City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee · Tuesday, May 14, 2024 · City Council Digest

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of April 10, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 1:03 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 04-10-24 City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Page (1) Committee Minutes CITY OF ISSAQUAH City Council Mobility & Infrastructure Committee 6:30 PM Council Chambers, 135 E. April 10, 2024 MINUTES Sunset Way, Issaquah WA

4. AGENDA ITEMS

2025-2030 Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan COM 0011

45 min · Gregory Lucas, Senior Transportation Engineer John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager · packet pp.7–77

Topics: Transportation

Previously discussed: Environmental Board · Mar 13, 2024 Transportation Advisory Board · Mar 27, 2024

▶ Watch from 1:13 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

The purpose of tonight’s Council Mobility and Infrastructure Committee meeting is to provide an opportunity for the Mobility and Infrastructure Committee to review, discuss, and provide feedback on the transportation infrastructure projects and programs proposed in the draft 2025-2030 Transportation Improvement Program.

1109 segments .txt ↗

0:06 ↗ uh welcome everyone I'm uh council

0:07 ↗ member Chris Ray and I'm going to call

0:09 ↗ to order the May 14th 2024 city council

0:13 ↗ mobility and infrastructure committee uh

0:15 ↗ with me say is Deputy council president

0:17 ↗ Barbara D Michelle and council member

0:19 ↗ Zach Hall um there are multiple public

0:23 ↗ uh comment opportunities at tonight's

0:25 ↗ meeting there will be a general public

0:27 ↗ comment opportunity at the beginning of

0:28 ↗ the meeting or you may make make public

0:30 ↗ comment after

0:32 ↗ presentation and Council question answer

0:35 ↗ um so members of the public May address

0:38 ↗ the council at this time at this time

0:41 ↗ even in person or virtually city clerk

0:44 ↗ do we have anyone uh online with us or

0:46 ↗ um not in the room chair Ray no one has

0:50 ↗ signed up uh prior to the meeting and we

0:53 ↗ have no virtual attendees at this time

0:55 ↗ all right then I'm going to skip forward

0:58 ↗ a little bit and go to the agenda for

1:00 ↗ this evening's meeting uh first order of

1:03 ↗ business is approval of the minutes uh

1:05 ↗ any objection to approving the minutes

1:07 ↗ from the April 10th 2024 meeting seeing

1:11 ↗ no objections the meeting minutes are

1:13 ↗ approved we have a single agenda item

1:16 ↗ for today's meeting it is Comm

1:19 ↗ 0011 the 2025 to 2030 6-year

1:24 ↗ Transportation Improvement plan it's

1:26 ↗ going to be presented to us this evening

1:27 ↗ by Greg Lucas uh senior trans

1:29 ↗ Transportation engineer uh with support

1:32 ↗ from John Mortenson transportation

1:34 ↗ engineering manager so with that Greg

1:37 ↗ I'm going to turn it over to you thank

1:39 ↗ you for being

1:51 ↗ here all right hopefully you guys can

1:53 ↗ hear me okay uh good evening uh mobility

1:57 ↗ and infrastructure committee my name is

1:59 ↗ Greg Lucas and I'm an engineer in the

2:00 ↗ public works department I'm here to

2:03 ↗ present on behalf of the 25 to 2030

2:06 ↗ 6-year Transportation Improvement

2:10 ↗ program John mortson is also available

2:13 ↗ on the

2:17 ↗ digitally uh the purpose of tonight's

2:20 ↗ presentation uh is to provide an

2:21 ↗ opportunity for this committee to review

2:23 ↗ to discuss and to provide feedback on

2:26 ↗ the transportation projects and programs

2:28 ↗ proposed in the draft Transportation

2:30 ↗ Improvement

2:33 ↗ program and tonight we are seeking

2:36 ↗ feedback from the committee on the

2:38 ↗ proposed Transportation

2:42 ↗ impr uh for a little bit of background

2:44 ↗ on tonight's presentation um every two

2:47 ↗ years the city adopts a six-year Capital

2:51 ↗ Improvement

2:52 ↗ plan this is a process where staff

2:55 ↗ reviews uh expenditures and revenues and

2:58 ↗ plans out projects for the next six

3:01 ↗ years projects include Transportation

3:03 ↗ but other asset

3:04 ↗ categories uh such as Parks facilities

3:07 ↗ and utilities are also

3:10 ↗ process the chapter in the capital

3:12 ↗ Improvement plan relating to

3:14 ↗ Transportation doubles as Improvement

3:17 ↗ program U however state law requires

3:20 ↗ agencies such as the city of is LA to

3:23 ↗ adopt a transportation Improvement

3:24 ↗ program every year by July

3:27 ↗ 1st in years such as this where there is

3:30 ↗ no Capital Improvement program update we

3:32 ↗ need to adopt an updated Transportation

3:34 ↗ Improvement program as a

3:37 ↗ program um and at a high level the uh

3:40 ↗ Transportation Improvement program

3:41 ↗ identifies projects and programs uh

3:45 ↗ which phase are in uh whether it's

3:47 ↗ design or rideway acquisition

3:49 ↗ construction or planning um and either

3:53 ↗ identify secured or recently expected

3:55 ↗ funding sources and the amount um most

3:59 ↗ St and Federal grant opportunities

4:01 ↗ require projects to be in the

4:03 ↗ transportation Improvement

4:05 ↗ program um the master Mobility plan that

4:10 ↗ was adopted in 2021 uh this planning

4:13 ↗ document uh

4:15 ↗ is a foundation document used to help uh

4:18 ↗ the transportation Improvement program

4:20 ↗ with its guiding principles evaluation

4:23 ↗ uh criteria and the scoring in the

4:24 ↗ planning

4:26 ↗ document talk a little bit more about

4:28 ↗ that later on on

4:31 ↗ presentation this year uh we've

4:33 ↗ presented at three Transportation

4:35 ↗ Advisory board

4:36 ↗ meetings and once with the environmental

4:38 ↗ board to discuss the transportation

4:39 ↗ Improvement program and uh minor changes

4:42 ↗ to the project prioritization

4:44 ↗ process um and then during the uh

4:46 ↗ assembly of this year's Transportation

4:48 ↗ Improvement program uh the

4:50 ↗ administration was also considering

4:52 ↗ available funding sources both within

4:53 ↗ the city Only

5:01 ↗ um this slide has been used previously

