Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mukilteo staff outlines 525‑bridge design, $5M 5th‑Street construction grant and other capital projects
Summary
City public works staff updated the council on major projects: the SR‑525 bridge has $46 million in funding and moves into design; the 5th Street bike/ped project received a $5 million federal DOT construction grant (project will be federalized); staff discussed grant strategies, pavement preservation tradeoffs and park‑and‑ride siting.
City public works staff presented a capital projects briefing focused on transportation and pavement preservation, giving council members updates on funding, schedule and grant strategy.
Staff said the SR‑525 bridge replacement project is entering design and that $46,000,000 in funding has been identified (staff did not state the full estimated project cost). "They have $46,000,000 in funding for it," the presenter said, and engineering and right‑of‑way work will continue over the next 1–2 years before construction begins.
The city also reported accepting a $5,000,000 federal DOT grant for the 5th Street bike‑and‑pedestrian project; because the money is federal the project must be administered under federal requirements, which staff called a "big lift." Staff walked the council through other corridor projects (47th, Chennault, Harbor Point Boulevard), a proposed Cyrus Way South corridor improvement and options for park‑and‑ride and parking facilities near the waterfront.
On pavement preservation, staff explained the trade‑offs between slurry (chip) seal and asphalt overlay: slurry seal is less expensive and may extend useful life by about seven years but yields an inferior surface and requires full‑day street closures; overlays cost more but can last decades. Staff estimated an annual pavement preservation program would cost roughly $950,000 with slurry added or about $1.5 million for overlays alone.
Council members asked staff to provide a side‑by‑side analysis of service levels, costs and timing for options so the council can better evaluate trade‑offs and grant opportunities; staff agreed to return with more detailed cost and schedule information. No vote was taken.
