Good evening and welcome.

Uh before I officially call the meeting to order, I want to remind the public listening at home and how they can participate.

If you would like to follow along from home, you can go to the city's webpage at Bozeman.net and click on the meetings link.

From that page, you can look under upcoming meetings to find our agenda.

There you'll find instructions to stream the meeting live listen on the phone or on cable TV channel 190.

There'll be several opportunities to provide public comment this evening during the public comment periods.

We'll first hear from those in the room tonight and then take comments from those online.

If you're following along online, please use the raise your hand feature.

Staff will call on you uh by name at the appropriate time.

And as a reminder, you can always provide written public comment in advance of the meeting by going to the commission page on Bozeman.net or by emailing comments at Bozeman.net.

Emails noted as being for the transportation board are forwarded to us.

Any comments received before noon today was distributed and to and read by the board.

With that, I would like to formally call this January 28th, 2026 meeting of the transportation board to order.

All right.

Uh are there any disclosures tonight from the board?

No, seeing none.

Uh we'll go on to changes to the agenda.

Um first uh I would like to have someone uh make a motion to excuse Shannon uh uh Mahori from the board tonight.

I'm moved to excuse Shannon from the meeting tonight.

I'll second.

All in favor.

Aye.

All posed.

All right.

And um another change to the agenda.

Uh we would like to move um the uh ethics training to the first item on the agenda uh as we have uh some outside uh uh people who would like to be attending.

We need a vote on that.

All right, change change to that effect.

I'll move to make a motion to change the ethics to the first point on the agenda.

All second motion.

Okay, Hayden.

All in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

All right, passed.

Um with that, public service aspects for Director Ross.

Before we get there, Chair, Chair Rowland.

Um maybe so the ARB item on our agenda tonight, too.

Okay.

Um if we don't believe we have enough board members in attendance tonight to make those selections, I might suggest that we continue this item until February.

Okay.

Looking around the room, I'm not sure we had two full throated um volunteers to join.

And that's the minimum that we'll need.

And so without putting undue pressure on those who were uh grateful enough to show up tonight.

Um as chair.

Um, but it may be a numbers game at this point where February would be more appropriate.

Um I'd so move to move the agenda item um for the um administrative review board selection and presentation to February's meeting.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

I the ayes have it.

Okay.

So moved.

And uh updates, Director Us.

Yes.

Uh first of all, congratulations to our new chair, Rio Rowling, who will be serving us for the next two years uh on the transportation board as chair.

Uh also thank you to Mike Vasilick, who will be our vice chair over that period of time.

Um we do still have two open positions uh on the transportation board, and we have one applicant in the hopper right now.

So uh my recommendation has been to uh move forward with um uh interviews for that position, and hopefully fill at least one of them by February's meeting.

So heads up to you guys on that.

Hopefully, some new blood coming in.

As for the department, uh, so it has been a while since we've last met in November.

Um we have a lot going on right now.

So first and foremost, uh, as of yesterday, our uh official citywide neighborhood traffic calming program is live.

And so uh our webpage along with application um can be found on City Bozeman website, and we really really hope we all do our part in spreading the word.

We'll have some social media and press releases and everything coming out to promote this.

Uh, but as the transportation board, you are all encouraged uh to also spread the word and hopefully get some good applicant applications in the queue for this spring.

Uh also we have advertised the RFPs for our safe streets for all safety action plan project.

If you'll remember, um this is the federal the federal grants that we've received to complete the city's first safety action plan.

Uh this has been delayed for quite some time through uh some of the the federal wranglings and getting our final grant agreement in place.

Uh we're lucky to have that in place now with funding uh fully maintained.

And so now we are going through the process of making our consultant selections.

Hopefully that will be done uh in early February, and then contracting, usually about a month out of there, and then we'll be ready to get going hopefully around the March time frame.

So extremely excited uh to begin that process and bring that plan in front of this board.

Um, one more.

Uh we plan to advertise the construction contract for our North 27th uh connection from Baxter Cattail on uh 131, so end of this week.

We'll be doing some uh public notification on that project to make sure uh everyone's aware that it will be uh happening this summer.

But we're extremely excited to get this one out on the street and built in hopefully one construction season.

Uh so I will open up any questions that you guys have, otherwise we'll get underway.

Uh how would one find the public safety website to uh solicit projects or uh app yeah, sure.

So uh the neighborhood traffic coming program can be found on the city boson website website under departments, uh engineering, transportation, and then I believe that's where it is located.

So otherwise, I think we've got the the Google keywords uh well enough to find that City Bozeman neighborhood traffic calming will probably get you there as well.

Neighborhood traffic calming, that's great.

All right, thank you.

All right, anyone else have any questions?

All right.

Uh next item will be the approval of minutes from November 20th, the last time we met.

Anyone who has read them like to go forward and I'll I move to approve the minutes from no November meeting.

I'll second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right, approved.

Uh and next we have public comment of non-agendum, non-agenda items falling within the purview and jurisdiction of this board.

Uh, this is the time to comment on any item within the scope of the transportation board.

There will also be time in conjunction with each agenda item for public comment relating to that item, but you may only speak once per topic.

Please note that the board cannot take any action on any of the item on any items which do not appear on the agenda.

Every person wishes to comment, love three minutes.

If you're here to speak tonight, you can form a line next to the window.

For those commenting in this room, you'll see a light on the podium.

Uh green light is when you begin, yellow, you have one minute remaining, and red is when your time has expired.

And we respectfully ask that uh people addressing the board keep civil and courteous manner.

And um, yeah, we would also ask everyone to begin their comment by stating your name and stating whether you are a resident or property owner in the city opposement.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment?

See none.

Uh is there anyone online, Leah?

I'm showing no request for public comment online.

Okay, with that, we will move to ethics training.

Good evening.

Uh I'm Nick Ross.

I serve as your director of transportation and engineering and uh city staff liaison to the transportation board, and I get the honor of providing you with our 2025 city ethics training.

So we have one uh attendee from our urban parks and forestry board tonight.

And uh thank you guys for moving this one up in the agenda to hopefully give him some time back in his evening.

