All right. Good afternoon
everyone. Welcome to the
suddenly hot June. It is June
2nd, 2026. Calling this regular
ROTC Board of Directors meeting
to order. If we could have roll
call, please.
>> Michelle Belkot. Sue
Marshall here. Wil Fuentes here.
Anne. McEnerny. Ogle. Eric
Paulson here. Masa Eshki. Here.
Troy McCoy here. Asa Leckie.
Here. Ron Irig here. Scott
Patterson here. Devin Reck here.
Temple Lentz here. Bill Iyall.
Ryan Windsheimer.
>> Here.
>> Christine Lewis. And House
and Senate members of the 14th,
17th, 18th, 20th and 49th
districts.
>> Okay. Thank you. That gives
us a quorum. So this time I'd
entertain a motion for approval
of the board agenda.
>> And McEnerny Ogle move
approval of the agenda. Second.
>> Okay.
>> I'm sorry. What? Oh, yes.
You had a question. Oh.
>> We were competing for the
second.
>> Oh, sorry. Yeah. Councilor
Belkot, you have your hand up.
>> I just wanted to make sure
that I was counted as present.
I couldn't hear anything
initially.
>> Oh, yeah. You're your mix a
little low, but yeah, we have
you marked down as attending.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
>> Motion on the floor and
seconded for approval of board
agenda as presented. Seeing no
discussion. All in favor?
>> Aye.
>> Any opposed carries
unanimously. That'll move us on
to the public comment portion
of the evening or the afternoon.
Sorry, it was late evening last
night. Do we have anybody
online to testify?
>> I think we do. There's a
phone number, but I haven't
been able to get them to
identify Sharon. NASA did
indicate she wanted to give
comment tonight.
>> Okay. Looks like she is
online. Do we want to start
there? Do we want to start with
in person?
>> We can start her.
>> Okay.
>> You can go ahead.
>> Sharon, you're you're
unmuted. If you want to make
sure you unmute and we will
start your three minute timer.
Sharon, if you can hear me, if
you can unmute. We'll we'll
roll back to Sharon. We'll
start with the in-person. How's
that first in person? I have in
front of me Douglas tweet.
>> No. Is this working? No, I
think it's working. Okay.
Douglas. Tweet Kamea. So I sent
this to you. You should have
copies of it. It's got plots as
usual with data. Douglas.
>> Please get close to the mic
so we can hear.
>> Okay, this is Trimet's
history of over predicting
light rail ridership at the
October 14th, 2025 C-TRAN board
meeting, IBR executives were
asked about forecasted versus
actual ridership results for
the light rail system. Tri-met,
the program administrator
replied in a letter in December.
He only discussed the green and
orange line, and he only talked
about the opening year
ridership, saying nothing about
ridership since then. Well, the
ridership has been poor since
then, which I will show for the
last few years. Those two lines
are about one third of
forecasts. Now, in his letter,
he talked about the Tri-met
Green Line. It was 2009 opening
year, and they the models were
made with the RTM model similar
to what I was using. And he
cites a 2014 report to Congress
2009. The forecast was about
25,000 average weekday riders.
The actual is just a little
under. So not too bad. But what
about. Since then? The IBR
later gave no information, so I
found other sources. In 2020,
Cascade Policy Institute sent a
letter to the FTA about this
problem and more recent data I
found on Trimet's website. So
in 2020, the forecast for the
green line was 33,000 average
weekday riders. But the actual
before Covid 2019 was 63% of
that, and now it's dropped by
another half. So it's about 33%
of the forecast, one third. In
the December 10th letter, they
also talked about the Orange
line and a predicted 17,000.
They only got about 11,067%.
But he said, oh well then we
fixed the model and then it
worked. But that's kind of late
because you need to make
forecasts. You have to predict
years in advance to make
forecasts. So it's a bad
forecast. More recently, it's
worse 2019, it was only reached
12,000. And the last few years
is 5400. About again one third
of the forecast. And then
lastly is the yellow line which
the was not discussed in that
letter. But that's extremely
relevant because that's what
the IBR wants to connect
Vancouver to at a cost of 3.5
billion, 2004, the forecast was
about 14,000. The actual was a
little under 85%. Not too bad.
The 2020 forecast was 18,000,
but the actual was 13,074% of
the forecast pre-COVID. Since
then, it's dropped down to
about 8200, but less than half
of the 2020 forecast. So the
conclusion is that Tri-met with
its models, which is used by
the IBR for the C, s, FES,
always overpredict ridership,
even for the opening year and
in the future. Lately it's been
a half to a third of the
forecasts, and they've got
massive budget deficits leading
to ongoing cuts in service
trimet's drowning in debt due
to their own poor management
planning, and they want to take
Clark County down with them.
Why on earth would RTC want to
go into business with such a
bankrupt partner?
>> Thank you for wrapping that
up, Mr. Tweet. Next up Margaret
tweet.
>> Let me interrupt. Jordan. I
think we might need the volume
turned up on the speakers a
little bit.
>> Is that something I'm
supposed to do?
>> Get close to the mic if you
can, just to make sure.
>> How's that?
>> Yeah.
>> Didn't we have to do this
last time too? So maybe next
time. This is the good one.
Okay. Well, I'd like to remind
you that in 2006, the CRC said
there were 3300 weekday bus
trips over I-5 bridge. But in
20 years, that number is now
half. And yet the IBR program
and many of you in this room
are promoting. In addition to
the busses, light rail for $3.5
billion at least. And that's
one station in Oregon and two
in Vancouver, which the
Vancouver mayor says is unfair.
But I think it's unfair to
Oregon. At any rate, what
brings me here is concern about
statements made related to
light rail. At the April 21st
C-TRAN meeting, IBR stated in a
slide that the. Talking about
the Capital Investment Grant
for $1 billion. This
competitive grant requires a
light rail transit investment,
and it states a similar
requirement on the IBR website.
Yet at the Capital Investment
Grants Program. Overview at the
federal FTA website, it turns
out that Bus Rapid Transit is
eligible for funding, so light
rail isn't required by the FTA.
So that seems very confusing to
the public. And I wonder how
many of the project partners
were told that light rail is
required. This is still on your
website today. Now in the CRC,
they did actually do in their
eyes, they did a bus rapid
transit instead of light rail.
And according to Chris
Strickler, he said at that time,
cost was a factor. And I was
surprised. Isn't cost still a
factor? Why are we looking at
$3.5 billion? The good news is,
here the program continues to
evaluate opportunities for cost
savings. A very good place to
look is right here at the light
rail, eliminating light rail
and sticking with our working
bus service that is far more
affordable would help to, you
know, you could find 3.5
billion around in cost savings
right there. Now the project
has gone up to 15.2 billion
from 6 billion in the
application to this grant
program. So that is more than
double. But these all of this
money is based on unrealistic
forecasts, forecasts and SIG
grants are required to be
justifiable. So for that number
of people, it is not justified
to have both light rail and
busses. And I hope you'll look
at the information that I sent.
Thank you.
>> Thank you Margaret. Next up,
Con Tran. Sorry if I butchered
that name.
>> All right, everyone, hear me.
Okay. Good afternoon, members
of the Regional Transportation
Council. My name is Con Tran,
and I serve as the director of
policy and programs for
Identity, Clark County. I'm
here today to express our
organization's strong support
for proceeding with the
necessary amendments and
actions needed to complete
planning and advance Interstate
Bridge program. This project
has been in discussion and
development for more than 25
years. Today, we find ourselves
closer than ever to delivering
a modern, resilient crossing
for our region. With nearly 6
billion in needed committed
funding and updated federal
record of decision expected
soon. This, I don't have to
tell you, is a significant
milestone, and one that
reflects years of collaboration
among local, regional, state
and federal partners. The
Bridges the Bridge is a
critical transportation link
connecting Oregon and
Washington. As we all know,
supporting local commuters,
freight mobility, regional
mobility and economic activity
throughout northwest and
frankly, throughout the whole
West Coast. Replacing the
bridge addresses long standing
challenges related to
congestion, seismic
vulnerability and transit
access, and active
transportation connectivity. As
we move into final planning,
procurement and construction,
we encourage patients
flexibility and a continued
focus on problem solving.
Projects of this scale
inevitably evolve, and we
should expect opportunities to
refine elements of the program
and improve outcomes along the
way. What's important is
maintaining momentum and
remaining committed to the
shared goal of delivering this
once in a generation investment.
RTC has played a critical role
throughout the planning and
process, and we appreciate your
continued leadership as the
program and transitions from
planning into a reality. Thank
you for your time.
>> Thank you sir. Our caller
Sharon.
>> To clarify, I think that
might not have been the
individual, but somebody had
their hand raised. I don't know
if.
>> Okay. Can you identify
yourself, please?
>> Yes. Thank you chair. For
the record, I am Sharon Nasset.
I am with. One second.org.
>> Okay. Yes. Can you start
again with your volume was low.
Oh.
