Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, March 25, 2026 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of February 25, 2026

packet pp.3–4

▶ Watch from 0:55 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 2-25-26 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [1] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave February 25, 2026 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), (D)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.5–69

Topics: Transportation

Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

1. Review updates to the 2027-2032 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) 2. Receive feedback on how TAB feedback on the updates, update themes, and use of debt

2026 TAB Work Plan

Action · Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator · packet pp.71–74

Open packet at p.71 ↗

Staff report:

The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) will review and discuss the 2026 TAB Workplan.

5. REPORTS

Staff Report

Chair Report

2035 segments .txt ↗

0:00 ↗ meeting for order at 6:02 just uh

0:04 ↗ today's meeting is a hybrid meeting.

0:06 ↗ Transportation advisory board is in

0:08 ↗ person but staff or members of the

0:09 ↗ public may be attending virtually or in

0:11 ↗ person. Staff, we have a forum.

0:14 ↗ >> Uh yes, we do. And two members joining

0:18 ↗ us virtually. Ally will be serving as a

0:21 ↗ regular uh member for this meeting.

0:27 ↗ Right.

0:31 ↗ Our first item of business is to approve

0:33 ↗ the minutes for the February 25th town

0:36 ↗ meeting. Are there any corrections to

0:38 ↗ the draft meeting minutes provided in

0:39 ↗ the agenda packet?

0:46 ↗ Okay. Seeing none, I

0:50 ↗ uh roll

0:53 ↗ motion

0:55 ↗ to approve the minutes as presented.

1:00 ↗ >> Second.

1:06 ↗ >> That's rusty.

1:08 ↗ >> No. So unless unless there any any

1:10 ↗ objections, it just sounds like there

1:12 ↗ are are none. You can consider the

1:13 ↗ minutes passed.

1:15 ↗ um

1:19 ↗ proceeding seating has approved that is

1:21 ↗ presented.

1:22 ↗ Thank you guys for bearing with me. Our

1:24 ↗ next item of business is public comment

1:26 ↗ staff. Has anyone signed up to make

1:28 ↗ public comment?

1:29 ↗ >> No one has signed up to make public

1:31 ↗ comments. Not seeing any uh anyone

1:35 ↗ virtually who wishes to make public

1:37 ↗ comment either.

1:39 ↗ >> Okay. Um

1:45 ↗ I guess before seeing that we don't have

1:47 ↗ anything um

1:50 ↗ before we move on I do know if we

1:53 ↗ usually do this but we did get a few

1:54 ↗ comments in email and so I just want to

1:57 ↗ at least virtually acknowledge or in

2:00 ↗ this meeting that we did receive those

2:02 ↗ and um I know my staff has robots

2:06 ↗ responded to at least one of them. So,

2:09 ↗ um happy to talk afterwards about um the

2:13 ↗ other one um regarding a specific

2:16 ↗ intersection near the former office

2:19 ↗ depot space.

2:24 ↗ >> Okay.

2:25 ↗ >> Did were you wanting to discuss that now

2:27 ↗ or

2:28 ↗ >> um

2:34 ↗ I don't think we need to. I just wanted

2:36 ↗ to make sure that it was acknowledged at

2:38 ↗ least.

2:39 ↗ >> Yes.

2:40 ↗ >> Great. Thank you.

2:41 ↗ >> Um

2:43 ↗ okay. So we will move on to regular

2:46 ↗ business

2:49 ↗ um which is the 2027 through 20 2032 uh

2:55 ↗ transportation improvement program. Um

3:00 ↗ John Mortonson, our transportation

3:02 ↗ engineering manager, will be presenting.

3:05 ↗ All right. Thank you very much, Erica.

3:07 ↗ Good evening, everyone. I'm John

3:08 ↗ Mortonson, transportation engineering

3:10 ↗ manager, city of Isqua. I'm going to

3:12 ↗ give a presentation about the

3:15 ↗ transportation improvement program.

3:19 ↗ A minute for the PowerPoint to connect,

3:29 ↗ right?

3:37 ↗ All right. The purpose of tonight's item

3:40 ↗ is to review the updates to the 2027

3:44 ↗ through 2032 transportation improvement

3:47 ↗ program and to receive tab feedback on

3:50 ↗ the project updates, updated themes, and

3:54 ↗ use of depth.

4:00 ↗ The feedback that the administration is

4:02 ↗ requesting from the tab tonight is do

4:06 ↗ the proposed updates to the six-year

4:08 ↗ transportation improvement program align

4:11 ↗ with the mobility action plan

4:13 ↗ and

4:18 ↗ with regards to the major theming

4:20 ↗ changes

4:21 ↗ and changes with this update.

4:23 ↗ Specifically,

4:25 ↗ one to have feedback on the emphasis on

4:28 ↗ smaller scale projects

4:31 ↗ prioritiz prioritizing maintenance over

4:35 ↗ building new and more expensive use of

4:39 ↗ debt financing primarily paid for with

4:42 ↗ revenue from the transportation benefit

4:44 ↗ district sales tax. That's the.1%

4:48 ↗ sales tax that goes towards

4:50 ↗ transportation in order to deliver more

4:52 ↗ projects sooner.

4:57 ↗ As you think about the feedback that

4:59 ↗ you'll be providing tonight, I want you

5:02 ↗ to be thinking about the mobility action

5:04 ↗ plan policies. And I wasn't planning to

5:08 ↗ read these unless there's tab feedback

5:10 ↗ to go um read these. Hopefully, you were

5:13 ↗ able to look at it in the packet ahead

5:15 ↗ of time, but when the six-year tip was

5:18 ↗ put together, these are the policies

5:21 ↗ that were considered for many of the

5:24 ↗ projects.

5:28 ↗ It's not.

5:33 ↗ Okay.

5:39 ↗ Not sure why it is showing the hidden

5:41 ↗ slides that we put in for future

5:43 ↗ meetings. U

5:46 ↗ I shared it differently than I've ever

5:48 ↗ done before. So I too am learning. All

5:52 ↗ right. Um a little bit of a step back

5:55 ↗ though and talk about how the TIP or

5:57 ↗ transportation improvement program fits

5:59 ↗ in with all the other plans that the

6:01 ↗ city has. And you think of the

6:04 ↗ comprehensive plan and particularly the

6:06 ↗ transportation element is the highest

6:09 ↗ level with the vision, goals and

6:11 ↗ policies. And then that feeds into

6:14 ↗ functional plans like the mobility

6:16 ↗ action plan, the supply climate action

6:18 ↗ plan. And those type of plans have

6:21 ↗ strategies, actions and resources. And

6:24 ↗ then the mobility action plan feeds in

6:28 ↗ to the transportation improvement

6:30 ↗ program.

6:32 ↗ Next, I'll give a little bit more

6:35 ↗ background.

6:36 ↗ The city is required by state law to

6:39 ↗ update the transportation improvement

6:41 ↗ program every year. And in odd number of

6:45 ↗ years, like last year, it's done as part

6:48 ↗ of the capital improvement plan. And

6:50 ↗ that's when bigger updates happen

6:52 ↗ because the city council and mayor are

6:54 ↗ able to look at holistically. Okay, we

6:58 ↗ have this much revenue and we want to do

7:01 ↗ improvements to the parks, the

7:03 ↗ facilities, technology, transportation,

7:06 ↗ utilities, and it really allows the city

7:09 ↗ to look at things holistically.

7:11 ↗ And

7:13 ↗ when we're doing these even year

7:15 ↗ updates, there's only the transportation

7:18 ↗ improvement program that's getting

7:19 ↗ updated as a standalone document. That

7:23 ↗ the updates are for the most part more

7:25 ↗ minor and limited in scope just because

7:30 ↗ there's not an opportunity to have a

7:32 ↗ discussion of trade-off of okay, if we

7:34 ↗ do this extra transportation project,

7:36 ↗ how does that affect this park project

7:38 ↗ that has the same revenue stream?

7:40 ↗ Another

7:43 ↗ uh piece of information that I wanted to

7:45 ↗ share is projects that are in the tip

7:48 ↗ are used when the city calculates the

7:52 ↗ traffic impact fees and bicycle and

7:55 ↗ pedestrian mitigation fees that

7:57 ↗ development growth pay to mitigate their

8:01 ↗ impacts and projects in the tip

8:06 ↗ improve facilities for anticipated

8:09 ↗ impacts. of development and growth and

8:12 ↗ respond to community needs.

8:16 ↗ So, what is the HIPP? It is really a

8:18 ↗ six-year list of transportation capital

8:22 ↗ projects. It includes project summaries,

8:26 ↗ estimated costs, potential funding

8:29 ↗ sources. It'll identify grants that the

8:32 ↗ administration plans to pursue and it

8:36 ↗ shows when the city thinks the project

8:39 ↗ will be designed by a rightway and

8:42 ↗ constructed.

8:45 ↗ Now, why different projects are included

8:48 ↗ in the TIP? There's a variety of

8:50 ↗ reasons. Some of them are to satisfy the

8:53 ↗ goals of the mobility action plan and in

8:56 ↗ the packet with tonight's materials for

8:59 ↗ scores to show how well the different

9:01 ↗ projects align with the mobility action

9:03 ↗ plan. But there's other reasons why

9:06 ↗ different projects are in there. Um some

9:08 ↗ of them were identified in the transit

9:10 ↗ study that the city did a few years ago.

9:13 ↗ Also other things

9:16 ↗ has a system called C flip fix where

9:18 ↗ residents can submit their concerns

9:21 ↗ whether it's traffic calming or signs or

9:24 ↗ general improvements and out of that

9:30 ↗ new projects are sometimes created and

9:33 ↗ then sometimes it's other goals for the

9:36 ↗ administration and also I'll also add

9:39 ↗ the strategic plan so consider taking

9:42 ↗ care of existing assets maintenance

9:44 ↗ projects. So those type of projects

9:47 ↗ don't score well with the criteria in

9:48 ↗ the mobility action plan, but they're

9:50 ↗ also very important in order to keep the

9:52 ↗ system functioning.

9:55 ↗ Uh also smaller scale projects that have

9:58 ↗ immediate benefit. It could include

10:00 ↗ congestion relief. It can include safety

10:02 ↗ improvements

10:05 ↗ and

10:06 ↗ uh just aligning project revenues with

10:10 ↗ forecasts. Now different ways to

10:12 ↗ prioritize looking at and a lot of this

10:14 ↗ is the guiding principles of the

10:16 ↗ mobility action plan. Improving mobility

10:18 ↗ in the spot today preparing for growth

10:20 ↗ thinking about the environmental

10:22 ↗ sustainability and the impacts of the

10:24 ↗ projects and creating regional

10:26 ↗ connections.

10:30 ↗ Now, a little bit of I mentioned how in

10:33 ↗ odd years we update the capital

10:36 ↗ improvement plan and some of the things

10:39 ↗ that came to light as we were updating

10:41 ↗ the tip this year are the capital

10:45 ↗ improvement plan or CIP had made some

10:47 ↗ assumptions that we're adjusting for and

10:50 ↗ one of them was revenue due to the

10:53 ↗ school zone safety cameras. There's been

10:56 ↗ one on second near the middle school and

10:58 ↗ high school for many years and the city

11:00 ↗ recently installed new cameras on

11:02 ↗ Newport Way at Isqua Valley Elementary.

11:05 ↗ There were some delays in getting the

11:07 ↗ cameras up and then right now it's only

11:09 ↗ ticketing in one direction. So some of

11:12 ↗ the assumed revenue in the school's own

11:14 ↗ safety fund is less than what was

11:16 ↗ assumed when the CIP was put together.

11:19 ↗ Also with this update, trying to think

11:22 ↗ of how to utilize debt from the

11:24 ↗ transportation benefit district for

11:26 ↗ projects. The cost of construction keeps

11:30 ↗ going up at the a rate greater than the

11:33 ↗ city's ability to finance. And so the

11:36 ↗ thought is let's finance and get ahead

11:38 ↗ of the rising cost of construction.

11:42 ↗ Another thing that was really considered

11:44 ↗ and put a lot of time and thought into

11:47 ↗ is the real estate excise tax and the

11:51 ↗ demands on that revenue stream. That's a

11:53 ↗ revenue stream that funds transportation

11:55 ↗ projects, but it also

11:59 ↗ funds street operations, which is how

12:00 ↗ the city maintains the streets,

12:03 ↗ facilities, parks,

12:06 ↗ and a variety of technology. So, it's a

12:10 ↗ revenue stream that's very much in

12:12 ↗ demand. And when the CIP was put

12:14 ↗ together, it was overprescribed and so

12:19 ↗ the city knew at some point we would

12:21 ↗ have to unless revenues exceeded

12:24 ↗ projections, make some adjustments. And

12:27 ↗ so, some of that came to light with this

12:30 ↗ update. And then just regional,

12:33 ↗ national, and global economic factors

12:36 ↗ creating uncertainty. the price of oil

12:38 ↗ greatly impacts the cost of

12:40 ↗ construction.

