Good afternoon. It is September
1st, 4 p.m. and I'm calling
this RTC Board of Directors
meeting to order. If we could
start with roll call, please.
>> Michelle Belkot. Sue
Marshall here. Wil Fuentes here.
Anne. McEnerny. Ogle. Present.
Eric Paulson. Masa Eshki. Here.
Troy McCoy here. Asa Leckie.
Ron Ihrig here. Scott Patterson
here. Devin Reck here. Temple
Lentz here. Dean Reynolds.
>> Here.
>> Chris Ford. Here. Christine
Lewis. And House and Senate
members of the 14th 17th, 18th.
John Lee here. 20th and 49th
districts.
>> Thank you. That gives us a
quorum. They'll bring us to the
hour. We'll go to the board.
Agenda approval. Any member of
the board wishes to amend the
agenda. Now would be the time.
Otherwise, I'll entertain a
motion.
>> Chair. Anne McEnerny. Ogle
move approval of the agenda.
>> Second Lentz.
>> I have a motion and a second
for approval of the agenda as
presented. Any discussion?
Seeing none. All in favor?
>> I. I.
>> I.
>> I any opposed? Passes
unanimously. That brings us to
the public comment portion of
the meeting. We have two public
comments. Do we have anybody
online signed up?
>> There are no online.
>> So we have two in person.
We'll start with Joel
Christiansen. Yeah. Make your
way to the front there. The if
the time is on the laptop and
then push the mic, get the
green.
>> Go ahead. All right. Good
afternoon. Members of the ROTC.
Good afternoon, members of the
ROTC board. My name is Joel
Christiansen. I'm the volunteer
advocacy director for the
Vancouver Bicycle Club. We go
by VBC for short. VBC is one of
Southwest Washington's largest
and longest standing cycling
organizations. We've been
spreading a passion for safe
cycling throughout Vancouver
and Clark County for over 54
years. Through group rides,
education, giving, and
community service. This year,
as Clark County continues to
grow rapidly and. In response
to our members requests for a
stronger voice in how this
region is shaped, we created a
dedicated advocacy function and
my presence here today as part
of that new initiative. Our
roughly 600 members rode over
136,000 miles together last
year across hundreds of group
rides, not to mention a
prolific number of additional
miles, ridden by additional
individual members and their
family, friends and neighbors.
All of this riding gives us a
detailed view of the network as
it exists today the good roots,
but also the dangerous
crossings, the gaps, the high
stress roads that even
experienced riders avoid and
route around. But what we
really care about goes well
beyond cycling. At its heart,
this is about a safe, livable
community for everyone. A place
where children can walk to
school, neighbors can roll to
the park, and families can get
to where they need to go
without feeling like an
afterthought. On the roads in
our county and region. That
need is only growing. Clark
County has added roughly
190,000 residents since 2000.
I'm sure you're all well aware.
And the transportation
foundation we lay now will
determine whether this region
stays livable, safe and
pleasant for generations to
come. Too few people walk, bike
or roll today, but that's not
because of a lack of demand in
the region. It's a reflection
of the network that we've built
in the past. One that too often
asks anyone outside of a car to
fend for themselves, close the
gaps, build the safe crossings,
and people will use active
transportation infrastructure.
It's also a sound investment
every mile traveled by foot,
bike and other means returns a
net public benefit, while every
mile driven carries a net
public cost, the investments we
make in active transportation
infrastructure pay off in
better health, safety and
stronger communities, along
with lower costs, increased
efficiency and enjoyment, and
less congestion for everybody.
All that to say, we strongly
support this body RTC's
Regional Active Transportation
plan and all initiatives to
make this a more accessible
place to people not in cars. We
value that this. This entity
looks beyond jurisdictional
boundaries and lays the
foundation for a coherent
regional network designed for
all ages and all abilities. The
BBC trusts, RTC staff and the
civic leaders here today to
work through the details and
the technicalities of
individual routes. And we're
here to say thanks for all of
your tireless work and
commitment to the long term
interests of this region. Our
request is that the board
sustain and deepen our
commitment to safety, low
stress connectivity.
>> Thank you Jill.
>> And closing the gaps that
stand in the community. So
thank you.
>> Thank you. It was great to
hear from a new voice. Next up
we have Mello.
>> Yeah. Hey.
>> It's Mello. Carmen de Leon
again. And yeah, it is great to
see a new member of the public
because I get tired of being
all by myself, you know? So I'm
just going to talk about
because I went online and
looked up this Harer meeting
and there was nothing for me to
read. And so I'm like, well,
what, what, what is the meeting
about? And I get here and
there's this little book that I
guess I'll have to use for next
time, because I had to come up
with what my understanding is,
is there's a billion, 2 billion
set aside already for the
interstate bridge, whatever. 2
billion. Okay. So how come the
Astoria Bridge four miles long,
originally 24 million, now
seven 101 seven 7 million in
today's money. Fremont bridge,
originally 82 million. Today,
652 million. The Golden Gate
Bridge, originally 600 million.
Today about a billion. So in
other words, what I'm saying is,
oh, here's the most important
Ross Island Bridge. Today's
money 350 million. So we can
already afford other bridges.
Why is it a necessity to tear
down a historically registered
I-5 bridge that could produce
money in the long run, just by
being antique and preserved? We
could have already built the
Fremont Bridge, the Sydney
Bridge, for less money than
this. So can we get real here
and get over ourselves? Canvas
wants a bridge. And the guy,
the engineer from Saint Helens.
You were there when he brought
us the miniature bridge. There
it is. I think we can cover it.
If we talk to other people.
Then how much money? Then? The
I-5 bridge. Because according
to the City of Vancouver,
there's 25000 tax expenditure
report. She spent $170 on
appetizers for her friends at
the IBR. Shouldn't they be
bribing us? Why is the City of
Vancouver buying them treats?
What's up with the City of
Vancouver? Buying everybody
treats on our dollar when we
don't even need that bridge. We
need two other bridges, which
we can already afford. Anyways.
I've seen it as if you can
recall the Bay bridge. You go
over the Bay bridge, you pay
the toll. Then there's an
island in the middle for the
tourists, and then you keep
going. So if you want a max,
can you extend it from the PDX
across 205? And that's the
money crowd. So instead of
bringing in all of the people
over here on this side of town
that want to move their cans,
you can actually have people
who want to move their luggage
and that can afford to use the
thing. But anyway, that's if
you guys want to insist on that.
But anyways, either way,
tourism is money and this is a
joke and we've got so many
assets right over here, miles
and miles of unused train
tracks. I don't want to get
into it again. I believe 2030
miles of unused train tracks on
that side of the city. Why
would you even be thinking
about making more? Okay, well,
I appreciate your time, and
maybe next time I'll have. Oh,
translation is a bunch of crap.
Everybody comes to this country
should speak this language. God
bless you.
>> Thank you Melo. That
concludes the public comments
portion of the meeting. We'll
move on to consent agenda.
There are four items on the
Consent Agenda board. What is
your pleasure.
>> Chair I move approval of the
consent agenda.
>> Second Marchel.
>> A motion by Linse. Second by
Marchel. Any discussion on
consent? Seeing none. All in
favor?
>> I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Passes
unanimously. That'll bring us
to the business portion of the
meeting. First up is the Clark
County Regional Transportation
Atlas, and Judith is going to
present to us.
>> Good afternoon. So the
purpose of the. This action
item is to request the
amendment for the Regional
Transportation Atlas. Since its
adoption in 2025, the Atlas has
provided consistent regional
guidance for applying design
standards when implementing
multimodal and also complete
streets concepts on principal
arterials, minor arterials, and
major collectors. RTC's staff
is proposing the following
amendments. Replace the
existing Regional Emergency
Transportation Route map.
Update the regional designated
Transportation System and
Regional Active Transportation
Network maps. Add a definition
of concept corridors. Revised
table one to provide additional
guidance and clarification, and
also further define the design,
preview and deviation review
processes. Earlier this year,
the RTC board endorsed Metro's
Regional Emergency
Transportation Route Study. As
part of the study, the Clark
County Regional Emergency
Transportation Route Map was
updated to include additional
emergency transportation routes.
The Regional Active
Transportation Network
identifies key corridors that
connect communities throughout
Clark counties and link. Also,
the local active transportation
networks, the regional Active
Transportation Network map
includes multiple layers that
together form a regional
network. The local Agencies
Active Transportation Network
is shown in pink, the regional
Trails in green, and the
regional Active Transportation
Network in dark blue. RTC staff
work with local agencies to
refine the network and also
identify potential additions
and modifications. Talk about
concept corridors. RTC staff
met with several Artac members
to define concept corridors and
develop a process concept.
Corridors are defined as future
regional roadways. In the early
stages of planning. Before a
concept corridor can be
considered for inclusion in the
Atlas and also the regional
transportation plan must
undergo a feasibility study.
The first step is to include a
brief project description and
estimated cost for the study.
In the Unified Planning Work
Program's Appendix B, which is
called unfunded Planning
activities. Then, once the
feasibility study is complete,
the agency may request that the
corridor be added to the RTC
Atlas and also to the Regional
Transportation Plan. Chapter
six in the Statewide and
Regional Plans and Study
section. Concept corridors are
further described on page six
in the Atlas. As part of the
Regional Transportation Plan
Amendment process. RTC Staff
review the regional designated
Transportation System or DTS
and identify corridors for
removal and also addition. The
corridor segment does not meet
the definition, so we have a
couple corridor segments. The
yellow corridor segments that
you see in the map are. We're
proposing to remove remove them.
They are federally classified
as ruler major collectors. And
this classification does not
meet the regional significant
corridor and is not considered
regional significant under
federal guidance. For this
reason, staff is proposing to
remove these segments from the
DTS map. The corridor segments
in light blue, you can see 18.
