Okay, looks like we have just about a full room.

So we will get underway.

Good morning, everybody.

Welcome to our February meeting of the Gallatin Valley MPO Technical Advisory Committee.

We've got uh fun little meeting set up for you today.

So we'll get into uh the agenda pretty quickly here.

I'll call the meeting to order and ask Marcy uh to please run roll.

Chris Saunders.

Nicholas Ross.

Here.

Catherine King.

Here.

Camera Yulia.

Here.

John O'Collin.

Here.

Me by Ewan.

Here.

Mitch Beau.

Beth, are you sitting in for proxy today?

I am, thank you.

And I'm here.

Brandon Jones.

Hi, uh, I'm Anita Matthews.

I'm sitting in for proxy for Brandon today.

Sunshine Ross.

Here.

Bad Wilson.

Here.

Don Howe.

Okay, we have 10 out of 11.

And Marcy, I am here.

I just couldn't get my audio working fast enough to say.

I saw that you were here.

Thank you, Chris.

Okay, thank you, Marcy.

We've got a quorum, so we can get rolling.

First item up for business today, approval of minutes.

Jeff produced our January meeting minutes attached to the agenda.

I will ask for a motion to approve.

We'll move to approve is submitted.

Thanks, Chris.

Second, please.

I'll second.

I'll second.

Okay.

Go ahead.

All right, I got Beth on a second.

Thank you, Beth.

Appreciate it.

That's good.

Okay, motion on the table.

Any uh discussion, corrections, additions requested by the committee.

Okay, seeing no hands or hearing no uh voices.

Uh Marcy, please call a vote.

Bruce Saunders.

Hi.

Nicholas Ross.

Hi.

Catherine King.

Amory Yulia.

Hi.

Donald Collingham.

Hi.

Beth Clarkson.

Aye.

Brandon Jones.

Oh, I'm sorry, Anita.

That's all right.

I'm Jane Ross.

Hi.

Claud Wilson.

Hi.

Yeah.

Okay.

That both passes 10-10.

All right.

Thank you all very much.

Next on our agenda is an opportunity for general public comment.

So this is an opportunity for anybody in attendance to offer uh general public comment on any uh business that uh is under purview of the MPO and our TEC.

Um reminder, we'll also have an opportunity uh for public comment after each individual action item.

So this is an open opportunity for public comment.

Uh is there any interest in sharing public comment this morning?

Okay, Marcy, I'll ask one more time.

Still showing no request for public comment.

All right.

Moving on to our uh first item, first and only item of business today.

So you'll remember those intendants in January that we brought forth our long-range transportation plans vision, goals, and objectives uh document.

We had uh lively conversation, and then Jeff also brought this same item up to our TPCC.

And so this will be the month where uh Jeff will get to present um our revisions, and we'll end with uh me asking uh our group here to um share comments, make revisions if they feel uh uh necessary, but ultimately we'd like to achieve a recommendation of approval to our TPCC coming out of this item.

So um Jeff and I went over uh presentation this morning.

Jeff will uh take the wheel from here on out.

Uh fair warning, as you probably experienced last month.

This is a somewhat dense document and very wordy.

And so Jeff is going to do his best to uh get through our changes from the original.

Uh however, however, I'll remind uh all of our committee member members that the proposal on the table was included in your packet.

And so that is ultimately um the uh revised vision goals and objectives that we seek a recommendation for approval this month.

So I'll turn it over to Jeff.

Great, excellent.

I will get my um presentation brought up here, and hopefully it is the right one.

I sometimes have issues with this.

Uh are you seeing the correct presentation?

Okay, wonderful.

So this is the second time that you all are seeing the vision goals and objectives for the long-range transportation plan today.

Uh, we are asking the committee to consider the motion to recommend adoption to TPCC.

So uh as a reminder, this is our planning area, includes Bozeman Belgrade and out of four corners.

We have four required documents, the long-range transportation plan.

It's what we are talking about today.

Within the long range transportation plan, we have to meet uh federal policy and local state uh goals and measures.

