All right. Welcome to the June
9th C-TRAN Board of Directors
meeting. Please stand and join
me in the pledge. I pledge
allegiance.
>> Of the United States of
America and to the Republic for
which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice.
>> All right, Cyndie, will you
please call the roll?
>> Yes, sir. Ryan Davis.
>> Present.
>> Wil Fuentes here. Bart.
Hanson.
>> Present.
>> Kim. Harless. Present. Tim
Hein. Here. Sue Marshall here.
Anne. McEnerny. Ogle. Erik
Paulsen. Joshua waits. Here.
Glen Yung. Here.
>> All right. We are through
the roll. And now is up to the
approval of the agenda. Are
there any additions or changes
to the agenda?
>> Chair, I move approval of
the agenda. Paulsen.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor, say
aye. Aye. Okay, now. Moving
along to public comment. Next
up is a public testimony or
communication. Testimony is
limited to three minutes. We
ask that comments shall be
respectful and courteous to all.
As a reminder, you can email
comments to the clerk of the
board and these will be
accepted as part of the public
record. I'll now open the
public testimony and I will
take the first person first.
And we have Jane Kleiner.
>> Can you please turn your mic
on?
>> Okay. Try again. Good
evening. My name is Jane
Kleiner, the program manager
for the Lower Columbia Nature
Network. And I thank you for
your time this evening. Your
clerk will probably hand you a
flier that looks like this.
Thank you very much. And we'd
like to welcome all of you to
enjoy Get Outdoors Month, which
is June. And many of our local
cities like Vancouver and
Washougal and Ridgefield. And
I'm forgetting the battleground,
have all had proclamations to
celebrate this. And as you know,
we are blessed with so many
amazing resources in our region
to get people outside. And we
have an event calendar here on
the QR code with over 250
events happening in June, with
over 40 partners around the
region, as well as road trips
out to the coast and up to the
gorge. As you may also know,
one of the biggest barriers to
getting people safe and
welcoming access to nature is
transportation, and I'm very
grateful that your group
continues to provide the youth
opportunity paths. And I'm
really excited that the new
vine going up to highway 99
will be able to get people up
to, like the Salmon Creek
Regional Trail system in the
Burnt Bridge Creek, etc. but
we're lacking access to some of
our regional properties around
our region that are really
special, and especially for
those big family gatherings
like Vancouver Lake,
Frenchman's Bar, Lewisville
Park, our state parks like
beacon Rock, Paradise Point and
of course, battleground Lake
State Park. As you also
probably know, many of our
larger communities around the
country have shuttle services
for seasonal access. And of
course, we've got the great
Skamania Gorge system that goes
up to Dog Mountain and up to
White Salmon and up to hood
River. Portland just announced
their shuttle service to
Washington and Forest Park,
their big park systems. So just
to put an idea on your mini
idea boards and happy to talk
with you in the future, because
representing and working with
over 40 partners, we want to
help address accessible and
adaptive access to our local
park systems. So maybe for next
year, we can start planning and
thinking now about what could
be those opportunities for a
seasonal shuttle system to get
folks, including our elders. We
have a partner, Hope dementia,
that has a path system to get
our dementia patients and
caregivers out to local parks
because we know our national
our natural systems are healing
and healthy and enjoy physical,
emotional, and mental health
benefits. So I thank you for
your time and consideration. I
would love to talk with you or
your staff in the future with
some of our partners, to talk
about what a shuttle system
could look like next summer.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you.
>> Next up we have Douglas
Tweed.
>> Okay. Is this is this on? I
guess it is on. Okay. Yeah.
Douglas. So I want to speak
about Trimet's history of over
predicting light rail ridership
last October at the C-TRAN
board meeting right here, our
executives were asked about
forecasted versus actual
ridership results for Trimet's
light rail system. The program
administer administrator
replied in a letter dated
December 10th last year, but he
only discussed the Trimet Max,
Green Line and Orange Line, and
he just gave information about
the opening year ridership,
saying nothing about ridership.
Since then, it has been very
poor for the last several years.
These two lines are at about
one third of their forecasts
now. The Max Green Line
ridership forecast for 2009
were made with the Oregon Metro
Regional Travel Demand model,
the RTD. That's the same kind
of model that's used for the
the light rail. And the letter
cited a 24 fiscal 2014 report
to Congress in 2009. The
forecast was for about 25,000
and the actual was about 24,000.
So that's not too bad. But what
about. Since then, the letter
from IBR gave no information,
so I found other sources.
Cascade policy had a 2020
letter to the FTA. And then you
just go to Tri-met and you can
see their monthly ridership
reports. So in 2020 for the
Green Line, they forecast
33,000 average weekday riders.
But the actual pre-COVID was
less than 21,063% of forecast.
The actual has dropped by half
again. So currently you can see
on the picture you've got, I
sent you less than 33% of the
2020 forecast in the same
December 10th letter, I
admitted that the Max Orange
Line forecast was quite a bit
higher than actual 20 17,000,
versus about 11,000, about two
thirds of the forecast. And but
the IVR claimed that after
adjusting the model, they got
it closer to the best to the
actual numbers. But funding
depends on predictions made
years in advance, not after it
started. So that's a poor
excuse. What about more recent
ridership 2019? Actual was
about 12,000, still well below
the forecast and currently is
5400. Another half drops about
32% of the 2015 forecast. And
then what about the max yellow
line. That's the one that IVR
wants to connect. 2004 forecast
was about 14,000 2004. Actual
was a little under that
forecast. 2020 is 18,000.
