Transportation Advisory Board · Wednesday, April 24, 2024 · City Council Digest

2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Minutes of March 27, 2024

packet pp.3–4

Open packet at p.3 ↗

Staff report:

APPROVAL OF MINUTES a) 03-27-24 Transportation Advisory Board Minutes Page [0000] CITY OF ISSAQUAH Transportation Advisory Board 6:00 PM Tibbetts Manor, 750 17th Ave. March 27, 2024 MINUTES NW, Issaquah

4. REGULAR BUSINESS

City of Issaquah 2022 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory (I)

David Reedy, Sustainability Coordinator · packet pp.5–23

Topics: Climate

▶ Watch from 1:46 Open packet at p.5 ↗

Staff report:

Office of Sustainability 130 E Sunset Way | P.O. Box 1307 Issaquah, WA 98027 issaquahwa.gov

Traffic Calming Policy and Procedure Structure (D)

John Larson-Friend, Transportation Program Coordinator · packet pp.25–52

Topics: Transportation

▶ Watch from 1:01:15 Open packet at p.25 ↗

Staff report:

Receive feedback on questions the Administration has concerning the Traffic Calming policy and procedure restructure.

5. REPORTS

Board Work Plan

Staff Report

Chair Report

Youth Report

2748 segments .txt ↗

0:05 ↗ all right good evening everybody

0:07 ↗ starting a little bit L today welcome to

0:09 ↗ the are we in April meeting of the

0:12 ↗ transportation Advisory Board I'm the

0:14 ↗ chair this for at the moment and um like

0:19 ↗ to get started we're calling the meeting

0:20 ↗ to order at time is it 607 running a

0:24 ↗ little bit late um like to start with

0:27 ↗ the minutes and

0:30 ↗ I'm going to going to invite Tom to

0:34 ↗ share some thoughts that he shared with

0:36 ↗ me about the minutes and I'll just

0:38 ↗ suffice to say that rather than put

0:40 ↗ forth the minutes for approval there was

0:43 ↗ a comment about maybe some rewarding of

0:46 ↗ the re the characterization of the

0:49 ↗ really the separating the responses to

0:52 ↗ the environmental board's comments and

0:54 ↗ the substantive material that we

0:56 ↗ discussed separate from the

0:58 ↗ environmental board I was going to let

1:00 ↗ Tom describe that uh my only question to

1:03 ↗ you is do you have enough information to

1:06 ↗ then redo

1:07 ↗ it I wanted him to summarize so that you

1:10 ↗ would then have it on the record and

1:11 ↗ then you could go redo it and resubmit

1:13 ↗ the next time we meet if you feel like

1:15 ↗ based on his comments you have enough to

1:18 ↗ go on yeah I think

1:19 ↗ so and by the way I kind of I agreed

1:22 ↗ with Tom's desire to separate those two

1:25 ↗ issues um so then I'll go ahead and move

1:28 ↗ on um

1:30 ↗ to public comment do we have any wanting

1:33 ↗ to make public comment there's no one

1:36 ↗ online no one online and you're just

1:38 ↗ observing I'm just observing okay great

1:41 ↗ great well that brings us catches us

1:43 ↗ back on time uh up on time and now we're

1:46 ↗ at item four regular business and we'll

1:48 ↗ start with greenhouse gas emissions and

1:51 ↗ you can introduce yourself and

1:53 ↗ absolutely thanks for coming before we

1:56 ↗ get started at by may please please um

2:00 ↗ just like to read you this letter

2:03 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board dear

2:06 ↗ Transportation Advisory Board tonight I

2:09 ↗ wish to Tender my immediate resignation

2:11 ↗ from the board as my health is declining

2:15 ↗ and I must limit my available volunteer

2:17 ↗ tongue to the basic passion that I've

2:20 ↗ had since leaving out the duty in

2:24 ↗ 1993 the passion is helping veterans in

2:28 ↗ any way I can it has been an honor and

2:31 ↗ privilege to serve the city of isqua as

2:34 ↗ a volunteer both on the cemetery board

2:37 ↗ 12 years and transportation Advisory

2:40 ↗ Board almost full isqua has been home to

2:44 ↗ me since 1945 when I came home from

2:48 ↗ isqua from California after World War II

2:51 ↗ with my mom and my

2:53 ↗ dad I've seen many many changes some

2:57 ↗ good some not so good and in my almost

3:01 ↗ 80 years

3:03 ↗ here thank You tab members for your

3:06 ↗ support and comaraderie I wish you all

3:09 ↗ the best and everything you do for our

3:12 ↗ city sign David S Wagner r army retired

3:17 ↗ combat so I'm submitting this to the

3:21 ↗ chair and I will be leaving your midst

3:26 ↗ thank you so much for letting me be a

3:29 ↗ part of this

3:32 ↗ organization uh my health is declining I

3:35 ↗ have a mass on my brain caused by U

3:39 ↗ Agent Orange right now I'm functional

3:42 ↗ but the doctors tell me that's probably

3:45 ↗ not going to be much longer so um it's

3:49 ↗ time to focus on the stuff that I really

3:52 ↗ really want to do stuff that's deep in

3:54 ↗ my heart and that's helping veterans and

3:57 ↗ to travel a little bit um I'm going to

4:00 ↗ Scurry home and watch the rest of the

4:03 ↗ M's game they were ahead when I left

4:05 ↗ home I'm hoping they are still ahead

4:08 ↗ when I get home uh thanks again and uh

4:13 ↗ I'm not disappearing from isqua I'm just

4:16 ↗ limiting the time and I'd like to take

4:18 ↗ this sign as a souvenir F probably put

4:22 ↗ it on my desk at home

4:25 ↗ um I really appreciate the time that

4:28 ↗ I've spent here and all those huge

4:32 ↗ things that we've learned about this

4:34 ↗ city and uh constant fixes that we have

4:39 ↗ to kind of do you guys got a big job I I

4:46 ↗ feel like I did when I was running track

4:48 ↗ I used to run the relay team and you

4:51 ↗ pass that baton you know so I'm passing

4:55 ↗ that on to the new folks who are coming

4:58 ↗ on board and

5:00 ↗ make us proud do good this is a

5:03 ↗ wonderful wonderful

5:05 ↗ community and we we got to make it stay

5:10 ↗ that way again and with that ad do oh

5:15 ↗ Dave thank you uh I I didn't see this

5:20 ↗ coming and I'm I appreciate that you

5:21 ↗ sharar need tears what we do in the

5:24 ↗ military is when one soldier Falls we

5:27 ↗ pick up and we keep on going and that's

5:29 ↗ what you guys got to do thanks

5:37 ↗ again oh

5:42 ↗ goodness um yeah uh boy he will be

5:45 ↗ missed I think the only

5:47 ↗ thing um he cares more about than

5:51 ↗ transportation and bus drivers and

5:54 ↗ Transit and all that is Veterans so I uh

5:59 ↗ I not surprised that he's prioritized

6:01 ↗ that but that was a big shock so I'm

6:03 ↗ sure um yeah you feel the same

6:06 ↗ way um but I do appreciate him being

6:09 ↗ direct and clear and letting us know

6:11 ↗ what's what

6:14 ↗ um lot

6:16 ↗ of like of clarity there so okay um well

6:21 ↗ I'm glad he interrupted us that very

6:22 ↗ important um let's come back to our

6:25 ↗ business um and like to turn it over to

6:28 ↗ you guys

6:30 ↗ absolutely well um thank you all very

6:33 ↗ much for having me here today um we uh I

6:39 ↗ know that uh we can kind of take our

6:42 ↗ time with this topic and uh we'll we'll

6:46 ↗ give Grace around questioning and

6:48 ↗ everything else so my name is David REI

6:51 ↗ I am the sustainability coordinator with

6:53 ↗ the city of isqua um I'm part of a quite

6:56 ↗ a small team here at the city working on

6:59 ↗ uh implementing our climate action plan

7:02 ↗ I support the environmental board who I

7:04 ↗ know you've met with in the past um and

7:06 ↗ I work on a range of different projects

7:09 ↗ um everything from uh transitioning our

7:13 ↗ Fleet away from um Fleet of vehicles

7:16 ↗ away from uh natural uh from gasoline to

7:21 ↗ decarbonizing our buildings bre us gas

7:23 ↗ inventories and a wide range of of other

7:26 ↗ projects and here today um I

7:30 ↗ get to to come before you to talk about

7:32 ↗ our most recent greenhouse gas inventory

7:35 ↗ um and put that in the context of uh how

7:38 ↗ are we doing related to our climate

7:40 ↗ action plan implementation and then also

7:43 ↗ really focus in a little bit on um what

7:46 ↗ are the transportation emissions and how

7:48 ↗ is transportation really playing a role

7:50 ↗ uh within this greenhouse gas

7:52 ↗ inventory so with that I will have a

7:57 ↗ presentation and um

8:07 ↗ so I will go through the presentation

8:10 ↗ and then at the end I'm happy to take

8:13 ↗ questions comments um and um we can dig

8:17 ↗ into this a little bit more um so the

8:22 ↗ per present purpose of today's uh

8:24 ↗ presentation is to uh share the results

8:27 ↗ of our 2022 greenhouse gas inventory

8:31 ↗ with Tab and I know we're in 2024 um

8:34 ↗ unfortunately it takes a long time to

8:36 ↗ gather all the data for these

8:38 ↗ inventories um and we were able to just

8:40 ↗ finalize the inventory um earlier this

8:43 ↗ year so um we're we were really excited

8:47 ↗ about that uh it takes a lot of cities a

8:49 ↗ lot longer than that uh to get these

8:51 ↗ inventories

8:52 ↗ out we will be discussing the inventory

8:55 ↗ findings and how they are impacting

8:58 ↗ policies programs projects um and

9:01 ↗ budgets and then I can answer any

9:03 ↗ questions related to the

9:05 ↗ inventory as a quick background on what

9:08 ↗ we're really talking about when we're

9:09 ↗ we're discussing greenhouse gas

9:11 ↗ inventories these inventories are meant

9:13 ↗ to calculate quantify and assess both

9:16 ↗ the community Associated greenhouse gas

9:18 ↗ emissions and the government Associated

9:21 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions and their

9:23 ↗ sources that we can better understand

9:26 ↗ where our emissions are coming from um

9:28 ↗ and we can better

9:30 ↗ uh direct our our efforts to addressing

9:32 ↗ those emissions right we completed our

9:36 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory to really take

9:39 ↗ stock of where our greenhouse gas

9:41 ↗ emissions are at this point in time to

9:43 ↗ help us understand Trends relating to

9:46 ↗ our goals within the climate action plan

9:49 ↗ and to again influence some of those

9:52 ↗ projects policies and um goals as we

9:55 ↗ move forward it is important to note

9:58 ↗ these greenhouse gas uh inventory

10:00 ↗ methods are regularly changing so our

10:03 ↗ first one was in

10:05 ↗ 2007 uh and in that time the inventory

10:08 ↗ methodology has changed a lot and the

10:11 ↗ methodology continues to change as we

10:13 ↗ have better models as we have better

10:15 ↗ ways of calculating emissions or uh

10:18 ↗ gathering information related to

10:19 ↗ emission

10:21 ↗ sources yeah you correct for the changes

10:24 ↗ in the modeling over time right so if

10:27 ↗ you like historical emissions yes so if

10:29 ↗ you're changing the method of capturing

10:31 ↗ your data and you're trying to look at

10:34 ↗ Trends you have to account for that

10:35 ↗ someh right yeah so you do it's in N um

10:39 ↗ yes and no so what we've done with this

10:43 ↗ most recent update is we're we're trying

10:45 ↗ to get as close as we can to um

10:48 ↗ standardizing our methodology as we move

10:50 ↗ forward and and so that we can

10:52 ↗ make smaller changes as they occurred we

10:56 ↗ have standardized through our 2017

10:59 ↗ inventory so for the last three

11:01 ↗ emissions inventories that we've done um

11:04 ↗ it was essentially the decision going

11:06 ↗ all the way back to 2007 and updating

11:09 ↗ all of the pieces that were left out at

11:11 ↗ that time was going to be uh not quite

11:15 ↗ the best use of our time and and funds

11:17 ↗ and it was going to be pretty difficult

11:19 ↗ um and so what we did with the 2017

11:21 ↗ getting back to 2017 was making sure

11:23 ↗ that we have five years of and three

11:26 ↗ emissions inventories of accurate

11:28 ↗ consistent data um so that we can look

11:31 ↗ at those

11:34 ↗ Trends so the process we did this in

11:37 ↗ partnership with uh what's called the

11:39 ↗ East CL East Side climate partnership

11:41 ↗ cities BW Redmond isqua marcar Island

11:44 ↗ and Kirkland um and we did this as a

11:47 ↗ means to save some funds to standardize

11:51 ↗ our processes um and to make sure that

11:53 ↗ we're leveraging each other's skills and

11:55 ↗ knowledge uh we contracted out with a

11:58 ↗ Cascadia Consulting who is a a really

12:00 ↗ well-known uh Regional um and National

12:03 ↗ consulting firm who does a lot of these

12:05 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions

12:07 ↗ inventories um and the 2022 inventory

12:11 ↗ represents our fifth CommunityWide

12:13 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory again the first

12:15 ↗ one was back in

12:17 ↗ 2007 um and our first government

12:19 ↗ operations inventory so we have no Trend

12:22 ↗ data related to our government

12:24 ↗ operations missions inventory um since

12:27 ↗ this is this was our first one and as we

12:29 ↗ do more of them we'll get that Trend

12:31 ↗ information and completing these

12:33 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories directly

12:35 ↗ complet some actions uh as laid out in

12:37 ↗ the climate action

12:40 ↗ plan putting our uh emissions inventory

12:44 ↗ in context before we dive into the data

12:46 ↗ it's important to think about a few

12:48 ↗ specific pieces right so between 2007

12:51 ↗ and 2012 2007 and

12:54 ↗ 2022 um ISO has experienced a lot of

12:57 ↗ growth there's been a big population

13:00 ↗ increase there's been a lot of

13:01 ↗ businesses moving in um and with that

13:05 ↗ growth comes more emissions additionally

13:08 ↗ 2022 was the first inventory since

13:10 ↗ covid-19 and so as we're specifically

13:12 ↗ thinking about

13:13 ↗ Transportation uh covid-19 had a lot of

13:16 ↗ impacts on those Transportation

13:18 ↗ emissions within the city of isqua and

13:20 ↗ so you will see in a minute uh that uh

13:23 ↗ we saw a decline in vehicle miles

13:26 ↗ traveled um but we're actually expecting

13:28 ↗ an increase uh once we do our next

13:31 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory as um folks

13:34 ↗ continue to get back into their cars and

13:36 ↗ uh continue to

13:39 ↗ um their work from home

13:41 ↗ situation additionally uh inventories

13:44 ↗ are based off of um a wide set of best

13:47 ↗ practices and that ranges from direct

13:49 ↗ activity reporting so for instance the

13:52 ↗ exact amount of gasoline consumed by

13:55 ↗ City Vehicles right we have that direct

13:58 ↗ number um and then models thinking about

14:01 ↗ well how many vehicles mile vehicle

14:03 ↗ miles traveled are are um occurred in

14:07 ↗ isqua in 2022 that's unfortunately not

14:10 ↗ something we have that direct number we

14:12 ↗ haven't uh counted those exactly and so

14:15 ↗ we have we have to rely on these models

14:17 ↗ that um that build into kind of how how

14:21 ↗ those um numbers have changed over the

14:23 ↗ years additionally there are some

14:25 ↗ assumptions as well so um situations

14:28 ↗ where there aren't quite good models or

14:30 ↗ direct direct activity reporting we did

14:32 ↗ have to make uh some assumptions and

14:33 ↗ those were based off of uh best

14:37 ↗ practices some top takeaways um

14:41 ↗ unsurprisingly uh the largest sources of

14:44 ↗ CommunityWide and government operations

14:46 ↗ emissions were those associated with the

14:48 ↗ built environment and transportation so

14:50 ↗ when we're thinking about built

14:51 ↗ environment that's energy use M lay

14:54 ↗ associated with keeping the lights on or

14:56 ↗ keeping a building heated right um with

14:59 ↗ Transportation it's mainly you know the

15:02 ↗ emissions coming out of the uh exhaust

15:04 ↗ of a vehicle right um and we anticipated

15:09 ↗ that those would be the largest sources

15:10 ↗ of emissions that's consistent

15:13 ↗ regionally um King County has seen the

15:15 ↗ same thing Seattle has seen the same

15:17 ↗ thing communities across the Pacific

15:19 ↗ Northwest have have really seen that um

15:23 ↗ built environment and transportation

15:25 ↗ Remain the the largest sources of

15:26 ↗ emissions and they've been the largest

15:28 ↗ sources of emissions in all of our past

15:30 ↗ emissions

15:32 ↗ inventories as we've noticed that um

15:35 ↗ it's confirmed that as we're looking to

15:38 ↗ reduce our emissions in line with our

15:40 ↗ climate action plan goals um we want to

15:43 ↗ continue uh to focus our efforts on

15:46 ↗ addressing those transportation and

15:48 ↗ built environment emissions right if we

15:50 ↗ want to reach our goals that's where the

15:51 ↗ biggest sources of emissions are uh and

15:54 ↗ that's where we need to to be focusing

15:55 ↗ our efforts additionally to meet our

15:58 ↗ icap targets as you'll see we have a

16:00 ↗ long way to go um and that's going to

16:03 ↗ require a lot of continued and expanded

16:07 ↗ local state utility and federal action

16:09 ↗ it's going to be the mix of all of these

16:11 ↗ together um that's going to help us

16:14 ↗ reach those those

16:16 ↗ targets you will also in a minute see

16:18 ↗ that there was h a reduction in

16:21 ↗ greenhouse gas emissions between 2017

16:23 ↗ and 2022 um and I did just want to call

16:26 ↗ out ahead of time that a lot of that

16:28 ↗ reduction

16:29 ↗ um came from uh improvements in the

16:32 ↗ Puget Sound Energy electric grid so as

16:35 ↗ their electricity becomes cleaner the

16:38 ↗ emissions go down for us in the the use

16:41 ↗ of our electricity in our homes and our

16:43 ↗ commercial buildings um and so when you

16:46 ↗ see that our uh 22 emissions drop a

16:49 ↗ little bit um most of that does come

16:52 ↗ from that utility

16:54 ↗ grid so now we get to dive into some of

16:57 ↗ the charts um

16:59 ↗ here we have uh this is our 2022

17:02 ↗ CommunityWide greenhouse gas emissions

17:04 ↗ by sector and so you can see in the

17:06 ↗ yellowish orange color um that's all the

17:09 ↗ built environment so that's the

17:11 ↗ emissions associated with our

17:12 ↗ electricity use our natural gas use

17:15 ↗ other fuels like propane um and then the

17:18 ↗ purple is the uh Transportation

17:20 ↗ emissions and the biggest chunk of that

17:22 ↗ is our onroad vehicles right so 31% of

17:27 ↗ our Citywide Community or CommunityWide

17:31 ↗ uh greenhouse gas emissions really come

17:32 ↗ from um Vehicles driving on our roads

17:38 ↗ right as we look at that over 2017 to

17:42 ↗ 2022 and this is where we're talking

17:44 ↗ about um the three inventories that have

17:46 ↗ the same methodology you can see that

17:49 ↗ there was that drop in 2022 and again a

17:51 ↗ big piece of that was a reduction in the

17:53 ↗ utility emission although you'll see

17:55 ↗ again in a minute um there was a

17:57 ↗ reduction in vehicle mil traveled as

18:00 ↗ well yes questions one on the prior

18:03 ↗ slide

18:04 ↗ refrigerant

18:06 ↗ so what is the source of emissions for

18:09 ↗ refrigerant because you know thinking

18:10 ↗ refrigerant should be in a Clos loop

18:12 ↗ system is it accidental releases that

18:15 ↗ sort of stuff or is it something else

18:17 ↗ about yeah so it's accidental releases

18:21 ↗ it's um those those ref the use of those

18:24 ↗ refrigerants will actually release some

18:26 ↗ gases like U believe some methane and

18:28 ↗ like that and so all of that kind of

18:30 ↗ goes

18:35 ↗ into yes it is a lot and I think it's

18:37 ↗ one of those it's one of the sources

18:40 ↗ that is more uh newly more recently

18:44 ↗ being incorporated into greenhouse gas

18:45 ↗ inventory so again if you look at our

18:47 ↗ 2007 and

18:49 ↗ 2020 excuse me 2007 and 2012 missions

18:53 ↗ inventories refrigerants weren't

18:55 ↗ included um and that's because this is

18:57 ↗ one of those methodology changes as

18:59 ↗ we're learning more about what are the

19:01 ↗ sources of greenhouse gas emissions um

19:03 ↗ refrigerant use in buildings and in

19:05 ↗ vehicles are starting to be incorporated

19:08 ↗ more into these uh into these

19:10 ↗ models and then the other question and

19:13 ↗ maybe it's uh in a later slide but on on

19:16 ↗ this so the build environment and

19:19 ↗ transportation is there something that

19:21 ↗ breaks down between like I assume build

19:23 ↗ environment is both like my home's

19:25 ↗ Heating and an office is Heating and and

19:28 ↗ and a grocer groc stores Heating and if

19:30 ↗ you want to look at Trends over time you

19:33 ↗ might expect that one of those is going

19:35 ↗ to go up just based on population the

19:38 ↗ offices are probably most impacted by

19:40 ↗ things like Co so is there that

19:44 ↗ breakdown to see you Transportation I

19:46 ↗ see you have later you have just miles

19:48 ↗ for

19:50 ↗ uh heavy duty like Duty Etc but is there

19:53 ↗ then that breakdown of the emissions to

19:55 ↗ see like this type of graph but with um

20:02 ↗ ex yes yes there is so um there uh is

20:07 ↗ more detail in the greenhouse gas

20:10 ↗ inventory report that's on the website

20:12 ↗ um and then even that we have uh even

20:16 ↗ more data that that we didn't directly

20:18 ↗ put into that written report trying to

20:20 ↗ think about um what was going to be the

20:24 ↗ most uh valuable for Community uh

20:27 ↗ reading so we have uh so there are some

20:30 ↗ pieces that didn't even make it into

20:31 ↗ that but we have breakdowns of

20:34 ↗ commercial industrial and residential

20:36 ↗ energy use in the built environment um

20:39 ↗ as well as you know the light duty

20:41 ↗ medium duty heavy duty VMT and Emissions

20:44 ↗ associated with that

20:47 ↗ um that vehicle miles traveled as well

20:49 ↗ so big question here as we uh worked

20:53 ↗ through these slides and and what we

20:55 ↗ presented to council back in February

20:57 ↗ was kind of what what are the different

20:58 ↗ slides and and charts to show them yes

21:00 ↗ we do have all of that and that helps

21:03 ↗ inform uh different programs so for

21:05 ↗ instance as we'll talk about later we

21:07 ↗ have programs targeted towards reducing

21:11 ↗ um energy use in

21:13 ↗ residential uh buildings and then we

21:15 ↗ have programs targeted towards

21:17 ↗ commercial buildings um and so each of

21:20 ↗ the different programs is tailored

21:21 ↗ towards more specific emissions and more

21:24 ↗ specific

21:27 ↗ audiences so um as I was discussing here

21:33 ↗ the 2022 emissions did drop which is

21:35 ↗ excellent right and our per capita

21:38 ↗ emissions dropped which is excellent

21:41 ↗ however when we look at where we need to

21:44 ↗ go we have a long way to go right so the

21:48 ↗ 2022 emissions uh inventory is the the

21:51 ↗ third line on the left and our 2020 2030

21:54 ↗ and 2050 goals um as you look out are

21:59 ↗ quite a bit lower right and so as we

22:02 ↗ think

22:02 ↗ about where we need to go um we have to

22:07 ↗ continue to drastically reduce emissions

22:09 ↗ and we need to what the the reduction

22:11 ↗ between 2019 and 2022 we need that Trend

22:14 ↗ to continue and we even need to

22:15 ↗ accelerate that Trend

22:20 ↗ right when we look closer at

22:23 ↗ Transportation um there was a reduction

22:26 ↗ in greenhouse gas emissions in 2022 and

22:29 ↗ I did update the graph that was in the

22:31 ↗ the U report and I can send the updated

22:34 ↗ slides to John um to share out but we

22:37 ↗ have a a Target in the climate action

22:39 ↗ plan to reduce our BMT by 20 20%

22:43 ↗ compared to 2017 in

22:46 ↗ 2022 we actually saw increases in heavy

22:48 ↗ duty and medium duty BMT right we did

22:53 ↗ see a decrease in light duty by 6% which

22:57 ↗ is nothing to to sneeze at but um we

23:01 ↗ still have a lot of ways to go between

23:03 ↗ 2022 and 20 30 and most uh folks are

23:07 ↗ expecting that when we do the next

23:09 ↗ greenhouse gas inventory um this uh the

23:13 ↗ light duty miles traveled will actually

23:15 ↗ increase um as that as more people were

23:19 ↗ coming out of covid as more people were

23:21 ↗ driving places as remote work was uh

23:24 ↗ becoming less common or people were

23:26 ↗ asked to come into the office more

23:29 ↗ another note on the the VMT uh the city

23:32 ↗ of isqua uh our VMT was calculated based

23:35 ↗ on a pet sound Regional Council model

23:38 ↗ that looked at uh vehicle miles traveled

23:41 ↗ within different uh blocks of of space

23:45 ↗ and so this is really accounting for all

23:47 ↗ of the vehicle miles traveled within the

23:49 ↗ borders of the city of isqua right so

23:51 ↗ this isn't accounting say you driving

23:53 ↗ from your home up to Bellingham or you

23:56 ↗ know a trip from Seattle to Ellensburg

23:58 ↗ but this is counting uh based on a Model

24:02 ↗ all of the the miles traveled across I90

24:05 ↗ from you know the the east side to the

24:07 ↗ west side of of Isa

24:10 ↗ right um and that's that's generally

24:13 ↗ consistent we this that model was used

24:15 ↗ also for Mercer Island um unfortunately

24:18 ↗ for us at least Belleview Kirkland and

24:21 ↗ Redmond have a an even better uh vehicle

24:24 ↗ miles traveled model that they got to

24:26 ↗ use called the vkr model we yes so

24:29 ↗ question for example if you're going

24:30 ↗ from W to Ellenberg it's going to count

24:33 ↗ that car when it's ENT the Border ex

24:36 ↗ absolutely yeah additionally included in

24:40 ↗ our um transportation emissions right is

24:43 ↗ uh Regional Trends with electric

24:46 ↗ vehicles um and the average um miles per

24:50 ↗ gallon of uh of the cars that are used

24:53 ↗ in our in our region so all of that data

24:56 ↗ gets aggregated and put into our

24:58 ↗ software to help transition um numbers

25:01 ↗ like vehicle miles traveled to actual

25:06 ↗ emissions when we take a look at our

25:08 ↗ government operations uh similarly uh

25:11 ↗ the biggest sources of emissions come

25:13 ↗ from our buildings and then

25:15 ↗ Transportation uh one of the biggest

25:17 ↗ surprising pieces to me was our employee

25:19 ↗ commute actually accounts for

25:21 ↗ 25% of our government operations

25:23 ↗ emissions and that is counting you know

25:25 ↗ from an employes house to the city of as

25:28 ↗ well right um electricity use natural

25:32 ↗ gas use in our buildings still stays is

25:35 ↗ almost 50% of our emissions and then uh

25:38 ↗ the V the um emissions associated with

25:41 ↗ our our vehicles um is almost 20% the

25:46 ↗ biggest users in our vehicles the

25:48 ↗ biggest emissions uh from our vehicles

25:50 ↗ really come from our police and our

25:52 ↗ utility maintenance uh Vehicles those

25:54 ↗ are the ones that drive the most

25:56 ↗ distances those are the ones that are on

25:57 ↗ the most

25:58 ↗ a lot of our vehicles you know we're the

26:00 ↗ city of Isa we're not that big a lot of

26:02 ↗ our vehicles don't actually go very far

26:05 ↗ need to talk reducing the police side

26:07 ↗ the vehicles as far as instead of

26:08 ↗ driving driving a smaller

26:11 ↗ cylinder there

26:15 ↗ are there are many conversations

26:19 ↗ around

26:21 ↗ um future police vehicle um what what

26:25 ↗ those are going to look like um can we

26:27 ↗ electri by those um there's a whole host

26:31 ↗ of challenges because a lot of those

26:32 ↗ vehicles are taken home at night right

26:35 ↗ um and so thinking about electrifying

26:37 ↗ those is

26:39 ↗ um there's there's a number of different

26:42 ↗ challenges to overcome there but there's

26:45 ↗ we're working pretty closely between

26:47 ↗ myself and our fleet manager and then uh

26:49 ↗ our the rest of our administrative

26:51 ↗ Services team and the police um to think

26:54 ↗ about options for reducing those

26:55 ↗ emissions

26:59 ↗ um when we think about addressing our

27:02 ↗ missions right we have a whole host of

27:04 ↗ different projects and programs and uh

27:07 ↗ this board and uh the transportation

27:09 ↗ team fit right on in there um as we

27:11 ↗ think about reducing emissions from

27:13 ↗ Transportation um part of that is you

27:16 ↗ know more work that I'm associated with

27:18 ↗ such as uh supporting uh EV charging

27:20 ↗ infrastructure and supporting the

27:22 ↗ transition to electric vehicles but it's

27:24 ↗ also about supporting uh public transit

27:27 ↗ um getting people out of their single

27:30 ↗ occupancy vehicle cars through programs

27:31 ↗ like Metroflex or by uh changing uh

27:36 ↗ updating Title 18 so that um we're

27:38 ↗ building a more walkable bikable um

27:42 ↗ isqua so people don't have to drive

27:44 ↗ necessarily everywhere additionally

27:46 ↗ there are this is where I was mentioning

27:48 ↗ before we have specific programs such as

27:50 ↗ Energy Smart Eide which uh targets

27:53 ↗ decarbonization of residential um

27:55 ↗ buildings through the switch out of uh

27:57 ↗ gas par furnaces for uh energy efficient

28:01 ↗ electric heat pumps we also have

28:02 ↗ programs like the clean buildings

28:04 ↗ incentive program which is more focused

28:05 ↗ on those commercial buildings and

28:07 ↗ supporting them at reducing both their

28:09 ↗ energy use um as well as the

28:11 ↗ electrification of those

28:13 ↗ facilities on the government side we

28:16 ↗ have uh also a whole host of programs

28:18 ↗ looking at our own

28:20 ↗ facilities um we are looking at how do

28:22 ↗ we transition our fleet vehicles to

28:25 ↗ electric or alternative fuel vehicles we

28:29 ↗ uh John actually gets to run our commute

28:31 ↗ trip Reduction Program and so that's

28:33 ↗ another way to address that 25% of our

28:35 ↗ emissions which comes from the employee

28:37 ↗ commute and so really trying to think

28:40 ↗ about all of these programs as a bundle

28:42 ↗ are how uh we're thinking about trying

28:44 ↗ to get to the uh reduced uh I IAP

28:47 ↗ targets yes how are we uh making sure

28:51 ↗ we're avoiding the incentive problem

28:55 ↗ like with the commute thing you could

28:57 ↗ just say well I'm gonna have my entire

29:00 ↗ team be remote look how much I helped

29:03 ↗ right but that's not the

29:05 ↗ goal the goal is different so how how

29:08 ↗ are you are there checks that are being

29:10 ↗ put in place

29:13 ↗ like to checks to make sure that another

29:16 ↗ example you could say I'm only gonna

29:18 ↗ hire people that live within a mile of

29:21 ↗ City Hall yes right but that'd be the

29:24 ↗ wrong the wrong thing to do we want to

29:28 ↗ represent love for people that work in

29:30 ↗ our city to represent you know all of

29:32 ↗ the city and maybe even Beyond a city so

29:35 ↗ what are the things to make sure that

29:37 ↗ like is that do that conversation ever

29:39 ↗ come up is it yeah so it's a great

29:42 ↗ question and I'll say that you know the

29:44 ↗ IAP targets and thinking about say

29:46 ↗ employee commute that doesn't play any

29:48 ↗ role in our hiring or in I'm I'm not

29:52 ↗ actually worried about that I was say

29:54 ↗ don't worry about that explain what I'm

29:57 ↗ asking yeah no so I I would say that for

29:59 ↗ the most part all of these programs um

30:02 ↗ nothing is happening in a vacuum right

30:05 ↗ so everything that we're working on

30:08 ↗ trying to get uh our emissions reduced

30:11 ↗ we're having all of the conversations

30:14 ↗ with the different departments who have

30:16 ↗ their own goals right you know so in

30:18 ↗ terms of thinking about um uh employees

30:22 ↗ working from home for instance that just

30:24 ↗ doesn't work for some of the Departments

30:26 ↗ right and so it's not going to be

30:27 ↗ necessarily our space to think about