And so we need to align with both of those, looking at our overall schedule here.

We started the plan last May.

We're finished up our existing conditions now and are projected.

These um goals and objectives will inform the evaluation in the next phase, which is the alternatives analysis.

After the alternatives analysis, we'll move into wrapping up the report, which needs to be done by December.

If you look at the bottom, you can see a little snapshot of upcoming engagement we are looking at here.

We held a community advisory panel in the fall, but we were also looking at holding one in the spring around March, and then moving into a public meeting in April and followed up with another community advisory panel meeting, and then um public review at the end and adoption.

And so getting to these goals and objectives briefly here.

We got a lot of different community input, uh, which you all were many of you were involved in, and that led to the different um themes, including system preservation, safety, walking and bicycling, and then transit expansion.

So uh these goals and objectives uh should align with the regional priorities, uh, including short and long-term goals, the federal requirements, and then uh other stuff you see on the screen there.

So, as Chair Ross mentioned, uh it was at T TAC last month and went to TPCC, and it is now back for uh yeah and consideration of that motion.

TPCC, when we went to them, did have uh some high level uh responses to this, some things to look out for um the system preservation and resiliency.

They separated those into two different goals.

Uh, we had conversations around safety, and they really wanted to lean into the vision zero framework of really aspiration of eliminating all deaths.

They made some minor wording changes, which we'll I'll talk about.

Uh, some of these have been reorganized, so objectives are under different areas.

They've most all been shortened, and um, then there are a few new objectives, which I will discuss briefly.

The vision statement has not changed, and so I'll move on from that.

When we look at our objectives, last time we had five different objectives.

This time we have six objectives.

Uh, what happened here is that well-maintained infrastructure and resiliency were separated into two separate goals and then have their objectives below them.

Under goal one previously, we had six.

This time we have seven, and so some highlights here.

Um, if you look at objective one, we had discussions around the safety and TBCC really wanted to lean into that vision, uh aspirational vision zero framework of eliminating all uh uh fatalities and injuries.

And so that was changed under number two.

We previously had measured and perceived safety.

Uh they wanted to focus more on safety outcomes and reduce barriers.

And then on number seven, there was discussion around uh growth and particularly on the MDT routes, the more regional routes going through neighborhoods and the speeds associated with those.

And there were some safety concerns.

Um on the speed limits and vision zero frameworks.

Um suggestions on some other wording if if if interested in what that could be.

On goal two, uh, we had eight last time.

Now we have four.

Half of those were moved into other goals, mostly into resiliency.

On goal three here, overall, we tightened up the language.

Um we previously had five, now we have six.

So we tightened up the language, and then that continuity of sidewalks previously was under maintenance, and um that was moved over to uh mobility choices.

So we now have the preservation of those sort of uh existing sidewalks as maintenance and uh the filling in the gaps as expanding mobility choice.

Moving on to goal four, we previously had six, now we have five.

One of those moved to resiliency.

The rest of them, the language has been tightened up on level five here.

Uh we previously had five different ones, and now we have six.

So overall, uh, one thing that they wanted to add was encouraging the land use decisions to be consistent with transportation investments.

Last time we talked about transportation being consistent with land use.

Now they said land use also be consistent with transportation, probably most um applicable to say transit oriented development or where those higher densities may be.

And on point number three here, align system design for uh supporting walkable human-centered, well-connected places.

Uh, there is a question here from staff over on whether we are talking about emergent outcomes of transportation and land use working together to create walkable places, or whether we're talking about facilities.

Uh, would you know we have a walkable outcome, or would we be supplying multimodal facilities?

So that's a discussion uh area.

And then on those speeds that were discussed, some growth and land use.

This is an area where context sensitive solutions was added in as goal number six, and then finally on number or objective six on goal number six here.

Now most of these had moved from the well-maintained infrastructure resiliency over here.

However, the uh emergency response moved to this area as well, and that has been uh clarified, hopefully.

And so again, we are uh asking that this committee consider the motion on screen, and now I will open it up for any comments that you may have.

