C-TRAN Board of Directors Meeting

0:00 (upbeat music) - Welcome to the May 12th C-TRAN Board of Directors meeting. Will you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance? - I pledge allegiance to the flag of 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, Cindy, would you please call the roll? - Yes, sir. Ryan Davis? - Present. - Will Fuentes? I can see him online. - Present. - Okay. - I'm here.

0:57 - Kim Harless? Bart Hanson? - Present. - Tim Hein? - Present. - Sue Marshall? - Here. - Ann McInerney-Ogle? - Present. - Ty Stober? - Present. - Joshua Waits? - Here. - Glen Young? - Here. - Okay, now moving on to the approval of the agenda. Are there any additions or changes to the agenda?

1:27 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 aye. - Aye. - 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 Young, welcome. And who else do we have? Kim's gonna 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.

2:24 - 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. Whereas C-TRAN remains committed to this program and that analysis capacity, where is it? That they want the C-TRAN, or what is it, 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, three 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

3:22 because of lack of ridership. The Golden Gate Bridge came in at 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 IBR looking at 16 billion, 15 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. 930 million with a B. Not even one of these bridges is worth a single billion hardly.

4:22 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 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 most of the people don't want to spend billions of dollar 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 gotta do is say it's only open on weekends

5:20 and you have to avoid 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 eight o'clock 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 gonna be remembered as the people who screwed the public. Great legacy. - Thank you, Mel. Next up we have Gerald Zunzuk. Thank you. - My name is Jerry Zenick, or Gerald, formerly. And I'm a PCO for 566. - Now, Gerald, we don't necessarily more of a political thing, so-- - Yes, all right, well, that is my title, yes. I'm a PCO in 566, and I deal with a lot of my constituents

6:17 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 Hillsborough 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 schemes that would slow down their commute. They don't foresee ever using light rail, never have, and that's my representation of their position. Thank you. - Thank you.

7:14 Next up we have Mr. Edward Wallawinder, Jr. - Like that. - Thank you.

7:26 - Good evening, directors, I'm Edward Wallawinder, President of the City of Vancouver. The City Tram Board is bound by RCW applicable provisions. RCW 3657A.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 amend said plan from time to time to be changed conditions and requirements. Based upon the magnitude of controversy, preponderance of opposing viewpoint and refutation, the City Tram 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 RCW 81-104-120. Public record and awareness is that light rail options have been rejected by Clark County voters.

8:24 If the City Tram 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 26-004, staff report 26-24 declares this resolution. Now therefore it be resolved that City Tran strongly recommends that light rail transit extend beyond the planned waterfront station and connect with City Tran's existing and planned bus system at a multimodal hub by Evergreen Boulevard near Library Square to achieve the stated purpose and needs of the interstate bridge program. The pramble even states, whereas recent interstate bridge replacement program analysis proposed that light rail transit terminate at the Vancouver waterfront station area

9:24 rather than near the planned station at Evergreen Boulevard near Library Square. Why is the City Tran Board adamant on some LRT solution instead of recognizing that it is not feasible, not supported by Clark County citizens, ill-advised, support by IBR and other governmental agencies are appearing dubious or contracting, subject to questionable funding, if any, and the LRT, let alone the IRB, is becoming synonymous with infamous government failures such as California high-speed rail. I'm sure the City Tran Board has more productive utilization of time in that respect. The LRT option is appearing to be a pipe dream, dubious, and de-supported by data. Thank you very much. - Thanks, 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

10:23 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, 15,000 square feet of retail space. In the January 2026 Joe Courtright

11:22 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 Courtright revealed estimate jumped six-fold 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.

12:19 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 is slashing service on both light rail and bus service. TriMet slashing service and cutting costs, and yet they need a $66 million overnight facility at Expo?

13:15 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.

13:38 (clears throat) - Good evening, Chair and Council. Oops. Am I done? (laughs) 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 overbridge, 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.