30:29 ↗ well try it anyways but instead it's

30:32 ↗ okay if that doesn't work for your team

30:34 ↗ maybe hybrid is not the situation that

30:35 ↗ works for them what are the other ways

30:37 ↗ we can support uh support that team for

30:39 ↗ reducing their um their uh commute

30:43 ↗ commuting emissions and maybe that's car

30:45 ↗ pooling maybe that's um installing the

30:47 ↗ EV infrastructure so that a an employee

30:50 ↗ can better charge an electric vehicle

30:53 ↗ and there at work and therefore uh make

30:55 ↗ that transition in their personal lives

30:58 ↗ uh easier right so it's it's going to be

31:00 ↗ kind of the mix and of measures and then

31:03 ↗ also those uh conversations with um

31:06 ↗ community members staff different

31:08 ↗ departments as well to really try and

31:10 ↗ tailor the solution to each

31:12 ↗ situation jumping off to that

31:15 ↗ um that point or you know one of those

31:18 ↗ conversations does the

31:20 ↗ city offer like free or reduce orer

31:23 ↗ cards to the emplo yeah okay yes yeah

31:27 ↗ yes we

31:30 ↗ do how how many employees does the city

31:33 ↗ have it's

31:36 ↗ two 70 something or something like that

31:39 ↗ yeah guess 260 it's around the

31:43 ↗ two 60 to 70 range do we compare

31:50 ↗ other good question Emily do you know

31:53 ↗ the answer to that question

31:58 ↗ very similar it's hard to look at City

32:03 ↗ level because there's so many things you

32:05 ↗ consideration full service

32:08 ↗ city water

32:14 ↗ department that to

32:17 ↗ app one of the things we did look at and

32:19 ↗ again it's in the full report is um this

32:22 ↗ is on the government operations side but

32:24 ↗ looking at the emissions from our

32:26 ↗ government operations on a per employee

32:29 ↗ basis so per FTE um and we're we're

32:33 ↗ higher than some of the other um East

32:35 ↗ Side cities who participated in this

32:37 ↗ this project which is not surprising

32:39 ↗ right if you work in bellev you have

32:41 ↗ more options to take public transit to

32:43 ↗ work right um than than you do if you

32:46 ↗ work in esqua however we I think we were

32:49 ↗ similar to Kirkland um maybe Redmond I

32:54 ↗ think we are similar to Kirkland and

32:56 ↗ then Mercer Island LW and Redmond were

32:58 ↗ lower than us ones sense

33:02 ↗ absolutely there samamish was not in

33:04 ↗ there although they are going to be a

33:07 ↗ they are I believe now a part of the

33:10 ↗ Eide climate partnership so in the

33:12 ↗ future they'll start doing things like

33:14 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories alongside

33:17 ↗ us

33:20 ↗ yeah just real quick talking about next

33:23 ↗ steps um so uh we are partnering with

33:26 ↗ departments across the City and this

33:28 ↗ again goes to the point of we're not

33:29 ↗ doing anything in a vacuum here so um

33:32 ↗ we're discussing the results we're

33:34 ↗ talking about ways that we can address

33:37 ↗ different uh sources of greenhouse gas

33:39 ↗ emissions and leverage these results for

33:42 ↗ budget requests and projects and

33:44 ↗ policies right across the city we will

33:47 ↗ be using uh this data with uh to inform

33:51 ↗ an IAP midpoint check-in with Council

33:54 ↗ which is going to happen in a couple

33:56 ↗ months we'll be reporting to City

33:58 ↗ Council on how are we doing reaching our

34:02 ↗ our many many targets and goals laid out

34:04 ↗ in the climate action plan we do intend

34:07 ↗ to do another greenhouse gas inventory

34:10 ↗ uh for our current year 2024 uh so that

34:14 ↗ process will begin in

34:15 ↗ 2025 um and then we'll actually be

34:17 ↗ updating the climate action plan in 2025

34:20 ↗ and 26 and so the next greenhouse gas

34:23 ↗ inventory as well as this one will be uh

34:26 ↗ informing that update process as we

34:28 ↗ think

34:29 ↗ about how do we want to change our our

34:32 ↗ um our actions how do we want to change

34:34 ↗ our framing of things do do we need to

34:37 ↗ make updates to our goals right um all

34:40 ↗ of that gets to kind of feed right into

34:42 ↗ that uh update process uh in a in about

34:45 ↗ a year or two

34:47 ↗ years and with that I'm happy to have

34:50 ↗ have uh any other questions um

34:53 ↗ discussions there's any any questions on

34:55 ↗ the whole presentation happy to answer

34:57 ↗ them

35:00 ↗ um what is like the like small like 2% I

35:04 ↗ think

35:06 ↗ for like government or more government

35:09 ↗ Community for landfill what is what like

35:12 ↗ we don't have a landfill here I guess is

35:14 ↗ that just waste that comes from the

35:17 ↗ community or the government and like off

35:19 ↗ gases or what yeah yeah so um great

35:23 ↗ Point um so for the city

35:28 ↗ uh waste uh well actually it's City and

35:31 ↗ uh City and CommunityWide we can measure

35:35 ↗ the um greenhouse gas emissions mainly

35:37 ↗ through like methane releases and things

35:39 ↗ like that from the landfill based on the

35:42 ↗ amount of tonage of our both residence

35:46 ↗ commercial and then City operations that

35:48 ↗ are going to um specifically you know

35:52 ↗ Cedar Grove for composting but then um

35:54 ↗ the landfills down south of Maple Valley

35:57 ↗ so we can and there is actually very

35:59 ↗ spec you know luckily for us there's

36:02 ↗ very specific emissions data on each of

36:04 ↗ the different um waste facilities so the

36:10 ↗ the um kind of factors in C in

36:13 ↗ calculating our emissions based on waste

36:15 ↗ that went to our facility are different

36:17 ↗ than say waste that goes to a facility

36:20 ↗ up north because the emissions

36:21 ↗ associated with each facility are going

36:23 ↗ to be

36:25 ↗ different a couple questions but I just

36:28 ↗ want to see if anybody else had

36:32 ↗ any um so I was doing a little bit

36:36 ↗ reading about you know this this

36:39 ↗ modeling and all

36:41 ↗ that in terms of like why is it that we

36:44 ↗ weren't able to get the BK bks um bkr

36:48 ↗ model

36:49 ↗ yeah um my understanding uh is that that

36:55 ↗ model is specific to bellw Kirkland and

36:59 ↗ Redmond that's the the bkr there um and

37:02 ↗ that they were not planning on expanding

37:05 ↗ that model for isiga and Mercer Island

37:10 ↗ so I I don't have a great answer there

37:12 ↗ other than uh it was developed for those

37:15 ↗ three cities and um we weren't a part of

37:18 ↗ it so far trade like we can't like

37:22 ↗ what it's it's specific to kind of how

37:26 ↗ those cities are how transportation is

37:30 ↗ is um being measured within those cities

37:33 ↗ so it's not something that we can just

37:35 ↗ kind of plug our any numbers into it's

37:37 ↗ it's very specific to kind of like that

37:40 ↗ geography purpose of modeling seems

37:44 ↗ almost counterproductive to try and go

37:46 ↗ to some proprietary method and you can't

37:49 ↗ compare can't track a stable over time

37:53 ↗ so you wanted to you Pro it

37:58 ↗ keep changing that was why I asked my

37:59 ↗ question earlier yes and that that is

38:02 ↗ that speaks to some of the challenges

38:04 ↗ right if we do this in 20124 and

38:06 ↗ suddenly we're told well there's all

38:08 ↗ these new methods right um then we have

38:10 ↗ to make those decisions of what

38:12 ↗ inventories do we updat so we can have

38:14 ↗ that better Trend or and Analysis over

38:17 ↗ time know another big piece when we're

38:20 ↗ thinking about these emissions uh uh

38:23 ↗ inventories is that they're really not

38:25 ↗ perfect they're meant to show kind of a

38:27 ↗ point in time best understanding of

38:30 ↗ where we're at to help us drive forward

38:33 ↗ right and so um we should take all of

38:36 ↗ our inventories both at the city and of

38:39 ↗ isqua and any other ones we look at with

38:41 ↗ a grain of salt since um again they best

38:44 ↗ available methodologies at the time and

38:46 ↗ um we'll adjust them as best we

38:51 ↗ can question uh a couple questions one

38:54 ↗ is um I'm sure if I read the

39:00 ↗ uh appendices and so forth what otheres

39:02 ↗ are but um I'm wondering about consumer

39:06 ↗ everything from food to awesome question

39:09 ↗ I buy a pair of shoes like I'm I'm

39:12 ↗ unsure what's not included in this yes

39:16 ↗ this is useful but just about all the

39:18 ↗ other things we might do yes so there

39:21 ↗ are

39:23 ↗ exclusions um there is some explanation

39:26 ↗ of that in the full report the two big

39:28 ↗ ones that I'll call out um are uh

39:32 ↗ consumption of goods right so again like

39:36 ↗ you buy a pair of shoes the emissions

39:37 ↗ associated with manufacturing those

39:41 ↗ shoes and getting the resources to put

39:43 ↗ those shoes together and transporting

39:45 ↗ them to here um that is not that is not

39:49 ↗ included in that and that's uh those

39:52 ↗ consumption based inventories they're

39:54 ↗ called the consumption is called um

39:56 ↗ scope three three

39:58 ↗ inventories um and those are

40:02 ↗ uh they haven't really been figured out

40:05 ↗ how to best calculate those yet

40:08 ↗ hypothetically if we had somebody making

40:10 ↗ shoes in a building in that I ended up

40:14 ↗ buying and like that would be or that

40:17 ↗ got sold anywhere that would be included

40:18 ↗ in the built environment in the facility

40:21 ↗ yes so all of the work that's happening

40:24 ↗ at that facility would be included right

40:26 ↗ the energy use their you know their

40:29 ↗ refrigerant emissions their vehicles

40:31 ↗ right all of that would be included but

40:33 ↗ say you know the the growth of the

40:37 ↗ fibers that are then making the shoe or

40:39 ↗ the the Plastics that are going into

40:41 ↗ that that are manufactured somewhere

40:42 ↗ else that is not accounted for and that

40:47 ↗ that goes into also the challenges of um

40:50 ↗ making sure in inventories that you're

40:52 ↗ not double counting a missions so we're

40:54 ↗ trying to man to count what's happening

40:56 ↗ in our city

40:58 ↗ and if you're counting what's kind of

41:00 ↗ happening at at a facility in Louisiana

41:03 ↗ before a product gets to us um that

41:07 ↗ provides challenges for for um making

41:10 ↗ sure we're trying to have accurate and

41:11 ↗ so frankly that's something that hasn't

41:13 ↗ been fully figured out by the greenhouse

41:16 ↗ gas inventory Community yeah I can see

41:18 ↗ how that double counting would be a

41:20 ↗ problem I just can't help but think that

41:22 ↗ in more affluent communities some of the

41:24 ↗ consumption is just dramatically under

41:27 ↗ yeah um uh but you would end up with a

41:31 ↗ double counting problem yeah and I think

41:34 ↗ that is that has come up quite a bit in

41:37 ↗ our conversations um and I wouldn't be

41:41 ↗ surprised if it's something that we try

41:43 ↗ and Tackle in the future um we just

41:46 ↗ haven't quite figured out how to best

41:48 ↗ tackle it

41:52 ↗ yet

41:54 ↗ so um about the consumption and tackling

41:57 ↗ that all

41:59 ↗ that

42:01 ↗ one one problems with you know tack the

42:06 ↗ consumption side of it is that what's

42:08 ↗ the best way to reduce emissions then

42:11 ↗ increase

42:13 ↗ poverty it's a I mean I I don't mean

42:15 ↗ that as a serious suggestion we should

42:17 ↗ try and increase poverty but that's

42:18 ↗ that's sort of once you get down that

42:20 ↗ road that's like the obvious answer and

42:23 ↗ it's you know back to the perverse

42:25 ↗ incentives as far as just tracking it I

42:28 ↗ actually pretty firmly believe that it's

42:32 ↗ not of value for what it's going to cost

42:36 ↗ uh for isall to go try and track

42:38 ↗ consumption because the city is not

42:40 ↗ really going to have the ability to have

42:41 ↗ an effect there unless we feel like we

42:46 ↗ have all the resources we need to go and

42:48 ↗ deal with this why go bite off something

42:51 ↗ else when this is more within the scope

42:53 ↗ of what the city can affect right so as

42:57 ↗ long as there's room here and this is

42:59 ↗ where the dollar goes further it seems

43:01 ↗ like this is what you focus

43:03 ↗ on that that's a great point and and

43:05 ↗ I'll say that was also part of the

43:07 ↗ conversation right is trying to think

43:09 ↗ about where can we make a difference in

43:12 ↗ our emissions and trying to um be

43:15 ↗ critical of that as we're thinking about

43:17 ↗ uh about that and so as we do our 2024

43:21 ↗ inventory in 2025 um we'll work with our

43:24 ↗ consultants and we'll work with the

43:26 ↗ nearby cities to say

43:28 ↗ uh first off what can we address and

43:31 ↗ really what are the methodological

43:32 ↗ updates that we might need to make at

43:33 ↗ this time and and what are the options

43:35 ↗ available for

43:37 ↗ us um I will like is there a way to POS

43:40 ↗ like very roughly approximate those

43:43 ↗ consumption because I know Federal

43:46 ↗ agency collects economic data and you

43:49 ↗ can actually look at it on a city level

43:51 ↗ I believe last time I was doing some

43:54 ↗ research on this you can look at a city

43:56 ↗ level kind of do block block six like

43:59 ↗ census not census block but

44:01 ↗ like product categories specific product

44:06 ↗ categories like the to sales of specific

44:08 ↗ product categories within census block

44:10 ↗ yeah or not within census blocks within

44:13 ↗ the city cities I believe it's actually

44:16 ↗ collect by states with their sales tax

44:19 ↗ information but is there a way to like

44:21 ↗ approximate like very rough roughly

44:24 ↗ approximate yeah it's a it's a great

44:27 ↗ question um and I'm I'm not familiar

44:29 ↗ with that uh specific uh tool um there

44:33 ↗ are consumption based emissions

44:36 ↗ inventories and methodologies out there

44:38 ↗ nothing that I'm particularly familiar

44:40 ↗ with um I'll have to get back to you uh

44:43 ↗ on on kind of more specifics there um so

44:47 ↗ it's it's not something that has never

44:49 ↗ been done and there are absolutely tools

44:52 ↗ out there it's not quite uh it hasn't

44:56 ↗ made it into the more main stre

44:58 ↗ greenhouse gas inventories

45:03 ↗ yet did yeah can I ask what so I know

45:06 ↗ you've had to go back and update some of

45:08 ↗ the there was a decision made or not to

45:10 ↗ go back and update all of the studies

45:13 ↗ from 2007 onward into in the interest of

45:15 ↗ time but like what

45:17 ↗ consistencies are there like did you use

45:19 ↗ the same Consulting Group or or this

45:22 ↗ sounds like this wasn't part of the

45:23 ↗ methodology but like if you're using

45:25 ↗ like testing sites where they they in

45:26 ↗ the same spots or something like that

45:29 ↗ yes it's just all different across the

45:31 ↗ board oh it's a great question so the

45:34 ↗ first two inventories we did were done

45:38 ↗ inhouse 2007 and 2012 no consulting

45:42 ↗ firms um we had staff who just did them

45:47 ↗ themselves um with our 2022

45:51 ↗ inventory uh that was done with

45:52 ↗ Cascadian Consulting and they were the

45:54 ↗ ones who using the method ology we used

45:57 ↗ for 2022 updated both 2019 and

46:01 ↗ 2017 right so they were the ones who so

46:05 ↗ that is consistent across the board in

46:06 ↗ terms of methodology and um based on the

46:10 ↗ uh consulting firm who did that

46:12 ↗ additionally 2019 was actually done as a

46:15 ↗ regional inventory so uh there's this

46:19 ↗ this great tool you can can use where

46:21 ↗ you can kind of Click down through King

46:23 ↗ County cities and every single city has

46:25 ↗ its own inventory which many cities that

46:29 ↗ was their first inventory or uh you know

46:32 ↗ they haven't done one since right

46:33 ↗ because uh it does take resources effort

46:35 ↗ and time to do these um so Cascadia was

46:39 ↗ actually the one who did that Regional

46:41 ↗ inventory as well and so they were

46:43 ↗ really familiar with all of that data

46:45 ↗ and were able to make sure that our uh

46:47 ↗ 2017 2019 and 2022 uh data was

46:51 ↗ consistent with that and then also kind

46:52 ↗ of update that process as well and then

46:56 ↗ I will say we the intention is uh to

47:01 ↗ continue along with the same methodology

47:04 ↗ and firm for our next inventory update

47:07 ↗ um with some house bills that have

47:10 ↗ passed there's talk of kind of regional

47:13 ↗ Statewide inventories and and what that

47:16 ↗ looks like Cascadia Consulting is very

47:18 ↗ involved with that at the state level um

47:21 ↗ and so it's it's a a fast evolving space

47:26 ↗ um and so um our intentions now might

47:30 ↗ change depending on how uh situations

47:34 ↗ shake out in a

47:38 ↗ year did you say the next one would be I

47:41 ↗ it would it would be a 2024 inventory so

47:45 ↗ we would probably start in

47:48 ↗ 2024 ah okay so it's a back yeah um so

47:52 ↗ my other question is kind of a broad one

47:53 ↗ it kind of gets a little bit to your

47:54 ↗ point and that's just um

47:57 ↗ not exactly about this question but

47:59 ↗ aside from the obvious I mean you know

48:02 ↗ you you want to measure you want to see

48:04 ↗ how we're doing like what are the goals

48:06 ↗ overall and I also think it's really

48:08 ↗ interesting that the city is 1% of the

48:12 ↗ total with CommunityWide emissions but

48:14 ↗ it has its own thing and it seems like

48:16 ↗ there's a inverse relationship in that

48:18 ↗ case you have a lot of control just not

48:20 ↗ a lot of impact but you have a lot of

48:22 ↗ control is there also

48:25 ↗ like um modeling and not not the kind of

48:28 ↗ model we make a model but like

48:30 ↗ demonstrate demonstration I guess is a

48:32 ↗ better word and so like how I guess like

48:36 ↗ if I had a better I really interested in

48:38 ↗ hearing you articulate maybe a Nuance

48:40 ↗ version of what the goals are and what

48:42 ↗ some of the trade-offs are when you're

48:43 ↗ trying to decide what to measure and

48:44 ↗ what to invest in when you're measuring

48:46 ↗ and things that we can impact and things

48:48 ↗ that we just want to know yeah so it's a

48:51 ↗ great uh it's a great question and so

48:54 ↗ the first bit I'll put this up this is

48:56 ↗ really are um what I would say is kind

48:59 ↗ of the driving goal of the climate

49:02 ↗ action plan right um so we are um the

49:06 ↗ climate action plan is uh sets Target

49:09 ↗ for us to reduce our emissions 95% by

49:13 ↗ 2050 um and 50% by 2030 right and so by

49:18 ↗ doing these inventories we're hopefully

49:20 ↗ trying to get a sense of where are we in

49:23 ↗ relation to that goal right so that's

49:27 ↗ the that's the driving Target of of why

49:29 ↗ we're doing these um when we're thinking

49:32 ↗ about what projects to pursue where to

49:35 ↗ put our money right um I think you kind

49:37 ↗ of you hit the nail on the head in terms

49:39 ↗ of the challenge of thinking about our

49:42 ↗ city emissions are you know they are a

49:45 ↗ small part of our CommunityWide

49:48 ↗ emissions however as you you noted we

49:51 ↗ have the most control over those right

49:54 ↗ we can decide whether or not we are

49:56 ↗ putting solar panels on our roof or

49:58 ↗ changing out a vehicle those are our

50:02 ↗ those are our operations right um so we

50:05 ↗ have a lot of control over that and

50:07 ↗ we're working with each of those uh

50:09 ↗ teams right our facilities team our

50:11 ↗ fleet team um our Our IT team our Public

50:16 ↗ Works team regularly to talk about what

50:19 ↗ are the ways that we can um address the

50:22 ↗ different emission sources um based on

50:25 ↗ their work or their facility or

50:27 ↗ something like that right for the

50:29 ↗ community side uh it's a challenge right

50:34 ↗ to try and help us get to these these

50:36 ↗ targets and it that's where it kind of

50:38 ↗ comes in from both state local um

50:41 ↗ utility Federal level thinking about the

50:43 ↗ ways we can put incentives and

50:45 ↗ regulations on to to support reaching

50:47 ↗ these targets and so there are you know

50:51 ↗ there are State programs like the uh

50:54 ↗ clean energy transformation act which uh

50:56 ↗ is going to mandate an entirely uh Clean

50:58 ↗ Energy electric grid right and so that's

51:01 ↗ going to be reducing all of the uh

51:03 ↗ emissions associated with electric use

51:06 ↗ however as we Electrify our buildings

51:08 ↗ and we have a more um clean energy

51:11 ↗ driven electric grid um we still need to

51:14 ↗ be thinking about Just Energy Efficiency

51:16 ↗ because we don't want to continue to

51:17 ↗ strain the grid right so there's um all

51:20 ↗ sorts of different um pieces that are

51:24 ↗ going into kind of the community wise

51:27 ↗ um projects and goals and thinking about

51:29 ↗ how to best uh address those emissions

51:32 ↗ and so it's a it's a mix of regulations

51:34 ↗ incentives um education right trying to

51:37 ↗ make sure that people are aware of the

51:39 ↗ different tools that they can use um

51:42 ↗ does that help get at your question so

51:45 ↗ in case of the uh refrigerate the 5% the

51:50 ↗ refrigerate what measures are being

51:52 ↗ taken because that number expected to

51:54 ↗ increase I believe

51:57 ↗ with global warming with temperature

51:59 ↗ increasing what are the measures taken

52:02 ↗ there to control that because that's

52:04 ↗ expected

52:05 ↗ to yeah so with the refrigerants there's

52:08 ↗ different

52:10 ↗ um it's something that different uh

52:14 ↗ facilities and Builders and things are

52:16 ↗ are looking at more so there's different

52:19 ↗ types of equipment that can be installed

52:22 ↗ different types of refrigerants that can

52:24 ↗ be used in in equipment to reduce those

52:27 ↗ emissions so do we have historical like

52:29 ↗ previous numbers for that we have

52:32 ↗ refrigerant data through 2017 for our

52:35 ↗ city operations this was our first year

52:37 ↗ so we have no historical data there okay

52:41 ↗ was it lower was it higher the um this

52:45 ↗ year compared to the

52:47 ↗ CommunityWide um that is a good question

52:50 ↗ I it was roughly the same uh so that's

52:54 ↗ that green bar on the top of or that

52:56 ↗ green

52:57 ↗ row on the top of those

53:01 ↗ columns so came up about the five% of

53:05 ↗ our total emissions is the Target in

53:08 ↗ 2050 that seems

53:11 ↗ Preposterous like I mean you're you're

53:15 ↗ basically you have to gain the system

53:17 ↗ and how you track things and then you

53:20 ↗ get into the measuring the Norway fors

53:22 ↗ issue right the closer you the smaller

53:25 ↗ the increment measured in the larger the

53:27 ↗ number gets and so it to to me like

53:31 ↗ sitting here Transportation

53:34 ↗ board I don't really care about this I

53:37 ↗ care about the transportation side of it

53:39 ↗ and what's the target for

53:41 ↗ transportation and setting a a Target

53:45 ↗ that is um achievable but lofty right uh

53:51 ↗ and so like when I look at that I go

53:52 ↗ like well okay to get that you have to

53:55 ↗ get basically every single category all

53:57 ↗ the way down and it just

54:00 ↗ seems you're going to be you know you

54:05 ↗ could if I go sell my my gas car and I

54:08 ↗ buy an electric car and someone who

54:09 ↗ normally took the bus but lives in delv

54:12 ↗ they like I can now afford a car I'm GNA

54:14 ↗ go buy a car so they buy my used car

54:16 ↗ they drive around well guess what our

54:18 ↗ emissions in Isa went down I'm driving

54:21 ↗ an electric car now all be went up so

54:23 ↗ this is where like 5% because this is a

54:25 ↗ collective thing right I mean if if

54:28 ↗ isqua is the only person doing this only

54:30 ↗ City then it wouldn't actually do

54:32 ↗ anything right everyone has to do their

54:34 ↗ part so it just seems 5% seems like the

54:38 ↗ 95% reduction yeah 95% reduction so down

54:41 ↗ to five and then I think the other piece

54:43 ↗ of that is I'm very curious on like we

54:45 ↗ were to look at just the transportation

54:46 ↗ side of it miles was one thing but we

54:48 ↗ know a light duty truck and a heavy duty

54:50 ↗ truck are very different right so like

54:52 ↗ what's the what's like the

54:54 ↗ transportation focus and I I don't

54:57 ↗ I can answer right here but I think

54:58 ↗ that's what I'd be curious about for our

55:00 ↗ board is if we just said let's look at

55:02 ↗ what's kind of within our

55:04 ↗ scope yeah so I mean it's a great

55:06 ↗ question the the general goals um they

55:10 ↗ were developed through the adoption of

55:12 ↗ the climate action plan in

55:14 ↗ 2021 um and they are uh consistent with

55:18 ↗ What's called the King County cities

55:21 ↗ climate collaborative so these are uh

55:25 ↗ goals that have been adopted and

55:27 ↗ committed to by cities across King

55:29 ↗ County King County loves to come up with

55:30 ↗ goals that are

55:32 ↗ just any any person look at it and go

55:35 ↗ that's not gonna happen so that's I'm

55:37 ↗ very curious on if we were to look at a

55:39 ↗ transportation element what would be a a

55:42 ↗ goal for us to set because I think not a

55:45 ↗ setting but us to keep in mind and what

55:47 ↗ can we do on our our portion yeah and I

55:53 ↗ and I think to that right we have goals

55:56 ↗ specifically within the climate action

55:58 ↗ plan that are meant to help us get to um

56:01 ↗ the overall emissions reduction right so

56:04 ↗ for instance one of the ones here is

56:05 ↗ that reduction in vehicle miles traveled

56:08 ↗ because right as we reduce overall

56:10 ↗ vehicle miles traveled we're going to

56:11 ↗ reduce our emissions right um there's

56:15 ↗ another one in the climate action plan

56:16 ↗ to improve um or reduce the rate of

56:20 ↗ single occupancy Vehicles right and so

56:23 ↗ again all of that is related to how can

56:25 ↗ we get

56:27 ↗ Vehicles off the road really or or

56:29 ↗ reduce those M emissions from vehicles

56:33 ↗ um to help us reach our our climate

56:35 ↗ action goals and we have more Targets in

56:38 ↗ there I think this is just showing 2030

56:40 ↗ but there are some farther goals too

56:42 ↗ like there's a there's an

56:44 ↗ even stronger uh I would say uh vehicle

56:48 ↗ miles traveled goal as well right and

56:52 ↗ so um I think you're absolutely right as

56:54 ↗ we take the these kind of bigger numbers

56:57 ↗ we can kind of dive into them more

56:59 ↗ deeply to think about okay so for

57:01 ↗ reducing um trans emissions that's

57:04 ↗ reducing the vehicle miles traveled it's

57:06 ↗ improving the use of um electric and

57:09 ↗ other alternative fuel vehicles right

57:12 ↗ it's improving our uh community so that

57:14 ↗ people can walk places and bike places

57:16 ↗ and take public transportation it's a

57:18 ↗ mix of all of those pieces together that

57:21 ↗ are it's going to that's going to get

57:23 ↗ that piece of the pie um as as possible

57:26 ↗ so that we can work towards those goals

57:29 ↗ we've set out for us in 2030 and 2050

57:32 ↗ and you are absolutely right they are

57:33 ↗ very ambitious and are going to be very

57:36 ↗ very hard to to um reach so a couple

57:39 ↗ comments I I have one is

57:42 ↗ uh I've went to American Public Works a

57:45 ↗ year ago and this guy was given talk

57:46 ↗ about uh you buy a car and just use the

57:49 ↗ numbers $2,000 or 2,000 pounds is the

57:52 ↗ way to the car so a gallon the gas to

57:54 ↗ move that car

57:56 ↗ so you lose about 30% inefficiencies he

58:00 ↗ loss and stuff like that so really is

58:03 ↗ 7% 70% of that gallon you then a person

58:08 ↗ save they weigh uh 200 pound 2,000 pound

58:12 ↗ 10 for that so that's 00 7% of that

58:15 ↗ gallon of gas is used to move a person

58:18 ↗ driving a car from something you put a

58:20 ↗ perspective of that that much gas that

58:23 ↗ much is used for moving you and the rest

58:25 ↗ is all waste moving the weight of the

58:28 ↗ vehicle the heat loss it's like wow um

58:34 ↗ it's a loss so think of that when you

58:36 ↗ look at vehicle miles travel if you grow

58:38 ↗ vehicle miles probably is not going to

58:39 ↗ change

58:40 ↗ that and if you have if everybody goes

58:44 ↗ to electric cars the actual missions

58:47 ↗ would go down but you have to take into

58:49 ↗ account all the other DS power plants

58:52 ↗ coal plants other other plants producing

58:54 ↗ electricity

58:56 ↗ their pollution and their contribution

58:58 ↗ going to be included in the prediction

59:00 ↗ or in the forecast what is called so in

59:02 ↗ a way it may not ever go down because

59:04 ↗ it's energy still has to be created some

59:07 ↗ yeah and that's a great point and

59:09 ↗ luckily that energy is uh Incorporated

59:12 ↗ so when we look at um the emissions

59:15 ↗ associated with the fuel sources for our

59:17 ↗ vehicles there's emissions factors for

59:20 ↗ natural gas or for for gasoline for

59:23 ↗ diesel right and those emission factors

59:26 ↗ change based on uh the class of vehicle

59:29 ↗ right so that's heavy duties have a

59:31 ↗ higher emissions Factor uh than those

59:34 ↗ light duty vehicles um similarly with

59:37 ↗ electric vehicles right now we can look

59:39 ↗ at the consumption of electricity used

59:42 ↗ to power vehicles right that are

59:44 ↗ traveling through isqua and we can look

59:47 ↗ at the energy intensity of the electric

59:49 ↗ grid that that's that vehicle is drawing

59:51 ↗ from so right now um psse uh

59:56 ↗ has been improving their grid um but

59:58 ↗ it's it's not the cleanest Grid in the

1:00:01 ↗ world um and so those emissions are

1:00:05 ↗ calculated within the consumption of

1:00:07 ↗ electricity within uh Within These

1:00:09 ↗ models now they're still reducing even

1:00:12 ↗ pulling from psc's electric grid it's

1:00:15 ↗ still a lot less emissions than um

1:00:17 ↗ gasoline or diesel right um however

1:00:21 ↗ that's where some of those other uh

1:00:23 ↗ state laws come into play and Al uh you

1:00:27 ↗ know the actions of improving um

1:00:29 ↗ distributed renewable energy generation

1:00:32 ↗ and things like that so as the psse

1:00:35 ↗ electric grid becomes cleaner and more

1:00:37 ↗ renewable energy is added on to that

1:00:39 ↗ then the emissions associated with the

1:00:42 ↗ electricity consumed in vehicles will

1:00:44 ↗ reduce inter that's such a small

1:00:47 ↗ percentage if you look at they have PL

1:00:49 ↗ electricity but you're also creating a

1:00:51 ↗ lot of heat storage

1:00:54 ↗ water they down the fish to build nule

1:00:58 ↗ power there is a current law that is

1:01:00 ↗ mandating 100% clean energy but you know

1:01:05 ↗ so gu thing be look at and maybe this is

1:01:07 ↗ the bigger

1:01:09 ↗ picture be able to tackle but instead

1:01:11 ↗ for people having eight cylinder cars of

1:01:13 ↗ course cylinders cut emissions just

1:01:17 ↗ there's some other things to do besides

1:01:18 ↗ just dis electrifying our

1:01:21 ↗ abely another thing that a lot of cities

1:01:23 ↗ are looking at and thinking about are

1:01:26 ↗ um uh what are the opportunities for

1:01:29 ↗ bikes for instance or electric bikes

1:01:32 ↗ right if you're thinking about um you

1:01:34 ↗ know maybe you don't want to bike from

1:01:37 ↗ the the valley floor of Isa up to isqua

1:01:39 ↗ Highlands if that's where your job is

1:01:41 ↗ with a regular bike but maybe it's an