Actual pre-COVID was 13,000.
Now it's about 8200. So Trimet
consistently over predicts
ridership. And ridership is a
half to a third of forecasts.
And that's obviously hurting
their budget deficits. They're
drowning in debt Trimet, and
they want to make Clark County
pay for it by pushing max light
rail across the I-5 bridge into
Vancouver. Iberia is using a
similar flawed model to predict
that transit ridership across
the I-5 bridge in 20 years will
be 20 times what it is now.
That's in spite of the fact
that ridership today is half it
was 20 years ago. Don't believe
their models based on history.
They're always wrong.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Next up we have
Molodih Lehan.
>> This meeting is being
recorded and summarized.
>> Summarized means that
they're going to change the
words later. So my name is
Carmen de Leon, also known as
mellow. And I'd like to talk to
you about the ridiculousness of
spending billions of dollars on
light rail. For example, the
population of Washington state
is 8 million. The population of
Oregon State is 4 million. The
together, that's 12 million.
Yet they want to spend billions
on a single stop. That's a few
billion per people, per person.
That's at least 12 million per
person. And yet you want 3
billion for two stops. Granted,
you've got Powell's the City of
Books, a whole block of the
library on 10th Street in
Portland. And actually across
from the City of Books, you
have the other block, three
blocks of books in Portland.
Yet people are going to spend
money to come to this rinky
dink library in Vancouver. Get
real. You're talking about
leaving a legacy to the
population of of not Vancouver,
Oregon and Washington state
population combined of 12
million people, $1 million each.
Plus, that's 3 billion, not 1
million. 1 billion. That's
three. That's a its
generational debt. That's what
you call an economic collapse.
For example, Clark County went
ahead and built this hospital
out there in orchards, but they
didn't keep enough money to
fill it with employees. So you
got an empty building all year
long because of the lack of
foresight. And just like they
said, they're comparing, I
think it was 24,000 daily
ridership on, on, on the yellow
line. And then it went down to
5000, and then it went down to
900 round trip. That's 450. How
many lies can you guys put up
with? You know, denial ain't
just a river in Egypt. It's a
way of life. And if you guys
keep doing it, you're going to
fall just like every other
great civilization that has
fallen. Rome fell, and we are
on the verge of economic
collapse. And yet you guys want
to justify spending millions
per per citizen on this
ridiculous two stops, two stops
when one bus costs 1,000,001
train costs 19 million, you can
buy 19 busses for one max line.
And by the way, I rode the Bart
system, the Bay Area Rapid
Transit, which is closing now,
and they have a population
between the Bay Area and
Oakland and San Jose of 8
million together. Just Portland
and Vancouver is, what is it,
20,200,000 and 600,000? Not
even a million. And you want to
put a billion into this? Come
on. You guys are going to be
left be leaving a legacy of
debt and economic collapse. As
they said, there ain't going to
be no ridership. It's going to
be empty. Just like that
building out there in Clark
County that got authorized to
be built without enough money
to employ people. So if you
want to keep embracing the lies,
hey, that's on you.
>> Thank you. Next up Margaret
tweet.
>> Good evening board. I wanted
to say, yeah, the bus ridership
in 2006, about 3300. And that
number of riders is below 1500.
Crossing the I-5 bridge today,
a reduction of a little more
than half. And again, it is
very unlikely that these 20
time increases will be seen by
2045 in light of the last 20
years. Now, last last time I
talked about in the FSEIS that
C-TRAN and IV are stating that
light rail is required on the
I-5 bridge in order to get
federal funding the city grant.
But in fact, the FDA website
does not state that busses or
BRT are an option. There hasn't
been considered duly considered.
So that's a misrepresentation
that needs to be corrected. The
final SEIS report on I-5 bridge
was approved by a C-TRAN board
majority at the February 10th
meeting, 2026 over two months
prior to publication. How can
you approve something that you
have never read, and that none
of us in the public had an
opportunity to read either?
This extension at the April
meeting, it was stated perhaps
3.5 billion to build the light
rail. If there are two stations
in Vancouver and the project
currently estimated up to 15.2
billion, although that could
increase as it did this year,
more roughly doubled and. Light
rail busses can run on shoulder
or a dedicated lane at a small
fraction of the cost of light
rail, which allows no other
vehicles, carries no freight,
so the C-TRAN board is being
asked to approve a revised
agreement, which is a draft
agreement tonight. And this is
a substantial agreement
outlining the expansion of
Tri-met light rail into our
community. And since it is a
draft again, I wonder at the
wisdom of approving something
that isn't a draft form, that
you don't know how it's going
to end up, and giving that
authority, taking away from the
board and giving it to the
director instead to make all
the finalizations again, giving
the public no opportunity to
comment on the final version.
In 2012, voters in the C-TRAN
district rejected a ballot
proposition to extend Oregon
Max light rail over I-5 bridge
into Clark County, and then in
2013, countywide voters opposed
light rail unless voters first
approved it in a public vote.