>> Oh, I beg your pardon. I am
Sharon Nasset. I am with third
bridge now.org. Thank you very
much, chair and representative
of members. There. We are right
now experiencing one of the
largest transportation
infrastructure projects that we
are going to have, not only for
decades, but possibly this
century. The bridge is in front
of us. I've been involved since
2000. I was involved with our
with alternatives accepted into
the formal environmental Impact
statement for the I-5
partnership, the I-5 Bridge
Influence area, and the
Columbia River crossing. I have
sent you a package and that I
had sent to the Washington and
Oregon Transportation
Commissioners asking for the
structural integrity and the
seismic reports. The list of
what needs to be repaired and
why we are not repairing it,
and we are replacing it. You
know, the bridge, the 1917
bridge was totally overhauled
in 1958, and in 2005 they said
the bridges had more than 60
years of life left. There are a
lot of new people in this, in
this group and the other groups
that don't seem to know that
the I-5 Trade and
Transportation Partnership,
Environmental Impact Statement,
which I've sent you a full copy
of the project and the the
statement showing what was
recommended said a supplemental
bridge. Unless the bridge needs
to be replaced. It was the task
force that the governor
hand-picked current mayor sat
on it. She can tell you that
said, we'd love a new bridge
and light rail loop that goes
up and over to I-285 and back
to the airport. At no time, I
was sitting at that room where
we discussing removing the
current bridges. I've also sent
you links with the director of
CRC, the original one saying,
no, we're looking at all kinds
of bridges. Please provide a
full report of what is wrong,
how much it costs to fix it,
and why we are not fixing it
when we are doing that to
bridges that are older, the
Steel bridge, the Broadway
Bridge, and since this bridge,
both those bridges were renewed
in 1958. That means 12 bridges
in Portland are older than
these. When I have asked
agencies, they're all shoving
it around instead of standing
up and saying, this is what's
wrong, and it's number this and
it goes that long, and here's
the cut, and that's the problem.
And we can't fix it because of
this. No, they all hide. We're
going to lose hundreds of homes,
historical properties, children
that have to move those schools.
>> Thank you.
>> Have a sunny day. Yeah. I'm.
I'm sorry. There's no clock on
the phone.
>> Yeah. Thank you very much.
>> For coming back to me. I
have a lovely day.
>> All right. Thank you, Sharon,
I appreciate it. Yes, I
understand it's hard to see at
the timer online. That
concludes the public comments
portion of the meeting. We'll
now move on to our action items.
First up is Consent Agenda
Board. What is your pleasure?
>> I move approval of the
consent agenda.
>> And McEnerny Ogle second.
>> Commissioner, you have your
hand raised for a question on
the consent agenda.
>> Yes, Commissioner Likhatskiy
County. Yeah, I just had a
question. It seemed like some
of the minutes were just
they're not wholly accurate,
and I don't think that's the
fault of the the people taking
the minutes. I think with the
hybrid format and the zoom,
it's kind of hard to get an
accounting at the instant of
votes. So just my suggestion
that maybe we should be having
roll call votes to help those
with the records. I think we
owe it to our constituents to
keep accurate records of the
minutes. So that's all I had.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you for that.
Anybody else? Yes.
>> Just want to talk about the
professional consultant
agreement. First of all, I want
to show my support for having
on call consultant. I
experienced that it's it helps
the process to go efficient and
effective. I have a question.
RTC plays a big lead in
providing traffic data for the
whole region for. And local
agency use that. Do we have any
program in place that the data
that agency collect for their
future development, for their
growth that comes to RTC to
incorporate into their program?
>> Thank you. Okay, so the
question is, when other
agencies collect data, does RTC
request that data and try to
incorporate it in our data sets?
The answer is yes, subject to
an agency's willingness and
consistency in delivering that
to us. So when we've looked at
our traffic count database over
time, we have tried to collect
that. People send us PDFs.
Other times they'd send us the
actual raw data, and when we
receive it, we update it in our
portfolio. In other instances,
agencies don't send it to us.
And so I think it's a it's a
matter of just consistency. So
I suppose the other factor
involved is both the state DOT
and Clark County have a pretty
active and independent counting
program, and they have their
own data sets and online tools,
GIS based, for example. And
we've looked recently in trying
to link their data sets to ours.
And there are some technical
issues that might prevent that.
But in summary, yes, we try to
use other agencies data to try
to pull it together so that we
can have a comprehensive data
set.
>> Any further questions on the
consent agenda? We have a
motion in front of us. Seeing
none. All in favor of the
motion on the floor to approve
the consent agenda as presented,
please say I.
>> I, I, I I.
>> Any opposed passes
unanimously. Thank you. This
will bring us to our federal
grant strategy. Jennifer.
>> So good afternoon. I'm here
to talk about another policy
exception. So I think I
mentioned at the last meeting
that we had that it's unusual
to have so many policy
exceptions in a year. And
unfortunately, we're back with
another one that we wanted to
present to you tonight just for
information and to get approval
on that, to move that forward.
So just going over again, RTC
has the responsibility of
federal funding allocation. We
receive funding for the CMac
program, S t, B, g, and
transportation alternatives.
And then also the carbon
reduction program. We have a
responsibility to make sure
that spent and utilized in a
fair and timely manner. And so
that's outlined in our
Transportation Programing
guidebook, which we've covered
quite a bit the first couple
months of this year. And a lot
of that is related to in the
discussion again tonight, is
making sure that as an MPO,
we're meeting our obligation
target for the year. And so
since we met with you last,
we've had another issue come up
in terms of potentially not
being able to meet our regional
obligation target. So the
policies related to the
discussion tonight are 5.3. So
the obligation of PE funds. And
then 4.1. So we've talked about
4.1. That kind of gives us the
flexibility to come to you with
proposals for addressing
potential, you know, shortfalls
that we might have for meeting
our obligation target and
policy. 5.8 that's related to
preliminary engineering funds.
So PE funds. So if an agency
receives PE funds, they need to
have it programed and obligated
by June of the year that it's
programed. There is no delay.
So like we allow delays for
construction and right of way,
but there is no allowable delay
for PE because technically you
should be able to do it fairly
easily. There shouldn't be any
major roadblocks to obligating
your PE funds. But
unfortunately, with the city of
Washougal, they've run into
quite a bit of a challenge with
obligating some PE funds that
they had for the 32nd
Overcrossing project. So this
is just a quick snapshot again,
of what we've got programs so
far for this year. A little bit
of an update. Listener and
Ridgefield, their projects we
know are in process. A couple
of these are also in process.
So we're getting closer. So
when I was looking at it last
week, we're about a million and
a half to $2 million close to
meeting our target. So we're
getting there. But we've had
quite a few challenges this
year, some delays with
different projects. And within
just the last couple of weeks,
we found out from the city of
Washougal. So with their 32nd
Overcrossing project, they have
to have their funds transferred
to the Federal Railroad
Administration. And so they
didn't realize that they needed
to do that in order to move the
project forward, because
there's such a significant
combination of federal
discretionary funds in that
project. So they didn't realize
that. And when you have that
transfer of funds, that can
create a delay in terms of
being able to access those
funds and obligate those funds.
And so it's similar to the
situation with C-TRAN when they
have funds like CBG or CMac
funds, they have to get those
transferred to FTA. So it's
kind of a similar scenario, but
they're more experienced with
that and they kind of build
that into their timeline.
Washougal unfortunately didn't
realize that. And so there was
the potential of them not being
able to meet that obligation
deadline by the end of June. So
they have been working really
quickly and having a lot of
meetings with Fra and also with
Washdot. And I'll kind of
preface this conversation is
that I talked with them earlier
today, and it sounds like
things are moving forward and
that potentially Fra could get
a letter. So we just need a
letter of commitment or a
letter of obligation of the
funds from Fra to be able to
know that those will be
obligated by September. It may
not be obligated by June, but
as long as it's obligated by
September, it will count in
this federal fiscal year. And
so they were saying that it
sounded like from a meeting
that they had with Fra this
morning, that the we should be
able to get a letter within the
next week or so. So that's good
news. But we still wanted to
bring this to you tonight just
to make sure that we have a
backup in place in case
something happens, because
they've had some challenges
with Fra. They've lost a lot of
people, a lot of staff. It's
been really difficult to
coordinate with them. So we
went to our TAC on May 15th
because we needed to submit
changes for the Stip, the
amendments to the Stip. The
last time we the last day we
had that available was May 15th.
So we went to our TAC,
presented this proposal to them.
Obviously, if you're not
supportive of it, we can pull
it and not move forward with it.
But what we presented to our
TAC and what we're presenting
to you tonight is this policy
exception, is that if the city
of Washougal, for some reason
is unable to obligate, so it's
1.25 million in funds that they
have for PE. If they're unable
to obligate them by the end of
June, then we would do a quick
pivot we already made. So what
we had to do was make the
change in the Stip. The city of
Vancouver would be ready to
receive that 1.25 million in
CBG funds for the 18th Street
project. So we had to make that
change in the Stip in order to
be able for them to receive it.
So it needed to be processed by
June for them to be able to
receive it. We would give the
city of Washougal as much time
as possible. So it could be
like that last week of June,
because it really they just
need to get the paperwork into
Wasch dot and then that would
say, you know, they've started
the obligation process and get
things moving forward. So we'd
give them as much time as
possible. And then the city
they've been working with Wasch
dot and with all the changes
for 18th Street. So they've got
that going forward and moving
forward. So they're in the
place where they could obligate
that really quickly. So we were
just requesting that once we
gave them the heads up saying,
hey, the city of Washougal
can't obligate their PE funds
in time, please go ahead and
submit this paperwork. They've
got all the paperwork and
everything ready, so they're
ready just to submit it to
Wasch dot. If that were the
case, Washougal would lose the
1.225 million in PE funds
because again, we don't have a
policy for delay in 99% of the
cases. There shouldn't be an
issue with being able to
obligate PE funds. So that's
what we're bringing forward. Is
that a resolution approving. So
it's conditional again
conditional only if the city of
Washougal is unable to obligate.
If they are able to obligate,
we would go in and make a Stip
correction and take that 1.25
million out. So that's no
longer shown under the 18th
Street project. So we would
make that correction too. So
there's no confusion or
anything that could happen. Any
questions on that at all.
>> Yeah thank you. Thanks for
information. You actually
address a lot of my questions.
So for my understanding of
Washougal. Struggle, is it
related to permit that took
longer like Nepa permit or
other?