Okay, so um if you remember from past trainings that we give a little bit of an overview to begin with and then get into sort of our scenario-based ethics training where uh you guys will be asked to participate along the way.

Uh so um we want to focus really uh with the intent of this being um substantially on what we consider to be conflicts of interest, and that's a reminder to all of you that as board members of the city uh you are not to use your public office for private gain.

Um city manager also is required to provide annual ethics training and education to city officials, city boards and employees.

This is your opportunity to receive that training as a board member.

Why do we do it?

Uh first of all, these are codified in our Bozeman municipal code is as well as city charter.

And so, in short, uh we're required to establish standards guidelines for conduct and provide annual trainings to you as a representative of the city to avoid use of public position for your private benefit.

So, again, that's the point we really want to hammer home uh is that it's incumbent upon you not to use your position for private gain.

Um a little bit of an overview of the program.

Uh our city code of ethics uh we consider a best practice for all local government across Montana.

Our goal is to have all boards, employees, and commission members complete training every year.

Uh this is ethics is now more integrated into staff and board commission meetings all year as a reminder as well.

Um we're equipping additional staff to facilitate training as an opportunity for professional development.

Uh and again, City Bozeman's code of ethics is in addition to requirements that you can all find in our Montana Code annotated.

Uh so why we do it in person?

Um, we do believe that it provides a better and more engaging training environment.

Um again, our training process is not necessarily us putting a video in front of you or having somebody from HR come and talk for an hour, but it's an interactive process that we found really does engender a lot better conversation and more nuanced discussion uh of some of the gray areas in ethics.

We have um multitude of resources available to you if you have concerns, first and foremost being our code of ethics, and then sort of down through all of our uh procedural manuals that guide what we do uh every day.

If you ever have any questions about where to find these, you can contact me.

If you ever have any actual questions, uh you can feel free uh uh of ethical questions, feel free to contact uh the city's city attorney's office.

Okay.

Any questions before we get going?

No, that's a resounding yes.

Okay.

So first scenario.

A member of the tax increment financing board owns a restaurant in a district and is and is very interested in improving the district for both their business and Bozeman in general.

They are diligent about filling out their financial disclosure form each year and notes that the business and property interests on the form.

A developer recently bought before the brought before the board a proposal for a hotel in the adjacent unused lot.

The board member very excited about the hotel uh as they had some conversations with the owners and expects the two to share some parking facilities.

The hotel will bring in customers for them.

They don't mention this at the board meeting because there is no direct business interest in the project.

And since their form is on file, staff can bring it up if they think it's a conflict.

The board member enthusiastically approves the hotel.

What are the ethical situations or considerations in this scenario?

And I have to get at least some feedback before we go into the answer.

The one item I'd suggest is just bringing it up as a disclosure prior to doesn't negate their ability to have the conversation and still partake in it.

It just gets it up front before it becomes a problem.

Great idea.

Yeah, even if it's not like a direct business venture of theirs.

It's still like the disclosure is important because that information is gonna affect how everybody else approaches the topic.

And the like filing of the form is kind of relying on like a last chance safety net to catch it.

You guys actually nailed this one exactly.

So uh the two main areas in our ethics code rely um revolve around 203-520 conflict of interest in 550 financial disclosure statement.

So financial interest and disclosures.

Main issue here.

Uh board members should disclose their interest in the project on the record at the meeting.

Section six of the City Code of Ethics states that officials must discharge their duties impartially and fairly, and they certainly have financial interest and have made efforts to discuss such.

So they are acting impartially.

Pursuant to BMC 203520, officials are not to use their position to secure any financial interest or personal interest.

They should disclose their interests and recuse themselves from the vote.

So that's kind of an important point here.

So not only should they have disclosed, but they should have recused themselves from the from the vote altogether.

Many boards require members with knowledge and investment in certain areas.

So conflicts are expected and should not be assumed to be uncommon.

So don't feel like you've done something wrong if you have a conflict.

But this is managed through thoughtful disclosures and recusals where appropriate.

So again, because that's uh on the record, just make sure you disclose and recuse if you find yourself in that situation.

Okay, next up.

An active member of the Urban Parks and Forestry Board, present company excluded, uh, and vehemently opposes a uh a proposed change to the tree maintenance district.

Um the subject has been discussed at the board a number of times, while a few members agree with them.

The majority of the board supports the changes to the district.

The board member feels like their voice isn't being heard.

So they submit a public comment to the city commission and write a letter to the chronicle expressing their concerns about the district, acknowledging the experience with the project, given their membership on the urban parks and forestry board.

They make sure to include on behalf of UPF in the letters to reinforce their legitimate opinion and so that others will take their opinion seriously.

What are the ethical considerations here?

The two considerations I see is one board and one voice, and then ascribing what other people on the board are thinking.

You can't speak to what somebody else on the board is thinking.

And as a member of the board, you sacrifice some of your ability to public comment by being on the board, and this is your form to public comment.

And to that I would add, um, including on behalf of the UPF, especially to the um the chronicle.

Um it misrepresents completely the board opinion.

Yeah, you guys nailed this, and there's one other nuance here that's a little bit hard to catch.

Um, but first and foremost, our definition of officials, 203-470.

So uh you as appointed members of this board by the city commission are technically defined as officials of the city.

So this person representing themselves as an individual was untruthful in that, because they are technically defined as an official of the city.

And so that's sort of first and foremost.

We can't kind of play both sides when we're on boards, nor can we as staff or elected officials and choose to be an individual in some realms when we're talking about city business, but an official in others.

So that's first, and then uh the one that uh uh Mike and Rio hit on is uh what we call our one-body one voice policy.

And so as you accept the role on the board, it's also your responsibility to speak on behalf of the decision of the board.

And so uh we really can't have a functioning democracy if we have these uh situations in place where you as a board member have gotten your opportunity to weigh in.

You've not necessarily fallen on the side of the majority of the board, but then represent your opinion on behalf of the board.

That was uh in opposition of what they voted on.

So I think we beat that one enough.

Quick question on that.

Is there any conflict if like for myself, if I were to present a public comment to this board, um, am I still representing the city in that position, or is my comment then public?

