Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, February 28, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of December 14, 2023

packet pp.3–4

Previously discussed: City Council Regular Meeting · Oct 23, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting · Nov 6, 2023

▶ Watch from 0:20 Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 12-14-23 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. December 14, 2023 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

Minutes of January 24, 2024

packet pp.5–6

▶ Watch from 0:33 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES b) 01-24-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. January 24, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

2025-2030 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Project Prioritization (D)

John Mortenson, Transportation Engineering Manager Greg Lucas, Senior Transportation Engineer · packet pp.7–80

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 10:12 Open packet at p.7 ↗

Staff report:

Each year, the City Council adopts a six-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) which is a list/description of projects, anticipated costs, anticipated funding sources and years in which planning, design, right of way, and construction will likely occur. The TIP includes projects identified in the Central Issaquah Plan, the Walk-n-Roll Plan, the adopted Concurrency model and the Mobility Master Plan (MMP). The purpose of the TIP is to identify transportation-related projects that are or may become eligible for Federal, State, and/or local funding. Additionally, the TIP is the transportation component of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), which is updated biennially. The TIP was last updated as part of the 2024-2029 CIP (

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

packet pp.81–82

Open packet at p.81 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVED: [Date] REVISED: [Date]

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2668 segments .txt ↗

0:04 ↗ We

0:06 ↗ Roll okay good evening everyone and

0:08 ↗ welcome to the February meeting of the

0:11 ↗ transportation Advisory Board my name is

0:12 ↗ cyia crass I'm currently the chair of

0:14 ↗ this board and let's go ahead and call

0:17 ↗ the meeting to order um we'll start with

0:20 ↗ approval of the minutes I'm seeking um

0:23 ↗ approval by unanimous consent with two

0:25 ↗ minor Corrections up to the December

0:26 ↗ minutes one is a correction of the

0:28 ↗ misspelling of the word holis Bally and

0:30 ↗ the second is the repeated sentence at

0:32 ↗ the top of page two in the first

0:37 ↗ paragraph hearing no comments the

0:40 ↗ minutes are approved with those minor

0:43 ↗ non-substantive Corrections that brings

0:45 ↗ us to public comment do

0:49 ↗ we come on up and introduce yourself and

0:53 ↗ um

0:58 ↗ sure with a sound the audio the video go

1:01 ↗ ahead uh there were two minutes to

1:04 ↗ approve I'm sorry I said both of them

1:06 ↗ and one fell I did yeah great perfect

1:10 ↗ just want to make sure oh okay I I

1:11 ↗ didn't I just want to be sure everyone

1:13 ↗ understood it was an excused an for me

1:16 ↗ last time oh did it not say it didn't

1:19 ↗ say unexcused but it didn't say excused

1:24 ↗ absence yeah you're

1:28 ↗ good okay we move on to public Comon one

1:31 ↗ second let's just should we be putting

1:33 ↗ that we used to put it in there excuse

1:34 ↗ un Excuse excuse and un excuse okay yeah

1:36 ↗ I've been differentiating personally and

1:38 ↗ my own stuff but if we want to do it on

1:40 ↗ the public I mean we used to I don't

1:42 ↗ know you can ask the clerk I don't have

1:43 ↗ a strong opinion one way or another but

1:44 ↗ we did I wasn't sure we used to and we

1:48 ↗ haven't had a lot of problem with that

1:49 ↗ but it is yeah if it were to become a

1:52 ↗ problem it's kind of good to document

1:53 ↗ that yeah you got to make sure you're

1:56 ↗ not you have to have this in place

1:59 ↗ before

2:00 ↗ individuals yeah yeah you don't to

2:03 ↗ engage in something just because active

2:06 ↗ proactive okay so uh welcome and um

2:09 ↗ please introduce yourself and go ahead

2:12 ↗ thank you um my name is Victor Bellum I

2:15 ↗ live in 11:05 Louis Lane Southeast Way

2:19 ↗ South on Front Street which is kind of

2:23 ↗ why I wanted to come here and talk to

2:25 ↗ you today I took a look at the list of

2:27 ↗ projects on the Transportation uh

2:31 ↗ project Improvement project that is uh

2:35 ↗ starting to get reviews um this year and

2:38 ↗ approvals and um we we're often

2:41 ↗ forgotten down where we are in our

2:44 ↗ little Community we're south of the

2:46 ↗ syamore entrance there's a little Street

2:49 ↗ to the left that's the Louis streets

2:51 ↗ right and uh we're often Overlook

2:55 ↗ actually with the implementation of the

2:57 ↗ whole Metro Flex uh service

3:00 ↗ we're not in range actually we can't use

3:03 ↗ Metro Flex from our house right and uh

3:07 ↗ why I wanted to talk to you today

3:09 ↗ because I I've I've gone to city council

3:12 ↗ a couple times to ask for some relief in

3:17 ↗ our entry into Front Street South

3:20 ↗ because every morning when I go to work

3:22 ↗ it's almost impossible for me to get in

3:25 ↗ um because all the the the isak wov road

3:30 ↗ traffic is just nonstop and whatever the

3:33 ↗ light on Second Street does it doesn't

3:35 ↗ stop that flow for us to even get a

3:37 ↗ chance to incorporate so usually we just

3:40 ↗ have to wait for a small window and just

3:43 ↗ hit the gas to see if we can do and when

3:46 ↗ it's icy or it's rainy it's dangerous I

3:49 ↗ I drive a a big truck and my truck

3:52 ↗ sometimes just you know sways trying to

3:54 ↗ get into the the road and my son walks

3:58 ↗ to the high school um every day as well

4:01 ↗ and when people are you know there's

4:04 ↗ there's no sidewalk in our little street

4:06 ↗ so when he tries to get into the

4:07 ↗ sidewalk somebody trying to run out I

4:09 ↗ mean it's it's just it's very prent for

4:13 ↗ an accident there and what I would love

4:15 ↗ to see it somehow give us like I'm not

4:18 ↗ asking for us to get you know a second

4:22 ↗ and Street access or anything just

4:25 ↗ like give us some sort of relief so that

4:28 ↗ we can safely incorporate like enter the

4:31 ↗ traffic um into the the the Front Street

4:35 ↗ South um because and it's not only

4:38 ↗ because I know that I mean there's

4:40 ↗ probably about 10 houses in that area

4:43 ↗ but there's also a street that on the

4:46 ↗ weekends it's packed and they usually

4:49 ↗ race through our street as well and

4:51 ↗ that's also and we've had accidents

4:53 ↗ actually there from people coming from

4:56 ↗ is wova road trying to turn into six

4:58 ↗ Street and there was one girl a couple

5:01 ↗ years ago that that just turned over her

5:03 ↗ car into the the Corner House there

5:06 ↗ because there's no way to slow down to

5:09 ↗ make that right so they come at 40 miles

5:12 ↗ an hour try to incorporate into 20

5:15 ↗ minute uh 20 30 m hour Street um very

5:20 ↗ prent for accidents there and I a little

5:24 ↗ but that's the intersection that I was

5:26 ↗ talking about that's around so you guys

5:27 ↗ know where I'm talking about but if um

5:30 ↗ yeah it's it's something that we've

5:32 ↗ we've gone to city council many times

5:35 ↗ up year to um where's your

5:39 ↗ house that's my house right there with

5:42 ↗ little house ion but this is the

5:45 ↗ intersection this is the the new Street

5:48 ↗ which comes into front South and

5:52 ↗ uh I I I I was hoping to see some sort

5:56 ↗ of project trying to deal with that

5:58 ↗ intersection there and there isn't so I

6:01 ↗ don't know if there's still a chance to

6:05 ↗ evaluate um anything but I wanted to

6:07 ↗ bring it to your attention thank you for

6:10 ↗ your time appreciate

6:13 ↗ it thank you do we have anyone online I

6:16 ↗ see a hand raised yes we have Connie

6:22 ↗ Connie I muted you so you might have to

6:23 ↗ unmute

6:25 ↗ yourself

6:27 ↗ see ha okay you should be able to hear

6:31 ↗ me and see me is this

6:33 ↗ true yes okay people are nodding um so I

6:38 ↗ yet again looked through the

6:40 ↗ criteria and I have some things that I

6:46 ↗ think I've said before but I'm going to

6:47 ↗ say it again and again until you get

6:49 ↗ tired of hearing it and one of these is

6:53 ↗ not in the actual criteria but it's in a

6:56 ↗ paragraph and the presentation that

6:59 ↗ talks

7:00 ↗ about

7:02 ↗ um even if a project is higher up in the

7:06 ↗ priority list if you get grant funding

7:09 ↗ then they want to be able to move down

7:12 ↗ to a lower priority project because it

7:15 ↗ has been Grant funded so the city of

7:18 ↗ isqua has done this for a lot of years

7:21 ↗ and many times these Grant funds come

7:24 ↗ with matching requirements and so while

7:27 ↗ there are Grant funds that actually dep

7:29 ↗ Le the amount of money that we can use

7:31 ↗ on other Transportation projects so I

7:33 ↗ don't think it is as simple as that we

7:37 ↗ don't have pools of money in reserve to

7:41 ↗ do large projects with because we sort

7:44 ↗ of play whack-a-mole and if we get a

7:45 ↗ little bit of grant funding we move on

7:47 ↗ to a different lower priority project

7:50 ↗ and we spend some of our money and I

7:52 ↗ think that those choices need to be

7:55 ↗ considered very carefully because we

7:58 ↗ have to actually save up some money to

8:00 ↗ do larger projects where we won't get

8:02 ↗ grant funding and so while it's tempting

8:05 ↗ to move to a lower um priority project

8:09 ↗ it might not be the thing to do and I

8:13 ↗ don't think this paragraph ACC

8:15 ↗ accurately reflects the consideration

8:17 ↗ that I would like to see there so the uh

8:21 ↗ next one is neighborhood streets we have

8:24 ↗ a lot of neighborhood streets that have

8:26 ↗ traffic that move through them in the

8:28 ↗ school scoring it says if you reduce the

8:32 ↗ impacts to negative streets then you get

8:35 ↗ a higher score it goes to zero but

8:38 ↗ there's no negative number saying if

8:40 ↗ your project is actually going to

8:42 ↗ negatively impact the neighborhoods then

8:46 ↗ it would get a a a negative store like a

8:48 ↗ minus one score and some of the projects

8:51 ↗ that the city does actually do

8:53 ↗ negatively impact the neighborhoods and

8:56 ↗ this is not shown the last thing

8:59 ↗ is Parks parks and its interface with

9:02 ↗ your Mobility master plan has always

9:05 ↗ been thin the trails are not uh shown as

9:09 ↗ part of the transportation Network nor

9:13 ↗ are the connections to the Parks really

9:15 ↗ emphasized they're still not emphasized

9:17 ↗ well in the Strategic plan and so I

9:21 ↗ suggest that the parks requirements

9:24 ↗ actually get into the mobility master

9:26 ↗ plan and then you would be able ble to

9:29 ↗ drop that weird Parks thing and just

9:33 ↗ include the and there and all these

9:36 ↗ other plans because you have one

9:38 ↗ component that talks about it's in other

9:40 ↗ plans but then you call out the park

9:43 ↗ strategic plan and I think that's odd

9:45 ↗ and I don't really understand the

9:47 ↗ emphasis and I think there's a better

9:49 ↗ way to solve that interface that was

9:52 ↗ left out in the original formation of

9:55 ↗ the uh Mobility master plan thank you

10:01 ↗ thank you

10:02 ↗ Connie do we have anyone else

10:05 ↗ on okay that is all okay all right well

10:08 ↗ thank you for comments um we will move

10:12 ↗ along to um our regular business and

10:15 ↗ we're going to talk about the tip

10:17 ↗ project prioritization um shall I turn

10:21 ↗ it over to one of the Johns both of the

10:25 ↗ johns or Greg and John yeah

10:30 ↗ introduce yeah

10:32 ↗ yeah yeah so I'm Greg Lucas I'm one of

10:35 ↗ the transportation and engineers in the

10:38 ↗ uh Public Works

10:57 ↗ Park all right

11:00 ↗ um yeah so here we're talking about our

11:01 ↗ second of three presentations on the

11:04 ↗ 2025 to 2036 year Transportation

11:08 ↗ Improvement

11:10 ↗ program uh this one more focused on the

11:14 ↗ project prioritization in the process

11:16 ↗ going into

11:21 ↗ that this presentation will have slides

11:24 ↗ on I guess one overlap of last month's

11:28 ↗ uh

11:29 ↗ uh

11:31 ↗ presentation what the tip is uh we'll

11:34 ↗ get into the process that we're using

11:37 ↗ this year for the tip uh which is kind

11:40 ↗ of two-pronged one was the the CIP

11:43 ↗ project selection criteria that was

11:45 ↗ established

11:46 ↗ Citywide in the 24 to

11:49 ↗ 29 CP

11:52 ↗ development we'll get into the the

11:55 ↗ mobility master plan in the criteria

11:57 ↗ that was established a few years back

11:59 ↗ when that was

12:01 ↗ implemented get into our discussion the

12:03 ↗ next steps for the

12:08 ↗ tip the purpose of today's meeting or

12:11 ↗ this presentation is

12:14 ↗ um part of the responsibilities in tab

12:17 ↗ identified in the city's code uh

12:19 ↗ includes reviewing framework for priori

12:22 ↗ prioritizing uh Transportation Capital

12:25 ↗ Improvement

12:26 ↗ projects um and then it's noting uh a

12:30 ↗ lot of work went into that MMP it was

12:31 ↗ established three years ago uh so it's

12:34 ↗ been a few years um since then the

12:37 ↗ climate action plan's been

12:40 ↗ adopted another note in there is that

12:42 ↗ there is uh you know the MMP is a living

12:49 ↗ document this should look familiar from

12:51 ↗ last month's

12:53 ↗ presentation um this just reflects what

12:55 ↗ type of projects go into the the tip

12:59 ↗ um and skipping through the legal

13:01 ↗ mandates and all the plans but just kind

13:04 ↗ of highlighting the type of projects we

13:06 ↗ got the annual projects projects that

13:07 ↗ are going on safety mandated projects

13:11 ↗ long-term

13:13 ↗ projects and here we're showing that

13:16 ↗ what we're doing with the with this tip

13:19 ↗ is identifying new priority

13:26 ↗ projects the 25 to 30 uh tip selection

13:31 ↗ process as I mentioned earlier uses both

13:34 ↗ the uh the 24 CIP project prioritization

13:37 ↗ Matrix and the uh the MMP uh CP process

13:43 ↗ carries

13:44 ↗ forward it's a consistent um process

13:47 ↗ that the entire city uses so this

13:49 ↗ discussion will focus more on the the

13:53 ↗ MMP evaluation Criterion

13:57 ↗ there

14:02 ↗ kind of highlight what what the since

14:05 ↗ it's part of the the selection or the

14:08 ↗ the prioritization we'll briefly go over

14:10 ↗ the CIP and the the project selection

14:13 ↗ criteria from that

14:16 ↗ um that was The Matrix style and we'll

14:19 ↗ get into an example of that had red

14:21 ↗ yellow and

14:23 ↗ green um and certain criteria for that

14:26 ↗ that that matrix model communic Ates um

14:29 ↗ reasons why the projects are included

14:31 ↗ for

14:32 ↗ funding um and as kind of brought up

14:35 ↗ earlier it does help um lower ranked

14:38 ↗ projects jump other projects that's an

14:41 ↗ example called out CP was

14:52 ↗ developed this is one of the uh sample

14:55 ↗ criteria in the CIP the legal mandate

15:00 ↗ if the project will be identified Green

15:02 ↗ in The Matrix if it's

15:04 ↗ mandated um or not compete completing

15:07 ↗ project will throp in a significant

15:11 ↗ detrimental impact to the life safety is

15:14 ↗ not legally mandated and read so anyways

15:17 ↗ a lot a lot of criteria and a lot of

15:19 ↗ projects it spits out this in the 24 29

15:24 ↗ pip which it's in the CIP again this