12:42 ↗ So that's something that could make the

12:45 ↗ projects cost more money. In the other

12:47 ↗ direction, the economy slowing down and

12:49 ↗ usually when that happens, the price for

12:52 ↗ our projects goes less. So I don't know

12:54 ↗ what's going to happen. It'll be quite

12:56 ↗ interesting to see.

12:59 ↗ Now, I'm going to go over some of the

13:01 ↗ updates from the six-year CIP to the

13:06 ↗ 27-32

13:07 ↗ TIP.

13:09 ↗ And one of the projects that has been

13:12 ↗ prioritized as a priority for the

13:15 ↗ administration is the front and sunset

13:18 ↗ left turn improvements project. That was

13:21 ↗ one that it's been a city project, one

13:24 ↗ of our concurrency projects for years.

13:26 ↗ And then unrelated to that, the

13:29 ↗ transit study that the city did also

13:32 ↗ identified basically the same project as

13:35 ↗ a way to help improve bus speed and

13:37 ↗ reliability. And I'll talk more about

13:39 ↗ that project later on. And then the

13:42 ↗ Gilman Bridge rehabilitation project

13:45 ↗ wasn't shown in the CIP because the

13:48 ↗ revenues were already budgeted, but

13:50 ↗ we're assuming additional grant funds

13:52 ↗ will be coming and the costs have

13:54 ↗ increased on that project. So it's now

13:57 ↗ in the TIP. That's more of a

13:58 ↗ technicality with how it was added. And

14:01 ↗ then a couple of projects were moved to

14:04 ↗ future years. The I90 crossing was moved

14:06 ↗ to future years. We recently completed a

14:09 ↗ study looking at the preferred crossing

14:13 ↗ location. The project's very expensive.

14:16 ↗ And so we're going to slow down and not

14:18 ↗ show it in the next six years. And that

14:22 ↗ way the city can decide if wants to

14:24 ↗ proceed with that project or not. And

14:27 ↗ then the transit signal priority pilot

14:30 ↗ which came out of the ITS plan and

14:33 ↗ moving this to future years is not

14:35 ↗ because the city does not want to do PSP

14:38 ↗ or transit signal priority. It's more of

14:42 ↗ now is not the time.

14:44 ↗ I went through and I read the King

14:46 ↗ County Metro's guidelines on when to

14:49 ↗ implement TSP and Isqua currently does

14:53 ↗ not have any corridors that have enough

14:55 ↗ transit in order to implement TSP within

14:59 ↗ their recommendations. And the pilot was

15:02 ↗ just to install it at one location,

15:05 ↗ whereas reading King County Metro's

15:07 ↗ guidelines, it says it's better to do it

15:10 ↗ along a corridor rather than one

15:12 ↗ isolated location. So, moving into the

15:15 ↗ future years will allow the city to

15:19 ↗ eventually do some transit corridor

15:22 ↗ studies and identify locations where it

15:24 ↗ makes sense to do it, but be more

15:26 ↗ deliberate rather than just spending

15:28 ↗ money on a pilot that does not align

15:30 ↗ with in county metros guidelines for

15:34 ↗ TSP.

15:37 ↗ Some of the primary drivers for changes

15:39 ↗ to existing projects, the two Newport

15:42 ↗ Way projects, SR900 to 54th and Maple to

15:46 ↗ Sunset,

15:48 ↗ they were split into what I call

15:50 ↗ tiplets. So for the longest time, we

15:52 ↗ would call it TR22 and TR23. Now we have

15:56 ↗ TR22A, TR22B, and TR2C.

16:01 ↗ That's because these projects we've

16:03 ↗ identified as ones that would be phased

16:06 ↗ for construction and one to actually

16:09 ↗ show it to help add some more

16:11 ↗ transparency. And then the strategic

16:14 ↗ small capital project that is one that

16:17 ↗ has been used for a variety of small

16:19 ↗ projects that came out of the city

16:21 ↗ strategic plan that was put together I

16:24 ↗ want to say around 2019 and we

16:27 ↗ identified small I'm going to say larger

16:31 ↗ small projects that um with a grant

16:35 ↗ source that we want to try and get some

16:37 ↗ external revenue to try and do more

16:40 ↗ larger small projects.

16:43 ↗ And

16:45 ↗ then there is a project is TR 101 and

16:48 ↗ that is to improve the pavement on the

16:51 ↗ road going up Cougar Mountain Zoo. So if

16:54 ↗ you've ever gone up from Cougar Mountain

16:56 ↗ Zoo, it's 190th and 191st and the

16:59 ↗ pavement's in terrible condition. A few

17:01 ↗ years ago, the city hired a geotechnical

17:03 ↗ engineer to do an investigation and out

17:06 ↗ of that came a a fix. And one of the

17:09 ↗ things that

17:11 ↗ we realized while we're putting together

17:13 ↗ the tip was in July of 2027, there's

17:19 ↗ going to be a new storm water manual

17:22 ↗ that the city is going to adopt. And

17:24 ↗ when that happens, the fix for the

17:27 ↗ pavement up there would trigger a whole

17:29 ↗ bunch of storm water improvements, which

17:32 ↗ would at least double and probably

17:33 ↗ triple or more the cost of repairing the

17:36 ↗ pavement on a and it's not to say that

17:39 ↗ the city doesn't want to treat storm

17:42 ↗ water, but that's a low volume street

17:44 ↗ and the administration doesn't think

17:47 ↗ it's the best use of resources to spend

17:49 ↗ millions of dollars to treat storm water

17:51 ↗ in the forest when there's There's other

17:54 ↗ locations with lots of traffic in the

17:56 ↗ city that could use the the funds to

17:59 ↗ treat the storm water. And the Black

18:02 ↗ Nugget retaining malt, it's TR33.

18:05 ↗ As the design's gotten to some of the

18:08 ↗ details, some of the

18:10 ↗ project costs have increased and so

18:13 ↗ right now the budget has the majority of

18:16 ↗ the revenue budgeted, but additional

18:19 ↗ funds will be needed. So we showed it in

18:21 ↗ the tip and that when that project goes

18:25 ↗ to construction and then TR 80 90 91 and

18:30 ↗ 92 those are all projects to replace

18:33 ↗ existing IT and signal assets and just

18:38 ↗ updates to the replacement schedule

18:40 ↗ based on where the replacements are

18:42 ↗ currently.

18:45 ↗ want to talk a little bit more about the

18:48 ↗ front and sun sunset left turn projects

18:51 ↗ and this is one where design will begin

18:54 ↗ this year. The administration plans to

18:56 ↗ apply for a grant to

19:00 ↗ complete the design and go to

19:02 ↗ construction and with the grant the

19:07 ↗ administration is going to apply for

19:09 ↗ funding for the whole project which is

19:12 ↗ two phases as shown here. phase one and

19:15 ↗ phase two. The figure on the right, that

19:18 ↗ is phase one of the project. And what it

19:22 ↗ would do is

19:24 ↗ redesign the

19:29 ↗ western leg for eastbound traffic on

19:32 ↗ Sunset Way. And it would add a new lane

19:36 ↗ that would be a through right lane and

19:39 ↗ then there would be a left turn lane.

19:41 ↗ Phase two would do a little bit of

19:44 ↗ reconfiguring on the other site, so the

19:47 ↗ eastern leg for westbound traffic. And

19:50 ↗ what it would do is convert the existing

19:53 ↗ right turn lane into a right through

19:56 ↗ lane. And then the left lane would be a

19:59 ↗ left turn lane instead of a left through

20:01 ↗ lane. And those two improvements, those

20:04 ↗ two phases would improve the

20:08 ↗ traffic at this heavily congested

20:11 ↗ intersection. And it would also help the

20:14 ↗ currently 554 and I want to say it's 556

20:17 ↗ after the fall, the the but major bus

20:20 ↗ route that goes through here. And that's

20:23 ↗ why it was identified in the transit

20:25 ↗ study.

20:30 ↗ Another project that I want to talk a

20:32 ↗ little bit about, the TR28 Northwest

20:35 ↗ Seamish Road non-motorized improvements

20:37 ↗ project and the plan is to issue debt in

20:43 ↗ 2028 to construct this project. This

20:46 ↗ project is on Northwest Seamish Road. It

20:49 ↗ goes from 93rd place southeast to the

20:53 ↗ entrance to Lake Kamoth Bay State Park.

20:55 ↗ It'll

20:57 ↗ be a

20:58 ↗ basically a fair use path or oh did you

21:02 ↗ have up

21:04 ↗ okay sorry first

21:06 ↗ interrupting your thoughts so yeah it it

21:09 ↗ u connect the residential homes to the

21:11 ↗ state park and the rest of discipline in

21:13 ↗ a non-motorized way and it will install

21:17 ↗ curb and gutter a multi-use trail for

21:21 ↗ pedestrians and bicyclists it will

21:24 ↗ construct storm drain improvements

21:28 ↗ traffic calming elements, raised

21:30 ↗ intersections on both ends of the

21:32 ↗ project and illumination.

21:38 ↗ The timeline for the transportation

21:40 ↗ improvement

21:42 ↗ program. Tonight, the administration is

21:45 ↗ getting feedback from the TAB. Next

21:48 ↗ month, the administration will take the

21:49 ↗ show to the environmental board for

21:52 ↗ alignment with the Isabella climate

21:54 ↗ action plan and then the tip will be

21:58 ↗ presented to the mobility and

21:59 ↗ infrastructure committee at their

22:01 ↗ meeting on May 12th.

22:03 ↗ At the city council meeting on June 1st,

22:06 ↗ there will be a public hearing with

22:08 ↗ adoption anticipated for June 15th,

22:12 ↗ which is ahead of the state's deadline

22:14 ↗ of July 1st for the city to adopt it.

22:19 ↗ And going back to the feedback that the

22:21 ↗ administration needs, do the proposed

22:24 ↗ updates to the 2027 to 2032

22:27 ↗ transportation improvement program align

22:30 ↗ with the mobility action plan? And are

22:34 ↗ the themes major themes and changes with

22:37 ↗ this update? Specifically,

22:40 ↗ one feedback on the emphasis on smaller

22:43 ↗ scale projects, prioritization of

22:46 ↗ maintenance over new construction, and

22:49 ↗ extensive use of debt to pay for

22:52 ↗ improvements sooner rather than later.

22:57 ↗ And that concludes my presentation.

23:06 ↗ the discussion

23:09 ↗ um using round format and I see that I

23:14 ↗ share that has questions or comments but

23:17 ↗ just want to be sure we don't have

23:19 ↗ anyone raising their hand yet.

23:22 ↗ Okay. Yeah.

23:24 ↗ >> All right. So, thanks for the

23:26 ↗ presentation, John. I appreciate all the

23:27 ↗ details there. Um I have a few questions

23:31 ↗ uh to go to. I think I'll start with one

23:33 ↗ of Robin without that comes back to me

23:36 ↗ at some point hopefully. Uh so the first

23:39 ↗ one is uh we talk about the the focus on

23:42 ↗ smaller projects um and that uh in the

23:48 ↗ materials associated with meeting uh

23:51 ↗ there's a scorecard for various

23:52 ↗ projects. Uh so I took a look at that

23:56 ↗ and what I have I have a question about

24:00 ↗ how are we updating the scoring rubric

24:03 ↗ the way that we score these projects

24:05 ↗ based on the change to you know

24:08 ↗ directive to to do smaller projects.

24:11 ↗ >> Yeah. So the scoring criteria did not

24:14 ↗ change and so the scoring criteria comes

24:17 ↗ from the mobility action plan and did

24:22 ↗ not change it to for different

24:25 ↗ priorities just went and scored them

24:28 ↗ using the existing adopted criteria and

24:31 ↗ that is what was presented.

24:34 ↗ So um

24:38 ↗ so we did a rep prioritization

24:40 ↗ essentially or we're rep prioritizing

24:42 ↗ some of these projects. Um and it seems

24:45 ↗ to be that it's done in somewhat of a

24:47 ↗ subjective way like we expect we're

24:50 ↗ going to get you know some smaller

24:52 ↗ projects done. Um it would be really

24:54 ↗ nice to make that objective. There are

24:56 ↗ lots of ways that you can incorporate a

24:59 ↗ uh return on investment type metric and

25:03 ↗ certainly

25:04 ↗ uh looking at directives to have smaller

25:08 ↗ projects with uh shorter term impact

25:12 ↗ that's something that naturally fits

25:13 ↗ into a scoring metric. I think when you

25:15 ↗ go through that objective exercise,

25:18 ↗ you may be surprised at what you find.