Yeah, um I I will say this does veer into uh at least some amount of gray area.

Um we we still respect everybody's first amendment rights.

Um and so I'm not sure we've had situations where uh we've had board board members um uh go up to city commission and make comment or to other boards make comment uh and have um you know unless it's an egregious situation, remove them from the board for that.

Um what we need to make sure though is that you're disclosing your member of the board, um speaking on your own behalf, okay uh and not um in a manner that is um uh representative of the rest of your board members.

Yeah, I think so.

The one other thing I've heard uh Craig Sullivan, the city attorney say too is like if you think that issue might end up in front of parks, you're at the parks board, or in our case the transportation board, like don't comment ahead of it.

Like, right?

Like so for like the UDC was a big one.

Everybody had a piece of the UDC.

So it's like don't comment on it publicly until it comes before the board, and then you can also then see like, okay, we touched these parts of it, and if I am gonna comment, I can't comment on these parts of it.

But like this stuff over here, maybe if I so choose to, but that's just a good rule of thumb to follow.

Yeah.

Yeah, that's a good point.

You got it.

All right.

Next scenario.

The chair of the downtown urban renewal board handles setting the agendas.

They also own a hotel in the district.

Recently, the agendas have been pretty full of new activity in the district, so they want to prioritize retail and food service projects as they view that as a gap to fill with new development.

A proposed hotel has asked the board to be considered for financial incentives.

The chair knows that this level of request needs to be approved by the the URD and does not go before the city commission, but doesn't want to put it on the agenda as their hotel is covering the needs of the district at the moment.

They didn't get any incentives when building the hotel, so if they are in a time crunch, they can proceed without the incentives.

The chair informed the applicate applicant, the board is focusing on other priorities and that the request will not be considered at this time.

What are the ethical considerations?

A lot to unpack in that one.

I feel like these examples have gotten a lot more complicated since the last training we did.

Uh obviously the um the chair is setting his agenda in a way that is self-serving.

Um, by controlling controlling the timing, he's controlling the financial outcome for himself.

Nailed it again.

So uh this one actually has reference back to MCA as well.

So uh MCA 22105.5.

Um this is regarding the misuse of position.

So a public official may not perform an official act directly and substantially affecting a business or other undertaking to its economic detriment when the official or employee has a substantial personal interest in a competing firm or undertaking.

And so in this case, while the chair has authority to set the agenda, they have already made made the call that the new hotel doesn't need the incentives at this time, which they then use to justify keeping the item off the agenda.

They may even be retaliating against the new applicant if the chair views it unfair that this person could get incentives they didn't.

Uh and then there's also a definition of improper governmental action in BMC that includes action taken by an official that is intended to retaliate against a member of the public.

Um if this new applicant chooses to come back later when he can get the incentives, the uh actions of the chair have directly resulted in delaying a project, which will lead to less competition for them.

The chair needs to act on behalf of the city in this decision and not their own personal interests.

Uh and then there also is um uh a clear financial interest in here, and the the sort of the key take-home on that for this point is that financial interest does not necessarily need to be tangible.

Uh so regardless of whether the chair is intentionally creating a new barrier or not if the hotel is delayed due to their actions.

Uh they stand to keep business that the new hotel may have taken away.

And so while it may not be like the old days of getting your driveway paved by the city because you know you you made a decision on their behalf, there is still a financial interest involved here.

And that never happens in Bozeman.

It's just like the uh example that always gets used uh around the country for impropri improprieties.

Um they need to take that into consideration when setting the agenda.

Rio, I guess you're on the hot seat uh for any of these issues moving forward.

Okay, next up.

Community uh member of the community development board also works for a local nonprofit that helps to coordinate placement of low-income individuals in affordable housing.

They are happy that their involvement on the board can help facilitate a community need their board also, their job also addresses.

Since they are an expert in the area, they make sure that the developers coming before the CDB are fully aware of the different resources in the community and gets frustrated when someone asks for an incentive when they haven't gone through all the steps to minimize development costs.

They vote no on these projects since there are so many local organizations that could also benefit from a developer utilizing their resources and only vote yes on a project that maximize these resources.

What are the ethical considerations?

I mean, the only consideration that I see is if they are not voting for it because they aren't using their nonprofit.

So if the individual works at nonprofit acts and they're not voting because they're not using nonprofit X, then that's a problem.

But this is also a policy decision.

It's a policy decision to be able to say, no, I'm not voting for these projects if they don't utilize local incentives.

So that's not an actual ethical consideration.

I guess I would add um it would be more problematic if they strictly vote no with no further explanation or transparency a no but and telling them how they can reform their application to meet their standards to get to a yes, um might be less problematic in my ass.

Okay, this is a tough one.

Um by the strict standards of the City Bozeman Ethics Code, um, there still is a financial interest involved in the situation.

So uh again, financial interest does not need to be tangible.

So while the board member may have good intentions, they are using their position to build up business for local nonprofits, which benefits their job, which benefits them directly in potential job security and community relationships as a working member in local nonprofits.

And so I very much appreciate that that issue of tangibility can be debatable, but our ethical standards would very much hold this in violation of our code.

Um so this is not this is just not the role of a board member who is a city official needs to put on a different hat to advise the commission and act uh on behalf of the municipality.

And um the one that might be uh even more important to understand here.

Um section six of our ethics handbook uh has uh a part here on impartiality.

Uh so it is your duty as officials of the city um to discharge that the to discharge your duties impartially and fairly.

Uh as the decision maker, all board members must consider the information before them with each application and not apply standards not expressly given to them by law.

So that means you don't necessarily have the right to make up your own criteria for how a project is voted on.

Okay.

So if it were not, say, in the criteria of application, that local nonprofits will be prioritized, then you asserting your own personal interest is a violation of impartiality there.

If it's if that's not a condition that the projects should be judged on, or the grants or awards should be judged on, and you've brought your own personal criteria in it, then you are not doing your duties impartially.

And so again, very, very, very gray area here.

Um and debate is worthy, um, but this is where our city code would fall.

So again, your job is to advise commission on matters of policy.