14:36 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 gonna do a design, build bridge, when we have no idea how many pillars there's gonna be? You can be in the water for three and a half months a year, so how long is this bridge really gonna 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 attend, it's always raise more taxes, right? Which, in turn, has to raise more wages to pay those taxes.

15:35 We gotta 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 gonna put in here? How's anything gonna 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 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 wanting to build this. Honestly, I just don't get it. And I can see why there's a lot of cows. You know what 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.

16:35 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.

17:02 - Hello, Douglas Tweet, Kamas. 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 three and a half billion dollar light rail and 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 a two auxiliary lane both ways, and it actually does significantly reduce congestion. So I went through the FSEIS and found where they compare the congestion, travel time, extent of congestion, both northbound and southbound, for 2019 and 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.

18:01 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, neither design improves much over southbound, but it makes a big difference in northbound in the afternoon. The two auxiliary designs was 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 IBR admits it, and yet they recommend the one auxiliary lane. Why don't they go for the better one? Now, 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... 205, Interchain Salmon Creek, downtown Vancouver, I-5 Bridge, all the way down to Markham Bridge.

18:59 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 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. See, 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. Two auxiliary lanes, that northbound thing is gone. There's just a little slow down 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 gonna do for freight. Should really help with freight. Could help with freight, all kinds of vehicles, et cetera. Including buses.

19:59 So if building a bridge for the next 100 years, we should build it to reduce traffic ingestion as much as possible. Two auxiliary lanes are clearly better than one. - Thank you, next up, Margaret Tweet. - Good evening, Board. At the April 21st ABR presentation, the Capital Investment Grant, CIG program, was said to require light rail. 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.

20:55 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.

21:53 Three and a half billion dollars 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 wasn't 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. Jamie Herrera-Butler 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 at TriMet. It turns out that the yellow line, green line, and orange line have ridership projections

22:52 that have been missed by large margins, which also is contrary to a note that IBR sent explaining 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 did not attain the ridership forecast. This is concerning. - Thank you. And Cindy, do we have anybody else on the line? - Caller, if you could please hit star six to unmute yourself and please announce your name. - God evening. God evening, Kimberly Goheen-Elbin, Live Citizen of Clark County, Washington. So I looked up when a government lies. It's called clipped optocracy. A government run by thieves

23:52 who lie to hide their embezzlement of public funds. I concur with everybody 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, the 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

24:51 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 thinning down a little bit? We've got too big of a government here. And we are in a big state of democracy,

25:48 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 to 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 don't want light rail here. You guys are going to help Portland with their TriMet stuff, and over there, and that's what this is all about. Somebody's 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,

26:45 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 gonna pay for it eventually. - Thank you, Ms. Sullivan. - And that's the only thing I can say, thank you. - And that's everybody online? Excellent, okay. Then we're gonna 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. - Do we have a second? - Second. - We have a motion and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Aye. - Aye. - Opposed? All right, that passes. And moving on to the action items,

27:43 we have action item number one, contract award, bus stop design guide update, staff report 26-022, Taylor. - Good evening, Chair, members of the board. I'm happy to be here tonight to present staff report 26-022 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

28:42 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, ProWAG. 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

29:40 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 multimodal 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

30:38 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 stops typology. Providing clear and illustrative standards

31:37 will make it easier and more likely that developers and city engineers build C-Tran-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 '25-'26 budget. Tonight, we're asking that the board of directors authorize the CEO to execute a contract with Tool 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. Few questions.

32:35 This is a not to exceed. - Yes. - Budget, C-Tran, any incentive, or what is the incentive to come under budget? - So we have a contract with Tool that we'll put in place. The reason for not to exceed here is primarily 'cause this is a little bit of a unique contract type, and that we'll be working with jurisdictions across the county, and we wanna 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, Chair, if it'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,

33:33 what is 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

34:33 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 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. - Thank you. - Any other comments or questions? All right, do I hear a motion?

