Cross_cutting

42:34 Dennis Rieger. No. Devin Rick. Yes. Temple Lintz. Yes. Bill Eyal. Yes. Ryan Winsheimer. Yes. Christine Lewis. Yes. I show the motion passing 10 to 5. Okay. With that, thank you all for the robust conversation. Yes. Sorry. My apologies. That's okay. I make a motion to reconsider a previous vote and ask legal counsel on the procedures. We would like to consider a previous vote that was made this evening. Well, that is possible. The board so chooses.

43:29 You can reconsider an action taken by the board. The motion is to reconsider consent agenda item C. This was the 2026, 2029 transportation improvement program. The amendments submitted by RTAC, the last bullet at the bottom of the blue page. If you'll pull up blue document C. The last bullet is the I-5 Columbia River Bridge replacement transit design, a new project to advance post-NEPA transit design for the

44:22 light rail transit elements north and south of the Columbia River Bridge replacement total programmed for project $50 million. This is the fourth project on the step that is the $50 million design for 60% that will be asking TriMet to design north and south elements. We would like instead of elements north and south for it to read for the light rail transit from Expo to Library Square of the Columbia River Bridge replacement.

45:14 So instead of just elements north and south for it to say for the light rail transit from Expo to Library Square, again, this is a $50 million project to TriMet to design the transit. They will start in 2027 using $50 million, only to the 60%, it's at 30% now. As we look at this as an opportunity to reinforce what we just passed with action item 6.

46:12 >> I was on the prevailing side of the vote. I understand that a second would be needed. >> Let's go ahead and start with discussion. We'll have a roll call vote on this as well. So just a question, my question is about the amendment, not about whether or not we are taking it up and just wanting to make sure that I'm talking about the right thing. So I'm curious what impact making this change would have on funding eligibility, just the process and motion and the timelines that we have. >> I would hand that off to our executive director.

47:06 >> So the question is, should this be amended, what is the impact? We've looked at this and let me just wait. >> Point of order, sorry, motion to reconsider would be reconsidering the entire consent agenda. That's what we voted on, right? >> True, the reconsideration. >> It would be taking back the vote on all of the consent items. So we should probably do that first, right? >> You're correct, there was a vote, a unanimous vote on the acceptance of the consent agenda as a whole. So I think we do need to go back and undo that step in order to consider a specific item on that consent agenda. >> So we need to take a vote on a reconsideration before we have discussion, is that? >> Yes. >> Okay, my apologies. With that, we will go ahead and start a roll call vote on reconsideration of the consent agenda.

48:05 >> Chair, excuse me, I have a point of information. >> Sure, please go ahead. >> Yeah, where's this information that the mayor just spoke of on our packet? I'm having a hard time finding what she was delineating out. >> It's the subject is 2026-2029 transportation improvement programs/amendments. It's action consent agenda item C resolution 626-21. And if you go to that page, it's the very bottom bullet point on the first page. >> So this is, we're re-actioning an item in the consent agenda, is that correct? >> We're going to repeal the approval of the consent agenda so that we can reconsider the consent agenda amendment. >> Yes, we're repealing the approval, unanimous approval of the consent agenda in order to go back and look at a specific consent agenda item.

49:01 >> So how I see this going is if the board so desires to rescind approval of the consent agenda, we would then discuss amending the consent agenda. So that is the intent of reconsidering