No updates on that public vote
have been held. Only cost
updates.
>> Thank you. Next up, we have
Rachel Shapiro.
>> Would you guys mind if I.
I'm not used to sitting. Hi,
I'm Rachel Shapiro, and I
wanted to talk to you guys
today. One that the people
before me had talked about the
cost. One of the things is your
job here is to represent the
people and to make sure that
everything is for the people,
the city, the people that live
here. The cost does not
outweigh the benefit. This is
$1 billion project. Like
someone had brought up that per
person. It would be seriously
in the millions per individual.
This last weekend I had to take
my daughter and son in law and
my two grandchildren to the
airport. If you guys put a toll
here, that would have the max
that you can do a toll is 1450.
And let's be honest, everyone
is going to always end up using
the Mac of the tolls. If you're
allowed to go up to 1450,
they're going to do it. They
may start off low, but they're
going to go up. That would have
been me taking them to the
airport, coming back, and then
going to pick them up and take
them back. That would have been
close to $60 just to take your
family to the airport. And
because they had two car seats,
a double stroller, their
luggage and a porta crib, two
porta cribs so that they have
to take a car, it's not
something you can take a light.
Well, you're burdening people
just to get to the airport. And
unless the light rail runs
consistently, most people won't
take it to the airport. Like we
talked about, the people. The
people have voted on this
already. They voted on it twice.
They voted on it in 2012, 2013.
And I guarantee you, if you
tell them to vote on it again,
they're going to vote no. And
you, you guys need to represent
the people. Also, I noticed
that there are more people here
for for Vancouver than Clark
County for the vote, which
didn't doesn't seem right
because there's more people,
more residents in Clark County
than there are in just
Vancouver. So that was just an
observation that I made, and I
could be wrong on that. And
then again, I noticed that your
report that you guys voted on
without really understanding or
reading it was just a draft.
And if you're going to put your
name behind something, please
make sure you read it from
beginning to end. And it's the
final document just for plain
common sense. I mean, if you
don't read something from
beginning to end, how can you
actually consciously vote on
this? And I think this cost
that outweighs the benefit is
completely unconscionable. So
again, I see I'm running out of
time. I'd like you guys to say
thank you for listening to me.
And we all need to sleep at
night. And our property tax is
going to go up. So please vote
no for this. Thank you for your
time.
>> Thank you. Next up, Bruce
Barnes.
>> Good evening, chair and
board. My name is Bruce Barnes.
For the record, thank you for
your opportunity to speak
tonight. A few things I want
Spaghetti Factory last week and
I made some observations there.
And my observation was there's
a lot of pictures in there of
trolleys. They used to be
basically a light rail that are
all now defunct because they
didn't work. People didn't use
them, kind of like light rail.
I also went out to Rockwood
last week to get some shocks
for my dad's vehicle at
O'Reilly Auto Parts, and I just
could not believe the
destruction of neighborhoods
and how they looked along the
light rail that did not look
that way 20 years ago. And I
would urge all of you to take a
trip out through there and just
say, is this what we want in
Vancouver? Honestly, is this
really what we want? I mean,
we've already got Fourth Plain
Boulevard. That's a disaster
full of drug addicts. Do we
want more? I don't think so.
Probably not going to be a very
good look, especially for
people trying to move
businesses into the into our
community and trying to trying
to prosper and create some jobs.
I see jobs leaving the area. I
don't see jobs coming into the
area. And, you know, with this
millionaire tax and everything
else that's going on, I think
we better take a good long look
at what's going on here. And
when I look at the money spent
by Tri-met, I look at the money
that's taken in and spent by
C-TRAN. I understand people
need jobs, I get it, but you
got to have something that
works, right. And the one thing
that does work in C-TRAN is
your, your pilot project out in
battleground where it's
basically an Uber system, right?
That is working, right? And
they don't have big, huge
busses. People get to go where
they want to go. You know,
these busses don't take people
where they got to go. They got
to just keep jumping, you know,
like a game of Frogger, you
know, to get to the next
destination. It takes forever.
Nobody wants to be in that
situation. They want to be able
to get where they want to get.
That's why people drive
vehicles. They don't ride
busses, you know, and we seem
to be catering to the one and a
half or 2% of people that need
them. And I get that there
needs to be public
transportation for people that
are of, of lower income and,
and people that are elders. I
get all that, you know what I
mean? But we've got the smaller
busses as well, right? That
seem to work good when elders
need a ride to Starbucks coffee
or Fred Meyer or Safeway or
whatever it gets them to and
from, and it's cost effective
to them. It doesn't take some,
you know, humongous diesel, you
know, bus that everybody seems
to be so concerned about the
environment, but it certainly
doesn't look like it when
you've got all these diesel
busses cruising around. The
electric ones failed. We're
buying nine new ones. We got to
do something different, you
know? I mean, when I look at my
property taxes and I look at my
expenses and I look at the
Columbian today and the
governor's sounding the alarm,
oh my God, we're in debt again.