25:21 ↗ Like some of the ones that we still have

25:22 ↗ in there may be uh ripe for reducing

25:27 ↗ priority or delaying because of that.

25:29 ↗ Specifically, when we talk about uh

25:32 ↗ whether we should do uh transportation

25:35 ↗ benefit district debt funded uh earlier

25:38 ↗ construction or earlier funding of some

25:40 ↗ projects. Um that's that is specifically

25:43 ↗ where we want to do some forecasting and

25:45 ↗ say we're expecting a good return on

25:48 ↗ investment by uh incurring this debt. Um

25:52 ↗ it feels a little handwavy now like the

25:54 ↗ there's a directive that says oh yeah

25:56 ↗ we're going to incur more debt in the

25:58 ↗ future because it would be more of

25:59 ↗ expensive.

26:01 ↗ Where's the math is the question.

26:04 ↗ So I'd really like to see that

26:09 ↗ >> processing all that. Okay.

26:13 ↗ Yeah. Any any feedback?

26:16 ↗ >> Well, I guess a couple thoughts are one,

26:19 ↗ the criteria does have is it possible to

26:22 ↗ implement and I'm paraphrasing because I

26:24 ↗ don't have the criteria in front of me,

26:25 ↗ but it does give points points if a

26:28 ↗ project can be implemented in the next

26:30 ↗ six years. So that is one of the things

26:33 ↗ that we already are giving more points

26:35 ↗ to projects that are easier to implement

26:40 ↗ then not implement.

26:43 ↗ And as for

26:48 ↗ the benefit

26:52 ↗ I'm just going to think out loud that I

26:55 ↗ think it depends on what the criteria

26:57 ↗ is. What are you What is the city trying

26:59 ↗ to achieve with the project? Is it like

27:03 ↗ the

27:05 ↗ front and sunset project where it'll

27:08 ↗ provide congestion relief? It'll provide

27:10 ↗ improved transit and it's within the

27:14 ↗ means of what the city has to be able to

27:17 ↗ do it. So, that's one of the ones that

27:18 ↗ have been prioritized. Right now, we're

27:21 ↗ showing it's traffic impact fees in a

27:23 ↗ grant, but if the grant's not

27:24 ↗ successful, then I imagine that the city

27:27 ↗ would look at using the transportation

27:30 ↗ benefit district.

27:32 ↗ I know that the mayor has a big priority

27:35 ↗ on wanting to

27:38 ↗ make improvements to help people get

27:40 ↗ around

27:42 ↗ any way that he can. And so, that is

27:44 ↗ really a priority. And so some of the

27:48 ↗ improvements

27:50 ↗ aren't currently shown in this six-year

27:52 ↗ tip because we're actually doing studies

27:55 ↗ to see what projects would actually move

27:58 ↗ the needle versus which ones would not.

28:01 ↗ And those projects would be proposed as

28:03 ↗ part of either the probably the the CIP

28:08 ↗ or possibly the

28:10 ↗ 27 to 28 budget. So there is work being

28:15 ↗ done behind the scenes that's not

28:17 ↗ currently shown in this tip that I would

28:20 ↗ say a lot of the

28:24 ↗ smaller projects that are shown in it

28:26 ↗ are ones that have been a priority for

28:29 ↗ the city to do for a long time and we're

28:32 ↗ just

28:34 ↗ showing them usually in the templates

28:37 ↗ for project TR58.

28:41 ↗ >> Okay. So, so I think what I heard is

28:43 ↗ there's a lot of hypotheses that for

28:45 ↗ example using debt makes is is worth it

28:49 ↗ because it achieves the benefit that we

28:51 ↗ want. Um that's that's something that

28:55 ↗ can be made uh objective, right? We can

28:58 ↗ say specifically

29:00 ↗ we're we value the benefit that we get

29:04 ↗ by a certain even dollar amount on that

29:06 ↗ and say, you know, it's worth it to to

29:09 ↗ pull that in because of that. If I may

29:11 ↗ jump in on that, of course, any analysis

29:15 ↗ you try to do in the future is going to

29:16 ↗ be best guess, right? Noted, uh, price

29:20 ↗ of oil changes projects dramatically in

29:23 ↗ terms of cost, especially about asphalt

29:25 ↗ and other equipment or or shipping of

29:27 ↗ equipment in, um, the cost of debt

29:31 ↗ changes a lot through the years. And so

29:33 ↗ I think as we try to hone in on

29:36 ↗ something that is more objective or

29:37 ↗ trying to get as much data as possible

29:39 ↗ to help us make these decisions, I want

29:40 ↗ to acknowledge that there's a lot of

29:42 ↗ limitations on our ability to predict

29:46 ↗ the future. I think your point is still

29:48 ↗ one that's well made is that we have

29:50 ↗ these ideas and it would be good to back

29:53 ↗ them up a little bit more evidence. But

29:55 ↗ I guess um what I'm trying to say is we

29:57 ↗ can only do that to a limited extent.

29:59 ↗ Yeah,

30:00 ↗ >> they're all going to be guesses and

30:01 ↗ forecasts and um and so they're all

30:05 ↗ going to be rough because I don't I

30:07 ↗ don't know that we want to spend all of

30:08 ↗ our time making a lot of estimates that

30:10 ↗ we know aren't going to be um exactly

30:14 ↗ accurate by the time the future does

30:16 ↗ come.

30:17 ↗ >> Yeah, I I'm totally with you that

30:19 ↗ there's a lot of uncertainty when you do

30:21 ↗ forecasting. However, I I still stand by

30:24 ↗ the position that it's important to make

30:25 ↗ it objective and, you know, put your

30:30 ↗ put your model down on paper so that

30:32 ↗ people know what you're talking

30:33 ↗ >> and I I just I haven't seen that beyond

30:36 ↗ the hypothesis stage at this point.

30:50 ↗ >> Yeah. Um, so I was

30:54 ↗ first of all, sorry I'm late today, but

30:57 ↗ uh probably I just want to say

31:01 ↗ I have a class that is timed as such

31:04 ↗ that I can get here this quarter and

31:06 ↗ that's not going to change for the next

31:08 ↗ months. I'm just going to have that be

31:12 ↗ anyway. Um

31:16 ↗ for for this I was kind of wondering

31:17 ↗ about that second one of prioritizing

31:19 ↗ maintenance but we're building new of

31:22 ↗ that does seem good off the surface. I

31:24 ↗ would just be slightly concerned because

31:27 ↗ we already have a lot more car

31:29 ↗ infrastructure than we have other types

31:32 ↗ of infrastructure that that could cause

31:34 ↗ a bias towards car infrastructure

31:36 ↗ because we don't have as many bike lanes

31:38 ↗ as we have car lanes

31:41 ↗ only doing m or prioritizing maintenance

31:44 ↗ over building new without some kind of

31:46 ↗ an adjustment for

31:49 ↗ those other things could cause a bias

31:51 ↗ towards construction. Does that make

31:53 ↗ sense? Yeah. No, thanks for the

31:54 ↗ feedback.

31:56 ↗ >> So, I just think that's that's something

31:57 ↗ that should be considered because I hope

31:59 ↗ this board has be very concerned about

32:01 ↗ balance between

32:04 ↗ >> Oh my gosh, mom. He just paid on the

32:06 ↗ blanket.

32:09 ↗ >> He does.

32:10 ↗ >> Derek, do you have anything to add?

32:12 ↗ You're off mute.

32:17 ↗ >> Nope. Sorry about that.

32:19 ↗ Just wanted to double check.

32:28 ↗ I'll make sure I don't get what's

32:29 ↗ currently in my head out. Um, number

32:32 ↗ one, please pass the cookies around. Um,

32:34 ↗ and they're very important. Um, I uh

32:38 ↗ passed on some comments to John and

32:39 ↗ Andrea earlier. Um,

32:42 ↗ selfishly, I've loved that the crosswalk

32:45 ↗ on Black Road is uh um fastly rapidly

32:49 ↗ approaching. Um but uh I this is the

32:53 ↗ first time I can think of this is a bit

32:57 ↗ scattered that we're being asked uh to

32:59 ↗ weigh on the issue of debt um issuance

33:04 ↗ and that's just I we do talk about

33:06 ↗ broadly generally the board addressing

33:08 ↗ you know um cost effective procedures or

33:12 ↗ um like you mentioned John that um it's

33:14 ↗ already in the scoring system of you

33:17 ↗ know what can be acted on um asked one

33:20 ↗ of the MAP principles is investing

33:22 ↗ wisely, but um I don't know if they've

33:26 ↗ ever been asked to weigh in directly on

33:29 ↗ something like that. And it's just it's

33:32 ↗ not neither good nor bad. I don't

33:33 ↗ necessarily have any reservations about

33:34 ↗ it, but it's kind of, you know, I had to

33:37 ↗ go back and open up the um tabs, you

33:40 ↗ know, homepage of what what were we

33:42 ↗ created to do? And it's my view is that

33:46 ↗ it's more policy based, but whereas I

33:50 ↗ like a financial decision like that

33:51 ↗ typically is, you know, in order to um

33:54 ↗ anything with revenue typically sits in

33:56 ↗ council's hands. I know we're not being

33:58 ↗ asked to vote on, you know, a a tax or

34:00 ↗ anything like that, but it's just um

34:03 ↗ it's like I don't think that's

34:05 ↗ necessarily helpful feedback, but it's

34:07 ↗ um something I found interesting. No,

34:10 ↗ >> I I think it's fair feedback.

34:23 ↗ Okay. I like I I think you hit on one of

34:26 ↗ the points here which is

34:29 ↗ you know kind of triggering me into

34:31 ↗ thinking how do you think about debt

34:33 ↗ more objective? Um and this is you know

34:36 ↗ it's essentially because you guys asked

34:37 ↗ the question is it good to incur this

34:40 ↗ debt? Is it is it what is the

34:43 ↗ transportation advisor going to think

34:45 ↗ about that? And so that's that's kind of

34:47 ↗ why I go down this road saying, well,

34:50 ↗ you know, we got a hypothesis we really

34:52 ↗ want to dig into, but that's not really

34:55 ↗ what I want to talk about now. What I'd

34:56 ↗ like to talk about at this point is some

34:58 ↗ specific projects. Um, so I saw some of

35:01 ↗ the the changes uh to the list of

35:03 ↗ projects. Some of them I really like

35:06 ↗ like uh the um improvements to to dog

35:10 ↗ wood at front. That's something that's

35:12 ↗ come up in this group time. It would be

35:15 ↗ great to see some progress made on that

35:17 ↗ intersection as well. Um some of the

35:20 ↗ projects I I

35:22 ↗ struggle but I I don't really

35:24 ↗ understand. And I'm hoping you can dig

35:26 ↗ into some details specifically on this

35:29 ↗ TR23

35:30 ↗ uh Newport improvement uh from Maple to

35:33 ↗ Holly. So I see that split up into

35:36 ↗ multiple sub projects. Now, uh, TR23A,

35:42 ↗ um,

35:44 ↗ specifically what I'd like to understand

35:46 ↗ is what do what do we expect to see as a

35:51 ↗ benefit of the additional lane paving

35:55 ↗ that's associated with that project?

35:58 ↗ >> Yes, I've come prepared.

36:01 ↗ >> Thank you.

36:02 ↗ >> All right, give me just a minute. Got to

36:04 ↗ reshare this because it wasn't going to

36:06 ↗ show that I had slides after the

36:09 ↗ presentation

36:11 ↗ including for this project.

36:27 ↗ >> All right. I will try and give an

36:30 ↗ abbreviated version. So, because I'm

36:32 ↗ going to be skipping over some stuff,

36:35 ↗ feel free to ask questions. And so

36:39 ↗ what we what the city gets out of the

36:40 ↗ Newport Way Maple to Sunset project is I

36:45 ↗ want you to look first at the

36:48 ↗ figure on the upper left which shows the

36:51 ↗ regional growth center in blue and

36:53 ↗ central Isiqua and I think that's an

36:57 ↗ orange or red I'm not sure.

37:00 ↗ >> Yes. Um but that is where the majority

37:04 ↗ of the growth in Isakqua is going to

37:07 ↗ occur and out of that growth and I don't

37:11 ↗ have the exact numbers in front of me

37:13 ↗ but I think it's like 4,000 homes and

37:18 ↗ 12,000 jobs. So people are going to be

37:21 ↗ going to the regional growth center.