>> No, just the they didn't
realize. I think they thought
originally that it wouldn't
have to go under Fra, but I
think because and I just
because there's so many funds
and there are federal Railroad
funds associated with the
project, the decision was made
that it needed to go through.
Fra. And so there's just a
process that they need to go
through in order to be able to
start that. And staff doesn't
because there's somebody left
the city of Washougal, their
engineer, and so they haven't
had somebody to replace him.
And so they just weren't sure
of what the process needed to
be, unfortunately. And then
with the budget cuts, it's been
really difficult to try to
coordinate with Fra.
>> May I ask a second question?
>> Get that mic closer to you,
please.
>> All right. And then the 1.25
million P phase. Does it go to
P phase for 18th Street or
different phase.
>> It would go for construction.
Thank you. I didn't clarify
that. Yeah. So it would go into
construction and that would,
you know, help to meet our
regional obligation target. And
we are that is the project that
we would be submitting for our
obligation target is. So we
have $8 million that we have
told the state we would like to
submit. If we meet our regional
obligation target, we would
submit $8 million for 18th
Street to help for construction
of that project.
>> So the policy let us do that
from P phase goes to. Yeah.
Thank you. Thanks.
>> Any other questions?
>> Well, I just I'd like to
commend the team on, first of
all, having this policy in
place and bringing this policy.
I know that we have timing
issues when it comes to federal
funds and being flexible. Yeah.
And utilizing those dollars
locally first is appreciated.
So thank you for the work on
this. I know wading through the
regulations is not easy. So
seen and appreciated. Thank you,
thank you. Board. I entertain a
motion if you're so inclined.
For resolution 62623.
>> So moved.
>> Second Cowlitz.
>> I have a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? Seeing
none. All in favor, I I.
>> I I I.
>> Any opposed passes
unanimously.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Jennifer. I'll
hand it off to Matt for our
next item.
>> Okay. Board of directors,
I'd like to present just a
brief staff report on this
action item is a proposed
resolution stating a policy
preference for the phasing of
the Interstate Bridge
replacement program. Light rail
element at the May meeting of
the board. This was introduced
under other business from the
board. The board had a
discussion and moved it forward
for full consideration this
evening. Because this isn't
policy of the board, it's more
of a position or a stated
preference, as I would
characterize it. Staff did not
do an analysis of the proposed.
And so my report this evening
is really going to mirror
what's presented in the staff
report and then open it up for
conversation. So to begin with,
the North Star or the guiding
principle for the board and the
policy established by the board
is was adopted in a modified
locally preferred alternative
for the I-5 bridge replacement
program EIS process, and that
characterizes the board's
desire to improve a multi mile
section of I-5, including
replacing the I-5 bridges over
the Columbia River, adding high
capacity transit in the mode of
light rail, adding active
transportation facilities,
expanding commuter bus services
and connecting services that
C-TRAN provides. Cross River
and an assorted other series of
improvements. And you see that
characterized here in that
image. That's essentially the
locally preferred alternative.
Since that time, a supplemental
final environmental impact
statement has been published by
the program and is under review
by the Federal Highway and
Federal Transit Administration.
At this point, it's expected
that a record of decision,
which would be the federal
decision approving the project
environmental review work would
be issued this summer. This
spring, the program presented
an updated cost estimate, and
in conjunction with that, they
proposed a multi phased
implementation, a sequence. And
it's characterized in a couple
of different ways. But for the
purposes of this resolution let
me refer to this slide right
here as proposed by the program
and the governors of both
states. A core set of projects
is proposed to be constructed.
And that's listed here on the
left. That includes replacing
the Columbia River bridges,
adding the approaches SR 14,
etc. including construction of
light rail guideway and
facilities from the Expo Center,
which is the current terminus
in Oregon, to a station
proposed. It's referred to as
Waterfront Station. There is
currently a funded phase of
work, which is the action that
the board just approved,
programing funds and those
funded phase of work include
replacing the bridges, the
approaches, etc. and designed
for transit. The core set of
projects does not include
funding for transit
construction, but the funded
phase includes design for that
transit element, all leading to
a series of applications that
need to be made to the Federal
Transit Administration to
secure the funding. And that is,
the board has previously seen
the finance program for the
project. It assumes a projected
billion dollar grant from the
Federal Transit Administration
under their Capital Improvement
grant program. So anyway, to
characterize what's proposed,
the core set of projects is
what is to be built. But the
current funding provides
resources to build a certain
portion and then design the
light rail piece as proposed.
It is the board's interest to
express a stated preference,
which is the design of the next
series of activities for light
rail that that design
incorporate design up to
Evergreen Boulevard, referred
to as Library Square, Evergreen
Boulevard, and that funding
contingent that the project and
the partners try to secure
funding to build to that
destination point. So in
summary, this is not setting
new policy, but I think it is
expressing a preference of the
board that the next body of
work include design of light
rail to a certain terminus, and
then ultimately garnering the
funds, which is the work in
front of us. That concludes my
report and take any questions
the board might have.
>> Thank you. Matt. Just one,
just one item. You said this is
the set of projects that are
going to be constructed, and
you're referring to the larger
core set of projects. It's the
intention of the project and
the states. And I think this
group to construct the whole
thing, it's not limited to the
core set of projects, and it's
certainly not limited to the
funded phase. But I just want
to make that clear that the
rest of it, we intend to also
deliver. That's that's what
we're trying to do.
>> So I will be asking for a
roll call. Vote on this for
boards. Aware of that, there's
no need to call for that. But
we do have IBR staff in the
room, and I look for any
questions or a motion if
there's no questions.
>> Chair, I move to approve
resolution number 06-26-24.
>> Second Lentz.
>> I have a motion and a second.
Yes, sir.
>> Thanks. Sorry, just I just
want to since we're now talking
about discussion on the actual
motion, I just wanted to
express, you know, the state's
desire to see light rail move
forward all the way to
evergreen. There's lots of
things I want to see move
forward, including Marine Drive,
including many other pieces of
the project. And I appreciate
that, you know, this body,
considering this thinking about
it and with an understanding
that we're we're going to
continue to look for ways to.
Value engineer the project and
find partners to continue to
seek funding for additional
phases. And I think if we can
all come together and do that,
I think we can get these more
of this project done.
>> Thank you. So representing
City of Camas and Washougal, I
want to say, first I want to
say we are in support of I-5
bridge replacement, and we want
to be a partner in that.
However, the Light railroad
does not really add any benefit
for our community. And for that,
I want to make a motion to
amend the resolution to exclude
the small cities from financial
obligations of the light
railroad capital and
operational responsibility.
Thank you. If I have a second.
>> Mr. Commissioner Lacher, I
second.
>> Okay. Any comments on the
amendment? Is this germane to
the resolution in front of us?
>> Well, it's germane to it and
it has a second. So the first
roll call vote of this body
should be on the amendment to
the resolution.
>> Yeah. Understood the process.
Any questions about the
amendment in front of the board?
Seeing none. We will open the
roll call. Vote for the
amendment. If you could please
restate the motion and get
close to that mic, please.
>> Yes, I made the motion. I
make the motion to exclude a
small cities from financial
obligation of capital and
operational costs of light
railroad.
>> Okay. That is the motion in
front of us. If we could have
roll call vote please.
>> Michelle Belkot.
>> I.
>> Wil Fuentes nay.
>> Sue Marshall. No. Anne.
McEnerny. Ogle.
>> No.
>> Erik Paulsen nay. Matusky.
Yes. Troy McCoy I. Asa Leckie.
I Ron irig.
>> I.
>> Devin req.
>> No.
>> Scott Patterson.
>> I.
>> Temple Lentz.
>> No.
>> Bill Iyall.
>> No.
>> Ryan Windsheimer.
>> Abstain.
>> Christine Lewis.
>> Abstain.
>> I show the motion failing. I
show the motion failing 7 to 6
with two abstentions. That
moves us back to the main
motion on the floor, which is
approval of the resolution in
front of us. 62624 do we have
any further discussion on this?
Yes.
>> Thank you, chair. With
regard to the the amendment,
just to say that I think it's
an interesting proposition. I
don't know that this resolution
is the place for that
discussion with regard to now,
the resolution in front of us
for the Port of Vancouver, as
well as the other two ports
that we represent here, are
interests in the project
continue to be freight,
mobility workforce and a system
that works. We have concerns
that an incomplete system for
transit, especially one with
good intentions, but no clear
plan for how to get to
completion, will have a
negative impact on other points
in the chain, especially Mill
Plain, which is a lifeline for
our high, wide and heavy
freight routes. We're also
invested in access for the
area's workforce, and more and
more employers are reporting
that their employees want
reliable, multimodal access
jobs. So we're interested in
the transit stop location that
best offers access to this
workforce as three ports.
Together, we previously passed
a resolution that frames our
interest in effective high
capacity transit, and this
language was adopted in
recognition that some
jurisdictions in Clark County
do view light rail unfavorably,
although they do still want to
see this project advance. So in
discussion, we agreed that the
proposed resolution is not a
vote for or against light rail,
but about advocating for the
most advantageously positioned
station. So we support that and
hope that it will have the
effect of either letting us
know when and how they will
advance the plan to ensure that
we can achieve the goal.
>> Thank you. And I should
share that my vote is informed
by all four cities have weighed
in on on the battleground vote.
It's not just battlegrounds
vote, it's battleground.
Ridgefield, LA Center and
Yacolt. With that, any further
questions? We'll head to the
roll call vote on the main
motion in front of us, which is
resolution 62624.
>> Marchel Belkot.
>> No.
>> Sue Marshall. Yes. Wil
Fuentes.
>> Yes.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
>> Yes.
>> Erik Paulsen.