Uh if commission has not set a policy in this case to award in a manner that prioritize prioritize local nonprofits, then that is not a criteria that you get to apply on your own in making a decision.

Up for questions.

I mean, I just I don't understand why we have people doing it then.

Like if there's not like if it's just a criteria and a rubric and I mean AI can do that.

And then there's the question becomes of I think I know that you are not the one who wrote it, and so this isn't equivalent with you, but I would argue that that ethics definition is way too narrowly constrained.

Um for the basis of what the commission has said they want on the boards, which is representation of the community and opinions on the other side.

So again, yeah, I I think where the board's role would come in would be to advise the commission that their next funding round or for their basis of decision should include that kind of thing.

Right?

That's very much the kind of policy guidance that our commission seeks out from our boards.

Um but if that has not been clear up front, uh that's outside the bounds of where you guys get to judge.

Go ahead.

So I guess where I'm confused is is the the location where this board member went wrong is when it's not them noticing that they're missing certain incentives, it's that they're not potentially addressing those to then be part of the criteria.

They're just basing their vote off of like them bringing those incentives to the board or to the commission seems like the correct thing to do versus voting on it.

Is that where the separation is?

Sure.

So I think my guidance would be um that this board member would be expected to vote based on the criteria that was laid out at the time of the application.

And then if they felt that the criteria itself were not representative of the community's interests, bring that recommendation for future rounds.

But can't make up the rules on the fly.

So I think I I'm a little confused, I guess, is trying to understand what the universe that this board member is considering when they're making this.

So is this you know uh one project where we have several people who are coming into it?

I mean, it seems like it's it's you know, it's a good thing on the margin when you're evaluating relative to all the other projects, but if it's if it's just uh uh you know each each project is evaluated on its in its own single uh universe, then I can see where it could be an issue, but you know, when it's uh you're considering several different players for this development, um it seems like a you know if you if they're meeting all the other criteria, like so maybe it's it's it's maybe I should make it clear also that there's sort of the two-part issue here.

One being somebody that works in the nonprofit community, even tangential to a decision being made.

If they are voting exclusively to approve projects that benefit the nonprofit community that has the very real possibility of helping them in a private privately, helping them in a private manner.

If they're only voting on projects as somebody who works in the nonprofit community that funnel money to nonprofits, there stands a reasonable expectation that they would benefit from that decision at some point in the future.

Uh the one that I think is uh causing a little more consternation here is the impartiality thing.

So again, uh then that's where you know this person is voting because they have applied their own judgment towards what project is more worthy in another.

That's not necessarily in this scenario, um uh at least been explicitly stated as a criteria that they are to judge based on.

I also think the phrase minimize development costs threw me for a little bit too, because that seems like a really great way to, you know to judge a project.

So that uh parlay against only nonprofit uh I was a lot certain to to how to interpret it.

It's a tough one.

So I guess in this scenario, sorry to be a dead horse at this point.

Um but I know our priors as board members should be to be conservative, to be overly transparent about any potential um tangential connections and offer recusal in this scenario, would the resolution to just be to offer recusal with transparency for every single vote that they take?

So that's where uh that's an awesome question, Hayden.

Um if I would do my best at playing city attorney uh and guiding you on that.

Um we also acknowledge that we oftentimes select board members based on their experience in the community.

And so you're likely going to run into a situation where it would not make sense for you to be a board member if you had to recuse yourself from every if you're on the community development board and you were an architect in the community.

Uh it wouldn't make sense for you to be a member of the community development board if you had to recuse yourself from every land use uh or planning decision, right?

Um I think the narrowly defined path here is because they have chosen to apply some level of impartiality that then also benefits even not in even if not in a tangential way or uh tangible way in a tangential way their potential job in the future.

So if that architect, for instance, um only worked on nonprofit jobs, right?

Uh and then choose chose uh within their duties to deny every for-profit development that's in front of them and approve every nonprofit development.

That I believe would be crossing that line in impartiality that in a way that could have a private benefit to them.

But like this is the part that's like not defeats the whole purpose of the advisory boards, like the tangibility of the thing, because then if if like I live in a neighborhood and a trail is coming in the neighborhood, like I shouldn't be voting on the trail possibly coming in the neighborhood because I live there and it could impact my property values and increase the property of my home, and therefore that's a tangible benefit.

But the whole point of the advisory board is to have people representing other neighborhoods or other places around the city or providing a perspective that the city commission doesn't have.

It's just again, I know you don't write this part of the ethics handbook, and maybe I should call Greg and tell him what I think.

But I just I think that it's a it's a very broad reading of maintaining your impartiality, like this one in particular, very broad reading of maintaining your impartiality.

I would understand if it was like their nonprofit was the only one, but like saying that they aren't accessing other nonprofits, to me, that's a policy decision.

That's not uh that's not a.

And I think you're right, and I think where you're right, Mike, is that it is a policy decision decision, and it is not the job of the advisory board members to set city policy.

It's the job of the city commission.

And so if that again, if that criteria was not set by the commission, it's factually true that the advisory board member in this case is creating their own policy from which they're basing their judgment.

I mean, is this also an issue because it's a community development board and they're quasi-judicial and they actually have legislative authority?

It's possible.

Because like right now, we wouldn't have done really just they wouldn't have written this scenario though, if it was only specific to one board, right?

So I would um I would guess that this is broadly applicable to all boards.

Okay.

And I think it was interesting.

So I've had a tough time sort of like wrapping my head around this particular scenario.

But I think what Mike said about the trailer coming through when you own property nearby, that's a very interesting uh like applies personally to me with the follower uh redevelopment or expansion.

Um, you know, I when we talked about last time, you know, I I certainly made it known that I have a JSON property um, you know, expressed how I felt but was not going to take a vote on it.

So that's interesting.

Always right.

All right, moving on.

The transportation board is working to coordinate an expansion to the downtown parking garage.

This week, the board is considering the construction contract for the garage, which includes as a subcontractor an architecture firm for which a member of the board's daughter daughter works.

The member wasn't sure if approving the contract would show favoritism to a relative.

So they emailed the chair of the board to let them know of the relationship.