And also there's a little
little piece here. Extension to
the west of eight, northeast 18
and also to the north,
rerouting of 10th and Avenue
Baugh 15th Avenue has probably
179 street improvements. Those
were regional significant
corridors, and they were
omitted by error. So we are
asking to add them to the
regional designated
transportation system. And then
we have two segments shown in
the map. They are northwest
31st between Richfield and the
Cowlitz Indian Tribe, and also
northwest 32nd from Fort Valley
to the Port of Vancouver. And
those are proposed concept
corridors that meet the
definition of regional
significant corridors and will
be included in the regional
transportation plan. Overall,
any of these proposed changes
do not affect the corridors
function, their importance or
eligibility for transportation
funding. This is for our
regional transportation plan
planning. Next, let's talk
about roadway characteristics
by facility type. So the
proposed roadway characteristic
characteristics on this table
are intended to promote
regional consistency while
allowing flexibility when
alternative designs improve
safety or better accommodate
multi-modal travel. The goal is
to support a cohesive regional
transportation network while
helping agencies implement
local multi-modal level of
service standards. All the
different local agencies are
working on multi-modal level
service standards as part of
their comprehensive plan. The
Atlas standards apply only to
projects that modify the
physical edge to edge, roadway
width. Maintenance and
preservation projects are not
subject to these standards.
This clarification has been
made to page 24 of the Atlas.
The current roadway width
ranges are based on the local
agency's design standards,
while the active transportation
dimensions are based on Wasch
dot design manual and also meet
the local agency standards. Key
updates to this table include.
We clarified minimum width for
travel lanes, bike facilities,
and also sidewalks. We added a
20 year traffic anticipated
traffic volumes for each
facility type, and also we
added notes to clarify clarify
how the minimum standards
should be applied. I'm sorry, I
have the wrong slide is
supposed to read design preview.
So my apologies to that. We
just changed the name just
recently. So the idea of a
design preview instead of
project showcase, just pretend
it says design preview. So to
keep the RTC board informed
about transportation
investments across the region,
staff is proposing a design
preview process. Board members
have expressed interest in
learning more about projects
being delivered on the regional
transportation network. So
under this proposed process,
agencies will prepare a one
pager project summary and
present the project at an RTC
board meeting. Presentations
will occur after the funding is
secured, but before the 60%
design. The format will be very
similar to the current Grand
Project showcase that we do at
the board meeting. Sometimes it
should be brief, informative
and focus on key project
highlights. And let's talk
about deviation. So as I
mentioned before, each local
agency maintains its own
roadway design standards. When
a project proposes a design
element that is different from
what we specified on that table
one in the Atlas, the agency
will ask them to complete an
Atlas deviation form or use
their own existing form,
whether it's deviation or
exemption, and then discuss the
proposed deviation with RTC
staff before the 60% design
milestone. Then, the RTC
Planning Manager will document
an agreed upon deviation.
Whatever the group decides to
do, and provide a copy to the
agency for their own records.
The process that we have
identified promotes regional
coordination and consistency,
while also maintaining
flexibility for local
conditions and project specific
needs. So the version of the
Atlas that was you receive in
your meeting materials was
reviewed by Artac twice to
ensure that the proposed
amendments were supported by
members. Artac unanimously
recommended to amend the Atlas.
I'm going to stop here, and I'm
happy to answer any questions
you might have about any of the
modifications that we're
proposing on the Atlas.
>> Any questions? Online.
>> Sure, yeah. Go ahead.
>> So the Port of Vancouver is.
Building. Bike pedestrian
shared use path is. Now would
they have to go back and make
any changes according to this?
>> Can you repeat the question.
I'm sorry.
>> Sure. So the port of
Vancouver, Leeora River road.
Yes, they are building one
shared use path. Yep. They said
it must be a minimum of 12ft
wide to accommodate
bidirectional and become
pedestrian traffic. I don't
know if temple knows right now,
but I don't believe since I've
been on it that it's 12ft.
>> So this this apply for
projects in the future. So if
you are in a. Yeah, if you're
planning that the project has
been secured funding and you're
done with your design, that
does not apply.
>> They would not have to go
back and no. Okay. All right.
Thank you.
>> Representative.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chair. On I
think it was slide 13 in my
booklet. It's page seven.
Figure three. It's got two
areas that they're recommending
removal of corridors. And one
of them is from what looks to
be Southern Ridgefield coming
south. And I am wondering if
the city of Ridgefield has seen
this. I know they are currently
under significant process
trying to study for a new
southern connection to
Interstate five. And it seems
to me around where this area is
being removed is a logical
connection, possibly for them
to connect to I-5, and
therefore I would want
Ridgefield to weigh in. Do they
agree with this? Not how does
it fit in with their request
and desires? And then the other
on Washougal back into the
rural area, there's an awful
lot of growth in east part of
the county. And so removing a
corridor seems to be
counterintuitive if there's a
lot of growth. And so I'm
wondering what has Washougal
weighed in on the removal of
that as well? Thank you.
>> Thank you. So so yes, both
entities have waiting on the
process. I mean, we're talking
at the staff level and also
Clark County. So these
corridors that we have
identified in yellow that you
mentioned, they they lower
Washougal River road and also
the 41st 209 northwest 31st
connection to Hillsboro. Those
are major collectors. They just
don't meet the definition. The
road will stay there. It's just
they will not be part of the
regional designated network.
They connection that you
mentioned was that the 219
extension to Hillsinger. It is
not on the map that will be
added at a later date. If the
city and the county request to
do so based on the completion
of a feasibility study. So
right now, we're not proposing
road to continue exist at the
local level. It is just they
will not be part of the
regional designated
transportation system because
of their federal functional
classification. So we're just
all we're doing is we're
cleaning our maps and documents
because we're working on
amending the regional
transportation plan that that
answer your question.
>> Judith, how often are these
maps updated?
>> We I mean, we just amended
the or just we created the
Atlas last year. So I imagine
that probably once a year.
>> So I think, you know, if
Ridgefield does get that
extension of 502, which would
be east west, then that's going
to be a heavy lift for funding.
And I don't think the state's
handing out a lot of checks for
new roads right now. So I would
love to see it added. But if we
build it, I think.
>> And the process I mentioned
has a concept corridor will be
that if once they finish with
the feasibility study, if the
parties agree because their
right of way for that. 502 to
19 extension, it is in the
county. If Clark County and
Ridgefield agree, they will add
it has a corridor, a concept
corridor. So it will be a
dotted line, a dashed line
until it becomes a real project.
>> I'm happy to have that
conversation with Ridgefield
about 502 and the concept,
perhaps in the future. Any
further discussion? If not, I'd
entertain a motion if the board
so desires. Oh, sorry.
>> I think our staff work
behind the scenes, but I wanted
to make sure because, you know,
Complete Streets is we do that.
It's very important. I think
we're following, if not the
same standards. But just to
highlight that context matters
depending on where you're at.
And so sometimes you have
constraints and things. So it's
one thing to have standards in
that, but the actual
implementation can be really
difficult. And I think I've
shared that. I think initially
I had some challenges with like
deviations. I think I talked to
Matt about it and we already
have to go through all that
process. And I want it to not
be cumbersome. And that, and I
think I heard like, we can
submit our own documentation.
So I think a lot of this has
been likely resolved. But I
also want to clarify too, like
this coming and reporting. This
is for projects that receive
funds from RTC. Or is this for
like.
>> All projects.
>> But.
>> Projects, not pavement and
not maintains projects. So
we're talking.
>> So any project on one of
these corridors, the
expectation would be come and
share.
>> Yeah. Because it's on the
regional network.
>> Okay.
>> Chair, I have a question on
the concept corridors. What's
the process for identifying a
concept corridor? And then what
would be the next steps to
either continue as a concept or.
What state might be.
>> So to prepare for this
amendment the way we did it, we
met with several members of
different staff. You know, so
we have Clark County there, we
have Richfield, we had the
Indian tribe, we have the city
of Camas. So we had just a
group of people that sat down
and looked at the definition.
We presented a proposal, they
deliberated, and we had a bunch
of dashed dashed lines
throughout Clark County of of
ideas of what a concept
corridor could be. And out of 6
or 7 that we had only the group
agree on two at this point. So
I'm imagining that in the
future we will again engage
folks to, to, to have that
conversation once it's agreed
upon that it's a concept
corridor, they have to do a
feasibility study. If there's
no feasibility study, we cannot
move on with the process. As an
example, the city of Vancouver
and the city of Camas would
like to look into extending
northeast 18 to the east. So
that would be from 192nd to
Goodwin, but it is on the
county property, county land.
So the idea is that we they
come up with a definition for a
feasibility study. We're going
to include it in the Unified
Planning Work Program, which is
our work program. I will be
bringing that back to you next
time. We have other amendments
to to do there. But mainly one
of the reasons is to bring the
city of Vancouver and City of
Camas idea of a feasibility
study, and they have to find
the money right to do the
feasibility study. It might
cost around 300 K. And once
that feasibility study is
completed, if the study says
it's plausible, then they will
have to be an awful lot of
engagements amounts, both
cities and the county, to be
able to to make that project
into a reality and find the
funding. Right. So once you
have the feasibility study
findings, we can bring it into
the Atlas as a dashed line. And
then once the project is is a
real project, then the dashed
lines will become a solid line.
>> Okay, I get that. But so
this has just been discussed at
the staff level and hasn't been
discussed by any policy makers.
>> Not yet. However, I'd like
to mention, and Matt has
mentioned this before, we are
planning on doing a
transportation futures study,
probably will be in 2027. And
as part of that discussion, we
would like to look at corridors
throughout Clark County to
identify future corridors or
expansions of corridors,
connect point A to point B, so
that effort will happen next
year. That will happen at the
policymakers level.
>> Okay. That's good. I just
think if it's a concept, it
would be good to include the
policy makers in the process of
determining whether or not it's
a concept. Thanks.
>> As a resolution, we want to
approve or if we want to table
this, what's the board's
pleasure?
>> I make a motion to approve
the resolution.
>> Second Lentz.
>> The motion a second for
approval of resolution nine
2630. Seeing no further
discussion. All in favor?
>> I.