1:01:43 ↗ electric bike you would actually bike to

1:01:45 ↗ work right and so uh there are many

1:01:48 ↗ cities uh both regionally and nationally

1:01:52 ↗ that are trying to look at well what are

1:01:54 ↗ those other options right not just

1:01:56 ↗ electrifying cars because we don't

1:01:58 ↗ really want to necessarily only

1:02:00 ↗ incentivize people to keep driving for

1:02:02 ↗ just in electric cars but how can we

1:02:04 ↗ pull people out of cars through bikes or

1:02:06 ↗ public transit or you know walkable

1:02:08 ↗ Community

1:02:10 ↗ right so I do not

1:02:13 ↗ yes ahe I was with uh biking like I

1:02:18 ↗ thought about because so like I

1:02:20 ↗ considered biking here myself different

1:02:23 ↗ things change whenever weather is not so

1:02:25 ↗ great uh I don't feel super confident

1:02:27 ↗ riding a bike through like y or like

1:02:29 ↗ city streets things like that um even if

1:02:31 ↗ they're trying to use the best rout

1:02:32 ↗ possible then Trails a little less scary

1:02:35 ↗ for someone less confident than me so I

1:02:37 ↗ don't know like what the city can do to

1:02:39 ↗ like I like classes for people who are

1:02:42 ↗ like to just like get more confident

1:02:44 ↗ biking right like I'm a confident Trail

1:02:46 ↗ neighborhood biker but not a city biker

1:02:48 ↗ um you know yeah I think that's a that's

1:02:51 ↗ a great question um and definitely

1:02:53 ↗ something that we can chat about um I

1:02:55 ↗ think

1:02:56 ↗ um when we speak to where does the

1:02:58 ↗ transportation Advisory Board fit in and

1:03:00 ↗ where does our our transportation team

1:03:02 ↗ fit in in in addressing our missions

1:03:04 ↗ it's pieces like that how can we make

1:03:07 ↗ our uh streets safer for bikers right

1:03:10 ↗ that'll help us reduce our emissions

1:03:13 ↗ right how do we make sure that there's

1:03:15 ↗ sidewalks and other ways that people can

1:03:16 ↗ walk around right um good to also as far

1:03:20 ↗ as electric bikes as far as trying to

1:03:22 ↗ remove cars and having be Ena to bik

1:03:25 ↗ yeah I hav

1:03:27 ↗ like need a costume change when you get

1:03:30 ↗ to the top of the hill if it's

1:03:32 ↗ electri uh I do think that we want to

1:03:36 ↗ start thinking about wrapping up um does

1:03:37 ↗ anybody have any burning questions or

1:03:40 ↗ comments before we wrap I feel like uh I

1:03:43 ↗ just want to say that you obviously know

1:03:45 ↗ this material really well I you've done

1:03:46 ↗ a great presentation I really appreciate

1:03:48 ↗ it and I think um the level of

1:03:50 ↗ Engagement is quite High which is um and

1:03:52 ↗ we probably St here for another hour um

1:03:54 ↗ and have a very engaging conversation

1:03:56 ↗ but we probably should continue on our

1:03:58 ↗ business at hand absolutely and I'd say

1:04:01 ↗ I'm I'm happy to answer

1:04:03 ↗ questions after the meeting you can send

1:04:05 ↗ me questions I'm I'm more than happy to

1:04:07 ↗ continue to engage with this topic I do

1:04:09 ↗ really appreciate the engagement y'all

1:04:11 ↗ have had it's been very interesting um

1:04:13 ↗ and definitely has given us more things

1:04:15 ↗ to continue to think about as we move

1:04:16 ↗ forward with this so appreciate it very

1:04:18 ↗ much that's I didn't know that all was

1:04:21 ↗ being done

1:04:22 ↗ so thank you yeah thank you so

1:04:26 ↗ much

1:04:28 ↗ wonderful well with that um should we

1:04:31 ↗ move on to 4B traffic

1:04:33 ↗ calming and looks like we've got some of

1:04:36 ↗ these to share do we have just three of

1:04:38 ↗ them yeah I printed out three one for

1:04:41 ↗ each got it

1:04:43 ↗ okay trying to save some paper

1:04:57 ↗ that's coming up

1:04:59 ↗ yeah one more meeting I to miss this

1:05:03 ↗ year I don't think that one's been

1:05:05 ↗ scheduled yet

1:05:06 ↗ so uh hi all right let's talk about

1:05:09 ↗ traffic

1:05:10 ↗ caling I am John Lon friend

1:05:13 ↗ Transportation program

1:05:15 ↗ coordinator talk about the traffic cing

1:05:17 ↗ policy and more specifically the

1:05:19 ↗ procedure structure that we've been

1:05:21 ↗ working on the past oh I don't know year

1:05:24 ↗ and a half

1:05:26 ↗ uh so I can actually move around there

1:05:29 ↗ we go uh so the purpose of this

1:05:31 ↗ evening's presentation is to receive

1:05:34 ↗ feedback on questions the Administration

1:05:36 ↗ has concerning the traffic calling

1:05:37 ↗ policy and procedure

1:05:39 ↗ restructure the direction needed this

1:05:42 ↗ evening is we're requesting feedback on

1:05:45 ↗ the following topics program objectives

1:05:47 ↗ plan initiation and plan support that

1:05:50 ↗ will make more sense than a few

1:05:53 ↗ minutes uh the agenda is broken down

1:05:55 ↗ into four parts uh looking at the

1:05:57 ↗ existing traffic colon policy that will

1:06:00 ↗ be very quick we've already done that uh

1:06:02 ↗ and then looking kind of the history of

1:06:05 ↗ the new traffic calling program

1:06:07 ↗ development we'll take a look at the uh

1:06:10 ↗ drafts traffic coling program that we've

1:06:12 ↗ developed structure I should say and

1:06:14 ↗ then uh we have a few feedback questions

1:06:17 ↗ that we're we're looking for feedback

1:06:21 ↗ on so very quickly the existing traffic

1:06:24 ↗ cing policy as we've talked about these

1:06:26 ↗ will be repeat slides for the most part

1:06:29 ↗ uh adopted in 2003 addresses local

1:06:32 ↗ streets uh AKA residential

1:06:36 ↗ streets the process is currently broken

1:06:39 ↗ into two phases uh phase one is kind of

1:06:43 ↗ non-physical phase two is physical if

1:06:45 ↗ those standards are met during the

1:06:46 ↗ non-physical

1:06:48 ↗ process uh the original traffic calming

1:06:51 ↗ program had a citizen action request

1:06:54 ↗ form that people would walk into City

1:06:55 ↗ Hall and ask for they would be given a

1:06:58 ↗ brochure and then staff would do traffic

1:07:01 ↗ analysis and field review largely based

1:07:03 ↗ upon the 85th percentile which I talked

1:07:05 ↗ about I think extensively last time I

1:07:07 ↗ was here talking about this um and then

1:07:10 ↗ there was that neighborhood speed Watch

1:07:11 ↗ program which we don't want to talk

1:07:13 ↗ about that uh and then there was a

1:07:15 ↗ six-month evaluation period it's gonna

1:07:17 ↗ stop you just to make sure that

1:07:19 ↗ everybody even though even if you said

1:07:20 ↗ it 10 times it is a very specific thing

1:07:22 ↗ do everybody know he's talking about the

1:07:23 ↗ 85% town

1:07:30 ↗ okay cool I'm hearing no cool okay uh so

1:07:34 ↗ then moving into phase two is that

1:07:36 ↗ physical actual traffic cing device

1:07:39 ↗ analysis uh staff would go through that

1:07:41 ↗ process using the data that they

1:07:43 ↗ collected determining which of the there

1:07:46 ↗ was like eight different traffic hming

1:07:48 ↗ devices that were in the policy would be

1:07:50 ↗ appropriate uh mail a survey out to the

1:07:53 ↗ neighborhood if the neighborhood says

1:07:56 ↗ yes install it and there be a one-ear

1:07:58 ↗ valuation

1:08:00 ↗ um looking at uh why we're relooking at

1:08:04 ↗ the traffic calling Pro uh policy uh so

1:08:08 ↗ these days it's done the the reporting

1:08:10 ↗ is done virtually there's no brochures

1:08:13 ↗ no like

1:08:15 ↗ extra you know language around it or

1:08:17 ↗ anything like that given out to the

1:08:19 ↗ public besides I think I there's a

1:08:20 ↗ website a web page on the city web page

1:08:24 ↗ um uh there's also lack of resources in

1:08:27 ↗ general but specifically for Speed

1:08:29 ↗ trailer deployment which is a very it's

1:08:31 ↗ a big part of the data collection

1:08:32 ↗ process that we that we go through um

1:08:36 ↗ and then uh since I took it over in 2022

1:08:39 ↗ we haven't made it to phase two although

1:08:41 ↗ that might not be true anymore as of a

1:08:43 ↗ couple weeks from now we'll see we might

1:08:45 ↗ have one that might actually

1:08:47 ↗ qualify um so been through all that so a

1:08:52 ↗ little bit of history on how we got into

1:08:54 ↗ this moment

1:08:56 ↗ so this is not the first or second or

1:08:59 ↗ third or fourth or fifth time the tab

1:09:01 ↗ has gotten this uh particular topic um

1:09:05 ↗ so this topic was first introduced to

1:09:08 ↗ tab the concept of rewriting the traffic

1:09:11 ↗ cming program as a part of the MMP the

1:09:14 ↗ mobility master plan process it was

1:09:16 ↗ packaged with the complete streets

1:09:18 ↗ policy and pedestrian Crossing

1:09:20 ↗ guidelines those two were created and

1:09:22 ↗ implemented and traffic cming was sort

1:09:25 ↗ of going to be the tail end of that

1:09:27 ↗ process uh 2019 I think it was Steven

1:09:30 ↗ came uh before the tab and said hey

1:09:32 ↗ we're working with the consultant we're

1:09:34 ↗ going to continue working on it in

1:09:36 ↗ 2022 and then early 2020 or sorry 2020

1:09:40 ↗ and then into early 2020 um there was an

1:09:44 ↗ estimated adoption of Summer 2020 and

1:09:47 ↗ then something happened somewhere in

1:09:49 ↗ there and kind of pushed all those

1:09:50 ↗ projects off and uh later in 2020

1:09:55 ↗ basically traffic calling was officially

1:09:56 ↗ pushed

1:09:58 ↗ 2021 and then late 2021 I think Isabelle

1:10:02 ↗ came and talked about uh the the work

1:10:04 ↗ that they've been doing with the

1:10:06 ↗ consultant and that sort of that brings

1:10:09 ↗ us to this thing which she presented in

1:10:13 ↗ some way um so basically this was the

1:10:16 ↗ work that was done with the

1:10:17 ↗ consultant um and uh I'm not going to

1:10:22 ↗ get into this deeply but I just want to

1:10:24 ↗ highlight that that plan initiation plan

1:10:27 ↗ development plan support and plan

1:10:29 ↗ implementation that structure is

1:10:31 ↗ something that we have taken forward the

1:10:33 ↗ individual elements have changed quite a

1:10:35 ↗ bit since then but we'll get into that

1:10:37 ↗ more

1:10:39 ↗ specifically more recent recently uh I

1:10:42 ↗ took over the program in Fall

1:10:45 ↗ 2022 uh worked on the update in 2023

1:10:48 ↗ reintroduced to you to it late last year

1:10:50 ↗ and now we're here

1:10:53 ↗ so uh before we get into the actual

1:10:56 ↗ questions and structure just wanted to

1:10:58 ↗ highlight uh what the next steps for

1:11:00 ↗ this project are um since there have

1:11:03 ↗ been many steps leading up to this point

1:11:06 ↗ um So the plan is uh going into May

1:11:10 ↗ drafting an official draft of the new

1:11:13 ↗ traffic cing policy uh 202 or sorry June

1:11:17 ↗ 2024 of this year uh we we're going to

1:11:20 ↗ be doing some uh mostly internal

1:11:23 ↗ stakeholder review we're also going to

1:11:24 ↗ give it to uh East Side Fire the school

1:11:28 ↗ district kind of those types of

1:11:29 ↗ stakeholders within this the community

1:11:31 ↗ area and uh go through we we're gonna

1:11:35 ↗ give them the the sorry the draft and

1:11:37 ↗ they're going to go through it and

1:11:39 ↗ scrutinize it and give us all their

1:11:40 ↗ notes and we're GNA take that that

1:11:42 ↗ feedback and uh make it work for as many

1:11:45 ↗ parties as

1:11:47 ↗ possible uh July hopefully if everything

1:11:50 ↗ goes well we'll come back to tab for

1:11:52 ↗ review and approval and then uh the fall

1:11:56 ↗ we'll be taking it to Mobility

1:11:58 ↗ infrastructure and C

1:12:02 ↗ ccil

1:12:04 ↗ so looking at the dra traffic calling

1:12:07 ↗ program this is what I have printed out

1:12:09 ↗ in front of you um feel free to

1:12:12 ↗ reference it I know it it feels like a

1:12:15 ↗ spiderweb I promise it's not um I will

1:12:18 ↗ get into the individual uh sections here

1:12:21 ↗ in a second I wanted to give you an

1:12:22 ↗ overview of sort of what we're thinking

1:12:24 ↗ about

1:12:25 ↗ um the best way to read it is uh green

1:12:30 ↗ arrows are go ahead to the next section

1:12:32 ↗ red is uh basically the project has

1:12:36 ↗ reached a point where uh it's going to

1:12:38 ↗ be eliminated for whatever reason and

1:12:41 ↗ then yellow uh you don't have to worry

1:12:44 ↗ too much about this this will come in in

1:12:47 ↗ when I actually have the actual draft

1:12:48 ↗ for you um but we have developed a three

1:12:52 ↗ tiered system of traffic calming

1:12:54 ↗ elements that that can be escalated to

1:12:58 ↗ if

1:13:00 ↗ uh if it seems like the first iteration

1:13:02 ↗ is working and the next iteration will

1:13:04 ↗ work

1:13:05 ↗ better don't worry too much about that

1:13:07 ↗ at this point but um yeah if you have

1:13:10 ↗ any questions about it later we can talk

1:13:11 ↗ about

1:13:13 ↗ it okay getting into the actual

1:13:16 ↗ structure and I've added a little road

1:13:19 ↗ mapap at in the corner too so you can

1:13:21 ↗ follow along um so basically uh section

1:13:25 ↗ one is plan

1:13:26 ↗ initiation so the process would go there

1:13:29 ↗ would be a resident or a group that

1:13:31 ↗ would submit a petition request directly

1:13:33 ↗ to the city uh staff would look at the

1:13:35 ↗ request and look at the outlined area

1:13:38 ↗ assuming that it's a you know a specific

1:13:41 ↗ Street probably with homes uh or

1:13:44 ↗ residences lining

1:13:46 ↗ it uh we would give uh those petition

1:13:49 ↗ requirements back to the petition e and

1:13:53 ↗ they would go out and

1:13:55 ↗ collect signatures from at least 50% of

1:13:58 ↗ households in that area that we've

1:14:00 ↗ outlined um minimum of five so if

1:14:03 ↗ there's uh if there's five homes you

1:14:05 ↗ have to get you know five signatures uh

1:14:08 ↗ and going up from

1:14:10 ↗ there uh once they submit that it would

1:14:13 ↗ become a first come first served system

1:14:15 ↗ so we put them in the stack uh and then

1:14:19 ↗ we would go through a project selection

1:14:21 ↗ process uh staff would identify the

1:14:24 ↗ number of projects that could addressed

1:14:25 ↗ in a given year based on the budget and

1:14:28 ↗ staff resources very similar to the CIP

1:14:30 ↗ tip process um and then we would notify

1:14:35 ↗ the parties of the status of their

1:14:37 ↗ project yes there's no time limit for

1:14:41 ↗ the like Signature Collection no not at

1:14:44 ↗ this point no theoretically I could like

1:14:47 ↗ get my like the the position canvas the

1:14:50 ↗ neighborhood over like 10 years I mean

1:14:53 ↗ theoretically I guess I I guess it's

1:14:55 ↗ something we could probably look at not

1:14:57 ↗ too worried about that but I mean I

1:15:00 ↗ would assume that neighbor everyone all

1:15:02 ↗ the neighbors would have to be

1:15:05 ↗ present yeah I I think this just

1:15:09 ↗ outlines the

1:15:10 ↗ basic BS right of the procedure policy

1:15:15 ↗ will probably address yes yes thank

1:15:19 ↗ you

1:15:21 ↗ um so we believe that this uh new first

1:15:25 ↗ section would be more resident focused

1:15:28 ↗ we want it to be a little bit more

1:15:29 ↗ holistic um and then staff can also

1:15:32 ↗ evaluate capacity each

1:15:37 ↗ year

1:15:39 ↗ okay uh section two plan development so

1:15:42 ↗ once that petition has made it into the

1:15:44 ↗ queue and basically approved by staff to

1:15:47 ↗ to move to the next section uh there

1:15:49 ↗ would be a notice to the neighborhood to

1:15:51 ↗ basically let them know that we intend

1:15:53 ↗ to create this traffic calming plan for

1:15:57 ↗ the specific area uh we go through a

1:16:00 ↗ period of data collection uh go through

1:16:03 ↗ you know traffic data on neighborhood

1:16:05 ↗ streets um we would develop an internal

1:16:09 ↗ process to make sure that uh kind of

1:16:12 ↗ each foreseen circumstance would go