We need to raise more taxes. At
what point are people absorbed
to the point where they can't
afford to live? And you can see
the mass exodus. I mean, people
are moving out of here. They're
moving to Idaho. They're moving
to other places that are a lot
less costly to live at. And
there's a lot more jobs. I mean,
there's there's seven going to
be 11. Oops. Thank you for your
time.
>> Thank you. Next up, Chris
King.
>> Good evening, chair and
board. Thank you for the
opportunity to voice my
opposition to light rail. I'm
Chris King. I'm a longtime East
County resident. I'm just a
construction guy. So my math is
like in pounds and feet and
tons of asphalt and things like
that. The cost side of this
thing just doesn't make any
sense. First we were for we had
a position of that we're Clark
County is not going to pay any
operating and maintenance costs
for Tri-met. Now we've opened
the door for that. And the
ridership of all this doesn't
support what's going on here.
The. And maybe my news feed is
filled with negative stuff
against this, and I'm not
seeing any news that that
supports anything that says
this thing is going the right
direction. Day after day. I'm
reading things like Trimet's
going broke by 2029. Why would
we support that? Why would we
subsidize that as taxpayers
here in Clark County, $290
million of the IBR to go to a
maintenance facility for
Tri-met, why would the
taxpayers of Clark County be
involved in that at all? Who's
running the show here? Tri-met
as my friend Rachel said, you
guys are stewards for Clark
County. It's time you acted
like it. Please ditch this
light rail boondoggle.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Chris, do we have
anybody on the line?
>> We do have one person online.
>> All right. Let's go to that
individual.
>> If you could please unmute
yourself.
>> Good evening. Kimberly.
Kimberly Gavenn Elbon live
citizen of Clark County,
Washington. So pay very close
attention to these speakers as
they speak for most of Clark
County citizens. And I'll say
it again, put Clark County
under a five year no growth.
I'll mention that you hold
public hearings not to do as we
the people ask or tell you what
to do, which that's what we've
been doing here. But you do
this to satisfy the Open Public
Meetings Act, so shame on you.
You need to put out a. And it
should be mandatory, a
questionnaire to all citizens
in Clark County and mail it.
Which. About the light rail. Do
they want light rail and do
they want tolls? It's
definitely more effective than
what you've been doing. When
you say that you've made public
notices, when you know it
doesn't reach the masses, but
that's by design and. And it's
a show of big government that
wants to push light rail to
Clark County. When we voted
light rail down at least two
times, which you ignored, light
rail will cost millions of
dollars each year. And it is
not a benefit to the masses who
would end up paying for it.
I'll add that as Vancouver
wants to grow to be the second
largest city in Washington
state, they are dead set on
getting light rail. The push to
get light rail is proof of a
tyrannical big government that
Vancouver has shown. But tell
us, when is Vancouver going to
go car less? I'd like to know.
And did anyone on this board
ride C-TRAN to this meeting? I
asked because the Clark County
Council has a proclamation
request from June 3rd meeting
for Ride Transit month and will
probably be passed. So ride
transit. I'd also like to
mention that Google AI says
that many public transit
systems are persistently in
deficit, but C-TRAN holds $423
million in total assets,
including $205 million in
unrestricted cash reserves. So
it's for their rainy day scale.
So what what goes on with all
that money? Is the public
actually reaping any of the
interest that you might be
investing in with this, all
this money, that's our money.
So why, why are you guys always
needing more of our money? Our
property taxes have gone up.
Everything has gone up. I can
hardly make it per month. I'm
one house payment away of
probably having to sell. I
don't think that's right. Most
of Clark County does not want
light rail. You guys need to
pay attention to this. Those
people speak for tens of
thousands of people that are
there tonight. They showed up.
It's it's a lot of energy to
listen to these meetings, show
up and do our duty. And you
guys need to listen to us. And
I mean it. You you got to
figure something else out. I
know you've invested a lot of
our hard earned tax dollars
already spent it, I might add,
to get the bridge and the maps
and the light rail up on that
big ramp and everything, but it
is not going to work. So make
sure you listen to what we the
people want. You do represent
us and you're not. And you need
to.
>> Thank you again.
>> One of.
>> Okay. And that is public
comment. We're now on to
consent items. And let's see
here. Do would anybody like to
pull anything from consent. Do
I hear a motion.
>> To approve.
>> Motion to approve consent as
presented.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor say
aye.
>> Aye aye.
>> Opposed. All right. Moving
along here. Now we're going to
break into executive session.
Chief Executive Officer
Performance Review pursuant to
our CW42 .30.1101 G. No action
will be taken a time estimated
at 20 minutes and chair. The
time is now 557 and we will
return or send somebody to add
additional time. So we'll be
back at what, 617?
>> Executive session is
extending ten minutes. Start
time. 627.
>> And we returned from
executive session.
>> The time is now. 627 and the
meeting is reconvening. No
action will be taken at this
time. Cyndie. Pailey. Please
call the roll again.
>> Yes, sir. Ryan Davis present.
Wil Fuentes here. Bart Hansen
present. Kim Harless present.
Tim Hein present. Sue Marshall
here.
>> Anne McEnerny. Ogle. Erik
Paulsen, Joshua Weitz. Glen
Yung.
>> Now moving on to action
items. Action item number one.
Highway 99. Bus rapid transit
project condemnation
proceedings. Staff report 26026
C-TRAN Board Resolution BR26005
in Randy Parker.