>> Aye. Any opposed? Resolution
passes, I will move on to the
2026 Regional Competitive Grant
program. Jennifer.
>> Good afternoon. The first
thing that I have on the agenda
for tonight is the regional
competitive grant process. So
we have this as an action item.
We're just looking for your
concurrence in terms of kind of
the evaluation process that we
went through, the ranking and
the recommended funding, and
then we'll come back at the
October board meeting for final
approval. So we want to be able
to give you the time to look at
the evaluations, the priority
and the ranking and the
recommendations before
approving it. So that's why
it's a little bit of a
different process. Just looking
for concurrence tonight or this
afternoon. So RTC, as you know,
gets the federal designation of
surface transportation block
grant funds, carbon reduction
funds and congestion mitigation
and air quality grant funds as
the MPO for Clark County. And
then as for the TPO, for Clark,
Klickitat and Skamania counties,
we get the allocation for
transportation alternatives
funding. And because we have
more need in our community than
we have funding for, and it's
also a federal requirement.
We've established the process
for a competitive grant process,
and that's all outlined in the
Transportation Programing
guidebook. So in terms of the
steps for the grant evaluation
process, it starts with the
local agencies identifying
projects that they would like
to pursue for funding and
completion. And then the next
phase is they put their grant
applications together. They
will submit those to RTC staff,
will do a review of those, make
sure that we have all the
information that we need,
everything like the basics are
there, and then we'll go ahead
and do a review and evaluation
of all the different
applications. Several staff
members participate in that,
and we average the scores out,
and then we send those draft
evaluations back to the
agencies and give them an
opportunity to review the draft
evaluations and let them, you
know, plead their cases, I
guess, for additional points in
some places, if they feel like
what we evaluated or what we
assigned numerically doesn't
necessarily agree with their
thoughts. And so sometimes we
do make adjustments to that we
did this year. And typically we
do at least a couple times a
year. So we find it really
helpful and valuable for staff
to be able to do that. And then
the final step in the process
is just staff going through
looking at the available
funding that we have and
assigning the funding as well.
And I should have mentioned
that an initial step. So when
the agencies first submit their
applications, we have a window
where it's we call it the
qualification review, where I
mentioned where we look at the
applications, but we provide
feedback to the local agencies
too. So it's not very common
that agencies will do that kind
of effort. Take the draft
applications, review those and
submit feedback to the local
agencies. But it's really
helpful for us in our process,
and it makes it easier and more
efficient to be able to do that
for the agencies. And just as a
reminder, we did that
transportation programing
guidebook change earlier this
year where we upped the amount
of TBG contribution or amount
of funding that Rtc's
participating in for federally
funded projects. And because of
that, there was $9 million that
was essentially added to
existing TBG and future TBG
projects. And so we didn't have
a call for TBG projects this
year. And with the unknowns
related to the reauthorization
of a federal transportation
bill, we particularly know that
carbon reduction will get
eliminated. When that happens.
We're not sure because if they
just continue to do, continuing
resolutions will continue to
have carbon reduction funds.
But CMac we're not sure about
that program either. So because
of that, we just did a call for
transportation alternatives
projects this year. And those
are the types of projects,
biking and walking projects.
Safe routes to school include
environmental mitigation as
well. And. In terms of the, the
process that we went through,
let me see if I can. We did the
evaluation in the ranking
process. And so this is just
the draft list of tables or
last, the draft list of
projects within the table
showing the evaluation and
ranking process. So we had
seven projects that were
submitted that we evaluated and
did the ranking for through the
staff process. And then this
table is just a reminder of the
amount of funding. It's a
little kind of challenging to
kind of figure out how it's all
laid out, but basically, we had
a little over $1 million in
transportation alternatives
funds, and then we had $300,000
in CMac funds to that as well.
But that's only applicable to
areas that are in the
congestion management air
quality zone area. And so we
had about 1.4 million, but we
have transportation
alternatives, urban, large,
urban, small, rural. And then
we also have flexible. So based
on the agency and the location,
the amount of funding that we
have is only eligible for some
locations. And then we within
the transportation programing
guidebook, we have a cap of 60%
because there is so little
transportation alternatives
funding, we put a cap of 60%.
So that's what this table
reflects, is that for where
these different agencies are
located, with the requirements
that we have with the funds,
this was the max amount that
they could submit applications
for. So it shows that 60% max
application amount. And then
this is the recommended
prioritization and grant
funding for the different
projects. So staff is
recommending funding three
projects fully. So that's the
Ridgefield, Klickitat and Camas
projects. And then two projects
partially funded. And then
there's two projects that
Vancouver and Skamania County
that we don't have enough
funding to go down the list for.
And we listed out, again, those
different funding programs. So
it's a little bit of you kind
of have to shift things, you
know, because some places
aren't eligible for urban,
small and or rural. So you just
kind of have to move the
funding around to where you can
get it to fit. And so we were
able to get down to the, the
center project partially fund
that with the to flexible
because we can use that
anywhere. And then Clark County
with the urban large. And then
that project was, it was within
the CMac boundary. So they were
eligible for that $300,000 in
the CMac funds. So I will just
go through and give you just a
quick description of the
different projects. So again,
we had seven projects. So the
first one and I, I put these in
order of rank in terms of the
recommendation for funding. So
there's the first project, the
City of Ridgefield Project on
Hillhurst Road. So it's a
multimodal trail that they're
looking at doing in the the
high school area. And so that
would be recommended to be
fully funded with the request
that they made. The second is
the Klickitat County
Fairgrounds Sidewalk project.
That one received $600,000 into
funding last year. And so they
came in for the request to
finish the amount that they
needed for that project. And
that's a rural to funds City of
Camas project. They're looking
at adding sections of sidewalk
along Northwest Lake Road to
connect the neighborhood on the.
I think it's on the northwest
side to the lake and the park
area down there to connect that
whole area. And so we were able
to fully fund their request for
PE for that project. There's
the Center Road Shared use Path
project. This is a pretty,
pretty substantial project. And
so they're looking at doing a
ten foot path along the south
side of the center road. We
were able only to partially
fund the PE for this project
using the flex funds that we
had. And as you can see, that's
a pretty significant cost in
terms of project costs. But
they are working with Cowlitz
Indian Tribe as well on this.
The Clark County Southeast
Crown Road, they're looking at
doing a basically safe Routes
to School project. So doing a
ten foot separated path on
Crown Road and 23rd to improve
safety and access to the school.
And then this was the City of
Vancouver, 33rd Street
pedestrian enhancement project.
They were looking at adding
additional traffic, calming
lighting and crossing
improvements. And we
unfortunately, as we went down,
the prioritization list, did
not have funding available for
this project at this time. And
then the same with the Skamania
County Ada improvement project.
They were looking at expanding
their sidewalk on Hot Springs
Avenue and adding Ada compliant
curb ramps along the corridor.
So again, it's just concurrence
on the draft evaluation and the
draft proposal for
prioritization for funding. And
then we'll come back to you in
October for final approval and
award of the grant funds. Any
questions?
>> I chair, I have a question
you mentioned. I'm not sure I
understood this. The carbon
reduction and federal funding
is the federal at the federal
level, not wanting to fund any
carbon reduction projects or
what's the status.
>> Of.
>> It was it was a program that
was created under the bill. So
ILJ the Infrastructure Act. And
so it was a new program that
was created under that. And so
we've been told that with a new
federal reauthorization, they
will not be reinstating or
refunding that program. They'll
be eliminating it.
>> Okay. It's not that we can't
do projects that are carbon
reducing, it's just that
funding source is going away.
Great. Thanks.
>> Thanks for the information.
So the table shows the year for
each project program year for
each project. All of them are
29 or 2030. If it's approved,
is the fund available. So the
project can happen sooner or.
>> Yeah. So we and I should
have mentioned that at the
beginning. So we were
programing funds for 2030. So
that was the grant cycle that
we were on at this point within
our policy agencies can move
that up a year so they can
obligate it a year early. And
there's potentially some
changes that might be made to
the schedule based on a further
later discussion on the agenda
regarding Washougal project.
And that might open up a little
additional funds that we could
move up a the PE project, I
think it was Clark County, or
maybe it was the center that
was looking to start their
project sooner with PE funds.
So we might. So there is
shuffling around right now just
within our constraints for our
transportation improvement
program. We have to show it
programed in this year. But
there is flexibility over the
coming years to move those
around.
>> Not seeing any questions
online either. Nothing in the
room. So thank you Jennifer.
This will come back in October.
Go ahead.
>> Yes. Directors. I'd like to
make a comment in follow up to.
Director Marshall's question
about the carbon reduction
program. Can I just supplement
Jennifer's response to, say,
our state overseer? This is
washed out local program? Who
is the officiant of federal aid
funds that we administer?
They've told state agencies
within Washington to not
program CRP funds and out years.
So for example, 2030, 2031
current law. The federal law
says that the program does
exist and it theoretically
could going forward. Roske is
the bills that Congress has
evaluated for authorization. At
least one or more of them don't
include that program. So I
think the cautionary tale is
the local programs
administrator for us. And our
federal aid funds has said,
don't program until we know
what Congress does. It is
possible that Congress, in a
new administration and a new
proposal, extends that program
and reauthorizes it just at
this time, we've been told not
to. So to conservative posture
at RTC is. We will not award
future CRP funds for any future
project and projects that were
awarded CRP funds. Should those
funds go away, we have to go
within our program and reassign.
We do have commitments of CRP
funds in that example that we
might have to reassign. I think
we've mentioned this to the
board previously, but if and
when that date occurs will
bring forward. These funds need
to be shifted from this color
of money CRP to a different
color of money. And we'll have
to go through that exercise.
>> Thanks for that further
explanation.
>> Yeah, we are working on the
draft. 2729 Transportation
Improvement Program, and those
are some of the discussions
that we're having because we
made commitments to the local
agencies that for those
projects that are still
programed for carbon reduction
in the next couple of years,
we'll backfill those with
either CBG or CMac if we can,
which will have potential
impacts to other projects that
are funded with CBG and CMac in
the future.