1:16:14 ↗ through a specific type of process so if

1:16:17 ↗ um if someone has you know certain

1:16:19 ↗ stretch a road and they're requesting

1:16:22 ↗ traffic calming of some kind we would

1:16:23 ↗ have a process with that type typ

1:16:25 ↗ of circumstance and we would have those

1:16:28 ↗ going down those could either be divided

1:16:31 ↗ into by traffic col device or whatnot

1:16:34 ↗ figure that out in the

1:16:36 ↗ future um we would also then go on to um

1:16:41 ↗ Sol solicit input from local service

1:16:43 ↗ providers so looking at you know Fire

1:16:45 ↗ Department police department Transit

1:16:47 ↗ agencies School District other City

1:16:49 ↗ departments uh we really want to ensure

1:16:51 ↗ collaboration across

1:16:55 ↗ as many sectors as possible so that it

1:16:57 ↗ could be a holistic assess a final draft

1:17:01 ↗ of the plan would be uh drafted and then

1:17:05 ↗ that would move into section three which

1:17:09 ↗ is plan support So this this model

1:17:12 ↗ really reinforces uh the desire to have

1:17:16 ↗ uh neighborhood and Resident inclusion

1:17:18 ↗ in the process so there would be another

1:17:21 ↗ survey that would go out to the

1:17:23 ↗ neighborhood resident

1:17:25 ↗ business owners is

1:17:26 ↗ applicable and uh the there would be a

1:17:30 ↗ tally of neighborhood support based on

1:17:32 ↗ this

1:17:33 ↗ survey yes why only neighborhood support

1:17:37 ↗ why not users of the road

1:17:39 ↗ support why are they not considered I

1:17:41 ↗ mean you could have a situation where

1:17:43 ↗ the neighborhood are 1% of the people

1:17:47 ↗ that use the road people some cases

1:17:50 ↗ literally chose a house because of the

1:17:53 ↗ convenience of getting under the highway

1:17:56 ↗ then they're like well I want to make it

1:17:57 ↗ so it's slower for the people that come

1:17:58 ↗ through there well what about the people

1:18:00 ↗ that actually drive through there I

1:18:01 ↗ would say a would be really hard to

1:18:03 ↗ engage those people specifically and B

1:18:07 ↗ uh since these are residential streets

1:18:09 ↗ specifically these aren't even

1:18:10 ↗ collectors at this point uh that it's

1:18:14 ↗ highly unlikely that the majority users

1:18:16 ↗ would wouldn't be the residents if

1:18:19 ↗ that's true if B is true then can't that

1:18:22 ↗ at least be measured as part of the

1:18:25 ↗ project like validating are the majority

1:18:28 ↗ users actually people that live in the

1:18:31 ↗ area are you are you being

1:18:33 ↗ representative of the people affected by

1:18:36 ↗ it by only cusing in the

1:18:38 ↗ neighborhood I mean I I would say like

1:18:41 ↗ you know when we're talking about these

1:18:42 ↗ residential streets I think one of the

1:18:44 ↗ major things that you know people come

1:18:47 ↗ to us and talk about um is like wanting

1:18:51 ↗ to slow down the traffic pass through

1:18:54 ↗ traffic on their streets and they're

1:18:56 ↗ always concerned about the speeding or

1:18:59 ↗ whatever um they're always concerned

1:19:01 ↗ safety there and so I think that this

1:19:03 ↗ just on residential they want to

1:19:06 ↗ potentially severely negatively

1:19:09 ↗ affect 99% of people using that

1:19:13 ↗ road for their for you know five

1:19:17 ↗ people's benefit but it's not

1:19:20 ↗ necessarily going to be the

1:19:22 ↗ case often but I think at least there

1:19:25 ↗ should be some measure

1:19:27 ↗ uh who's using that that road some sort

1:19:32 ↗ of check that okay it's classified as a

1:19:36 ↗ neighborhood Road are the users actually

1:19:39 ↗ people that that live there so if you're

1:19:41 ↗ doing a

1:19:42 ↗ survey because I think we would all I

1:19:45 ↗ hope we would all

1:19:46 ↗ agree that if you're making a change to

1:19:51 ↗ something you should be gather the input

1:19:54 ↗ of of the stakeholders in that thing and

1:19:57 ↗ the stakeholders in that thing aren't

1:20:00 ↗ necessarily you know majority the people

1:20:03 ↗ that that happen to live by that

1:20:05 ↗ room that is like I live in a

1:20:07 ↗ neighborhood and have should be using

1:20:10 ↗ arterio Road and like everybody I'm

1:20:14 ↗ thinking of Oldtown where they done this

1:20:15 ↗ and everybody kind of knows everybody on

1:20:17 ↗ that

1:20:17 ↗ street and you know who the passerbys

1:20:20 ↗ are and they're just cheating trying to

1:20:21 ↗ get to the other light to find a quick

1:20:23 ↗ way to get to

1:20:26 ↗ up going to the neighborhood so the

1:20:28 ↗ neighbors would kind of have an idea of

1:20:30 ↗ who's going to the neighborhood I would

1:20:33 ↗ think um I think that part would be and

1:20:36 ↗ you may not know unless you do a

1:20:37 ↗ destination survey went going down but

1:20:41 ↗ that I'm sure if you drill down Within

1:20:43 ↗ These Streets you'll find examples that

1:20:45 ↗ are like we're picturing a very

1:20:47 ↗ neighborhood street and we find examples

1:20:49 ↗ where we're picturing an eight Road

1:20:51 ↗ Street and it's really not quite like

1:20:54 ↗ that and I mean you know as you said the

1:20:56 ↗ people driving on the road the roads are

1:20:59 ↗ paid for by the

1:21:02 ↗ collective so I just my input you know

1:21:06 ↗ doesn't mean universal input it's just

1:21:09 ↗ my input that I think that there should

1:21:11 ↗ be some sort of a check or some thought

1:21:14 ↗ process in here on because everything is

1:21:17 ↗ we're just basically saying like the

1:21:19 ↗ people that residents or business owners

1:21:21 ↗ that are off that that road is there any

1:21:23 ↗ sort of a check to what about the people

1:21:25 ↗ using their own to we have are we doing

1:21:28 ↗ anything to think about that I I would

1:21:30 ↗ say that um and I'll I'll let you CH in

1:21:34 ↗ for after um I for me I believe in

1:21:38 ↗ looking at and managing this program the

1:21:40 ↗ main stakeholders of this type of

1:21:43 ↗ program are the residents and businesses

1:21:47 ↗ certain stretch program so yeah I was

1:21:49 ↗ just gonna make the same point city

1:21:51 ↗ council has

1:21:59 ↗ um I would also differentiate on what

1:22:02 ↗ the intent this survey is this survey is

1:22:06 ↗ at the point in

1:22:07 ↗ time plan so we have a recommendation on

1:22:12 ↗ what to install what what engineerings

1:22:15 ↗ shall we say

1:22:17 ↗ enhancements we want to make on the road

1:22:20 ↗ and so the intent this survey is to uh

1:22:25 ↗ share that with the residents they're

1:22:27 ↗ going to have to live with that change

1:22:30 ↗ and uh create that level

1:22:34 ↗ of awareness and also um check to make

1:22:39 ↗ sure that that is something that they

1:22:42 ↗ can accept um some of us have worked in

1:22:45 ↗ communities installed and

1:22:48 ↗ uninstalled example because uh community

1:22:52 ↗ members um weren't consulted um after

1:22:57 ↗ the plan was developed um or uh they

1:23:02 ↗ just didn't have a good sense of the

1:23:05 ↗ noise and other

1:23:12 ↗ implications so this is one way for us

1:23:15 ↗ to check first before we make the

1:23:18 ↗ investment um and to make sure that

1:23:21 ↗ we're priori

1:23:23 ↗ for desire

1:23:27 ↗ um I was just kind of thinking

1:23:30 ↗ about uh I don't know if this the right

1:23:32 ↗ time to give this comment but just it

1:23:34 ↗ kind of Echoes a little bit a little bit

1:23:37 ↗ different spin on what you're talking

1:23:38 ↗ about but there it looks to me like you

1:23:40 ↗ get all the way to the bottom of the

1:23:42 ↗ third column before it's not entirely

1:23:45 ↗ community-driven with no other

1:23:48 ↗ policy input and it seems like and maybe

1:23:52 ↗ this is just shorthand and it's in there

1:23:54 ↗ somewhere but at some point earlier on

1:23:58 ↗ maybe uh evaluating whether or not

1:24:02 ↗ there's the the professional the

1:24:04 ↗ transportation professionals think that

1:24:06 ↗ it suits the network like is there any

1:24:10 ↗ others it's kind of another way of

1:24:12 ↗ saying what you're

1:24:13 ↗ saying better way yeah that makes yeah

1:24:18 ↗ like like a reality like it's this does

1:24:20 ↗ this Mi yeah if you ask me what I wanted

1:24:23 ↗ to do do on the road of my house I might

1:24:26 ↗ give an answer

1:24:27 ↗ that's not the best answer when we look

1:24:30 ↗ at the bigger

1:24:32 ↗ picture and uh the answer to that would

1:24:35 ↗ be we have I went back to section two we

1:24:37 ↗ have given ourselves an offramp there in

1:24:40 ↗ the form

1:24:42 ↗ of yeah looking for where's the off so

1:24:45 ↗ it's a 2B the orange that'se just say if

1:24:49 ↗ the data that's

1:24:50 ↗ collected isn't Meet the stand

1:24:55 ↗ is after we collect the data does it

1:24:58 ↗ does it seem like there's an issue that

1:24:59 ↗ could be resolved with traffic Cal me

1:25:02 ↗ and then there's this assessment between

1:25:05 ↗ I would say 2B 2C as we get input um

1:25:10 ↗ into 2D where we provide that sort of

1:25:14 ↗ technical review what's the appropriate

1:25:16 ↗ fix for the problem here and how might

1:25:20 ↗ it affect other things the network

1:25:23 ↗ Public Safety all of

1:25:26 ↗ that we can make that clear I would love

1:25:29 ↗ to see that more explicit yes

1:25:33 ↗ absolutely so in that case for example

1:25:35 ↗ what a classification of road for

1:25:38 ↗ example saying if people com through

1:25:42 ↗ this neighborhood nebor

1:25:44 ↗ said people down and it's it's not a

1:25:49 ↗ smaller residential but it's a

1:25:50 ↗ residential but actually coming more of

1:25:52 ↗ a throwaway the classification of

1:25:54 ↗ that as it goes through this there be

1:25:56 ↗ some discussion as far as well actually

1:25:58 ↗ theun

1:26:00 ↗ that way people so maybe the traffic

1:26:03 ↗ caling would not then change on that

1:26:05 ↗ road actually might something else they

1:26:07 ↗ do to the road make it more yes yeah

1:26:11 ↗ yeah that that would certainly go into

1:26:13 ↗ the the engineering aspect

1:26:15 ↗ of yeah

1:26:19 ↗ yeah okay thanks all really good good

1:26:22 ↗ thoughts I appreciate it um it comes

1:26:24 ↗ back to I had another question like on

1:26:26 ↗ the one on a first come first

1:26:30 ↗ serve um which I have a question about

1:26:32 ↗ it later so maybe maybe I'll get through

1:26:35 ↗ this and then we'll yeah okay there was

1:26:37 ↗ a question about

1:26:38 ↗ that um okay so okay 7:30 um so uh so

1:26:44 ↗ the the neighbor so basically we would

1:26:46 ↗ have this survey that would go out get

1:26:48 ↗ approval um minimum response rate of 50%

1:26:52 ↗ approval rate of 65% those numbers came

1:26:55 ↗ directly from the consultant those are

1:26:57 ↗ industry standards I believe for

1:26:59 ↗ something like this um and then it would

1:27:01 ↗ be put into either the CIP tip or a

1:27:04 ↗ small projects bundle bucket as we're

1:27:08 ↗ we've been calling it um and that's

1:27:11 ↗ based on the cost of the project um CIP

1:27:14 ↗ tiip would be those bigger ones the

1:27:16 ↗ small projects uh we have other buckets

1:27:19 ↗ like this we have like road maintenance

1:27:21 ↗ we have one that you know projects fall

1:27:23 ↗ into

1:27:24 ↗ um something similar to that and then it

1:27:27 ↗ would go to uh to ccil just like a CIP

1:27:30 ↗ tip process would go to council for for

1:27:34 ↗ approval one question on that when it

1:27:36 ↗ goes to council and they say no that

1:27:38 ↗ just stops as opposed to go back say no

1:27:42 ↗ this is not good but if you look at this

1:27:45 ↗ we consider it where we go back then

1:27:47 ↗ subst process under under this draft yes

1:27:52 ↗ but there's certainly room to discuss

1:27:53 ↗ what that might look like if no I like

1:27:57 ↗ to say the reality is considers an item

1:28:02 ↗ can be yay it can be May something in

1:28:05 ↗ between um they could send it back uh to

1:28:09 ↗ staff um to come up with different

1:28:11 ↗ Alternatives so anything's

1:28:15 ↗ possible that's a way better answer than

1:28:17 ↗ I

1:28:19 ↗ had okay moving on to section four this

1:28:22 ↗ is the most straightforward part part of

1:28:24 ↗ of this plan uh find funding uh get it

1:28:29 ↗ installed monitor it and then once the

1:28:32 ↗ monitoring is happened after six months

1:28:35 ↗ then uh basically next steps would be

1:28:37 ↗ determined uh the Clover Leaf down the

1:28:41 ↗ bottom there um is a part of kind of a

1:28:45 ↗ more complex piece that I'm that I think

1:28:47 ↗ that we have time to to talk about

1:28:49 ↗ tonight it's those three levels of

1:28:50 ↗ traffic calming you you

1:28:52 ↗ know uh if we put in for example if we

1:28:55 ↗ put in temporary speed bumps and they

1:28:57 ↗ seem to work then we would uh move on to

1:29:00 ↗ install permanent speed bumps or if they

1:29:02 ↗ didn't work they we send it back through

1:29:03 ↗ the process so that's kind of the high

1:29:05 ↗ level ver look at that but I I I don't

1:29:08 ↗ think we have time to focus on that

1:29:10 ↗ necessarily this evening so I'm just

1:29:11 ↗ going to move

1:29:12 ↗ on um which brings me to our feedback

1:29:16 ↗ questions so uh the first one concerns

1:29:20 ↗ there so there's background in the

1:29:22 ↗ original traffic calling uh program from

1:29:25 ↗ 2003 there are these seven objectives

1:29:27 ↗ that live in there and basically we want

1:29:30 ↗ to know your feedback on whether they

1:29:33 ↗ all should be

1:29:34 ↗ there if some of them should be taken

1:29:36 ↗ out is there something that's missing uh

1:29:38 ↗ should should we be you know waiting

1:29:42 ↗ them using them in the uh screening

1:29:44 ↗ process we basically just want to hear

1:29:46 ↗ your thoughts on what these seven

1:29:48 ↗ elements are um and you know take your

1:29:52 ↗ feedback on those

1:29:55 ↗ so I'll go through them one by one here

1:29:57 ↗ well I'll just read through them so

1:29:59 ↗ slower speeds for Motor Vehicles to

1:30:01 ↗ create safer

1:30:03 ↗ streets reduction of collision from

1:30:06 ↗ severity to create safer

1:30:08 ↗ streets increased safety and perception

1:30:11 ↗ of safety for non-motorized users of the

1:30:13 ↗ streets preferences and requirements of

1:30:16 ↗ the people using the area working

1:30:18 ↗ playing residing along the streets or

1:30:21 ↗ intersections reduction in the need for

1:30:23 ↗ police enforcement enhanced environment

1:30:26 ↗ to create more attractive streets

1:30:28 ↗ including the negative effect Motor

1:30:29 ↗ Vehicles on the environment and

1:30:32 ↗ increased access for all modes of

1:30:34 ↗ transportation to promote pedestrian

1:30:36 ↗ cycle and Transit use so I'll go back to

1:30:40 ↗ these

1:30:41 ↗ questions I'll open up the

1:30:43 ↗ floor I guess I'll get start I mean when

1:30:47 ↗ I'm looking at these I feel like they

1:30:50 ↗ can be Consolidated or not may not

1:30:52 ↗ Consolidated but like to needs you know

1:30:54 ↗ goals and objectives here like the goal

1:30:57 ↗ is to reduce the speeds of Motor

1:31:01 ↗ Vehicles and the object like the

1:31:04 ↗ measurables I guess is that you're G

1:31:06 ↗ have reduction Collision frequency and

1:31:07 ↗ sity you're G to have increased safety

1:31:10 ↗ and perception of safety and you're

1:31:11 ↗ going to have the reduction in Need for

1:31:13 ↗ police enforcement because people are

1:31:15 ↗ going to be feeling that need to slow

1:31:16 ↗ down the streets and then the other

1:31:18 ↗ major aspect is the preferences and

1:31:20 ↗ requirements that people using the area

1:31:23 ↗ and that I think you can fold in you

1:31:25 ↗ know the measurables of that F the like

1:31:28 ↗ enhanced fre environment and then

1:31:29 ↗ there's also increased access for all