35:28 - Kim Harless, move to approve. - Second. - Got a motion and a second, all those in favor say aye. - Aye. - Opposed? All right, that passes, moving on to the next one. Contract Amendment Award, 65th Campus Development, Northeast 18th Street Site Improvement Phase 5A, staff report 26-023, and it looks like we have Randy Parker. - Good evening, thank you, chair, members of the board. Yeah, this is staff report 26-23, regarding the improvements at our 65th campus specifically. - Randy, can you get closer to that mic? - Specifically the 5A improvements, which if you remember was the employee parking lot, the parking lot for the equipment, a new driveway, excuse me, and a signal at the intersection of 18th and 65th.

36:25 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. SLE is 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 mouse storm, which happened today and tomorrow, and then the final asphalt paving striping. This proposal seeks an amendment to add $100,000 to the SLE contract to cover these outstanding change orders and 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 SLE, Inc. to add an additional $100,000 for outstanding and future change orders.

37:25 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 and a second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. - Aye. - Aye. - And opposed? All right, that passes as well. Moving on to item number three, C-Tran Light Rail LRT, Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, BRT Staff Report, 26-024, 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 resolution was based off of the original MLPA

38:23 that was adopted in 2022. City of Vancouver passed a resolution April 13th of this year regarding the new phasing that IBR has presented. And from staff's point of view at this time, we just, our priority right now is to make sure that C-Tran remains reliable, connected, and accessible for our riders and our region. And this is no matter where light rail terminates, but we want to manage the impact to our C-Tran system as it progresses. Open to discussion. - Any comments from the board? Ryan. - 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,

39:22 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 be looking at in terms of advocating for specifically? - Yeah, appreciate, excuse me, appreciate the question. So the current proposal to terminate at the waterfront station, it's an elevated station, it's about close to 91 feet in the air. The MLPA that Leanne had referred to, and still really is in place with the Evergreen terminus, it would be connecting at street level with all of C-TRAN's BRTs 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,

40:21 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 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 doesn't do a lot to really improve the transit landscape and the interaction that our riders are gonna have from transferring to our bus system, which will be very limited at the waterfront to light rail.

41:19 And so this has been, I think, termed many times a 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 gonna bring it to Vancouver, if the primary focus is on connecting it as best as it can to the C-TRAN system, we believe that getting it to Evergreen at least makes more sense in that respect. I hope that helps. - Thank you, Chair. Follow-up question to Board Member Davis's question. - Can you please make sure you're speaking to the mic? - Yeah, thank you. Follow-up question to Board Member Davis's question. So while it seems to make sense to extend it

42:15 for transit riders in C-TRAN to Evergreen, additional cost is gonna be incurred, right? The projected cost is what again? - Yeah, so 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 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 six and a half minutes

43:15 down to an assumed 15-minute headways. And so a lot of that more intense capital infrastructure of 19 buses, 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 three and a half billion assumed 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, and we're hoping to get it from IBR very soon, but right now I don't feel like I have a decent number estimate to be able to get beyond that. - Thank you, may I have some follow-up there? So understanding it's an estimate,

44:13 who pays the billion on the capital, and then what would be C-TRAN's responsibilities, or what would be C-TRAN's financial liabilities on the operating side? How would that extension affect C-TRAN? - Yeah, 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 capital dollars that are gonna be needed to be able to get it that far north. I will say that there is, and this is, I believe, part of IBR's presentation here last month as well, they currently don't have enough funding to get it to the waterfront terminus as well, so they're still a little bit short. I can't speak for IBR, but I believe that they are having

45:10 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 program is gonna have to continue to address. - Thank you, so in the end, the extension of this project to Evergreen benefits C-TRAN in terms of the ability to support ridership? - Yeah, yes. - Or C-TRAN ridership? - Yeah, I guess the way I would answer it is it would benefit C-TRAN's riders, and really when you're talking about connectivity through the regional system, 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

46:08 of getting it there, so 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 have a couple of concerns. One is that IBR 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 extending to Evergreen makes the most sense, and I don't know if it was considered

47:04 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 is underway. But I think just being silent doesn't strike me as the right approach. - Ryan? - Thank you. I would agree. I think that it is definitely our responsibility to advocate for the system, and if we can demonstrate that there would be a negative impact on ridership and connectivity, I appreciate the thought process that if you're gonna do it, do it right.