>> Hi.
>> Matusky. No. Troy McCoy.
>> No.
>> Asa Leckie.
>> No.
>> Ron Irig no. Scott Patterson.
>> Yes.
>> Devin. Rick.
>> Yes.
>> Temple Lentz.
>> Yes.
>> Bill Iyall.
>> Yes.
>> Ryan. Windsheimer.
>> Yes.
>> Kristine Lewis.
>> Yes.
>> Show the motion passing 10
to 5. Okay. With that, thank
you all for the robust
conversation. Yes, sorry. My
apologies.
>> That's okay. I make a motion
to reconsider a previous vote
and ask legal counsel on the
procedures. We would like to
consider a previous vote that
was made this evening.
>> Well, that is possible if
the board so chooses. You can
reconsider an action taken by
the board.
>> The motion is to reconsider
consent agenda item C. This was
the 2026 2029 Transportation
Improvement Program. The
amendments submitted by. Artac.
The last bullet at the bottom
of the Blue page, if you'll
pull up Blue document to see.
The last bullet is the I-5
Columbia River bridge
Replacement Transit design. A
new project to advance post
Nepa transit design for the
light rail transit elements
north and south of the Columbia
River bridge. Replacement total
program for project $50 million.
This is the fourth project on
the Stip. That is the $50
million design for 60%. That
will be asking Tri-met to
design north and south elements.
We would like. Instead of
elements north and south. For
it to read for the light rail
transit from Expo to Library
Square of the Columbia River
bridge. Replacement. So instead
of just elements north and
south for it to say for the
light rail transit from Expo to
Library Square, again, this is
a $50 million project to
Tri-met to design the transit.
They will start in 2027. Using
$50 million only to the 60%.
It's at 30% now. As we look at
this is an opportunity. To
reinforce what we just passed
with action item six. I was on
the prevailing side of the vote.
I understand that a second
would be needed.
>> Yes, I'm looking for a
second so we can start
discussion.
>> Second.
>> Thank you.
>> There's a second is needed
and it requires a majority vote
for reconsideration. Motion.
>> Understood.
>> Let's go ahead and start
with discussion. We'll have a
roll call vote on this as well.
>> So just question this is a
my question is about the
amendment, not about whether or
not we are taking it up and
just wanting to make sure that
I'm talking about the right
thing.
>> So yes, that's correct.
>> Okay. So I'm curious what
impact making this change would
have on funding eligibility,
just the process in motion and
the timelines that we have.
>> I would hand it off to our
executive director.
>> Okay. So the question on the
is should this be amended? What
is the impact? We've looked at
this. And let me just.
>> Are we sorry? A motion to
reconsider would be
reconsidering the entire
consent agenda. That's what we
voted on. Right?
>> True, true. The
reconsideration.
>> It would be taken back the
vote on all the consent items.
So we should probably do that
first.
>> Right now. You're correct.
There was a a vote unanimous
vote on the acceptance of the
consent agenda as a whole. So I
think we do need to go back and
undo that step in order to
consider specific item on that
consent agenda.
>> We need to take a vote on
reconsideration before we have
discussion. Is that. Yes. Okay.
My my apologies. With that. We
will go ahead and start a roll
call vote on reconsideration of
the consent agenda.
>> Approval chair. Excuse me. I
have a point of information.
>> Sure. Please go ahead.
>> Yeah, I'm. Where's this
information that the mayor just
spoke of in our on our packet.
I'm having a hard time finding
what she was delineating out.
>> It's the subject is
2026-2029 transportation
improvement programs slash
amendments. It's action consent
agenda item C, resolution 62621.
And if you go to that page,
it's the very bottom bullet
point on the first page.
>> So this is we're re
actioning an item in the
consent agenda. Is that correct.
>> We're going to repeal the
approval of the consent agenda
so that we can reconsider the
consent agenda. Amendment.
>> Yes, we're we're repealing
the approval unanimous approval
of the consent agenda in order
to go back and look at a
specific consent agenda item.
>> So how I see this going is
if the board so desires to
rescind approval of consent
agenda, we would then discuss
amending the consent agenda. So
that is the intent of
reconsidering consent agenda.
Do I have that correct.
>> Then also wouldn't we need
another motion to amend the
current agenda?
>> Also we're going to
reconsider. First we need to
consent. Legal is telling me we
need to reconsider and take a
vote on that motion first. Once
we do that or rescind the vote,
I'm sorry. Once we do that,
then we can discuss the
amendment.
>> Correct?
>> That's correct.
>> All right. Legal confirms.
Everybody clear? Okay. Let's
start. Roll call. Vote, please.
>> Sue Marshall. Yes. Michelle.
Belkot.
>> Yes.
>> Wil Fuentes.
>> Yes.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
>> Yes.
>> Erik Paulsen. Matusky. Yes.
Tory. McCoy.
>> Yes.
>> Asa Leckie.
>> No.
>> Ron Irig.
>> No.
>> Scott Patterson.
>> Yes.
>> Devin. Wreck.
>> No.
>> Temple Lentz.
>> No.
>> Bill. I'll.
>> Yes.
>> Brian Windsheimer.
>> No.
>> Christine. Lewis.
>> Yes.
>> Have the motion passing 510
to 5. I'm sorry. We will now
open go back. Do we go directly
back to consent agenda discuss
this item currently.
>> That's correct.
>> Okay.
>> Chair.
>> Yes.
>> I'll make a motion to.
Approve consent agenda. Items B
and D.
>> Second.
>> Okay. The motion on the
floor is consent and it's been
seconded for approval. The
consent agenda item A, b and
DDI almost said it. Thank you.
Sorry, it was a late night. Any
discussion on that. This this
does not include the proposed
amended consent item for those
that aren't clear on that. Yes,
Commissioner.
>> Yeah. I had a question. So
is this adding 50 more. Is this
costing 50 million more dollars?
I was kind of confused.
>> On what's in front of the
board right now is just
approval of the consent agenda
items that are not under are
not being considered for
amending.
>> Got it. Clear.
>> Okay. I don't think we need
a roll call vote on this. So I
will ask for approval of
consent agenda, consent agenda
items A, B, and D. All in favor,
please say aye. Any opposed?
Okay. Now individually
considering consent agenda item
C. With do we need to make a
motion to. Yeah thank you mayor.
>> Chair Anne McEnerny. Ogle. I
move to amend. The resolution.
062621 which amends the 2026
2029 Transportation Improvement
Program. This is. The last
bulleted item on page one of
the Blue section. This is
Consent Agenda item C. This
refers to a recommended
amendment for the $50 million
that would be given to Trimet
for the transit design. As the
document reads now, I-5,
Columbia River bridge
replacement transit design. New
project to advance post Nepa
design. Transit design for the
light rail transit element
north and south of the Columbia
River bridge. Replacement total
program for project 50,701,000.
The amendment is to replace
four words element North and
South. To read from Expo to
Library Square.
>> Okay. Thank you for that
clarification.
>> Rationale. This board
approved.
>> Let's get a.
>> Second agenda item. Yes.
Thank you. A second, second.
>> Thank you.
>> Agenda item six. Expo to
Library Square is at 30%. Now
the $50 million will be given
to Tri-met to design transit.
At 60%. We Phiel adding that
six and a half blocks to
Library Square can be kept
within the timeline and within
the $50 million.
>> Okay.
>> Clarifying question for the
person making the motion. The
question was posed. Does this
involve any additional
financial
>> Commitment on the part of
RTC. Is that the intention of
the motion?
>> No, it is not intended to
add additional funds.
>> So it's strictly to align
this motion with the motion
that we subsequently made,
stating that our preference is
that the rail alignment be
extended all the way to Library
Square. Therefore, this
commitment to the design
portion of the project would
similarly state that our
preference is that the design
design alignment from Expo to
Library Square. Is that correct?
>> Correct.
>> Thank you. Okay. Could we
hear that online? Okay. Thank
you. I'll take it back to our
executive director for
explanation.
>> Okay. I think I remember the
question, can I can I go back
to the question that was posed
because I do have information
to share with the board that I
think you need to understand
before you resolve this
proposal.
>> Could we restate the
question? Maybe?
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Happily. My my question is
what impact would this have on
timing, funding and moving
forward to meet our deadlines?
>> Yeah. So the question is,
what is this? If the board
entertain this motion was the
impact, there will be an impact.
I'll invite IBR program to
describe the impact in terms of
fund obligation. Let me
describe a procedural issue
that the board needs to be
aware of. This is this tip
record is Wasch Dot's tip
record. It is theirs alone and
solely so should the board want
to amend the tip record, the
procedure would be to not
approve any of it, kick it back
to Washdot for their
reconsideration of the record
itself. The record. I see two
substantive issues in the
motion proposed, and this isn't
speaking about the the, the the
intent of the motion. This is
about the actual process. The
two substantive issues are, as
I say, Washdot would need to
assess the financial viability
of the proposed. And so I can't
make a determination to the
board today whether or not what
is proposed is financially
viable. The Tip itself has to
be a fiscally constrained
document, so they would need to
do an analysis of fiscal
constraint based on amended
language. I don't want to
suppose what that might be.
Second, the process for the Tip
amendment is it would have to
restart a process, so it would
need to go back to Artac. It
would need to be resubmitted
into the Washington Stip
database. And they need to
approve the record because it's
not ours. They actually submit
the record. We just process it
through and and validate. And
again, I want to reinforce this
for the board's benefit,
validate that the board
approves it. So the board has
approval authority, but there's
some mechanics involved in what
you're proposing. And I think
the mechanics are substantively
very important at this moment.