>> Okay. Seeing no further
discussion, we'll move on to
the discussion. Informational
items of the agenda. Jennifer
is going to talk to us about
some project exceptions,
possibly.
>> So this is a follow up to a
little bit of the conversation
that we had. I think at the
last meeting where I gave the
obligation report update. And
so this first one on the agenda
is regarding the Washougal, the
City of Washougal project for
their 32nd Street rail overpass
project. And I have this slide
like in a bunch of these
presentations. So I won't go
through this again. But
basically, you know, we have
the responsibility of making
sure that the federally funds
that are allocated to the US
are spent and in particular to
this policy section, we need to
make sure that agencies are
obligating their funds, because
then that makes us that gives
us the opportunity to apply for
additional obligation authority
and bring in additional funds
to the region. And so within
the transportation Programing
guidebook, the policy that
we'll be talking about for this
project is policy 5.88. And
that policy in the guidebook
outlines that for preliminary
engineering engineering funds,
you cannot request a delay for
those funds because typically
with preliminary engineering PE
funds, there shouldn't be a
reason why you can't obligate
those funds. It's a pretty
straightforward process. You're
just starting out your project
design. And so there's
typically not any barriers or
anything to obligating your
funds. But as we know with the
city of Washougal and this
project, they've run into a
pretty, pretty significant
challenge with the combination
of Federal Railroad
Administration and Federal
Highway Administration funds
that they have on the project.
And that's created just a
challenge to try to get those
funds obligated and get Federal
Railroad Association on board.
So there's still ongoing
communication, ongoing
conversation between all the
agencies it still makes seems
to make the most sense for the
project to be under the Federal
Railroad Association, because
if the funding, if it were to
be under both, there's
different requirements,
different things they need to
follow. And it would be really,
really challenging to implement
the project under a set of two
federal agency review I's. And
so they're still pushing
forward with trying to get the
funds under Fra. And so those
conversations still continue to
go through. And hopefully
they'll have a resolution here
pretty soon. But because we
don't allow the one year delay,
we are asking for the policy
exception or Washougal is
asking for the policy exception.
We originally had talked to you.
We had given them to September
30th to try to obligate the
funds. It's really clear that
that's not going to happen this
year. Ferar has said that
that's not going to happen by
September 30th. And so what
we're requesting is a one year
additional delay for the PE.
And it's only the 1.25 million
in state funds for the PE,
because the right of way that
they have programed this year,
they're allowed the additional
one year delay on that. So it's
just for the PE funds. And we
would put a requirement on the
policy exception that they
would have to obligate it by
September 30th of 2027, or the
grant funds would be lost and
have to be returned to RTC. So
again, this is just kind of a
first brush discussion with you
on this. And then we'll come
back to the October board
meeting and have an official
action on it. Any questions? Go
ahead.
>> Not question more, adding,
thanks for information. Talking
with city Washougal staff about
this situation, as Jennifer
mentioned, they had difficulty
with working with different
federal agencies. The good news
they shared with me last week
is the Federal Railroad
Administration. RFA finally
responded to their request to
administrate both federal
funding, so there are good
progress in that coordination.
So it's promising. And yeah, I
would ask the board to consider
the the exception, the the
policy exceptions. Thank you.
>> A question about if they're
not able to do this, it's great
to hear that it may be coming
along. And hopefully if we give
them another year, it doesn't
slow it down and take an entire
year. But say that it doesn't
happen. Can you talk about the
funds returning to RTC and what
the process would look like? Is
there a risk that we would lose
those funds or the ability to
grant? What kind of what
situation would RTC be in with
those funds if they do end up
having to come back in a year?
>> So it would just be similar
to what happened with Clark
County, with the Salmon Creek
Realignment Project this year,
where they basically rescinded
the grant. And so that just
comes back to us for us to
program for a different project
so we wouldn't lose the funds.
>> And we would have time to do
that. I recall with some of the
past discussions, there was a
very limited time frame in
which we could do that. And so
just wondering about what that
does.
>> Yeah. I mean, that
definitely is something that we
would need to consider in the
timeline for it because it
would impact. So it would come
back to us and then it would
impact our obligation target
for the year.
>> I think that if this comes
back next month, it would be
good to have more specific
information about that and the
impacts in that timeline next
month when we have it to
consider in front of us.
>> If director, if I could
maybe add additional
information. So the chair and I
were discussing this before the
meeting, and the question that
chair McCoy posed to me was,
when would be the earliest
notification to RTC that they
can't make it, which then
addresses part of the question
that you're posing, which is,
would we have time to react and
to reprogram the funds? So
based on our current policy,
Washougal would need to notify
RTC by March of next year that
they can't make it. So between
now and March, they would be
working with the Federal
Railroad Administration. They'd
be putting the agreement
together and so forth. Of
course, everybody's on board to
assist them to do that. It's
really can Fra process the
papers to do it, assuming that
they can't, Washougal needs to
let us know by March, ideally
sooner if they knew. But by
March and March would give us.
The drop dead for us is
September of 27. But in order
to request extra funds, which
we like to request extra funds,
you'll hear about this in a
minute. Then we need to have
everybody obligated their funds
by June 30th. So we have about
three months. What I expect,
and I mentioned this to the
chair, is next spring. We may
have to go through some quick
adjustments. So if money became
available, we would then go
down the list and we would say,
what project can be moved
forward, what project could
accept additional funds. So
it's somewhat opportunistic in
that respect. I think about
this year, and there were some
project awards granted, extra
awards that were opportunistic.
They just had a project in the
queue. We needed to get some
money out the door. And so we
were able to award, I think, in
several instances. Again,
you'll see this in the next
report, several hundred
thousand dollars, I think, in
250 tranche awards to three
projects, all to say, I think
we're able to adjust. RTC would
never lose any funds awarded to
us to distribute unless we were
not able to meet our obligation
target in two years in a row.
So my commitment to the board
would be, if we don't make it
next year, we're on a one year
clock and there's going to have
to be some accountability. And
I think everybody here would
join in that accountability,
which is we got to figure this
out. So I don't know if that
embellishes enough to sort of
give you a sense of, okay, we
have some time to react to this
situation. But I think those
are the sequence of events if
that were to occur.
>> I appreciate that. That's
helpful. I guess a follow up
question I would have is like,
so say March comes. They're not
they're not quite there. Will
there, will there be an ask for
an extension then that takes it
to like we would. I don't want
to futurecast, but I want us to
be aware that we want this to
come together. But we also have
other things to.
>> My guess. And Jennifer has
been involved in the
conversations more than I have.
If the commitment that has been
proffered by the Federal
Railroad, which is they'll
accept it, they just have to do
the paperwork to accept it. If
we don't make. If the program
partners don't make progress
over the course of the next six
months, then something else is
happening. It just can't be
paperwork. It's got to be some
other loose end. I believe the
coordination that Jennifer and
the city of Washougal and State
Local Programs office, which
again is the administrator,
they're directly involved. I
think they're having check ins
on a no less than monthly basis.
This is an urgent matter. I
think they know that the clock
is ticking.
>> I guess my concern is we
normally don't give these
exceptions for PE. Correct.
Because normally PE can happen
pretty quickly. Yeah. So I
guess is it would it then be
appropriate to have a smaller
window of check in as far as
before March. I mean if PE
normally happens and now that
we have the railroad on board,
why would we not shrink that
window of when we're looking
for PE moving forward instead
of waiting to the end? Because
although, you know, I, I love
the, the promise that next year
will, you know, if we don't do
it this year, next year we'll
get it. I would rather just
continue to get it every year.
And if we have to program these
funds for 28, if that's
something we can do.
>> Yeah. So by them essentially
saying, well, by them saying
that they wouldn't be able to
get the paperwork together for
a letter from Fra about
obligating the funds by
September 30th of this year,
it's now going to be in the
federal fiscal year for next
year because it's, you know, on
a federal fiscal year. And so
if they were to obligate it in
October, November, December,
January, you know, that's
within next year's programs. So
that's within next 2027 program
funds.
>> So back up to the first
question, I guess this is PE.
Normally it's quick.
>> Yeah.
>> This has not been quick.
>> Yeah.
>> What is a reasonable time
frame to find out that we're
still on track. That would be
before that April deadline.
>> Yeah. I think that given the
conversations that are going on
and there's multiple challenges
with the project, not just with
like Fra, there's other
challenges too. So I, I think
we'll know by the end of the
year if the project can move
forward. So.
>> So when this comes back to
the board in October,
personally, I would like to see
some that reflected.
>> Okay. Yeah, I can definitely
add that information in.
>> Chair.
>> Yeah.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle. Let's
remember that Washougal has an
extremely small staff. They're
trying to do a very large
project. And with this one and
the next one, we need to give
them as much grace as possible.
So if RTC has some additional
staff that can help them put
this forward, great. If we need
to call on Clark County to help
them get this going, great. But
this is an extremely difficult
project with a very little city
trying to do a very large
project. So let's lean in a
little bit and help them out.
>> Thank you, mayor, for your
comment that Washougal
mentioned. That's their largest
project in the history. At
least the staff knows. So
definitely they struggle with
that. But also they mention if
that was not for the Fra, they
would have obligated by now. So
they did everything they could
for the PE phase that they
needed to be to obligate the
funding. However, they still
had to wait for Fra to accept
the funding to be managed by
them. I want to echo them.
Thank for Wasch that local
program, working with them and
helping them through the
process. Thank you.
>> And I will just follow up
that they just recently hired a
city engineer to replace the
one that had left. And so
that's Jonathan Boehm. And so
he is rapidly and very crazily
trying to catch up with
everything. So I think with him
involved, there's been a lot of
movement. So I think that will
definitely help in local
programs has been amazing.
Stephanie. Tax within
headquarters has gotten
involved in the conversation.
So everybody's really trying to
do what they can to help them
get them get the project going
forward.
>> I think all small cities are
aware of the hurdles that when
dealing with the federal agency,
can, can, can. I can attest to
that personally as well. I just
want to make sure I don't want
to put any undue pressure on
them or, or put them under the
gun, but I just want this body
to know as soon as possible. So
and we could reprogram those
funds to another year if need
be. It would be my goal.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Directors, if I
could just add one other
process step. You're unaware of
these because you don't go to
the technical committee at the
December meeting of the
technical committee. So our TAC
there's generally a report out.
It's our first look at. Are you
on track? Are you on schedule.
It isn't that the December
meeting? Yeah. Okay. So the
first look I think at that if
we heard nothing is on the
agenda. The December meeting of
this year, every agency is
going to report. We're going to
bring the list of projects that
are going to be obligated or
set to be obligated. Everybody
has to go and say on schedule
concerned, you know, and we go
just down the list. And then I
think our intention is we're
bringing that to the board at
the January meeting. Is that.
Yeah. It's part. Yeah. So
that's our first look at. So
the board will have a first
look at what people set in in
December. And at that point
it's not formal that they
commit. The formal commitment
should be in March. But the
first look is okay. Are you on
track so that we can do, I
think, just what the board is
seeking, which is let's make an
adjustment sooner as opposed to,
you know, wait until the last
minute. So I think as much as
we are talking about this every
single month, it's just become
so important that we have
knowledge so that we can make
these adjustments. So sometimes
I look at the agenda and I go,
there is just a lot of talk
about grants, but the reality
is that's, you know, the
majority of what we're doing to,
to benefit agencies. So that's
a process that that you'll see
play out by the end of the year,
which I think is somewhat
responsive. Chair to your
comment.
>> Just to echo everything,
>> Just talk everything here. I
want to also add we are helping.
Thank you for. We are helping
them through like local
programs and process and that
kind of stuff. Rob Clobes doing
everything he can to kind of
help inform and that. And I
know we've been working with
them. My team on like the SR 14
Evergreen Boulevard connection
there and trying to figure out
what can be done there. And
just my personal experience
working with the rail division
up north on the Point Defiance
Bypass project, the project I'm
working with, the rail. It's it
can be difficult. So we need
time to adjust.
>> Okay. So we'll see you again
in October. And then looks like
we have oh, you have the 27th
Street. Sorry.
>> Yep.
>> Is that okay? I'll just go
through that one. So I'll skip
these slides because we've gone
through them a couple times now.
Okay. So for the Washougal they
just, they just took a lot on
by doing two projects that had
the railroad involved. So, you
know, maybe recommendation one,
one at a time, but they've run
into problems with this project
too. So the exception that
we're looking at for this is
policy five point
transportation transportation
programing guidebook. And so
this is related to right of way
and construction. So we allow
agencies to request a one year
delay. That's something that's
within our policy. And the city
of Washougal has already
requested a one year delay for
the 27th Street Shared Use Path
project. But in conversation
with them, they are requesting
a two year delay. So that would
be outside of our kind of
permissible one year delay. And
so that's what we're bringing
forward tonight is just that
request. And they have $600,000
in to funds currently programed
that was currently programed
for 2026. They made the request.
We programed that for 27. And
so now with the request it
would be programed in 2028. And
what they've run into with this
project is they're making
progress on this one too. But
they had a piece of right of
way where it was port of Kamea
Washougal, and then also the
railroad. And nobody had a
record of who owned the parcel.
So it was kind of like the
Spider-Man meme where everybody
was pointing at each other
saying, you should have the
record, but nobody had the
record. So they're trying to
figure that out. So that's
where they ran into with this
project. But they've got an
action plan and strategy to
move forward with the last time
that we talked to them. So this
should be moving forward. They
shouldn't be running into any
additional issues. They did say
that they could actually go
ahead and obligate the funds
next year if they needed to,
but in conversation with them,
and this relates to the
proposed to project funding. So
Klickitat County, with their
fairgrounds sidewalk project,
they have $600,000 already
programed next year for
construction. They were awarded
the rest of their project, the
224, but we weren't able to
program that until 2029. And so
there's like a three year gap.
And so with this delay with
Washougal, we would be able to
move up funds for Klickitat
County because they they're
ready to go. They could go to
construction next year, spend
the full 824 in the to funds.
And then we potentially would
have an additional couple
hundred thousand that we could
bump up for PE funds for a
different project. So it kind
of is a win win for a couple of
us. It allows us to move
forward, get some to funds
obligated and out. We've had
just a history of agencies
struggling, getting to funds
obligated on time. It gives
city Washougal more time to
maybe focus on the overpass
project and get everything
straight away with the shared
use path project. So we just
think it's a good and also gets
Klickitat County and their
project built. So it's kind of
a partnership and a win, I
think for a couple different
agencies with this. But again,
they said they could, given the
information that they have now,
they could obligate the funds
next year, but they are okay
with going to 2028. And the
other the other thing I should
have mentioned is that they
also had construction funds. In
2028. City of Washougal did for
the Shared Use Path project. So
then this just aligns their
construction funds in the same
year and makes it just a little
bit cleaner for them as well.
So again, we'll come back to
the board for final approval
for this one in October. Any
questions on that one.
>> Okay.
>> I just want me to go into
the next one.
>> Sorry. Yeah.
>> No that's okay.
>> Move on to the project
obligation status report. Thank
you. Jennifer.
>> So some of the conversation
within this, I guess maybe we
should have started with this
one, but we just wanted to kind
of give you a final project
obligation report for the end
of the year as to kind of where
everything fell out and just go
through kind of the overview of
how the year went. So again,
you know, RTC is the MPO we're
responsible for allocating the
federal funds that we receive.
And if doing so, meeting our
obligation target, we're
eligible for additional
obligation authority, which we
were again successful with this
year. So it's really important
that we work with the local
agencies and the partners to
keep pushing them to get their
projects and their phasing
obligated on time. So as you
know, there's been a lot that
we've brought to you this year
with some of the challenges
that we faced with the first
one being we got about $600,000
more in CBG funds than we
anticipated. That's a good
problem to have. But also, we
were already really close to
our target because there were a
couple agencies that had
requested delays by the March
deadline. So that was a good
thing. But then we also kind of
had to juggle that. So C-TRAN
with Ridgefield and Washougal,
they had, per our policy, asked
for that additional one year
delay. And then we had the
Clark County project. They just
realized with the initial work
that they were doing, that they
just couldn't move that project
forward right now. So they by
the March deadline, thankfully,
they let us know sooner,
actually, that they were going
to be rescinding that grant.
And we need to reprogram those
funds this year. And then we
had five projects that were
programed for 2026 that didn't
obligate their funds by the end
of June. And they also didn't
let us know by March deadline
that they weren't going to be
able to obligate their funds.
So that was three City of
Vancouver projects. And then
the Washougal projects. That
created some challenges for us,
really late kind of in our
programing and processing to
try to figure out how to adjust
with those. So then we brought
to you some exceptions, some
conversations about how we
could make some changes and do
some quick actions to try to
address the shortfall that we
had. So we did that policy
exception for the City of
Vancouver 18th Street project.
By allowing them an additional
one year delay. They already
had that one year delay, so
they went two years out with
their project. We did that
amendment to the guidebook
policy to increase the funding
for all existing and programed
projects. As Matt mentioned, we
did the bonus in April of
$250,000 in construction in
Stuebe for the C-TRAN highway
99, Vancouver 18th and the
wasch.sr 500 projects, and then
kind of at the at the last
minute, we did that awarding of
a one time bonus in June to the
city of Vancouver for the 18th
Street project. And that was
really to try to balance out
the fact that Washougal wasn't
going to be able to obligate
any of their PE or their right
of way funds that they had
programed this year. So this
was the final list of projects.
So I think I mentioned at the
last meeting, we barely
squeaked by by $40,000 meeting
our target, and we ran into a
challenge because with Washdot
this year and the request that
they put out for agencies for
additional obligation authority,
they put a deadline of June
30th before it had been
September 30th in previous
years. And so they put a hard
deadline this year of June 30th.
And so there was an issue that
we were having with a C-TRAN,
an FTA transfer for funds. We
were, because of a
miscommunication or just non
communication like 4 or 5 years
ago about to funds that were
switched from a project from
urban to rural that we didn't
have record of. We were short
by like $10,000 to obligate
some funds. And so there's a
little bit of a hang up between
local programs and whether they
would consider us that we met
our target. And so a big, big
shout out to Stephanie Tax at a
washdot. She, after some
conversation in meetings with
her, she agreed that we did
meet our target because it was
in process the transfer with
FTA. So they went ahead and let
us. It was about a week or two
late. Submit some projects for
additional obligation authority.
So it was a lot of good things
kind of playing in our favor
this year. And so we submitted
two projects, one for the
center because they are getting
ready to construct their shared
use path project. And typically
a lot of agencies don't request
to funds for additional
obligation authority. So we
thought that would be a good
strategy. And then there was
the $8 million that we had kind
of planned for 18th Street. And
so both of those projects were
awarded those funds. The
agencies have in their
obligation paperwork for those
projects. And so those are
moving forward. And then I also
did want to mention Skamania
County. They were on it again
this year too. So they got, I
think for one of their projects,
the Washougal River road
project, they got over $2.1
million in additional
obligation authority. So they
got a couple, I think, over $1
million last year too. So they
got it figured out too. So they
they got a lot of funding this
year through the process. So
again, a lot we had to do a lot
of conversations and exceptions
to get through. And we were
lucky with some of the
decisions, but we did get that
additional obligation authority.
Whether that continues, we
don't know federal
reauthorization. We know a lot
of states are frustrated with
that process because states
aren't meeting their obligation
targets. They're losing funds
to states like Washington that
are meeting their obligation
targets. So we'll see if that
continues to move forward in
the future. But we're really
going to start pushing with the
state bumping up to the June
30th deadline, we're really
going to start pushing agencies
to to start getting their
obligation process a lot sooner
than June 1st. So that's a
conversation we'll have with
our Tip subcommittee that we do
every year to kind of talk
about that. And if we need to
make any policy changes related
to that. Any questions at all
on that?
>> So, Jennifer, if I could ask,
do you recall, I think we've
been successful with extra
obligation funds 3 or 4 years
in a row.
>> B four years now, I think.
>> And the total extra five.
Okay. The total extra is over
40 or 50 million.
>> Yeah. I think with this
year's it would be over 30
million. Wouldn't over 40/40.
>> Okay. So that's why the
pressure and the movement and
the one time exceptions, you
know, in an ideal world, they
program the funds, they
obligate the funds. You just
never ask a question. Just and
that's what it was like, like
ten years ago. Now that this
obligation target has been
pushed down to the regions,
we're the ones that have to
manage to that. Otherwise the
region's funds could be
sanctioned or taken away. If
you don't meet the target in
two years in a row. Now, the
flip side is if we put the
pressure on everybody and make
the adjustments, we're able to
garner tens of millions. I will
tell you, our partners across
the state a little bit
frustrated with RTC. Because
for whatever reason, which is
really and I say that it's
really a commitment of
everybody trying to push in the
same direction. So as much as
your team and your team members
at the at the local agencies,
the staff that are actually
delivering the projects might,
you know, once in a while
complain about RTC. It's
actually a good complaint
because if we can capture an
extra $8.7 million this year, I
think last year it was in the
over $10 million. If we can
capture that, that's just money
that is programed in and you
take the local money out, you
take the TIF money out,
whatever that might be. So I
think that's the goal always.
Now, whether we can do it every
single year, I think is to be
determined. But that's the goal.
So I think just real
recognition to the team and the
board here for making those
adjustments and the local
agencies for, you know, being
responsive as much as possible
sooner information is better.
As you saw the list, they're
five agencies didn't. I was
actually wrong. I thought it
was March 30th. It's March 1st.
They didn't let us know that
they were going to be late,
which put us a little bit
behind. Oh well, we didn't know.
You telling us that you're
going to be late in April is
not good enough. So that's why
we're pushing the deadlines up
a little bit sooner so that we
can react with a little bit
more clarity as opposed to last
minute. But even in the last
minute circumstances, you know,
it played in our favor this
year. So again, recognize the
team effort staff at the local
agencies because they're really
doing the work and the
directors here for being nimble.
And I think that's a good place
to be.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Jennifer.
>> Question.
>> Sorry. Go ahead.
>> Well thank you. First of all,
thanks. RTC's and staff member.
I've worked with RTC, RTC in
different capacity. And I
believe not only you always go
above and beyond what you do.
What I appreciate the most is
how much education you provide
to our agency and everyone. So
we can consult and or agency
can deliver their work more
effective. What I want to ask
is if, if in the past years we
had some extra money to
allocate, do we have a program
project like a reserved or
stand by projects? So in the
future we can be.
>> I mean, some people refer to
it as a contingency list
contingency. Yeah. And we don't
have a quote unquote
contingency list. But I think
the way the programing
guidebook is set up policy wise
is if there were to be an extra
tranche of funds, go first to a
project that was not completely
funded. So there are
circumstances like you saw
today where we can only
partially fund the request. So
we go first to fill up the
bucket to to their original
request. Second, we go down to
the cut line and we look at the
projects next in the queue. And
then third is when we start
going, okay, maybe we need to
get bonuses. So we go first to
fill the bucket and second to,
you know, fund, maybe a project
because our cut line is
essentially, you know, below
the line. You saw two today
that are below the line. That's
essentially in some respects a
contingency list unless it
weren't to be qualified. So I
think that's how we apply the
policy. I generally.
>> I have a follow up question
based on that. Within those
three buckets that generally
would would use all of the
money that would be available,
there wouldn't be a need to
have like a, an application
process.
>> Well, it's an interesting.
You'd ask that question. Yes.
Two years ago. So not this year,
but two years ago we did
special call for projects. And
I think it was in April. And
again, that's why that March
deadline is so important. We
need to hear from people.
Either you were going to go or
not, because I think in that
example, we were able to stand
up a call for projects. I think
we had like a 30 day. The board
announced the call for project
approved it. And then I think
by the next board meeting, if
not, no more than two, we had a
project ranking and a proposed
award schedule. So we can do
that. And that was sort of if
we don't have a pool of
contingency projects, then
we'll do a special call. And in
some cases we need to do that
because maybe the projects have
fallen out of schedule or
whatever.
>> Thank you. And I'd just like
to note that Clark County was
timely in reporting that we
wouldn't be using our funds.
>> Thank you. Jennifer. So move
us on to the regional active
transportation plan. Judith and
Julia.
>> Good afternoon again. So
today we'd like to.
>> Share an overview of the
regional Active Transportation
plan, what it is, why we are
developing it, and how it will
help us create a safer, better
connected transportation system
for people walking, biking and
rolling throughout Clark County.
The Regional Active
Transportation Plan provides a
vision for connecting our
communities with safe and
comfortable places to walk,
bike and roll. The idea for
this plan came out of the work
that each of the seven local
agencies have already completed,
or are in the process of
completing. As part of their
comprehensive plans, Clark
County and each of the six
cities has spent a significant
amount of time, some of them
years, that identifying walking
and biking networks that
connect neighborhoods, schools,
downtown businesses, parks and
other destinations. That local
work has been thoughtful and
comprehensive. What we notice,
however, is that those networks
often stop at the city limits.
Once you cross into another
jurisdiction, the connections
can disappear or become
incomplete. So the purpose of
this regional plan is to bridge
those gaps by identifying a
regional active transportation
network that connects
communities across Clark County
boundaries, while linking to
the local networks that already
exist or that are being planned
for. As this network is being
built over time because it
takes time to build an entire
network, it's going to improve
safety, strengthen connections
between communities, and also
make walking and biking a more
practical transportation option
for more people. So I'd like to
spend a few minutes talking
about who this network is
designed to serve, focusing on
bicycling. People have very
different comfort levels when
riding a bicycle. Some riders
are comfortable sharing the
road with traffic, while others.
But many others, including
family, children, older adults
and newer riders prefer
facilities that provide greater
separation from vehicles. Our
goal is to create a network
that works for everyone, not
just experienced cyclists. The
plan recommends facilities such
as buffer bike lanes, protected
bike lanes, shared use path
because they provide safer,
lower stress connections that
are comfortable for a much
wider range of users. These
type of facilities fit well
with the agency's multimodal
level of stress standards, and
a table with all the
jurisdictions within Clark
County, multimodal level of
stress can be found in your
meeting materials. Shortly.
Julia is going to discuss many
of the corridors in today's
transportation network and how
they primarily serve confident
cyclists. The plan looks at how
we can expand opportunities for
all. So as we talked in the
discussion earlier about the
Atlas, the foundation of Rtc's
Transportation Planning is the
regional designated
transportation system, or DTS.
The DTS includes the region's
most important transportation
corridors, major roads, state
highways, transit routes,
airports, connections to rail,
ports, and other facilities
that connect communities within
Clark County and also beyond.
So when we first started
developing the regional Active
Transportation Network, we
assumed it was going to closely
follow the regional designated
transportation system. But as
we evaluated those corridors,
we realized that many of them
simply are not the best places
to create comfortable walking
and bicycle facilities. Roads
with high traffic volumes,
higher speeds, multiple travel
lanes, and significant freight
activity can be challenging
environments, particularly for
less experienced riders. So
instead of assuming that the
busiest road was always the
best regional connection, we
looked for nearby alternatives
that could provide safer and
more comfortable experiences.
I'm going to share three
examples that show how parallel
routes can provide a more
comfortable facilities for
walking, biking, and rolling.
And we're going to start by
going to Mill Plain, east of
Devine Road. The Mill Plain
Boulevard carries heavy traffic,
includes major freight activity,
has too many access conflict
points, and has limited bicycle
facilities. A nearby route
along the MacArthur McGilvray
to southeast 34 offers lower
speeds, lighter traffic and a
much more comfortable
environment while still
providing that east west
regional connection. Second
example is highway 99. Highway
99 serves a very important
commercial function, has
frequent driveways and access,
conflict points and heavy
vehicle activity. Just to the
west of highway 99, we can find
Hazel Dale Avenue that provides
a quieter place for folks to be
able to walk and ride their
bicycles. Our third example
highlights a different
challenge, which is Topography.
Lake Road in Camas is
constrained by steep terrains
that makes direct active
transportation route difficult.
So instead, the preferred
regional connection uses a
series of very low volume
neighborhood streets that
create a more comfortable and
practical route. In a few
minutes, Julia will explain the
evaluation process that help us
identify these alternative
corridors. But before she goes
there, let's talk about the
regional Active Transportation
Network. As I mentioned in the
presentation, the regional
network is composed of three
different layers local walking
and bicycle facilities
developed by each jurisdictions
are shown in pink. The regional.
The existing regional trails
are shown in green and the
regional corridors that connect
communities across Clark County
are shown in dark blue. Most
regional corridors follow the
existing regional designated
transportation system. However,
where those roads are not
practical for creating a safe
low street facility or where a
better parallel route exists,
we identified alternative
corridors that better meet the
goals identified in the plan.
So next Julian is going to
she's going to walk us through
what we learned and how we
analyzed existing network and
go over the prioritization
methodology. Julia. All yours.