48:02 I feel like it would be better if our board was able to communicate some sort of acknowledgement of the financial impact, and being willing to 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 up for one, recognizing that extra cost, not just saying, "Hey, we don't like it. "We need an extra billion bucks." But finding ways to be a part of that solution. I would like to see us 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.

49:01 - I just have a follow-up question. How would you see that follow-up? How would you define that? - I mean, I guess in my mind, continuing to work with the project team, working alongside some of our regional partners, being willing to explore creative solutions, I agree. Like, 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 could present that increases economic development, or maybe there's extra pots of money

50:00 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 Parliss, thank you for your council member. I think part of the challenge of having that conversation is we haven't been given numbers that are relative to what Councilor Marshall brought up, which is not just the extension, but an or question, not an and question. Like what is the cost of the library square terminus versus the waterfront? 'Cause the conversation has been about extension, but what about an or question?

50:59 I would prioritize that hub versus any construction at the waterfront. But even the way that this is designed is an and question of extending beyond. And that's been my frustration, 'cause then we can't have that dialogue of how we might be able to support when we aren't provided that information.

51:27 - Thank you. - Thank you, Chair. I definitely agree, Ryan. So one, we need a system that maximizes C-trans investments. And that is a terminus at library square. At the same time, there is also that, 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 gonna be building the bridge and trying to make sure that the conversation

52:26 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 potentially there are other alignments that have a lower cost associated with them. So this isn't definitive. We can't force somebody to give us more money. We can't force more money to be spent. But this is saying we want to continue this conversation forward. And that just assuming, or just accepting what has been said so far doesn't, may sell us short from having those back and forth conversations. Thank you.

53:25 - Could we pull up the actual resolution on the screen? Thank you.

53:54 (silence) Let me know when you want me to.

54:24 (silence) 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 Council Member Stover was alluding to. We're not going to not ask for 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, while we want to maintain dialogue,

55:20 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 O and M. And specifically state in here that if there are additional or additional costs that are determined to be in this project if it's approved, C-TRAN's 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 IBR 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 that is something that you'd like to pursue, I would say please, by all means. But I don't know if it would be appropriate at this particular junction because we're looking for just this particular change

56:19 on this document. - My concern is that if it's not that intense, it's 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 to designate who would pay for the difference of going from waterfront to library square. - The difference here that while this is supported, this may be supported. Well, it's not supported to see transporting any of the future costs on this. 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 cost that we as a board decide to refer to the voters. So I think I can support this as written.

57:18 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. Long as there's an agreement that can't be held, we put on the vote for something in the future that encumbers this organization. - Is there an amendment you'd like to make? - Yes, it is. Chair, I make a motion that an additional paragraph be inserted into the resolution. This resolution, BR2026-004 be amended

58:16 to include a paragraph that states that C-TRAN will not be held responsible for any additional capital or operating costs that may result from this added extension. - Second. - We have an amendment and now time for discussion. Do I hear any other discussion, Sue? - I feel like we voted on this a year ago. In terms of having permissive language about C-TRAN pursuing funding. So I feel like that had already been decided a year ago. I don't see, I wouldn't support adding it. - Any other comments to the amendment? - Chair. - Will. - Yeah, this is Councilor Fuentes.

59:12 I agree with Board Member Sue Marshall. 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, Board Member, I'm not sure where you're proposing a paragraph be added. - It could go right after the last where at. - Chair, suggesting, specifically you're suggesting, you're, you have proposed an amendment for another where at or, you are correct.

1:00:09 Put it, put it in last, added as a last where as before the 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 a motion. It's an amendment. I'm just not sure what we're amending. - No. - Because there's no motion to adopt it. - 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, it's fine. - Thank you, and can we do an original motion? - Chair, move to approve the resolution VR2026.