1:31:31 ↗ modes of Transport so I think that kind

1:31:34 ↗ of system like it can be consolidative

1:31:37 ↗ like this a lot of these do say

1:31:39 ↗ basically those two things yeah all of

1:31:42 ↗ the things that they're doing for

1:31:43 ↗ traffic cing do they all solely have the

1:31:46 ↗ effect to reducing speed or there other

1:31:49 ↗ things they're doing to like reduce

1:31:51 ↗ collisions that's a good question so

1:31:54 ↗ um I think that so the current policy I

1:31:57 ↗ think as I described before really

1:31:59 ↗ focuses on speeds um we also want to

1:32:04 ↗ incre we want to

1:32:07 ↗ encourage uh you know traffic volume

1:32:09 ↗ reduction as well I think

1:32:11 ↗ that's this I guess I'm going so I agree

1:32:14 ↗ with what but Julian's saying with maybe

1:32:16 ↗ the one uh exception of I don't think

1:32:21 ↗ that my understanding at least speed was

1:32:24 ↗ not the only way they were trying to

1:32:25 ↗ reduce collisions it was one of the ways

1:32:28 ↗ and so I don't know that quite go so far

1:32:30 ↗ as to say like program objective is or

1:32:34 ↗ the the goal is slower speed and then

1:32:36 ↗ you measure with these things you have

1:32:37 ↗ these other objectives maybe I I see

1:32:39 ↗ more like the top level is improve

1:32:43 ↗ safety and then there's these ways to do

1:32:45 ↗ that and then second to that is the

1:32:51 ↗ preferences and requirements of the

1:32:52 ↗ people using the area and then maybe

1:32:56 ↗ third to that

1:32:58 ↗ is additional benefits increase access

1:33:02 ↗ for all modes of transportation and and

1:33:04 ↗ all that and it's not that I think

1:33:05 ↗ that's not important it's you do go down

1:33:08 ↗ to that like are you going to put it

1:33:09 ↗ above safety no right so are you gon to

1:33:11 ↗ put it above the preference of the

1:33:12 ↗ people well the whole point of this

1:33:13 ↗ program is about preference of people so

1:33:15 ↗ it seems like it sort of has to be that

1:33:17 ↗ but I do think yeah we' be absolutely

1:33:19 ↗ could shrink that down and sometimes

1:33:21 ↗ just focusing on a few goals helps make

1:33:23 ↗ better decision great yeah I mean goal

1:33:28 ↗ measurables I

1:33:30 ↗ think big out slower speeds but reducing

1:33:33 ↗ cision whatever we can switch that but I

1:33:37 ↗ think just

1:33:42 ↗ cation and um what was the next

1:33:46 ↗ page and six so I think to your point

1:33:50 ↗ the whole I'm going to say something

1:33:53 ↗ that won't agree with I would almost

1:33:55 ↗ argue that this this program the one

1:33:58 ↗ that gets initiated by residents the

1:34:01 ↗ number one should be some kind of

1:34:02 ↗ consolidation between four and six

1:34:05 ↗ because everything else is a goal of all

1:34:09 ↗ of our program I mean that's that's

1:34:10 ↗ that's part of our tip and our CIP

1:34:13 ↗ should should we should be trying to

1:34:15 ↗ create safer streets better you know for

1:34:18 ↗ non-motorized ETC ET those are all baked

1:34:20 ↗ in this program is all about bringing

1:34:23 ↗ some power where they don't feel like

1:34:25 ↗ they have

1:34:26 ↗ it and I I haven't listened to council's

1:34:29 ↗ discussions on it but I'm sure it's a

1:34:31 ↗ response to those individuals that are

1:34:32 ↗ dealing with people speeding in front of

1:34:34 ↗ their houses so I would submit that if

1:34:37 ↗ you're talking about this

1:34:39 ↗ program the most important objective is

1:34:43 ↗ some kind of consolidation of four and

1:34:45 ↗ six really all about the people that are

1:34:47 ↗ asking for it otherwise it should just

1:34:49 ↗ be part of

1:34:52 ↗ our like enhancing of you know our CIP

1:34:56 ↗ and our

1:35:00 ↗ T John and I about this too it's really

1:35:02 ↗ important for us to make sure we

1:35:05 ↗ underscore City's going to take on

1:35:08 ↗ projects that that do these things right

1:35:10 ↗ outside of traffic C uh program so I

1:35:14 ↗ think your your point is well taken and

1:35:16 ↗ and if we see that there is significant

1:35:20 ↗ accident history some some sort of

1:35:23 ↗ problem

1:35:24 ↗ T we're not going to wait to do a

1:35:26 ↗ neighborhood

1:35:27 ↗ study we're going to carve up a project

1:35:30 ↗ we're GNA put something

1:35:34 ↗ together and that almost maybe could be

1:35:38 ↗ like could in in this plan initiation

1:35:42 ↗ because there could be something that

1:35:43 ↗ was overlooked and then it's like oh

1:35:45 ↗ wait a minute I didn't realize how

1:35:46 ↗ important this was so maybe there's like

1:35:48 ↗ an off bramp that isn't project

1:35:51 ↗ eliminated love that language maybe

1:35:54 ↗ project doesn't move forward is a little

1:35:55 ↗ more palatable but project

1:35:58 ↗ eliminated

1:36:00 ↗ down um but you know the flip side is

1:36:04 ↗ you know potentially it becomes a city

1:36:06 ↗ project that gets accelerated um based

1:36:08 ↗ on and that's that same maybe yeah yeah

1:36:12 ↗ anyway so that's that's very persuasive

1:36:15 ↗ so much so that I would almost then go

1:36:18 ↗ further than what you're saying change

1:36:19 ↗ what I said earlier go further than

1:36:21 ↗ you're saying and saying or is number

1:36:23 ↗ one

1:36:24 ↗ six is different than four six is not

1:36:27 ↗ the preferences of the people using the

1:36:29 ↗ area right so like but it is about an

1:36:32 ↗ enhanced environment it is but people

1:36:36 ↗ that this whole program is about that so

1:36:40 ↗ that should be sort of its own

1:36:41 ↗ Standalone above everything else can I

1:36:43 ↗ persuade you yes of course so

1:36:48 ↗ happy see that's what not just me

1:36:51 ↗ persuing but us persuading each other

1:36:53 ↗ has like always been my goal

1:36:56 ↗ like area working that mean like people

1:36:59 ↗ driving kind of a

1:37:01 ↗ catchall driving to and residing there

1:37:09 ↗ those not sure what working there

1:37:14 ↗ mean it's of a laundry

1:37:20 ↗ list supposed to do for everything

1:37:21 ↗ anyway

1:37:24 ↗ I think I would think that

1:37:27 ↗ um if you do something you're going to

1:37:29 ↗ reduce the Collision any so that's going

1:37:31 ↗ to

1:37:32 ↗ be safety and perception of safety

1:37:35 ↗ people might think that the street is

1:37:36 ↗ more dangerous than it actually is right

1:37:38 ↗ kind of

1:37:39 ↗ education lower speed is going to be be

1:37:42 ↗ a result of doing something so uh it

1:37:45 ↗ kind of lead

1:37:46 ↗ towards six in a

1:37:49 ↗ way but you're saying that six might be

1:37:51 ↗ more of a capital project anyway to

1:37:53 ↗ change outside

1:37:55 ↗ box

1:37:57 ↗ back

1:38:00 ↗ maybe people who are

1:38:03 ↗ residing and using the street that might

1:38:06 ↗ be a not want it's a safe Street for

1:38:11 ↗ them to walk or live

1:38:14 ↗ on I'm not sure where I ended up with

1:38:17 ↗ it's good all right I'm gonna move on I

1:38:20 ↗ think in the interest of time um Okay so

1:38:23 ↗ next one is this this is about the

1:38:26 ↗ petition itself so this the petition

1:38:28 ↗ idea came from the consultant I really

1:38:31 ↗ like it just kind of

1:38:33 ↗ as Transportation professional and

1:38:36 ↗ someone who's you know worked in equity

1:38:38 ↗ and you know all those pieces my

1:38:40 ↗ questions are uh is a petition process

1:38:43 ↗ the most Equitable it's certainly I

1:38:46 ↗ think more Equitable than what we have

1:38:47 ↗ now which

1:38:48 ↗ is Lady one says I don't like this and

1:38:52 ↗ submits it uh

1:38:54 ↗ and then uh are there any other

1:38:56 ↗ submission mediums we should consider

1:38:59 ↗ other than a

1:39:02 ↗ petition my concern with the petition

1:39:07 ↗ is if you have

1:39:10 ↗ a neighborhood where there's a like a

1:39:13 ↗ lot of diversity in language spoken be a

1:39:16 ↗ barrier to try and get 50% households

1:39:21 ↗ so it almost seems like picking any one

1:39:26 ↗ method is going to be a

1:39:29 ↗ problem I'll add on to with my campaign

1:39:33 ↗ experience I mean like there's no way

1:39:35 ↗ that you're gonna get 50% I mean even if

1:39:38 ↗ you know that I mean well that assumes

1:39:40 ↗ that you privilege in that neighborhood

1:39:42 ↗ which is what want to avoid picking

1:39:44 ↗ projects that AR privilege neighborhoods

1:39:46 ↗ and so assuming that you have 50% of

1:39:49 ↗ households on the street that are in

1:39:51 ↗ your apartment block that are going to

1:39:52 ↗ answer the door

1:39:54 ↗ G spend like five minutes with you

1:39:56 ↗ looking at this complaint right and then

1:39:59 ↗ sign the petition I think that's very

1:40:02 ↗ ambitious that's just gonna block out a

1:40:05 ↗ whole lot of

1:40:06 ↗ people it's gonna P the privilege I mean

1:40:09 ↗ like neighborhood with an HOA on my HOA

1:40:12 ↗ board if I had one I could bring it to

1:40:15 ↗ them and then we could all go around the

1:40:16 ↗ neighborhood together and get it taken

1:40:18 ↗ care of right it's not like yes our

1:40:21 ↗ voices matter but other people's do do

1:40:23 ↗ too so I'm not I'm not opposed to the

1:40:26 ↗ petition I think it's a good method I

1:40:27 ↗ think it just can't be the only one you

1:40:29 ↗ kind of have to think

1:40:31 ↗ about who is not going to be best served

1:40:34 ↗ by the

1:40:35 ↗ petitioner absolutely I'm curious if

1:40:38 ↗ there's a way to like I agree if you

1:40:41 ↗ have an existing neighborhood

1:40:42 ↗ infrastructure like an HOA or some kind

1:40:44 ↗ of community neighborhood board thing

1:40:47 ↗ like this will pair well with that but

1:40:50 ↗ for neighborhoods who don't have that

1:40:52 ↗ are more fragmented it's Etc like

1:40:53 ↗ frankly I don't know too many of my

1:40:55 ↗ neighbors I live in an apartment see

1:40:56 ↗ each other every day but I don't know

1:40:59 ↗ names right um is there a way to use

1:41:03 ↗ like like the find- it fix it app or

1:41:05 ↗ something where it's a which is normally

1:41:07 ↗ like citizens telling City staff like

1:41:10 ↗ hey I see this pole whatever is there a

1:41:12 ↗ way to almost like reverse that where

1:41:14 ↗ it's like hey you've been selected for a

1:41:17 ↗ like you know like someone in your

1:41:18 ↗ neighborhood brought this up yes or no

1:41:20 ↗ agree disagree comments it's I don't

1:41:22 ↗ know if

1:41:23 ↗ that's that now that's labor intensive

1:41:26 ↗ that just puts the time and labor onto

1:41:29 ↗ the city instead of the community sure I

1:41:31 ↗ don't know if that's we want toot

1:41:34 ↗ anymore good point that's Al some of the

1:41:36 ↗ problems that we getting at yeah and and

1:41:38 ↗ one thing that I want to just mention

1:41:40 ↗ what we because we have been thinking

1:41:42 ↗ about this very question of equity and

1:41:44 ↗ you know petition and you know if you're

1:41:46 ↗ uh English Second Language you know

1:41:50 ↗ getting a petition from your presumably

1:41:52 ↗ white neighbor is going to probably be

1:41:54 ↗ tough um possibly um one idea that we

1:41:57 ↗ had specifically related to Apartments

1:42:01 ↗ is kind of adding

1:42:04 ↗ a like a a a way to because apartments

1:42:08 ↗ are notoriously hard to get survey

1:42:10 ↗ responses from anyway um allowing

1:42:14 ↗ Apartments to add to that number of um

1:42:19 ↗ responses and not count against you for

1:42:22 ↗ the number of Apartments you don't get

1:42:25 ↗ and I think I I was going to bring this

1:42:26 ↗ up in couple sections here but so that's

1:42:30 ↗ one thing that we've been thinking about

1:42:32 ↗ but it's interesting also the thing

1:42:34 ↗ about apartments and the households and

1:42:36 ↗ you know you look at one street if you

1:42:38 ↗ have five houses on it or one apartment

1:42:40 ↗ that has 20 people do you actually does

1:42:44 ↗ it make sense to say 50 let's just say

1:42:46 ↗ petitions does it actually make sense

1:42:48 ↗ even say

1:42:49 ↗ 50% because if you got 10 of the

1:42:53 ↗ apartment people three of the house

1:42:55 ↗ people who are you who's going to

1:42:58 ↗ benefit more 10 people are going to

1:43:00 ↗ benefit more three so I'm not even sure

1:43:03 ↗ like the 50% will make sense unless you

1:43:07 ↗ figure out some way to handle the

1:43:08 ↗ difference in density yes especially as

1:43:12 ↗ theoretically density is going to go up

1:43:14 ↗ over time to you have uh 50% of the

1:43:18 ↗ residential parsels instead of

1:43:20 ↗ households

1:43:26 ↗ then they would decides yeah that

1:43:29 ↗ is have 10 houses five people to sign it

1:43:34 ↗ they're both looking for a speed you

1:43:36 ↗ know apart complex 50

1:43:42 ↗ people treat

1:43:45 ↗ exctly maybe we should look at

1:43:48 ↗ what like how often you you have one one

1:43:51 ↗ person if if you're getting 100

1:43:53 ↗ petitions a day with one person what if

1:43:56 ↗ you up the number to three right three

1:43:59 ↗ people you just got to find three people

1:44:01 ↗ in the area right like how high do you

1:44:03 ↗ even have to go to make this be a n a

1:44:06 ↗ number that is actually workable and why

1:44:10 ↗ go any higher than that like why raise

1:44:12 ↗ the bar beyond what does the system can

1:44:15 ↗ handled sure oh I see what you

1:44:17 ↗ mean well I think because they don't

1:44:20 ↗ want to have they don't want people

1:44:21 ↗ oppose to it

1:44:24 ↗ plan initiation I think you deal with

1:44:26 ↗ that at the next pH which I have you

1:44:30 ↗ know has its own problems but it's plan

1:44:32 ↗ initiation I mean if the system can

1:44:35 ↗ handle sharing that many

1:44:37 ↗ ideas just rais the bar just to that

1:44:40 ↗ point that's a very good point

1:44:41 ↗ especially because you said you hadn't

1:44:42 ↗ gotten any to the to step two anyway I

1:44:45 ↗ would like to say it's already 7:15 what

1:44:46 ↗ I'd like to do is um I would submit

1:44:50 ↗ that um I think what you're hearing from

1:44:53 ↗ us is that we're concerned about equity

1:44:55 ↗ and we don't think the petition process

1:44:57 ↗ by itself is equable yes I don't think

1:44:59 ↗ that we should be tasked with trying to

1:45:01 ↗ come up with the answer um and so we

1:45:04 ↗ could spin around and try to find that

1:45:06 ↗ answer but I think I think our time is

1:45:08 ↗ better spent figure out what else that

1:45:10 ↗ you need to because I just don't think

1:45:12 ↗ that we're the people that come up with

1:45:14 ↗ the new

1:45:15 ↗ method so I W to jump to three because

1:45:19 ↗ I'm just going to give a response that's

1:45:20 ↗ very similar to what I just gave the

1:45:23 ↗ question you asked about is 50% response

1:45:25 ↗ obtainable in all situations I would say

1:45:27 ↗ it's the same thought process behind

1:45:29 ↗ that answer which is how much funding

1:45:32 ↗ does the city have for this I assume

1:45:34 ↗ they've said hey we're gonna try and

1:45:35 ↗ spend about this much or thinking about

1:45:37 ↗ this so how high of a response rate do

1:45:41 ↗ you need like nothing's gone past if you

1:45:44 ↗ set the bar at 20% do you run out of

1:45:46 ↗ budget you set the bar at 25% right just

1:45:49 ↗ put the bar where you need to to be able

1:45:52 ↗ to spend money you have that way you're

1:45:54 ↗ actually making improvements don't don't

1:45:57 ↗ set it artificially high or artificially

1:45:59 ↗ low and then get a bunch that you can't

1:46:00 ↗ work on true I I'll note that you know

1:46:04 ↗ it's not exactly equal obviously but

1:46:06 ↗ it's gonna be less clearly like the the

1:46:09 ↗ response for this but last year's local

1:46:13 ↗ elections basically only Precinct voting

1:46:15 ↗ precincts in isqua that pass that 50%

1:46:20 ↗ threshold people turning in their

1:46:21 ↗ Ballance wasn't Providence

1:46:23 ↗ [Laughter]