And so with that, I'll turn it back to you, Chair Ross.

Thank you very much, Jeff.

And uh as Jeff said, probably an opportunity here for uh start with questions for Jeff.

Um and then uh if those questions seem like they're leading to some uh potential revisions, uh, I might ask for that to come after a motion so that we can uh offer some amendments uh for that forum.

And I would like to uh also make sure we get an opportunity for public comment uh in as well.

So let's do some questions for staff and Jeff in this case.

Um then we'll open up for public comment and then I'll ask for a motion and any uh potential revisions to come through through there.

Chris, go ahead.

Yeah, um Jeff kind of a two-parter on um the materials you just showed is walkable was shown in italics versus other words.

And uh you indicated there was some conversation.

So did you want to have a motion before we discussed whatever that conversation was, or do you want to do the motion afterwards?

Just sequence on things.

Yeah, I will leave that up to the chair, how he wants to run the meeting.

Uh staff is requesting clarification on whether we're talking about an emergent outcome or facility type stuff.

Okay.

So Jeff, let me frame it this way, buddy.

Um Chris, if you can ask, I would offer you the opportunity to ask Jeff for more explanation there.

Um, but ultimately what Jeff's asking for the committee is approval or or not of this approval or revisions.

Uh and so um if that by way of the question you want to ask Jeff results um in uh a change you want to recommend, I'll ask then once the item is closed uh and public comment has been taken um to uh motion and then motion for an amendment.

Okay.

Um I guess my thought based on the the original question is I would understand the wording in goal five, objective three to respond respond to outcomes rather than individual facilities.

Um, just because you know you don't build uh a well connected place is not really something that you do an individual project design for, it's what the project design results in is kind of my thinking on it.

Um if that helps in any way, uh understanding anything.

That was the way that staff had interpreted it because we are talking about land use and transportation working together.

The discussion did come up about replacing the word walkable with multimodal in TPCC, and that was interpreted as a different um different route, more that facility type as opposed to the outcome.

So thank you for that clarification.

Okay.

And then one other question on the first one.

You said that the T uh the policy level folks, forget the acronym.

We're wanting to um embrace the vision zero.

Well, who who was our the advocate for that rather than the language that was recommended by this group?

Yeah, thank you for the question, Chris.

I'm sorry I interrupted you.

What were you saying?

Oh, I'm just was curious and was wondering if who that was that was pushing for that.

Yeah, great.

Thank you.

I don't think it was one particular committee member, it was the committee as a whole who had this discussion, and there was certainly recognition around the practicality of it and the measurability of it.

We do have performance measures that will track it in a very algorithmic way, let's say.

Um, this was purely aspirational, and they wanted to move towards that aspiration as it okay.

All right, thanks, Chris.

Um open up for any other questions from the committee.

Okay, I'm seeing no hands.

So uh unless we've got one more coming in, I will uh close this item and bring it up for uh public comment first, and then from there I will uh ask for a motion and discussion to follow.

So uh here will be an opportunity for any public comment uh on our vision goals and objectives.

I'm showing no requests for public comment.

Okay, I will make one more request.

Any interest in public comment?

Still showing no requests.

All right, thank you, Marcy.

Okay, with that.

Um I'll ask for a motion.

Uh Jeff, if you might help us out with bringing up the suggestion.

Uh once the motion is on the table, um, and we have a second, then I will welcome uh any uh further discussion once board, and uh if that discussion results in uh um uh sort of a coalescing around a proposed change, then I think it would be appropriate to uh motion for that amendment here.

So first motion on the table.

Who wants I'll make the motion um and move to recommend adoption of the long-range transportation plan vision goals and objectives to the transportation policy coordinating committee.

All right, thanks.

Thank you, Sunshine.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All right, Chris, was that you?

Yes.

All right, thank you, Chris, for the second.

Okay, motion on the table.

So um certainly don't want to uh uh tamp down any conversation.