So it would restart the process
and Washdot would have to
consider it and do a fiscal
constraint analysis relative to
the timeliness of the amendment
itself. There are some other
factors that the board may want
to consider. I know Carly
Francis and Frank green are
here to talk about what those
factors might be schedule wise.
>> So I guess on two points,
the schedule concern and then
also just financial analysis.
One to note we are targeting
right now and have had it
restated back to us from the
federal government that we are
on target to have a record of
decision issued on July 1st. So
we are working towards that
timeline that is structured in
context with the dialogs with
the MPOs. So the last vote is
by Metro Council on the 23rd of
June. So targeting to have all
of these pieces come together,
as I've mentioned before, to
this body, the record of
decision is essential and
unlocks additional review with
the federal government of the
grant amendment agreements that
we are working on with them.
Those are the activities that,
once signed, obligate the funds
from the federal government.
That $2.1 billion, the 546
million of which would expire
at the end of September. If we
don't complete those
obligations. So that's very
critical, and it's critical to
reserve enough time with them
to review those other
activities. There are certain
levels of that review that just
simply will not get unlocked
until we have the record of
decision. From a financial
impact perspective, we do not
have the funds to support the
design beyond Waterfront to
Evergreen. We definitely want
to get there, but I would just
note that it is a it is a
stacked activity and design
activity. After you get away
from waterfront, the light rail
alignment is aligned over I-5
in that section. So to advance
design for that, we need to
have a reasonable body of funds
available for design, for the
highway and for the transit
components in that section. To
be very clear about that tiered
relationship between transit
and the highway there, we have
very limited right of way. So
the plan right now, which we
have not adjusted in in
estimating costs and folks may
want to explore differences of
and we're open to having that
dialog. We are planning to
shift the highway over to the
east so that we can build a
wall on the east side and on
the west side. We will need to
then shift traffic back and
start setting girders. We have
to remove girders from in
active traffic lanes. Now to
put up the transit bridge. And
then similarly, we need to set
new transit bridge supports
once that roadway has come back
across. So it's a design
activity both for the highway
in that section, which includes
design of walls, the transit
bridge itself, and other pieces.
Right now we have $5.68 billion
worth of costs identified, and
we have $5.69 billion worth of
available funds. That's very
little wiggle room. And so just
I definitely want to get to
evergreen. There's not the
funds to support that at this
time. Certainly a more robust
financial analysis could be
conducted, but there are timing
and financial concerns.
>> Commissioner.
>> Yeah. Thank you. There's a
lot of information coming out.
Honestly, I would move to table
this until July's meeting until
gives the public and taxpayers
to review the large amount of
information that's being
discussed. I mean, we're barely
tracking it in this room
ourselves, and I think we owe
it to the taxpayer to, to have
some input and say on this also.
Thank you.
>> Mayor.
>> Yes, certainly. Thank you.
The stack design and the
limited right of way is not an
option that the City of
Vancouver has asked Iber to
consider. There is a second
option that we have looked at
that would allow the
opportunity to happen faster
and cheaper, and earlier,
unfortunately, there is no
money right now for transit,
and Iber has completely
separated transit from the
bridge. So the first contract
that will go out is the bridge
and the roadway that on ramp
off ramp, that is one contract.
The second contract is this
project for the design of
transit. And it's not happening
until next year. So the design
of transit starting next year
does not impact the plan. Now
to impact the July 1st rod. And
that particular design. As we
look at this opportunity, if
the design for transit to
Library Square is not in any
document, it will not happen.
And right now, Library Square
is not in this first phase, 30%
design, 60% design, 100% design.
So the city of Vancouver would
like the opportunity to work
with Tri-met or any other
agency to design that 30% to
Library Square, and that should
be in writing because it is not
there now.
>> Again, I just want to
reinforce if the board chooses
to amend this language, you
really need to kick it out and
bring it back. And the record
itself is the programing
document that the the watchdog
has submitted. So there's a
it's sort of binary in that
respect. I think the policy
position is the board adopted
is clear, and I will carry that
forward. I think, on behalf of
the agency as a partner, that
the. The program needs to get
there. But the record itself,
given the time sensitivity
associated with the Tip
approval, is is something that
I would offer to the board,
from my opinion, shouldn't be
kicked forward. It needs to be
addressed today that that's the
best advice I could give the
board. From my perspective, the
policy position is clear.
>> And if I may, we. The cost
estimate that we prepared was
based on the design going. You
know, that we had up to this
point in the project, excuse me.
And there is the opportunity to
explore alternate alignments.
But we were costing out what
was, you know, in design and
what we had available at the
time of, you know, that we've
been discussing for a while,
mostly to note that we there is
space and time to have the
conversation. I know that does
not provide the confidence that
the mayor is looking for in the
process. There is the space and
time to have a conversation
about alternate alignments.
We've talked about discussing
that with partners in the fall.
There is a way to execute a
contract, to reserve the
opportunity to look at design
from waterfront to evergreen as
an option to add on to a
contract, even though we don't
have the funds now, if the
funds come along, we can add
that on. There are ways to
build this into the process
going forward. The work with
the federal government right
now and the time sensitivity of
it is significant. It is
important to just understand
that and recognize the the
funding that's at risk. And
also the fact that there's just
there's not wiggle room in what
we have based on the design now
and what it would take to
support design, looking from
waterfront to evergreen.
>> Ryan.
>> Thank you. I just wanted to
confirm, Carly, because I want
to make sure I heard what you
said. There is an opportunity
within the contract to
potentially have some options
that would then look at
alternative alignments.
>> Yes.
>> But you can't move forward
with a amendment to the tip
that describes scope that is
not financially constrained.
>> Yes, that is a concern.
>> So the important thing here
is to make sure that and and
you can't if you don't program
the tip right now, because we
have timelines that we need to
follow. And if amendments are
made, it would fall. It would
trigger other amendments that
would then delay, and we would
be putting our Pipgras at risk.
>> There are concerns with the
Bip grant, especially the 546
million that expires. And yes,
the language was written with
the recognition that we needed
to expand the concept over time.
So the language as submitted
for the tip is permissive,
allowing that exploration of an
extent of transit as identified
by the modified locally
preferred alternative, but to
allow that to evolve over time,
putting a specific end point on
it of Library Square would
imply that we have we are
funding it with funds to be
able to design to Library
Square, and that is not what we
have. And it would not be a
reflection of what we are able
to fund at this time.
>> And I guess my last. Is
there anything that stops if
additional funding becomes
available at some point in the
future, that we could amend the
Tip amendment to say we want to
go further?
>> Absolutely. That's totally
possible. We do anticipate on a
program of this size and scale
that we will be coming back for
Tip amendments every year.
>> Because I heard I heard a
desire from this group that we
voted to, to make sure that we
are, you know, interested in
continuing the light rail on.
And I am, but I am not
interested in something that
puts our our Pipgras at risk.
I'm not interested in something
that is going to delay this
process, put the at risk and
then do that when I when I
heard there's definitely
opportunities to continue to
consider that that there's
definitely an opportunity to.
In the contract, even with the
constrained funding build in a
consideration that we could
look forward to additional or
different designs, potentially.
That is that's an option. So I
just want to make sure I
understood it. Thank you.
>> Mayor.
>> Then if I would like to put
that contract language in front
of us, then the city of
Vancouver would be happy to
consider it, but it is not
there.
>> Which can you explain to me
which contract language the A
future tip amendment? Is that
what you're speaking of as?
>> There is nothing in language
right now written on paper that
says the IBR. Will contract for
the design from light rail,
from waterfront to the library.
>> Thank you.
>> That is the only thing that
is there right now is that they
will contract. And it's in this
language. North and south from
Expo to the waterfront. Okay.
The city does not have any
confidence in language unless
it's in writing and there is
nothing in writing. And that is
why they are putting forward
this particular amendment,
because this is the only thing
that would even say the words
Library Square.
>> Thank you. Thank you for
that clarification.
>> Yeah, I would just note that
there is no ability right now
to put something in contract
where there's not money to
support it. So that kind of a
mechanism is not viable at this
time. The intention is to look
at alignments and have that
conversation in the fall and to,
I think, again, we can reserve
the space within Tri-met
contracting to sort of add that
as an option as we are working
with them to contract out
design to waterfront, there is
a space in contracting to sort
of note that you can tack on
something that you don't have.
You can sort of have it as an
option when funding becomes
available. You can add this as
a component. That is what we
are sort of able to do within
the funds that we have.
>> For those of us that don't
live in the transportation
world. Sure. And I'm thinking
that more and more every day.
Is the tip. The transportation
improvement program. The tip is
that essentially the budget for
the funded program is that when
you say program the tip, you're
talking about funding the tip,
constructing the plan inside
the tip. Yes. So if it's not
inside the tip and you don't
have funds for it, if you don't
have funds for it, therefore
it's not inside the tip.
>> We are programing funds into
the tip to support the
activities as they are
described.
>> But you wouldn't put
anything into the tip that
wasn't funded. Is that why you
have an amendment later?
>> The tip is a fiscally
constrained plan and so you
need the funds in hand or, you
know, ready to be in hand,
committed to be able to put it
into the tip.
>> Okay, that helps me. And
then to the mayor's point,
where, where does the other
language, the more let's talk
from the 30,000 foot level to
the city of Vancouver's
concerns, where is the language?
Other is that the Emili, the
locally preferred alternative
is that essentially the
language and that and that's it.
Or is there something more
concrete and actionable, for
lack of a better word?
>> So the modified locally
preferred alternative does
identify light rail and that
does identify the extent. And
so that is that is the primary
statement of that as a as an
intention.
>> And that and that's your
North Star essentially.
>> Absolutely. That's where
we're going.
>> I'm not I'm just trying to
clear this up for me, so I
apologize. So yes. Temple.