5:04 ↗ it's intended to demonstrate how the

5:06 ↗ transportation Improvement program fits

5:08 ↗ not only within the capital Improvement

5:10 ↗ program uh but also with the policies

5:13 ↗ identified in the city's comprehensive

5:15 ↗ plan as a whole um projects in the

5:19 ↗ capital Improvement plan and

5:21 ↗ transportation Improvement program like

5:24 ↗ the goals and policies established by

5:26 ↗ many of the uh City Planning documents

5:29 ↗ such as the mobility master plan uh the

5:32 ↗ ongoing Transit study its plan strategic

5:41 ↗ plan uh the transportation Improvement

5:44 ↗ program has a variety uh project types

5:47 ↗ and programs within it there's annual

5:51 ↗ projects such as pavement Management

5:53 ↗ program and Ada

5:55 ↗ improvements there's projects underway

5:57 ↗ such as the Newport Way Maple the Sun

6:00 ↗ set ways Southeast

6:03 ↗ 54900 improvements on Northwest samamish

6:07 ↗ Road multimodal improvements Juniper

6:11 ↗ Street centrala multimodal on any

6:14 ↗ Crossing name a few uh there's also

6:18 ↗ projects being worked on uh with Public

6:20 ↗ Safety in mind uh referred to here as

6:23 ↗ mandated projects a couple of those

6:24 ↗ include the landslide repair on Newport

6:27 ↗ Way which is in a permitting process

6:31 ↗ project to replace the retaining wall on

6:33 ↗ black Nugget Road behind redm

6:37 ↗ area there's also plans to retrofit a

6:40 ↗ bridge on

6:43 ↗ Gilman over I

6:48 ↗ believe the draft 2025 to 2030

6:52 ↗ Transportation Improvement has a few new

6:55 ↗ priority projects uh we're

6:58 ↗ proposing to

7:00 ↗ begin the planning and design a few

7:02 ↗ years out we'll get into greater detail

7:04 ↗ a little later and the projects that

7:06 ↗ have been identified but do not have

7:08 ↗ funding sources identified yet are the

7:10 ↗ long-term

7:12 ↗ project these projects could be included

7:21 ↗ in um when the mobility master plan was

7:23 ↗ implemented in 2021 it was used for over

7:27 ↗ 100 projects based off The Guiding

7:30 ↗ principles and Associated scoring

7:32 ↗ criteria within each principle uh the

7:35 ↗ top scored projects were uh City's

7:38 ↗ priority and implemented or included in

7:42 ↗ that that Year's uh Transportation

7:44 ↗ Improvement

7:46 ↗ program projects that were not included

7:48 ↗ were recognized as future

7:51 ↗ Investments these are generally seen in

7:53 ↗ the back of all's Transportation

7:55 ↗ Improvement program identified as future

7:58 ↗ year projects

8:00 ↗ the development of this year's

8:02 ↗ Transportation impr Improvement program

8:04 ↗ began by evaluating if any changes were

8:06 ↗ needed to The Guiding principles of the

8:07 ↗ mobility master plan they review of

8:10 ↗ future year projects from the uh

8:12 ↗ previous year's

8:20 ↗ Transportation um so as I mentioned

8:21 ↗ earlier we we met three times with the

8:24 ↗ the tab this year to discuss the

8:26 ↗ transportation Improvement program and

8:29 ↗ the to select the projects in January we

8:32 ↗ gave a a high level

8:34 ↗ overview of kind of what the tip is and

8:36 ↗ the steps towards implementing it um

8:39 ↗ February we focused on The Guiding

8:41 ↗ principles evaluation criteria and

8:43 ↗ scoring of the mobility master plan uh

8:46 ↗ during this meeting with the tab um some

8:49 ↗ minor

8:50 ↗ changes uh were made um to the improve

8:54 ↗ mobility within isqua and promote

8:56 ↗ environment guiding

8:57 ↗ principles and then finally March we met

9:00 ↗ with the tab again review and discuss

9:02 ↗ the uh ration Improvement program and

9:05 ↗ the project that we're

9:08 ↗ at we also met with the environmental

9:10 ↗ board um this discussion was around the

9:14 ↗ promote environment guiding principle of

9:15 ↗ the mobility master plan and the updates

9:18 ↗ that were made to it from the February

9:19 ↗ tab

9:21 ↗ meeting uh the environmental board

9:23 ↗ provided some feedback to us and the

9:27 ↗ tab feedback list to here some it was

9:29 ↗ improving alignment with the Mobil the

9:31 ↗ two plans the mobility master plan and

9:34 ↗ the climate action plan then some

9:36 ↗ additional considerations for

9:37 ↗ environmental impacts of projects of the

9:42 ↗ criteria the environmental board gave us

9:46 ↗ a memo and that's attached to

9:51 ↗ this ultimately this process led us to

9:54 ↗ adding five projects to the

9:55 ↗ transportation impr Improvement program

9:58 ↗ uh there FR Front Street and Northwest

10:00 ↗ Dogwood intersection improvements uh

10:02 ↗ three Trails Crossing intersection study

10:05 ↗ East Sunset way improvements uh Corridor

10:08 ↗ study 220th half Southeast and Southeast

10:11 ↗ 51st Street improvements and the

10:13 ↗ Citywide advant advaned signage

10:16 ↗ project um there were some other changes

10:18 ↗ to the transportation Improvement

10:20 ↗ program that can found in the staff

10:22 ↗ report as

10:28 ↗ well um two other consider to

10:30 ↗ considerations for me to mention tonight

10:32 ↗ regarding the development of this

10:33 ↗ Transportation Improvement program are

10:35 ↗ that the STA of was staff availability

10:37 ↗ and external funding

10:39 ↗ sources which go a long way towards

10:42 ↗ getting these projects through the

10:43 ↗ design and construction

10:45 ↗ processes we looked at

10:48 ↗ projects in the existing that tip and

10:51 ↗ projects that we wanted to add and to

10:54 ↗ make sure that staff wouldn't become too

10:55 ↗ busy and couldn't

10:57 ↗ Advance the projects uh this helped kind

11:00 ↗ of determine the capacity to add

11:02 ↗ projects and which years we could add

11:06 ↗ them and to implement these projects

11:09 ↗ Grant funds will be needed we

11:11 ↗ reviewed projects that um and and

11:14 ↗ funding sources that we are pursuing

11:16 ↗ currently and instead of adding projects

11:18 ↗ that would compete with our existing

11:20 ↗ projects we wanted to add projects that

11:23 ↗ could reach funding sources that

11:24 ↗ wouldn't

11:30 ↗ here are many of the funding sources out

11:33 ↗ there

11:35 ↗ um which you know cities utilized um

11:40 ↗ many of these

11:42 ↗ recently A lot of these are federal or

11:45 ↗ state and federal grants a lot of the

11:47 ↗ external funding also development

11:49 ↗ agreements that he has with developers

11:53 ↗ um and then our transportation project

11:55 ↗ also have a lot of local fund options uh

11:58 ↗ such as the new transport portation

11:59 ↗ benefit district sales tax impact fees

12:02 ↗ and

12:04 ↗ bond the new projects uh that we added

12:08 ↗ we'd like to potentially

12:10 ↗ pursue U Transportation impr Improvement

12:13 ↗ board funding that's for the Front

12:16 ↗ Street Northwest Dogwood intersection

12:18 ↗ improvements that would be through their

12:20 ↗ Urban arterial

12:22 ↗ program and another Grant which is not

12:25 ↗ listed here um is the Federal pway State

12:29 ↗ Improvement program we think the

12:32 ↗ Citywide Advanced sinus project could be

12:33 ↗ competive for

12:39 ↗ that I guess now I'll briefly describe

12:41 ↗ each project that was

12:43 ↗ added the years we'd like to begin them

12:46 ↗ I'll start with the Front Street and

12:47 ↗ Dogwood intersection

12:50 ↗ improvements uh we'd start design for

12:52 ↗ this project in

12:54 ↗ 2028

12:57 ↗ um and this would evaluate the alignment

12:59 ↗ of the intersection resurface the street

13:02 ↗ uh like to build a traffic signal along

13:04 ↗ with some other improvements this is the

13:07 ↗ project that we'd like to the

13:09 ↗ transportation impr or Improvement board

13:11 ↗ funds with he Greg what I think we want

13:13 ↗ to do is for each of the when you hit

13:16 ↗ each project let's pause for a second

13:17 ↗ and see what kind of questions we might

13:19 ↗ have about that so when you get to the

13:21 ↗ end of this one pause and then we'll

13:22 ↗ we'll do question yeah I'm

13:24 ↗ ready questions on this one Council

13:27 ↗ number

13:29 ↗ uh so I was really happy to see this on

13:31 ↗ the list and um I'm really really

13:34 ↗ familiar with that intersection when you

13:36 ↗ say realign the

13:37 ↗ intersection um it has that kind of

13:39 ↗ strange dog leg that you know are are we

13:42 ↗ going to

13:44 ↗ actually bring those together or what

13:48 ↗ what does realign the intersection mean

13:49 ↗ there I mean I think we would look at

13:52 ↗ the best Poss you know closest thing we

13:53 ↗ could get to that you know that we don't

13:55 ↗ want to disrupt too much of the existing

13:59 ↗ improvements there so but yeah that's

14:01 ↗ the thought is kind of get them as close

14:03 ↗ to as

14:04 ↗ possible but it's kind of hard to give

14:07 ↗ too much of

14:08 ↗ an I think that's kind of the in that

14:12 ↗ reer that's a tricky intersection there

14:15 ↗ a few of these in

14:21 ↗ this any other questions on this one all

14:24 ↗ right bring them on

14:29 ↗ all right and um guess the next project

14:32 ↗ added was the second phase of a three

14:35 ↗ Trails Crossing project at Gilman and

14:39 ↗ Juniper um there was some previous

14:43 ↗ improvements to this intersection a few

14:45 ↗ years back but further improvements were

14:47 ↗ always

14:49 ↗ anticipated uh this project would start

14:51 ↗ as a planning study to help

14:53 ↗ identify how we could

14:55 ↗ further uh improve another one of these

14:58 ↗ unique intersections

14:59 ↗ um particularly the South leg of

15:02 ↗ this there's an opportunity here to

15:04 ↗ coordinate with the park staff

15:08 ↗ there's Central Public guard

15:14 ↗ identif questions on this one same same

15:17 ↗ sort of thing as the last one how is it

15:18 ↗ going to hang together but it's still

15:21 ↗ early so we look forward to that yep

15:29 ↗ uh and then here's another planning

15:31 ↗ study uh this one's on East Sunset way

15:34 ↗ uh from Front Street to the I90 limited

15:38 ↗ access there's been quite a bit of

15:40 ↗ public feedback at this location uh

15:43 ↗ whether it's for East West bike Lanes uh

15:46 ↗ parking pedestrian Crossing

15:50 ↗ improvements traffic issues of bus

15:53 ↗ transit issues um the congestion kind of

15:56 ↗ bifurcates Old Town here

15:59 ↗ and so with these all these competing

16:01 ↗ interests at this space we' start this

16:03 ↗ project out as a study and Outreach

16:05 ↗ effort to identify what these

16:08 ↗ improvements could be before jumping in

16:11 ↗ the

16:17 ↗ Des nothing on this one

16:22 ↗ okay all right 22th a Southeast and

16:25 ↗ Southeast 51st Street improvements um

16:29 ↗ this is a design phase that's being

16:31 ↗ proposed starting in year

16:34 ↗ 2028 then there's a development proposed

16:37 ↗ on Southeast 51st

16:40 ↗ Street and some of our recent data shows

16:44 ↗ uh this routes popular among

16:46 ↗ non-motorized

16:48 ↗ users um when we begin the design of

16:50 ↗ this project we have an option to either

16:52 ↗ repurpose a distant two-way left turn

16:54 ↗ lane or kind of an interim bike solution

16:58 ↗ or

16:59 ↗ uh we could you know Design This to the

17:02 ↗ permanent four Street condition

17:03 ↗ identified in the street

17:05 ↗ standard this one would likely be

17:07 ↗ competitive for for non-motorized brants

17:09 ↗ we went that route

17:13 ↗ as questions nope

17:18 ↗ okay all right and the last project

17:20 ↗ added was the uh Citywide Advanced

17:22 ↗ signage project uh this project is new

17:27 ↗ and was identified by a newly formed

17:29 ↗ local Road uh safety

17:32 ↗ plan this safety plan looks at Collision

17:35 ↗ history and common characteristics that

17:37 ↗ uh the

17:39 ↗ collisions P the local Road Safety plan

17:42 ↗ found

17:44 ↗ that could reduce potential collisions

17:47 ↗ by implementing more advanced signage at

17:49 ↗ critical

17:51 ↗ curves for this project as possible we

17:53 ↗ could design and implement this uh with

17:55 ↗ City

17:56 ↗ resources it would also be competitive

17:59 ↗ for Highway Safety Improvement program

18:01 ↗ Grant it makes sense to

18:04 ↗ it more than just adding a few signs

18:07 ↗ here there so uh and during design we'

18:10 ↗ kind of make that

18:14 ↗ call Council

18:17 ↗ Michelle uh and I again I just like all

18:20 ↗ these new projects really well but this

18:22 ↗ one I was looking at 2029 and just since

18:26 ↗ it is a Safety project I was just

18:28 ↗ wondering if there's any way to

18:30 ↗ accelerate this or is this a project

18:33 ↗ that's um I know we need to do a study

18:36 ↗ first but um it just seems like 2029 is

18:40 ↗ a long way out there we're not actually

18:41 ↗ even getting the signs in 2029 it would

18:44 ↗ be even later after we've done the study

18:47 ↗ so uh this one seems a little bit more

18:49 ↗ urgent to me and I'm wondering I don't

18:52 ↗ know how relatively small this is in the

18:55 ↗ big picture but I'm just wondering if

18:56 ↗ there's a way to accelerate this one

19:00 ↗ it certainly seems possible to me

19:03 ↗ um something we can talk about uh and if

19:06 ↗ there is some more involved areas like

19:09 ↗ there could be some early winds get

19:11 ↗ those ones done and then maybe down the

19:13 ↗ line days of

19:15 ↗ that I'm just thinking about like

19:18 ↗ sequential bites that I've seen on

19:21 ↗ freeways where maybe

19:27 ↗ that oh um CC Hall

19:32 ↗ um so Ju Just to to clarify so is this a

19:38 ↗ kind of a anal or an evaluation of

19:41 ↗ our needs for advanced warning signs

19:45 ↗ generally or is it more about like

19:47 ↗ specific problem corners or curves that

19:50 ↗ we're seeing through data that's how we

19:53 ↗ kind of got to this project was through

19:55 ↗ the data the some of the Collision data

19:58 ↗ um

19:59 ↗ what I understand in the local Road

20:00 ↗ Safety found that a lot of the or some

20:03 ↗ of the accidents are from these tight

20:07 ↗ curves there's a

20:09 ↗ lck I see that uh engineering manager

20:13 ↗ John Mortenson turned on his camera John

20:14 ↗ did you have something you wanted to add

20:17 ↗ yeah I'll just add a little bit when we

20:19 ↗ did the local Road Safety plan kind of

20:21 ↗ like what Greg was saying we identified

20:24 ↗ characteristics of situations where

20:27 ↗ we're more likely to have accid

20:29 ↗ and we

20:32 ↗ found that improving adding some

20:36 ↗ advanced warning signs would reduce

20:38 ↗ accidents based on the data and this is

20:42 ↗ also something that's also an ongoing

20:44 ↗ effort that we do have a project in the

20:47 ↗ tip but we do still work on adding

20:50 ↗ advanced warning signs as we see

20:52 ↗ problems and an example of that is with

20:55 ↗ the safety bundle which was funded with

20:58 ↗ the arpa funds we're working on

21:00 ↗ improving a curb I think it's off

21:03 ↗ Mountain place if I remember right but

21:05 ↗ um it is something that is an ongoing

21:07 ↗ effort but we also want to identify this

21:10 ↗ as a potential for a grant and because

21:13 ↗ there's funding out there to makebe do

21:15 ↗ more than what we otherwise could

21:19 ↗ do Hall um followup number one that's

21:22 ↗ fantastic um and I loved how this is so

21:25 ↗ data informed in terms of project

21:27 ↗ selection so I guess my question now is

21:29 ↗ since this is 2029 anticipated design is

21:32 ↗ there anything in terms of being able to

21:35 ↗ capture the data necessary to make an

21:36 ↗ informed decision about where signs

21:38 ↗ should go that we should be doing now to

21:40 ↗ prepare for that or do we feel like our

21:41 ↗ data capab capabilities are are um kind

21:45 ↗ of Meet the moment for this is there

21:46 ↗ anything we should be doing sooner

21:48 ↗ rather than later prepare for

21:52 ↗ this I'd say the data and the analysis

21:55 ↗ that we did as part of the local road

21:58 ↗ safety plan is the first step and as we

22:01 ↗ get accident data each year just keep

22:04 ↗ evaluating and updating the roads safety

22:06 ↗ plan in order to see what changes

22:11 ↗ and be more

22:15 ↗ proactive okay so it really is accident

22:17 ↗ data that would be driving this then not

22:19 ↗ necessarily like anything we'd be

22:21 ↗ getting from its

22:22 ↗ or right yeah okay thanks

22:29 ↗ okay I have the I have I have the uh I

22:30 ↗ don't understand

22:32 ↗ question um when we're talk about

22:34 ↗ Advanced signage does the adjective

22:37 ↗ Advance describe where it is in the road

22:39 ↗ or that it is an advanced technology

22:42 ↗ where it is okay I was because I was

22:45 ↗ thinking well this is cool this is

22:46 ↗ Advanced signage this is this isn't just

22:48 ↗ everyday signage this is but it's it's

22:51 ↗ it's we're going to signage before a

22:53 ↗ hazardous area got it thank you yep

22:57 ↗ [Laughter]

23:04 ↗ all right Greg I'll see if I can find a

23:06 ↗ special sign okay I appreciate that

23:08 ↗ flashing is

23:09 ↗ good

23:11 ↗ yeah all right uh the options for

23:14 ↗ tonight's committee meeting are to

23:16 ↗ modify uh the transportation Improvement

23:18 ↗ program or to make no changes to it and

23:22 ↗ recommend the full city council set the

23:24 ↗ public hearing for the city council

23:27 ↗ meeting on June

23:33 ↗ can we do we have time to do that so uh

23:38 ↗ setting the meeting for June 3rd would

23:40 ↗ mean the council would have to take

23:42 ↗ action ahead of June 3D right C clerk

23:46 ↗ looking to

23:47 ↗ you sorry chair uh no I believe the

23:51 ↗ public hearing would be

23:52 ↗ said uh for the June 3r council meeting

23:56 ↗ so setting the public hearing doesn't

23:57 ↗ require action

23:59 ↗ correct

24:05 ↗ okay oh okay no no thank you all right I

24:09 ↗ I'm I'm good thanks carry

24:12 ↗ on

24:15 ↗ um right and so the administration's

24:18 ↗ recommendation uh is for the approval of

24:21 ↗ a resolution adopting that 30 station

24:25 ↗ Improvement at the special

24:39 ↗ you want to hit the uh calendar of

24:41 ↗ events here yeah timing and next steps

24:44 ↗ next steps for the transportation

24:46 ↗ Improvement program would be the public

24:48 ↗ hearing set for June 3rd and the

24:50 ↗ ultimate adoption on June

24:53 ↗ 24th

24:54 ↗ uh the city is mandated to adopt its

24:58 ↗ portation Improvement program by July

25:01 ↗ 1st after it's adopted the staff will

25:04 ↗ sub it

25:06 ↗ dat by

25:08 ↗ 31st metal

25:14 ↗ de okay any um any more questions for

25:18 ↗ Greg and

25:19 ↗ John council member Hall thank you um

25:23 ↗ two clarifying questions first is um I I

25:27 ↗ think I understand the environmental

25:30 ↗ board's feedback but I don't I think I

25:33 ↗ would actually I would like you to kind

25:35 ↗ of walk us through a little bit more the

25:37 ↗ paragraph that came after that in terms

25:38 ↗ of the administration's response the

25:41 ↗ environmental board feedback and and

25:44 ↗ and um where not to make changes to the

25:47 ↗ to the tip like selection process and

25:49 ↗ stuff like that could you walk us

25:50 ↗ through a little bit more about how the

25:51 ↗ administration chose to respond or

25:54 ↗ not feedback of the environmental board

25:57 ↗ all right we got the feedback back at

25:58 ↗ the

25:59 ↗ meeting follow it up with a

26:03 ↗ memo their

26:10 ↗ feedback went

26:16 ↗ through because they were they were

26:18 ↗ responding a lot to what the have made

26:32 ↗ yeah all added just a couple items on

26:35 ↗ the environmental board's feedback uh

26:38 ↗ the intent of the feedback we felt like

26:41 ↗ the process was already incorporating

26:44 ↗ but maybe the method of going about it

26:46 ↗ so some of the criterias that the

26:49 ↗ environmental board wanted to be part of

26:52 ↗ the selection process were actually

26:55 ↗ already considered but in other parts of

26:58 ↗ the scoring criteria not the promote

27:00 ↗ environment criteria and so that was an

27:04 ↗ example of something where the

27:06 ↗ environmental board gave feedback but we

27:09 ↗ felt like the mobility master plan

27:12 ↗ selection process already took into that

27:15 ↗ and that was about promoting

27:17 ↗ transportation that supports Central

27:20 ↗ esqua essentially and some of the

27:23 ↗ feedback that we also received didn't

27:26 ↗ pertain to the tip but it to how we

27:29 ↗ Implement Transportation projects such

27:32 ↗ as construction materials and those are

27:34 ↗ things that we made note of to consider

27:38 ↗ as we implement the tip but they

27:41 ↗ weren't comments that pertained to how

27:44 ↗ we develop the

27:46 ↗ tip okay thank you yeah that first part

27:49 ↗ helped clear up some of the the memo in

27:52 ↗ my mind so the implementation feedback

27:54 ↗ certainly that's not something that

27:56 ↗ really influences this but you're saying

27:59 ↗ some of the feedback on criteria is

28:01 ↗ actually already accounted for in the

28:03 ↗ mobility master plan not yeah not the

28:07 ↗ other plan not this plan yeah at the

28:09 ↗ environmental board we we discussed the

28:11 ↗ promote environment section of the

28:12 ↗ mobility master plan um but there's

28:15 ↗ other aspects of the climate action plan

28:17 ↗ that kind of go beyond just that one

28:20 ↗ section

28:22 ↗ of maybe next last month for us identify

28:26 ↗ which

28:29 ↗ to bring more than just that promote

28:30 ↗ environment bring

28:35 ↗ anything or maybe even asking them what

28:38 ↗ they'd like to see could be helpful too

28:40 ↗ yeah um okay thank you um and then the

28:44 ↗ second question I had if that's okay

28:45 ↗ unless someone

28:47 ↗ else um was the last one that I had

28:50 ↗ emailed in so if I remember correctly

28:52 ↗ last year um we had a very

28:56 ↗ similar similar options at the end of

28:59 ↗ the memo that said like modify it note

29:01 ↗ that the impact of modifying means that

29:03 ↗ we'll we won't meet the deadline or we

29:06 ↗ just pass it as it is and we had just I

29:09 ↗ think we had noted it as a committee and

29:11 ↗ we had also said well it's kind of a

29:13 ↗ cleanup year

29:14 ↗ any so we'll have kind of a broader

29:17 ↗ conversation the next year so I think I

29:19 ↗ understood your response but I'm

29:20 ↗ wondering if you could walk us through

29:22 ↗ should we think of this as a problem

29:25 ↗ that it's coming to us at a time where

29:28 ↗ if we want to make any changes perhaps

29:30 ↗ there's not a lot of a flexibility to

29:32 ↗ then pass it on time and also now I'm

29:34 ↗ remembering there even any impact to not

29:37 ↗ passing it on time so maybe you could

29:39 ↗ just comment on

29:42 ↗ rambling I'll go ahead and take this one

29:45 ↗ and then if Greg if you have anything to

29:47 ↗ add to it you can I guess the first one

29:50 ↗ is there is no consequence for not

29:53 ↗ adopting it on time we we don't want to

29:55 ↗ be in a habit of missing the deadline

29:57 ↗ but but during covid we adopted in

30:00 ↗ October and I specifically emailed the

30:02 ↗ state and asked them and they said well

30:05 ↗ there's um no consequence for not doing

30:09 ↗ it on time so um that said we don't want

30:12 ↗ to get in the habit of not adopting it

30:13 ↗ on time and I guess in terms of how we

30:18 ↗ go about developing the

30:21 ↗ tip that there are some trade-offs we

30:23 ↗ could take it to the mobility and

30:26 ↗ infrastructure committee earlier

30:28 ↗ but that would probably also mean less

30:30 ↗ touch points with the transportation

30:32 ↗ Advisory Board um and so the schedule we

30:36 ↗ came up with and we're open to changing

30:39 ↗ it but for this year we wanted to really

30:42 ↗ work heavily with the tab and come to

30:45 ↗ you with a very well thought out tip but

30:49 ↗ there is time to make changes to it now

30:52 ↗ we generally try and make less changes

30:55 ↗ during these even-year updates than we

30:57 ↗ do when we do the CIP because when we're

30:59 ↗ updating the CIP the city's able to look

31:02 ↗ at all of its Revenue sources all of its

31:05 ↗ potential projects um so that's one of

31:09 ↗ the reasons why we don't want to try and

31:11 ↗ meddle with it too much but we

31:14 ↗ definitely do have time to make

31:17 ↗ modifications if the committee wanted to

31:20 ↗ make changes to

31:22 ↗ it I just I wanted to underscore that hi

31:25 ↗ um Deputy City administrator Andrea

31:27 ↗ Snider uh there is plenty of time to

31:30 ↗ make changes and we uh we have been

31:33 ↗ having lots of conversations with tab

31:35 ↗ the transportation Advisory board but we

31:37 ↗ are here to ask for your feedback so if

31:40 ↗ you have changes that you would like us

31:41 ↗ to make we certainly can include those

31:44 ↗ in um the tip

31:47 ↗ update all right um thank you both um

31:51 ↗ for the clarification I think I just saw

31:53 ↗ in the memo that it said it would be

31:55 ↗ adopted past the deadline and so it's

31:57 ↗ kind of out a little bit but maybe maybe

32:00 ↗ this was copied from the previous memo

32:03 ↗ yeah we it's you know it's miday um we

32:07 ↗ like to have it adopted by July 1st that

32:10 ↗ still leaves us uh quite a bit of time

32:13 ↗ if Council wanted us to completely

32:15 ↗ overhaul and revamp everything in the

32:17 ↗ tip that might be a little hard to do

32:20 ↗ that by the July deadline but certainly

32:22 ↗ if you have a couple of projects you

32:24 ↗ want us to look at timelines or make

32:27 ↗ changes

32:28 ↗ uh to then um that's exactly why we're

32:31 ↗ here tonight is to understand what your

32:32 ↗ feedback is and um to make the changes

32:35 ↗ that you would like us to

32:38 ↗ make and just real quick before I forget

32:41 ↗ um thank you for being so intentional

32:43 ↗ about reaching out to the transportation

32:45 ↗ Advisory board so many times I think

32:46 ↗ it's the

32:50 ↗ right um so I one one maybe it's two

32:53 ↗ questions but the five projects are all

32:56 ↗ 2028 202 9 which to me means they're

33:00 ↗ probably Beyond um our known funding

33:02 ↗ window do we have any funding lined up

33:04 ↗ for these five projects or is it uh

33:07 ↗ future funding

33:10 ↗ opportunities uh yeah uh I think the

33:14 ↗ actual Transportation Improvement and

33:17 ↗ out sells it out but yeah we got um a

33:20 ↗ lot of them our impact fees and looking

33:22 ↗ at projected

33:25 ↗ revenues where we think what we have

33:28 ↗ available also some of you know the

33:31 ↗ grants that we've identified we're

33:33 ↗ assuming we get

33:34 ↗ those part of this

33:38 ↗ St yeah no I that's what kind of what I

33:41 ↗ was thinking but it kind of actually

33:43 ↗ it's it was a setup question because the

33:45 ↗ second one is if we change the dates and

33:47 ↗ the timing of it what does that do to

33:49 ↗ our funding model is that then a kind of

33:52 ↗ a does it I I don't know how closely

33:54 ↗ we've kind

33:55 ↗ of budgeted some of these other things

33:59 ↗ so I would say for some of the projects

34:03 ↗ the the ones we pursuing the grants

34:06 ↗ those ones are hard to move forward

34:08 ↗ because we're kind of on their schedule

34:11 ↗ for those grants

34:13 ↗ so are a little tougher to

34:16 ↗ move some of those the planning ones I

34:19 ↗ think we have got $1,000 do that those

34:22 ↗ are easier to move U and we're assuming

34:26 ↗ half time for those

34:29 ↗ we wanted to we if we didn't have staff

34:32 ↗ availability to do those we'd have to

34:34 ↗ get a

34:39 ↗ consultant right great uh can I add to

34:42 ↗ that oh please do okay thanks um

34:46 ↗ certainly Council determines the budget

34:48 ↗ for the projects that we do Council

34:51 ↗ approves the transportation Improvement

34:53 ↗ uh plan so all that said if there are

34:57 ↗ projects that you want us to move around

34:59 ↗ uh we would love to hear about that this

35:01 ↗ evening and then we may need some time

35:03 ↗ to take a look at that see what um is

35:07 ↗ feasible uh within the resources that we

35:09 ↗ have both staff and dollars wise if

35:11 ↗ there's other things we need to move

35:13 ↗ around as a result but if Council States

35:15 ↗ uh strongly that something is a priority

35:18 ↗ uh over other things then we certainly

35:20 ↗ want to hear that information and uh

35:23 ↗ we'll do what we can to uh meet that

35:25 ↗ priority great thanks I appreciate that

35:28 ↗ right any other uh

35:30 ↗ questions I don't see any um okay

35:34 ↗ um so we're another public comment

35:37 ↗ opportunity uh anybody uh online there

35:40 ↗ city clerk chair Ray we have uh nobody

35:44 ↗ online at the time

35:46 ↗ okay don't see anybody in the

35:48 ↗ room all right so we're gonna we're

35:50 ↗ going to move past that we're going to

35:51 ↗ go into providing some feedback um so

35:55 ↗ the direction that is being asked for is

35:59 ↗ uh feedback on uh whether the proposed

36:02 ↗ uh Transportation improvements the

36:04 ↗ project mix the new projects the timing

36:06 ↗ and the funding

36:08 ↗ strategy uh makes sense uh who wouldd

36:11 ↗ like to get

36:15 ↗ started Hall thank you yeah I will um go

36:20 ↗ first as I type out my last note so I

36:23 ↗ don't foret it

36:30 ↗ okay um I think yeah for the most part

36:32 ↗ I'm happy with kind of mix the projects

36:34 ↗ um that

36:36 ↗ you've got here uh the new projects and

36:39 ↗ in existing ones and annual ones um it

36:42 ↗ seems like the newer project projects

36:44 ↗ are really focused on pedestrian and

36:46 ↗ bike facilities um intersection

36:50 ↗ improvements things competitive for

36:52 ↗ grant funding as you highlighted and

36:55 ↗ then also things that are really

36:56 ↗ informed by data which I think are all

36:58 ↗ um good things I last year as we were

37:00 ↗ kind of cleaning up the tip this

37:03 ↗ committee said we really want to make

37:05 ↗ sure we take a hard look at our

37:07 ↗ transportation projects that we have a

37:09 ↗ healthy balance between things that are

37:11 ↗ car F focused and things that are multi

37:13 ↗ Mobility Focus um I went through all of

37:17 ↗ the projects and assigned little tallies

37:19 ↗ for whether I thought it benefited cars

37:22 ↗ or if it benefited multimodal system or

37:25 ↗ if it benefited both or if if it was

37:27 ↗ more other um so this is all subjective

37:32 ↗ um my own criteria but it seemed like it

37:34 ↗ was fairly balanced for projects

37:36 ↗ benefiting multimodal system it was 18

37:39 ↗ projects benefiting cars it was 20 kind

37:42 ↗ of other were six that does not add up

37:44 ↗ to the number the total number of

37:45 ↗ projects some were kind of benefited

37:47 ↗ both especially when it had intersection

37:49 ↗ improvements I kind of thought that

37:51 ↗ benefited both so again I I think

37:52 ↗ there's a really good balance there I

37:54 ↗ think we can tell our community and tell

37:57 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board the

37:58 ↗ environmental board that yes this is a

38:00 ↗ really good um mix of projects

38:05 ↗ um I think it's hard to evaluate whether

38:10 ↗ this is the right funding strategy for

38:11 ↗ things in 2028

38:13 ↗ 2029 I like I'll caveat that um I think

38:18 ↗ identifying that they would be good

38:20 ↗ candidates for state and federal Grant

38:22 ↗ dollars is good um but any of the other

38:27 ↗ kind revenues that exists there are

38:30 ↗ all our best guess right so I don't know

38:33 ↗ necessarily how to provide feedback on

38:35 ↗ that part except to say you know that

38:37 ↗ will evolve year over-ear right as it as

38:40 ↗ it gets closer to it as we identify new

38:41 ↗ sources as it just becomes clear picture

38:44 ↗ so um I did want to ask a couple

38:48 ↗ things well I guess first let me just

38:50 ↗ wrap up the from my question I'm glad

38:54 ↗ that we were so intentionally involved

38:56 ↗ with uh hardboards and commissions I'm

38:58 ↗ glad that we do have the time um to make

39:01 ↗ changes not necessarily that I'd like to

39:03 ↗ make changes but just that we have a

39:04 ↗ process in place that would allow

39:06 ↗ Council to do so so it seems like we do

39:08 ↗ and we're in a good place so I

39:10 ↗ appreciate

39:11 ↗ um first thing I wanted to bring up was

39:15 ↗ on all of the project Pages we can very

39:17 ↗ easily see if this is part of a

39:20 ↗ particular Master planning document this

39:22 ↗ project came from the mobility master

39:24 ↗ plan this project came from the Walk and

39:26 ↗ Roll plan but not the future projects

39:29 ↗ kind of the longer term projects so I

39:31 ↗ was wondering if it might be possible to

39:33 ↗ identify if those came from a particular

39:36 ↗ plan um could that be listed in kind of

39:39 ↗ the future years pages I don't know if

39:42 ↗ that would be a lot of work I don't

39:44 ↗ necessarily feel super strongly that if

39:47 ↗ it's a lot of work that it happened

39:49 ↗ before we adopt it but at least at some

39:51 ↗ point it would make sense for our

39:54 ↗ visibility of knowing how well we're

39:55 ↗ doing with the mobility master plan but

39:56 ↗ then also Community

39:59 ↗ fail the only other thing I wanted to

40:03 ↗ ask about was one of the projects I had

40:05 ↗ asked about was

40:10 ↗ tr43 was the Newport Way sr900 at 12th

40:14 ↗ Avenue Northwest bicycle and pedestrian

40:16 ↗ improvements so this is like the area

40:18 ↗ between skate park and

40:21 ↗ the bus station or the transit center um

40:25 ↗ I actually every every time on the way

40:28 ↗ back from Council I drive this place

40:30 ↗ back home now and that area is super

40:32 ↗ dangerous now and people turning left

40:34 ↗ onto sr900 going west um so and bikers

40:39 ↗ going by and pedestrians going by it's

40:41 ↗ is really hard and there's a really

40:43 ↗ highly used skate park right there too

40:45 ↗ so I'm very in favor of that project

40:47 ↗ being in there um it seems like we have

40:51 ↗ some additional leftand turn capacity

40:55 ↗ coming with tr 22 and that's eastbound

40:59 ↗ um Newport but not necessarily where

41:03 ↗ this project is which is westbound

41:04 ↗ Newport um and it's just something I've

41:06 ↗ noticed I don't I'm not necessarily

41:08 ↗ asking for a change it's just something

41:10 ↗ I've noticed is all the way to the

41:12 ↗ beginning actually all the way to Target

41:14 ↗ from sr900 it'll be completely backed up

41:17 ↗ on cars people blocking the

41:19 ↗ intersections um so people can't get up

41:22 ↗ the mountain over by tibits Park too so

41:25 ↗ just something I've noticed it might if

41:26 ↗ it if it's not existing somewhere in the

41:28 ↗ tip at might be word thinking about in

41:31 ↗ the future

41:36 ↗ um then the only other oh no that was it

41:40 ↗ those are my comments so I think from a

41:41 ↗ high level well done and

41:44 ↗ think Deputy council

41:49 ↗ president yeah excuse me let me get this

41:52 ↗ a little closer there we go um

41:57 ↗ well I loved all of the new projects

41:59 ↗ every single one I thought oh they've

42:01 ↗ really identified where we need to make

42:04 ↗ improvements and uh you know my favorite

42:07 ↗ is that one on Dogwood but uh the one on

42:10 ↗ uh Juniper and uh Gilman yes you know um

42:16 ↗ I am wondering if it would be

42:18 ↗ appropriate to share with the full

42:20 ↗ Council some of our Collision

42:22 ↗ information it would be interesting to

42:24 ↗ know just how dangerous some of these

42:26 ↗ inter sections might be just a thought

42:29 ↗ uh going into the future um I also

42:32 ↗ noticed when I was going through the

42:33 ↗ list that there have been projects

42:35 ↗ removed because we got grant funding for

42:38 ↗ them and um there was like three I think

42:42 ↗ identified that were removed and again I

42:44 ↗ thought that might be information that

42:46 ↗ the full Council would like to know that

42:48 ↗ hey look these were taken off because we

42:50 ↗ got some Highway um grant funding for

42:54 ↗ those projects so I thought that was

42:56 ↗ very interesting

42:58 ↗ um I think that this is ready to go to

43:00 ↗ the Council on June the 3 I just do have

43:04 ↗ uh you know this little tiny tiny tweak

43:07 ↗ would be if we move the starting year of

43:10 ↗ that

43:11 ↗ r97 up a little bit but um I understand

43:15 ↗ the explanation that was given and uh

43:18 ↗ the fact that it's an ongoing project

43:20 ↗ makes sense to me as well um it's it

43:23 ↗ seems like sort of a no-brainer that

43:25 ↗ some of these um uh hard curves and

43:28 ↗ things could be signed pretty quickly

43:31 ↗ and we don't have to wait for a study to

43:33 ↗ know that they're that they're dangerous

43:35 ↗ so um but those are my thoughts

43:37 ↗ excellent work again I just every time

43:40 ↗ transportation comes in front of us we

43:42 ↗ get a really good report with a lot of

43:44 ↗ thought behind it I agree with council

43:47 ↗ member raal that the touches with the

43:49 ↗ tab and the environmental board were

43:52 ↗ were well worth the time uh and the

43:54 ↗ feedback there was really good to read

43:56 ↗ so thank you for that as well uh so

43:59 ↗ that's those are my comments I

44:01 ↗ appreciate those and I want to dig into

44:03 ↗ the timing of

44:05 ↗ 97 um and and this is this is the only

44:08 ↗ one that I've heard of the five new ones

44:11 ↗ any kind of U material change and so I

44:13 ↗ want to get us aligned on do we think we

44:16 ↗ should Define being at 2930 or do we

44:20 ↗ want to suggest or ask staff to assess

44:24 ↗ the uh feasibility of moving it moving

44:27 ↗ it up Council M Delle I guess I guess my

44:31 ↗ question would be um if if it as

44:35 ↗ described perhaps this is just fine the

44:37 ↗ way it is I'm looking at Andrea to maybe

44:40 ↗ tell us whe whether it would actually

44:42 ↗ make any difference if it's an ongoing

44:44 ↗ project if we Chang the timeline in this

44:47 ↗ it would still be an ongoing project

44:49 ↗ right and so I don't know that we're

44:52 ↗ really making any substantial change if

44:54 ↗ we ask for it to be accelerated

44:57 ↗ so um while it is an ongoing project I

45:01 ↗ think um if it's something that uh

45:05 ↗ Council feels strongly about it's better

45:07 ↗ to have it reflected in the tip as you

45:10 ↗ would like to see it and so um because

45:13 ↗ we use that as the basis for budgeting

45:15 ↗ and work plans Etc so um if that's

45:18 ↗ something that this committee feels

45:20 ↗ strongly that we should uh go back and

45:23 ↗ sharpen our pencils and see how we can

45:25 ↗ try to move that project up then um then

45:29 ↗ we will absolutely do

45:32 ↗ that oh Council M do Michelle and then

45:34 ↗ council member Hall oh okay then I think

45:37 ↗ we should do it all right council member

45:40 ↗ Hall I'm curious what the effect of that

45:42 ↗ would be because it doesn't have a table

45:44 ↗ for funding there it just says like

45:45 ↗ $2,000 annual so would the effect of

45:48 ↗ that be some increase from $2,000 and

45:52 ↗ then trying to find makeup annually

45:55 ↗ amongst the other projects

45:58 ↗ um it it would probably include trying

46:01 ↗ to find the budget for it as you know

46:04 ↗ it's a planning document not a budget at

46:06 ↗ this point and so um we would we would

46:09 ↗ try to figure out a way to fund it and

46:11 ↗ it might mean maybe uh as we draft the

46:14 ↗ budget um trying to find uh cost savings

46:18 ↗ elsewhere I see our transportation

46:20 ↗ manager John Mortenson has his hand

46:24 ↗ raised yes this project would be a great

46:27 ↗ candidate for

46:29 ↗ bott's Highway Safety um grant that they

46:32 ↗ have or hsip and the next call for

46:36 ↗ projects will be in

46:38 ↗ 2026 and I think those funds would be

46:41 ↗ available towards the end of 2026 and I

46:44 ↗ don't know timeline if that's still too

46:48 ↗ far out or if that's something the

46:49 ↗ committee would be okay with if we put

46:51 ↗ it in to begin in

46:55 ↗ 2026 and that would also help with the

47:01 ↗ funding yeah I mean from my perspective

47:03 ↗ but also let me ask a dumb question does

47:06 ↗ if it's it has to do with highways does

47:07 ↗ that mean it's just relevant to putting

47:10 ↗ up Advanced Signs near highways or how

47:13 ↗ does that work no it's just the name of

47:15 ↗ the federal program that they have it

47:17 ↗ broken out between two competitions one

47:20 ↗ for cities and one for counties and they

47:23 ↗ rotate where cities do even years and

47:26 ↗ counties do odd years

47:28 ↗ and we actually applied for some funds

47:31 ↗ and haven't heard the results but we

47:33 ↗ focused on pedestrian Crossings with the

47:35 ↗ last Grant

47:36 ↗ application

47:38 ↗ okay all right so what I think I heard

47:41 ↗ and I agree with is um asking staff to

47:44 ↗ to look at the impact of moving the what

47:47 ↗ is it like $1.2 million doish um see if

47:51 ↗ we can move that forward maybe tying it

47:53 ↗ to the grant cycle

47:54 ↗ that uh John would was just uh speaking

47:57 ↗ to and and then what the impact might be

48:00 ↗ on other um other initiatives and and

48:03 ↗ then we can um discuss that with the

48:07 ↗ full

48:08 ↗ Council um but other than that that was

48:10 ↗ the only thing that I mean I I'd like to

48:12 ↗ say I have all sorts of great insights

48:14 ↗ that weren't already talked about but I

48:16 ↗ don't so that was the only thing that I

48:17 ↗ heard that was sort of hanging out there

48:19 ↗ that I wanted to to drive closure on um

48:24 ↗ anything else um that we so we're we're

48:29 ↗ we're making minor modifications to the

48:31 ↗ Improvement plan relative to um

48:36 ↗ 9797 um we asking at least to assess the

48:40 ↗ viability of moving it forward in the uh

48:42 ↗ the timeline other than that is there

48:44 ↗ anything else we're looking for in terms

48:45 ↗ of change I didn't see hear of any and

48:48 ↗ so and I think we are good with um

48:51 ↗ setting a public hearing for the Council

48:53 ↗ on June 3D and then looking for um

48:58 ↗ um action on that before the end of

49:02 ↗ June um not even going to do a vote

49:05 ↗ because I think we are completely in a

49:07 ↗ raging agreement

49:08 ↗ right okay and so uh this is something I

49:11 ↗ think

49:12 ↗ uh um we we put on regular business um

49:16 ↗ down the road and I look into to you

49:20 ↗ Greg do you and have what you guys need

49:24 ↗ to to get this ready for the

49:27 ↗ um June 3rd public hearing I do yes PR

49:31 ↗ 97 should have a table

49:35 ↗ so no it's not it's missing

49:40 ↗ so the uh the the line item was up in

49:44 ↗ the big table on the top with the with

49:46 ↗ the data but um okay well let me uh look

49:49 ↗ back here at our

49:51 ↗ agenda what's

49:53 ↗ that yeah it was a bargain okay that is

49:57 ↗ um that was our last agenda item any uh

50:00 ↗ announcements um from the committee no

50:03 ↗ all right we're adjourned at 7:20 uh oh

50:07 ↗ anything else nope all right we're

50:08 ↗ adjourned at 7:20 thanks everybody

Approved minutes

The minutes PDF below is the canonical record. Structured parsing of attendance and motions for this body's minutes format is not yet implemented — open the PDF for the full content.

Open PDF