37:24 ↗ Yes, there will be people who will be

37:25 ↗ living in it. And this might also be

37:27 ↗ looking at central fuzzle. I can't

37:29 ↗ remember. I saw something from the long

37:32 ↗ range planning group and it so what

37:37 ↗ that's going to do and you see Newport

37:39 ↗ Way in yellow and that is a corridor

37:43 ↗ that serves the regional growth center

37:46 ↗ and one of the main corridors that

37:48 ↗ serves it and as a result that corridor

37:51 ↗ is going to have a lot of growth in the

37:54 ↗ future. Right now, it's mostly two lanes

37:58 ↗ other than right at Maple where it has

38:01 ↗ three lanes just right after the signal.

38:04 ↗ It's got 12 to 15,000 cars a day, no

38:09 ↗ bicycle facilities, no continuous

38:12 ↗ sidewalks, stop controlled

38:14 ↗ intersections. The pavement's in poor

38:17 ↗ condition. The storm water is handled in

38:20 ↗ drainage ditches instead of a treatment

38:22 ↗ facility.

38:26 ↗ And

38:28 ↗ so in order to mitigate for that, the

38:32 ↗ project is going to construct sidewalk

38:35 ↗ on both sides. It's going to mostly be 6

38:38 ↗ ft wide except for around Isqua Valley

38:41 ↗ Elementary where it's going to be 8 ft

38:42 ↗ wide to give a little extra room for the

38:46 ↗ kids and their families walking to and

38:48 ↗ from school. It'll have protected bike

38:50 ↗ lanes that are going to be six feet

38:51 ↗ wide. landscape planner strips

38:55 ↗ and for the most part um one lane each

38:59 ↗ direction except for the section from

39:01 ↗ Maple to 900 ft south and I'll talk

39:04 ↗ about why those why the extra lane is

39:08 ↗ proposed to be added and it has to do

39:12 ↗ with as I mentioned earlier there's

39:13 ↗ going to be a lot of growth in the

39:15 ↗ regional growth center a lot of jobs and

39:18 ↗ it's going to

39:20 ↗ make it so that

39:22 ↗ People who are turning from Juniper and

39:25 ↗ Holly onto Newport Way are going to be

39:30 ↗ stuck unable to make the turns. And the

39:33 ↗ city has an adopted level of service of

39:36 ↗ D or better. And Juniper would operate

39:40 ↗ at level of service F

39:43 ↗ with

39:45 ↗ 161 second delay trying to turn on to

39:48 ↗ Newport Way during the PMP hour. and

39:51 ↗ Holly would operate at level of service

39:53 ↗ E with a 38 second delay trying to turn

39:58 ↗ on to Newport Way.

40:02 ↗ >> Um, sorry, which direction?

40:04 ↗ Turning south.

40:06 ↗ >> Well, either direction.

40:07 ↗ >> Either direction.

40:08 ↗ >> Yeah, because if you're wanting to turn

40:13 ↗ north, well, it's easier to make a right

40:15 ↗ turn. you're going to be behind people

40:17 ↗ who are going to be turning to go south,

40:20 ↗ which is a harder movement. So, okay.

40:24 ↗ Yeah.

40:26 ↗ Okay. So, the solution to that is to

40:29 ↗ construct roundabouts at the

40:32 ↗ intersections of Juniper and Hollow.

40:40 ↗ Back to this. However, if roundabouts

40:43 ↗ alone are constructed, then what ends up

40:47 ↗ happening is the level of service at

40:50 ↗ Juniper fails

40:53 ↗ and the level of service at Maple fails

40:57 ↗ because without that second southbound

40:59 ↗ lane, there is a

41:03 ↗ queue backing up all the way through the

41:06 ↗ intersection at Maple and Newport. Now,

41:09 ↗ tonight when I came here, it wasn't so

41:11 ↗ bad. But a lot of times when I've been

41:14 ↗ on SR900 heading towards Talis, there's

41:17 ↗ a queue from where it goes from two

41:21 ↗ southbound lanes to one and it backs up

41:24 ↗ past where we're meeting tonight. It it

41:27 ↗ would do something very similar. And so

41:30 ↗ that's why the second southbound lane,

41:32 ↗ it it's a combination of the roundabouts

41:35 ↗ and the second southbound lane in order

41:38 ↗ to reach the level of service for

41:41 ↗ Juniper and Holly. That way people who

41:44 ↗ are trying to get around town are not

41:47 ↗ stuck in congestion that does not meet

41:50 ↗ the city's level of service. So from a

41:53 ↗ traffic perspective, that's what it's

41:55 ↗ doing. So is this uh backed by

41:57 ↗ simulation data that has changed a

41:59 ↗ little?

42:00 ↗ >> Yes, lot lots of modeling and this was

42:03 ↗ before I had my current position. I was

42:05 ↗ the project manager and I kept saying

42:07 ↗ can we get rid of that southbound lane

42:09 ↗ because when you do have a sec second

42:12 ↗ southbound lane, you're widening the

42:14 ↗ road that much more. You have that much

42:16 ↗ more storm water, higher retaining

42:18 ↗ walls.

42:19 ↗ And I was really hoping that we could

42:21 ↗ get rid of it and we've modeled it and

42:24 ↗ modeled it and could not get it to reach

42:27 ↗ the level of service without the second

42:29 ↗ southbound lane going past Holly.

42:33 ↗ Yeah. So my so my intuition says that

42:36 ↗ the bottleneck is furthest south and so

42:39 ↗ essentially with the additional lane

42:41 ↗ you'll have more capacity for cars to

42:44 ↗ back up but you'll travel even slower

42:47 ↗ two lanes merging into one later on. But

42:50 ↗ the modeling doesn't didn't uh

42:54 ↗ >> I'd say there's two problems there.

42:56 ↗ There's one problem that I don't think

42:58 ↗ can be solved which is trying to have a

43:01 ↗ whole bunch of people go down Esqua

43:04 ↗ Hobart Road to Maple Valley and Black

43:06 ↗ Diamond. And then there's the problem of

43:09 ↗ how can people who live in Esqua off of

43:13 ↗ Holly, whether accessing the school or

43:16 ↗ off of Juniper, how can they get around

43:20 ↗ town? So, we're trying to solve that

43:21 ↗ problem. We're not trying to solve the

43:24 ↗ fact that there's more cars trying to go

43:26 ↗ south out of town than there's capacity.

43:30 ↗ >> Just the idea here to basically relegate

43:33 ↗ that back up to a different lane and

43:35 ↗ have a

43:40 ↗ Well, the way a roundabout works is you

43:43 ↗ yield to the vehicle in the roundabout.

43:46 ↗ So, if you're on Juniper and you're

43:49 ↗ heading west and then you want to turn

43:51 ↗ left on to Newport that the people who

43:55 ↗ are actually heading south on Newport

43:58 ↗ will need to yield to you. So,

44:02 ↗ >> so there's an asymmetry here where the

44:04 ↗ southbound traffic on Newport is bad in

44:08 ↗ the evening, but the northbound traffic

44:09 ↗ is not so bad in the morning.

44:11 ↗ >> Correct.

44:11 ↗ >> Basically, because you get a Delta

44:13 ↗ effect,

44:14 ↗ you don't have bottleneck to the north,

44:17 ↗ >> right?

44:20 ↗ And then, yeah, just happens to be nice

44:22 ↗ that the the feeder roads are on the

44:27 ↗ eastern side. Um

44:31 ↗ yeah, I I from like an environmental

44:33 ↗ concern, you know, paving an extra acre,

44:36 ↗ maybe two acres when we finish the

44:38 ↗ project.

44:39 ↗ Um it's it's a lot of pavement. It's a

44:42 ↗ lot of long-term maintenance, and it's a

44:44 ↗ lot of like through the school there. Um

44:47 ↗ you know, two lanes is going to cause

44:49 ↗ people potentially to go faster,

44:50 ↗ although the roundabouts maybe are going

44:52 ↗ to slow it down. Yeah, the the

44:53 ↗ roundabouts will slow it down and um at

44:58 ↗ Holly the roundabout will have raised

45:00 ↗ crosswalks which will slow people down.

45:02 ↗ The travel lanes are going to be

45:05 ↗ narrower which is another way to slow

45:09 ↗ cars down and yeah so I it should in

45:13 ↗ theory slow down and make it as a a

45:16 ↗ safer environment. Another reason for

45:18 ↗ this project is, and I know you didn't

45:21 ↗ ask about it, but I'll just quickly

45:23 ↗ mention it. This is a corridor that has

45:26 ↗ a history of serious injury accidents

45:29 ↗ and

45:30 ↗ >> at least one bike fatalities on this

45:32 ↗ section, right, like 10 years ago.

45:36 ↗ I didn't

45:38 ↗ >> Oh, wow.

45:39 ↗ >> Uh bikers, it's a thoroughare for

45:45 ↗ >> Yeah.

45:47 ↗ Um

45:48 ↗ >> I always go around back

45:50 ↗ >> and I feel like

45:53 ↗ >> yeah it's people really speed already.

45:56 ↗ So I think anything to slow up.

46:00 ↗ >> Yeah. So the the project will add nine

46:04 ↗ safety countermeasures to try and

46:06 ↗ increase safety along the corridor.

46:10 ↗ And so Adam, did I answer your questions

46:13 ↗ or do you have follow-up questions?

46:14 ↗ >> I think you did. I think the simulation

46:16 ↗ data as long as it's showing that the

46:18 ↗ intended effect is there

46:21 ↗ >> basically to improve flow electric town.

46:24 ↗ Um

46:26 ↗ were there just as a small followup to

46:29 ↗ that um a lot of times people will find

46:32 ↗ alternate routes as they're traveling

46:34 ↗ through town uh and cause a lot of

46:36 ↗ traffic on local streets. Was that

46:38 ↗ something you looked at as well in the

46:39 ↗ simulations?

46:42 ↗ >> Not in that. Now,

46:45 ↗ when we do our full concurrency update,

46:48 ↗ it

46:49 ↗ has a system of modeling how the trips

46:53 ↗ happen around town and I think balances

46:56 ↗ things based on the the growth. Um, and

47:00 ↗ that also demonstrates this project, but

47:03 ↗ wasn't specifically looking at Newport

47:06 ↗ Way. So I think the concern might be

47:08 ↗ that you know traffic instead of going

47:10 ↗ down Newport now goes you know from

47:11 ↗ Seventh to Holly and you know cuts the

47:14 ↗ corner there and creates a lot you know

47:16 ↗ kind of moves the back up onto that

47:18 ↗ street. Uh it's it's a slight concern

47:23 ↗ that maybe that's far enough out of the

47:24 ↗ way that people wouldn't do it but is

47:27 ↗ there going to be a round of that full

47:28 ↗ modeling before we uh take on this

47:30 ↗ project to you know show any side

47:33 ↗ effects there? That's not something we

47:35 ↗ normally do. Now, I I guess I'll also

47:38 ↗ add the residents on 7th Avenue between

47:43 ↗ Juniper and Holly petition for traffic

47:45 ↗ calming, and it is the first project

47:48 ↗ going through the city's traffic calming

47:50 ↗ policy. And I anticipate that there'll

47:52 ↗ be trafficcoming measures along there,

47:54 ↗ so it might not be the best cutth

47:56 ↗ through route.

48:00 ↗ Yeah. Thank you.

48:07 ↗ gonna check for others first. Just

48:11 ↗ Okay.

48:15 ↗ It's been a while since I

48:18 ↗ say I don't think it was related to that

48:20 ↗ project specifically. I was more

48:23 ↗ wondering about uh

48:30 ↗ I don't think I remember my question.

48:33 ↗ It's been like 30 minutes.

48:35 ↗ >> Sorry.

48:38 ↗ >> Think of it.

48:39 ↗ >> Yeah. I I just I

48:44 ↗ have landed that we had our chair vice

48:49 ↗ chair meeting. I know uh the amish

48:52 ↗ nonorized

48:54 ↗ uh also came. I think we wanted like a

48:56 ↗ little more detail on that if you have

48:58 ↗ it or just I don't Adam I think this is

49:01 ↗ just wrote it down. So

49:03 ↗ >> yeah that was on the 190s through

49:07 ↗ >> which project was that one?

49:09 ↗ >> 28

49:10 ↗ >> year 28.

49:11 ↗ >> Yeah. Um

49:14 ↗ I'm so appreciated the uh the layout of

49:17 ↗ the board. Do you have one for for that

49:20 ↗ project as well?

49:22 ↗ >> There might be. Let me find something on

49:25 ↗ the internet. Did not come prepared to

49:27 ↗ show you that one, but I think I can

49:28 ↗ find something.