>> Thank you. So yes, after
identifying which corridors are
part of the regional active
transportation system, we
needed to evaluate the existing
conditions along these
facilities. And to start, we
need to identify what types of
facilities exist and where they
are now. Different terminology
exists among local
jurisdictions for similar
facilities. For example, the
City of Vancouver uses the term
bike and small mobility lane,
where other jurisdictions may
call a similar facility just a
bicycle lane. So for
consistency in our analysis, we
categorize the different
bicycle facilities as shared
use paths, protected bike lanes,
buffered bike lanes, standard
bike lanes, and then where
there is no dedicated facility
or a shoulder. And for
pedestrian facility types, we
looked at separated sidewalks
or shared use paths, sidewalks
that are 8ft or 8ft wide or
wider with no buffer, those
that are five feet wide or more
with no buffer. And then where
there's no facility or only a
shoulder present. And the maps
on this slide show the
locations of each of these
types of facilities, with
bicycle facilities on the left
and pedestrian facilities on
the right. This analysis should
be considered preliminary, as
it's based on the data that was
provided to us at the start of
this project, but updates are
already underway to reflect
more current facilities that
are present from newer
construction and what we see on
the ground today. This plan
will also be amended, likely
next year, to reflect more
accurate sidewalk information
that will be provided to us
through the Ada transition
plans that each of the local
jurisdictions is putting
together. So next we looked at
the level of traffic stress or
lights along each of these
corridors. And I should note
that not all jurisdictions are
using lights for their
multimodal level of service or
MMOS target measurements, but
it is a very common method for
measuring the level of comfort
or stress that someone might
experience on a bicycle or
pedestrian facility. Lights
scores are a function of both
the roadway characteristics and
the bicycle and pedestrian
facility characteristics as
well. The roadway
characteristics include the
number of travel lanes, the
annual average daily traffic
and the posted speed limit,
bicycle and pedestrian lights
then factor in the type of
facility, whether it's a bike
lane or a five foot wide
sidewalk, or a shared use path,
and the presence of it on one
or both sides of the roadway.
Our preliminary analysis shows
that only 24% of the bicycle
facilities and 30% of the
pedestrian facilities currently
meet the low stress standard of
lights. Two these facilities
are more limited in extent, and
they appear in shorter segments,
generally within city limits
and higher stress facilities.
We see making up a significant
portion of our regional
connections. Next, we looked at
two different categories of
network limitations. Those are
gaps which are the highest
priority for intervention as
they indicate a complete
absence of a bicycle or
pedestrian facility and
deficiencies, which are those
locations where an existing
facility exists but does not
meet the current standard of
the local agency. Bicycle. The
bicycle network is shown on the
left, has many gaps and
deficiencies, which are shown
in red and yellow. While most
or all say more of the
pedestrian network has complete
facilities which are indicated
in green. In the map on the
right on both maps, we see that
gaps are concentrated along the
key regional north south
corridors and at the edges of
the urban areas. This table on
the slide provides some of the
statistics revealed by the gaps
and deficiencies analysis,
which were shown as a map on
the previous slide. Overall,
this analysis tells us that the
regional Active Transportation
network is not yet complete or
consistently accessible, with
many gaps and deficiencies
occurring across many of the
corridors. And while more while
more portions of the pedestrian
network include complete
facilities, the bicycle network
has significant missing
infrastructure or facilities
that do not meet the adopted
low stress standard. And I
should say that identifying
these gaps and areas for
improvement is one of the first
steps in the process of
building out a regional system
that is more comfortable for
more users. RTC will work with
local jurisdictions in the
future to fill these gaps and
achieve the m m loss targets.
So now that we've assessed the
condition of these existing
facilities and identified where
the gaps and deficiencies exist,
we need to establish a method
to prioritize different areas
of the network for intervention.
And to do this, we looked at
safety, network connectivity
and deficiencies. Safety is
represented by the segments of
the regional Active
Transportation network that
overlap with the high injury
network from Clark County's
Safety Action plan, and network
connectivity would be
represented by where there are
complete gaps in facilities and
deficient facilities are those
that exist but do not meet the
adopted low stress standard. So
based on these criteria, scores
are assigned to each of the
segments for both bike and
pedestrian facilities, and the
sum of these two scores is used
to assign the level of priority,
the highest possible score that
a segment can receive is five,
reflecting the combined bicycle
and pedestrian assessment
criteria. For example, a five
score of five would reflect one
point for safety if the segment
overlaps with the high injury
network. Two points if the
segment is a two way facility
with pedestrian gaps on both
sides, and another two points
if that same facility has
bicycle facility gaps on both
sides. And applying this
scoring methodology to the
regional Active Transportation
Network, we can distribute the
network into three different
classes, which are low, medium
and high priority. So this
results in classifying 44% of
the total miles of the regional
active transportation network.
In the low priority class, and
19% as high priority, high
priority segments are those
which scored at least three and
a half points and represent
segments with significant gaps
or deficiencies. At this time,
the prioritization rankings do
not affect an agency's
likeliness to receive or
ability to apply for funding
from RTC. In fact, any project
that is on one of RTC's
regional networks receives an
additional point on their grant
applications. But RTC is
considering making an amendment
to this process to further the
projects that are on the higher
priority segments of our
networks, and this conversation
will happen later in the fall
when the Tip subcommittee
convenes, which is composed of
both staff, which is composed
of staff from all of our member
agencies. They'll get together
to review the tip guidebook and
discuss how prioritization will
be applied to our grant award
process into the future. So
with that, I will turn it back
to Judith.
>> Thank you.
>> So in addition to
identifying a network, the plan
established a policy framework
to guide future investments. A
copy of the draft policy
framework was included in your
meeting materials. The
framework is built around the
four regional transportation
Plan goals, which is to improve
safety for everyone walking,
biking and rolling to support
economic vitality and quality
of life by creating better
connections to expand
accessibility and mobility
throughout a more complete
transportation network and
support sustainability and
resiliency by providing more
transportation choices beyond
driving alone to support those
goals. The plan includes 15
measurable objectives and 34
action strategies that have
been developed in collaboration
with our local partners and
also stakeholders. This slide
shows where we are in the
planning process. We have
completed much of the technical
work and stakeholder outreach.
Our next milestone will be
returning to you guys in
February to present the draft
plan and gather additional
feedback before the final
adoption. We're happy to answer
any questions that you might
have regarding the regional
active transportation plans.
>> Thank you for this. I just
had a question about who all is
involved in the plan. And the
specific question is like when
you're selecting the
alternative routes, which I
think is a great thing. Is that
RTC saying we suggest this as
an alternative route, or is it
working with the municipality
about what they're already. How
does that process work to
select the alternative route?
>> We started with a with with
a network, and then we work
with all six cities, county
staff. The port sit at the
table. Cowlitz Indian Tribe
also sits at the table. We work.
We have representatives from
target zero from the community,
motions from C-TRAN. So we have
tried to be as comprehensive as
possible with all staff. In
addition, we have presented at
the Vancouver Transportation
Mobility Commission and also
the Clark County Bias and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee
and the Clark County Parks
Advisory Board. So we're trying
to to spread as much as we can.
We'll be giving this
presentation to, I think it's
called target zero, region six
in October, just to make sure
that folks here. What we're
proposing and. And this has
been an evolving process. Some
of the slides that you saw, the
map was not accurate because we
have changed it. I mean, we
changed it pretty much every
every week because somebody
else said something different.
So some of the routes that the
analysis shown, like I think
219 extension is shown that at
one point was part of the plan.
And then after discussion with
folks that say, let's wait
until that, that corridor, that
project becomes a real project.
So, so yeah, it's, it's
evolving and it will be
evolving all the way to the end.
We just can't create the maps
as fast as we need to.
>> Thank you.
>> Thanks for all the
information. So if an
alternative route is identified,
let's say for pedestrian access
or bicycle, would the main
would the the road with the
deficiency be removed from the
19%? We identified 19% as high
priority. Let's say some of
them. We identify alternative
route. Would that change?
>> So just to clarify, when
when we were speaking about
alternative routes before this,
we were referencing routes that
are an alternative to the
regional designated
transportation system that are
better suited for active
transportation. AM I correct in
understanding that your
question might be alternatives
to the network that we've
identified in this presentation?
>> I think bottom line, I want
to know, for example, if a road
road number A doesn't have
sidewalk and is eligible to
have a high rank of receiving
funding, if there is
alternative B for that route,
would the project has less a
score of being eligible for
future funding to build the
sidewalk?
>> That is a really good
question. I think that is
something that we would want to
discuss as we're having our
conversation about how
prioritization plays into this.
At this time, there is no
difference whether it's listed
as a high priority route in
this map or not. So today the
answer would be no. It wouldn't
change the designation between
the two, but that would be
something that we can talk
about further when we're
thinking about how
prioritization will factor into
how RTC reviews, grants and
distributes funds and things
like that.
>> Thank you. And one of the
ideas that we have floated
through all our stakeholders is
that when we have the
discussion with the
subcommittee, the results of
the prioritization to present
that to them, to see if they
want to include that as part of
the tip guidebook to to rank
based on the priority. That
decision has not been made, but
we have discussed with partners
about how do they feel about
doing something like that.
>> Thank you. Next up, we got
Matt talking about procurement
and personnel policy. We're got
about 20 minutes left.
>> Okay, directors, I'll keep
this brief. In May of this year,
the board adopted amendments to
both the procurement and the
personnel policy I mentioned at
the time, as I do each year
when the board makes
adjustments. This is just a
continual improvement process
where if I identify areas where
I think it would be best
practice to document a policy
or procedure, I'll bring those
forward to the board. So while
we typically do this once a
year, the three that I'll
present this evening have come
forward. As you know, we should
probably document that. So
that's the proposal in front of
you. Let me begin with on the
right and then I'll move left.
There's a new policy proposed
for the procurement policy.
It's called event sponsorship.
And you have a draft of the
policy in front of you in the
in the packet. The proposed is
to document a procedure whereby
if RTC were to be presented, an
opportunity to sponsor an event,
for example, there's a state
planning conference coming to
town in October of this year.
RTC was asked if it might be
willing to sponsor a keynote
speaker or a mobile workshop,
and I had to defer because I
thought, well, I don't really
have a good policy for how I
can make that decision. So this
event sponsorship would
document the policy and, and
some tests that I would apply
criteria and so forth, so that
if I was presented that
opportunity in the future,
there would be a way to
document why I'm expending RTC
resources for that purpose. So
that's the proposed event
sponsorship. It could apply to
other local events. For example,
there actually, this has just
came up just a couple of weeks
ago, Vancouver was hosting a
bike rodeo and community event.