The chair thanked the member for letting them know.

When the board uh got to the item, the member did not disclose the conflict since they already did.

Since the relation was once removed from the contract before them, they voted to approve the contract.

What are the ethical considerations?

This feels like that first question where they were just like falling back on one resource where they committed their how their relation was to the project.

Um in the same sense, it's like putting all the pressure on the chair to disclose for them when in reality you're responsible for disclosing on your own.

Got it.

I think it's a a two-part failure.

Mm-hmm.

Should be the chair as well, as a fairness on the member.

Mm-hmm.

Fair enough.

Okay, there's also a new one that we get to talk about here.

Not only conflict of interest and lack of disclosure, uh, but also this is a case of nepotism as defined in the MCA.

So uh MCA states officials are not to have interest in contracts if they are directly involved, defined as a person who directly monitors extends amends audits or is responsible for procurement of the contract, of which the member certainly is.

So whether their daughter is a subcontractor is relevant, she may directly stand benefit from this contract if approved.

If a member knows their relation will or may work uh on the on this project, they should disclose that and recuse themselves from the vote.

Uh if the board member knows their daughter will not work on that project, they should still disclose that information prior to the vote to avoid any misperceptions of favoritism later down the road.

Is there a line drawn with that?

Like let's say that I have an architect designing something for me for a side project unrelated to my role in the board, and I thought they did an excellent job, and I then have a relation with them, even if it's just a professional relation, is I guess what where's the line between family friend versus past successes?

I believe that specifically.

So um that uh that architect, if that architect was not a family member, then it wouldn't be a case of nepotism.

Um even if it was so uh if it's a family member case nepotism, and if that architect then brought a project uh in front of your board for your vote, you should recuse yourself.

All right, thank goodness.

In summary, these are complicated scenarios, and there can be fine lines between disclosing versus recusing, speaking as an individual versus as a board member, and onward.

There may also be more nuanced ethical issues with any of these scenarios.

So only the main ones are highlighted here.

Uh but these situations come up frequently, so please never hesitate to contact the city attorney's office for assistance prior to any decision making.

With that, review the code, ask the attorney if you got any questions.

And you are now ethical for the remaining year.

Any questions?

Okay.

Thanks for joining.

You're free to stick around.

Uh otherwise we'll see you around town.

Thank you for making us good, Director Ross.

All right.

With with that, I believe we're moving on to the next agenda item, which Director Ross, you will uh also be giving to us on the um advisory board work plan.

Absolutely.

Thank you again, Rio.

Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering.

So uh I I wish I could even sit down uh at the dice with you guys because I I really wanted this to the item to be more of an open ended discussion.

Um so uh just as the the primer um uh our transportation or advisors our advisory boards work off the same two-year schedule as our city commission.

Uh so with our election last fall, uh we have a newly sat city commission beginning January 6th of this year for the 2026 and 2027 years.

Uh so each advisory board is tasked with developing a two-year work plan that is intended to be the guiding document from which we as staff then select topics for each meeting.

Uh so we had uh previous previously worked under a 2024-2025 Transportation Advisory Board Work P.

I included uh in your packet this month, uh sort of a line-by-line um uh review of what items in our work plan we accomplished and what we didn't.

Uh and then I figured that it might help to make some suggestions from which to talk from.

And so myself and staff put together this draft uh that is truly only expected to generate conversation.

And so uh by no means would I consider this the final draft that I'm hoping you guys uh are here to comment on.

Um this is truly a work session kind of an environment, so it's a back and forth between yourselves, us as staff, uh, with the goal of if there's specifically anything that you see missing here, bring that up.

If there's anything here you don't believe uh is um appropriate for the board, also bring that up.

And then we'll take all of your feedback over the next month to put together a final draft, which we'll bring back to you in February and ask for a vote.

So that's really the long and short of it as far as a presentation goes.

Uh you guys could feel free um to dig into it a little bit, talk about any of the specific items, ask me questions about what we as a department expect to be doing over the next couple years.

Um as a reminder, you're you're generally tasked as board members of advising the city commission on matters of policy.

And so uh if you have any questions on what the city commission's two-year priorities are, um uh questions about city pol city commission policy in general, um, I will do my best to respond.

Um so while you think while you're thinking about it as a reminder, I break, I generally break out our topics into four sections.

Uh board governance, this is where we generally uh, well, one, take care of our ethics training, uh, and two, um schedule some time to meet with uh uh adjacent boards or other boards.

Um then I break down our work into planning efforts, capital efforts, and then more specific policy efforts.

Uh and also I should add as reminder that uh of course this transportation advisory board, you also serve as the parking commission.

And so you'll see here a mix of both transportation work plan items and parking work plan items.

Uh Director Ross, the the first question I have is uh regarding the planning efforts and uh it says downtown parking.

Would that be the strategic management that like updating the strategic parking management plan?

The downtown strategic parking management plan.

Sure.

There are a lot of words and yeah, I no, I know.

And we're government and we love acronyms and stuff.

And so uh the um I will make a distinction here between this item and the city's overall citywide parking uh strategic parking management plan.

So uh at this time we have uh recommended we pause that overall city strategic parking management plan uh with our consultant Swalker.

Uh and so uh we would not expect that to be a matter that our city commission takes up over the next two years and uh for that reason this board either.

Um we do very much see uh Mike referenced um there's been sort of an ongoing um downtown parking working group uh that has been getting together over the past few years um really in a response to uh still having the need to come up with some solution for uh additional parking capacity downtown and then spun off from that um other ideas on management, such as uh employee parking, uh shared parking agreements, and a whole slew of other uh topics that they're considering.

So very much is the kind of thing that if it came up for uh actual uh proposals, this board um would likely see uh something uh would likely see uh that type of item in some way or another.

Uh and so our parking manager Nick Falcon uh and myself felt it was appropriate to um have it included in this work plan for your board um if for no other reason than to kind of keep you apprised of the goings on of that group.

So this one's definitely I would say the most nebulous of our planning efforts.

Um there's not really much, and Nick can correct me if uh I'm wrong here.

