All right, folks.

Looks like we've got a good crew in the room.

With that, we'll get underway.

Welcome to June's meeting of the Galton Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee.

If you anyone interested uh from the public in commenting, can do so in writing uh at comments at Bozeman.net uh within uh about a day before the meeting by noon.

And reminder that opportunities for public comment will also be available with each item on the agenda.

Uh with that, we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order, and I'll ask Marcy to take roll.

Chris Saunders.

Nicholas Ross.

Lisa Murphy, acting public works director.

Here.

John McCollum, yeah.

I think he mailed and said he wouldn't be with us today.

Leba Ewing.

I'm here.

Beth Larkson Proxy for Jeff Streeter.

Brandon Jones.

Here.

Sunshine Ross.

Todd Wilson.

John Howe.

We have eight out of eleven.

Okay, thank you, Marcy.

We have a quorum.

One item of housekeeping before we uh get started with approval minutes.

Uh I'm going to request that uh we have a minor change the agenda to shift items E3 and E4 up to uh the first two items in our new business agenda.

We've got a pretty full meeting today, and those are the two most proximate time sensitive matters on the agenda.

So I think it would be best for all to uh have us running those ones first and then give us plenty of time to discuss the the uh current E1 and E2 items.

Uh Marcy, I think I um technically uh should get confirmation from the group.

And so if I can uh have somebody motion to um change the agenda to move E3 and E4 up, that probably would be best for posterity.

I'll move to um adjust the agenda to move E3 and E4 to the first two items on the agenda.

Thank you, Sunshine.

Sorry, that was a second.

I'm joking on a grown bar over here.

Appreciate it, John.

Okay.

Um, any any concerns from the group with making that adjustment?

Okay, any opposed?

All right, we'll go ahead and count that as motion passes.

Uh okay, thank you, everybody.

Um, next up, approval of minutes.

Uh, been a couple months since we've gotten together.

Uh so uh Jeff's put together the uh Jeff and Marcy have put together the minutes from last March or this past March.

Um, I will welcome the motion to approve.

Move to approve.

Thank you, John.

I'll second that.

Appreciate it.

Beth.

Uh anyone with comments on the minutes.

Okay, hearing no changes or requests.

Um go ahead and close that.

Marcy, please call the vote.

Ms.

Saunders.

Yes.

Nicholas Ross.

Hi.

Jason Murphy.

All right.

Anyway, Beth Largson.

Hi.

Brandon Jones.

Hi.

Then Jane Ross.

Hi.

Hi.

Thank you, everybody.

And Marcy just adds up.

It looks like Catherine did join us.

And so we'll make that noted for the record.

Okay, so it does not appear we have any members of the public in attendance, but this would be uh the opportunity for general public comment.

Um, there will be opportunity with each item after each item new bit of new business for public comment on those specific items.

Do we have anyone interested in general public comment?

Showing no request for public comment.

Okay, one more request.

Still showing no requests.

Okay, thank you, Marcy.

All right.

So moving on to new business.

Um, we are gonna start off with uh what is currently shown on the agenda as item E3.

Uh this will be an amendment to our current FY26 UPWP to adjust uh some funding forward to complete our LRTP.

So I'll turn it over to Jeff.

He can give you a quick presentation and then I'll take it back over for any conversation and comments.

Okay, great.

I'm gonna just share my screen here.

And so um hopefully you guys are seeing the right one, or do I need to switch sides?

Are you seeing presenter view or it's okay?

Great, perfect.

Um, so uh as chair mentioned, we are here for an amendment request.

Essentially, what we are requesting is moving money from our reserves on to the long-range transportation plan, which is highlighted here in red on the table.

Um we have an additional $53,159 in planning work that was done on the long-range transportation plan.

This is for GIS work that was done.

Uh, when we had staff leave the MPO, the consultants filled in some of that work there at a time sensitive moment.

And so there were additional charges for that.

And then in the modeling, um, met with a lot of the land use folks, did extra work reviewing the transportation analysis zone, population projections, uh, some subconsultants did some additional work there as well.