1:46:28 ↗ and so that was the only place where 50

1:46:32 ↗ that 50% was was exceeded and so I mean

1:46:36 ↗ this will obviously have a way less like

1:46:40 ↗ response

1:46:41 ↗ them and so % just not GNA be

1:46:45 ↗ aain and so I think you know throughout

1:46:48 ↗ the rest of

1:46:50 ↗ this brusin County was 37% last year and

1:46:53 ↗ so not sure how much was

1:46:55 ↗ spefically but yeah I mean I would

1:47:00 ↗ probably say like 20% what reason or

1:47:03 ↗ something like

1:47:04 ↗ that yeah well let's talk about three

1:47:07 ↗ real quick I'll go back to the other one

1:47:09 ↗ in a second um so the question that we

1:47:12 ↗ had for this entire section three was

1:47:15 ↗ literally do we need Section 3 um

1:47:18 ↗ because you know there there was going

1:47:20 ↗ to be support here in section one and

1:47:24 ↗ then are G to get support again in

1:47:26 ↗ section two I wonder if I should reverse

1:47:28 ↗ the question and ask do we need the

1:47:32 ↗ threshold in section one and then focus

1:47:35 ↗ on getting to specific amounts of

1:47:39 ↗ support in section three does that I'm

1:47:42 ↗ kind of complaining yes I think that

1:47:44 ↗ that makes sense I mean if you're going

1:47:46 ↗ to ask would you like to improve this

1:47:48 ↗ street you're going to get a very

1:47:50 ↗ different response then you would like

1:47:52 ↗ to do this on your

1:47:53 ↗ Street and that goes back to my whole

1:47:56 ↗ point if the system can handle the

1:47:58 ↗ applications well I have the threshold

1:48:00 ↗ any higher than that for just

1:48:02 ↗ introducing the the idea what you're

1:48:05 ↗ really trying to filter is this issue of

1:48:07 ↗ one how much budget you have and two not

1:48:09 ↗ doing something and then paying that

1:48:12 ↗ great so it seems like it needs to have

1:48:14 ↗ not just support but it needs to have

1:48:17 ↗ that needs to be balanced

1:48:19 ↗ against people opposing it oppos so it's

1:48:23 ↗ more important to have the composition

1:48:26 ↗ of respondents to be high than it is to

1:48:29 ↗ have the coverage of all the respondents

1:48:32 ↗ because what you're looking for is to

1:48:34 ↗ try to far it out any major active

1:48:38 ↗ opposition right because you don't want

1:48:40 ↗ to undo it to some degree although you

1:48:43 ↗ have the you know that the like if you

1:48:48 ↗ base your your decisions on like bike

1:48:51 ↗ Lanes around people V voicing opinion

1:48:53 ↗ for it and then opinion against it you

1:48:55 ↗ always go we should do it and then when

1:48:58 ↗ you if you were to find a way to get

1:49:00 ↗ everyone's input you might get a

1:49:01 ↗ different thing because you're always

1:49:03 ↗ going to have people that are wanting a

1:49:05 ↗ change are always going to be more vocal

1:49:07 ↗ and more interested in voicing their

1:49:10 ↗ opinion change so I agree it should be

1:49:13 ↗ balanced but I don't think it should

1:49:14 ↗ just be like a up down that's why there

1:49:17 ↗ should be maybe some sort of a do you

1:49:19 ↗ actually have enough people that support

1:49:22 ↗ this I don't know how to set that

1:49:24 ↗ threshold but just it's what if you have

1:49:27 ↗ one in one you have two in one and you

1:49:29 ↗ have a street with 50 people on it you

1:49:31 ↗ do

1:49:33 ↗ it do you make a

1:49:35 ↗ change you

1:49:39 ↗ have apartment complex yeah you have

1:49:41 ↗ three people and you have two that say

1:49:43 ↗ yes let's do it there's 100 people in

1:49:44 ↗ the apartment complex one says no I

1:49:47 ↗ wouldn't spend the money there right I

1:49:49 ↗ would want so I think there's some

1:49:51 ↗ factor of like you got to have enough

1:49:53 ↗ but you also don't want to have as you

1:49:55 ↗ pointed out the bar so high that it's

1:49:57 ↗ you're never going to get that

1:50:00 ↗ turning yeah there's some Factor

1:50:04 ↗ there

1:50:08 ↗ okay uh okay this is all really really

1:50:11 ↗ helpful I really appreciate all your

1:50:13 ↗ input um and this is your project right

1:50:16 ↗ this is my project yes yes it is all

1:50:19 ↗ mine is this going how you thought it

1:50:20 ↗ would uh better actually so this good

1:50:25 ↗ um I want to go back to this one real

1:50:27 ↗ quick uh this is regard to the first

1:50:29 ↗ Comer serve model um I'm thinking uh we

1:50:34 ↗ had some public comment around tip

1:50:37 ↗ recently uh you know talking about you

1:50:40 ↗ know we we have this we have this uh

1:50:43 ↗ stack of different projects and

1:50:45 ↗ sometimes we get a grant for this one so

1:50:47 ↗ we take it out and put it on top so I'm

1:50:49 ↗ sort of thinking about it from that

1:50:50 ↗ point of view um

1:50:53 ↗ so I'll ask are there ever cases in

1:50:55 ↗ which projects should not be first come

1:50:58 ↗ for Ser because as it's written right

1:50:59 ↗ now as we're thinking about it right now

1:51:02 ↗ it is literally first come first serve

1:51:05 ↗ but wanted to ask the

1:51:08 ↗ question I

1:51:11 ↗ mean I I have no sure but I would say

1:51:14 ↗ like when it comes High plans right

1:51:18 ↗ and if you're talking about a project or

1:51:21 ↗ something that been trying to do and

1:51:24 ↗ it's been put bagely some

1:51:27 ↗ plan perhaps it could be like sensiz

1:51:31 ↗ that way jump up a few spots in a quebe

1:51:33 ↗ I mean I think it should be that first

1:51:35 ↗ first cube of C

1:51:38 ↗ something jumps projects up in case

1:51:40 ↗ they've ever been mentioned past some

1:51:44 ↗ kind

1:51:48 ↗ of I don't know

1:51:53 ↗ I think this that offramp discussion we

1:51:55 ↗ had earlier those are the ones that

1:51:57 ↗ should be prioritized but because they

1:51:59 ↗ should be done not just for the

1:52:02 ↗ reason neighborhood interest so if we're

1:52:05 ↗ talking just the scope of neighborhood

1:52:07 ↗ interest is there anything better than

1:52:10 ↗ first comers serve that doesn't result

1:52:11 ↗ in this just turning

1:52:14 ↗ into the rest of the

1:52:17 ↗ projects so there first Comer but

1:52:19 ↗ there's some way

1:52:21 ↗ to safety or some other reason to bump

1:52:23 ↗ something

1:52:24 ↗ up it'sing into a project keep the

1:52:28 ↗ projects that are driven by in this and

1:52:31 ↗ do it first come first CH I've kind of

1:52:33 ↗ been like agree and that does kind of

1:52:35 ↗ get back to what Emily mentioned is you

1:52:37 ↗ know if we see something that needs to

1:52:39 ↗ be addressed we we are going to address

1:52:42 ↗ it that's part of the offramp you can

1:52:44 ↗ get offramp and get killed or you can

1:52:46 ↗ get off ramp and get accelerated take

1:52:49 ↗ out back can yeah

1:52:53 ↗ I'm GNA agree with all this I also this

1:52:56 ↗ isn't a question you're asking but I

1:52:57 ↗ just as long as like there's robust

1:53:00 ↗ communication happening where like if

1:53:03 ↗ something's changing where this is the

1:53:05 ↗ pile whether or not it's because

1:53:07 ↗ something happens and that bumps it up

1:53:09 ↗ in the queue or suddenly we got this

1:53:10 ↗ grant just like along as like the

1:53:12 ↗ neighborhood and the petitioner like

1:53:14 ↗ noce that is also like concern as well

1:53:18 ↗ so that yeah weight l estim

1:53:23 ↗ yeah like a like restaurants or

1:53:29 ↗ something okay

1:53:32 ↗ great those are all my questions are

1:53:35 ↗ there any any other comments on any of

1:53:38 ↗ them before

1:53:42 ↗ we move yeah how long like with this new

1:53:47 ↗ draft from start to

1:53:50 ↗ finish controlling for other factors

1:53:53 ↗ like the crash happens and now it's big

1:53:56 ↗ Focus like what is like the end to

1:53:59 ↗ endend timeline that you would

1:54:02 ↗ estimate I was hoping no one would ask

1:54:04 ↗ this question because we're still

1:54:05 ↗ working no no it's it's just really

1:54:06 ↗ humerous to me um we we aren't exactly

1:54:09 ↗ sure uh but we we want to design it and

1:54:12 ↗ that's why we're asking these questions

1:54:14 ↗ we want to design it in a way that feels

1:54:17 ↗ like things are happening and it's not

1:54:20 ↗ like thrown into the six-year tip and

1:54:22 ↗ you know you get a speed bump six years

1:54:24 ↗ later we don't want that um but we also

1:54:27 ↗ want to balance like we have a certain

1:54:29 ↗ amount of resources currently traffic

1:54:31 ↗ cling sort of has a budget it's shared

1:54:33 ↗ in other areas that are tend to be

1:54:36 ↗ spoken for um so that's also a factor

1:54:39 ↗ that we're gonna have to work through

1:54:40 ↗ and you know I imagine request during

1:54:43 ↗ the process hey can we have a budget and

1:54:45 ↗ see if that happens so you're right I I

1:54:47 ↗ think there's a myriad of of factors

1:54:50 ↗ that'll run into all of this uh but we

1:54:54 ↗ we don't know but we don't want it we

1:54:56 ↗ don't want it to be six years or 10

1:54:58 ↗ years we want it to be much shorter just

1:55:01 ↗ goes back to the communication of like

1:55:03 ↗ having people like make sure that

1:55:05 ↗ they've got the reasonable expectation

1:55:07 ↗ that like it's not gonna go in the six

1:55:09 ↗ year but it's also not going to be

1:55:10 ↗ within the year right depending what it

1:55:12 ↗ is sure

1:55:15 ↗ yeah

1:55:18 ↗ okay thank you I appreciate it yeah

1:55:25 ↗ okay just sounds like we're um done with

1:55:28 ↗ that topic right good job um we that's

1:55:32 ↗ 4B we're on to five and we have reports

1:55:36 ↗ do we have a update on the bo work

1:55:39 ↗ plan yes so

1:55:42 ↗ um the first thing I'll mention is uh

1:55:47 ↗ next month's tab from for May we've

1:55:49 ↗ decided to go ahead and cancel so you

1:55:51 ↗ get it off

1:55:53 ↗ um a because we don't have anything

1:55:56 ↗ specifically to share next month but

1:55:57 ↗ more importantly we have Public Works

1:55:59 ↗ Week events coming up um and so we're

1:56:03 ↗ also all inviting you wait how's that

1:56:06 ↗ work with Quorum anyway uh we're

1:56:07 ↗ inviting you

1:56:14 ↗ great um so that evening that tab

1:56:17 ↗ normally would be the 4th Wednesday the

1:56:19 ↗ 22nd from 4: to 6:30 uh we're going to

1:56:22 ↗ be having festivities up at uh Public

1:56:25 ↗ Works related to just basically inviting

1:56:27 ↗ the public in and see how things work

1:56:29 ↗ behind the scenes where would that be at

1:56:32 ↗ at the Public Works facility I don't

1:56:35 ↗ know what the address

1:56:40 ↗ is next to Lakeside gravel yes right

1:56:44 ↗ next to the Gravel

1:56:47 ↗ Pit she has a list activity list do you

1:56:51 ↗ get I've been waiting for

1:56:55 ↗ that you can autograph snow

1:57:02 ↗ plow have some cool stuff together there

1:57:06 ↗ will be no driving up

1:57:12 ↗ have but there will be lots of cool

1:57:15 ↗ stuff we're gonna have

1:57:17 ↗ our our CCTV van in operation to show

1:57:21 ↗ how we have the camera technology to

1:57:24 ↗ look down a pipe so to see that what's

1:57:29 ↗ underground below the

1:57:31 ↗ high we're gonna have I think

1:57:46 ↗ [Applause]

1:57:52 ↗ no pting

1:58:02 ↗ B

1:58:04 ↗ awesome was just looking at the work

1:58:06 ↗ plan um last I heard I believe I believe

1:58:12 ↗ that the squawk Mountain nonmotorized

1:58:14 ↗ Improvement project will be coming up in

1:58:16 ↗ June at our next meeting I think we'll

1:58:18 ↗ have it ready um

1:58:22 ↗ possibly concurrency John was a little

1:58:26 ↗ I'm not sure if they'll be ready is on

1:58:28 ↗ that and then same with black Nugget

1:58:30 ↗ Road that might also be ready but I have

1:58:33 ↗ to touch Bas with

1:58:35 ↗ Jim yes yeah

1:58:38 ↗ yeah cool so hopefully squawk and black

1:58:42 ↗ mugget for for June big

1:58:46 ↗ heals and that's all I have for board

1:58:48 ↗ work plan have staff report besides

1:58:52 ↗ cancellation of next month's meeting

1:58:55 ↗ no uh oh wait actually that's not true

1:58:58 ↗ so we have we have new members coming

1:59:01 ↗ aboard that would have otherwise started

1:59:03 ↗ in May uh but will be starting in June

1:59:07 ↗ um Adam is one of them he's here

1:59:11 ↗ observing um we have one other person as

1:59:15 ↗ well coming aboard so we have two lamir

1:59:19 ↗ is going to be a full member um

1:59:23 ↗ Cynthia's back uh Jerry is not coming

1:59:27 ↗ back and she wasn't able to make it

1:59:29 ↗ tonight because of other things so she

1:59:31 ↗ she sends her love and she loved being

1:59:33 ↗ on Tab and she hopes to be back in

1:59:35 ↗ retirement etc etc so um yeah so we'll

1:59:39 ↗ have a a good full group again in the

1:59:43 ↗ new

1:59:47 ↗ year that was I'm going to cross that

1:59:50 ↗ was part of my chair report welcome the

1:59:52 ↗ two new members um you can welcome them

1:59:54 ↗ as well welcome

1:59:57 ↗ Adam and uh also just remind you all

2:00:00 ↗ that you're going to choose a new chair

2:00:01 ↗ advice chair in June and will not be

2:00:03 ↗ running for chair again and um you can

2:00:07 ↗ nominate in real time but if you are not

2:00:09 ↗ nominating yourself I would suggest you

2:00:11 ↗ contact the person you're thinking you

2:00:12 ↗ nominate make sure that looks up the

2:00:14 ↗ nomination um and if anybody has any

2:00:16 ↗ questions about what's involved it's

2:00:19 ↗ just what you think it is um not a whole

2:00:21 ↗ lot lot of extra time but it's a little

2:00:23 ↗ bit of extra time um and um that's

2:00:27 ↗ really all I had um and I was just going

2:00:30 ↗ to mention Jerry that that was yeah she

2:00:32 ↗ was originally going to reapply then she

2:00:33 ↗ decided to withdraw her app so we will

2:00:36 ↗ miss her and uh with that uh moves us to

2:00:39 ↗ the youth report we don't have our youth

2:00:41 ↗ member in attendance I'm assuming we

2:00:42 ↗ don't have a youth report that brings us

2:00:44 ↗ to six any other business

2:00:49 ↗ announcements question is day

2:00:54 ↗ agent like do we have like another board

2:00:57 ↗ opening now or he did that in advance of

2:01:00 ↗ his turn cycling up he didn't he didn't

2:01:03 ↗ this was the first I had heard of it

2:01:04 ↗ both of us yeah I I would assume that we

2:01:08 ↗ would ask the mayor's office to promote

2:01:11 ↗ Adam from alterate to full but I need to

2:01:15 ↗ talk about that

2:01:17 ↗ for and unless it's an unusual year they

2:01:21 ↗ don't usually have many cycle

2:01:22 ↗ applications it's just too much Obi was

2:01:25 ↗ special because we want to get a youth

2:01:27 ↗ and we had interest and there was others

2:01:29 ↗ in there was a there was yeah

2:01:31 ↗ I Economic Development had somebody to

2:01:34 ↗ yeah it's typically not yeah we we

2:01:38 ↗ don't and especially now that um and and

2:01:41 ↗ if Adam does end up technically he's

2:01:43 ↗ either gonna technically move up or

2:01:44 ↗ he'll move up every single time there's

2:01:46 ↗ a every time comes in the door um but it

2:01:50 ↗ it means we have a full board we just

2:01:51 ↗ don't have alternates

2:01:53 ↗ um we've had times we didn't have full

2:01:56 ↗ hord so uh and we've had the reverse we

2:01:59 ↗ had full alternates but I think that

2:02:01 ↗ puts us in really good shape for quum

2:02:03 ↗ every time so haven't had any trouble

2:02:05 ↗ meeting a quum in quite some time so

2:02:06 ↗ that's great so almost

2:02:09 ↗ today what almost

2:02:12 ↗ today there what one person here at oh

2:02:15 ↗ right because of the time yes that was

2:02:18 ↗ yeah uh being on time that's a

2:02:20 ↗ depression uh okay well um if there's no

2:02:24 ↗ other business announcements then

2:02:26 ↗ I call theour okay okay thank

2:02:31 ↗ you this out that I'm gonna give this to

2:02:34 ↗ you um want this in the

2:02:38 ↗ minutes uh yes

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