49:29 ↗ >> I think one of the things we were

49:30 ↗ chatting a little bit about this last

49:32 ↗ week. Uh, one of the things we were

49:33 ↗ talking about was um, is it one of the

49:36 ↗ objectives of that project to connect

49:39 ↗ major bike routes such as the Mountain

49:42 ↗ to Sound Greenway? Um, kind it kind of

49:46 ↗ goes through there, but it's on roads

49:47 ↗ for that part of it and we're trying to

49:49 ↗ move it to protect trail or what? So,

49:51 ↗ Mountains to Sound Greenway is actually

49:53 ↗ on the other side of the freeway. So,

49:54 ↗ Belleview's been building even though,

49:56 ↗ yeah, there is the I90 trail um with

49:59 ↗ those great switchbacks and

50:02 ↗ pavement in terrible condition, but u

50:06 ↗ has been working towards improvements to

50:10 ↗ along Newport Way. So, there's currently

50:12 ↗ near T-Mobile, there's a pretty new

50:14 ↗ shared use path. Believe is getting

50:16 ↗ ready to do another project that's going

50:17 ↗ to go from

50:20 ↗ 42nd

50:22 ↗ anyways where the I90 at the east gate.

50:26 ↗ They got another shared use path that's

50:28 ↗ going to keep heading to the east. And

50:31 ↗ so TR22

50:33 ↗ is building a shared use path that's

50:37 ↗ working its way towards Belleview. So,

50:39 ↗ it's it'll take a long time, but

50:40 ↗ eventually like the transcontinental

50:42 ↗ railroad, we'll meet in the middle and

50:45 ↗ maybe put a golden spike down and

50:48 ↗ celebrate. Um, but let me see if I can

50:52 ↗ find something here. I do have something

50:55 ↗ to share for TR28

50:58 ↗ and but it it will eventually connect

51:01 ↗ into the existing non-motorized

51:04 ↗ infrastructure in Belleview, but not for

51:07 ↗ a long time. So let me

51:19 ↗ TR28.

51:22 ↗ This is what it will construct. So it

51:24 ↗ has

51:26 ↗ the two travel lanes. Here's I90. It'll

51:29 ↗ put in a improved barrier between

51:34 ↗ the city street and the freeway. And

51:37 ↗ then it will have curbing gutter

51:39 ↗ landscape planner strip and then a

51:42 ↗ multi-use

51:43 ↗ trail for pedestrians and bicycles.

51:47 ↗ And the limits for that project

51:50 ↗ are up here. You can see

51:53 ↗ oops there it goes 193rd is here which

51:58 ↗ connects into a lot of the homes in the

51:59 ↗ neighborhood. And the state park

52:03 ↗ entrance is over here. Now, I don't

52:06 ↗ remember the number off the top of my

52:08 ↗ head, but the city does have a future

52:11 ↗ year transportation project to

52:13 ↗ eventually take it where this project

52:16 ↗ ends and continue the improvements

52:18 ↗ towards Belleview.

52:23 ↗ That

52:23 ↗ >> end. That would be awesome. I'm trying

52:25 ↗ to think of where the sound wall uh on

52:28 ↗ the side of the highway

52:30 ↗ is, but it's somewhere around there.

52:32 ↗ >> Yeah. So there's sound wall in well

52:36 ↗ probably

52:38 ↗ about right here.

52:40 ↗ I want to see it's somewhere in here

52:44 ↗ is where the sound wall is.

52:50 ↗ >> Thank you.

52:57 ↗ >> Oops. Thank you for doing that kind of

52:59 ↗ impromptu.

53:00 ↗ >> No problem. But I uh I'm excited to see

53:04 ↗ that. I know that's um

53:07 ↗ that's been kind of a multi-year journey

53:10 ↗ and uh connecting better connecting that

53:14 ↗ kind of weird call weird but segment of

53:17 ↗ you know feels almost almost like an

53:19 ↗ island right and there's just one way in

53:21 ↗ and out um peninsula then uh yeah it's

53:29 ↗ improving connectivity and iPad safety

53:32 ↗ and connections

53:36 ↗ All right.

53:40 ↗ >> Which was it was related to the debt

53:42 ↗ since that was questions. I was

53:44 ↗ wondering you guys have made the claim

53:47 ↗ that would be better services sooner.

53:50 ↗ That seems intuitive. I'm wondering what

53:52 ↗ the I'm assuming you guys have some

53:54 ↗ evidence from other cities because I

53:55 ↗ know that a lot of decisions based on

53:57 ↗ how refactors

54:00 ↗ like the results they receive. So is

54:02 ↗ there like evidence for other cities

54:04 ↗ that have got good returns of their like

54:07 ↗ the debt that they've taken out to

54:08 ↗ finance transit?

54:13 ↗ >> I have not reached out to other cities

54:15 ↗ to compare. I think it's just looking at

54:19 ↗ with the increase in construction cost

54:22 ↗ versus what it's been

54:25 ↗ the ability to finance projects and I'm

54:28 ↗ relying on the finance department and

54:31 ↗ others who are much more aversed.

54:34 ↗ That's why when Erica made her comment

54:36 ↗ about

54:38 ↗ commenting on debt, I I felt like I

54:41 ↗ could relate a little because it's a

54:42 ↗ little outside of my area of expertise.

54:44 ↗ But um

54:46 ↗ >> the general philosophy that the

54:48 ↗ administration has is costs are going up

54:51 ↗ this much and borrowing is like this.

54:55 ↗ So, let's get the improvements now. And

54:58 ↗ Andrea probably can articulate this

55:00 ↗ better than me.

55:00 ↗ >> Let let me jump in. Um I think we've

55:03 ↗ we've seen it from some of our own

55:04 ↗ projects. So it used to be in the past

55:07 ↗ that the city carried a lot more debt.

55:10 ↗ Um we have very little debt as a city

55:12 ↗ compared to most other cities and

55:15 ↗ compared to what we've done in the past.

55:17 ↗ And so what that means is um we are not

55:23 ↗ doing as much capital projects. We keep

55:25 ↗ pushing off um John's been around for

55:28 ↗ several CIPs as have I. we keep pushing

55:30 ↗ off projects into the future and every

55:32 ↗ time we do that the cost goes up and as

55:35 ↗ John said the cost of borrowing um

55:38 ↗ versus the cost of inflation the cost of

55:40 ↗ borrowing is is uh lower especially for

55:43 ↗ governments and a little more uh

55:46 ↗ predictable depending on what kind of

55:47 ↗ debt we issue. So um so that's the idea

55:51 ↗ there. Uh, I think, you know, something

55:54 ↗ that we're going to be also asking our

55:55 ↗ city council to weigh in on is, um,

55:57 ↗ there's some trade-offs. We can do more

55:59 ↗ projects up front, but then that means

56:02 ↗ that there's fewer projects in the

56:04 ↗ future that we can do, right? Because,

56:07 ↗ um, we'll be using that money to pay off

56:09 ↗ debt. And so, that's kind of a a

56:10 ↗ trade-off uh, there. But I think overall

56:14 ↗ what we see from other cities, what

56:16 ↗ we've seen in certainly how we have done

56:18 ↗ things in the past is um using more debt

56:21 ↗ to get a little more done at once uh

56:25 ↗ does save on costs.

56:28 ↗ >> Yeah,

56:28 ↗ >> that's the general trend.

56:31 ↗ >> Yeah, I've heard a lot you do a project

56:34 ↗ quickly large money versus a long period

56:37 ↗ of time smaller

56:41 ↗ example of this. Yes,

56:43 ↗ >> it should have been done like five years

56:45 ↗ ago, 10 years ago.

56:54 ↗ Okay, I'm not gonna jump the queue

56:57 ↗ because I do I remember in the beginning

57:00 ↗ I remember forget that but I did I um uh

57:03 ↗ I emailed a staff uh earlier this week I

57:06 ↗ mentioned um that uh I have to look up

57:09 ↗ the projects I guess TR 12. So, the one

57:12 ↗ you mentioned at the beginning here,

57:13 ↗ John, the left turn on Sensit

57:16 ↗ Improvements. There's another smaller uh

57:20 ↗ project along the street uh the village

57:25 ↗ uh theater crosswalk. And I'm curious

57:27 ↗ about the intersection of those two

57:29 ↗ projects because if it's easier to take

57:32 ↗ a left turn on the front, but we added

57:36 ↗ there's one more

57:38 ↗ place that uh pedestrians could cross

57:40 ↗ and where you have to wait, I guess.

57:42 ↗ Yeah. What does that do to Yeah, I'm all

57:45 ↗ for making things ped more pedestrian

57:48 ↗ safe. I just want to put that on there,

57:50 ↗ but I I um Yeah. No,

57:53 ↗ >> it's a great question. So

57:56 ↗ I would say that the

58:00 ↗ congestion relief from the reconfiguring

58:03 ↗ it is more than just the left turns even

58:05 ↗ though it primarily focuses on it. So it

58:08 ↗ makes the whole intersection whether

58:09 ↗ you're going straight on sunset straight

58:12 ↗ on front making a turn from one or the

58:15 ↗ other it it makes it overall better. And

58:18 ↗ then I the pedestrian myth block

58:23 ↗ crossing at the village theater. So it's

58:27 ↗ if I remember right from your email that

58:28 ↗ you had mentioned you remembered back

58:31 ↗ when it's probably Stephen who presented

58:33 ↗ about pedestrian crossing and

58:36 ↗ the risk of having too many and we

58:38 ↗ already do have a lot. And when this

58:41 ↗ project came up, I I had some of the the

58:44 ↗ same concerns. And

58:48 ↗ >> um there's also a philosophy that when

58:51 ↗ you have a midblock crossing that you'd

58:55 ↗ want to put it in a location where

58:56 ↗ people are already crossing. And so

59:00 ↗ right now with the Dish Theater, when

59:02 ↗ their show gets out, there's a lot of

59:04 ↗ people who are parked on the other side

59:06 ↗ and they're not walking up to the RFB.

59:08 ↗ They're not walking down to Dogwood to

59:11 ↗ help someone make a left turn

59:14 ↗ sort of. Um, but they're just crossing

59:17 ↗ front there. And since that is where

59:20 ↗ they pedestrians are crossing and that

59:22 ↗ is when they're primarily crossing which

59:24 ↗ is after a show which is different than

59:27 ↗ the main commuting time that from an

59:31 ↗ engineering perspective and a safety

59:33 ↗ perspective I felt comfortable with it

59:35 ↗ because we're making safety improvements

59:37 ↗ to a crossing where people already are

59:40 ↗ crossing. We've said that that's where

59:41 ↗ they want to cross.

59:47 ↗ >> Thank you.

59:51 ↗ Yeah, I hate to be a broken record

59:54 ↗ based on what you've said of project

59:56 ↗ TR23.

59:58 ↗ Um, I wanted to dig in a little bit

1:00:00 ↗ deep. I'm looking at a map here and

1:00:02 ↗ doing some measurement. And, you know,

1:00:04 ↗ we're talking about paving a lane, one

1:00:06 ↗ extra lane between,

1:00:09 ↗ uh,

1:00:10 ↗ uh, Maple and Holly.

1:00:14 ↗ uh which is you know somewhere let's you

1:00:17 ↗ can go all the way to sunset eventually

1:00:19 ↗ that ends up being a mile of pavement

1:00:22 ↗ uh the holly portion of that is is like

1:00:27 ↗ maybe half a mile

1:00:29 ↗ a quarter mile of that is between

1:00:32 ↗ maple and juniper

1:00:35 ↗ so

1:00:36 ↗ if I understand correctly the the

1:00:38 ↗ purpose of the additional is to avoid a

1:00:42 ↗ backup for people trying to around town

1:00:44 ↗ by uh getting onto Newport from Juniper

1:00:47 ↗ and Holly.

1:00:50 ↗ The portion of pavement that is between

1:00:52 ↗ Juniper and Maple going southbound, if

1:00:55 ↗ you're visualizing this with me, I

1:00:57 ↗ should have zero effect on that purpose

1:01:02 ↗ because that's traffic coming from

1:01:04 ↗ Juniper and Hollywood not travel on that

1:01:08 ↗ particle. That's half the pavement.

1:01:11 ↗ So you talk about between

1:01:14 ↗ Maple and Juniper that pavement.

1:01:17 ↗ >> Yes.

1:01:18 ↗ >> Yeah. If we don't put that in, then what

1:01:20 ↗ ends up happening is the traffic going

1:01:23 ↗ through the Juniper roundabout backs up

1:01:26 ↗ through the intersection at Maple,

1:01:28 ↗ causing the intersection at Maple to

1:01:30 ↗ fail. That's why it's in there.

1:01:36 ↗ >> That doesn't make sense to me. the

1:01:38 ↗ intersection at so

1:01:40 ↗ >> calling the intersection at Maple Tail,

1:01:43 ↗ >> right? Because at Juniper because right

1:01:46 ↗ now you would have the

1:01:50 ↗ there would be a backup

1:01:53 ↗ >> the the current backup goes past.

