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

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF