Welcome to the May 12th Sitrep
Board of Directors meeting.
Will you please join me for the
Pledge of Allegiance?
>> I pledge allegiance to the
United States of America and to
the Republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
>> All right, Cyndie, would you
please call the roll?
>> Yes, sir. Ryan Davis,
present. Will Fuentes. I can
see him present. Okay. I'm here.
Kim Harless. Bart Hanson.
>> Present.
>> Tim Hein.
>> Present.
>> Sue Marchel here. Anne.
McEnerny Ogle.
>> Present.
>> Ty stober.
>> Present.
>> Joshua waits here.
>> Glen Yung here.
>> Okay, now, moving on to the
approval of the agenda, are
there any additions or changes
to the agenda? Seeing none, I
would entertain a motion to
approve the agenda.
>> Chair, I move to approve the
agenda.
>> I'll second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor say
I. I opposed. Not hearing any.
Now, I'd like to take this
opportunity to welcome some of
our new board members. Let's
see, we have Glen Yung. Welcome.
And who else do we have? Kim's
going to be here, I'm sure. And
let's see. Moving on. We're now
on to public comment. Next up
is public testimony or
communication. Testimony is
limited to three minutes. We
ask that comments shall be
respectful and courteous to all.
And as a reminder, you can
email comments to the clerk of
the board and these will be
accepted as part of the public
record. I will now open the
meeting for public testimony,
and I will take the first
person first. And that is
mellow.
>> Hello, testing.
>> Okay. I'm mellow. Carmen de
Leon. You want me to spell it?
Anyways, I am just okay.
They're timing me. So I looked
at you guys. Board resolution.
I'm so disappointed, so
disappointed. Says whereas
CTRAN remains committed to this
program and that analysis
capacity, where is it that they
want the c-tran or what is it
the the the light rail and
where is it on there? I'm just
saying that if you eliminate
light rail, she's told me it
was, what is it, 3 billion. And
just for comparison, let's say
where I come from, California
and I lived in the Bay area and
I rode the Bart, which is now
getting rid of trains because
of lack of ridership, the
Golden Gate Bridge came in at a
today's money to rebuild 1.6
billion. The Bay bridge four
and a half miles, 77.2 million
with an M. The Australian
beautiful bridge. That
beautiful harbor bridge in
Australia. It is barely a mile
long and 1.5 billion. The
bridge that was crashed into
over there, and I think it was
Baltimore, Maryland. It was
four and a half miles. And they
are estimating at 1.7 billion.
So why is the. I be looking at
16,000,000,015 billion? Are we
crazy on this side of the
country? I have other bridges.
Oh yeah. The floating bridge in
Seattle. I love that bridge.
They do the boat races every
year. 99393 zero million with a
B. Not even one of these
bridges is worth a single
billion. Hardly. The Brooklyn
Bridge in today's money is 320
million with an M to redo. So I
ask you again what's going on
here with the IBR? You know, I
mean, we know that Vancouver
needs money, so they want an
unlimited check so that they
can take that billion and mass
it into their their own agenda
and money. But as you know that
I think Clark County is over
close to 500 million people or
500, 000 people. So you're
still the smaller city, you're
still the smaller amount of
people with just 200, 000 and
the majority rules. And the
most of the people don't want
to spend billions of dollars on
this waste of money. And more
of it says here, oh yeah, the
bridge lift is only 20 to 30
times a month. That's not even
every day. So don't even tell
me that you're crying about the
bridge lift, because all you
got to do is say it's only open
on weekends, and you have to
avoid the the main traffic jams
and that's it. So why is
everybody crying about the
bridge lift? Oh big deal. Once
a day. Really tell them they
can't cross that bridge until
8:00 at night and then
everything's solved. So anyways,
I'm just saying it's a big
waste of time to try and get
light rail here. And I'm so
disappointed. You're going to
be remembered as the people who
screwed the public. Great
legacy.
>> Thank you Mel. Next up we
have Gerald and thank you.
>> I'm all right.
>> My name is Jerry Zelyak or
Gerald formerly, and I'm a PC
for 566.
>> Now, Gerald, we don't
necessarily more of a political
thing.
>> So yes.
>> All right. That is my title.
Yes, I'm a PC on 566 and I deal
with a lot of my constituents
in that precinct. And
specifically, I bring up the
title of the IBR, and these are
working folks that have to
commute back and forth to
Hillsboro and Tualatin and all
those points in Oregon, and
they are opposed to any
additional costs that would be
placed upon them, like tolls or
any kinds of fees or other
schemes that would slow down
their commute. They and don't
foresee ever using light rail.
Never have. And that's my
representation of their
position.
>> Thank you, thank you.
>> Next up, we have Mr. Edward
Wahler Wonder Junior.
>> I said thank you.
>> Good evening directors. I'm
Edward Walawander, president of
City of Vancouver. The C-tran
board is bound by CW applicable
provisions. RCW w 3657 a dot 90,
subsection one is important
with respect to this verbiage
to prepare, adopt and carry out
a general comprehensive plan
for public transportation
service, which will best serve
the residents of the Public
Transportation Benefit area and
to amid said plan from time to
time to meet change conditions
and requirements based upon the
magnitude of controversy,
preponderance of opposing
viewpoint and refutation, the
C-tran board cannot be
fulfilling their statutory
obligations to the citizens of
Clark County. Another statutory
requirement is voter approval
for funding Rail Commuter
Service Pursuant, or CW 811041
20. Public record and awareness
is that light rail options have
been rejected by Clark County
voters. If the C-tran board is
so inclined, another vote to
the people should be pursued by
that body. Democracy at the
ballot box ought to be
respected and accepted. Perhaps
counsel to the board should
assess whether LRT can be
legally pursued or otherwise
determine whether utilization
of the board's time and
resources for the pursuit of
LRT is productive. The
Attachment Board Resolution
26004 to Staff Report 2624
declares this resolution. Now,
therefore, be resolved that
C-tran strongly recommends that
light rail transit extend
beyond the planned waterfront
station and connect with C
transit existing and planned
bus system at a multi-modal hub
by Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square. To achieve the
stated purpose and needs of the
Interstate Bridge program, the
preamble even states. Whereas,
recent Interstate Bridge
replacement program analysis
proposed that light rail
transit terminate at the
Vancouver Waterfront Station
area rather than near the
planned station at Evergreen
Boulevard near Library Square.
Why is the C-tran board adamant
on some LRT solution? Instead
of recognizing that it is not
feasible, not supported by
Clark County citizens, it will
advise. Support by IVR and
other governmental agencies are
appearing dubious or
contracting, subject to
questionable funding, if any,
and the LRT, let alone the IRB,
becoming synonymous with
infamous government failures
such as California high speed
rail. I'm sure the C-tran board
has more productive utilization
of time. In that respect, the
LRT option is appearing to be a
pipe dream dubious and d
supported by data. Thank you
very much.
>> Thank you, Sir. John Lee.
>> Good evening, members of the
board. Tonight, you have a vote
regarding Vancouver's request
to extend light rail in phase
one to the Evergreen Library
Square. Just say no. First and
foremost, the IBR team does not
have the money necessary to
even complete the current
version of phase one. That cost
estimate, if you can trust it,
is $7.6 billion. Next, the
transit component of the IBR
proposal jumped from 2 billion
to $3.5 billion. Adding
expensive light rail components
is the last thing you should do.
Clark County voters have
rejected light rail three times
at the polls, but there are
other details you may not know
about the IBR that should cause
you to walk away. Buried in the
details are five possible park
and ride facilities one at the
Vancouver waterfront,
originally for 30 to $45
million, includes 500 vehicle
parking stalls, 15,000ft² of
retail space in the January
2026 Joe Cortright public
records request revelation that
cost tripled to $104 million.
The Evergreen Park and Ride is
90 to 140 million for a
multi-level, partially below
grade parking structure. The
Ruby Junction Trimet facility
in Gresham, originally
projected to cost 45 to $65
million, the cortright revealed
estimate, jumped sixfold to
$320 million. This originally
was to accommodate 19 new light
rail vehicles. Project is now
down to demanding just three
new light rail vehicles. Yet
compare 320 million with the
2002 creation of the Yellow
Line, where Trimet allegedly
spent just 9 million to handle
17 new vehicles. In 2012, they
bought 20 new vehicles for the
Orange Line, spending 8 million
at the Gresham facility, a
light rail overnight facility
at the Expo Center was 9 to 14
million. It's now $66 million.
What you see is a huge shifting
of money, hiding costs and
increasing the overall price of
the project. Again, the transit
component exploded 75%. That's
in spite of IBR Max light rail
being slashed from nine
departures an hour to just four.
The number of required light
rail vehicles were slashed from
19 new vehicles to just three.
And yet the project says they
need to spend 320 million
expanding the Gresham
maintenance facility. That's an
unneeded rip off of taxpayers,
especially when Trimet's
slashing service on both light
rail and bus service. Troit
Moua Tri-met slashing service
and cutting costs. And yet they
need a $66 million overnight
facility at Expo. Don't give in
to the IBR and Trimet rip off.
Just say, no, we can't afford
it.
>> Thank you John. Next up,
Bruce Barnes.
>> Good evening, chair and
council. AM I done? Good
evening, Chair and Council. My
name is Bruce Barnes. For the
record, I also have some
concerns of what's going on
here. And when I read the
definition of theft by
deception, I want to say that
again, theft by deception.
There's a lot of things when
you look this up and look at
the money that's been spent so
far with really nothing
tangible. We have a 30% drawing
on the bridge right after this
many years, you'd think this
thing would be engineered,
drawn for a lift bridge or an
over an overbridge, you know,
depending on what you wanted to
build. We have none of that.
We've got a guy named Greg
Johnson who apparently in five
years time got $2 million, you
know, and really didn't produce
a product. Right. We've got
overstated numbers of ridership
of Trimet vehicles of costs
analysis. And really, again,
we've got nothing tangible,
right? Nothing to go by. How
are you going to do a design
build bridge when we have no
idea how many pillars there's
going to be? You can be in the
water for three and a half
months a year. So how long is
this bridge really going to
take to build? How many pillars
does anybody know that? Anybody
raise your hand please. Nobody
knows that. So when I look at
this and I look at obviously
costs going up, you know,
always nothing ever goes down.
I mean, every meeting I talk or
go and speak at or, or attend,
it's always raise more taxes,
right? Which in turn has to
raise more wages to pay those
taxes. We got to do something
different. And only gaining
like a three minute speed to
get into Portland by building
this bridge. And I just went
across the bridge the other day
and I thought to myself, this
is the same three lanes they're
going to put in here. How's
anything going to be any better?
Honestly, I mean, at the rate
that traffic goes across there,
you'd go across that thing
better on an e-bike than than
sitting in traffic. And then
when I look at some analysis
here that slows down and it's
all in red. I mean, it's more
global warming, more pollution,
more this, more that everything
the environmentalists don't
want, you know what I mean? But
we're still want to build this.
I honestly, I just don't get it.
And I can see why there's a lot
of cows. You want a cow is
California, Oregon and
Washington. That's what they
call you when you move to Idaho.
And there's a mass exodus of
people moving there. You know
why? Because there's jobs,
there's low cost of living,
there's low fuel, there's a
clean environment. There's no
homeless, there's no tents,
there's no drugs. They don't
put up with it. Right. But I
can tell you what they don't do.
They don't spend a bunch of
money, billions of dollars on
transit because people are
working and they can afford to
drive a car. Thank you for your
time.
>> Thank you. Next up, Douglas
tweet.
>> Oh, Douglas. Tweet Camas. I
sent this by email so you
should have it in front of you.
It's rather visual on the. So
my argument here is we should
eliminate the $3.5 billion
light rail. Instead, pay to
include two auxiliary lanes
each way. So in the new FSEIS,
the IBR recommended design that
has only one auxiliary lane in
each direction. It fails to
meet the primary goal to reduce
traffic congestion. This is
after spending up to $15
billion. Another option that
they evaluate is the two
auxiliary lane both ways, and
it actually does significantly
reduce congestion. So I went
through the FSC EIS and found
where they compare the
congestion, travel time extent
of congestion both northbound
and southbound for 2019 and in
2045 are projections for the
one auxiliary lane design and
for the two auxiliary lane
design, and I've compiled them
in this table. You can compare
the numbers. And if you look at
it closely, you see that the
two auxiliary lane design is
better than one auxiliary lane
in every single measure. It
also improves over the.
Unfortunately, either neither
design improves much over
southbound, but it makes a big
difference in northbound. The.
In the afternoon, the two
auxiliary design shows dramatic
improvement over 2019. Existing
conditions for the northbound
afternoon, reducing congestions
by 33%, travel time by 60% and
extent of congestion by over
90%. And Iberia admits it. And
yet they recommend the one
auxiliary lane. Why don't they
go for the better one? Now, the
another way to look at it is
they have these heat maps, so
they show speeds. So if you
look at.
>> It.
>> The vertical axis is
positioned along I-5 going from
I 205, downtown Vancouver, 205
interchange, Salmon Creek,
downtown Vancouver, I-5 bridge,
all the way down to Markham
Bridge. And you see in the
morning, red is slow, green is
fast. And you'll see that in
the morning southbound. It's
slow. And this is the one
auxiliary lane. Now, if they do
two auxiliary lanes, you see
the southbound. Okay, I've got
a lipstick lips over here on
the left on the on the right
side there you see there is
some improvement southbound.
You get more green, less red.
Now the big difference is
northbound in the afternoon. So
with one auxiliary lane you've
got solid red below the bridge
south of the bridge going north,
just all jammed up. After that
it's okay to auxiliary lanes.
That northbound thing is gone.
There's just a little slowdown
right at the I-5 bridge. So.
Conclusion cancel light rail
entirely from this bridge
project, and the money you save
can be used to build two
auxiliary lanes in each
direction instead. And I don't
even know what that's going to
do for freight. It should
really help with freight, could
freight help with freight, all
kinds of vehicles, etc.
possible? Two auxiliary lanes
are clearly better than one.
>> Thank you. Next up Margaret.
>> Tweet.
>> Good evening board. At the
April 21st presentation, the
Capital Investment Grant CICIG
program was said to require
light rail. This. And this is
how it said it. This
competitive grant funding
requires a light rail transit
investment and will require
local funds for match. Again, I
double checked with the IBR
website that said the same
thing it requires light rail.
Then I checked with the FTA
website, the one that's
awarding the grant, and it
describes this discretionary
grant program funds capital
investments, including light
rail, streetcars, heavy rail,
commuter rail and bus rapid
transit. That's very different
than what has been told to the
public and to the partner
agencies. We've always been
told that it's required,
required, but it's not
according to the FDA. So that
would be false information. I
think we need to correct it. In
the previous rendition, CRC,
the deputy director said that
there were five different
alternatives in the DEIS, some
of which offered bus rapid
transit instead of light rail.
At that time, cost was a factor.
It was a driver in the
discussion. $3.5 billion for
light rail. There is no
discussion about cost. We have
no comparison with bus rapid
transit because it was never in
the DSEIS, so it was like it
was before. So there are no
comparisons of costs. That's
convenient. Eliminate the
competition right from the
outset with false information
told to the public and the
partner agencies. Jaime Herrera
Beutler also wrote to the IBR
in 2022, stating BRT would
qualify for federal transit
funding, offers more
flexibility than a fixed rail
system and is a viable option
for the I-5 project. And yet we
have no information at all
about it. I also sent you the
Cascade Policy Institute
information on the ridership
about Tran at Tri-met. It turns
out that the yellow line, Green
Line, and Orange Line have
ridership projections that have
been missed by large margins,
which also is contrary to a
note that I sent explaining
that a different story that in
the first year it did. Okay,
well, this is a 15 year
analysis of the yellow line,
the very line that we're
connecting to. And it is not
did not attain the ridership
forecasts. This is concerning.
>> Thank you. And Cyndie, do we
have anybody else on the line?
>> Caller if you could please
hit star six to unmute yourself
and please announce your name.
>> Good evening. Good evening,
Kimberly Gavenn Elbon live
citizen of Clark County,
Washington. So I looked up what
a. When a government lies, it's
called kleptocracy. Government
run by thieves who lie to hide
their embezzlement of public
funds. I. I concur with
everybody that's there that's
highly more knowledgeable than
I am. But I can say this each
person there that is against
what you're doing represents a
thousand people each at least.
People are trying to keep their
jobs, food on the table, their
children educated with actual
good education. And you all
know that the pandemic six
years ago disturbed everything.
And that was by design. We have
voted here in Clark County
numerous times, as John Lee
mentioned, three times voted
down light rail. But you guys
are so embedded, so bought off.
And whoever it is, don't take
it personally. But as an entity,
that's what's happening. Using
hard earned tax dollars. I'd
like to have my dollars back,
and I know a lot of other
people would too. So I also
looked up. That the monies from
I asked Google, your tax
dollars typically goes towards
public employee compensation,
private construction contracts,
and large scale regional
infrastructure projects. A
little breakdown is a
significant portion of C trans
operation budget projected at
60%, which is roughly $71
million for this year alone, is
dedicated to wages and benefits.
Wow. How about sending down a
little bit? We've got two big
of a government here, and we
are in a big state of democracy.
And we're not a democracy. We
are a republic. There are some
of us, myself included, that
are patriotic, and we're trying
to get back to where the people
rule the government. The people
have the say. So you listen to
the people, listen to those
people that just spoke. They
know what they're talking about.
And there's another gentleman
that speaks up at the Clark
County Council meeting quite
often and very educated, and
thinks that there should be a
third bridge. But we want we
don't want light rail here. You
guys are going to. Help
Portland with their tri-met
stuff and over there. And
that's what this is all about,
somebody making money and it's
our money and we don't like it.
So when you go home tonight and
you go to bed and you thank God
for your food and for your
sleep, ask him if what you're
doing is actually the right
thing to do for the will of the
people, because God is always
good, and those that are
deceiving and lying and
pocketing their or lining their
pockets with our hard earned
tax dollars, they're going to
pay for it eventually.
>> Thank you, Miss Elbon.
>> That's the only thing I can
say. Thank you.
>> That's everybody on.
>> The line.
>> Excellent. Okay, then we're
going to move on to the consent
agenda. And we have items one
through nine. Would anybody
like to pull anything or do I
hear a motion to approve the
consent agenda?
>> I'll move approval of the
consent agenda.
>> Thank you.
>> Second.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second. All those in favor
signify by saying I.
>> I, I opposed. Alright.
>> That passes. And moving on
to the action items we have
action item number one contract
award bus stop design guide
update staff report 26-022
Taylor.
>> Evening chair, members of
the board, I'm happy to be here
tonight to present staff report
26022 regarding a critical
update to the agency's bus stop
design guide. You can think of
the bus stop design guide, much
like your jurisdiction's street
design guides, this is a design
guide like your city's design
guides that set standards for
lane widths, sidewalks, and
ensure consistencies on your
right of way. It helps us set
standards for design in the
transit environment and provide
modern, safe and defensible
framework for an accessible
transit, boarding and alighting
experience. Since our current
bus stop design guidelines was
last updated in 2003, C-tran
has evolved significantly. We
introduced the vine real time
displays, expanded service
types, and infrastructure,
among other successes. Beyond
our growth, the regulatory
landscape has also changed, and
we need to align our standards
with the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The public
right of way accessibility
guidelines pro wag this update
will ensure that our facilities
are safe and accessible for all
users, and that the designs
that we put in place within the
right of way are defensible.
And to get there, we will be
working with engineers and
representatives from each of
your jurisdictions as we work
to put this design guide
together. This effort will
develop a comprehensive and
graphical and useful guide that
will be used by internal c-tran
staff, local partners and
private developers to ensure
seamless implementation of
C-tran standards across the
region. The update will develop
a standardized hierarchy of bus
stops, detail infrastructure,
technical specifications,
provide guidelines for multi
modal and active transportation
integration at bus stops.
Outline expectations and
standards for accessible
wayfinding and integrate a data
driven prioritization matrix
for improvements at bus stops.
To give you a sense of the
approach, these examples on the
slide here are from other
agency guides and are intended
to show the illustrative nature
and clear intention of the
document. They show how we'll
use the document to standardize
the transit environment, and
generally make it easier to use.
For everyone that's using the
document. It will provide
implementation guides for
various operating conditions,
such as far side of
intersection, bus stops as you
see here, or bus stops with
bikeway integrations that
facilitate safe and accessible
design that are Pro, WAG and
Ada compliant, consistent
across the system, and clear
for all users. And it will show
how we might classify
infrastructure moving toward a
tiered system where
requirements for items like
real time information shelters
or bike parking are scaled to
the to the stops typology,
providing clear and
illustrative standards will
make it easier and more likely
that developers and city
engineers build C train ready
infrastructure from the start.
We received four competitive
proposals for this work. They
were scored based on
qualifications, past
performance and project
approach. The total cost for
this two year contract will not
exceed $250,000. The project is
already accounted for in the
adopted 2526 budget. Tonight,
we're asking that the Board of
Directors authorize the CEO to
execute a contract with Toole
Design Group for the bus stop
Design guide update for an
amount not to exceed $250,000.
Chair. Happy to answer any
questions you may have.
>> Thank you. Any questions for
Taylor?
>> Tim.
>> Thank you, chair. Thanks for
the presentation. Taylor, a few
questions. This is a not to
exceed budget during any
incentive or what is the
incentive to come under budget.
>> So we have a contract with
tool that will put in place.
The reason for not to exceed
here is primarily because this
is a little bit of a unique
contract type, and that we'll
be working with jurisdictions
across the county, and we want
to make sure that we have a
little bit of flexibility to be
able to have additional work
with any jurisdictions that we
might need to, knowing that
there is some planning and
engineering type work. So we
may have a need for additional
flexibility and work with any
of the jurisdictions within the
county so that our standards
are able to be aligned.
>> Thank you. One other
question, Sheriff.
>> That's okay.
>> So this is literally for
creating the design, correct?
While not the focus of your
presentation, what is the if
this is for the design, what is
the what's the next step in
terms of. Are there required
retrofits of existing stops to
implement the guidelines. What
are we looking at in the future?
>> Great question.
>> Thank you.
>> So this will really provide
a guide for how we will go
about improving stops into the
future. From a c-tran
perspective, it is also
something that will provide a
framework and materials for
each of your jurisdictions to
be able to adopt into your own
street guides and design and
construction standards or
engineering standards, so that
as you are doing engineering
projects or roadway projects or
private developers within your
jurisdictions are doing their
own private development
projects that may have
streetscape updates. Those
designs can be incorporated
into those projects, and we're
more likely to end up with a
product that is at the
accessible, safe and modern
standard from the get go that
is really meeting everyone's
needs today. The designs that
we have in our in our design
guide are really a little bit
outdated in terms of where we
would like them to be. So this
is pulling it into alignment.
It's also creating materials
that all of our jurisdictions
will be able to pull into their
engineering standards should
they like.
>> To.
>> Thank you. And then one
final question, I promise. How
does that get ultimately, how
does that information get
communicated to our respective
municipalities?
>> We'll be working with
engineers from every
jurisdiction on a technical
advisory committee.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you, thank you.
>> Any other comments.
>> Or questions?
>> All right. Do I hear a
motion?
>> Kim Harless moved to approve.
>> Second.
>> Got a motion and a second.
All those in favor say aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed? All right. Moving
on to the next one. Contract
amendment award. 65th Campus
development, northeast 18th
Street site improvement, phase
five, a staff report 26-023. It
looks like we have Randy Parker.
>> Good evening.
>> Thank you, chair members of
the board. Yeah. This is Staff
Report 2623 regarding the
improvements at our 65th campus,
specifically.
>> Randy, you get closer to
that mic.
>> Specifically the.
>> Five a improvements, which
if you remember, was. The
employee parking lot, the
parking lot for the equipment,
a new driveway, excuse me, in a
signal at the intersection of
18th and 65th, during the
process of completing the
intersection and traffic signal.
>> Work.
>> Additional work beyond the
original scope was identified,
including concrete overages and
some fiber and conduit work
that we weren't anticipating.
SLES, our contractor, they're
not quite done out there. The
remaining work involves some
sidewalk and curbs. The Ada
ramps, removal of the original
signal pole, and Moua storm,
which happened today and
tomorrow, and then the final
asphalt paving striping. This
proposal seeks an amendment to
add $100,000 to the contract to
cover these outstanding change
orders. In any future change
order. So the proposal before
you this evening is that the
C-tran Board of Directors
authorizes the CEO to amend the
contract with SLA Inc to add an
additional $100,000 for
outstanding and future change
orders. So answer any questions
if you have them.
>> Thank you.
>> Comments. Questions.
>> Board.
>> Not seeing any. Do I have a.
>> Motion still moved.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion in a second.
All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
>> Aye.
>> And opposed. All right. That
passes as well. Moving on to
item number three C Terren
light rail LRT Interstate
bridge replacement program BRT
Staff Report 26-02 for the
adoption of board resolution
BR26-004. And we have Scott
Patterson.
>> Actually, I'll jump in first
to start it off, but I just
wanted to have this for
discussion with the board. This
was resolution was based off of
the original Erielle original
MLP that was adopted in 2022.
City of Vancouver passed a
resolution April 13th of this
year regarding the new phasing
that Iber has presented, and
from staff's point of view, at
this time, we're just. Our
priority right now is to make
sure that C-tran remains
reliable, connected and
accessible for our riders and
our region in. This is no
matter where light rail
terminates, but we want to
manage the impact to our c-tran
system as is progresses. Open
to discussion.
>> Any comments from the board?
>> Right.
>> Yeah. So I guess can we dive
just a little bit deeper? I'd
love to understand just a
little bit more about. I get
that the original plan was to
go to evergreen sort of through
that cost cutting exercise that
the project team went through.
They, they cut it shorter to
the waterfront. It's not what
was in the original plan, but
it seemed like it has
significant cost savings. What
I guess what sort of data, what
sort of impact on our system
would we, would we be looking
at in terms. Of advocating for
specifically.
>> Yeah. Appreciate excuse me.
Appreciate the question. So the,
the, the current proposal to
terminate at the waterfront
station, it's an elevated
station. It's about close to
91ft in the air. The MLP that
Leanne had referred to and, and
still really is in place with
the evergreen terminus. It
would be connecting at street
level with all of c trans BRT s
that are operating in downtown
Vancouver, as well as a number
of local routes that are
operating as well. By
terminating it at the
waterfront, we would have
connection to most likely no
more than one c-tran route. In
this case, it would likely be
the highway 99 BRT line. And
when you look at some of the
previous ridership forecasting
work that went into IBR, most
of the ridership projected
ridership on light rail will be
transferring from the C-tran
system. And so recognizing some
of the cost dynamics that are
at play with IBR currently,
when you look at the at the
dollars and cents of it, you
could understand, I think, in
large part why they're
proposing to terminate it there.
However, from a transit
connectivity point of view, it
it doesn't do a lot to really
improve the transit landscape
and the interaction that our
riders are going to have from
transferring to our bus system,
which will be very limited at
the waterfront to, to light
rail. And so, you know, this is
as has been, I think, termed
many times once in a generation
project when you're talking
about replacing the bridge and
bringing light rail and
recognizing there may be
opportunities further into the
future to extend it, that if
we're going to bring it to
Vancouver, if if you're if the
primary focus is on connecting
it as best as it can to the
C-tran system, we believe that
that getting it to to evergreen
at least makes more sense in
that respect. I hope that helps.
>> Thank you. Chair. A follow
up question to board Member
Davis.
>> Can you please make sure to
speak into the mic?
>> Yeah.
>> Thank you. Follow up
question to board member
Davis's question. So. Well, it
seems to make sense to extend.
It for transit riders and
c-tran to evergreen. Additional
cost is being is is going to be
incurred, right. The projected
cost is what again?
>> Yeah. So the, the current
cost estimate to terminate it
at the waterfront, I believe is
right around $2 billion. The
additional cost to extend it to
evergreen. I've heard a few
different estimates on that.
And one of the challenges is
the the recently released final
SEIS had assumed the pre 2024
plan that included a higher
level of light rail ridership,
which would have required
acquiring more trains than the
current plan or the current
plans had assumed. You may
remember one of the IBR
presentations or updates quite
a few months ago, but they
talked about the headways going
from 6.5 minutes down to an
assumed 15 minute headways. And
so a lot of that more intense
capital infrastructure, 19
busses now or 19 trains. Now
it's down to three. There would
be no as I understand it, Ruby
Junction expansion on the
Oregon side. And there would
also be no overnight facility
at Expo. And so those costs are
coming down. That 3.5 billion
assume that higher level of
intensity of light rail service.
So I've seen numbers that would
be right around, I think, an
additional billion, perhaps
even a little bit less, to get
it up to evergreen, we have
asked for more detailed cost
estimates for that. We're
hoping to get it from IVR very
soon. But right now I don't
feel like I have a decent
number estimate to be able to
give you.
>> On that.
>> Thank you. I have some
follow. Up. So understanding,
it's an estimate who pays the
billion on the capital. And
then what would be C trans
responsibilities or what would
be C trans financial
liabilities on the operating
side. How would how would that
extension affect C trans.
>> Yeah. So the so all of the
operating cost estimate work
that had been done to date and
has been presented to this
board assumed an evergreen
terminus. So those O&M dollars
wouldn't necessarily change.
There is that big question mark
about where you get the
additional funding for the
capital grant or the, the
capital dollars that are going
to be needed to be able to get
it that far north. I will say
that there is and this is, I
believe, part of Ibers
presentation here last month as
well. There. They currently
don't have enough funding to
get it to the waterfront
terminus as well. So there's
still a little bit short. I
can't speak for IBR, but I
believe that they are having
discussions about perhaps
pursuing additional funding
from the two states, Washington
and Oregon, to make up that gap
to what degree it could be
increased to help get it up to
evergreen.
>> Those are questions.
>> I think that the that the
program is going to have to
continue to to address.
>> Thank you. So in the end,
the extension of this project
to evergreen benefit C-tran in
terms of the ability to support
ridership.
>> Yeah, I. CTRAN ridership.
Yeah, I, I guess the way I
would answer it is it would
benefit C trans riders, you
know, and really when you're
talking about connectivity
through the regional system,
you know, there's, there's
multiple benefits that come
from that, recognizing that
there is a big gap in terms of
how to pay for the capital
costs of getting it there. So
it's, you know, it's going to
be a continued conversation in
the weeks and months ahead.
>> Thank you Scott.
>> Appreciate it. Any other
comments?
>> I have a couple comments.
Thanks. I think there's value
in expressing some concern
coming from this board. And I,
I have a couple of concerns.
One is that Aiber itself really,
I don't know how much any of
the partners involved with this
were considered in their
revised changes. And it's a
significant change. So I'm
concerned about that now and
going forward as well. And then
I don't know if, you know,
extending to evergreen makes
the most sense. And I don't
know if it was considered just
going to evergreen and skipping
the waterfront. If there are
other alternatives, it seems
like because it's part of the
preferred alternative and has
been since 22, I think it's
worthwhile to express some
concerns. And it sounds as
though funding, and this is
still an evolving process that
we're. That is underway. But I
think just being silent doesn't
strike me as the right approach.
>> Right. Thank you.
>> I would agree, I think that
is definitely our
responsibility to advocate for
the system. And if we can
demonstrate that there would be
a negative impact on on
ridership and connectivity, I,
I appreciate the thought
process that, you know, if
you're going to do it, do it
right. I feel like it would be
better if our, if our board was,
was able to communicate some
sort of acknowledgment of the
financial impact and being
willing to like, be a partner
in that. But again, if we're
talking about an extra billion
dollars, and where does this
billion dollars come from? You
know, being being up for one,
recognizing that extra cost.
I'm just saying, hey, we don't
like it. We need an extra
billion bucks. But finding ways
to, to be a part of that
solution. I would like to see
us be able to be willing to
take that step. And I don't
know if we would technically
need to amend this to include
some sort of language. I mean,
I would kind of put it out to
the rest of our board to see
what people are comfortable
with, but I'd like to see us
acknowledge that financial
piece as part of being better
for our overall system.
>> I just have a follow up
question. How how would you see
that follow up? What, what, how
would you define that?
>> I mean, I guess in my mind,
you know, continuing to work
with the project team, working
alongside some of our regional
partners, you know, being
willing to explore creative
solutions. I agree, like the,
the terminus at the waterfront
doesn't make a whole lot of
sense. It was part of the
original project to go to
evergreen. I realize they're
also getting a lot of heat for
the overall expense of this
project, and that was one of
their things. I think instead
of us just saying, no, we don't
like that, we should say, okay,
there's a reason this makes
more sense. And we feel like
there's some value. If there's
some data we can present that
increases, you know, economic
development, or maybe there's
extra pots of money based on
increased ridership that we can
access because of that, like
doing some of that work on the
staff side to really bring some
of that data forward that maybe
helps justify the extra cost,
or being advocates for where to
find that extra.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Kim Harless.
Thank you, Council member. I
think part of the the challenge
of having that conversation is
we haven't been given numbers
that are relative to what
Councilor Marchel brought up,
which is the not just the
extension, but an Or question,
not an end question, like what
is the cost of. The library
square terminus versus the
waterfront? Because the
conversation has been about
extension. But what about an Or
question? Like, I would
prioritize that that hub versus
any construction at the
waterfront. But, you know, a
lot of even the way that this
is designed is an end question
of extending beyond. And that's
been my frustration is because
then we can't have that dialog
of like, how we might be able
to support when we aren't
provided that information.
>> Thank you. Chair. I, I
definitely agree, Ryan. The so
one, we need a system that,
that maximizes citizens
investments and that is a
terminus at, at Library Square.
At the same time, there is also
that, you know, there is
financial constraint to this.
But to your point, this is
mostly about trying to keep a
conversation going rather than
stopping a conversation and
trying to. So we move from
engineering that happened in an
office to moving into now
working with people who are
going to be building the bridge
and trying to make sure that
the conversation keeps going
through that process. And we
look for where potentially we
can find those costs savings.
My understanding, there's some
assumptions about how the
alignment goes right now that
that potentially there are
other alignments that have a
lower cost associated with them.
So this, this isn't definitive.
We, we, we can't force somebody
to give us more money. We can't
force a more money to be spent.
But we but this is saying we
want to continue this
conversation forward and that
just assuming that or just
accepting what has been said so
far, doesn't may sell us short
from having those back and
forth conversations. Thank you.
>> Could we pull up the actual
resolution on the screen? Thank
you.
>> Let me know when you want to.
>> There you go.
>> And this was provided in the
retreat materials, which we did
discuss at the retreat as well.
So a lot of these new things
that are coming up can
definitely be asked for at one
point in time, as I think
Councilman Christopher was
alluding to. We're not going to
like not ask for. These these
figures to come in. But what's
before us right now, I think,
is, in my opinion, what we need
to be voting on. So other
comments.
>> Thank you, chair. To some of
the comments raised this
evening. I think one thing that
may be beneficial to add is,
while we do not know what the
exact costs are, what we want
to maintain dialog. It may be
beneficial to include as part
of the resolution, not who will
pay for it, but who will not
pay for.
>> It.
>> Who will not be involved in
the capital and the and the O&M
and and specifically state in
here that that if there are
additional or additional costs
that are determined to be in
this project, if it's approved,
Sitrep is not responsible.
>> For it.
>> Well, I think to.
>> Clarify that.
>> If I may add that I think
what this is basically saying
is the proposed ID are
terminating at the waterfront
is not something we're looking
for. It's mainly what we're
looking for is to go to the
library square. So as far as
putting a caveat in there as
far as who and who not. Would
be a significant change into
this. Now, if if that is
something that you'd like to,
you know, pursue, I would say,
you know, please, by all means,
but I don't know if it would be
appropriate at this particular
juncture because we're looking
for just this particular change
on this document.
>> My concern is that if it's
not, that intent is not stated
in the future, we may regret
not having it included.
>> Okay. So and point of
clarification, you're looking
for the cost figures of the
difference or the cost, or to
designate who would pay for the
difference of going from
waterfront to Library Square.
>> The difference here that
that while this is supported,
this may be supported. What is
not supported is see
transporting any of the future
costs of this attempt.
>> Okay. Comment.
>> I think any future costs
will come before this board and
we'll make decisions on that at
that time or refer to the
voters if there's any costs
that we as a board decide to
refer to the voters. So I think
I think I can support this as
written. I think there's other
messages related to
collaboration, but I think just
to keep it straightforward, I
can support this as is.
>> If that's the overall intent
and the spirit of it moving
forward, that's fine. As long
as there's an agreement.
>> To that.
>> Can't be held to be put on
the hook for something in the.
Future that encumbers this
organization.
>> Is there an amendment you'd.
>> Like to make?
>> Yes it is. Chair, I would
like I make a motion that an
additional paragraph be
inserted into the resolution,
and this resolution be
R2026-004 be amended to include
a paragraph that states that
c-tran is not is will not be
held responsible for any
additional capital or operating
costs that may that may result
from this added extension.
>> Second.
>> We have an amendment in. Now
it's time for discussion. Do I
hear any other discussion? Sue.
>> I feel like we've voted on
this a year ago in terms of
having permissive language
about C-tran pursuing funding.
So I feel like that that had
already been decided a year ago.
I don't I don't see I wouldn't
support adding it.
>> Any other comments to the
amendment?
>> Chair? Will.
>> Yeah, this is Councilor
Fuentes. I agree with with
board member Su Marchel. This
is a resolution. This is not
law. And if there are any
additional funding necessary,
it will come in front of the
board. I support this
resolution as it stands.
>> Thank you.
>> Chair, thank you. Can I ask
for a point of clarification?
I'm not sure. Board member I'm
not sure where you're proposing
a paragraph be added.
>> If you go.
>> Right.
>> Right after the last.
>> Where at.
>> You're sure suggesting
specifically you're suggesting
you're a you have proposed an
amendment for another warehouse
or.
>> You are correct.
>> Put it.
>> Put it in the added as a
last. Whereas before then. Now
therefore.
>> Other comments.
>> I just have a point of
clarification. There was not a
motion on the resolution itself.
So. Tim's amendment it's it's a
motion. It's an amendment. I'm
just not sure what we're
amending.
>> Oh.
>> Because there's no motion to
adopt this.
>> You're right. That would
take a motion first. Would you
like to withdraw your motion?
And then we can do an original
motion.
>> I will withdraw.
>> My motion. Ryan, would you
like to withdraw your motion?
>> Yeah.
>> That's fine.
>> Thank you. And can we do an
original.
>> Motion.
>> Chair move to approve the
resolution VR 202026-004.
>> Second miss Boardman Fuentes
second.
>> Okay. We have a motion and a
second. And now we will deal
with the amendment.
>> Chair, I make a motion to
add an amendment to the motion
to the resolution that
currently has a motion stating
that C-tran will not be
responsible for any future
operating and capital and
operating costs as a result of
an extension from the
Waterfront Library.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion and a
second on the amendment, and I
have been trying to write this
down as fast as possible. Are
you folks in the same boat?
Okay, C-tran will not be
responsible for capital or
operating expenses. And this is
going to be stated as a whereas.
>> That's correct. Okay.
Capital.
>> Do you.
>> Have it?
>> May I just add, please,
director, that motion or that
amendment would would make more
sense if it's in part of the
resolved statement, the
Whereases.
>> I will defer to legal
opinion on that.
>> Yeah, yeah. Okay. So would
the proposed amendment would be
added at the end of the IBR
parentheses period of the
resolved resolved statement and
not a whereas.
>> Be it resolved. All right.
So we don't have a problem
putting it in there.
>> The proposed amendment isn't
a isn't a whereas form it's
it's a it's a statement of
resolution.
>> Okay.
>> So it would need to be in
that last paragraph rather than
a. Whereas that's all I'm
saying in terms of the format.
So to the extent somebody has a.
The proposed amendment language,
maybe you read the entire
resolved statement with that
amendment language at the end.
>> There. Just clarification.
There's a proposed amendment
that's been seconded. So we
could that could either be
withdrawn or we take some
action on that.
>> At the moment, the action is
on that proposed amendment.
>> Do I hear the interest in
resolving.
>> It.
>> Or bringing the amendment
back to have it be in a be
resolved?
>> Do I need a legal. Do I need
to withdraw that, or may that
stay as it is?
>> You don't need to withdraw.
It's just a point of
clarification that the
amendment will be part of the
resolved statement rather than
a. Whereas.
>> Okay.
>> Do I have any other comments?
We have a motion and a. Second
not seeing any other comments.
All those in favor of the
amendment say I. I opposed no.
>> Can we use hands and do that
again, please?
>> Let's go ahead and do a roll
call.
>> Vote.
>> Ryan Davis.
>> No or yes I sorry.
>> Will Fuentes no. Kim Harless
nay. Bart Hanson nay. Tim Hein.
>> Yes.
>> Sue Marchel.
>> No.
>> Anne. McEnerny. Ogle.
>> No.
>> Ty Stover.
>> No.
>> Glen Yung.
>> Nay.
>> All right. I believe the
nays have it. Do you want to
make a comment. Real quick? You
were reaching for the. Box
there. Okay, so that brings us
back to the original amendment
or the original motion. And is
there any are there any other
comments.
>> On that? I chair.
>> I'd like to propose an
amendment for discussion of
where it says. Now, therefore,
be it resolved that Z. Tran
Sahling recommends that light
rail transit LRT extend beyond.
And this is where the addition
would be. Or instead of the
planned waterfront station. So
it's a inclusion of or instead
of the between beyond and the
planned water station.
>> Second.
>> Comments. We have a motion
and a second. Do we have any
comments on the amendment?
>> Chair?
>> This is a a tough one here
because just joining this board,
I don't know. I have not paid
attention into how critical the
waterfront is. That connection.
I think we should be very
careful with what we say,
because the reality is, if we
skip the waterfront, we
probably won't get the
waterfront because the reality
is in order to build it
properly to where you can
connect in, it's probably going
to cost just a little bit more
to actually build in the
station. The only, I think the
only, you know, way that would
make sense to do that and save
money would be to build it in a
way that you probably wouldn't
have the ability to connect to,
or at least it wouldn't it, you
know, cost a fortune to do that.
So I don't know how we resolve
this because I think there's a
lot.
>> Of.
>> Discussion that would need
to, to take place. Like I'm
definitely open to seeing how
we can creatively solve this.
But at the same time, we have
to be very careful to make sure
that the needs of the long term
are are being met.
>> Other comments.
>> To the amendment.
>> Yeah. Just to clarify the
amendment, it says like an or
it just leaves it open. So it
could be both still. Correct.
It's not absolutely tying us to,
hey, we want out of the
waterfront and it has to be
ever correct.
>> That, sorry, that was the
intent, but I'm glad you
brought up Director Young about
how that could be misread. And
my intent was a prioritization
rather than an exclusion of the
waterfront. So if there's an
opportunity to move forward
with any station that we are
prioritizing the evergreen hub
over the waterfront, and that
that is our intent. And because
that doesn't come across to me
when reading this resolution,
that the way that I read it and
I could be wrong, and this is
why I wanted to propose it as
an amendment for discussion, is
that there's a prioritization
of that location over the
waterfront. So if there was
some sort of timeline or
whatever it might be for
construction, that it is the
priority versus the waterfront
station. So I'm open to
suggestion on how to possibly
rescind my amendment and create
a new way of introducing it.
And maybe that makes that more
clear. But that is my intent.
>> Chair. Councilmember Fuentes.
>> Yeah, I just want to clarify
what board member Kim Harless
is saying. So are you saying
that we change the language so
that prioritizes evergreen?
Possibly at the risk of not
having the waterfront build? Is
that correct?
>> So since we don't know a lot,
there might be a cost savings
to maybe not fully constructing
the waterfront and maybe just
putting in the infrastructure
for future, you know, inclusion,
whatever that, you know,
baseline is so that we're not
excluding the possibility of it.
But I'm sure that there and
there has to be a lot of
assumptions in all of this
because we don't have those
details, that there is a
potential cost savings in not
fully building out, but still
leaving open the opportunity of
having the waterfront station.
>> I personally think that the
waterfront is not not to
prioritize one or the other,
but as a tourist destination.
For a lot of folks crossing the
river, I think it would be
incredibly beneficial to ensure
that the waterfront is also
built. In addition to extending
it to the Evergreen Library hub.
So I hate to want to include
language that prioritizes one
over the other. Again, this is
a resolution. It's just giving
policy direction that if
funding comes in front of us
and this board decides that
it's not beneficial for c-tran
and taxpayers, and it's a
decision that we can make later,
this is just a recommendation
of extending the LRT to
evergreen.
>> Other thoughts?
>> Do we want to restate the
amendment so everybody's
crystal clear.
>> On it?
>> Which amendment?
>> The one we're acting on
right now. Kim Harless.
>> The Or. Yeah.
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
>> So after the on Mahlum for
the.
>> So Kim, guide me through
this. Therefore. Now therefore,
be it resolved that C Tran
strongly recommends that the
light rail transit LRT extend
beyond the planned waterfront
waterfront station and connect
with C trans existing and
planned bus system at a
multi-modal hub by Evergreen
Boulevard near Library Square.
Do you want the. Or to go.
>> It's. So it's the second
line after the now. So it says
extend beyond or instead of.
Would be the inclusion. The
planned waterfront station is
what my original proposal was.
>> Extend beyond or planned.
>> Or instead of.
>> Or instead of.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> And that's the only change.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Now therefore, be it
resolved that C Tran strongly
recommends that the light rail
transit LRT extend beyond or
instead of planned waterfront
station and connect with C
trans existing and planned bus
system at a multi-modal hub by
Evergreen Boulevard near
Library Square to achieve the
stated purpose and needs of the.
Intersection Bridge program.
>> Okay comments.
>> Chair, I, I just I think
that there will be years still
ahead of us talking about this
and negotiating and
prioritizing. And I feel like
even though I agree, there may
be some room to prioritize that
at this moment, we don't want
to give anything up or appear
to be giving anything up
related to the light rail
system. So I, I appreciate the
amendment, but I think I'm
cautious and will not support
it.
>> I agree with that. I think,
you know, it's 91ft up in the
air. I think it is unrealistic
to think that we're going to
see that station built if we
bypass it. I don't know how
critical that station is to the
system. But to me, if we're
looking at the overall
functionality of the system as
a whole, I don't think you can
bypass. It and realistically
expect that we're going to find
some local money or something
in the future to build that,
because it is 90ft in the air,
it is going to be incredibly
expensive.
>> I would agree with that. I
like the spirit of the
amendment, though, because I
feel like it is offering a
solution. It's offering
flexibility. It's saying, hey,
like, you know, and I
understand we we're going to
have other conversations about
prioritization, but I think
that it is important for us.
>> To.
>> To bring that to the table.
So I'm in support.
>> Thank you. Chair. I'm in
support of the amendment, too.
I think it offers an additional
option. 91ft in the air is
going to be daunting for
anybody to go down and access
the waterfront, whether there's
a terminus there or it's an
intermittent.
>> Stop.
>> The challenge of the height
and period. So I think that the
I think the amendment offers
another potential solution.
>> I appreciate the sentiment
of the of the proposed
amendment, but I am also. I'm.
There's not enough nuance to me
in the proposed amendment
because I. Because if if it
goes in. As stated, you. You
later made comments about, well,
building the platform, just not
connecting the platform. But
that's not what got stated in
the amendment. I'm. Phiel I
feel most comfortable staying
with the resolution as it's
been presented to us.
>> Any other comments? Okay.
Voting on the amendment. I get
the feeling we're going to do a
roll call vote. So let's go
ahead and do that.
>> Would you like it?
>> Read again.
>> Before we vote.
>> And would anybody like to.
>> Read again? All right.
>> Okay.
>> So this is Kim's amended
version. Ryan Davis. I will.
>> Fuentes no.
>> Kim Harless.
>> I.
>> Bart Hanson nay. Tim Hein.
>> Yes.
>> Sue Marchel no. Anne.
McEnerny. Ogle.
>> No.
>> Ty Stover.
>> No.
>> Glen Yung.
>> No.
>> Okay. That addresses the
amendment. Now, back to the
original motion. Are there any.
Ryan.
>> Yeah, I'm going to go. Third
time's the charm. And I have an
amendment I would love to put
out there for consideration. It
would be inserted after the
word square and before the word
two in the resolved portion
that would read and direct
staff to work with project team
and community partners to find
ways to demonstrate financial
value of the change in order to
achieve achieve the stated
purpose and needs of the
Interstate Bridge program.
That's where I would end it.
And then I guess my commentary
would be to say, I'm trying to
listen to my my colleagues here
and say, hey, this is a
resolution we're trying to
prioritize. We're we're trying
to be flexible. I, I just go
back to, I guess my original
comment of saying, how can we
be part of that process and be
and be flexible and, you know,
work with our partners to find,
find the money and, you know,
make it so it can happen, not
just say, hey, we don't like
this. We want to do it. So
that's the background for that
is trying to zoom out as much
as possible. That encourages
staff to help educate why it's
important.
>> That's a motion. Do I hear a
second?
>> Second?
>> We have a motion and a
second comments.
>> Could you please restate the
motion?
>> I would be happy to. Slowly
I will, I will. So after the
word square, so the multimodal
hub by Evergreen Boulevard near
Liberty Square and direct staff
to work with the project team
and community partners. To find
ways to demonstrate financial
value of this change. Comma in
order. And then it would pick
up with to achieve the stated
purpose and needs.
>> If we get.
>> Ryan, would you explain what
you're thinking for financial
value?
>> Financial value? I think it
could be helping to identify
maybe pots of money. If we can
prove that there's going to be
a lot more ridership by
relocating for one, maybe that
opens up some extra pots of
money on the development side.
Maybe it makes more sense on
the state side to offer funding.
Maybe we can demonstrate some
economic development value for
having it terminus there at
Library Square as opposed to on
the waterfront. Those are, I
guess, just some examples of
ways that we could bring some,
some data and some opportunity
to the conversation to, to make
it more realistic.
>> Other comments.
>> Great. We have a motion in a
second and I'm not seeing any
other comments. Let's go ahead
and go back to a roll call.
>> Vote Cyndie.
>> Ryan Davis.
>> Yes.
>> Will Fuentes no. Kim Harless
nay. Bart Hanson.
>> Nay.
>> Tim Hein.
>> Yes.
>> Sue Marshall no. Anne.
McEnerny. Ogle.
>> No.
>> Ty Stober.
>> I.
>> Glen Yung.
>> No.
>> Okay. I believe the nays
have it. So we go back to the
original motion. Any other
comments about the original
motion? Not seeing any comments.
I'll go ahead and move for
another roll call. Vote. Cindy.
>> Ryan Davis no. Will Fuentes
yes. Kim Harless. I. Bart
Hanson I. Tim Hein no. Sue
Marshall. I Anne McEnerny Ogle
I. Ty Stober. I Glen Yung.
>> I.
>> Okay, I believe the ayes
have it. And that takes us out
of our action items and moves
us on to communications. And
from the chair I would like to
thank C-tran staff for taking
the time and fellow directors
of coming to the retreat so
that we can do some planning.
We can talk about what's up,
what's our what's in store for
our future. And I know a lot of
work goes into that by staff,
so I appreciate you and your
team doing that. Thank you very
much. That's all the
communications I have from the
chair now, communications from
the board.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. Just a mention that on
May 28th, Ridgefield Raptors
are kicking off. C-tran has
been a big partner since the
inception of the Ridgefield
Raptors. And somebody, you know,
maybe helping throw out the
first pitch. We'll see. We'll
see how my arm feels. But I
plan on writing the current up
there just because parking can
be, you know, a little tight in
the in the parking lot, but
hope to see everybody out there
at some point during the season.
>> Thank you Tim. Okay. Go
ahead.
>> Thank you chair. I also like
to thank staff for putting on a
very good retreat. I thought it
was a really good day,
productive and a lot of work to
do as a result. But thank you
for doing that. And then second,
thank you for also to C-tran
for the support at the Camas
Plant and Garden Fair.
>> Thank you. Any others?
>> Moving on to Lehan.
>> Thank you chair. Thank you.
>> Board of Directors.
>> For the C-tran Board Retreat.
Thank you for those that were
able to make it. And another
layer that we do have some
further discussions that happen
regarding our 2045 plan that we
do need all directors to be
involved in. So we will be
putting out a doodle poll to
try to solidify a day,
hopefully a board day, where
we'll be able to start a little
earlier in the day and then be
able to roll into our board
meetings. So everyone check
your calendars and we'll look
for the doodle poll, and we'll
be looking to get that date
solidified again. Thank you.
Welcome, Glen Yung and Kim
Harless to the board. We're
glad to have you. And thank you
for being willingness to serve
in our community. And we look
forward to your perspectives
and will help and strengthen
our public transportation
across our region as we look
forward to working with you. We
also, like I mentioned, we
setting up some one on ones
with board, new board directors
and returning ones as well. So
as we move forward coming up
this week, our C-tran
Maintenance rodeo team will be
headed off to Salt Lake City to
participate in our Apta
Mobility Conference, the bus
rodeo there. This is exciting
because it's been over ten
years that C-tran has
participated in such.
Competition. We'll have Andrew
Monahan, Jesse Page and Devin
Batten that will be headed
there with and coached by
Dakota Anderson, who is also
our maintenance instructor. So
they are very excited. They've
been putting starting to put in
work since last year,
participating in the local
rodeos, and are ready to head
off and learn some more from
other agencies across the
across the country. So we wish
them well and look forward to
hearing about their experience
when they return again. As Tim
mentioned, we did provide
service for the cannabis plant
and garden fair, and I'd like
to announce that there was a
total of 792 riders that rode
those. So we were excited to
see that number. So very, very
useful. And that was hopeful.
The event was successful as
well. We will be also C-tran
will also be participating in
the CMac, the Community
Military Appreciation Committee
on Memorial Day, again at the
Fort Vancouver National
Historic Site on May 25th. So
look for our infamous bus going
through with the hand-painted
eagle on the side. We are
especially mindful of the many
veterans that have served for
the for for the nation and
those that work here at C-tran.
So we want to thank everyone
for their sacrifice and members
of all our armed forces and
their families as we complete
this month. And then we also
have a ride transit month that
is coming up next month. So
June is ride transit month.
C-tran will be looking forward
to celebrating alongside with
local committee communities and
transit agencies across across
the Washington state. This is
an important time for those
that don't get to ride transit
very often, or encourage those
that haven't to get out there
and try it for the month.
Experience what they have. Ryan.
You'll be riding the current.
So we look forward to getting
feedback from you on that. But
we will be also doing some
proclamations with our local
cities. So look forward to
doing those and seeing our ride
transit month and a staff will
be doing as well. We'll be be
more mindful of using the
transit system as we go out
about our days for the month as
well. And then I think that is
all I have.
>> That's it. Excellent,
excellent.
>> And from legal.
>> I'll just say that the the
lawsuit is closed and done. The
judge signed the order to
dismiss with prejudice two
weeks ago. So that's that's
closed up. Other than that, I
have nothing else.
>> Thank you. Excellent.
>> Well thank you. And that
brings us to a conclusion.
>> Adjournment at 557657