15:28 ↗ will kind of carry

15:29 ↗ forward um as a Citywide implementation

15:35 ↗ tool what we do have the opportunity to

15:38 ↗ review and discuss today is oh go ahead

15:41 ↗ could you go back to slides read what

15:43 ↗ the red criteria is

15:45 ↗ again mandated impact life

15:55 ↗ safy yeah

15:57 ↗ so

16:07 ↗ I guess the front and sun set

16:09 ↗ intersection left turn improvements

16:11 ↗ would isn't legally mandated not impact

16:14 ↗ like

16:16 ↗ safy

16:27 ↗ um uh here's a couple highlights from

16:29 ↗ the mobility master plan

16:34 ↗ um scored all the projects through a

16:36 ↗ series of guiding principles um there

16:40 ↗ was about 130 projects scored uh back in

16:45 ↗ 2021 uh there was a zero so up to a

16:49 ↗ number of 78 out of 74 possible

16:54 ↗ points the average was

16:56 ↗ 28 27 the projects scored 40 or

17:01 ↗ more a number that was used to help

17:04 ↗ identify that they Advanced multiple

17:06 ↗ guiding principles and are consistent

17:09 ↗ with the

17:10 ↗ objectives and the remaining projects uh

17:13 ↗ still exist in there they're just not

17:15 ↗ funded or in the tip and so those are

17:19 ↗ kind of the bullpen projects that can

17:20 ↗ get brought up and that list can also

17:23 ↗ that future project can get added to it

17:25 ↗ uh they're just unfunded projects um

17:28 ↗ and in the the tip or in the packet

17:32 ↗ there's all the listed projects that

17:35 ↗ were in the 24 to 29 CIP and then uh

17:38 ↗ there's a couple pages of projects just

17:41 ↗ with bullets I think that show which

17:43 ↗ projects aren't currently you don't have

17:45 ↗ funding

17:47 ↗ identified those projects were scored

17:50 ↗ they're just they didn't score

17:55 ↗ R like that future year projects what

17:58 ↗ called that

18:06 ↗ is um so the guiding principles were to

18:09 ↗ improve Mobility with isqua in isqua

18:13 ↗ prepare for growth connect to the region

18:16 ↗ promote environment and invest

18:19 ↗ wisely and there's the

18:22 ↗ points see with each

18:26 ↗ one most of them have

18:28 ↗ maybe all of them have three kind of sub

18:31 ↗ criteria we'll get into

18:34 ↗ those most of them are Z two or four and

18:37 ↗ the first two I think have some fours

18:39 ↗ and sixes kind to get to the end down to

18:44 ↗ Fours all right so this brings us to our

18:46 ↗ discussion today uh we want to review

18:48 ↗ the guiding principle and the associated

18:51 ↗ uh evaluation criteria in the master

18:53 ↗ Mobility

18:55 ↗ plan I want to discuss if there's any

18:57 ↗ minor adjustments to the

19:01 ↗ criteria try to keep the points similar

19:04 ↗ but the descriptions are kind of what we

19:06 ↗ wanted to focus our discussion on and

19:09 ↗ then we wanted to identify that since

19:11 ↗ the climate action plan has

19:13 ↗ been you know a more recent plan they

19:17 ↗ spend a little bit more time on that

19:19 ↗ category to make sure our Master

19:21 ↗ Mobility plan is consistent with

19:24 ↗ that

19:26 ↗ um so I guess we'll kind of trialing out

19:29 ↗ what the best way to go through each one

19:30 ↗ of these is

19:32 ↗ um a lot of information on each one of

19:35 ↗ these

19:37 ↗ um I can kind of read the guiding

19:39 ↗ principle it'd be kind of nice for us

19:42 ↗ all be on the same page it's all in your

19:43 ↗ packet

19:45 ↗ too we want to way in the back almost

19:49 ↗ the very

19:57 ↗ end

20:06 ↗ for the mobility math

20:08 ↗ Planet rep it goes over two

20:12 ↗ pages

20:15 ↗ um the first guiding principle is

20:17 ↗ improve mobility within

20:20 ↗ isqua the description is to provide safe

20:24 ↗ accessible connection within isquat to

20:26 ↗ provide near-term benefits to people of

20:27 ↗ all ages abilities income backgrounds Us

20:31 ↗ in all travel

20:32 ↗ options this one's divided into three

20:36 ↗ uh with project evaluation

20:41 ↗ Criterion first one does the project

20:43 ↗ address a location with a history of

20:45 ↗ fatal or severe injury or bike and

20:48 ↗ pedestrian collisions involved or

20:50 ↗ involved collisions and or an fhwa

20:54 ↗ approved proven safety

20:57 ↗ countermeasure

20:59 ↗ this one has a 10 six and two and zero

21:03 ↗ option and has a fatality

21:07 ↗ six one or more collisions to if it's

21:11 ↗ identified by the community

21:13 ↗ zero doesn't the the two reflects like a

21:17 ↗ lower weight though it's a like um an

21:21 ↗ allert by the

21:23 ↗ community two is a bit

21:26 ↗ low you think two is

21:28 ↗ like I would think we hired them

21:32 ↗ to says location identified by Community

21:36 ↗ Report with major safety concerns that's

21:39 ↗ like a a low weight on such a

21:44 ↗ Mark we were talking about points

21:47 ↗ budgeting in our pre meeting

21:49 ↗ and here have way better memory than I

21:52 ↗ don't I bet you you remember our

21:55 ↗ discussion about the consum

22:00 ↗ waiting yeah and and also I just want to

22:02 ↗ take that I appreciate your comment I do

22:04 ↗ want to take a pause and talk about a

22:05 ↗ couple things on that meeting so that

22:07 ↗ everybody else is caught up as well go

22:09 ↗ ahead what were you gonna say yeah I

22:11 ↗ mean I think the consensus that we came

22:13 ↗ to in our pre- meeting for this meeting

22:16 ↗ is basically we're really trying to talk

22:18 ↗ about the language of the criteria

22:21 ↗ rather than you know budgeting out the

22:24 ↗ waiting of these criteria because in

22:27 ↗ that case

22:29 ↗ we're just going to be here for long

22:30 ↗ time because this

22:33 ↗ is you know everyone can have input uh

22:36 ↗ about the weighting of each of these

22:38 ↗ criteria and they might say it's not

22:40 ↗ enough it's too little um or it's too

22:44 ↗ much but that's just gonna keep us going

22:47 ↗ here for hours so I would submit though

22:50 ↗ that um our main concern was that the

22:53 ↗ the whole thing has to kind of add up to

22:55 ↗ the same thing um I would

22:58 ↗ suggest

22:59 ↗ that a workaround could be do we have

23:04 ↗ the right language in the right

23:07 ↗ boxes if we you know in other words we

23:11 ↗ could say in we we could say um we could

23:15 ↗ add language in the one that says number

23:17 ↗ six that says or something has been

23:20 ↗ consistently identified as an issue of

23:22 ↗ concern from the community and move

23:25 ↗ change the language that makes it so one

23:28 ↗ of the things that thank you for

23:29 ↗ reminding me we if we get into the

23:32 ↗ changing the scoring it kind of upsets a

23:34 ↗ bunch of other Downstream pieces of how

23:37 ↗ these things have been evaluated and

23:39 ↗ what we were really hoping to do today

23:41 ↗ is examine whether we think the right

23:42 ↗ language is in here and um we had a

23:45 ↗ special emphasis on on environment and

23:48 ↗ we had another emphasis what was our

23:50 ↗ other um and I'm sorry I came in a

23:52 ↗ little hot today and didn't have my

23:53 ↗ notes from that meeting um I know we

23:56 ↗ wanted to talk about this CR

24:00 ↗ and I yeah I do remember the bulk of the

24:04 ↗ conversation we did want to be on the

24:07 ↗ environmental one

24:09 ↗ and so as we're budgeting our time we

24:12 ↗ should expect to spend more time on that

24:14 ↗ one than these and we don't want to be

24:18 ↗ changing the point values I I think if

24:20 ↗ we were ever to look at changing the

24:22 ↗ point values that's something we'd want

24:24 ↗ to do over probably three or four

24:27 ↗ meetings and so for this we want to the

24:30 ↗ thing to bite off but I do think so one

24:34 ↗ of things that we may want to do so we

24:36 ↗ have this our only item on the agenda

24:39 ↗ we've budgeted some time we've all set

24:40 ↗ aside this time to dig in deep and this

24:43 ↗ group as a you know is the interest and

24:44 ↗ capacity to dig deep what I would

24:47 ↗ suggest maybe is we we in our Prem

24:50 ↗ meeting felt that the environment

24:51 ↗ environmental section had more material

24:54 ↗ that we may want to reexamine I think we

24:56 ↗ should maybe finish this particular

24:57 ↗ particular one bounce to that one see

25:00 ↗ how long it takes us and budget our time

25:03 ↗ um I mean all of this could be examined

25:05 ↗ and this is I think a really appropriate

25:07 ↗ time to do that we also spent some time

25:09 ↗ talking about the fact that this is in

25:11 ↗ the master Mobility plan which was

25:12 ↗ adopted by Council in 2021 but we read

25:15 ↗ through the language around that um

25:19 ↗ Council Bill uh that was put forth and

25:21 ↗ it is expected that it it is not locked

25:24 ↗ and and like you said there was a bullet

25:25 ↗ that said it's a living document and

25:28 ↗ um I done kind of the rabbit hole of is

25:31 ↗ that thing an adopted thing we need to

25:32 ↗ map to or do we have the authority

25:35 ↗ to you know massage language in that has

25:38 ↗ been adopted and the answer was very

25:40 ↗ clear that we could and that we are

25:42 ↗ expected to it is part of our

25:44 ↗ responsibility um our duties as the tab

25:47 ↗ and so um I would propose maybe um back

25:51 ↗ to Han's point and then maybe see if

25:54 ↗ there's a group consensus that we want

25:55 ↗ to maybe mean I I I think all of us

25:59 ↗ probably can relate to what he just had

26:02 ↗ to say and how challenging that must be

26:04 ↗ and you know I don't know how many of

26:06 ↗ these we get but it sounds like this is

26:08 ↗ a pretty cons issue you can everybody

26:10 ↗ knows that

26:12 ↗ intersection is that something I mean

26:14 ↗ that is a safety issue is that something

26:16 ↗ that we might want to consider changing

26:20 ↗ the language of the one that has six

26:21 ↗ points to include the kind of thing he's

26:24 ↗ talking about so maybe that's a

26:26 ↗ workaround

26:28 ↗ but just just one question before I made

26:30 ↗ my comment um are the projects actually

26:33 ↗ prioritized based in points is only a

26:36 ↗ couple so I would say we look at it

26:39 ↗ holistically so we've got the CIP cig

26:42 ↗ color

26:43 ↗ Matrix that we yes and that's Citywide

26:47 ↗ and then we look at how these projects

26:50 ↗ score with the mobility master plan but

26:52 ↗ we don't have a cut it off here and for

26:57 ↗ example example there might be a project

26:58 ↗ that according to this criteria doesn't

27:01 ↗ score well but we really need to do

27:03 ↗ maybe it's but if a project scores two

27:05 ↗ points higher and moves up one in the

27:07 ↗ ranking it's not going to be like oh

27:09 ↗ well we better go do that one before

27:10 ↗ this other one automatically right right

27:14 ↗ yeah so based on that and based on what

27:18 ↗ you recommended I would say what's

27:20 ↗ probably most and most effective use of

27:23 ↗ our time is to literally ignore every

27:27 ↗ entry under the top

27:29 ↗ scoring

27:32 ↗ description so look at the criteria

27:36 ↗ itself and then the top cell for that

27:39 ↗ criteria for

27:41 ↗ now because at some point we're really

27:45 ↗ trying to decide what is maximum points

27:48 ↗ and to discuss what is two points lower

27:50 ↗ or two points higher is not a valuable

27:53 ↗ use of our time unless we get through

27:55 ↗ everything right and we can come back to

27:57 ↗ it it because this top score and this

28:01 ↗ overall probably contains 90% of what

28:03 ↗ we're trying to figure out and if we

28:05 ↗ need to come back then we can we can do

28:07 ↗ that but I I just don't for see us if we

28:10 ↗ start to look at what's the difference

28:12 ↗ between two points and four points we're

28:15 ↗ gonna spend an hour on two points that

28:18 ↗ sounds like is not actually gonna

28:21 ↗ immediately change the

28:26 ↗ project so same thing start with this

28:28 ↗ one then go to environment but just

28:30 ↗ don't let's not focus on the difference

28:32 ↗ between two per

28:34 ↗ points I think it's a really really good

28:36 ↗ point I think we um I like the idea of

28:39 ↗ emphasizing the top I think there's a

28:42 ↗ big difference between two and six

28:43 ↗ points I think it just also has like a

28:45 ↗ feel to it it feels like it's not

28:47 ↗ important because it only got two points

28:48 ↗ on this thing or prior where safety is

28:51 ↗ the main thrust of that issue so yeah so

28:55 ↗ I guess I think that's a really really

28:56 ↗ good point I think we should focus on

28:57 ↗ the top ones the biggest scorers not

29:00 ↗ nitpick down the bottom but I don't want

29:02 ↗ to limit us to so so maybe maybe we can

29:06 ↗ just take a note of it and come back I'm

29:08 ↗ just afraid of us getting wrapped up on

29:11 ↗ plus or minus two points when we are

29:14 ↗ gonna we're here to talk about really is

29:18 ↗ this the right criteria overall and so

29:20 ↗ maybe we just take a note and say let's

29:22 ↗ come back if we have time and figure out

29:25 ↗ if this is really the right weing

29:27 ↗ through

29:30 ↗ I'm kind of looking ahead a lot of these

29:32 ↗ become yes or Nos and yeah a little more

29:36 ↗ simple I just keep that that a piece of

29:41 ↗ context this one seems to be by far the

29:44 ↗ most

29:45 ↗ complicated I think if we can get

29:49 ↗ through safety and environment I think

29:51 ↗ the rest of them are going to go really

29:53 ↗ fast so we do have time to go through it

30:02 ↗ um

30:03 ↗ well I think that we should keep that in

30:06 ↗ mind and not get too down into the weeds

30:09 ↗ but I think that um I'd like to hear

30:12 ↗ what someone else has to say

30:13 ↗ about these um this language

30:18 ↗ and um about whether we think this

30:22 ↗ criteria the language in this is right

30:24 ↗ um whether

30:26 ↗ they're at the right emphasis level

30:33 ↗ emphasis so your opening comment you

30:36 ↗ think that that identified of the

30:39 ↗ community is way too low and that should

30:40 ↗ be led higher um that fair to say yes

30:44 ↗ yes I would say that um I felt that the

30:47 ↗ grading system or scoring system doesn't

30:49 ↗ go in their us of Step St

30:55 ↗ yeah given um

30:59 ↗ description well another good point

31:01 ↗ about this and undo what you just said

31:05 ↗ is this is a high value

31:08 ↗ Max and so two is only 20% of the total

31:12 ↗ possible for this category so that makes

31:15 ↗ it even whereas for example the

31:16 ↗ difference between two the next one it

31:18 ↗ only is a Max of six so this is a pretty

31:20 ↗ big difference yeah the way it is do the

31:24 ↗ total points matter or the individual so

31:27 ↗ waited yeah well because this PS

31:30 ↗ categories 22 points cor so but do they

31:33 ↗ wait to because like end of the day

31:36 ↗ isn't it two out of 74 regardless of

31:39 ↗ whether we're talking in this category

31:41 ↗ another

31:43 ↗ category theoretically if you change

31:45 ↗ that to a four it would still be at a 74

31:48 ↗ it would just that

31:51 ↗ subcategory so so if I understand what

31:54 ↗ discussion is is for example 1.1 and 1.2

31:57 ↗ 1.1 is really important to those be

32:00 ↗ categories like a 12 10 8 six 1.2 that

32:04 ↗ may not be as important could be a

32:07 ↗ 246 or 6421 so that if it's really more

32:11 ↗ important it's going to have a weighted

32:14 ↗ or set of points going to get it may

32:17 ↗ offset some of the other items that

32:19 ↗ might bring something that's really

32:21 ↗ important might bring it

32:24 ↗ down well maybe we should just recommend

32:28 ↗ that that two becomes a

32:31 ↗ four I would rather see the language

32:34 ↗ under six include high priority

32:38 ↗ Community then we don't have to change

32:39 ↗ any points I think sense because once we

32:43 ↗ do that four once we change that to a

32:44 ↗ four six or change up the length to six

32:48 ↗ then it messes up the whole thing and

32:52 ↗ start because find two points tomor else

32:55 ↗ we allocate two points

32:58 ↗ oh you're saying it's out of 10 points

33:01 ↗ is out of 10 he's right if you want to

33:02 ↗ assign that to be he's right oh yeah oh

33:06 ↗ it's you're not adding

33:08 ↗ two it's 10 total you're right yeah

33:12 ↗ still I still

33:14 ↗ like you want to get rid of the entire

33:16 ↗ two and you either get 10 six or zero

33:19 ↗ yes okay I do what does the rest of you

33:21 ↗ think this is our job we get to do this

33:23 ↗ we get to you don't have to agree with

33:25 ↗ me what do you go ahead so I've got

33:27 ↗ question for the group what do you

33:29 ↗ think's more important in terms of

33:31 ↗ prioritizing

33:33 ↗ safety yeah is it actual accidents at a

33:36 ↗ location or reports

33:40 ↗ that

33:46 ↗ location like it should be definitely

33:49 ↗ balanced because if you focus too much

33:51 ↗ in accidents then it's just going to be

33:52 ↗ like oh someone got injured here oh now

33:55 ↗ we have to fix it versus like

33:57 ↗ reacting proactively to concern so that

34:00 ↗ we avoid accidents in the first

34:04 ↗ place yeah I I agree with that proactive

34:08 ↗ approach I think it just makes more

34:10 ↗ sense to address problems of B ni on the

34:14 ↗ road so how do you know if it's going to

34:15 ↗ be a bad place unless there is an

34:18 ↗ accident because a community lives there

34:20 ↗ and they do that every single day and

34:22 ↗ they are and they ex that's their

34:24 ↗ experience as people who live in this

34:25 ↗ community I also think that you could

34:27 ↗ maybe I'm all into noodling but you you

34:31 ↗ could is it isn't that what it means by

34:34 ↗ multiple mic like what if we just had

34:36 ↗ multiple collisions so in other

34:39 ↗ words um you know a small number of

34:43 ↗ collisions or a fear of a small number

34:45 ↗ of collisions is is six comb

34:48 ↗ consolidating and 10

34:50 ↗ includes one or

34:53 ↗ more or multiple small minor

34:57 ↗ if you have a lot of minor ones and that

34:59 ↗ should be a 10 if you have a high fear

35:02 ↗ of accident that should be and you live

35:05 ↗ in that community that should be

35:08 ↗ high

35:10 ↗ everything's Point what you call it

35:13 ↗ nearness so that's an accident to

35:18 ↗ happen and are those reported the city

35:22 ↗ people report so we do have C click fix

35:26 ↗ where we do get that

35:27 ↗ now this is just me thinking out loud of

35:30 ↗ the pros and cons of it

35:34 ↗ is what I don't want to do and this

35:37 ↗ might not be a problem with this squad

35:39 ↗ but if there's a certain segment of the

35:41 ↗ community that does not feel comfortable

35:43 ↗ submitting concerns in C click fix then

35:47 ↗ it's not going to show up as multiple

35:49 ↗ concerns whereas another neighborhood

35:51 ↗ might feel more comfortable submitting

35:53 ↗ their concerns maybe they're more

35:55 ↗ organized and

35:58 ↗ because there's neighborhoods with very

36:00 ↗ active HOAs and we'll get lots of things

36:03 ↗ from them so what I don't want to do and

36:06 ↗ I guess advise me if you disagree is I

36:09 ↗ don't want to then skew it where a

36:11 ↗ neighborhood with a powerful HOA can

36:14 ↗ skew more projects to them and a

36:17 ↗ neighborhood without an

36:20 ↗ HOA might not it

36:22 ↗ it's the

36:24 ↗ challenge once you have it qualitative

36:27 ↗ measure that you're putting a lot of

36:28 ↗ weight

36:30 ↗ on and it's how do you how you're

36:32 ↗ measuring that your input to it whereas

36:35 ↗ like the collisions it's happen or it

36:38 ↗ didn't so I and this is where I'm saying

36:42 ↗ the difference of two points doesn't

36:43 ↗ make or break something so seems like

36:45 ↗ we're all in the direction of this why

36:47 ↗ don't you but's the four come back to it

36:49 ↗ later we want to discuss it further

36:51 ↗ because if we're talking whether it's

36:53 ↗ for you four or six right two to six

36:55 ↗ okay at least that's four points

36:57 ↗ separate four four to six is lit two

36:59 ↗ point

37:00 ↗ so I concern with too many neighbors of

37:03 ↗ strong HOAs it's more of a perception

37:06 ↗ could be more of a perception that they

37:08 ↗ have as opposed to actual data something

37:10 ↗ actually happened they see something oh

37:12 ↗ that could happen that expands was like

37:16 ↗ well it actually or did it actually and

37:18 ↗ then it's that way I'd rather be more

37:21 ↗ datab based as far as a decision

37:24 ↗ like a lot of times n misses aren't

37:26 ↗ reported you just kind of custom Square

37:28 ↗ in your car and you keep

37:30 ↗ driving but physical accident or injury

37:34 ↗ or something that's seen by other people

37:36 ↗ have reported and that's more

37:39 ↗ data kind of a hard sell because

37:42 ↗ something has to happen before you have

37:43 ↗ that data availability so I've got a

37:47 ↗ question or an idea what about looking

37:50 ↗ at prioritizing projects in areas with

37:54 ↗ characteristics of locations with high

38:00 ↗ accidents I so what do you

38:03 ↗ mean geometry so we did a local Road

38:07 ↗ Safety

38:08 ↗ plan about a month or two ago where we

38:10 ↗ looked at all the city's accident data

38:13 ↗ over believe a five-year period and we

38:17 ↗ looked at whether it was a fatality an

38:19 ↗ injury accident an accident pedestrians

38:23 ↗ involved and we started identifying

38:25 ↗ characteristics

38:27 ↗ of streets in esqua where we're more

38:29 ↗ likely to have

38:31 ↗ accidents and that could be a way

38:35 ↗ to meet the intent because we're wanting

38:37 ↗ to be proactive and address accidents

38:40 ↗ before they

38:41 ↗ happen but we're also wanting to do it

38:45 ↗ in a data driven way right and so that's

38:49 ↗ dependent upon that Transportation

38:51 ↗ engineer decision about which roads are

38:55 ↗ necessarily you know have potential for

38:58 ↗ accidents but I believe you would

39:00 ↗ probably with your expertise would know

39:03 ↗ how to choose that yeah we started

39:05 ↗ seeing patterns so is usually a lot of

39:08 ↗ times what it would be is a road that

39:10 ↗ used to be a rural road and then became

39:14 ↗ an Suburban or urban road that where we

39:17 ↗ don't

39:19 ↗ have Curb gutter we have

39:23 ↗ curves Newport Way between Maple and

39:25 ↗ sunset with ditches was one of the ones

39:28 ↗ identified the up in Spock going up 12

39:33 ↗ in Mount Olympus that was

39:35 ↗ identified and so I forget which other

39:39 ↗ ones but we started seeing

39:40 ↗ characteristics of certain types of

39:43 ↗ streets that were more likely to have

39:46 ↗ accidents did we combine that data um

39:49 ↗ that we have with maybe

39:52 ↗ also Community

39:54 ↗ input like if people are saying oh this

39:56 ↗ is really dangerous someone's going to

39:58 ↗ die in this intersection and we could

40:00 ↗ delve into the data or dive into the

40:03 ↗ data and maybe like confirm what they're

40:05 ↗ saying or something with that work or is

40:07 ↗ that not really a good

40:09 ↗ idea that makes sense and in a lot of

40:13 ↗ ways that is what we do when we do get

40:15 ↗ the request to seip click fixed is we

40:17 ↗ then look at the data we look at the

40:19 ↗ accidents we look at the characteristics

40:21 ↗ of the

40:23 ↗ street so I think something then that

40:26 ↗ could be useful as if we somehow

40:28 ↗ encourage people more to use the uh the

40:30 ↗ C click fix thing maybe if like I don't

40:33 ↗ know if we just put QR code print outc

40:35 ↗ in the intersection for like Walkers or

40:37 ↗ whatever like pedestrians I don't

40:48 ↗ know I think of talking about that

40:52 ↗ geometry situation then you know but

40:57 ↗ perception is of the engineers about

40:59 ↗ that

41:01 ↗ is I'm leaning towards you know

41:04 ↗ including this point 2 language into

41:07 ↗ point 6 and having that Ro geometry

41:09 ↗ situation into the replace that into the

41:12 ↗ point two

41:14 ↗ points It's Kind like a scale of pro

41:18 ↗ proactivity

41:20 ↗ um in terms of you know is this

41:23 ↗ identified as a situation where Roy is

41:27 ↗ not good and lead

41:31 ↗ toates to

41:35 ↗ six so isn't that then waiting location

41:39 ↗ where there's multiple collisions the

41:40 ↗ same as HOA reporting that

41:44 ↗ because someone honked at them too many

41:46 ↗ times I mean like seriously though like

41:49 ↗ that's what you do if you put that in

41:50 ↗ the same category that that's I

41:52 ↗ interpret collisions as that should be

41:54 ↗ more important There's an actual

41:57 ↗ actual incident should be more important

42:00 ↗ than any level of

42:02 ↗ report could we add in another like

42:05 ↗ maybe something in between six and 10

42:07 ↗ like put in eight points or something or

42:10 ↗ if there is like the um the like

42:13 ↗ location of with one or more collisions

42:15 ↗ of any type and severity move that into

42:17 ↗ the a point and then put the like people

42:20 ↗ complaining into the six point or

42:22 ↗ something just so that it's a bit more

42:25 ↗ um even I guess in like there's more so

42:29 ↗ instead of having to put everything into

42:30 ↗ three categories more spread outs

42:32 ↗ there's more options variety I guess I

42:35 ↗ don't

42:36 ↗ know so you have a 10 10's as is eight

42:40 ↗ would become what six is yeah six would

42:44 ↗ be what two is

42:48 ↗ so like we're spinning a little bit and

42:50 ↗ these are all really valid comments but

42:51 ↗ I think we're losing our way a little

42:52 ↗ bit what what are our primary concerns

42:55 ↗ what do we not like about this what what

42:57 ↗ do we agree is not quite right about

43:00 ↗ this can we just level up for one second

43:02 ↗ and um because I I think that's

43:05 ↗ everyone's making kind of I think valid

43:06 ↗ points and I keep finding

43:08 ↗ myself compelled by different arguments

43:10 ↗ but I I feel like we're losing our way a

43:12 ↗ little bit what what are our primary

43:14 ↗ concerns with

43:16 ↗ this the community isn't being heard

43:19 ↗ well enough with the number two but then

43:21 ↗ the flip side of that is if you have

43:23 ↗ community members that just have really

43:25 ↗ big microphones they get bumped higher

43:29 ↗ right but the transportation Engineers

43:32 ↗ are the ones who kind of like make a

43:35 ↗ decision whether that makes sense or not

43:38 ↗ right not it's right now exactly I mean

43:42 ↗ they they evaluate the information too

43:44 ↗ so maybe um you know maybe Community

43:49 ↗ input should be included with you know

43:52 ↗ transportation engineering knowledge so

43:55 ↗ we want to be more sensitive to the

43:56 ↗ community but we also don't want to

43:59 ↗ overweight

44:03 ↗ um well no we don't want to overweight

44:06 ↗ um

44:08 ↗ unbalanced people who have an ethic um

44:11 ↗ so like including I think it would be

44:14 ↗ helpful to improve the waiting here but

44:18 ↗ also

44:19 ↗ include or just create a new Point

44:21 ↗ category which says if it's verified by

44:24 ↗ Road Engineers that

44:26 ↗ the road geometry is leads to higher

44:29 ↗ perity of collisions it lead to that

44:33 ↗ what if we add um in in the one that's

44:36 ↗ six and we can debate the number of

44:37 ↗ points but that just says or identified

44:40 ↗ as high potent having high

44:41 ↗ characteristics of the

44:44 ↗ Community Transportation

44:48 ↗ well I'm saying

44:51 ↗ um the community yeah well the community

44:55 ↗ is gonna uh um we need to be I I like

44:58 ↗ the idea ver being needed to be verified

45:00 ↗ by um the transort the professionals who

45:03 ↗ can identify characteristics right so

45:07 ↗ the problem with the with the second one

45:09 ↗ is that it doesn't have um potential

45:12 ↗ collisions so would we feel more

45:14 ↗ comfortable if potential collisions were

45:16 ↗ included in this second as identified by

45:19 ↗ the characteristics I kind of like that

45:22 ↗ does it take some of the subjectivity

45:24 ↗ out

45:28 ↗ so you're saying we still keep two um

45:31 ↗ Community multiple concerns well I I I I

45:36 ↗ don't know where you're headed I know

45:37 ↗ I'm sorry what I basically think that is

45:39 ↗ if the community brings it to the

45:42 ↗ attention of the engineers and they

45:44 ↗ ident then they identify it as having

45:47 ↗ characteristics and sort of validating

45:49 ↗ it yes then it ends up at six yes and so

45:53 ↗ Community without validation stays

45:57 ↗ I think that's

46:00 ↗ reasonable I think it's wor does that

46:03 ↗ make sense makes sense to me do we want

46:06 ↗ to include qualifier to that of like

46:08 ↗ Community input just

46:10 ↗ to TI that line of

46:13 ↗ like U Community send something in

46:17 ↗ Engineers verified that this is actually

46:19 ↗ true that this road is possible for

46:23 ↗ collisions or do you this but I I would

46:26 ↗ then yeah because I would then be

46:28 ↗ concerned that then we're we would be

46:31 ↗ dranking if our Traffic Engineers

46:33 ↗ identify this is a area of a lot of

46:37 ↗ concern well the community didn't also

46:39 ↗ identify it so it's raked up there so I

46:42 ↗ I think if there was like open language

46:44 ↗ that sort of

46:45 ↗ includes there like the whole city is

46:47 ↗ built on a foundation of listening

46:49 ↗ community so if we say Traffic Engineers

46:51 ↗ or or some something along those lines I

46:54 ↗ don't think we need to Workshop it I

46:56 ↗ think we're kind of getting direction

46:57 ↗ right then that it can be worded in a

47:01 ↗ way

47:02 ↗ that's Community input could be a factor

47:05 ↗ there without saying like it has to be a

47:07 ↗ community recommended

47:10 ↗ one it reflected in a probability and

47:13 ↗ occurrence and then there's some

47:15 ↗ quantification to to bre that that's

47:18 ↗ that's how they measure safety probility

47:22 ↗ on

47:24 ↗ car

47:29 ↗ probility based on identified

47:32 ↗ characteristics

47:36 ↗ um

47:39 ↗ so we summarize who and summarize I

47:42 ↗ think we kind of are agree I think we're

47:46 ↗ I we were trying to change it pretty

47:48 ↗ drastically but I think change is pretty

47:50 ↗ simple overall we basically just change

47:53 ↗ six to say location with or collisions

47:56 ↗ of any type of and severity and um

48:00 ↗ identified to have a high possibility or

48:02 ↗ high probability of collisions based on

48:06 ↗ assessment

48:08 ↗ from engineering staff and that

48:10 ↗ assessment can be instigated by the

48:12 ↗ community but we don't need to say that

48:14 ↗ here yeah yeah

48:21 ↗ that I think it's I think it's I think

48:25 ↗ it's strong and I think John you saved

48:27 ↗ us from being overly sensitive to

48:33 ↗ community input and I don't mean that we

48:35 ↗ shouldn't be sensitive to community but

48:37 ↗ for it being outweighed and not um

48:40 ↗ considering other communities that don't

48:41 ↗ have the same voice I think I think you

48:43 ↗ brought the equity Point pretty strongly

48:46 ↗ because I wasn't immediately thinking

48:48 ↗ about hey maybe like an Nature Way is

48:49 ↗ directly asking people to send and see

48:52 ↗ click fix things all the time um and

48:56 ↗ other neighborhoods might not send us

48:59 ↗ that to our next meeting

49:03 ↗ agenda so just checking in Erica are you

49:06 ↗ tracking and are you comfortable with

49:08 ↗ where we

49:10 ↗ landed yeah I think so um my mind's also

49:13 ↗ going towards um oh I'm blanking on the

49:18 ↗ name now but something that we

49:20 ↗ covered uh a couple meetings ago uh

49:24 ↗ overhauling kind of the like H like the

49:27 ↗ community input for I think it was for

49:28 ↗ traffic calming and I uh I just have

49:32 ↗ that in the back of my mind as we're

49:33 ↗ talking about um like the like wait

49:37 ↗ waiting Community input for this process

49:41 ↗ I guess if if that is being

49:43 ↗ revamped I'm I'm like trusting the

49:46 ↗ process a little more um but yeah

49:49 ↗ overall I I am like in sync with what's

49:52 ↗ happening with y'all over

49:54 ↗ there

49:56 ↗ great did we want to discuss this Andor

50:02 ↗ situation can me the this project

50:07 ↗ evaluation criteria um where I think the

50:11 ↗ discussion our pre- meeting for this

50:13 ↗ was we were thinking that it was

50:18 ↗ originally or or

50:20 ↗ and right or no I think it says Andor in

50:24 ↗ the mobility master plan the question

50:26 ↗ that we have is should we just change

50:28 ↗ that to and because and I don't think we

50:31 ↗ would do this but

50:33 ↗ theoretically a project could

50:36 ↗ have the location of the accidents but

50:39 ↗ if we're not also doing the counter

50:42 ↗ measures so how does that actually work

50:45 ↗ with this because that almost seems like

50:47 ↗ separate criteria do you have to like

50:49 ↗ check box 1.1 plus the 10-point box to

50:53 ↗ get 10

50:54 ↗ points or just 1.1 like General guidance

50:58 ↗ because because that seems like its own

50:59 ↗ criteria right let's just say it was and

51:01 ↗ right

51:03 ↗ so it project doesn't add uh fhwa proven

51:10 ↗ safety counter measures so then does it

51:12 ↗ not matter whether it's in a location

51:14 ↗ with fatal severe injuries we're just

51:16 ↗ not doing it like is that separate is it

51:19 ↗ meant to be separate additional

51:23 ↗ criteria well I take it mean that we are

51:27 ↗ identifying areas where there are

51:30 ↗ accidents or probability of accidents or

51:32 ↗ concerns of accidents and we're going to

51:35 ↗ do something about it and so if we had a

51:38 ↗ project that was going to take a

51:40 ↗ two-lane road and make it a five Lane

51:43 ↗ Road and not do any safety improvements

51:46 ↗ and this two-lane road had three

51:49 ↗ fatalities in the past five years well

51:53 ↗ that to me should not earn

51:56 ↗ the 10 points because we're not doing

51:58 ↗ anything to address the fatality so it

52:00 ↗ is then meant to be like a an additional

52:03 ↗ criteria if that's not met you get zero

52:06 ↗ points at least that's how I'd like I

52:08 ↗ mean

52:10 ↗ guess discuss it yeah so that's what I

52:14 ↗ would

52:15 ↗ prefer question when you say you're

52:17 ↗ taking a two-lane road and five I would

52:21 ↗ think you would be addressing the

52:22 ↗ safety of it anyway when you're identify

52:25 ↗ design it to right should I was just

52:28 ↗ trying to simplify I couldn't think of

52:30 ↗ an example but yes so let's say you're

52:32 ↗ doing some drainage improvements along

52:34 ↗ the side of right an intersection but it

52:36 ↗ doesn't do anything for the safety but

52:38 ↗ it happens to be located so it somehow

52:40 ↗ gets a bunch of points for being located

52:43 ↗ but the project itself isn't addressing

52:46 ↗ the problem oh well if the drainage is

52:48 ↗ causing a backup where the

52:53 ↗ road so I think we were just trying to

52:56 ↗ trying to avoid a loophole basically

52:59 ↗ right yes that's exactly so does that

53:01 ↗ mean we need to take out

53:03 ↗ or that all tightens up by taking out

53:06 ↗ four

53:09 ↗ yeah could you is it possible to

53:13 ↗ address a location you know prove safety

53:17 ↗ at a location blah blah blah that is not

53:22 ↗ utilizing I I don't know what all is

53:24 ↗ included in

53:25 ↗ like are there a bunch of things that

53:28 ↗ you could do that would improve safety

53:30 ↗ just aren't included in those proven

53:32 ↗ safety counter measures are there things

53:34 ↗ that we want to do maybe are not proven

53:36 ↗ yet yeah but a new recommended you know

53:39 ↗ they determine that actually driving

53:40 ↗ faster is safer and so then we say we're

53:42 ↗ not going to do

53:44 ↗ it it's a great question I would say

53:47 ↗ that would then go under an

53:50 ↗ experimental project that we would want

53:52 ↗ to have a long conversation with risk

53:54 ↗ management well let me give a more

53:56 ↗ realistic example the bumps at Crossing

54:00 ↗ you know the we talked about these the

54:02 ↗ other oh the bul

54:04 ↗ outs little bums you can feel so you

54:06 ↗ know you're oh the truncated

54:09 ↗ domes

54:13 ↗ sure

54:14 ↗ yeah so at some point those were

54:16 ↗ probably not

54:17 ↗ proven right there was some point where

54:20 ↗ they came out and they were they were

54:23 ↗ inuse but not proven

54:26 ↗ so do we want to prohibit us from giving

54:29 ↗ any points or it's a project that

54:31 ↗ implements things well they're not

54:35 ↗ prent I don't know because I just don't

54:37 ↗ know what's included I don't know how

54:39 ↗ broad this fhwa

54:42 ↗ is I would say it's pretty Broad and

54:45 ↗ when it comes to risk management for

54:49 ↗ safety you really want to be going with

54:52 ↗ things that have been proven to with the

54:55 ↗ City ever actually Implement something

54:58 ↗ that's not from The Proven list if we're

54:59 ↗ trying to address

55:01 ↗ safety I can't imagine doing that and

55:05 ↗ like I said

55:06 ↗ it

55:11 ↗ okay I love how thorough your brain

55:15 ↗ is hypothetical

55:18 ↗ I we ready for

55:20 ↗ 1.2 well do did we want a bounced

55:23 ↗ environmental did that take it is 7 o'

55:27 ↗ yeah I think the

55:31 ↗ rest 1.3 is definitely pretty quick

55:34 ↗ 1.2 has a little bit of me to it I think

55:37 ↗ we're GNA talk about 1.2 for a long time

55:39 ↗ U but it is important so let's let's do

55:41 ↗ let's do 1 point two

55:44 ↗ okay all right 1 point two is the

55:46 ↗ project increases non Drive alone

55:49 ↗ options especially for seniors people

55:52 ↗ with disabilities Andor people with low

55:55 ↗ income limited English efficieny

55:59 ↗ or low vehicle ownership it's a lot of

56:02 ↗ ANS at

56:04 ↗ orang what does it mean it increases the

56:07 ↗ non- drive loone options does that mean

56:11 ↗ like if you adding a bus stop that

56:14 ↗ increases it yes period even if no buses

56:18 ↗ go

56:21 ↗ there would No Buses go there then no

56:24 ↗ that does

56:28 ↗ [Music]

56:30 ↗ so is it then a pretty short list is

56:33 ↗ it h

56:35 ↗ Lane bus

56:38 ↗ lane and bus stop I mean yeah sidewalks

56:43 ↗ bike lane sh

56:45 ↗ paths cling a

56:48 ↗ gap

56:51 ↗ connection so just not single occupancy

56:55 ↗ cars anything

56:57 ↗ else right

57:04 ↗ yes what if what if it comes to the cost

57:08 ↗ you know you you

57:10 ↗ are I don't know adding a HOV lane and

57:13 ↗ it comes to the cost of making it worse

57:16 ↗ for uh single occupancy vehicles and

57:19 ↗ that actually has a negative impact

57:20 ↗ let's say on uh one of the communities

57:23 ↗ that were were cons conc ered about here

57:26 ↗ that's listed here because maybe more

57:29 ↗ often commed to somewhere where can't

57:33 ↗ get a bus Tu is that a good thing though

57:36 ↗ you did

57:37 ↗ that the moves more people the GP Lane

57:40 ↗ in time well but but we call

57:43 ↗ out specific groups of people dri so low

57:47 ↗ vehicle ownership people won't be able

57:50 ↗ to drive by themselves they'll may be

57:52 ↗ able to car pool or take the bus Which

57:54 ↗ goes HOV Lan HOV Lan carries more

57:58 ↗ people because of that factor that you

58:01 ↗ have to be in there with people in that

58:03 ↗ single

58:04 ↗ vehicle so I think that

58:14 ↗ addresses so what do we do we know like

58:19 ↗ with with lower incomes do we know that

58:22 ↗ bu drops actually Ser them well I mean

58:24 ↗ it it's it's yes this is sort of

58:26 ↗ hypothetical oh you know

58:31 ↗ that the current bus routes because so

58:34 ↗ I'm thinking like you know like my

58:37 ↗ commun for example I I couldn't in any

58:40 ↗ practical way dat a bu it would be three

58:43 ↗ buses in an hour and a half period I

58:45 ↗ mean that that's the truth of the matter

58:47 ↗ with with how it currently is today

58:49 ↗ maybe we'll be better tomorrow and so if

58:51 ↗ you were to make my commute worse by

58:55 ↗ adding a bus line bus L you hurt me

58:58 ↗ right even though you haven't you

58:59 ↗ haven't helped me at all you've hurt so

59:00 ↗ what I'm saying is do we actually know

59:02 ↗ that doing that always helps the groups

59:05 ↗ that we call

59:07 ↗ out the perspective is that this is

59:09 ↗ eving the future projects and that the

59:12 ↗ stat that's the current status quo of

59:14 ↗ you having to take three

59:16 ↗ buses and transferring two times should

59:19 ↗ be changed and that we should be

59:20 ↗ evaluating projects that are able weight

59:24 ↗ projects are able to change that you

59:27 ↗ know so that you are also able to do two

59:29 ↗ buses but if it comes at the cost the

59:31 ↗ thing is that still considered a

59:33 ↗ positive that's all I'm getting and that

59:35 ↗ could be the answer is yes I think

59:37 ↗ the sorry let me take it correct so this

59:40 ↗ is I think a really foundational

59:43 ↗ fundamental core strategic value based

59:48 ↗ um vision of the future and the

59:52 ↗ and it will continue Contin to be worse

59:56 ↗ for Drive alone if we do nothing because

1:00:00 ↗ there's more people driving and it will

1:00:03 ↗ and so the MMP has a lot of language in

1:00:05 ↗ there that is based on the fundamental

1:00:08 ↗ um belief that we

1:00:11 ↗ cannot either afford and nor nor do we

1:00:14 ↗ want to pay what it costs to have twice

1:00:18 ↗ as you know to have the throughput for

1:00:19 ↗ Drive alone so so that's why it's it's

1:00:24 ↗ basic the premise that in the so it's a

1:00:25 ↗ 20year look yeah it's based on the

1:00:28 ↗ premise that we cannot keep

1:00:30 ↗ accommodating Drive alone it's going to

1:00:32 ↗ keep getting worse and worse and worse

1:00:34 ↗ so we have to provide other options so I

1:00:38 ↗ think the answer then is yes which is an

1:00:39 ↗ acceptable answer I'm not not disputing

1:00:42 ↗ that is an acceptable answer I just want

1:00:43 ↗ to clarify that that is in fact

1:00:45 ↗ acceptable answer sounds like yes it is

1:00:47 ↗ that's an okay tradeoff we're okay with

1:00:49 ↗ that tradeoff and that's and I think

1:00:51 ↗ that that's woven throughout the Mmp I

1:00:56 ↗ would say is that that you

1:01:00 ↗ cannot you cannot avoid some short-term

1:01:04 ↗ harm for the individual driver if you

1:01:07 ↗ put in a bus stop if you put in an extra

1:01:10 ↗ HOV lane if you put in traffic calming

1:01:13 ↗ but you will ultimately and that's why

1:01:15 ↗ it's called a master Mobility plan you

1:01:17 ↗ will move because we want to move people

1:01:20 ↗ we don't necessarily we're not in the

1:01:21 ↗ business of only moving cars or like in

1:01:24 ↗ the future

1:01:25 ↗ it's moving people

1:01:26 ↗ and goods and so I think the yeah and I

1:01:29 ↗ guess I was trying to connect that back

1:01:30 ↗ to an actual Equity analysis which is do

1:01:33 ↗ we actually

1:01:35 ↗ know that this is better

1:01:40 ↗ for groups that we would do Equity

1:01:42 ↗ analysis for that's so

1:01:45 ↗ so I just I I personally don't know the

1:01:48 ↗ answer to that I think we're making a

1:01:50 ↗ little bit of an assumption there maybe

1:01:51 ↗ we do know the answer to that I mean I

1:01:55 ↗ have a master of urban planning with an

1:01:56 ↗ emphasis on

1:01:58 ↗ Transportation uh infrastructure and

1:02:02 ↗ land use and so you know there's a a

1:02:05 ↗ huge Equity issue and with the number

1:02:09 ↗ with drivers versus people who have I

1:02:13 ↗ mean I mean flight out of the Cities I

1:02:15 ↗ mean it just it just I don't know I

1:02:18 ↗ guess is a very

1:02:20 ↗ broad each and every project I mean I'm

1:02:23 ↗ sure has its own search but I think we

1:02:26 ↗ can actually hunt a lot of this because

1:02:29 ↗ of a future conversation so we're

1:02:31 ↗ starting up a new work plan that will

1:02:34 ↗ eventually come to the T where we're

1:02:36 ↗ going to be asking the question does the

1:02:39 ↗ city's concurrency policy align with the

1:02:43 ↗ guiding principles of the mobility

1:02:45 ↗ master plan and as part of it

1:02:47 ↗ concurrently to evaluating concurrency

1:02:50 ↗ we're going to be asking questions

1:02:53 ↗ like Transit priority signals and

1:02:56 ↗ leading pedestrian intervals and things

1:02:59 ↗ like that that would actually do what

1:03:01 ↗ you're talking about M it and where

1:03:04 ↗ it'll take longer for the car to go

1:03:06 ↗ through the intersection if we're giving

1:03:09 ↗ priority to the bus or the leading

1:03:11 ↗ pedestrian interval so we will be having

1:03:14 ↗ a more detailed discussion of it and I

1:03:17 ↗ think he's trying to make sure that

1:03:18 ↗ these things do help deliver Mobility to

1:03:21 ↗ these po I defer to your expertise I'm

1:03:22 ↗ not I'm not an expert

1:03:25 ↗ I don't know you came across you sounded

1:03:26 ↗ like you had Authority so

1:03:28 ↗ I I believe you on it I agree we can

1:03:32 ↗ move on I I want to ask the question but

1:03:34 ↗ I because I don't have that ex I think

1:03:36 ↗ that we need to always be asking the

1:03:37 ↗ question to make sure that the strategy

1:03:39 ↗ that that delivers against the goal um

1:03:42 ↗ but I and I think it's also fair to

1:03:44 ↗ challenge assumptions because people

1:03:46 ↗ professionals can get a little bit um

1:03:49 ↗ into your own um feedback loop or what

1:03:52 ↗ you know your own um Echo chamber Amber

1:03:54 ↗ so I think it's a really fair question

1:03:56 ↗ and I think maybe it's so widely agreed

1:03:59 ↗ upon that we're not even asking the

1:04:00 ↗ questions does this deliver against this

1:04:02 ↗ as well as we want it to so I would

1:04:04 ↗ encourage you to keep asking these

1:04:05 ↗ questions and don't listen to people

1:04:07 ↗ that say they have a master room playing

1:04:08 ↗ too closely but I do think that it's a

1:04:11 ↗ fair point which is we it's so ingrain

1:04:14 ↗ that it's that it's like assumed and I

1:04:17 ↗ think we just need to make sure that

1:04:18 ↗ we're always asking those questions does

1:04:21 ↗ that project deliver against the popular

1:04:24 ↗ the benefits of the population that

1:04:25 ↗ we're trying to know I think it's

1:04:28 ↗ a super quick on the meeing PED signals

1:04:32 ↗ is that at the next meeting we're

1:04:33 ↗ talking no we we got a s contract first

1:04:36 ↗ with their

1:04:43 ↗ Consulting um so 4.2 do we want to go

1:04:45 ↗ through this the scoring um six closes a

1:04:50 ↗ gap or creates a new connection that

1:04:52 ↗ accommodates walk bike Transit trips in

1:04:54 ↗ a location serves people high needs or

1:04:58 ↗ kind of similar closes creates closes a

1:05:01 ↗ gap or creates a new connection that

1:05:03 ↗ accommodates walk bike Transit trips or

1:05:09 ↗ redu it just reduces mod of

1:05:12 ↗ conflicts

1:05:19 ↗ Crossing H one is an and and one's an or

1:05:21 ↗ is that what the difference between

1:05:22 ↗ these first two

1:05:25 ↗ I was I've read it a few different ways

1:05:27 ↗ myself I don't know if the people with

1:05:29 ↗ high needs carries

1:05:33 ↗ to

1:05:35 ↗ op low

1:05:38 ↗ the the

1:05:47 ↗ yeah

1:05:51 ↗ yeah that's good

1:05:56 ↗ [Music]

1:05:57 ↗ point three is a simple yes

1:05:59 ↗ no project could be implemented within

1:06:03 ↗ the next six years including

1:06:05 ↗ implementation as

1:06:08 ↗ a reversible and adaptable

1:06:12 ↗ pilot

1:06:15 ↗ that

1:06:18 ↗ um I know try to think of examples

1:06:22 ↗ history why that got attacked in

1:06:25 ↗ well I'm going to take a guess we've got

1:06:29 ↗ some projects that are multi-e years in

1:06:31 ↗ fact we got a Greg is heading up AC

1:06:35 ↗ planning study to identify a crossing of

1:06:38 ↗ I90 that's a project we can't do in the

1:06:40 ↗ next six

1:06:41 ↗ years and the guiding principle that

1:06:45 ↗ we're looking at is improve mobility

1:06:48 ↗ within isapa today and so while other

1:06:53 ↗ projects like the I90 Crossing will

1:06:55 ↗ score great across lots of different

1:06:58 ↗ criteria it's not going to improve

1:07:00 ↗ mobility within this spot today and

1:07:02 ↗ that's what we're trying to do with this

1:07:04 ↗ guiding principle and so I think that's

1:07:05 ↗ why we give six points because we do

1:07:08 ↗ want to say yes we do have these big

1:07:10 ↗ aspirational projects but let's get

1:07:13 ↗ something done now that makes a

1:07:15 ↗ difference for the people who live work

1:07:17 ↗ and play

1:07:19 ↗ this almost wonder six months it's too

1:07:22 ↗ low we can get it done should be a good

1:07:25 ↗ if it meet

1:07:26 ↗ the that could turn into sitation all we

1:07:29 ↗ do is projects that take six years or

1:07:31 ↗ last and then we start even gaming it

1:07:33 ↗ where contractors start thinking oh I

1:07:36 ↗ just got a bid six years and then I'm

1:07:38 ↗ gonna

1:07:39 ↗ get so makes it harder to get the big

1:07:42 ↗ ones that are important but those

1:07:48 ↗ four but what does implementation as a

1:07:51 ↗ reversible and adaptable that's what I

1:07:53 ↗ was trying to think example and I did

1:07:54 ↗ think of one there's a at the BBY

1:07:57 ↗ Transit Center it took away a general

1:08:00 ↗ purpose Lane um and then they added bike

1:08:02 ↗ Lanes in each Direction with these like

1:08:05 ↗ removable planters that protect them and

1:08:07 ↗ so that's a pilot that's going on that

1:08:09 ↗ in a couple years could be reversed

1:08:12 ↗ that's an example So when you say

1:08:16 ↗ including it could get this criteria for

1:08:19 ↗ either being able to be implemented six

1:08:21 ↗ years or

1:08:25 ↗ or also has to it has to be able to be

1:08:28 ↗ Implement in six years and it has to

1:08:30 ↗ have a reversible pilot no it to me it's

1:08:32 ↗ it's implementable in six years and this

1:08:35 ↗ also includes a reversible pilot so the

1:08:38 ↗ reversible pilot would have to be

1:08:41 ↗ done

1:08:43 ↗ yeah I would take that out to say could

1:08:45 ↗ it be implemented within six

1:08:48 ↗ years pilot not even say that's a good

1:08:51 ↗ what were you saying if you're like

1:08:53 ↗ added Lane to a road I feel like un like

1:08:57 ↗ removing that lane would be a huge

1:08:58 ↗ hassle but I feel like you could it's a

1:09:00 ↗ small Road you could realistically add a

1:09:02 ↗ lane within six years or it seems

1:09:05 ↗ so that's a really bad example but if

1:09:07 ↗ you're

1:09:08 ↗ like you know the project on Second

1:09:10 ↗ Street and Bush where they kind of

1:09:13 ↗ change the sidewalks up a bit at that

1:09:15 ↗ intersection going to where the high

1:09:16 ↗ school is how long was that

1:09:18 ↗ project like was that would that fall in

1:09:21 ↗ this under six years category as an

1:09:22 ↗ example of one that got done in less

1:09:26 ↗ than six years yeah yes so I feel like

1:09:28 ↗ that's not really something that'd be

1:09:30 ↗ reversible right because they changed

1:09:32 ↗ all the concrete and

1:09:33 ↗ stuff so I don't see exactly why

1:09:36 ↗ reversible is a huge um concern I I

1:09:40 ↗ don't know if it was that but maybe it's

1:09:43 ↗ telling us as staff don't forget to

1:09:46 ↗ think about ideas outside the box that

1:09:48 ↗ we can test in Reverse basically you

1:09:51 ↗ have a project the actual project if

1:09:53 ↗ you're to fully implement it Citywide

1:09:55 ↗ because that's the project would take

1:09:56 ↗ you a decade but you can do an you can

1:09:59 ↗ do a pilot

1:10:00 ↗ for so I I just think that

1:10:03 ↗ including there's probably just like a

1:10:06 ↗ two or three word change that makes it

1:10:08 ↗ clear that it's not like meant to be a

1:10:11 ↗ project within six years that includes a

1:10:12 ↗ reversal

1:10:15 ↗ pilot I like Tom's idea of just removing

1:10:18 ↗ that whole reversible I mean because if

1:10:19 ↗ it's a typ pilot

1:10:22 ↗ with project then six criteria it would

1:10:27 ↗ meet the sixe criteria

1:10:29 ↗ and and I think yeah a pilot could be a

1:10:32 ↗ project right yeah yeah because that's

1:10:35 ↗ we did that for Oldtown traffic coming

1:10:37 ↗ we had a pilot project where we put down

1:10:39 ↗ a bunch of temporary devices

1:10:41 ↗ and then it resulted in permanent

1:10:45 ↗ project so we're just taking that out

1:10:47 ↗ including it but

1:10:52 ↗ yes because who scores this it's the

1:10:54 ↗ city of isqua you know the employees you

1:10:57 ↗ know your transportation group scores it

1:11:00 ↗ right yep so you

1:11:04 ↗ know the first guting

1:11:06 ↗ principle I jump to the 17 let's put in

1:11:11 ↗ four so we're good on that we're g to

1:11:12 ↗ take on that the comma will become a

1:11:15 ↗ period and the rest of it comes out

1:11:19 ↗ yeah 4.2 it just doesn't doesn't make

1:11:22 ↗ sense because couldn't you be having a

1:11:24 ↗ project that is

1:11:27 ↗ purposely in an area with a sensitive

1:11:29 ↗ water quality to where you're improving

1:11:31 ↗ it with that project and you're You're

1:11:34 ↗ Building

1:11:35 ↗ runoff Street runoff protection to

1:11:39 ↗ diverted away from a stream I don't know

1:11:41 ↗ right could there be something that it

1:11:43 ↗ actually improves the situation and

1:11:46 ↗ we're giving it zero points because it

1:11:48 ↗ is in that

1:11:49 ↗ area how about before we have the

1:11:51 ↗ discussion I think Greg's got some

1:11:53 ↗ things to present on this we did hear

1:11:56 ↗ you yeah I think we can massage the

1:11:59 ↗ language yeah all right so yeah we got

1:12:03 ↗ the climate action

1:12:07 ↗ plan within that that's got a

1:12:09 ↗ transportation and land use goal to

1:12:10 ↗ reduce greenhouse gas emissions for

1:12:12 ↗ transportation and improve commun

1:12:15 ↗ Community Mobility through sustainable

1:12:16 ↗ land use planning accessible multimodal

1:12:19 ↗ Transportation options improved cycling

1:12:22 ↗ and pedestrian networks and expanded EV

1:12:27 ↗ infrastructure it's also got some pretty

1:12:29 ↗ aggressive targets to uh 15% increase in

1:12:34 ↗ non Drive alone mod share 2017 to 20 by

1:12:42 ↗ 2030 and a 20% big decrease in vehicle

1:12:45 ↗ miles

1:12:46 ↗ travel by

1:12:52 ↗ 20303

1:12:56 ↗ question is usually per or we're talking

1:13:00 ↗ total so we saying I mean that's really

1:13:02 ↗ aggressive if it is including an increas

1:13:05 ↗ you know I asked that same question and

1:13:08 ↗ I think I was told per capita but I want

1:13:10 ↗ to verify because if it's not that's

1:13:14 ↗ huge and even if it is per capita it's

1:13:17 ↗ still huge

1:13:19 ↗ yeah interesting know how much we're on

1:13:22 ↗ t m

1:13:24 ↗ me in 2020 we're doing great

1:13:27 ↗ yeah also have have these outside

1:13:30 ↗ factors no matter what you do you know

1:13:33 ↗ company start saying go back to office

1:13:35 ↗ yeah how how are we measuring

1:13:41 ↗ that I don't know um I I've actually

1:13:44 ↗ been looking into how to measure BMT and

1:13:48 ↗ got a few ideas for how to do it but I

1:13:51 ↗ think it would be good to measure

1:13:59 ↗ it one more slide and then we'll get it

1:14:01 ↗ um so some of the strategies were to

1:14:03 ↗ decrease Auto reli Reliance through

1:14:06 ↗ sustainable land use planning and

1:14:08 ↗ encourage dense mixed use development

1:14:10 ↗ patterns in centralist claw and nearby

1:14:14 ↗ multimodal Transportation networks to

1:14:17 ↗ reduce overall automobile automobile use

1:14:20 ↗ by promoting biking and walking and

1:14:23 ↗ shared in public transportation

1:14:26 ↗ options third one is to reduce emissions

1:14:29 ↗ by expanding EV infrastructure

1:14:31 ↗ facilitate

1:14:48 ↗ transition for 4.2 if we want to hop

1:14:51 ↗ back into that I don't know if we want

1:14:52 ↗ to

1:14:54 ↗ consider

1:14:56 ↗ or project avoids or improves sensitive

1:15:00 ↗ you know

1:15:01 ↗ something I I do find it interesting

1:15:05 ↗ that for that first criteria we treated

1:15:08 ↗ that 1.1 box as like a yes no and if

1:15:12 ↗ it's a no it gets zero points regardless

1:15:15 ↗ now we're having that box be the same

1:15:16 ↗ thing as the

1:15:18 ↗ scoring just a side

1:15:22 ↗ comment um

1:15:23 ↗ but I I stand by what I said earlier

1:15:25 ↗ which is that I do think that there are

1:15:27 ↗ projects pretty sure I've seen some in

1:15:29 ↗ here that actually

1:15:31 ↗ improve things

1:15:33 ↗ like protection from runoff so isn't

1:15:37 ↗ that a good thing is that thing you want

1:15:40 ↗ to to do so I would say that a lot of

1:15:43 ↗ times ones that are solely for runoff

1:15:46 ↗ treatment or considered storm water

1:15:48 ↗ projects and

1:15:50 ↗ so that separate bucket in the CIP so

1:15:55 ↗ this would be a transportation project

1:15:57 ↗ where then when we have our storm water

1:16:00 ↗ requirements we basically go through and

1:16:02 ↗ the manual

1:16:03 ↗ says the different rules that we have

1:16:07 ↗ okay you need to treat this much of it

1:16:10 ↗ you need

1:16:13 ↗ to detain so much and but you're saying

1:16:17 ↗ avoid the area

1:16:20 ↗ right so any project that's

1:16:24 ↗ near sensitive area for water quality is

1:16:27 ↗ is it having a project near sensitive

1:16:30 ↗ area for water quality bad for water

1:16:32 ↗ quality

1:16:34 ↗ period can there be a net

1:16:40 ↗ posi

1:16:42 ↗ ends and is water quality the only

1:16:45 ↗ criteria the only

1:16:47 ↗ characteristic water water quality I

1:16:49 ↗ think you wouldn't even be addressing

1:16:50 ↗ unless you did have a

1:16:52 ↗ project I could see

1:16:54 ↗ where

1:16:56 ↗ um there could be a case of the project

1:16:58 ↗ as you're improving the project you can

1:17:01 ↗ improve uh the tension of water and

1:17:03 ↗ treated as it run off runs off that

1:17:05 ↗ could be an option for improving quality

1:17:08 ↗ of the water that's going to run off the

1:17:09 ↗ road we have a Bas Center filter system

1:17:12 ↗ um we can remove some of the hard Metals

1:17:14 ↗ before it's released

1:17:15 ↗ to and if you're if you're um you know

1:17:18 ↗ talking about you know trying to go to

1:17:20 ↗ more multimodel if you're doing

1:17:21 ↗ something that's GNA C people to bike on

1:17:23 ↗ that road instead of Drive you're

1:17:25 ↗ releasing less less particulates because

1:17:28 ↗ you're not driving so when you say yeah

1:17:31 ↗ be great to have that in the location of

1:17:33 ↗ sensitive water

1:17:36 ↗ ballet

1:17:39 ↗ Erica um is fish fish passage uh

1:17:44 ↗ anything like we would want to include

1:17:47 ↗ on this um I don't know that's that

1:17:50 ↗ falls underneath this sensitive category

1:17:51 ↗ I also don't know how many uh like CT um

1:17:55 ↗ like either like old CS or blocked CTS

1:17:57 ↗ isqua has I know that's a huge issue at

1:18:00 ↗ the state level and the funding for that

1:18:02 ↗ and whatnot and I just don't know enough

1:18:04 ↗ in the weeds like locally um what that

1:18:06 ↗ means for isqua but I don't know if um

1:18:09 ↗ that would fall underneath any of these

1:18:15 ↗ categories should that be improves

1:18:17 ↗ sensitive areas as opposed to avoid

1:18:19 ↗ there you

1:18:21 ↗ go

1:18:25 ↗ I think that's a good point

1:18:27 ↗ and yeah then I guess one question I

1:18:31 ↗ have

1:18:34 ↗ is sensitive areas for water quality is

1:18:39 ↗ one

1:18:40 ↗ of right there's other environmental

1:18:42 ↗ concerns that we have as a

1:18:46 ↗ city cover with a small bridge I mean a

1:18:48 ↗ lot of it would be I mean you can't

1:18:50 ↗ avoid any the sensitive area almost

1:18:52 ↗ these days so

1:18:53 ↗ be more improves

1:18:56 ↗ it improving water

1:19:00 ↗ quality

1:19:02 ↗ yeah so somehow water quality got in

1:19:06 ↗ there water quity is water the only

1:19:10 ↗ concern or is also like removing trees

1:19:12 ↗ and stuff like Ferns and all those uh

1:19:15 ↗ vital things to ecosystems or is that

1:19:17 ↗ also shouldn't that also be a concern

1:19:20 ↗ yeah I think you're right I think that's

1:19:22 ↗ why this limiting

1:19:23 ↗ I think we should

1:19:27 ↗ Canon

1:19:31 ↗ use but then you need

1:19:33 ↗ to yeah but you could Define sensitive

1:19:36 ↗ areas better than

1:19:39 ↗ water be long list so you say proves uh

1:19:43 ↗ sensitive areas sensitive areas right

1:19:45 ↗ right so we could use the term critical

1:19:48 ↗ area because our city code talks about

1:19:51 ↗ critical areas we have

1:19:54 ↗ streams slopes or GE geological Hazard

1:19:58 ↗ areas under it critical

1:20:02 ↗ area aquifer we've

1:20:05 ↗ got not that it's defined as a critical

1:20:07 ↗ area but we have code for protection of

1:20:11 ↗ trees so there's lots of different

1:20:14 ↗ environmental aspects that we

1:20:17 ↗ do have code for in the city of Isa that

1:20:21 ↗ we said is a priority to protect I like

1:20:24 ↗ critical area because aren't there

1:20:26 ↗ already like regulations for how many

1:20:29 ↗ trees you have to have and a certain

1:20:31 ↗ area as part of a new project right

1:20:32 ↗ isn't that already control yeah so if

1:20:36 ↗ this is something to be specific and not

1:20:38 ↗ actually Define what the project design

1:20:41 ↗ is like or we just want to have it be

1:20:44 ↗ more what what are

1:20:48 ↗ the higher level hasard not just

1:20:53 ↗ trees green space

1:20:57 ↗ right like the

1:20:59 ↗ critical

1:21:01 ↗ areas environmentally critical maybe

1:21:03 ↗ want to say just clear

1:21:06 ↗ that yeah I don't know if there's a

1:21:08 ↗ definite meting between sensitive area

1:21:09 ↗ versus critical

1:21:12 ↗ area just want to make sure that we're

1:21:14 ↗ not to hemmed in with whatever the

1:21:18 ↗ C the capital c and capital A well then

1:21:23 ↗ I guess the question then I would have

1:21:27 ↗ is how to go

1:21:29 ↗ about things that are required by code

1:21:33 ↗ so if we're within

1:21:35 ↗ a let's say we're disturbing a wetland

1:21:38 ↗ then we have to go through the

1:21:40 ↗ mitigation sequencing for that Wetland

1:21:43 ↗ and

1:21:45 ↗ so on one hand you could say Well

1:21:48 ↗ they're building

1:21:49 ↗ Wetlands on the other hand well we're

1:21:52 ↗ we're building Wetlands because the rule

1:21:54 ↗ say we have to build

1:21:57 ↗ Wetlands but I think that still comes

1:21:59 ↗ back

1:22:00 ↗ to uh enhances or improves because a

1:22:05 ↗ wetland alongside a road is really not

1:22:07 ↗ going to do much if you can Bank it Bank

1:22:09 ↗ it into a wetland that's actually be a

1:22:11 ↗ larger piece and actually do a better

1:22:13 ↗ quality in a bigger area that is more

1:22:16 ↗ for wildli they can actually use the W

1:22:19 ↗ or they not use W long road um but so

1:22:23 ↗ you may not be improving that at least

1:22:25 ↗ right there if you're using a wetland

1:22:26 ↗ Bank the this CL there still improving

1:22:30 ↗ the

1:22:31 ↗ overall area so would still be an

1:22:36 ↗ improve I think you I still like I'm not

1:22:39 ↗ sure if anybody else does but I like the

1:22:40 ↗ word as far as enhance or approv I like

1:22:42 ↗ the enhance but I also think it should

1:22:44 ↗ be net um because presumably if you have

1:22:47 ↗ to permit project and you have to

1:22:49 ↗ mitigate the impact then you're bringing

1:22:51 ↗ it back to zero right and so that's not

1:22:53 ↗ a net enhancement well sometimes you

1:22:56 ↗ have to do it two for one so if you're

1:22:58 ↗ impacting something you're going to be

1:22:59 ↗ improving think give impact an acre you

1:23:02 ↗ have to improve two acres but that's

1:23:03 ↗ because somebody has decided that you

1:23:06 ↗ need to to not in order to truly offset

1:23:08 ↗ your impacts it's because you you the

1:23:12 ↗ permit agency can't extract more

1:23:14 ↗ mitigation than by law by than than than

1:23:18 ↗ is than the impact somebody deemed that

1:23:20 ↗ it needs to be two for one because it's

1:23:23 ↗ so bad that we did that that you've got

1:23:24 ↗ to this other stuff over here you got to

1:23:27 ↗ need twice as much to equal that and so

1:23:30 ↗ it's still meant to be a

1:23:32 ↗ net offset whereas are we saying it

1:23:35 ↗ needs to be a benefit are we saying

1:23:39 ↗ that are we so are we talking about what

1:23:42 ↗ the permit agencies would require or or

1:23:46 ↗ are we talking about above and beyond

1:23:48 ↗ above and beyond with the per that's

1:23:50 ↗ what we want that's my question yeah and

1:23:52 ↗ so that's how you would get a better

1:23:55 ↗ score you do better than what the Perman

1:23:58 ↗ agency so let's take that for a minute I

1:24:00 ↗ so if you do that okay you do a road

1:24:02 ↗ doing some impacts and zero impact so

1:24:06 ↗ you're not getting a benefit on this

1:24:08 ↗ environmental Mark right but if you're

1:24:10 ↗ during the road and you're actually or

1:24:13 ↗ we found a way that we can actually put

1:24:14 ↗ a bridge there so we can get Wildlife

1:24:16 ↗ cross underneath ducks and back card and

1:24:19 ↗ so that's actually a better Improvement

1:24:20 ↗ because they would not have been able to

1:24:21 ↗ mitigate so then you can get more points

1:24:23 ↗ for that even though the impact might

1:24:25 ↗ have be the same but you're actually

1:24:27 ↗ doing something a little bit so I like

1:24:29 ↗ the idea

1:24:30 ↗ of like if it's a net zero okay then you

1:24:33 ↗ get a zero but if you do something

1:24:34 ↗ that's going to enhance a little bit

1:24:35 ↗ more then you get more points for it

1:24:38 ↗ that would have to come

1:24:39 ↗ out improve sense does that make sense

1:24:42 ↗ it makes total sense because it's gon to

1:24:44 ↗ be required anyway so why should you get

1:24:45 ↗ points for something that's required so

1:24:48 ↗ here's a hypothetical and I really liked

1:24:50 ↗ what Erica said the fish Passage so

1:24:52 ↗ Newport way sr900 to 54th Street there

1:24:56 ↗ are fish barriers on that Corridor and

1:25:01 ↗ as part of the requirements for getting

1:25:03 ↗ through the environmental process we do

1:25:06 ↗ need to take these fish barriers and

1:25:09 ↗ replace them with either box cobs or

1:25:11 ↗ Bridges

1:25:12 ↗ so on one hand I feel like we're doing

1:25:16 ↗ it because it is

1:25:18 ↗ required as part of being able to get

1:25:21 ↗ our environmental approval

1:25:23 ↗ but I also feel like in feel free to

1:25:25 ↗ disagree because this why we're asking

1:25:27 ↗ your opinion but so my opinion doesn't

1:25:30 ↗ matters much but I also feel like on

1:25:32 ↗ that project someone could say well it's

1:25:36 ↗ actually improving it so it's taking it

1:25:39 ↗ from a NE negative it's a barrier and

1:25:44 ↗ now the fish can go through so yes it is

1:25:47 ↗ being required but in my mind that

1:25:50 ↗ project would deserve the Four Points

1:25:52 ↗ and I guess do you dis agree or disagree

1:25:55 ↗ that a project like that while it's

1:25:58 ↗ doing it because it's required

1:26:01 ↗ to

1:26:03 ↗ it's so for example for example water

1:26:07 ↗ that the zero you're letting water and

1:26:10 ↗ fish go through that's

1:26:12 ↗ right it is a requirement it's so you

1:26:16 ↗ get extra benefits for it so the

1:26:18 ↗ objective is to protect or maintain then

1:26:22 ↗ actually to fix something that was

1:26:23 ↗ broken a long time ago and then they're

1:26:26 ↗ on the hook for it now just like it's a

1:26:30 ↗ whole this is really new so let's just

1:26:32 ↗ say let's just say the code does require

1:26:34 ↗ an improvement isn't that a good thing

1:26:36 ↗ don't we want to then give some benefit

1:26:38 ↗ to the project that's gonna agre with it

1:26:40 ↗ yeah and so that's where I think reading

1:26:43 ↗ over what code is when code could change

1:26:45 ↗ it will change is this part of the

1:26:47 ↗ culbert case is that the that whole is

1:26:49 ↗ that why well the major

1:26:53 ↗ so that project it has federal funds and

1:26:56 ↗ so then it goes through a different

1:26:59 ↗ process now although I will say now with

1:27:02 ↗ it our city code it would actually

1:27:04 ↗ require two my understanding of it but

1:27:07 ↗ originally the Nexus was that the tribes

1:27:12 ↗ were asking for it yeah one right so now

1:27:18 ↗ the the injunctions against the state

1:27:20 ↗ although it could eventually say well

1:27:23 ↗ cities are out of the state so um it's

1:27:27 ↗ something we have to take care of

1:27:29 ↗ eventually too

1:27:31 ↗ we so even though it's yeah that's a

1:27:34 ↗ that one cver is a messy example yeah

1:27:37 ↗ everything that I said about you have to

1:27:38 ↗ offset you have to mitigate your your

1:27:40 ↗ impacts this is different this is this

1:27:43 ↗ is when you're in there doing the work

1:27:45 ↗ you have to fix it right because it was

1:27:47 ↗ broken before which is different than

1:27:50 ↗ mitigating your impact on the project

1:27:53 ↗ so I think this is a little tricky

1:27:57 ↗ because it's right now they suit the

1:27:59 ↗ state so the state has to exactly

1:28:01 ↗ anything they get B because they don't

1:28:03 ↗ have to St funds and you they don't have

1:28:05 ↗ to but the driver will come out to the

1:28:06 ↗ counties and the cities next now to so

1:28:10 ↗ it will TR go down to everybody at some

1:28:13 ↗ point to be fixing the C so it's good to

1:28:15 ↗ be able to fix it now so I would still

1:28:16 ↗ say that's if it's City funds are not

1:28:19 ↗ required by federal funds or state funds

1:28:23 ↗ that you're using that will have those

1:28:26 ↗ but it is required this just really mess

1:28:29 ↗ the city is requiring in well

1:28:33 ↗ so this isn't my area of expertise but

1:28:36 ↗ when I read the critical area code for

1:28:41 ↗ streams it did talk about stream

1:28:43 ↗ Crossings are allowed of certain

1:28:46 ↗ classifications of stream if you do a

1:28:50 ↗ bridge or you follow

1:28:53 ↗ Department of Fish and Wildlife they

1:28:55 ↗ have some guidance and allows for Block

1:28:59 ↗ CS but basically it's saying remove

1:29:01 ↗ these barriers is my understanding of it

1:29:08 ↗ now one question that I have as I think

1:29:11 ↗ about this is how much of our funding

1:29:15 ↗ could we actually use to go above and

1:29:18 ↗ beyond what is

1:29:20 ↗ required by city code or state or

1:29:23 ↗ federal law and

1:29:26 ↗ so if we had a project that we were

1:29:28 ↗ trying to do extra

1:29:32 ↗ for you heard it testify unless there's

1:29:34 ↗ a big benefit to public some yeah right

1:29:38 ↗ what if we just say that it's a net

1:29:39 ↗ benefit because anything that is

1:29:44 ↗ separate from the culbert case anything

1:29:45 ↗ that's offsetting impacts is not an

1:29:48 ↗ benefit and this the Culvert example

1:29:52 ↗ is a net benefit even if it's required

1:29:55 ↗ it's still a net benefit it's just it's

1:29:57 ↗ tapping into a whole another history

1:29:59 ↗ of you know this situation with this

1:30:02 ↗ state tribe suing the state over the

1:30:04 ↗ Culvert so what if isn't that all I'm

1:30:07 ↗ just trying to find a way to bring it

1:30:08 ↗ back around and make it simple again

1:30:10 ↗ it's a net benefit even if it's required

1:30:12 ↗ it could still be a net benefit so

1:30:14 ↗ couldn't we just use net benefit yeah I

1:30:16 ↗ mean I think if we're stipulating that

1:30:17 ↗ Net Zero is like what's required under

1:30:20 ↗ the law right just offsetting the

1:30:23 ↗ impacts of particular project and that

1:30:26 ↗ benefit will be going up up beond you

1:30:29 ↗ say I don't know you agree with that I

1:30:33 ↗ think even if it's

1:30:35 ↗ required it's going to be a benefit if

1:30:38 ↗ the law inquires requires an improvement

1:30:39 ↗ why do we discount that let's say you

1:30:41 ↗ have two projects you're trying to

1:30:42 ↗ decide between and one of them the law

1:30:45 ↗ requires an improvement that's

1:30:47 ↗ significant and one of them the law

1:30:49 ↗ requires no improvement but it's going

1:30:50 ↗ to make a small Improvement

1:30:52 ↗ why would you pick the one that makes a

1:30:53 ↗ small improvement over the one that the

1:30:55 ↗ law requires a large Improvement but but

1:30:57 ↗ that's that's included I mean when we're

1:30:59 ↗ looking at the CIP bucket like the you

1:31:03 ↗ know law the lawful need of particular

1:31:05 ↗ project is weighed in that particular

1:31:07 ↗ bucket for overall CIP process and so

1:31:12 ↗ I'm not still think you're then

1:31:14 ↗ inappropriately discounting the good a

1:31:17 ↗ project can do just because it's

1:31:19 ↗ required I think there's two reasons

1:31:21 ↗ project are required one is because they

1:31:23 ↗ have a negative impact that has to be

1:31:26 ↗ mitigated and another is because there's

1:31:28 ↗ this other outside thing that happened

1:31:31 ↗ where every time you touch something you

1:31:32 ↗ have to I'm not thinking about a project

1:31:34 ↗ that you're doing it because it's

1:31:36 ↗ required to do the project I'm thinking

1:31:38 ↗ about a project that working on a road

1:31:41 ↗ and when you touch that road you're

1:31:42 ↗ required

1:31:43 ↗ to improve the environment around the

1:31:46 ↗ road right okay so the the law requires

1:31:49 ↗ and the code requires you prove the

1:31:51 ↗ environment around the road and another

1:31:53 ↗ project doesn't have that

1:31:57 ↗ requirement and you make a small

1:31:58 ↗ Improvement just of the goodness of your

1:32:00 ↗ heart which one is better you choose the

1:32:03 ↗ one that's a small Improvement because

1:32:05 ↗ you give it points because it's an

1:32:07 ↗ improvement over the requirement this is

1:32:09 ↗ where it shouldn't be I'm not talking

1:32:11 ↗ about whether it's required I'm talking

1:32:12 ↗ about whether it's a net benefit net to

1:32:14 ↗ what to before but to no

1:32:17 ↗ project to no

1:32:20 ↗ project fine with no project but isn't

1:32:22 ↗ that the same thing as just saying it

1:32:25 ↗ improves no I see what you're saying if

1:32:27 ↗ if you didn't do the

1:32:29 ↗ project and whether it's quak or runoff

1:32:32 ↗ or treatment I'll stay the same you did

1:32:34 ↗ it and if you did a project you would

1:32:36 ↗ improve it I would think that that would

1:32:40 ↗ be yeah that's my exact trainer thought

1:32:42 ↗ what I was trying to go there but I I

1:32:44 ↗ was trying to figure out a way that you

1:32:45 ↗ can still do a project where you may not

1:32:47 ↗ have a you might have a net zero benefit

1:32:50 ↗ or you could do a project that would

1:32:52 ↗ have um more of overall benefit I think

1:32:55 ↗ that would be the one that would score

1:32:57 ↗ higher than the one that might have

1:33:00 ↗ the yes regardless of whether code

1:33:04 ↗ requires that benefit or not that's my

1:33:06 ↗ point yeah because you're saying Beyond

1:33:08 ↗ what's

1:33:09 ↗ required because the lawful need of a

1:33:13 ↗ project is already stipulated in the

1:33:15 ↗ capital Improvement plan criteria but

1:33:17 ↗ there's a difference between the the

1:33:19 ↗ project is required to be done and the

1:33:21 ↗ specifics of the

1:33:24 ↗ project so if you say Well only if it's

1:33:29 ↗ above what's

1:33:30 ↗ required then you're going to Discount

1:33:33 ↗ any Improvement that could be required

1:33:35 ↗ which is I would rather have an

1:33:37 ↗ improvement a net Improvement I just

1:33:39 ↗ think that sometimes you do some nice

1:33:41 ↗ things and it's really gotta go all the

1:33:44 ↗ way back and say my concern is over

1:33:46 ↗ saying it has to be more than what is

1:33:48 ↗ required for by by code or by whatever

1:33:52 ↗ right because I don't want to have a

1:33:53 ↗ situation where you're devaluing a

1:33:55 ↗ project that's significant Improvement

1:33:57 ↗ just because code said I think the

1:34:00 ↗ points go into this as well like it's

1:34:02 ↗ four points it's not going to be a huge

1:34:05 ↗ like if it were talking about if this

1:34:08 ↗ did have the higher point value I think

1:34:10 ↗ it would be it wouldn't be as useful to

1:34:12 ↗ do that net but I think there four

1:34:14 ↗ points just says like it can get you

1:34:17 ↗ over the line somewhere

1:34:20 ↗ but about above and beyond becausee

1:34:23 ↗ requires additional funds to do more

1:34:25 ↗ than what the project is scoped orally

1:34:27 ↗ scoped to do that may be hard to do I

1:34:30 ↗ I'd like it where

1:34:31 ↗ there's if you do nothing versus the

1:34:34 ↗ benefit

1:34:36 ↗ of whether it's required or

1:34:41 ↗ note oh that grading system if we say

1:34:46 ↗ zero for the no four for

1:34:49 ↗ maintaining or protecting in what's

1:34:52 ↗ existing and then another scoring for

1:34:55 ↗ doing the extra benefit that we're

1:34:57 ↗ talking about is that a way I don't

1:34:59 ↗ think it should be maintained because

1:35:00 ↗ that's going to be required by law

1:35:02 ↗ anyway and um you can't engage in a

1:35:06 ↗ project and not have it you're not g

1:35:10 ↗ yeah so it's a either a yes or a no in

1:35:13 ↗ this case it's a yes but Pro that's

1:35:17 ↗ project avoids sensitive areas for like

1:35:20 ↗ project maintains it protects critical

1:35:23 ↗ areas and

1:35:26 ↗ then another one in case of the extra

1:35:29 ↗ benefit that we could be

1:35:34 ↗ there sorry go ahead sorry yes could you

1:35:37 ↗ just do like basically like a zero or

1:35:40 ↗ it's like no because it's out of four

1:35:42 ↗ points right so zero is no two is

1:35:44 ↗ existing four is um avoid sensitive

1:35:48 ↗ areas and I don't I think we should

1:35:50 ↗ remove the water qualities be saying

1:35:52 ↗ just Do It Like avoids critical areas

1:35:54 ↗ and then four is improves the uh

1:35:58 ↗ critical area that the project is around

1:36:01 ↗ so that's what I was thinking I was

1:36:03 ↗ thinking if there's a zero or improves

1:36:04 ↗ or enhances there might be a zero two

1:36:07 ↗ and a four y zero for might be basically

1:36:10 ↗ Improvement and if you go above and

1:36:12 ↗ beyond or really hand something then

1:36:13 ↗ that would be an extra yes points enance

1:36:18 ↗ I was gonna say yeah do we have one that

1:36:20 ↗ just um because that's I'm having the

1:36:23 ↗ same problem um is that what you really

1:36:25 ↗ mean because I'm wondering what you mean

1:36:27 ↗ is um maintain for

1:36:30 ↗ two no you meet the legal requirements

1:36:34 ↗ for two but we're not gonna no projects

1:36:36 ↗ going need work can't be worse G do a

1:36:39 ↗ project you can't do it right right

1:36:42 ↗ so you can never have a maintain as

1:36:46 ↗ anything but a zero otherwise you're

1:36:48 ↗ just artificially boosting everything to

1:36:50 ↗ points every every single thing so then

1:36:52 ↗ the then you've actually devalued

1:36:54 ↗ improving by two points by doing that so

1:36:57 ↗ I think we should just do points with

1:37:00 ↗ what you said earlier the

1:37:02 ↗ improving sensitive area critical

1:37:05 ↗ area sensitive or critical so in case it

1:37:07 ↗ doesn't fall in the critical areas

1:37:09 ↗ ordinance it's still yeah we we can do

1:37:11 ↗ that and we are going to talk to the

1:37:13 ↗ environmental board about the

1:37:15 ↗ environmental criteria

1:37:17 ↗ so we're going to get

1:37:20 ↗ it s group has some ideas

1:37:24 ↗ for as long as we get rid of the water

1:37:26 ↗ quality specification I think we're yeah

1:37:29 ↗ hugely improved we're gonna keep the

1:37:31 ↗ score zero and

1:37:32 ↗ four we gonna add it

1:37:37 ↗ to and so we're looking at you get four

1:37:40 ↗ points if you have a net

1:37:43 ↗ benefit or points or a voids or what I

1:37:48 ↗ thought I heard both those okay not b

1:37:51 ↗ think we can avoid it I I still think

1:37:52 ↗ that needs to be uh moves or enhance the

1:37:55 ↗ sensitive areas okay avoids you're just

1:37:58 ↗ not going to be able you're going to be

1:38:00 ↗ end it

1:38:11 ↗ anywhere approv

1:38:14 ↗ ordinances

1:38:16 ↗ sensitive take out the water quality

1:38:20 ↗ yeah might make

1:38:23 ↗ itar you might make it as well

1:38:31 ↗ oh maybe five could be secure Federal

1:38:38 ↗ funding

1:38:41 ↗ um jump 4.2 did

1:38:50 ↗ 4.1

1:38:55 ↗ you have recommended or suggested

1:38:57 ↗ wording for this your suggestion do do

1:39:01 ↗ we want to modify to

1:39:02 ↗ incorporate those

1:39:09 ↗ targets well I guess though I haven't

1:39:13 ↗ flushed it out but do we want to also

1:39:15 ↗ consider projects that would reduce BMT

1:39:20 ↗ because right now we're giving points

1:39:22 ↗ for

1:39:25 ↗ reducing single o

1:39:29 ↗ Vehicles feel like we already are giving

1:39:32 ↗ points for reducing other categories we

1:39:34 ↗ just talked about earlier one point two

1:39:37 ↗ for example so well well mik I'm gonna

1:39:42 ↗ actually go back to what you were

1:39:43 ↗ mentioning earlier because you have a

1:39:45 ↗ commute where you have to drive to work

1:39:48 ↗ you can't take the bus and

1:39:51 ↗ there could be a project that actually

1:39:53 ↗ would add vehicular capacity that would

1:39:56 ↗ reduce vehicle miles traveled and so I'm

1:39:59 ↗ going to go back to the I90 Crossing

1:40:01 ↗ that project would reduce vehicle miles

1:40:03 ↗ travel because have to go all the way

1:40:05 ↗ right

1:40:07 ↗ so I like just can we can we get away

1:40:10 ↗ with just adding BMT language to this

1:40:14 ↗ criteria just add it is that what you're

1:40:16 ↗ saying yes yeah that does that work

1:40:19 ↗ that's what I think makes the most sense

1:40:21 ↗ in the value for criteria or the

1:40:24 ↗ scoring I think the

1:40:31 ↗ scoring so I think this scoring but I

1:40:34 ↗ think that it leaves it more open-ended

1:40:36 ↗ for things we haven't thought of yet if

1:40:39 ↗ you take out the including ship to

1:40:41 ↗ non-auto modes um that just seems

1:40:46 ↗ riously specific because really the

1:40:49 ↗ whole point about this is if as long as

1:40:52 ↗ it encourages travel to be less

1:40:54 ↗ impactful on the

1:40:58 ↗ environment think do we care how that

1:41:00 ↗ gets done and shifting to non Auto so

1:41:03 ↗ like basically like a project that

1:41:06 ↗ involves EV Charters right exactly AR

1:41:09 ↗ is should be

1:41:12 ↗ included

1:41:13 ↗ right so it should be oh so scorings is

1:41:18 ↗ there anything about emmissions if it

1:41:20 ↗ changes you're scoring too because

1:41:22 ↗ otherwise commissions needs to be

1:41:23 ↗ included there too counts but it doesn't

1:41:25 ↗ reduce Signal Vehicle use at all and so

1:41:28 ↗ you still got zero

1:41:31 ↗ points how

1:41:33 ↗ about how about scoring more blocking or

1:41:37 ↗ walking in a neighborhood or for

1:41:41 ↗ shopping versus using your

1:41:45 ↗ car well that would have include vehicle

1:41:48 ↗ miles travel being decreased yeah and

1:41:51 ↗ also already isn't that already covered

1:41:53 ↗ in reduce reduction of sing I think

1:41:55 ↗ reduction of s so use that's seem so

1:41:59 ↗ negative though oh see and I was trying

1:42:02 ↗ to be positive by saying well what would

1:42:05 ↗ you do other than so use you would use

1:42:07 ↗ Transit you would use but you but don't

1:42:11 ↗ forget but don't forget this is trying

1:42:13 ↗ to make sure that the travel is less

1:42:15 ↗ impactful on the

1:42:17 ↗ environment and so it's less impactful

1:42:19 ↗ on the environment if you you have

1:42:21 ↗ reduction in s so reduction in VMT and

1:42:24 ↗ reduction in

1:42:27 ↗ emissions but you could have electric

1:42:31 ↗ vehicles

1:42:32 ↗ polluting rubber

1:42:34 ↗ tires they heavier these particulars

1:42:37 ↗ More Than Cars keeping employed

1:42:42 ↗ Andes not a good

1:42:44 ↗ thing paying for their charging and they

1:42:47 ↗ should be paying

1:42:48 ↗ for okay

1:42:51 ↗ wow

1:42:56 ↗ okay

1:42:59 ↗ so not paying for gas

1:43:03 ↗ fun that's

1:43:07 ↗ problem

1:43:09 ↗ so where are we at with

1:43:11 ↗ this

1:43:16 ↗ um I think I agree with what you're

1:43:18 ↗ saying this this overall crit is about

1:43:21 ↗ being less impactful in the environment

1:43:23 ↗ so why do we need to even

1:43:25 ↗ specify prescriptive yeah us this

1:43:29 ↗ Singley vehicle use is there some way to

1:43:32 ↗ just kind of broader

1:43:35 ↗ cover because that bnbt

1:43:39 ↗ then multim

1:43:43 ↗ transportation we are inflating the

1:43:45 ↗ criteria inflating points at that point

1:43:48 ↗ we're broadening this category because

1:43:51 ↗ we wanted to I mean I guess the guiding

1:43:54 ↗ principle is technically just to embrace

1:43:57 ↗ an environmentally responsible

1:43:58 ↗ transportation system so in that case

1:44:01 ↗ you could have that broaden

1:44:02 ↗ c not sure I mean is the Environmental

1:44:06 ↗ goal for the city really just have your

1:44:09 ↗ Singley vehicles or is that a way to

1:44:11 ↗ achieve the environmental goal I've got

1:44:13 ↗ a idea Greg can you go back to the

1:44:16 ↗ climate action

1:44:19 ↗ slide

1:44:22 ↗ um let's go to that

1:44:24 ↗ one is there a way to incorporate by

1:44:28 ↗ reference the transportation and land

1:44:31 ↗ use strategies from the climate action

1:44:33 ↗ plan because this one talks

1:44:36 ↗ about

1:44:38 ↗ or I'm not sure whether it's this one or

1:44:41 ↗ that one I was wondering if there's a

1:44:43 ↗ way to tie it into the climate action

1:44:45 ↗ plan because that talks about EV

1:44:48 ↗ charging it talks about reding using

1:44:50 ↗ automobile

1:44:53 ↗ use having the it's an existing thing

1:44:56 ↗ that gets maintained and so if

1:44:58 ↗ there's changes in the future that gets

1:45:02 ↗ rolled

1:45:03 ↗ in if you just reference if your points

1:45:06 ↗ related to an action plan that don't

1:45:08 ↗ call out something specific in

1:45:12 ↗ it can I take a bracket what some of

1:45:15 ↗ these just have an evalue um a thing on

1:45:19 ↗ the left and on the right is it yes or

1:45:21 ↗ no what if we just said projects

1:45:23 ↗ encourages travel to be less impactful

1:45:25 ↗ on the environment period four points

1:45:28 ↗ yes zero points

1:45:32 ↗ no not

1:45:35 ↗ sure I mean yeah I like that idea I like

1:45:40 ↗ that has everything else seem

1:45:41 ↗ proscriptive am I using that word

1:45:43 ↗ correctly not to mention not to mention

1:45:45 ↗ commuting and peak hour like the curves

1:45:49 ↗ are all over the place now so we don't

1:45:51 ↗ really have necessarily we be days as

1:45:55 ↗ someone who's going to be looking at how

1:45:56 ↗ to score projects I like that because it

1:45:59 ↗ simplifies it it makes it easier when

1:46:01 ↗ we're sitting around a table we're on

1:46:03 ↗ teams trying to say does this project

1:46:05 ↗ get more points or not it's yes or no

1:46:14 ↗ yeah this

1:46:17 ↗ PE changed up just obvious work schedule

1:46:21 ↗ changes yes so I'm not

1:46:24 ↗ sure a project that would move to this

1:46:28 ↗ this used to outside of those is

1:46:29 ↗ actually going to be useful because

1:46:32 ↗ everything has already been moved for

1:46:34 ↗ the most part outside to speak hours we

1:46:36 ↗ did

1:46:40 ↗ it all right so 4.1 R project encourages

1:46:43 ↗ travel to be less impact on the

1:46:45 ↗ environment period

1:46:48 ↗ yes zero no

1:46:52 ↗ yes

1:46:55 ↗ simple 1.3 is pretty simple also as it's

1:46:59 ↗ written projects included in the park

1:47:01 ↗ strategic

1:47:07 ↗ plan she thought that he was just asking

1:47:10 ↗ me what is was County mentioning um so

1:47:13 ↗ public comment came from County Marsh

1:47:14 ↗ and she was saying that why call out

1:47:17 ↗ just the park strategic plan right isn't

1:47:20 ↗ that what she was saying she thought it

1:47:21 ↗ should be this should language be

1:47:23 ↗ changed to other plans in other City

1:47:27 ↗ plans what other groups H like parks's

1:47:32 ↗ plan is that very environmentally

1:47:34 ↗ focused or there other groups are very

1:47:37 ↗ environmentally because there are other

1:47:38 ↗ sections right

1:47:41 ↗ actually climate action plan was the

1:47:44 ↗ climate action and the climate action

1:47:45 ↗ plan didn't exist when this MMP was when

1:47:47 ↗ this was written right and so say other

1:47:51 ↗ relevant City plans there's we got lots

1:47:54 ↗ of plans but I think the parks plan got

1:47:58 ↗ tied in with the mobility master plan

1:48:00 ↗ because a lot of the perk strategic plan

1:48:03 ↗ gets implemented by our transportation

1:48:06 ↗ system so the green necklace that'll

1:48:09 ↗ build lots of non-motorized facilities

1:48:11 ↗ will actually be built within RightWay

1:48:14 ↗ for the street so it'll be

1:48:15 ↗ Transportation projects and so this is a

1:48:19 ↗ way to acknowledge that the city has

1:48:22 ↗ said building the green necklace and the

1:48:26 ↗ other things inside the park strategic

1:48:28 ↗ plan have been identified as a priority

1:48:31 ↗ and the the transportation system owns

1:48:34 ↗ part of building that infrastructure for

1:48:37 ↗ the

1:48:38 ↗ community it just promote environment

1:48:41 ↗ so better access to Parks

1:48:48 ↗ right I'm action plan also doesn't call

1:48:51 ↗ out specific

1:48:52 ↗ projects more specific goals okay I'm

1:48:56 ↗ convinced I think it's okay as it is

1:48:59 ↗ what do the rest do you think to address

1:49:01 ↗ some of those comments though would it

1:49:04 ↗ be useful to have like part projects

1:49:08 ↗ included in the part strategic plan or

1:49:10 ↗ would improve access to

1:49:15 ↗ Parks just to address that all comments

1:49:22 ↗ that's but that's still just the bark

1:49:25 ↗ strategic

1:49:27 ↗ plan if you're still limitated to Parks

1:49:30 ↗ that's still the park strategic plan I

1:49:33 ↗ don't

1:49:37 ↗ know so I I think the comment would be

1:49:41 ↗ let's say that there's a park and maybe

1:49:44 ↗ squaws a good example where there's a

1:49:46 ↗ park that people really need to walk to

1:49:49 ↗ or forget what it's called but it

1:49:50 ↗ doesn't have

1:49:52 ↗ parking yes Hillside Park and so

1:49:57 ↗ if a sidewalk connection to Hillside

1:50:01 ↗ Park is not called out in the park

1:50:03 ↗ strategic plan it technically wouldn't

1:50:06 ↗ score those four points but having a

1:50:09 ↗ non-motorized connection to a park

1:50:11 ↗ without

1:50:14 ↗ parking one could argue is a community

1:50:17 ↗ priority that we sort of starting to

1:50:19 ↗ invent our board's view of what the park

1:50:22 ↗ strategic plan should be that's where I

1:50:25 ↗ think we either defer to them and say

1:50:27 ↗ it's that Bo's job or we say no we think

1:50:31 ↗ we can do a better job and we go look at

1:50:33 ↗ this more I don't I don't really like

1:50:35 ↗ saying because if we equally weigh down

1:50:38 ↗ we're also deting their strategic

1:50:43 ↗ plan just as many points for even if

1:50:46 ↗ you're

1:50:49 ↗ not so I'm going to do a time check here

1:50:51 ↗ at 7:54 really like to get us out of

1:50:54 ↗ here as close to 8 o'clock as possible

1:50:57 ↗ does I mean I've heard some slight

1:51:01 ↗ dissatisfaction with the way this is do

1:51:04 ↗ we feel like I I think we just want to

1:51:07 ↗ address the comments have a little

1:51:11 ↗ discussion yeah but I I well I became

1:51:13 ↗ convinced with your comment

1:51:16 ↗ um that

1:51:18 ↗ that I'm satisfied

1:51:22 ↗ but I don't know about the rest of

1:51:26 ↗ you I think his argument makes it makes

1:51:31 ↗ me comfortable leaving it as is despite

1:51:33 ↗ the the

1:51:34 ↗ comment um I'm satisfied I'm

1:51:38 ↗ fine um I I I think that when we were

1:51:42 ↗ planning for this meeting we were

1:51:43 ↗ anticipating spending the most time on

1:51:45 ↗ what we spent the most time on but I do

1:51:47 ↗ want to make a call for um we obviously

1:51:50 ↗ didn't get through everything is anyone

1:51:52 ↗ here have anything on here that they

1:51:54 ↗ made a note about that they were

1:51:55 ↗ concerned about that you want to bring

1:51:56 ↗ up before we otherwise I'm wondering um

1:52:00 ↗ looking back to you guys um do you feel

1:52:02 ↗ like you've got we got to the stuff that

1:52:05 ↗ you really they wanted to get to for me

1:52:08 ↗ yes and there's a category we didn't get

1:52:12 ↗ to that someone has some passionate

1:52:14 ↗ feeling that's why I'm ask yeah but I

1:52:17 ↗ wanted to first ask you guys feel great

1:52:19 ↗ about what we got yeah I think well

1:52:25 ↗ two gu negotiable

1:52:28 ↗ or with the language a lot of these are

1:52:30 ↗ yes no doesn't mean we can't change the

1:52:34 ↗ evaluation criteria at least I'm sorry

1:52:36 ↗ Greg I didn't hear you sorry I was just

1:52:39 ↗ flipping through it um are you

1:52:40 ↗ comfortable that you got what you needed

1:52:42 ↗ from the tab because I want to make sure

1:52:45 ↗ we finish the job I'm trying to balance

1:52:48 ↗ that with ending close to on time yeah I

1:52:51 ↗ feel good but there's nothing no hot

1:52:52 ↗ buttons you feel like we haven't hit

1:52:55 ↗ nope okay does anyone have any hot

1:52:57 ↗ buttons that we didn't get to that you

1:52:58 ↗ feel

1:53:00 ↗ important how about you over there

1:53:03 ↗ Jerry anything that we didn't get you

1:53:05 ↗ that you would you want to talk about uh

1:53:08 ↗ no how about you

1:53:10 ↗ Erica okay so I don't want to rush us

1:53:14 ↗ but if if you guys are satisfied and no

1:53:15 ↗ one else has any hot buttons then I

1:53:17 ↗ would like to move on

1:53:21 ↗ um is that okay you guys okay okay um so

1:53:25 ↗ let's close on regular business I think

1:53:27 ↗ that was a really good discussion I

1:53:28 ↗ appreciate you coming and um spending

1:53:30 ↗ going taking this deep dive with us I

1:53:32 ↗ think this is

1:53:35 ↗ important um and hopefully you got

1:53:38 ↗ useful stuff um so then that brings us

1:53:42 ↗ to item five and um I'm wondering if

1:53:45 ↗ John you have something you want to say

1:53:46 ↗ about the board work plan uh yeah I was

1:53:49 ↗ going to bring up

1:53:51 ↗ anyway did do we want to talk about next

1:53:53 ↗ steps or we ready talk about that oh I

1:53:55 ↗ could just go over real quick we got a

1:53:57 ↗ environmental board meeting in a couple

1:53:58 ↗ weeks we just back up a SL I'm sorry oh

1:54:00 ↗ I think what happens he switched control

1:54:02 ↗ we didn't let him finish about next

1:54:04 ↗ steps s

1:54:06 ↗ right we got er

1:54:12 ↗ sorry he a four foot

1:54:17 ↗ base the environmental board and in a

1:54:20 ↗ couple weeks and then we'll be back here

1:54:22 ↗ at the end of March to review and

1:54:24 ↗ comment on on the projects that we'd

1:54:26 ↗ like you know that kind of make it way

1:54:28 ↗ through the prioritization pro process

1:54:31 ↗ so we'll be able to move that we'll take

1:54:34 ↗ that to the city council's mobility and

1:54:36 ↗ infrastructure in first half of

1:54:39 ↗ May the public hearing June and then

1:54:41 ↗ we'll adopt

1:54:42 ↗ it the next we great

1:54:48 ↗ thanks

1:54:51 ↗ sorry I a question sorry if you like

1:54:54 ↗ just said this but when this goes on to

1:54:56 ↗ the environmental board are they G to

1:54:58 ↗ they're going to get our comments too or

1:55:01 ↗ they like for like I don't know more

1:55:03 ↗ objectivity they don't see any of the

1:55:05 ↗ like comments or suggestions that we've

1:55:08 ↗ made they'll definitely hear our

1:55:11 ↗ comments the have recommendations for

1:55:14 ↗ revisions the reason for it and make

1:55:18 ↗ sure that they agree with it or if they

1:55:20 ↗ have additional comments on making sure

1:55:22 ↗ that we're implementing the city's

1:55:24 ↗ environmental goals okay but no like

1:55:27 ↗ will they see our tab feedback I guess

1:55:29 ↗ is

1:55:30 ↗ what okay okay someone from our grou

1:55:34 ↗ also join the

1:55:36 ↗ Environ we uh actually I'm glad that you

1:55:39 ↗ said that because um I think we did

1:55:40 ↗ briefly talk about that I think if we

1:55:43 ↗ could have a volunteer that attend that

1:55:45 ↗ meeting I will be out of town that week

1:55:48 ↗ um but is there anyone that

1:55:51 ↗ Julian said bit about that what you

1:55:57 ↗ Tom uh let me take my home calendar but

1:55:59 ↗ if I can

1:56:03 ↗ then it sounds like either maybe Julian

1:56:06 ↗ and or Tom could go to that I do think

1:56:08 ↗ it's useful to hear I mean you guys do a

1:56:10 ↗ good job transmitting our feedback but

1:56:12 ↗ sometimes it's also helpful to have the

1:56:16 ↗ OG the actual from The Source um

1:56:21 ↗ so if one of you guys could attend and

1:56:23 ↗ if you can't I think it's okay I think

1:56:25 ↗ these guys are pretty good listeners and

1:56:26 ↗ they'll be able to transmit but I think

1:56:28 ↗ if one of you guys could get aend that'

1:56:30 ↗ be

1:56:33 ↗ awesome keep in

1:56:36 ↗ line uh okay yeah

1:56:44 ↗ thank moving

1:56:46 ↗ on hopefully C

1:56:51 ↗ uh this is our board work plan uh has

1:56:54 ↗ not g Council yet I will talk to speak

1:56:57 ↗ to that in a second um so obviously we

1:57:01 ↗ next month we have uh Greg and John

1:57:04 ↗ coming back to talk to spot tip again uh

1:57:07 ↗ moving on to traffic cming hopefully in

1:57:09 ↗ April and then greous uh inventory in

1:57:12 ↗ May so pretty simple um as far as um

1:57:18 ↗ announce

1:57:20 ↗ so uh this has not gone to council yet

1:57:24 ↗ um but it will be going to Council on

1:57:27 ↗ March 18th at the 7M meeting um we I've

1:57:32 ↗ been working with the clerk's office to

1:57:34 ↗ determine what that looks like because

1:57:37 ↗ was it going to be just on the consent

1:57:39 ↗ calendar and go over it did we need to

1:57:41 ↗ present in person Etc uh so reading from

1:57:45 ↗ the uh municipal code

1:57:48 ↗ 292.50 0.1 duties and responsibilities

1:57:51 ↗ we're going to be literally taking

1:57:54 ↗ taking it literally uh the duties and of

1:57:56 ↗ the board shall include the following

1:57:59 ↗ creating an annual work plan in

1:58:00 ↗ consultation with the mayor City staff

1:58:02 ↗ city council representatives of the tab

1:58:04 ↗ will meet at least annually with the

1:58:06 ↗ city council to discuss the annual work

1:58:08 ↗ plan prior to it being finalized by the

1:58:10 ↗ tab so this is where I ask uh one to

1:58:15 ↗ three or all of you if you wanted to uh

1:58:18 ↗ tab members to attend that meeting uh

1:58:21 ↗ the city council would love to have

1:58:23 ↗ anyone show up uh to be present give

1:58:27 ↗ comment if you

1:58:28 ↗ want I believe they're giving us 10

1:58:31 ↗ minutes at the beginning of that meeting

1:58:33 ↗ to basically say here's our work plan um

1:58:37 ↗ because it's built into the municipal

1:58:39 ↗ code when it was when tab was formed I

1:58:42 ↗ think we might be the only the only

1:58:44 ↗ board that actually has to go to go to

1:58:46 ↗ council physically um so you're special

1:58:49 ↗ is what I'm trying to say um so I would

1:58:52 ↗ love to have some volunteers if you

1:58:55 ↗ could check your calendars what day

1:58:57 ↗ is March 18th at

1:59:02 ↗ 7M that come to

1:59:04 ↗ great I can probably be there okay I'll

1:59:08 ↗ be back by then everyone can come um

1:59:12 ↗ yeah so it'll only be a few minutes at

1:59:14 ↗ the beginning of the meeting so it a

1:59:16 ↗ huge commitment so thank you appreciate

1:59:21 ↗ that stuff sharing my screen go back to

1:59:25 ↗ anything else uh so moving on to staff

1:59:28 ↗ report um the only thing that I have are

1:59:32 ↗ tab uh applications due March 7th we

1:59:35 ↗ have two folks that if they wanted to

1:59:38 ↗ can come back well to will can apply to

1:59:41 ↗ come back I should say um so I think I

1:59:43 ↗ sent you both an email today um just to

1:59:45 ↗ let you know that and give you the link

1:59:48 ↗ um so those are due March 7th to the

1:59:50 ↗ rest of you if you know anyone who wants

1:59:52 ↗ to apply we have three uh open

1:59:55 ↗ alternative positions or I mean I mean b

1:59:58 ↗ two open positions as well if we

2:00:01 ↗ determine that uh so just wanted to to

2:00:04 ↗ put that forward if you know anyone

2:00:06 ↗ might want to apply um especially youth

2:00:09 ↗ members if

2:00:10 ↗ you I think that's it for me um one

2:00:14 ↗ thing if you are interested in attending

2:00:16 ↗ that city council meeting please let

2:00:18 ↗ John note so that way we can avoid a

2:00:21 ↗ quorum oh yeah that's a good point so

2:00:23 ↗ all of you can't come just kidding I

2:00:25 ↗ forgot about the I guess we could post

2:00:27 ↗ it that that's right that's right

2:00:28 ↗ there's going to be a tab meeting at

2:00:30 ↗ city

2:00:31 ↗ council um moving on to share report I

2:00:35 ↗ just wanted to touch base with all of

2:00:36 ↗ you about last I think middle last year

2:00:39 ↗ I mentioned I wanted to kind of meet

2:00:41 ↗ with each of you to to chat I kind of

2:00:43 ↗ dropped the ball on that I think I still

2:00:45 ↗ have to meet with Dave Jerry Erica and

2:00:48 ↗ Micah I believe from this group so I'll

2:00:50 ↗ be reaching out that's all I want to

2:00:52 ↗ mention about that we can move on to

2:00:54 ↗ youth report if there is one

2:00:58 ↗ great chair I'm the chair sorry I was on

2:01:02 ↗ a roll I was on a roll sorry I'll hand

2:01:05 ↗ it back to you uh actually I was going

2:01:07 ↗ to mention that but you already did

2:01:09 ↗ about the um because you had sent us

2:01:12 ↗ that note so you hit one of the things I

2:01:13 ↗ was going to say and then I will just

2:01:15 ↗ say that um I do intend to reapply um

2:01:18 ↗ but I do think that we should be in May

2:01:22 ↗ um is I think when we elect ourselves a

2:01:25 ↗ new chair and vice chair um I am really

2:01:27 ↗ all about rotation of leadership so

2:01:29 ↗ somebody who's interested in sharing

2:01:32 ↗ this um board should be thinking about

2:01:36 ↗ that I think it's

2:01:38 ↗ temp although I do I do like the role

2:01:42 ↗ but thank you but I I think it's good to

2:01:44 ↗ have some different people and that's

2:01:46 ↗ all I had for the chair report thanks oh

2:01:49 ↗ I'm sorry I want to mention one thing

2:01:50 ↗ and that's about recruitment so the nice

2:01:51 ↗ thing about the alternate positions

2:01:53 ↗ those are only two years and so there is

2:01:55 ↗ no age you you you can be young and be

2:01:59 ↗ an alternate you can only be a certain

2:02:02 ↗ age to be in the youth seat and there's

2:02:04 ↗ only one youth seat but um the nice

2:02:07 ↗ thing about those alternate positions if

2:02:09 ↗ you know any young people that are going

2:02:11 ↗ to have be in town for two years and not

2:02:13 ↗ off to college yet it's so people going

2:02:15 ↗ into their junior year that's a great

2:02:18 ↗ role

2:02:19 ↗ because it happens to be two years and

2:02:21 ↗ it's not limited to people above a

2:02:23 ↗ certain age it could be there's no age

2:02:26 ↗ that one so so it's not actually a youth

2:02:29 ↗ seat it's just a really good role for a

2:02:31 ↗ young person who only has two years to

2:02:33 ↗ commit because they they may be going

2:02:35 ↗ off to doing something else so whereas

2:02:37 ↗ our ours are three years so I would to

2:02:39 ↗ mention that and that's it do you have a

2:02:40 ↗ youth report sorry okay uh okay do we

2:02:44 ↗ have any other business or announcements

2:02:46 ↗ I

2:02:47 ↗ don't sweet okay um and then I guess

2:02:51 ↗ then more adjourned I

2:02:54 ↗ [Music]

2:03:01 ↗ move we haven't been motioning

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