Um there's not really much of a timeline yet for exactly what when they want we all as a city and as a group want to bring some of these ideas to fruition, uh nor necessarily a super firm scope of exactly what uh is gonna be set out to be accomplished.

And that is intentional in this uh scenario to make sure that you know all voices are being heard.

So um the two items that I am not sure about uh our transportation master plan.

Uh we will have funding appropriated to begin our TMP update on July 1 of this year.

Uh my goal is going to be to have that approved uh by the end of 2027.

So that sets out a uh um uh a pretty firm timeline of when we're gonna get started and hopefully end.

Uh I will note that I plan to bring um uh begin bringing this item to you before July 1, though.

Um my goal is to have a contract in place on July 1, which means we'll have to do the work uh on the staff end of uh the defining scope of work, writing the RFP, doing the solicitation, making a selection so that we don't lose you know that that whole process can take as much as three months when you get down to it for a substantial plan like this.

And so uh I hate losing that time in our schedule by starting an action on the day that money is appropriate for it.

So I just can't spend money on that until July 1 this year when the appropriation is expected to come through.

And so uh my goal is going to be to include this board early uh in this process.

And uh my idea there is to have you engage in a discussion on the scope of work for the project itself.

And so the scope of work is the sort of the guiding principle or the guiding document of any plan.

If we don't effectively scope a plan, then we're never going to get a result that we want out of it.

And so um I think you guys would be an excellent sounding board uh to discuss the the context of this plan, what we want to accomplish with it, uh, and then use this uh use these board meetings as a little bit of a sounding board to make sure staff have the appropriate and clearly defined scope uh ready for the RFP when we decide to issue it.

So that's one that one I've uh left board commitment uh as TBD because I see this one uh I I do not want to put any um I want to put as few barriers on this board's involvement in our TMP update as possible.

And so defining a number of meetings that I'm gonna bring TMP related uh issues to this board did not feel appropriate to me.

Uh and that being a perfect example.

I don't want to say two meetings and then spend one talking about the scope and then bring uh um the final draft back to you in November of next year and say thumbs up.

Uh that's not going to be how I would like to use this board uh in service to the city and this very, very important plan.

Um so tangential to that is going to be our comprehensive safety action plan.

And that's the Safe Street for All grant that I talked about earlier.

Um main intent with uh the safety plan grant was to essentially bring supplemental funding, grant funding to expand the scope of our transportation master plan.

Uh so we have about 250,000 requested for the TMP itself.

We have more than that in grant funding to do the safety plan.

So we're gonna have more than a half million dollars that can be dedicated to the TMP by way of doing the safety plan in parallel with it, which then will become part of the TMP as a supplemental plan.

So that way we're not duplicating work.

You know, every TMP has some safety section.

I see no reason to do a safety plan and then pay a consultant tens of thousands of dollars to redo a safety component in the TMP.

There's gonna be a little bit of wrangling to make sure that we're doing these plans in concert with each other, but getting an early start on the safety plan, I think will put us in a good position to roll that plan into the overall TMP uh by the end of 2027.

And I did not put any bounds uh on board commitment meeting commitment for the safety plan either, uh expecting you guys to have uh a lot of interest in it.

I expecting you guys to have uh a lot of interest in it.

Any question on those items?

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Uh do we still have to wait for the MPO to wrap up their TMP before we really get the ground running?

Great question.

So Hayden he brought up the fact that our uh Gallatin Valley MPO is currently uh completing our long-range transportation plan.

Um the scope of that plan though will be separate and different from each jurisdiction's local transportation plan.

So the idea um with our MPO is they're primarily responsible for on system routes.

So those are basically federally funded routes within the communities of Bozeman, Belgrade, and part of the county.

So that plan is going to focus on sort of the major MDT routes, if you could think of it that way.

And then Galton County has their own local transportation plan, City of Belgrade, just uh finished uh their first transportation plan last year, and now we will be updating ours.

Ours then will focus primarily on local routes or city owned and city maintained routes.

And so there won't necessarily be conflict between the two.

And then I was curious also the meetings with the GVA, MPO and UTD board.

Um what is that gonna look like in terms of space?

Seems a little constrained of the R.

Sure.

So in the past, uh what we've done is we've had the um uh the UTD chair um or um uh potentially even uh the executive director uh join us uh for a little bit of a discussion on uh efforts related to uh to what they're doing and how um our board can uh take part in them.

Same thing with the G V MPO, the the MPO.

Um our our manager Jeff Butts, I'm sure would be willing to come uh and give you guys some presentations at various times throughout the next couple years.

Make sure you're up to speed on what they're doing as well.

Um I have a comment question.

Um I guess mostly comment.

I I think that the the transportation master plan is probably some of the most important work that we can do over the next two years.

And so I think devoting as much time to that as possible is is certainly a priority.

And I think the timing of these some of these events, well, so first of all, the I love the um safety action plan being done in conjunction with the master plan.

Um what a fantastic use of resources and time.

Um and to Hayden's point, I think you know, talking with the uh G V MPO uh, you know, I I guess in my utopic mind, I don't see those as completely separate processes, even though they are.

I mean, you know, if we know route priorities, we know where maybe we can invest in more efficient, you know, bicycling, multimodal opportunities to reach those um those those routes.

Um so I think scheduling um with those outside organizations in helping us develop our our scope of work is really important.

Absolutely.

Um then, you know, I counted we're we have what 11 meetings per year, so 22.

Um there's a lot of meetings on this uh and so you know we're gonna have to, you know punch out two or three of these per meeting, maybe more, depending on how much we put devote to the uh the master planning effort.

Um just a comment.

Um I love that we went from one meeting with the outside organizations to two.

It's great.

I really believe that communicating with those those groups is really key to a holistic plan for this region.

That's it.

Cool.

And uh for what it's worth, uh shame on me if I'm implied that the MPO plan and our local plan are two distinct thing distinct things that aren't gonna talk to themselves.

If it's really the more idea of the the ground up approach to the MPO plan.

And so the local plans will be their own distinct things, definitely, but those needs then feed into the MPO plan, which is more of the regional plan that connects all three of our communities.

Um right now, just by way of order of operations, we have to get the MPO LRTB done uh by the end of this year.