1:01:05 - Do we have a second? - Ms. 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 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.

1:02:03 And this is going to be stated as a whereas? - That's correct. - Okay. - Chair. - Do you have it? - May I just add-- - Oh, please hold on. - Director, that motion or that amendment would make more sense if it's in part of the resolved statement, the whereases. - I will absolutely defer to legal opinion on that. - Yeah, yeah, okay. So would the proposed amendment would be added at the end of the IBR, parenthesis, period, of the resolved statement and not a whereas? - Be it resolved. All right, so we don't have a problem putting it in there.

1:03:00 - The proposed amendment isn't a whereas form. 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 the proposed amendment language, maybe you read the entire resolved statement with that amendment language at the end? - Just for clarification, there's a proposed amendment that's been seconded, so 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 it resolved? - Do I need legal, do I need to withdraw that

1:03:58 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 aye. - Aye. - Aye. - Opposed? - No. - No. - Can we use hands and do that again, please? - Let's go ahead and do a roll call vote.

1:04:28 (gavel bangs) - Ryan Davis. - No, or yes, aye, sorry. - Will Fuentes. - No. - Kim Harless. - Nay. - Bart Hanson. - Nay. - Tim Hein. - Yes. - Sue Marshall. - No. - Ann McInerney-Ogle. - No. - Ty Stober. - No. - Glen Young. - Nay. - All right, I believe the nays have it. Do you wanna make a comment real quick? You were reaching for the-- - No. - Okay, so that brings us back to the original amendment

1:05:27 or the original motion. And are there any other comments on that? - Hi, Chair. I'd like to propose an amendment for discussion of where it says now therefore be it resolved that C-Trans Darling 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 between beyond and the planned waterfront station. - Second. - Comments, we have a motion and a second. Do we have any comments on the amendment? - Chair. This is a tough one here because just joining this board, I don't know, I have not paid attention

1:06:27 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 gonna cost just a little bit more to actually build in the station. I think the only 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 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 take place. I'm definitely open to seeing how we can creatively solve this, but at the same time, we have to be very careful

1:07:25 to make sure that the needs of the long-term 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. 'Cause that doesn't come across to me when reading this resolution,

1:08:24 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 that maybe that makes that more clear, but that is my intent. - Chair. - Council Member Fuentes. - Yeah, I just want to clarify what Board Member Kim Harless is saying. So are you saying that we change the language so it prioritizes Evergreen, possibly at the risk of not having the waterfront built? Is that correct? - So since we don't know a lot,

1:09:23 there might be a cost savings to maybe not fully constructing the waterfront and maybe just putting in the infrastructure for future inclusion, whatever that 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, 'cause we don't have those details, that there was 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 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.

1:10:23 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, then it's the decision that we can make later. This is just a recommendation of extending the LRT to Evergreen. - Other thoughts?

1:10:47 - 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 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 station and connect with C-TRAN's existing and planned bus system at a multimodal hub by Evergreen Boulevard near Library Square. Do you want the or to go? - 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,

1:11:47 is what my original proposal was. - Extend beyond or planned? - Or instead of. - Or instead of, okay. 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-TRAN's existing and planned bus system at a multimodal hub by Evergreen Boulevard near Library Square to achieve the stated purpose and needs of the... - Okay, comments? - Chair, I just, I think that there will be years still

1:12:43 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 appreciate the amendment, but I think I'm cautious and will not support it. - I agree with that. I think it's 91 feet up in the air. I think it is unrealistic to think that we're gonna 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 gonna find some local money

1:13:41 or something in the future to build that 'cause it is 90 feet in the air. It is gonna be incredibly expensive. - I would agree with that. I like the spirit of the amendment though, 'cause I feel like it is offering a solution. It's offering flexibility. It's saying, hey, like, you know, and I understand we're gonna have other conversations about prioritization, but I think that it is important for us 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. 91 feet in the air is gonna be daunting for anybody to go down and access the waterfront, whether there's determinants there or it's an intermittent stop. It's the challenge of the hike and period. So I think the amendment offers another potential solution.