>> Thank you, chair members of
the board. Before I get started,
I want to introduce Jackie
Walker, who should be online.
She's our legal representation
for Miller Nash. She's our
condemnation expert. As you
well know, that highway 99 is
well into construction. Now,
when we started, we had 30
right of way files total. We've
closed on 27 of those. These
remaining three. We've been in
negotiations with them for
quite some time and just can't
seem to get there. So we're at
an impasse with them. Our
contractor has been graciously
moving around, been quite
nimble to help us keep moving.
But we're running out of time
if we're going to meet the
schedule overall. So we need to
get going on this. So with that
in mind, we were proceeding
with eminent domain
condemnation proceedings with
Miller. Nash. So that's what
this board resolution is is
about. And this is a staff
report is requesting that the
C-TRAN board of directors
authorize the CEO to approve
resolution BR26-005 to
authorize acquisition by
condemnation of the property
needed for the highway 99 BRT
project, including the right to
acquire all or any portion of
identified properties above by
negotiation or condemnation. In
the event an acceptable
agreement cannot be reached.
And I should point out that the.
There is no. At this point,
there's no identified cost for
this. But the expenses for this
will be covered under the
adopted capital budget. Under
line items for highway 99, BRT
project. And with that, any
questions?
>> Questions?
>> I have a question. As part
of this process, do we need to
declare that this is for a
public benefit?
>> Yes.
>> Is that part of the letter?
>> Yeah. So it's a very
prescribed process. And if
we're going to get into the
weeds of that, I'll have to ask
Jackie, this is the first time
that this agency has done this
in 25 years, something like
that.
>> The reason I ask is the
council just made a decision on
one of these. So I was aware of
that public benefit.
>> But yeah, that is that is
correct. Good.
>> Thank you chair. Thanks,
Randy. Good question. I don't
want to get in the weeds too
much, but I'd like to better
understand the process of
communication that's occurred
with the property owners so far.
Yes. I know the intent is
always to be reasonable.
>> Yeah. So we've had months of
negotiation back and forth with.
So there's three properties,
two property owners. One of the
properties owns one of the
owners owns two, two properties.
Right. And we've gone back and
forth with them for months. One
of them, their response to us
was condemnation is our final
answer. They wanted to go to
condemnation. They were done
talking with us. So it's kind
of where we're at in that
process. We've tried exhausted
every opportunity to work it.
>> Out.
>> Come to some agreement.
>> Okay. Thank you. And then
through this process, what
would what would then be the
process for evaluation of the
property so that.
>> So there'll be reasonable.
Yeah, we've done we've done
appraisals. They've done
appraisals. And we can get
Jackie on to go into further
depth. But I assume those
appraisals will need to be
updated. But I don't think
they're that old. But maybe
they will need to be updated. I
see you nodding. So that's a
good thing. And then I'll.
Jackie, you can talk more about
the process.
>> So right now, you know,
C-TRAN has appraisals for these
three properties. File five,
which is one of the properties.
They submitted an appraisal
review which does not conclude
to a value. And essentially
what it did is it just
evaluates whether C-TRAN
appraisal followed the proper
methodology. So C-TRAN doesn't
have a counteroffer or the
value from the owner. So when
condemnation is filed, one of
the steps is to file for a
motion for an appraisal
exchange, a contemporary
contemporaneous appraisal
exchange. And so at that point,
both parties will exchange
appraisals. So that's the
mechanism to get an appraisal
from the owner. So we know what
their value is to see how far
apart the parties are as far as
file 13 and 16. We do have the
appraisals from the owner.
However, we're working through
some valuation issues and
C-TRAN appraisals will need to
be updated to reflect that. And
so if we're going to file for
condemnation, it might make the
most sense to file for a motion
for appraisal exchange so both
parties can have the same date
of value. Right now the
appraisals value the taking as
of different dates. And one of
the rules and condemnation is
that both parties are supposed
to value the appraisal, the
taking as of the same date. And
the way to do that is you
establish the data value in the
condemnation, and then both
parties update their appraisal
to that data value.
>> So really quick question,
either for Jackie or for Randy,
it sounds like you've been in
conversations with with the
property owners. There's some
appraisals that have been
conducted, yet they're choosing
condemnation. Can you help us
understand or help me
understand why that is?
>> I can answer very briefly. I
don't know the why, but as of
two weeks ago, I corresponded
with counsel for file five. I
sent him the notice of this
board meeting and asked him if
they had a counteroffer or an
appraisal, and they said, we
don't file for condemnation.
That's what my client wants. I
asked for a phone call to
discuss it further, but he
hasn't responded back to me yet,
so I don't know why, but
they've sent the same message
to Randy and his team. And then
they recently, as of you know,
two weeks ago, sent me the same
message.
>> You know, I would ask I
would.
>> Just go ahead.
>> I was just going to add that
we're not in this case, we're
not talking to the property
owners, we're talking to their
lawyers. And that's I wish we
could talk to the property
owners, but we don't can't get
there, it seems. So thank you.
Seems to have a difference.
>> Chair, could we see page two
and then three.
>> So one of these properties
is in the city of Vancouver and
two are in the county.