And so we are uh a little off skew in that sort of optimistic way that the local plans feed into the MPO plan.

But we do have our current TMP from 2017 that we're operating under.

And so that's very much being included in development of the LRTP.

And you ain't wrong about meetings.

So there's a lot here.

This board is generally one of the boards that is compelled with handling a lot of city business.

That is I'd say I won't speak for it.

Let me start back.

So one thing that we will have a bit different in this work plan is likelihood of fewer capital projects to consider.

We are undertaking or preparing to undertake a substantial push for capital project construction over the next two years.

A lot of these other major projects.

Otherwise, our sucky row project is going to be a bit of a bear.

I'll say that.

But frankly, a master plan scoped as a, I believe a three-lane collector, minor arterial that will have some substantial property and resource impacts along the way.

And so that's one where I think where I know staff is going to have to do a lot of early action coordination with property owners along the way and uh before going full board on design.

I suspect suspect uh this board will be asked to weigh in on the overall scope of improvements as well.

Uh and then once our Keggy project um gets awarded in construction this spring, uh, we'll be able to um uh have a more clear understanding of what uh urban route funding will have left over to begin development of our next urban route project.

Right now we project that to be the last section of College Street from uh 11th to 19th.

That's another one uh that will require um a fair amount of discussion on the scope of improvements before we even get going on design.

And so that'll be a fun one that this board uh is going to be asked to weigh in on as well.

Um otherwise, uh any questions on um some of the polic uh more policy-related things that we have thrown out there.

I just I want to go back to the capital project.

I'm trying to picture what part of Frontier Road uh the shared use path would be on.

Sure.

Um I don't know what's in city one, like where the line stops.

Yeah, so north side of frontage road, okay.

So north side of frontage road okay pretty much from Cherry River fishing access up to more or less valley center spur.

Okay.

There's going to be sections along there that will get filled in with development.

The MDT site the the the county waste transfer station that's going to be developed along there.

But then there's going to be a substantial amount that we'll need city investment, capital investment to complete.

And I know the division has always been to go all the way to Belgrade.

Is that part of the MPO's plan?

Like obviously we can stop at a certain point.

Sure.

So the MPO is going to be taking on what we're calling a Galton Valley loop trail study over the next year.

And so this is an idea that our former mayor Terry Cunningham champion to sort of develop a sort of 40 mile loop trail all around the Valley.

I'm sorry frontage road would certainly be a part of that.

But depending on where the final routing and alignment goes connecting to Valley Center Spur gets you the Valley Center Road, which already has path pretty well developed all the way over to jackrabbit.

And so depending on how that alignment goes future connection of the frontage path all the way up to the airport and more directly to Belgrade that way would be more considered in that loop trail plan.

The big parking related item okay go ahead Bryce I was just going to say can you expand on the first two curb management and metered parking absolutely so curb management is one that is an item that we had on last year's last board's two year work plan.

That our intent here is really to be in partnership with that downtown parking program to look at our parking restriction zones downtown and whether or not they still make sense for our current needs.

And so the essence of curb management is really how you regulate access to the curb.

And so whether that means looking at appropriate spacing and number of loading zones downtown appropriate time restrictions for the various regulation zones that we have in downtown area.

This is something that we think as at the staff level could could definitely use a a look and uh wanted to include it in this work plan if sort of the idea gains enough steam along the way that we start talking about some real changes.

And the second one so I apologize for not including my FYI that uh we also have a new commission liaison for this year.

Commissioner Magic, Commissioner Jen Magic will be our commission liaison for the next two years.

She uh apologizes she was uh out ill today and didn't want to uh spread it around the board on her first meeting but she has been uh a vocal supporter of transportation and specifically um bicycle and pedestrian safety across the city since her time uh on on the commission and um I'm extremely excited to have her uh working with you all here on the board um by way of that introduction uh she she's also sort of revived this idea uh with the commission um specifically in relation to our college street project from 8th to 11th that that type of location um is one that could benefit from the um at least the philosophic or policy goals that meter parking paid parking on street parking generally brings um better turnover better management of who has access to those that those spaces especially at those sort of neighborhood business district interfaces um the idea has uh it gained uh a bit of steam during our last uh collar street uh work session uh amongst the commission and so um i suggested that Nick and I um uh have this as a topic that we consider on this board over the next few years as well I'll warn that this is um very very complicated uh from a matter of uh even legal authority and so we've begun doing some uh research uh with the city attorney on uh sort of framing out exactly what would need to be done uh as a city to even make this happen.

Um but again, as the parking commission, that's sort of the nuts and bolts policy type uh thing that our commission is seeking guidance uh from you on.

And so we thought it was a great opportunity to bring in front of this board.

Um I would suspect in the rather near future um in terms of scheduling for these few meetings on your work plan.

Can you give us a preview of what those legal issues might be quickly?

Sure.

Um well uh this happens to be one of those things that our uh state elected officials have put into MCA as uh needing um the vote of the public to enact.

Um so depending uh we have a um ordinance, I believe, that dates a long time ago uh in the city um that has uh effectively given our city commission the authority to enact this.

Um there's some discussion that needs to be had though of whether or not the MCA statute supersedes that and whether or not any decision on metered parking would have to be brought before our uh electorate for uh a formal vote of approval.

That's like the the biggest issue that has to be figured out.

Um and then there's obviously a whole suite of uh policy questions about location, duration, pricing that all would uh flow from that crux of um what would be the process of actually uh approving such a thing.

Uh quick question on the um capital projects.

Is the shared use frontage?

Is that um there was I think Marilyn from Safer Bozeman is just the she's been advocating for this path.

Is that the same?

That's correct.

So um Marilee Brown um previously led uh uh GAP group, Gallatin Alliance for Pathways, I believe it was, uh, that has been strongly advocating for this frontier path uh for a number of years.

Um it unfortunately has gotten delayed in planning and construction because there's a conflicting um wastewater utility project that's currently scheduled, um frontage uh transmission line that would um it's basically it's it's already in the ground, generally right under the path of our future frontage trail.