>> I, I really appreciate where
the city of Vancouver is trying
to go here and that we don't
have, you know, we can have
good intentions, but more
security that we will move in a
certain direction is desired. I
have big concerns about sending
the tip back and the procedural.
Snags that may that may deliver.
And I, I think that there could
be a lot of jeopardy that we
don't even right now understand,
which is a reason that I am I'm
having trouble getting to
supporting this, this amendment.
I'm curious, IBR if if there is
any I understand what you're
saying too, about contract
language and we're not there
yet in fall, are there ways we
can you can make the city of
Vancouver and other
stakeholders more confident
that this work will be explored?
>> I mean, I think that the the
most that I can do is sort of
put in writing of what I've
verbalized, which is noting
that people are interested in
looking at different alignments.
I think everyone, as we've
expressed value engineering,
looking for lowest cost
opportunities is important. We
costed out the design that we
have at this time. And so the
idea of, and I think everyone's
interested in what is the
lowest, you know, what is the
most cost effective way, least
disruptive way to get to
evergreen. And so that is my
sense of what we would talk
about in the fall is like, what
are those opportunities to
maybe do that at a lower cost
or, you know, sort of
decoupling highway from transit
so that it's maybe easier
depending on what that looks
like. There are, you know,
concerns, as you noted, about
inconsistencies within the tip
across. So we have the Oregon
Transportation Commission has
adopted the tip as written. As
you see the language here,
there's concerns that there
could be delay inconsistencies
across those documents is not
good. It's problematic. And
there's the concerns about
jeopardizing grant funding and
just having challenges in
delivering the core program.
>> Thank thank you.
>> This is really good
discussion.
>> And I.
>> I became a surprise to me
that as.
>> One of the.
>> Core set of projects
extending to evergreen was not
included. And it makes me
wonder how closely you are
working with the City of
Vancouver on the alignments or
options to make it as cost
effective as possible, because
I don't know if it came as a
surprise to the city of
Vancouver as well, so I, I
would just want to encourage
working more closely with the
city of Vancouver, and I can
appreciate wanting to have as
firm a commitment that
ultimately this will extend to
evergreen.
>> It is absolutely our
intention to get it to
evergreen, and I think there is
value in trying to see if we
can knit it back together. And
it's really a function of
advancing at this moment within
the funds that we have.
>> Thank you. I guess I guess
the last thing I'd add is as I
was, I was a yes on on strongly
supporting it. I'm still a yes
on strongly supporting it. I'm
still a strong supporter. I
still think we should be
encouraging the project and
both the OTS and the transit
agencies to be getting to
evergreen. I firmly believe
that as the director from the
Port of Vancouver mentioned,
though, I do know what's going
on in the transportation piece
of this and the programing
piece and what's required. And
that is an absolute no in this,
because I need to get this tip
approved in order to get the
federal funds that otherwise
would go away. I want to be
able to move forward with as
much of the project as I can.
And if there's opportunities to
do more, I'm certainly open to
that, and I certainly would
support that. And I am going to
be the first one to raise my
hand and say, let's go get more
funding and do more. I'm happy
to join in that. But voting to
not program this as written is
a very big risk.
>> Thank you. Thank you Bill.
>> Yeah, I really like what the
mayor is saying, but
unfortunately, I think it it
does risk the funding. And so I
think it's something to, to
look back and go back to the
original motion at this point
in time.
>> Understood. However, the
motion on the floor is the
amendment of the consent agenda
item C. So, yes, Mr. Paulson.
>> Thank you, chair. Interim
Administrator Francis, I get
that right. Yes. Thank you.
When you last appeared before
the Vancouver City Council, one
of your strong talking points
was, which I agree with, was
that we need to build what we
can build with the funds that
we have available. I think
that's the cornerstone that I
think we all can agree to. What
you're hearing, not just now
from the city of Vancouver, but
from broader constituencies, is
that while we share that
objective, we also have strong
preferences and high priorities
around some of the things that
unfortunately, have fallen out
of scope. The way that this has
been scoped. And so I would
just echo Chair Marshall's
comments, whatever assurances
that you can give, be it in
writing or otherwise to the
city of Vancouver in particular,
but also to this growing body
of constituencies that share
our interest, that that we will
engage in good faith around
these intentions that we're
talking about, and that
conversations will occur in the
fall having to do with
alternative alignments that
could, from a cost engineering
perspective, be less expensive
and result in a design contract
that would be more affordable
and might be more attainable in
the short term, possibly even
within the time frame that this
contract contemplates, which is
not to begin until next year.
Those are the kinds of things
that that we are looking for,
and I'm using that we not just
the city of Vancouver, but
broader. I won't be supporting
this motion principally because
of the reasons that have been
already articulated. I think
supporting this motion puts at
risk some of the funding that
we are. We must have in order
to build what we can build
today. And I firmly believe
that if we don't build what we
can build today, it will never
be less expensive than it is
now. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Seeing no further
discussion, let's do a roll
call vote. And this is on
amendment two. Consent agenda
item C, eliminating elements
north and south, replacing it
to from Expo to Library Square.
So this is the amended consent
agenda. Agenda item C roll call
vote please. Sorry, did you
have a question Bill? No. Okay.
So we clear on the vote. All
right. Roll call. Vote please.
>> Sue Marshall. No. Michelle
Belkot.
>> No.
>> Wil Fuentes.
>> No.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle. Yes.
Eric Paulson no. Matusky. No.
Tori McCoy.
>> No.
>> Asa Leckie.
>> No.
>> Ron Irig no. Scott Patterson.
>> Abstain.
>> Devin req.
>> No.
>> Temple Lentz.
>> No.
>> Bill. I'll.
>> No.
>> Ryan Windsheimer.
>> No.
>> Christine Lewis.
>> Yes.
>> Okay. I have the motion
failing 12 to 2 with one
abstention.
>> Chair I move approval of
consent agenda item C as
originally presented.
>> Second motion on the floor
is approval of consent agenda
item C with no changes. I don't
see a need for a roll call vote
on this. I'll be asking for a
voice vote unless somebody has
an issue with that. Seeing none.
Any discussion? Seeing none.
All in favor?
>> Aye, I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed.
>> No.
>> Motion carries. Okay. Back
to our regular scheduled
programing. Where are we at.
I've lost my place in my line.
Oh okay. Discussion items.
Thank you. Regional signal
timing plans. Pilot program.
>> Directors. I'd like to
introduce this topic and
presenting virtually as Judith
Perez Keniston directors. We've
presented this pilot project in
a few instances when we were
conceiving of the idea. I think
when we brought forward some
different parameters and a
proposed agreement that we
entered into with a series of
agencies. And just to refresh
the board's memory, the pilot
program was envisioned as a.
Let's try this using some
carbon reduction funding, which
was a special tranche of funds
allocated as part of the
bipartisan infrastructure law,
or Iija, as some might refer to
it as. And the carbon reduction
program was a form of funding
that RTC administers. The first
tranche of funds went to, I
think, City of Vancouver
project on southeast 34th
Street received some an
allocation RTC's pilot program
that we're going to present
this evening. And then there
was a third project that I
don't recall. But in any event,
the envisioned idea here was,
what if we took this CRP funds
carbon reduction program and
allocated it to our high
congestion corridors, those
identified in the congestion
management process that we
report each year to the board.
And let's try signal timing,
signal timing with the
intention that let's measure
benefits to motorists and
cyclists. Around four primary
categories that you'll hear
reported this evening. Safety
delay and two other carbon
emission reduction. And maybe
there's some benefit that we
can derive that affects a lot
of people, benefits a lot of
people. And so let's pilot this.
We folded the pilot program
under our vast Vancouver Area
Smart Program initiative, and
we've had a series of corridors
timed. And Judith is here to
present the first batch of the
pilot program, a series of
corridors that we've timed. And
you'll see just a list of
performance outcomes. So,
Judith, the floor is yours.