>> So do you need to actually
state that it's for public
benefit. Do you need to use
those words.
>> There was. A in the
resolution, if you turn to page
two, which it should be
attached in your packet.
>> I thought.
>> It lasts. It it says
therefore be resolved and it's
got section one, two, three,
four, one of these it says, and
Jackie helped me find it, but
it says in that somewhere that
it's got to be.
>> Is it.
>> Oh section. It says section
two. C-TRAN board finds that
the public health, safety,
necessity, convenience and
welfare demand that interest in
the real property described in
attachment one be immediately
acquired, condemned,
appropriate, taken and damaged
for construction, maintenance,
highway 99, B or T one of these
it says I thought that oh, here
it is. Section one C-TRAN board
deems the highway 99 project to
be of to be a public use for a
public purpose. Is that what
you're after?
>> Yep. That's what I was after.
Thanks.
>> Just one real quick question.
How big are the I mean, like,
how many square footage is the
parcels? And then does it make
any material change to the use
of the property?
>> Well.
>> So the, the square footage
of the property we're seeking
is small. I can't I don't
remember the numbers, but it's
not like. It's one. The file in
the city is literally a grass
strip in front of. Their
property. Yeah.
>> Okay. So no material.
>> These aren't huge. The one I
forget is it file 13 where it
involves a driveway that that
is a issue that we're having.
>> With them.
>> But there's another driveway
30ft away from that driveway.
So but it's, it gets more
complicated than. Just that
driveway.
>> So. Other questions.
>> Do I hear.
>> A motion? Chair?
>> I move to approve C-TRAN
board resolution BR-26-2-005.
>> Chair and McEnerny Ogle
seconds the motion.
>> Thank you. We have a motion
and a second. No further
discussion. All those in favor?
>> Aye, aye.
>> Opposed? And motion passes.
Moving on to the next action
item, the Intergovernmental
Agreement IGA extension between
C-TRAN and the Washington
Department of Transportation.
Wasch dot for services related
to the Special Transit Planning
Study agreement and staff
report. And we have Scott
Patterson.
>> Yes, thank you, chair.
Members of the board, this is
staff report 26-027 seeking the
approval of an extension to our
existing IGA between C-TRAN and
the Washington State Department
of Transportation. C-TRAN for a
number of years, I believe
dating back to 2022, has had
staff do various parts of work
on the IBR program. We do have
one staff person that is full
time dedicated to the IBR team.
That is Steve Witter, and Steve
is here this evening. So if we
want to get into a number of
questions and some of the some
of the technicalities on this,
I may ask for Steve to come up
and kind of help me answer this,
but we've had an agreement in
place from the very beginning
of the of the program. And
again, this is really designed
to be able to reimburse not
just the one full time position,
but also the work that finance
staff does in support of IBR
planning, staff, operations,
safety, so on and so forth. And
so this last go around for this
current update, there was some
more substantive changes to the
language. And so we just wanted
to make sure the board is aware
of it. In addition to the fact
that we have a number of new
board members on here as well.
But we are asking and seeking
for the board's adoption of
this proposed IGA that would
extend and continue to
reimburse those staff costs for
another year. And I think I'll
pause there and see if there
are any questions or not.
>> Thank you, chair. Thanks,
Scott. Question on in terms of
the timing and the cost, do you
mind giving a quick review over
what is what was the impetus
for this agreement? What's the
timelines and the moneys that
are outlined? Can you kind of
bring it together a little bit?
>> Oh, I just turn my
microphone off. Yes. I will
start as Steve walks up because
I know he's been more directly
involved. But what happens when
we first went into this
intergovernmental agreement,
C-TRAN staff, in coordination
with IBR, will have a series of
meetings, and we'll talk about
what the scope of the work is
in any given year. There are
some general work that they
typically know that's coming in
advance, whether it's planning,
whether it's C-TRAN background,
bus network, some of the
financial work that needs to be
done over the course of the
year. And with that, we kind of
provide the IBR with an
estimate in terms of the staff
involved, what we think the
estimated number of hours could
or should be. And from there we
come up with an annual amount.
And so that's kind of very high
level. I don't know, Steve, if
I said anything wrong, feel
free to correct or supplement.
>> Oh. There we go. I have
trouble.
>> With my left and right.
Scott, you accurately described
it. We, we, we took a look at
the year's work ahead. This
year's work ahead will really
be starting to dig into the
design, the design of the
bridge, the design of other
transit elements. And this
allows us, as Scott said, in
many different layers in the
C-TRAN organization to provide
staff input, review drawings,
designs, other things. So we. I
built up a budget for this next
12 months that includes, as
Scott said, that includes
staffing from our. Our finance
department includes, you know,
some of Randy's time and
Taylor's time on transit
planning and other things where
where C-TRAN interfaces with
the transit program. It also
pays for our maintenance and
operations staff to participate
and reviews and give input. And
so I've assigned hours
throughout the year to all
those various staff members and
built up a essentially a cost
estimate for, for this work. I
hope. Does that answer your
question, director?
>> Great. Thank you.
>> Chair. How much is that?
What is the budget?
>> I'm still trying to get sort
of a final review and approval
from IBR that signs off on the
dollars, but we're talking
about about in total for the
year $323,000 worth of staff
time.