This was a big effort you guys took on last month, and so um certainly welcome any further discussion amongst our committee members, and uh again, if the leaning is towards uh potential revision, um I'll ask uh for a little bit of discussion on it first and then uh maybe uh a recommend uh uh an amended motion um that we would vote on uh before the final.

So any interest in discussion.

So I I have a thought.

Um looking at the content of all of the items that were just shown from the draft.

I think goal one, objective one is the only one I really noted as an absolute.

And so I think the the tenor of the language is out of synchronization synchronization with the rest of them.

Um the goal itself is support something.

Um if we're gonna have goal one, objective one, it should be ensure or guarantee or some sort of other language.

So I think it would read better.

I think it would be more realistic in um making a policy statement if there was uh uh slight change to number one objective to say work to or strive to or some sort of, yeah, that's what we're working for.

That's our target, but we're not making such an absolute statement.

Nobody wants fatalities, there's no questions about that.

It's just the only way to eliminate all traffic related fatalities and serious injuries is to never leave home, which is kind of counter to everything else in all the rest of the document.

Yeah.

So that's I just think we're better off with a more practical statement.

Appreciate that, Chris.

Uh so again for framing, we are the technical uh review committee essentially that makes recommendations up to our policy committee.

And so I would um certainly welcome any additional conversation on Chris's point there.

Uh again, with the framing that we are making this recommendation from a technical uh capacity up to the policymakers uh who get to approve this thing uh in finality.

So any um any additional thoughts conversation on Chris's point there.

Nick, um do you mind?

I uh tram plan for Montana has that same goal written as improve safety for all transportation users to achieve vision zero, which is zero fatalities and zero serious injuries.

So just wanted to put that out there as some language that we use at MDT, if that's helpful.

Yeah.

That is better thanks.

Okay, do we think we might be coalescing around um some agreement with Chris there where we can work shop workshop some language?

Um or feel like we might uh prefer letting it run and allowing our TPCC friends to make that final call.

I think we get to make the final call no matter what, but okay.

I'm not seeing a ton of hands jumping up.

So um I hear you, Chris.

I uh I I don't even necessarily disagree.

Matter of language.

Um, but at this point, uh, I think uh I'm seeing support for letting the language run as is okay.

Thank you very much though for bringing it up.

Any other uh thoughts from the committee.

Okay.

With that, uh, I would suggest we might be ready for a vote.

Any additional thoughts, additional comments before uh Marcy calls the vote.

Excellent.

Okay, Marcy, please.

Chris Saunders.

Hi.

Liz Ross.

Hi.

Donald Callaghan.

Hi.

Levi Ewing.

Aye, Beth Clarkson.

Aye.

Nina Matthews.

Hi.

Cloud Wilson.

Hi.

All right.

Thank you all very much.

We will get this over to our TPCC at the end of this month, and uh hopefully get this one checked off and have our LRTP moving on.

Okay.

Uh with that, we are back to uh general discussion before adjournment.

So that was our one uh major action item.

Uh opportunity here for any general discussion, and then we can send y'all home till next month.

I I do have one one quick item to um to share with everybody.

We we are looking at having an in-person meeting in Belgrade for March and uh doing a uh update on construction and planning.

So that'll be in-person in Belgrade for our next one.

Right on, Jeff stole my thunder.

Uh, but no, um, I'm looking forward to this one.

Uh we had uh a lot of good feedback from you guys last year when we did uh one or two in-person meetings, and especially one uh that was sort of out ahead of construction season where um let everybody know what each agency's got planned for the year.

So um Jeff will be reaching out um to streamline and cities, county, and state uh in hopes of getting somebody in attendance to talk about our each of our planned uh construction projects for this summer.

And so we'll have that in person in Belgrade.

Uh I think Camry at the library, right?

And then we'll do that in place of well, not in place of, but for our March T Tac meeting.

Yep, and we did confirm that's that's the spot.

So normal time, yeah, just a new location.

Excellent.

Okay, uh, with that, I don't see any additional business coming before the board.

And uh I will call adjournment.

Thank you all very much.