1:01:56 ↗ >> Yes, it would. If you had a roundabout

1:01:59 ↗ without extending the second southbound

1:02:02 ↗ lane, then it it causes Maple and

1:02:05 ↗ Newport to fail.

1:02:07 ↗ >> Okay. I I remain skeptical of this. I

1:02:10 ↗ can we schedule some time like

1:02:14 ↗ Okay, I'll reach out to John

1:02:22 ↗ >> for that. It's 7:04. So, I think um I

1:02:26 ↗ can give some kind of closing. I do

1:02:29 ↗ think we went into the weeds on this a

1:02:31 ↗ lot, but there's lot multiple projects,

1:02:34 ↗ right? and um new suggestions things

1:02:37 ↗ from the administration. Uh so good

1:02:41 ↗ robust discussion but

1:02:44 ↗ see if I can summarize I need you all to

1:02:46 ↗ help me uh and then before we move on to

1:02:48 ↗ the work plan

1:02:51 ↗ >> I

1:02:54 ↗ since we're here for suggestion I just

1:02:56 ↗ wanted to say generally kind of

1:02:58 ↗ mirroring some of the research that has

1:03:00 ↗ shown

1:03:01 ↗ that

1:03:03 ↗ I think a lot of people including me do

1:03:06 ↗ not want to see a lot of extra on

1:03:09 ↗ services in Isiqua and I know that you

1:03:12 ↗ guys are definitely already considering

1:03:14 ↗ that as a design goal. You've said that.

1:03:16 ↗ I just want to reiterate that as a very

1:03:18 ↗ important factor considering

1:03:21 ↗ adding extra lanes and things like that

1:03:22 ↗ is that any potential benefits to

1:03:24 ↗ traffic need to be weighed against flood

1:03:27 ↗ risk and things like that and extra

1:03:29 ↗ water treatment.

1:03:31 ↗ >> I know that we're already doing that,

1:03:33 ↗ but I might as well reiterate that as a

1:03:36 ↗ very big priority, I think. Yeah. No,

1:03:38 ↗ thank you. Appreciate the feedback.

1:03:44 ↗ >> Possible

1:03:46 ↗ to this side asking for

1:03:50 ↗ >> Yes.

1:03:50 ↗ >> I guess the the questions that we're

1:03:52 ↗ trying to answer tonight.

1:03:53 ↗ >> Yep.

1:03:55 ↗ >> Um, as John does that, I guess I'll just

1:03:57 ↗ go uh to Ally or Derek. Anything

1:04:01 ↗ anything to add? Any any thoughts as you

1:04:04 ↗ were reading through the packet?

1:04:08 ↗ Um, I think the only thing for I don't

1:04:10 ↗ really have any big thoughts. I'm

1:04:12 ↗ definitely like not going in to the

1:04:14 ↗ weeds as much um with some questions,

1:04:17 ↗ but I definitely support that

1:04:20 ↗ improvements to that intersection that's

1:04:22 ↗ kind of in question on Newport. Um, I

1:04:26 ↗ traffic that road a lot and make a lot

1:04:28 ↗ of left turns from Holly and Juniper.

1:04:30 ↗ So, I would support improvements there.

1:04:37 ↗ I agree. Um, yeah, just like Ally, I

1:04:40 ↗ don't have really much specifics to add,

1:04:42 ↗ but um, it seems like we have good plans

1:04:45 ↗ coming up.

1:04:53 ↗ So

1:04:55 ↗ folks, uh, do the proposed updates

1:04:58 ↗ aligned with the maps?

1:05:04 ↗ Um

1:05:13 ↗ I know in a lot of these I am seeing the

1:05:16 ↗ um improving mobility uh I think in

1:05:19 ↗ Newport way that's you know clearly

1:05:23 ↗ uh

1:05:24 ↗ getting at

1:05:26 ↗ preparing for growth. I know it sounds

1:05:28 ↗ like there's some concerns uh with the

1:05:31 ↗ details, but um so I don't know if I've

1:05:36 ↗ uh

1:05:37 ↗ you know, we typically try and do things

1:05:39 ↗ consensus and so I don't want to make

1:05:41 ↗ any grand statements if we don't have

1:05:43 ↗ that. But um

1:05:50 ↗ I think that one in particular uh aligns

1:05:53 ↗ with like one of the map ones that says

1:05:55 ↗ like address things with a history of

1:05:57 ↗ like severe fatal collisions because

1:05:59 ↗ that is a really dangerous road for like

1:06:01 ↗ pretty much any modality especially

1:06:03 ↗ currently bikers and walkers. Um

1:06:07 ↗ and so I think I think that calms

1:06:09 ↗ traffic there is good as well. like the

1:06:12 ↗ improving track is just about

1:06:16 ↗ but I think that really aligns with that

1:06:25 ↗ I I lean towards

1:06:27 ↗ kind of separating the parts of like I

1:06:31 ↗ for for any of these projects I am more

1:06:33 ↗ in support of things that support

1:06:36 ↗ pedestrian safety than things that

1:06:39 ↗ prioritize this like automobile

1:06:44 ↗ speed transit because I think those

1:06:46 ↗ things for example not just with batting

1:06:48 ↗ lanes but with other things like that

1:06:50 ↗ often times I I don't think that a

1:06:52 ↗ project should have to include vault to

1:06:55 ↗ get the like in in this case like adding

1:06:57 ↗ bike lanes and the green strip and

1:07:00 ↗ sidewalks does not have to necessarily

1:07:03 ↗ go along with adding an extra lane. I

1:07:05 ↗ mean, I'm not obviously if the city

1:07:07 ↗ transit partners think it's necessary.

1:07:08 ↗ It's just that like I'm assuming that

1:07:11 ↗ those things don't have to go together.

1:07:12 ↗ It's just cheaper if you do it all at

1:07:14 ↗ once, right?

1:07:17 ↗ So, I'm going to say you can add bike

1:07:20 ↗ lanes and sidewalks and planter strips

1:07:22 ↗ without adding extra vehicular lanes.

1:07:25 ↗ You cannot add extra vehicular lanes and

1:07:28 ↗ meet city policies without adding the

1:07:30 ↗ non-motorized facilities.

1:07:32 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:07:34 ↗ Um, and I think that's a a good thing. I

1:07:36 ↗ just think that like some level of

1:07:37 ↗ separation in projects is like

1:07:42 ↗ if a project is going to break these

1:07:44 ↗ other things and what am I trying to

1:07:47 ↗ say? Like the additional benefit of

1:07:51 ↗ we're going to be getting this

1:07:52 ↗ pedestrian safety almost shouldn't be

1:07:55 ↗ considered when you're considering

1:07:56 ↗ whether or not to add an extra lane

1:07:58 ↗ somewhere because presumably you could

1:08:00 ↗ add that pedestrian that pedestrian

1:08:02 ↗ safety features without adding extra

1:08:04 ↗ lane. Does that make sense? Like those

1:08:05 ↗ are two separate goods that we're

1:08:07 ↗ considering and they don't have to be

1:08:08 ↗ bundled into like an all or nothing kind

1:08:10 ↗ of situation when we're trying to make

1:08:12 ↗ this decision. I think that applies to

1:08:14 ↗ any of these projects is like the

1:08:16 ↗ different if we can separate out

1:08:18 ↗ different parts of them, it maybe makes

1:08:20 ↗ it more logistically complicated, but

1:08:21 ↗ it's a little bit more honest to the

1:08:25 ↗ actual application if we can separate

1:08:28 ↗ out the different goods that we're

1:08:29 ↗ getting from it. I don't know if this

1:08:31 ↗ makes any sense. I don't know

1:08:32 ↗ articulating myself well.

1:08:34 ↗ >> I I hear what you're saying. It does

1:08:37 ↗ make sense. Although

1:08:39 ↗ >> it's also hard to split out because I

1:08:42 ↗ mean it is a project that is a package

1:08:45 ↗ deal. It's

1:08:48 ↗ >> like a lot of the the funding that's

1:08:51 ↗ gone into it is for the complete

1:08:52 ↗ package. So

1:08:55 ↗ it would put funding at jeopardy if we

1:08:57 ↗ started saying okay yes grant we took

1:09:01 ↗ this money from you and we said we do

1:09:04 ↗ these five things and now we're going to

1:09:06 ↗ just do three of them. So the grant

1:09:08 ↗ system means that they are kind of a

1:09:10 ↗ package,

1:09:10 ↗ >> right? Yeah.

1:09:19 ↗ before I guess I'll preliminarily ask

1:09:22 ↗ you John if you feel like you have the

1:09:24 ↗ feedback you need or is it a bit feel

1:09:26 ↗ like it's a bit more split and segmented

1:09:30 ↗ than I might like to give you but um if

1:09:34 ↗ you are feeling we can

1:09:37 ↗ we can continue discussing

1:09:40 ↗ before I

1:09:41 ↗ Well, I feel like it was good feedback.

1:09:44 ↗ I'm curious what Adam has to say.

1:09:49 ↗ >> Or is it overall?

1:09:50 ↗ >> I just summary.

1:09:52 ↗ >> Okay.

1:09:52 ↗ >> Yeah.

1:09:54 ↗ >> Go. Go ahead.

1:09:56 ↗ >> I want to make sure that you understand

1:09:57 ↗ that. I I applaud the vast majority of

1:10:00 ↗ what's in this. I think it's there's a

1:10:01 ↗ lot of great stuff in here. I I like the

1:10:04 ↗ prioritization of some of the specific

1:10:06 ↗ intersections that we've seen have

1:10:08 ↗ problems and you know won't necessarily

1:10:10 ↗ cost that much uh to address. So the

1:10:13 ↗ only thing I'm really digging into today

1:10:15 ↗ is that extra lane and you know what the

1:10:18 ↗ some of that is based on um some lacking

1:10:22 ↗ of uh you know objective measures of

1:10:24 ↗ improvement. Uh so like we'll relist the

1:10:26 ↗ projects we don't necessarily say you

1:10:29 ↗ know we want to improve traffic. this

1:10:31 ↗ project is going to improve this

1:10:33 ↗ traffic, you know, this latency, this

1:10:34 ↗ throughput, so on and so forth. So that

1:10:37 ↗ would be really on the whole overall I

1:10:39 ↗ call the changes.

1:10:41 ↗ >> Yeah. Yeah. And that's kind of the and

1:10:44 ↗ I'd have to watch the YouTube video. I I

1:10:46 ↗ felt like, and you guys can correct me

1:10:49 ↗ if I'm wrong, that generally the tab

1:10:52 ↗ supports the proposed six-year tip.

1:10:55 ↗ There are some specific questions,

1:10:57 ↗ mostly from Adam,

1:11:00 ↗ about the the second southbound lane.

1:11:03 ↗ He's giving me a hard time, Adam. Um,

1:11:05 ↗ but uh and we can meet and talk about it

1:11:08 ↗ in detail and give you hundreds of pages

1:11:11 ↗ of traffic reports to read and

1:11:16 ↗ >> Okay. I I don't disagree with that some

1:11:19 ↗ degree. I also um I guess I'll kind of

1:11:23 ↗ let I know I could raise some cons

1:11:26 ↗ categorize them as concern some

1:11:27 ↗ curiosity about us even being asked the

1:11:30 ↗ about the taking on debt in the first

1:11:33 ↗ place and I am seeing within the

1:11:35 ↗ anticipate transformation guiding

1:11:37 ↗ principles of the map is that that

1:11:39 ↗ includes and encompasses economic trends

1:11:42 ↗ and so um

1:11:46 ↗ I I guess it maybe is so strange that

1:11:48 ↗ we're being asked that But um okay, if

1:11:52 ↗ you uh I feel pretty good about this. Uh

1:11:57 ↗ anyone else before we switch gears to

1:12:00 ↗ the next item? God, that's going twice.

1:12:03 ↗ I'll ask officially, do you have all the

1:12:05 ↗ information you feel like you need to

1:12:07 ↗ move forward?

1:12:08 ↗ >> Yes. Thank you.

1:12:11 ↗ >> Um and our next item is the 2026 child

1:12:15 ↗ work plan. And to approve that, um,

1:12:19 ↗ Andrea Leoner, our deputy city

1:12:21 ↗ administrator, will be presenting

1:12:22 ↗ tonight. Please go ahead.

1:12:25 ↗ >> Great. Thank you so much. Um, this is

1:12:28 ↗ also in your packet. Uh, well, and and

1:12:31 ↗ really, uh, Chair Boyd, I'd love to turn

1:12:34 ↗ it back to you because we presented, uh,

1:12:36 ↗ the work plan to city council two weeks

1:12:39 ↗ ago and got some feedback. So, do you It

1:12:42 ↗ was Well, I

1:12:44 ↗ >> I Okay.