>> Thank you. Yeah.
>> Thank you. And just for
clarification, that's
reimbursed through Wasch.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Other questions. Your motion.
>> Thank you. Chair, I've got
an additional question, but I
didn't know if you had.
Information to share or do you
want them all right now.
>> Yeah. No not yet. Let's
let's keep going.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. Thanks. I've got a
question on paragraph 4.2 and
4.4 regarding transportation
planning, which I believe is is
outlined in the one of the
requirements for the statement
of work in the agreement.
>> I'm sorry, director, could
you.
>> Repeat that? I think it's
under task 4.2 and 4.4. It gets
into transportation planning,
specifically ridership. One of
the areas that this agreement
covers.
>> Yes.
>> So one of the requirements
is I read the agreement that
the team that's included in
this agreement is detailed
modeling, ridership forecasting.
My question is that if the IBR
team is looking for C-TRAN
input into that modeling, that
seems like a good idea from my
perspective, because C-TRAN
modeling ridership is real and
accurate. I've had concerns in
the past. I don't believe I'm
alone. Some were voiced tonight
regarding projected ridership
with the team. How is the
information, the realistic real
time information that C-TRAN
providing as outlined required
in this agreement? It's going
to be utilized by the IBR team
to get hopefully improved
ridership forecast. Is that a
fair question or is that just a
statement?
>> I think that's a great
question and I hopefully have a
great answer. In order to
refine our ridership models,
the FTA has asked the IBR
program, including C-TRAN and
Tri-met, to go to go out and
update its transit ridership
surveys. And so the IBR program
worked with my C-TRAN
colleagues here and Trimet's
planning staff to develop a
series of questions that went
out into the field. And we
actually surveyed writers on
the C-TRAN system and on the
Tri-met system. And we were
very specific to understand how
the cross River commute worked
in real time. This this was in
March and April of this year.
And so the raw data has been
collected, it's being processed.
And it we will you know, my my
colleague Mr. Parker here, you
know, will have a chance to
look at that data. We think
that's actually pretty valuable
to C-TRAN outside of the IBR,
because it's some real time
updated data that we have for
right now. And so that will go
into the model. FTA has been
asking us to do that for
several years. And so the IB
program is finally agreed to
Fta's request to do that. And
so Director Hine, I think that
will actually give us a more
accurate picture of the
ridership modeling. Now, we all,
I think, can agree it's a model.
It's it's it's based on inputs
and other things. But this
really should narrow down the
inputs that go into that model
with, with real time data.
>> Okay. How.
>> How do you see that model I
was interested in? How's the
data? How's the data developed
or captured? How is it being
modeled and how will it be?
>> So the.
>> Data will be captured
through real time surveys.
They're using electronic pads
and they're actually putting
personnel on busses. And they
sit with the patrons and our
riders and they ask a series of
questions. I don't have the
questions in front of me, but
do you work? Do you take
transit five days a week? Do
you work at home any certain
days of the week? And so they
try to establish up to date
patterns of ridership behavior.
Who's who's driving to go get
on a park, a on a light rail
vehicle at a park and ride, say,
at Delta Park. That combined
with what where's your license
plate from? Starts to give us
information about who's
traveling where. I am not an
expert at modeling, but those
are sort of updated and
refreshed inputs that go into
the FTA stops model the
simplified trips on transit
model. And I've been here
before to talk about the stops
model. It takes a snapshot of
ridership as if the project was
built today. So it's not a
bunch of projections about
growth and ridership. And
certain amount of people will
take transit in 2045. That's
more of a metro predictive
model for bigger picture land
use and and things like this.
This is really today, what are
the patterns? And if we put
that service out today, that
stop model is there to predict
what that ridership would be.
>> And please know.
>> What our assumptions
developed as a result of that.
Our assumptions what
assumptions? I'm I'm assuming
that assumptions are going to
be created over. Hey, this is
the model. This is the data,
the model needs some basic.
>> Phone a friend may I. So the
way it works is. So out of the
survey data came comes
information like trip purpose.
Is it a work trip? Is it a, you
know, a shopping trip age?
Who's making the trip? What's
your mode of access? Time of
day, your income? Do you own a
car? All sorts of these things,
right. And then the, the stops
model built by FTA has
assumptions in it. And but
they're national, right? That
model was built to serve the
nation, not just this region.
Right. And it does a pretty
good job of it. It used to be
that in the Metro model uses
this two uses local households
and employment data, census
information. The stops model
uses that information from the
American Community Survey. So
in entities or locations don't
have the opportunity to crank
up the inputs, if you will. So
the way it works is they
they'll run the model as it is
stops and then compare. It what
comes out of it. And the stops
model might say 30% of the
trips on transit are home based
work trips. Well, the data that
we find from our surveys of our
on board surveys show that in
this region, it's only 24%. So
they'll go in and address,
adjust the coefficients on the
algorithms. And these long
usually mode.
>> Choice.
>> Very long equations to dial
that model into this region to
more accurately reflect it. And
that's why FTA is very big on
on using the stops model. Very
fond of it. They built it. And
two, it can be, if you have
more recent and current data
about your system, then you can
adjust it and fine tune it to
get better, better forecasts.