>> Thank you Matt, thank you
for that background. Next slide
please. So as Matt said, that
RTC is using CRP or carbon
reduction program funds to for
this pilot signal timing
optimization program. The
signal signal timing
optimization is a proven low
cost strategy. So Taisia or
transportation systems
management and operations are
strategies that help traffic
move more smoothly by cutting
down on unnecessary stops and
delays. So since most trips go
through multiple intersections,
even small improvement
improvements at individual
signals can add up to
noticeable benefits across the
whole system. So the main goals
of the projects were pretty
straightforward. We wanted to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We wanted to improve traffic
flows, reduce congestion and
enhance roadway safety. One
unique feature of this pilot
that I wanted to point out is
the development of a voluntary
participation agreement. So
this agreement outlined the
agency's responsibilities. RTC
and also the local agencies. We
were working with, RTC entered
onto MOU with Wasch and an
agreement with the City of
Vancouver for the seven pilot
projects that I'm going to
showcase tonight. And through
those agreements, the agency is
committed to maintain the
updated signal timing plans for
at least three years. Given the
investments that we were making
for this pilot project. Next
slide please. So we selected
seven Non-freeway corridors
through Rtc's congestion
management process for the
signal Timing Improvements
project. They are key regional
routes where we expected signal
optimization will provide the
biggest overall benefit. The
corridors were selected through
a data driven screening process
that looked at things like
traffic volumes, specifically
during peak hours travel time
per mile, which helps measure
congestion, average speed
compared to posted speed limits,
corridor capacity index,
transit ridership and safety
performance, including crash
data and crashes per mile. So,
because the CRP program focuses
heavily on emission reductions,
the corridors with high traffic
volumes and slower operation
speeds were prioritized, and
for each corridor selected all
seven corridors. The project
team developed a detailed
technical report and also a
flier that summarizes the key
improvements and results, and
these materials are available
on the project web page. And
also the fliers were included
in your meeting materials. Next
slide please. So overall, the
updated signal timing plans
produce measurable benefits
across all seven corridors over
the next few flights. I'm going
to walk you through some of the
highlights for from each
corridor. And let's start with
SR 503 North corridor. And and
that one goes from 119 to 244
in battleground. We saw travel
time savings during the
afternoon peak period,
especially northbound on SR 503
and eastbound on SR 502. We
also saw some weekend
improvements westbound on SR
502, and overall, the corridor
stops were reduced by 13%. Next
slide please. The SR 503 South
corridor segment has a
different operating pattern
than the North segment, and
this is mainly due to land use
context. You know it's a little
bit more urban in nature. And
this corridor segment goes from
northeast for Plain Boulevard,
also known as SR 500 219. So
overall stops were reduced by
6%. And we observed time travel
time improvements northbound
during weekdays or weekends, I
should say sorry, and
southbound during both the
morning and afternoon peak
periods and southbound peak
period improvements were
especially strong. As you can
see on my slide, by 23% in the
afternoon and 25% in the
morning. And Washougal was very
happy with that. Next slide
please. The next corridor
segment is the Mill Plain
Boulevard East, and that
segment covers the area from
104 just east of I 205 to 190
second. And this corridor
segment show improvements
westbound during both the PM
peak and the midday periods,
and the overall corridor stops
were reduced by 6%. Next slide
please. Okay, so moving on to
the next corridor segment, the
north east for Plain Boulevard
East includes one of our most
congested intersections in the
region, and this corridor
extends from 117, which is SR
500 to 160 second Avenue. And
overall, the stops were reduced
by 7%. And we can say that the
biggest improvements were
westbound during the afternoon
peak period. And although we
saw measurable improvements
during the westbound AM peak as
well. And if we move to the
next slide and let's talk about
northeast 18th Street corridor,
and their overall stops were
reduced by 11%. And this
corridor covered the area
between I 205 and 167 Avenue.
The travel time improvements
were a little less noticeable
because the timing adjustments
along the corridor were fairly
minor, and most of the
operational benefits were
concentrated at two of these
corridors. Key intersections,
which were northeast 18th
Street and 136th Avenue, and
also northeast 18th Street and
112 Avenue intersection. So
that's where we we did the more
the most work. And along this
corridor. Okay, so now we're
moving up east to 162nd and
164th. And we're going to look
at the north corridor corridor
segment first. And and this
corridor Sek segment extends
from Mill Plain all the way to
78th Street, which is just
north of Fort Plain. The
segment had the largest
reduction in stops overall with
a 20% decrease. And the most
significant improvements, as
you can see on this slide, were
southbound during the morning
peak and northbound during the
PM peak. And if we move south
to the next slide, we can look
at the 164 south. And this
corridor had the smallest
overall reductions in stops at
about 4%. It's just a congested
corridor segment. The segment
extends from SR 14 in the south
all the way to Southeast sixth
Avenue, which is just north of
Mill Plain to the north. And my
apologies that the map on this
slide does not show the true
extent of this corridor. The
most significant improvement
occur northbound during the PM
peak period. And interesting.
We also saw some improvements
southbound during the weekday
and. And next slide please.
Overall, the results showed
that signal timing optimization
is a very effective local
strategy for improving mobility,
reducing emissions, and
improving operating conditions
that supports roadway safety
across Clark County region. As
I mentioned earlier, the
project focused on corridors
were updated. Timing plans
could provide the greatest
operational benefit, and a few
takeaways from this study.
Signal Retiming is efficient
and cost effective if it can
produce meaningful savings in
travel time, fuel consumption,
and driver costs. It can also
improve roadway safety by
reducing stop and go traffic.
And then if you can move it to
the next slide, please. So
overall, the pilot study was
successful. Stops were reduced
and travel times improved
across all corridors just, you
know, to differentiate
different degrees. Right? So
RTC decided to move forward
with a phase two effort. The
goals for phase two are
basically the same. We would
like to improve mobility,
enhance safety, improve air
quality throughout the Clark
County urban area. The main
difference between phase one
and phase two is the
methodology being used. So in
phase one, engineers relied on
synchro based software analysis
to develop the updated timing
plans and phase two, the
project team is using flow
analytics software to support
the signal retiming process,
and we're going to be back in
the fall and compare how
effective the two methodologies
are and tell you everything we
learned. And under phase two.
And with that, I'm happy to
answer any questions you might
have regarding this pilot
project.
>> Thank you for information.
This process just excited me,
so I really appreciate the
program. Are there other
corridors that you have in the
list for future analysis?
>> Yeah, we came up with about
18 corridors, just ranked all
the major congested corridors
that are identified in our
congestion management program.
And, and there were throughout
the county. I mean, there was
the bulk of it is in the city
of Vancouver, but there was a
couple like highway 99 in Clark
County. We just ran out of
funding. So we were we had to
prioritize in the top seven.
And that is something that that
we're hoping that after we come
back and talk about phase two,
perhaps we, like Matt said, we
can continue the conversation
of extending this program and
continue it and, and amplifying
it throughout the county.
>> I appreciate it. Follow up
question 192nd Avenue. Can that
be included in your list? If we
can add a wish list?
>> Yeah, we can look at I can't
remember from the top of my
head whether it's the CMP
identifies 192nd, but we will
look at it and Schaadt
definitely, you know, that's
there.
>> That would be great.
Appreciated.
>> Thank you for the report. I
just want to say the results
are incredible, especially
considering the pesky
battleground City Council, with
help from Wsdot, lowered the
speed limits on 502. And yet we
still had better traffic flow.
So that that's amazing results.
Thank you for that report.
>> Yeah.
>> Directors just one amendment.
So I think we'll probably
report phase two in January
February time frame. And the
intention is because this is a
pilot program is to really take
stock. My vision is we report
the phase one to phase two work.
We've set aside money in future
years to continue this. But I
think there is a decision point,
which is do we want to continue
this? And part of the taking
stock is do agencies like it?
Do they accept it? I feel like
we need to have a panel report
from some of our local traffic
engineers, state traffic
engineer, to give their take on
it. While we see good results,
I'd like to hear what they are
seeing. And do they value this
program because if they don't
value this program, maybe it
was a pilot and we just, you
know, wave goodbye. But I, but
I, I'm seeing, as Judith
reports, some very positive
outcomes. It's a way to
leverage regional resources for
actual benefit that affects a
lot of people. So, so far, so
good. But, but there is a
decision point, I think in the
future, whether this pilot
continues.
>> I want to say I think these
results are great. Really happy
to see all of the assorted
reductions. I have a, I have
it's kind of a dumb question,
but I'm curious about, you know,
I'll back up. I think that this
the fact that this is
successful is fantastic. And a
successful pilot that after you
do it, the result is why
weren't we doing this all the
time shows that it was a
successful pilot, which is
fantastic. So my question isn't
why weren't we already doing
this? But I'm hoping that
someone more technical than I
am could talk about why this is
something that needed a study
and additional technology. What
is it about the way that lights
are put in and traffic does or
doesn't flow? That requires us
to go through these pilot
projects to learn how to make
things more efficient. I'm just
kind of curious about those
mechanics.
>> Maybe that's unfortunate.
>> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Maybe that's something we
can bring back for phase two
and that discussion or.
>> I have an answer, but we'll
save it for phase two. I mean,
the simple answer is agencies
have 50 things to do and $30 to
do it with, right? Just as a
metaphor. And what we saw as a
gap every year when we'd report
the CMP data and you would see
it time and again signal timing,
signal timing, signal timing,
we would talk with our partners
like, hey, are you doing signal
timing? No, we don't have
enough money. And so this
really is in some ways a
regional allocation to say,
well, let's see if we could
backfill this. And the regional
nature of it using RTC
resources. Again, the board's
committed those is to then look
at it as opposed to agency
specific. Let's look at it more
sort of within these broader
corridors. And it's not a
statement of negativity to
whether it's the department or
local agency staff. It's just,
you know, resources are very
constrained. So this was an
opportunity to sort of fill a
void.
>> Fantastic. I have a small
follow up. Sorry, Troy. After
the pilot, is this something
that the for the jurisdictions
that appreciate these changes
in their corridors, can it
continue or is additional
funding needed for that
coordination that you've
discovered to continue?
>> And that's part of, I think,
the question that we need to
really self-assess and as a
group assess, which is, is it
worth the allocation of
regional funds? In this case,
we've committed $50,000 a year
going forward. It turns out
that the color of money, the
carbon reduction program,
probably is going to go away
with reauthorization. So we
might have to freeze that and
come up with a new color of
money, maybe SBG or CMac funds.
But I think the question for
the board would be, do we want
to commit resources to just get
these corridors, you know, the
high priority corridors over
the edge, if that's what gets
agencies and and we can do it
as a regional partnership. That
could be a win, win win.
Everybody wins. The traveling
public wins. The agencies get
some resources to do the timing.
But the question is, is it
worth it? And I think we need
to be, you know, really
retrospective about that.
>> So what I'm hearing is we'll
bring some costs with the phase
two so that the board can
evaluate that.
>> Can I.
>> Ask a.
>> Follow up question? Sorry.
So after the study is done, who
is in charge of implementing it.
Let's say the signal timing
needs to be changed goes to
each agency or or. Yeah.
>> And that's one of the.
Judith, I'm sorry to interrupt.
>> Go ahead. No. Go ahead. Okay.
No, I was going to say yeah,
the each local agency is
responsible in maintaining the
signal timing plans that that
were created. And if there's
any reason for modification,
you know, after those three
years, then it is the agency
responsibility to to continue
that work.