1:14:38 - I appreciate the sentiment of the proposed amendment, but I am also...

1:15:02 There's not enough nuance to me in the proposed amendment, 'cause if it goes in as stated, 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 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 gonna 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 it read again? All right. - Okay, so this is Kim's amended version.

1:16:01 Ryan Davis. - Aye. - Will Fuentes. - No. - Kim Harless. - Aye. - Bart Hanson. - Nay. - Tim Hein. - Yes. - Sue Marshall. - No. - Ann McInerney-Ogle. - No. - Ty Stover. - No. - Glenn Young. - No. - Okay, that addresses the amendment. Now back to the original motion. Are there any, Ryan? - Yeah, I'm gonna go third times 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

1:16:57 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 the stated purpose and needs of 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 colleagues here and say, hey, this is a resolution. We're trying to prioritize. We're trying to be flexible. I just go back to, I guess, my original comment of saying, how can we be part of that process and be flexible and work with our partners to find the money and make it so it can happen, not just say, hey, we don't like this, we wanna 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?

1:17:57 - 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 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.

1:18:53 - 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 gonna 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 data and some opportunity to the conversation to make it more realistic. - Other comments?

1:19:50 - Great, we have a motion and a second and I'm not seeing any other comments. Let's go ahead and go back to a roll call vote, Cindy. - Ryan Davis. - Yes. - Will Fuentes. - No. - Kim Harless. - Nay. - Bart Hanson. - Nay. - Tim Hein. - Yes. - Sue Marshall. - No. - Ann McEnerny-Ogle. - No. - Ty Stober. - Aye. - Len Young. - No. - Okay, I believe the nays have it.

1:20:48 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. - Aye. - Bart Hanson. - Aye. - Tim Hein. - No. - Sue Marshall. - Aye. - Ann McEnerny-Ogle. - Aye. - Ty Stober. - Aye. - Len Young. - Aye. - Okay, I believe the nays 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

1:21:45 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 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. Ryan. - 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 may be helping throw out the first pitch, we'll see. We'll see how my arm feels. But I plan on riding the current up there, just because parking can be a little tight in the Rook parking lot. But I hope to see everybody out there at some point during the season.

1:22:45 - Thank you, Ryan. Tim. - Okay, go ahead. - Thank you, chair. Also like to thank staff for putting on a very good retreat. Thought it was a really good day, productive, and a lot of work to do as a result. Thanks for doing that. And then second, thank you also to C-TRAN for the support at the Camas Plant and Garden Fair. Thanks. - Any others? Moving on to Leanne. - Thank you, chair. Thank you, board of directors. For the C-TRAN board retreat, thank you for those that were able to make it. Another layer that we do have some further discussions that happened 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,

1:23:43 where we'll be able to start a little earlier in the day and then be able to roll into our board meeting. So everyone check calendars and we'll look for the doodle poll and we'll be looking to get that date solidified. Again, thank you. Welcome Glenn Young and Kim Harless to the board. We're glad to have you and thank you for being willing to serve in our community. And we look forward to your perspectives and we'll 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 new board directors and returning ones as well 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 'cause it's been over 10 years that C-TRAN has participated in such competition.

1:24:38 We'll have Andrew Monahan, Jesse Page and Devon 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 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 Kamas 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 useful and that hope of the event was successful as well. We will be also, C-TRAN will also be participating in the CMAQ, the Community Military Appreciation Committee on Memorial Day again at the Fort Vancouver

1:25:37 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 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 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 communities and transit agencies 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.

1:26:36 But we will be also doing some proclamations with our local cities. So look forward to doing those and seeing our Ride Transit Month going and a staff will be doing as well. We'll 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 lawsuit is closed and done. The judge signed the order to dismiss with prejudice two weeks ago. So 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 557.