1:12:48 ↗ a week and a half ago. Um, so do you

1:12:51 ↗ want to share how that discussion with

1:12:53 ↗ council went and what kind of feedback

1:12:54 ↗ we got?

1:12:55 ↗ >> Sure.

1:12:56 ↗ >> Back to my

1:12:59 ↗ um uh so

1:13:03 ↗ got feedback from the council on Monday

1:13:07 ↗ last week. Um had some feedback from

1:13:11 ↗ council member Walsh. um I think looking

1:13:13 ↗ for a little more emphasis or she was

1:13:16 ↗ asking about um bicycle and pedestrian

1:13:19 ↗ infrastructure. Um I don't know if that

1:13:21 ↗ was just not jumping out immediately um

1:13:25 ↗ based off of the work plan, but Andrea

1:13:28 ↗ did a great job of um highlighting the

1:13:30 ↗ touch points where we will uh address um

1:13:34 ↗ items that have more of that flavor. Um

1:13:38 ↗ and um I want to be sure I at least

1:13:41 ↗ brought that up. Um some of the places

1:13:43 ↗ that will um address that are like when

1:13:47 ↗ we talk about the trail standards, the Q

1:13:49 ↗ trip reduction

1:13:52 ↗ that

1:13:53 ↗ um and then uh it's a report card for

1:13:58 ↗ the map report card or the tab report

1:13:59 ↗ card. It's a map report card. um the

1:14:02 ↗ look back um over what we um

1:14:06 ↗ uh progress on the plan um that will

1:14:10 ↗ include what's being done about bike

1:14:13 ↗ bite pad as well. So

1:14:16 ↗ and and the tip itself there was a lot

1:14:18 ↗ of discussion about bicycle facilities

1:14:20 ↗ and pedestrian facilities and safety and

1:14:23 ↗ that's really where we put all those

1:14:25 ↗ kind of policies into action. So thank

1:14:28 ↗ you for all your comments on that

1:14:29 ↗ tonight.

1:14:31 ↗ Um

1:14:34 ↗ I think her last comment is just about

1:14:36 ↗ um um advising us to you know find look

1:14:42 ↗ at the gaps what's not helping our uh

1:14:44 ↗ transportation system and I the

1:14:46 ↗ questions that Adam raised uh might be

1:14:49 ↗ uh us doing just that of do we really

1:14:52 ↗ need one more lane

1:14:54 ↗ um Adair um uh asked about uh the micro

1:15:00 ↗ for transit. Um I think that's on our

1:15:02 ↗ work plan. Um uh specifically bringing

1:15:05 ↗ up the idea of fixed route shuttles. I

1:15:07 ↗ know this board has um addressed and

1:15:11 ↗ advised uh the advance port of

1:15:14 ↗ Metroflex. I know there's been

1:15:16 ↗ discussion on you know best and highest

1:15:19 ↗ use of city dollars, the writership of

1:15:22 ↗ that. And um

1:15:25 ↗ and then uh something that we touched on

1:15:28 ↗ tonight, Council Member Jen asked about

1:15:30 ↗ um bonding of transfers benefit funding.

1:15:34 ↗ So um

1:15:37 ↗ we addressed like usage of debt but um

1:15:42 ↗ uh

1:15:45 ↗ and she encouraged us to offer um

1:15:50 ↗ you know anything that we're not that we

1:15:51 ↗ would want to see in the case we just

1:15:53 ↗ talked about this but we still can we

1:15:55 ↗ another 40 minutes or so if there's

1:15:58 ↗ anything that we weren't seeing in the

1:16:00 ↗ tip that um

1:16:03 ↗ or just projects we'd like to see in the

1:16:05 ↗ future. We can can also be proactive

1:16:08 ↗ about that. I know typically we are

1:16:09 ↗ addressing what you know um the

1:16:11 ↗ administration is um asking us to

1:16:15 ↗ address um our agendas are set right but

1:16:18 ↗ um Adam and I meet uh before each

1:16:21 ↗ meeting with uh city staff and so you

1:16:25 ↗ know where you can have break the table

1:16:30 ↗ things that we might want to address as

1:16:31 ↗ well things that you're hearing out in

1:16:33 ↗ community or experiencing right Um

1:16:37 ↗ just a reminder that that's an opening.

1:16:42 ↗ >> Yes, thank you. Um I will also just kind

1:16:45 ↗ of provide a highle summary of what I

1:16:47 ↗ really heard from council. The theme was

1:16:50 ↗ making sure that um TAB feels empowered

1:16:54 ↗ to give us feedback because council

1:16:57 ↗ really wants to hear from you. And so

1:16:59 ↗ the comments tonight on the tip very

1:17:01 ↗ well noted. Thank you for all of those.

1:17:04 ↗ and um just making sure that you you are

1:17:08 ↗ empowered and you know that the doors

1:17:09 ↗ open that council really wants to hear

1:17:10 ↗ from you um on any ways to improve

1:17:14 ↗ transportation in a city

1:17:17 ↗ that um I thought was good to hear uh

1:17:20 ↗ council's support and respect of this

1:17:22 ↗ body and wanting to hear from you. Um

1:17:25 ↗ other things that we've discussed since

1:17:27 ↗ that city council meeting though so we

1:17:29 ↗ looked as we were looking at the work

1:17:30 ↗ plan and we were talking about the tip

1:17:34 ↗ um in the meeting with the chair and

1:17:36 ↗ vice chair um we were talking about

1:17:40 ↗ criteria and this idea of how are we

1:17:42 ↗ applying the criteria? are we um

1:17:45 ↗ including all the information we should

1:17:47 ↗ knowing that now we have a new mayor who

1:17:49 ↗ has a little more direction you know uh

1:17:52 ↗ as as John said looking around at how

1:17:56 ↗ we're um we are have uh lots of projects

1:18:01 ↗ that address bike and ped we have some

1:18:03 ↗ that do all three for including cars um

1:18:07 ↗ but the mayor does want us to look at

1:18:09 ↗ how are we getting around a little

1:18:11 ↗ easier how are we using our existing

1:18:13 ↗ streets and intersections. If there's

1:18:15 ↗ ways that we can manage our

1:18:17 ↗ infrastructure better, not necessarily

1:18:19 ↗ adding lanes, but using what we have and

1:18:22 ↗ managing traffic flow better, then we

1:18:23 ↗ should look at those things. We've

1:18:25 ↗ talked in the past with this group about

1:18:26 ↗ IT or intelligent transportation systems

1:18:29 ↗ and traffic signals. And so that's also

1:18:32 ↗ part of this effort using our existing

1:18:33 ↗ infrastructure in a way that's going to

1:18:35 ↗ facilitate movement um which also helps

1:18:39 ↗ out transit. So, um I think what we're

1:18:42 ↗ looking at is uh with the larger CIP

1:18:46 ↗ update happening next year, I think, um

1:18:49 ↗ it would make sense for us to dive a

1:18:51 ↗ little deeper into some of the

1:18:54 ↗ transportation project criteria. Uh

1:18:57 ↗ let's work with staff. I've heard

1:18:59 ↗ feedback from staff about um how to use

1:19:02 ↗ that infrastruct how to use that

1:19:04 ↗ criteria to grade those projects and

1:19:07 ↗ maybe wanting to clarify that and make

1:19:09 ↗ it uh to your point Adam more objective.

1:19:13 ↗ I've heard that kind of feedback from

1:19:14 ↗ staff and so I think what I would like

1:19:17 ↗ to suggest given this work plan and the

1:19:19 ↗ concerns that we've heard through the

1:19:21 ↗ tip discussions of uh towards the end of

1:19:24 ↗ the year certainly in the fourth quarter

1:19:27 ↗ um starting to take a look at the

1:19:29 ↗ criteria again see given new mayor's

1:19:32 ↗ priorities given different perspectives

1:19:34 ↗ among um uh our members and some of them

1:19:38 ↗ are going to be new by that time

1:19:40 ↗ that um maybe we want to take a look at

1:19:43 ↗ and make sure that the criteria are

1:19:45 ↗ serving us that it's clear for staff on

1:19:47 ↗ how to be using those criteria to grade

1:19:49 ↗ projects. There was the suggestion of

1:19:51 ↗ going through um uh a like exercise to

1:19:57 ↗ try it out and score some projects and

1:20:00 ↗ involve this body more and and

1:20:02 ↗ increasing the transparency of our

1:20:04 ↗ scoring uh the projects and so we might

1:20:07 ↗ want to uh look into that uh towards the

1:20:10 ↗ end of the year. So I would suggest that

1:20:11 ↗ we modify the work plan um to include

1:20:15 ↗ discussions on criteria and another

1:20:17 ↗ examination into those in advance of the

1:20:20 ↗ CIP update.

1:20:32 ↗ I agree. Have any

1:20:36 ↗ um any objections? Guess procedurally,

1:20:40 ↗ do right now it's in here to approve it

1:20:44 ↗ as is, but do we have to do anything to

1:20:48 ↗ I I think the if there was a motion to

1:20:51 ↗ approve as amended, that amendment would

1:20:54 ↗ include adding uh to the work plan an

1:20:57 ↗ examination of criteria unless there's

1:21:00 ↗ other amendments you want to make and

1:21:01 ↗ other changes to the work plan.

1:21:08 ↗ I guess as a

1:21:12 ↗ way of order on that like what which

1:21:15 ↗ month might we add the uh

1:21:20 ↗ uh deep dive into the the scoring

1:21:22 ↗ criteria with potential

1:21:26 ↗ scoring exercise. First of all, I'm

1:21:28 ↗ absolutely in favor of that. I think

1:21:30 ↗ when we get into that level of detail in

1:21:32 ↗ doing exercises in group, we get a lot

1:21:34 ↗ more uh deeper opinions that are a lot

1:21:38 ↗ more wellounded. So, I think it's a good

1:21:40 ↗ use of time.

1:21:43 ↗ >> Yeah, I was thinking fourth quarter

1:21:45 ↗ likely November. I see we generally

1:21:47 ↗ don't have a meeting in December

1:21:49 ↗ necessarily, but I think that's an

1:21:52 ↗ exercise that we can do November and

1:21:54 ↗ even spilling over into January if need

1:21:57 ↗ be. Um, we staff get really involved in

1:22:00 ↗ the CIP updates uh starting later later

1:22:05 ↗ January, February. I'm looking at John

1:22:08 ↗ so he can correct me if I'm wrong, but

1:22:10 ↗ some of the criteria discussions we can

1:22:12 ↗ have kind of in advance of that to help

1:22:14 ↗ staff um do the updates. So we'd be

1:22:19 ↗ looking at amending the October November

1:22:23 ↗ one of those meetings to include

1:22:26 ↗ a a deeper dive into Yeah. Right now we

1:22:29 ↗ have for November we have um banal

1:22:32 ↗ banial traffic calming program report

1:22:35 ↗ um potentially trail standards

1:22:40 ↗ and the central Isqua station alignment

1:22:43 ↗ study potentially. So these things uh as

1:22:46 ↗ you know move around we have a couple of

1:22:48 ↗ dates that are highlighted um including

1:22:50 ↗ November for some of these studies but

1:22:52 ↗ um I think if we get too far um too if

1:22:56 ↗ we get too early I think the the

1:22:58 ↗ discussion is going to be really hard

1:23:00 ↗ from a staff perspective to be able to

1:23:02 ↗ manage that. So that's what I'm looking

1:23:04 ↗ at end of the year. Um and that will

1:23:07 ↗ lead us nicely into the CIP update and

1:23:10 ↗ the timing of that.

1:23:14 ↗ Okay. Um, if people are happy with that,

1:23:17 ↗ I'll make a motion that uh we

1:23:21 ↗ approve the transportation advisory

1:23:23 ↗ board 2026 work plan with uh the amended

1:23:27 ↗ addition of a deep dive into scoring

1:23:31 ↗ criteria for tip and zip projects

1:23:36 ↗ to be scheduled uh in probably fourth

1:23:39 ↗ quarter meeting.

1:23:47 ↗ You do all I guess if there are any

1:23:49 ↗ opposed

1:23:52 ↗ by your consensus. Do you approve the

1:23:54 ↗ amended work plan?

1:23:58 ↗ Thank you.

1:24:01 ↗ Andrew, do you have all the information

1:24:02 ↗ you need to move forward?

1:24:05 ↗ I think you do. Next item is reports.

1:24:10 ↗ um

1:24:11 ↗ staff report. Please go ahead here.

1:24:15 ↗ >> Uh great. Well, um first, uh thank you,

1:24:19 ↗ Chair Boyd. I think you also wanted to

1:24:20 ↗ have time to just recognize Thomas.