Um with that project uh looking at right now, fiscal year 2029 of getting started.

Um we would essentially be building the frontage path ahead uh a year or two of when it would be torn up and need rebuilt because of the sewer project.

Um so what we have committed to though is moving up planning and design for those projects together in fiscal year 2027.

And so that will better uh help us better align both projects and potentially even make decisions on moving up the frontish path if it were determined at the time of uh sewer project development that that could either be moved up in schedule as well or pushed off further into the future.

So the idea is to get the planning design done as early as possible in hopes of finding a faster path to construction for the frontich path.

We're pushing up on 730.

I'm happy to give you guys uh more time as Chair Rowland uh allows.

We uh should we see if there's any public comment and then we can come back to the board.

Uh great idea.

Um is there anyone in the room who would like to make a comment.

Seeing none.

Is there anyone online who would like to make comment?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

Uh any final questions from anyone or comments.

I'm trying to remember the the exact MCA code, but I'm I'm pretty sure it says that the vote is if you have to bond for the parking meters, and I don't know if it's necessarily on the action of parking meters.

And I mean thinking about on the action of of paid parking and thinking about the stretch that you'd have to do in college, right?

It's three, four, four blocks, probably a dozen meters could do the trick and five or ten thousand pop.

It's three, four, four blocks, probably a dozen meters could do the trick and at five or ten thousand a pop, like a I feel like it's something that could be doable with cash on hand um as a pilot experiment.

Um again, I'm like doing numbers off the top of my head with no concept of how much is in the budget or whatever, but it would just be an interesting thought experiment to try it there and trying it there because of the permit district that exists around it, it kind of creates an interesting condition structure that you were never gonna get downtown for an initial thing.

So I'm calling me very intrigued in that in that one in case.

I would love I would love that to be moved up on the work plan.

Love to see a lot of stuff about it.

Yeah.

I'm all in.

Um by way of uh facilitating uh um a final draft to bring to you guys to discuss next month.

Um are there any items on here you would uh prefer removing.

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Refer what?

Removing.

So is there anything that you don't feel um either we would have the time for uh sort of speaks towards the commission's policy goals.

And then the second question is is there anything that you think are glaring omissions?

I mean, I can say like I I feel like the parking updated parking kiosks kind of falls into the like this weird operational gray zone.

I think if there was to be something for that, it would be more interesting to like do samples open to the public that like people could come in and vote on or something rather than us trying to abstractly sit up here and picture what it would be like.

Um I mean, I'm gonna weigh in on the part of stuff that I know, right?

Um, as I think that those that was the only one that really caught my eye is like that's a weird line of operations versus like actually weighing in on something.

I I think um so the the to get more detailed into that, uh I believe our parking division does seek to improve the kiosk that we have in the garage uh and sees this board as an opportunity to sort of stress test some different designs uh from the user experience period uh uh perspective.

Um and so uh I I don't think your uh idea for more public engagement is certainly a bad one either.

Um, but we felt that was potentially a cool like representation of the community visit part of the job that you guys have to kind of help us think through what's uh actually a better user experience there.

Yeah, I mean that was that was the only one that kind of popped out to me as well.

But I think a lot of the other ones, like they're either gonna be cons like ones that could be consistently sprinkled in, would be like the TMP.

Like I'm guessing we would get five to ten minute items on that a lot, and then some of these parking ones maybe can get like more merged together.

But there's nothing that should be like.

I feel like I would, and I don't know if this falls under the routine work of the parking commission, but I would argue that it's time to do a reevaluation of the two permit districts and just like maybe a deeper conversation of are they working, are they in need of reform?

A high school district in particular, right, with a new high school, and they've actually built a lot of new parking on campus.

Um as somebody who drives down that streets in that district three to four times a week, um, I'll tell you that a lot of that a lot of it's empty.

Um so just a revisiting of that of both both permit districts and their use and effectiveness, and there's a worthy of a deeper conversation from this board and the commission.

Good idea.

Talk to Nick about if you guys let me talk.

I'm just gonna put more stuff on.

So I guess the shared use path and e-bike policy one, like is kind of its own its own beast, but could also go in with the safety plan.

Just like I mean it's the safety plan is its own thing as well.

It just might be the umbrella that already covers that topic, I guess is Yeah, that's fair.

Um I will be bringing this as a separate item though, outside of the safety plan.

So the intent of this would be um to result in uh a potential ordinance that we're revise uh Bozeman municipal code uh related to definitions, use responsibilities around um uh e-bike or e-mobility um use of shared use paths.

Uh so we see that uh at the staff end as being an area where uh our current code, whenever it was developed, simply never considered.

Um so outside of the sort of the safety plan development, um, it's going to be a policy item that we're gonna be working on.

And again, we think, especially if it results in a proposed text amendment to the commission, uh we will want this sport's uh review feedback and support.

Curious if that is complaint driven.

Largely.

Complete uh complaint from complete driven from our residents, as well as generally having a finger on the pulse nationally of um policy-related issues that have come up in other communities and very well may, if not already, uh are going on in Bozeman as well.

And there is no state statute like regarding this particular again.

That is part of the whole policy development process of kind of putting parameters around what the state may already dictate versus what would need to be done in the Muni Code.

Um I believe the state has gone as far as making definitions, um, but I don't believe that there is any overarching state policy on thou shalt ride e-bikes here and not there, or only so much speed, or um sort of all of those um gray areas that aren't really defined in our code right now and have engendered a little bit of consternation in our growing community and a lot of other places.

Yeah.

Especially having right away and crosswalks, I see it being a potential.

Candace Mastel or Transportation Demand uh coordinator, management coordinator, she'll be taking the lead, policy lead uh on this project.

So is this where I get to use my chair discretion and end the meeting?

If you say if there is nothing else, I also want to uh just extend uh special thanks to our our former chair and vice chair uh Pale and Reichart.

Um we have big shoes to fill.

Um this is uh I mean they laid a lot of groundwork and education for all of us, and so thank you to them.

And uh do I need to make a motion, get seconds for uh the end of the meeting?

All right, so be it.

Let this uh end our January 28th, 2026 meeting.

Thank you, everyone.