>> That help. Yeah.
>> Having Randy on our team is
a giant asset in these modeling
conversations.
>> And I sit in on all those
conversations with FTA in my
former life. I was a modeler
for many years and I, my
company before I came here was
the first to use stops model
with FTA in Seattle. So I used,
I used to know it inside out. I
don't know it that well now
because Scott makes me do other
things, but I do. I know enough
about it to be problematic. And
so I sit in on all these things.
The meetings with FTA on on the
IVR.
>> Project chair.
>> Thank you for the
information.
>> I appreciate all those
questions because it's led me
to ask a few myself, what was
the sample size and would this
be considered an opportunistic
survey?
>> I don't I haven't seen what
the sample size was yet. They I
mean, ideally, FTA would like
you to survey your entire
system, both Tri-met and C-TRAN.
That would take a year. We
didn't have the time. And so we
brokered a deal to basically
being recorded. We. We agreed
to do a certain set of routes
with FTA and they let us do
that. What was the part two?
>> Was it it was a question
about opportunistic, I guess,
versus scientific in terms of
judging the value of the
information that you've gotten.
There's two kinds of surveys.
>> I've done a lot of surveys.
But okay, I believe you. I
don't know what this one is.
>> All right.
>> Kol scientific, I would
assume. But anyway, don't know
the answer to that.
>> I think it's how you sample.
>> Yeah. I mean, over the years,
you know, it used to be they'd
get on the bus and with a piece
of paper and take the. And some
people didn't want to do it.
>> Now they.
>> They get. It's all
electronic with tablets and
they walk them through it.
>> We may be getting into the
weeds.
>> Yeah, it's gotten a lot
better.
>> Very good to have this
information. So I appreciate it.
>> Yeah.
>> I guess I would just end it
as I would love to see a lot of
that data. I would, I would
assume our board would like to
see it once it's, you know,
been analyzed and presented. I
think that'd be appropriate.
>> One final comment. And the
routes that are being used, as
you mentioned, Randy, there
were specific routes that were
used to be interesting to know
what those are.
>> Yeah. There's a I haven't
memorized. Do you know what the
routes are, Taylor. Anyway, I
can get them to you just
there's way more over here than
there are on the other side, I
think. There. They're surveying
the route six on that side.
Does that ring a bell and maybe
yellow line? I can't remember,
but there's more on this side.
I can get you the list.
>> I'd be happy to come back
and report once we have the
document.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah, sure.
>> But yeah, it'll be really
interesting information. Taylor
can't wait to get his hands on
it. So, you know, just for our
own use, not just for IVR.
>> Other comments. Questions.
Do I hear a.
>> Motion? Motion to approve
staff report number 26-027.
>> We have a motion. Do we have
a second?
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. Any further comments?
All those in favor signify by
saying I. I opposed motion
passes. Now we go to
communications and I don't have
anything as far as the chair.
Does the board have anything
they would like to add?
>> Mayor Chair Thank you.
Leanne, thank you so very much.
While we were serving a
thousand hot dogs on Memorial
Day, we think your C-TRAN
shuttle from Hudson Bay was
instrumental in getting all of
those people back and forth. So
thank you for providing that
service.
>> Any other comments? All
right. From the Chief Executive
Officer.
>> Thank you, chair, and thank
you, board. You're welcome,
mayor, and I'm glad the shuttle
was able to provide a good
service for everyone and enjoy
the CMac parade as usual. Again,
this month is Ride Transit
month. And I'd like to begin by
thanking each of you and your
respective jurisdiction
councils for support of Ride
Transit. We started off by last
night by going to the City of
Vancouver for proclamation from
mayor, mayor, Mayor McEnerny
Ogle. And so we have some more
that we as jurisdictions will
be visiting through the coming
days. So we look forward to
that. And again, these
proclamations help highlight
the essential role public
transportation plays in
connecting people to their
education, health care, and
jobs and activities that they
have with their families and
friends. Another highlight for
our agency is we had Apta
Emerging Leaders program, and
I'm pleased to recognize one of
our own, Tyler Taylor, who
successfully completed that
this year. So that's a ten
month program. He's been
instrumental in helping C-TRAN
initiatives, including the
launch of the current expansion
of the Vine systems and
development of the C-TRAN 2045
plan, which we all had a good
conversation about today. So
congratulations, Taylor. And
last but not least. Last but
not least, we again, we have
community engagement as mayor
and mentioned. And so we have
many more that are coming. We
have actually tonight there's
Ridgeville Raptors game. So
hopefully they're doing well.
We got Vancouver Pride Block
party coming up on June 13th.
We got Vancouver's Juneteenth
Freedom Celebration on June
20th, and we got Camas Pride
Block Party on June 21st. So
that's a small amount of the
events that will be
participating in this month.
And thanks to all of our, our
communications and marketing
and customer service on street
team that helps make those days
successful. And that is it.
>> Excellent. And now,
communications from our legal
Jackie Walker, who is filling
in for Hong. And she does not
have any. So with that. Oh is
she on? Jackie, can you hear me?
>> Yes. I'm here. I don't have
any additional comments to add.
>> Thank you Jackie. And with
that, we are adjourned