>> Okay. We want to be
cognizant of the time we're
getting close to our 6 p.m.
limit. So Adams, next up with
the Gorge Safety Action plan.
>> Great.
>> Thank you. So over the past
year and a half, RTC has led
the development of a
comprehensive safety action
plan for the Southwest
Washington region, which
includes Klickitat and Skamania
County, in alignment with Wasch
Dot's Target zero. The aim of
the planning effort was to
improve safety in the study
area for the traveling public
by eliminating fatalities and
serious injury collisions on
roadways for all modes of
transportation. RTC was awarded
2024 Safe Streets and Roads for
all grant funds in order to
develop a safety action plan.
The plan establishes a vision
incorporated data analysis and
include outreach efforts
necessary to develop a
comprehensive safety action
plan. And with that
comprehensive, prioritized list
of projects and strategies, the
effort also included
application for state and
federal funds to design, build
and operate these identified
improvements. The stated goals
of the program, which I've
included on this slide. I'll
include on the slide and in the
interest of time, move ahead.
The project kicked off in
February of 2025 and was
structured around seven
required elements of the of the
program. I'll start with the
Safe work group and see where I
get. The Safe Work group was
critical to developing the plan
and was built around the
standing Transportation Policy
committees for Klickitat and
Skamania. The Tpcs are
comprised of transportation
planning professionals from
member agencies including Wasch
dot ports, cities, counties, as
well as transit agencies.
Additionally, we invited
members of hospitals, EMS,
police, law enforcement to join
this conversation. We met
quarterly and they helped, as I
say, steer the plan elements,
which I'll expand on later.
Slides. Safety analysis. This
was a early component of the
process, which captured
information between a five year
period from 2019 to 2023. The
outcomes of the element
revealed that while the total
number of crashes in the study
region decreased between 2019
to 2023 from 215 crashes to 155
crashes in 2023. The total
number of fatal and serious
injuries actually increased
over that same period, from 15
in 20 19 to 19 and 2023.
Community engagement was a core
part of the program area, and
we completed two large
engagement, both online and in
person events in the summer of
2025 and in the winter as well.
In addition, and I'll address
these later in the slide and
interest, I'll just show you
them here. There were other
elements that we included in
this plan to help steer our
development. On this slide,
I've highlighted several of the
plan outcomes. They should be
familiar. These were the
objectives that we had had
early in the plan process. If
they look familiar, it's
because they're also similar to
the Clark County Safety Action
Plan objectives, which were
I'll focus on to support the
development of projects and
strategies that can be funded
through both state and federal
funds. This included supporting
the counties as well as the
cities. The counties have
successful Highway Safety
Action Plan applications in the
past, because the cities did
not have any local road safety
plans, they weren't eligible.
So through this process, we
helped develop those. And in
this last cycle, White Salmon
was able to apply. I was here
last month and presented the
application for implementation
grant funding for SS for a.
That the county, Skamania
County had applied for. I will
say that since then they had
applied. So we are. Keeping our
fingers crossed that their
application for $5.3 million to
improve the corridor wide
safety improvements along wind
River road, a .67 section are
successful and I'll definitely
update the board on that
development. I'll move past
this slide, but to say that we
followed the safe system
approach with this process, and
we incorporated the Wasch dot
version, which includes safe
land use. We structured the,
the, the different priorities
of this around that. So
emphasis areas. I'll turn to
some of the features of the
plan. Wasch Dot's Target Zero
program focused on common
factors that lead to serious
injuries and deaths in
Washington roadways. The for
emphasis area is shown on the
slide are based on the most
fatal and serious injury crash
trends in the study area, as
well as on feedback from the
work group and from the
community engagement that we
completed. The emphasis area.
Create the framework for the
plan and guide investment in
safety and you can find more
information structured through
this on in the document, which
is included in your packet. So
in order to identify locations,
the most serious injury and
concern, the analysis uses
scoring method. On this slide
I'm showing a region wide map
for the county roadways
representing the six high
priority locations. This
includes Glenwood Canyon Road,
Dallas Port Road and Bickleton
Highway in Klickitat County, as
well as River road and River
Highway in Skamania County. If
you don't like landscape
oriented documents like I don't,
it's because of this. Maps like
these, which show the study
area that we have favored.
Landscape design. Here are some
of the study recommendations
and that that are included in
the project. This is a
prioritized list of projects on
county roadways. They are
prioritized and it's explained
in more detail in the document,
but they're scored based on
their risk factor and the
number of serious injuries and
fatalities that occur on them.
They are the projects are
structured around the best use
of funds and the availability
of both grants, grant funding,
as well as staff time in the
near term to complete them. And
those are included in the
document. The packet that you
have before you includes the
draft document. I hope to
return either next month or the
month after with the final
document. We are taking the
document, which will include
Wasch dot comments that aren't
reflected in the. In the
version ahead of you to the
Tbc's tomorrow to receive their
recommendation to. Then return
to this board for your consent
or action. I suppose we will
then be monitoring the
implementation grants that we
had submitted in this most
recent cycle to see if we were
successful. As I say, Skamania
County had submitted an
application in this region
based on the safety action plan
that we developed. So we're
keeping our fingers crossed
that they're successful. How is
that five minutes?
>> I see you're working. Any
questions from the board? And I
would encourage there's a lot
here. So feel free to reach out
with email questions. And
perhaps we can just address
those at the at the next
meeting. Thank you so much,
Adam. That moves us into other
business. Anything from the
board tonight or this evening
or whatever it is this
afternoon. Yeah. With that,
we'll take it over to our
executive director.
>> All right. Directors I
published today or folio. Here
it is. So Congress has been
moving specifically the House
on reauthorization of the
Federal Transportation Act.
This is a folio produced by the
House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. It
might be a little bit out of
date, but this
characteristically describes
the program that that they
recently, on May 22nd voted it
out of committee 62 to 2, which
is perhaps by commentary, a
pretty bipartisan vote to move
the Build America 250 proposal
forward. And then maybe the
House takes it up. The Senate,
by way of reference, has not
introduced a bill. So this is
the first one out of the gate
for reauthorization this fall,
just as a point of awareness
for the board and those in the
public, all of RTC's grant
programs are funded by the
Federal Transportation Act, and
about 90 plus percent of RTC's
operating funds to run the
organization are Federal
Transportation Act funds. So
this is very important for us
and the work that we do. A
couple of highlights here.
Dimension. First, reauthorizes
the program, which is our
primary grant program that
local agencies apply for it.
Reauthorizes the bridge program,
which earlier this evening, you
heard reports on the I-5
program and how they've secured
billions of dollars worth of
bridge grant programs. Those
are reauthorized. What's also
reauthorized proposed would be
the safe streets and Roads for
all program. Those are the good
aspects on the converse. And
again, when I say reauthorized,
this is what's proposed that
carbon reduction program is
eliminated. The National
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure
Program, which spent a lot of
resources on electric system
charging programs and so forth,
is either reduced or reshuffled.
And there's some program
consolidations across the board.
So on the positive side,
there's some good things.
Expanded program, safe streets
for all bridge program. On the
negative side, CRP and other
programs are shut down. Major
permitting reforms within Nepa.
On the MPO specific side, it
would increase some of the
planning funds, which are part
of the federal resource that
RTC receives to operate and
increases the PL apportionment
across the board by, I think,
upwards of 9 to 10%. And then
it also creates this new
opportunity for MPO to be a
direct recipient of funds.
Currently, all of our money
flows through the state, and
the state allocates. There is
an opportunity, if this is
approved in law, to. Where MPO
is probably more prominently
large. MPO could apply to be a
direct recipient if that occurs.
Of course, that's something
that I would look at because it
might streamline and save some
money.
>> Let me just summarize this
by saying so. Representative
Rick Larsen, ranking member of
the House Committee,
Washington's second district.
So this is out of the San Juans.
Here's a quote in the press
release announcing that the
committee had passed it out.
Quote from Representative Rick
Larsen, Washington, quote, you
can't have a big leave. You
can't have a big league economy
with Little League
infrastructure. And I think
that's a good point to end on.
I think the federal investment
in our infrastructure is
important, and hopefully
Congress moves this bill
forward. Just a second update,
just more on a personal note,
the board's aware that I was
appointed to the Washington
Transportation Commission last
year is me endeavoring to serve
the public in a non-local role.
The State Transportation
Commission's Washington and
Oregon are holding a joint
meeting this Friday to discuss
the matter of tolling of the
Interstate five bridge. They'll
hear reports about the
financial capacity of tolling
toll policies, the Washington
Transportation Commission, over
the course of the next month,
takes public hearing and
comment on a low income toll
program proposal that has been
proposed for first rollout up
in the Seattle area on SR one R
167, SR 509. That's
legislatively directed the
first quarter, where a low
income program could be
deployed. It's believed that a
low income program would be
deployed then concurrently or
afterwards on the I-5 program.
So just by way of reference,
I'll be attending those
meetings. And on the topic
broadly, at some future point,
this board might want to report
on that. I won't give it, but
maybe somebody from the
commission could give that
report. That's what I have for
the board. July meeting of the
board. We're monitoring agenda.
Of course, we get into the
summer months. There's an
August recess, July meeting
we'll plan to have, but we'll
be reaching out to board
members, checking travel
schedules and attendance levels.
Unless there's something
critical in an action item form,
then it's possible that we
could look at that for a
postponement, and that would
kick us to September. But
anyway, just advisory. We'll be
reaching out soon in terms of
your travel schedules, because
that butts up against the July
4th weekend.
>> And to that, yes, the next
scheduled, if needed. RTC Board
of Directors meeting is
scheduled for Tuesday, July 7th,
2026 at 4 p.m. This meeting is
adjourned. Thank you