have to look at my phone
1:55:22 and then i would get distracted by all
1:55:24 the texts that have come in the last two
1:55:27 hours so i can't answer that
1:55:29 um but it is in the early yeah earlier
1:55:31 monday yeah
1:55:32 okay monday yeah okay
1:55:36 and i i will just let you know that not
1:55:39 not much has changed since the last time
1:55:40 i gave you an update which is still the
1:55:42 transportation is the number one
1:55:43 priority with facilities and parks and
1:55:45 trails being um second and well
1:55:48 basically tied we didn't actually decide
1:55:51 where those two ranked but we definitely
1:55:53 decided that
1:55:54 transformation was the priority and we
1:55:56 spent the last several months discussing
1:55:58 different funding mechanisms so um
1:56:02 i won't get into that but um
1:56:05 there
1:56:06 we will be bringing forth
1:56:07 recommendations for how to fund
1:56:09 additional investments in infrastructure
1:56:11 with transportation being the priority
1:56:13 but this is just a recommendation this
1:56:15 isn't a plan they will just vote to
1:56:17 accept or receive our recommendation and
1:56:21 we went pretty far with a lot of um
1:56:24 ideas and a lot of things you know that
1:56:26 may or may not happen but we did pretty
1:56:28 there was pretty much unanimous consent
1:56:30 to go ahead and recommend investments in
1:56:35 funding tools um with transportation
1:56:37 being the priority but i'll give a
1:56:38 little more detail there will be a
1:56:40 pretty brief it's only about 10 pages
1:56:41 the full the final recommendation report
1:56:44 um and then i have um a request and we
1:56:47 can um talk about it more later but i
1:56:49 would like to know john if we can at
1:56:52 some point have a presentation on the
1:56:54 climate action plan
1:56:56 um i keep hearing about it i haven't
1:56:58 taken the time to read it
1:57:01 i think it would be great to have a
1:57:03 representative come
1:57:05 either a staff or maybe even one of the
1:57:09 the folks from the um the board was it
1:57:12 the environmental board that that worked
1:57:14 on that um i just
1:57:15 i don't know what's feasible but i just
1:57:17 wanted to say that i suspect that my
1:57:19 fellow
1:57:20 committee members are very um interested
1:57:24 really the highlights of that
1:57:27 um and hearing more about that so
1:57:29 um i suspect that a lot of our work is
1:57:33 really supportive of it um
1:57:35 it sounded like from some of the public
1:57:36 comment that you know there's
1:57:38 it wouldn't be surprising to know that
1:57:40 some of
1:57:41 our mmp aligns nicely with it but it'd
1:57:43 be nice to really be able to reconcile
1:57:45 that and be more familiar with it
1:57:47 i'll reach out to the sustainability
1:57:49 manager about that
1:57:51 okay um
1:57:52 that is all i had joseph did you have a
1:57:54 youth report
1:57:57 uh no i don't have a youth report today
1:58:01 um john do you have anything else
1:58:04 okay we um we're at 7 59. um does anyone
1:58:08 else have anything they just need the
1:58:09 rest of us to know about
1:58:12 um i just confirmed with a council
1:58:15 member that we do there are board
1:58:18 stipends available for everyone so
1:58:21 i don't know anything about that though
1:58:23 or like if there's a form or
1:58:25 and it's you know not required obviously
1:58:27 it's just an offer that's available
1:58:31 so i don't know if we'll let some like
1:58:33 staff direction on that later or
1:58:41 i'm wondering if we i don't want to open
1:58:43 a topic we've already closed but i
1:58:45 i'm wondering if this board wants some
1:58:46 input on the kind of
1:58:49 i know that you said staff would be
1:58:50 selecting the um
1:58:52 the participants in the neighborhood
1:58:54 program but i think that maybe
1:58:56 maybe would it be appropriate for us to
1:58:57 have like a
1:58:59 a criteria or a profile or something um
1:59:02 just some input on what kinds of things
1:59:04 that we'd be hoping for because we have
1:59:07 so many times
1:59:08 spoken about all these different
1:59:10 objectives about inclusion
1:59:12 equity and um
1:59:14 in our transportation system and i can
1:59:16 think of ideas about how we might
1:59:18 achieve that but
1:59:19 i don't know if that's appropriate but
1:59:21 you know what um joseph
1:59:23 and john and isabel and i will have our
1:59:26 free meeting with staff and we can uh we
1:59:29 can talk about that a little bit joseph
1:59:30 put your thinking cap on and we'll think
1:59:32 about that um
1:59:35 okay now it's 801 darn okay
1:59:39 uh thank you all for a terrific
1:59:41 discussion um looking forward to
1:59:45 sharing the chairship with you joseph
1:59:47 and um
1:59:48 i hope you all have a great evening
1:59:51 thanks a lot john you carried a lot of
1:59:52 water tonight
1:59:56 good night everyone thank you for the
1:59:58 evening
2:00:00 hi everyone