Bothell approves $1.08 million FHWA planning grant for 102nd Avenue NE Bridge after debate over federal conditions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Council voted 6–1 to authorize the city manager to accept a $1,080,000 FHWA planning grant (with a $275,000 local match) for the 102nd Avenue NE Bridge replacement study after discussing federal contract language and recent injunctions in King County v. Turner and California v. Duffy.
Christopher Stilwell, the city's capital projects engineer and project manager for the 102nd Avenue NE Bridge replacement, told the council the planning grant would fund a type/size/location study, geotechnical investigation, permitting analysis and extensive public outreach. He said the city applied in February 2024 and was awarded the full $1,080,000; the grant carries a $275,000 local match and an obligation deadline of Sept. 2026.
Stilwell and staff noted the city joined litigation challenging certain federal grant conditions and that two federal cases — King County v. Turner and California v. Duffy — have produced injunctions that affect some FHWA and USDOT contract language. Staff recommended approving the grant while inserting conditions in the city’s signature template to strike objectionable provisions and to operate under the guidance of the court rulings; staff said the city could repay funds or revisit the decision if legal outcomes change.
Councilmembers asked how the planning money would be spent, whether the city could fund the work from the local budget if it declined federal funds, and what the schedule and downstream costs would be. Presenters said the planning study would likely take about a year; design was estimated at roughly two years, environmental work 1.5–2 years and construction currently planned for about 2031. They warned that declining the grant would reduce the city's project capacity and make future federal funding harder to obtain.
Council member Kirk moved to approve the resolution authorizing the city manager to execute a grant agreement with FHWA consistent with the cited court rulings; the motion passed 6–1, with Council member Alcabra voting no. Council members who supported the motion emphasized protecting the city’s values by striking problematic contract language and relying on court injunctions; the dissenting vote voiced concern about negotiating with federal agencies and the risk that promised protections might not hold.
Next steps: staff will draft the signed grant agreement with the recommended conditions and proceed to obligate the grant funding in advance of the Sept. 2026 deadline.