Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vision Zero topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mill Creek council adopts 'Vision 0' safety resolution, council says approval required for federal implementation grants
Summary
The Mill Creek City Council voted 6-0 to adopt a resolution endorsing Vision 0 and to direct staff to return with actionable steps; staff said failing to adopt the statement would make the city ineligible for certain Safe Streets for All implementation grants.
The Mill Creek City Council voted 6-0 to adopt a resolution endorsing Vision 0 — a goal to eliminate roadway fatalities and serious injuries — and directed staff to return with methods and feasibility analysis for pursuing the goal.
Dan Carmody, the city engineer, told the council Vision 0 is “a strategy. It is a goal. It is a method to improve the roadway safety by significantly reducing and eventually eliminating fatalities and serious injuries.” He said the city’s comprehensive safety action plan, funded through the Safe Streets for All grant, includes leadership commitment and goal-setting that the resolution would memorialize.
The resolution places the city in alignment with a broader Safe System approach promoted by the Federal Highway Administration and referenced state targets such as Washington State Department of Transportation’s stated target of zero by 2030. City staff said the Safe Streets for All implementation grants require a local political commitment to the Vision 0 goal as part of eligibility.
Council member Cavallari said some whereas clauses could be read as admitting liability, asking whether language like “crashes that result in death or serious injury are not inevitable, but largely preventable” could expose the city. Carmody and a staff legal speaker, Grant, answered that the resolution is aspirational and that section 3 merely directs staff to return with feasible, appropriate recommendations for achieving the goal.
Grant said, “The statements contained in the...whereas provisions, I don't think, create liability. We're not identifying that we have streets that are, in some way deficient from a design perspective.” Council discussed the practical effect of the resolution and whether not passing it would affect grant eligibility; staff answered that it would make the city ineligible for Safe Streets for All implementation grants and could affect the current grant requirement.
After a motion to adopt the resolution, the council voted unanimously. The council did not adopt an implementing ordinance or specific design changes at the meeting; staff were directed to return with recommended actions and feasibility analysis.
The council also earlier amended the agenda to add an executive session to discuss potential litigation pursuant to RCW 42.30.110(1)(i); no action followed the executive session.
What happens next: staff will return to the council with the comprehensive safety action plan’s recommended actions and supporting data, and with information on grant steps and timelines.