1:24:23 ↗ Thomas Valdz uh was the former uh staff

1:24:27 ↗ liaison to this body for a bit and uh he

1:24:31 ↗ has since as you all know moved on to

1:24:33 ↗ the city of Kirkland. In fact, I have a

1:24:35 ↗ meeting with him tomorrow morning as a

1:24:37 ↗ safe Kirkland employee.

1:24:40 ↗ So, if you have any uh regards to pass

1:24:43 ↗ on to him, I can do that. Um, so Thomas

1:24:47 ↗ uh is is uh pursuing, you know,

1:24:50 ↗ advancement in his career and he's um uh

1:24:53 ↗ chosen to do that in Kirkland because

1:24:55 ↗ they have a nice path for him to be able

1:24:57 ↗ to do that. So, we wish him well. Um, I

1:24:59 ↗ miss him dearly every day, but uh you

1:25:02 ↗ are all unfortunately stuck with me

1:25:04 ↗ until we get to fill the position. So,

1:25:07 ↗ thank you for your patience uh with me.

1:25:09 ↗ Happy to also help and support any

1:25:11 ↗ questions that you have or anything that

1:25:12 ↗ I can do. Um we are looking to fill the

1:25:16 ↗ position. Um we're advertising right

1:25:19 ↗ now. So, if you know anybody, please uh

1:25:22 ↗ you can you can send them my way or

1:25:24 ↗ refer them to the city website. Um, so

1:25:27 ↗ my hope is that I have the position open

1:25:29 ↗ for another week or so, three weeks

1:25:33 ↗ total, and we'll see who we get. So, I

1:25:35 ↗ know that there's already been a couple

1:25:36 ↗ of applications. I don't know how many,

1:25:38 ↗ but some folks have reached out to me.

1:25:40 ↗ So, we're feeling optimistic, especially

1:25:42 ↗ in this job climate, that maybe we'll

1:25:44 ↗ get some great people in. Uh and then um

1:25:50 ↗ in terms of other things, I think we

1:25:52 ↗ look forward to taking the tip next to

1:25:54 ↗ the environmental board, looking at

1:25:56 ↗ scheduling a good time for that, getting

1:25:58 ↗ their feedback, moving that through. Um

1:26:01 ↗ otherwise, I will just encourage

1:26:04 ↗ everyone if you have not uh if you care

1:26:07 ↗ about light rail and isqua, that's our

1:26:10 ↗ big effort right now in the city. And so

1:26:12 ↗ I will be taking a group of folks uh

1:26:15 ↗ starting we're meeting at city hall

1:26:18 ↗ downtown at the Eagle statue at 1210

1:26:21 ↗ tomorrow. That's noon 12:10 uh to be

1:26:24 ↗ able to take the 554 down to um the

1:26:28 ↗ Sound Transit HQ and uh provide public

1:26:33 ↗ comment in support of Isakqualite Rail

1:26:35 ↗ and building out ST3 on the east side.

1:26:38 ↗ Um hopefully you're all aware that the

1:26:40 ↗ Cross Lake Connection opens officially

1:26:42 ↗ this Saturday. There's a big um opening

1:26:44 ↗ ceremony and ribbon cutting and all of

1:26:46 ↗ that. And so with the Cross Lake

1:26:48 ↗ Connection, we're excited to see those

1:26:50 ↗ trains running along I90. First time

1:26:52 ↗ ever in the world that such a thing will

1:26:54 ↗ occur on a floating bridge. But um also

1:26:58 ↗ uh some service changes in transit. And

1:27:00 ↗ there's some rumors going around town

1:27:02 ↗ about different bus routes being cut and

1:27:04 ↗ canceled, etc. And so if you hear those

1:27:06 ↗ rumors, please refer them to me because

1:27:08 ↗ there's a lot of misinformation

1:27:10 ↗ unfortunately going out there. So I'm

1:27:11 ↗ doing a lot of answering questions etc.

1:27:13 ↗ Um but just note if you normally take

1:27:16 ↗ the 554 Monday morning it might look a

1:27:19 ↗ little different. So I encourage you to

1:27:22 ↗ um to uh look at your transit routes um

1:27:25 ↗ because there's going to be some changes

1:27:27 ↗ with the with the um crossway connection

1:27:30 ↗ happening.

1:27:31 ↗ >> So the 554 will get cancelled. the 554

1:27:35 ↗ is. Yeah, I mean, yes, we there will no

1:27:37 ↗ longer be a one seat ride um on the 554

1:27:40 ↗ to Seattle is changing. You will have to

1:27:43 ↗ stop and hop on light rail um and finish

1:27:45 ↗ your trip that way. So, it's now a two

1:27:47 ↗ seat ride for us to get into or well,

1:27:50 ↗ yeah, depending on depending on where

1:27:52 ↗ you come from, where you're headed. Yes.

1:27:54 ↗ So,

1:27:56 ↗ >> yeah. One one of

1:27:59 ↗ >> I just started school this today

1:28:01 ↗ actually for the my last quarter.

1:28:04 ↗ I

1:28:06 ↗ looking forward to my experience this

1:28:07 ↗ quarter.

1:28:08 ↗ >> They they are are promising uh fast

1:28:11 ↗ transfers, but we're going to let us

1:28:13 ↗ know how that works.

1:28:15 ↗ >> Yeah,

1:28:15 ↗ >> I'll report back next month.

1:28:17 ↗ >> Would love to hear it.

1:28:19 ↗ >> Would love to hear it. Best of luck.

1:28:23 ↗ >> Yeah. Uh that's it for my report. Thank

1:28:25 ↗ you.

1:28:26 ↗ >> Thank you.

1:28:30 ↗ I guess I can connect, but I would uh

1:28:33 ↗ sounds like you're feeling a lot of, you

1:28:35 ↗ know, because of the misinformation. So,

1:28:37 ↗ um I don't I can't speak for everyone,

1:28:38 ↗ but however I can help you, too. Just as

1:28:41 ↗ long as I think I need to get the the

1:28:43 ↗ like here's what's changing and whatnot.

1:28:45 ↗ That way, I can um I mean, always will

1:28:48 ↗ refer people to you, but if I can answer

1:28:50 ↗ folks questions too as I'm encountering

1:28:52 ↗ them or having these conversations, then

1:28:54 ↗ the 271 is not being cancelled. Okay. Is

1:28:58 ↗ that something that's coming up a lot at

1:28:59 ↗ people? Interesting. Okay.

1:29:06 ↗ Um then to the chair report. Um thank

1:29:11 ↗ you Andrea for yeah mentioning um all of

1:29:14 ↗ Thomas's great work and I know um I and

1:29:17 ↗ I think I I can't speak for all of us.

1:29:19 ↗ We all wish him the best. um he was a

1:29:21 ↗ great staff leaison and so please pass

1:29:23 ↗ on yeah um gratitude to him when he meet

1:29:26 ↗ tomorrow and um personally for me I

1:29:29 ↗ think he left before his um working

1:29:31 ↗ email was out before I could respond to

1:29:32 ↗ him so I do feel pretty bad that as a

1:29:34 ↗ chair I didn't um send them happy trails

1:29:36 ↗ and thanks for everything he did so yeah

1:29:38 ↗ please pass on I will thanks thank you

1:29:42 ↗ >> um and then um is it okay for me should

1:29:45 ↗ have asked you before for me to give it

1:29:47 ↗ just a update about the interview

1:29:49 ↗ process process

1:29:51 ↗ had or not go through the details but I

1:29:54 ↗ guess I should share that um Andrea

1:29:56 ↗ myself and Julian as a past chair and

1:29:58 ↗ vice chair um conducted interviews for

1:30:01 ↗ the um open positions and um those went

1:30:05 ↗ well and we should have uh know about

1:30:09 ↗ those soon. I'm forgetting the details

1:30:11 ↗ on that.

1:30:13 ↗ >> Yes. Uh we look to uh have council

1:30:16 ↗ confirm those appointments at the

1:30:19 ↗ meeting next week, the council meeting

1:30:21 ↗ next week. Um so moving uh I think we

1:30:27 ↗ have I don't have their names right in

1:30:30 ↗ front of me but Tessa

1:30:32 ↗ Dave

1:30:34 ↗ says or not. So um

1:30:36 ↗ >> uh they will all it will all be um in

1:30:38 ↗ the packet in tomorrow. So yeah um

1:30:44 ↗ Dave and

1:30:51 ↗ um we are we are asking that Ally uh

1:30:54 ↗ become a full member instead of an

1:30:56 ↗ alternate. So thank you Ally for your

1:30:58 ↗ continued interest in participation.

1:31:00 ↗ Thank you.

1:31:02 ↗ And I thought,

1:31:04 ↗ oh yes, there's one more woman who's

1:31:11 ↗ But overall, we had Yeah. good

1:31:13 ↗ applicants. It was a tough decision. Um

1:31:16 ↗ and I'm looking forward to um this next

1:31:20 ↗ round of

1:31:22 ↗ members.

1:31:23 ↗ >> Yes,

1:31:26 ↗ I see her face.

1:31:29 ↗ Sorry. Sorry. Uh Connie.

1:31:32 ↗ >> Oh,

1:31:32 ↗ >> Connie M.

1:31:34 ↗ >> Uh I don't remember her last name. Uh

1:31:38 ↗ but yes. Um and I think what was

1:31:41 ↗ interesting, you know, I will just say

1:31:42 ↗ this, we did have great applicants. Um

1:31:45 ↗ it was very hard to choose. And if

1:31:48 ↗ there's any of those applicants watching

1:31:49 ↗ tonight that did not get chosen, um we

1:31:52 ↗ really want you to come back next time

1:31:53 ↗ because it was very hard to choose. And

1:31:55 ↗ it was an interesting discussion amongst

1:31:58 ↗ uh Julian and Erica. Thank you for your

1:32:00 ↗ participation in those interviews and

1:32:01 ↗ just wanting to make sure we have

1:32:03 ↗ diverse perspectives and so really

1:32:05 ↗ looking around at um how are people

1:32:08 ↗ getting around isqua now? What

1:32:10 ↗ experience do they bring professionally?

1:32:13 ↗ What lived experience are they bringing?

1:32:15 ↗ Um what voices can they help us have

1:32:18 ↗ access to that we maybe don't right now.

1:32:20 ↗ So those were kind of the major con

1:32:22 ↗ considerations for who was selected and

1:32:24 ↗ why.

1:32:35 ↗ Oh, before I forget, um I believe Julian

1:32:38 ↗ is excused tonight. He mentioned that to

1:32:41 ↗ us this verbally and I think that's why

1:32:42 ↗ I had it Yeah. an email. So,

1:32:45 ↗ >> thank you for excused. I have Haney,

1:32:47 ↗ Cynthia, and Julian.

1:32:48 ↗ >> Y

1:32:50 ↗ >> um other business or announcements? Do

1:32:54 ↗ any board members or staff have anything

1:32:56 ↗ to share?

1:32:58 ↗ >> Um, well, we do have an update. John

1:33:02 ↗ corrected me. Thank you, John. Sometimes

1:33:04 ↗ I live too far into the future. That's a

1:33:06 ↗ hazard of my job. And John reminded me

1:33:09 ↗ the 554 will continue going to Seattle

1:33:11 ↗ until the fall service change. So, this

1:33:13 ↗ quarter,

1:33:18 ↗ live it up while you can. That means I

1:33:20 ↗ don't ever have to go to school with

1:33:23 ↗ that many transfers because I'm

1:33:24 ↗ graduating this June, which the audience

1:33:28 ↗ >> literally I get to ride the 554 into

1:33:31 ↗ Seattle my whole time in school.

1:33:38 ↗ >> Okay. Um

1:33:41 ↗ and

1:33:44 ↗ appendex of packet.

1:33:48 ↗ No one else has anything to share. Then

1:33:50 ↗ we are adjourned at 7:35.

1:33:56 ↗ >> Thanks everyone. Hi. Thank you. Thank

1:33:59 ↗ you.

Approved minutes

Extracted from the next meeting's packet, where this meeting's minutes were approved as a consent-calendar attachment.

Open PDF

Attendance

Council / Members (11)

Erika Boyd

Adam Fuchs

Victoria Monroe

Derek Su

Lamir Magus

Allie Morton, Alternate serving as regular

member

Hany Maklad

Cynthia Krass

Julian Mydill

Carlos Besana

Staff (3)

Andrea Lehner, Deputy City Administrator

John Mortenson, Senior Transportation Manager

Emily Moon, Public Works Director

Recommendations & actions (2)

Sentences extracted from the narrative containing words like recommended, requested, directed, moved, or approved. Best-effort — verify against the full minutes for context.

a) Minutes of February 25, 2026 Motion to approve: Erika Boyd, seconded by Victoria Monroe
The additional lane and improvements would maintain the adopted levels of service for Newport and associated intersections from Maple to Sunset.