And there was the invitation,
hey, could you buy some
popsicles? Or, you know,
something de minimis to help
sponsor that. And again, I
demurred from that because I
thought, well, before I do
something like that, you know,
pretty de minimis expense, but
you'd like to have
documentation. So those are
just two examples of why I
think it's best practice to
have an event policy. I've run
this by our accountant who used
to be a state auditor, and they
agreed. Yeah, it'd probably be
good to document that. So
that's the proposal. Then on
the left side membership dues
this is aligning. I call it
sort of housekeeping. It's
aligning current policy that we
have in our personnel manual
and in that personnel manual.
Section 17.1, it says that RTC
will pay for memberships and
professional organizations and
so forth, where it's either
requirements of the job or
supportive of training and
development. And so there are
cases where people are members
of national or state
associations generally
associated with transportation
planning or planning in general.
And so I think the proposal
would document the procurement
policy just, again, some
criteria, some an outline of
why that occurs. There's also
other kinds of membership dues
that RTC pays. For example, RTC
is a community partner to the
Columbia River Economic
Development Council, and we're
a member to the Chamber of
Commerce and so forth. We're a
member to the National
Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations. So
there are those instances where
we're using RTC resources to be
a member of an organization, or
to support a civic or a
regional organization. So the
proposal would be to document
the procurement manual, just
the criteria, the tests, and
provide me and then a future
executive the parameters for
which the expenditure of funds
would take place. The third is,
again, I call it housekeeping.
RTC budget includes a set aside
of $5,000 per year to support
the RTC providing program
services under the Commute Trip
Reduction program, but we don't
have anything in our personnel
or policy manuals that says
what we're doing. So we're
budgeted, but we don't have
documentation, so we've not
really used that resource. But
given some restaffing, we're
currently using some of that
resource. And so I think it's
best practice again just to
document for our procedures.
And if there were to be any
question as to why that
expenditure is being made, that
we have some documentation
attached to that. So that's the
commute to production sort of
bringing into our procedures
manual what we already budgeted
for. So those are the proposed
certainly entertain. Any
questions. If there are no
questions, the intention would
be to return in October and
adopt those for immediate use.
>> That'll bring us to other
business. Anything from the
board tonight, chair? Yes,
chair.
>> We seem to have missed
something simple. I wonder if
we could take a look at the
Public Transportation Agency
safety plan. There is a major
error that we need to correct
in. On page seven, it lists the
old composition of the C-TRAN
board. In March, we changed the
composition of the C-TRAN board.
I know this says it was updated
in May of this year, and that
Lehan signed it in July and we
just adopted it. But that whole
paragraph about the composition
is not accurate. So I don't
know if we get to count that as
a scrivener's error, or if you
need a formal amendment.
>> I think it should be
probably categorized at a
minimum, a Scrivener error.
What we have done is taken this
directly as it was adopted by
C-TRAN. So in some ways I would
defer to whether a C-TRAN would
consider this substantive or or
if it would maybe for the
record, to.
>> Scott, was this adopted by
C-TRAN or just created by
C-TRAN?
>> Adopted.
>> Adopted, adopted. So we can
I can go back and ask the
question of our legal. But I
think it would fall under the
scrivener's error because the
action. It's how everything
lines up and when the C-TRAN
board Composition Review
Committee changed and then the
C-TRAN board amended its bylaws
and we'll just make sure that
is correctly noted and
accounted for.
>> Yeah. I think for the record
of this meeting, we'll make
that notation. So follow up.
>> I have one additional change.
But it comes under the
executive director's critical
urban and rural corridors. I
can take care of it then. Thank
you.
>> Anything else from the board?
Then I'll hand it over to our
executive director.
>> Okay. Two, well, three
reports filed here. One is just
an announcement that our 2026
coordinated public transit
Human Services transportation
plan for smart Coleah and
Klickitat counties. Wow, that
was a lot that has been
published for public comment.
As of yesterday. It's online.
This is a plan required under
our federal requirements to do
a human services plan for the
three counties. As part of that,
there's going to be a review
and ranking of grant
applications. Which service
providers are in the process of
submitting over the next couple
of weeks. So just an
announcement. It's open for
public review. And later this
year, the board will hear both
a report on the plan itself.
And then by early next year,
the board will need to adopt
the ranking of grant
applications, which then we
transmit to Wasch dot. The
second item is a memo referring
to a matter addressed at the
last meeting. I am sharing with
the board what was submitted to
the state as part of the
critical Urban and Rural
Freight Corridor designation
process, the memo summarizes
and then attaches a table, and
the table reflects those
projects, which were either
added or deleted to the Urban
and Rural Freight Corridor
designation. This is a process
where we submit to the state
freight division. Wasch dot
Wasch dot reviews according to
their criteria and renders a
decision. So this was our
region's recommendation to be
reviewed by Wasch dot.
>> Chair. If I might, Matt,
could you look at table two? In
the first column corridor? Name
it. The very last item is
Fourth Plain Boulevard. Is that
the actual correct name or
should it be the Jefferson
Realignment? And then it talks
that the location is starting
at I-5 and going to Mill Plain.
Fourth plane is parallel to
Mill Plain.
>> So I'll answer the question
and invite Adam if he likes to
add additional comment. This
proposal that you're referring
to was to designate Fourth
Plain Boulevard from I-5 to its
connection to Mill Plain West
to D, designate that as an
urban critical freight corridor.
Okay. And the request to
designate came from the City of
Vancouver. I understand the
reason for designation is
there's not an imminent
improvement project planned for
Fourth Plain. And this gets to
sort of the peculiarity of this
process. This process should
not be confused with a freight
designation according to
tonnage. It's completely
separate. So often we refer to
freight corridor as vis a vis
their tonnage designation, like
a tier one corridor, which
would have the highest tonnage,
tier two and so forth. And
that's a very specific process
that identifies a corridor for
the purposes of where's freight
going. This is a process, and
it's somewhat the way Washdot
has set it up. The designation
attaches to grant applications
that are being reviewed through
the National Highway Freight
Program grant process. So what
Washdot has tried to do is they
tried to say, marry up the
designation with a grant
application pending or to be
submitted. And that's the
reason for the designation. In
the case of Jefferson Kaufman,
the project has been completed
and fully approved. And then
the fourth plan, there was not
an imminent project planned.
Okay. Hopefully that addresses
the question then.
>> I believe you have taken all
of this and put it on this.
>> I think.
>> So, and it didn't transfer
well.
>> Okay. My apologies.
>> So as you're looking at and
I don't know if it's up on the
screen, okay, that is not on
this last one. Okay. It says
fourth plain Jefferson Kaufman.
>> What I'll ask Adam Fish to
do is to review the tables
tomorrow and just confirm that
Washdot has received the proper
corridor ID.
>> And have him take a look at
the corridor numbers, the
length, the length, the numbers
screwed up, but over on the the
large sheet it says Jefferson
Street realignment, first
Avenue to Third Avenue. But
that is not on here. So what is
that? What is that?
>> Okay, Adam, we'll have to
let's.
>> You and the mayor is correct.
That was a mistake and has been
corrected. I think what had
happened was I copy and pasted
something over one line over.
But rest assured, Wasch Schaadt
has received the correct
streets that the mass discussed
with with their appropriate
start and end dates. What
you're seeing is, I think, just
some of those corridors just
have have some of the
information that was improperly
fed into it, but it's been
corrected and I can share the
corrected document with, with
the with the board.
>> Okay. All right. Okay.
>> Yeah. Thank you. And
hopefully my more elaborate
explanation as to what the Crfc
process was and why it exists
is also helpful. It's this is
one of those where you
designate to get the money or
pending to get the money. So
we'll just play that process
the way it was.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. And
coincidentally, in Skamania
County, and I think this gets
to the comment that Jennifer
made relative to their current
county engineer, very creative
and strategic in my opinion.
And you see it through the
extra obligation awards that
they've received two years in a
row. And also the designation
process. What they did in
Skamania County is they went on
every route. These are county
roadways that had a bridge
that's used for conveyance of
forestry products off the hills
into into Carson and elsewhere.
And they said, we need to
improve all these bridges
because of maybe tonnage
restrictions and so on and so
forth. And so they came up with
a strategy which is, well,
let's designate all these
corridors as rural freight
corridors, so that we can maybe
get some bridge money to help
weather Wasch dot approves that.
We don't know. But I thought
when the idea came forward, I
thought, that is extremely
creative because if it truly is
marrying a need with the money
and the designation has to
attach to it the super
strategic idea, we'll see if it
actually plays out, but just
the creativity that I think
sometimes comes to bear when
you think about using the the
bureaucratic process to maybe
tie up some money.
>> And chair. Temple Lentz and
I know how very important that
labeling is as we look at
freight corridors and funding
freight corridors that have
used that creativity for state
money. So if we don't need to,
let's not change things.
>> And my last update and I'll
there's going to be a closure
on I-5 through the Rose quarter
area I've attached to the
packet just for public
information, two page
frequently asked questions with
a map. The closure on I-5 may
last multiple weeks and begins
next Friday. I would invite
Chris Ford to maybe add any
additional commentary, and
that's my report to the board.
Thank you.
>> I don't have anything else.
The the two pager covers things
pretty well. It's going to have
a substantial effect.
Unfortunately. I would read
through it in detail just to
make sure you understand what
is closing, what is not closing.
To be clear. Northbound I-5
will remain open throughout all
of this. So I think got a few
questions about that. And
there's basically a stretch of
southbound I-5. A lot of this
is deferred and necessary
maintenance and bridge work. So
it's a it's going to be an
inconvenience. And we're
definitely aware of that. And
so for people to be able to
alter their trips, take
alternate routes, or simply
delay their trip to another
time would be the best options.
And we thank you all for your
understanding.
>> Thank you for that. Chris.
The next RTC Board of Directors
meeting is Tuesday, October 6th,
2026 at 4 p.m. This meeting is
adjourned.