And then finally, this is paying for some enhanced spring engagement that staffed push for to have open house workshops in each of the three communities.

And so we are looking to fund this additional um uh cost with uh staff with savings.

When we had staff depart, we saved some money um there.

Uh staff will not be attending a second national conference this year.

So one member did, but we're proposing a second member not.

And then um some minor work program reductions in addition to uh this $20,800 reserve allocation, will be sufficient to cover it.

And so within the UPWP or some screenshots from it, you can see that uh we've added the consultant services, an additional two 20,800 to it.

And so this will take our reserve from $18,059.19 cents down to $59.19 cents.

And asking this committee to consider the motion of recommending TPCC approval.

And so with that, I will turn it back to you, Chair.

Okay, Jeff, thanks for the quick presentation.

Um did ask Jeff to keep things concise here to make sure we can get through our agenda.

But by all means, this is uh one.

So just by way of framing, um, this will ultimately be approved uh by our TPCC as a funding level decision, but we want to uh always do our best to bring forth um items to TTAC before we go to TPCC.

So um this is not TTAC approving this amendment, but recommending to our TPCC approval for the necessary out of scope items to make sure that we've got the best and most robust uh LRTP that we could come out with.

So um open up the conversation.

Uh well, let me start.

Um do we have any questions for Jeff on this amendment?

Okay, see no hands raised for questions.

Uh we will um, I guess go ahead before we get to uh deliberation, uh, request public comment.

Anyone interested in commenting on this item?

Doing no request for public comment, okay.

Thanks, Marcy.

Presentation.

Uh questions and public comment out of the way.

Um I will entertain a motion to approve.

So moved.

Thank you, John.

That's motion to recommend approval of amendment number one to the FY26 UPWP.

Can we please have a second?

Oh, second.

Thank you.

Sunshine.

Motion and seconded.

Uh, any conversation on this item before we go to vote?

All right, see no hands raised again.

So with that, we'll close it out and Marcy.

Please call the vote.

Chris Saunders.

Yes.

Yes, Catherine King.

Yes.

Jason Murphy.

Yes.

Lee by UN.

I.

Beth Clarkson.

Yes.

Brandon Jones.

Hi.

Sunshine Ross.

Hi.

Hi.

Okay, thank you all very much.

Uh keeping with the theme of UPWPs.

Uh Jeff is uh as our MPO manager has put together our draft FY27 unified planning work program.

And um wanted to bring this to TTAC for an initial review and discussion.

And so I'll turn it back over to Jeff.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Chair.

Appreciate it.

And so this is going to be a part of our hey Jeff, real quick.

I think we're not in presentation.

There we go.

All right.

Thank you, buddy.

Yep.

Was trying to move the mouse around and thank you, appreciate that.

Uh hopefully you guys can see it correctly.

Uh so we're going to talk about our work plan for next year.

Again, the MPO operates on a federal fiscal year from October 1 to the last day in September of every single year.

Uh, the purpose of coming here today is to give you all the opportunity to review the draft uh FFY 27 UPWP, uh, receive any feedback they may want to have before we take it to TPCC, and then we will return with the draft next month.

You can see the timeline here.

We are doing it in June and July for our reviews this year.

And then that gives the state and federal governments a couple of months to review it, and we will finally have an effective one as of October 1st.

The UPWP is reviewed annually.

But we've been doing annual, it includes planning funds for the MPO, which are the PL funds that pays for our true two-person staff, our required planning documents.

We are paying for rent, indirect costs, and building costs with that.

We are finding that's taking quite a bit of money and uh leaving limited discretionary capacity at the MPO side for transit on the 5303 fund.

This is helping with uh two positions over there, so helping fund two positions.

Uh, as a reminder, we have these core requirements.

We have to have the long range transportation plan completed every five years.

We have to have that fiscal constraint project list go into our transportation improvement program, obligated list of MDT projects on our website, and then finally we have to do the UPWP.

Our budget this year includes our annual federal allocation along with our reserves.

There is a state allocation of $50,000.

Uh, it's our first year paying that.

Um, so we take that out and it leaves us with $601,835.

When we break out the different categories, these are the percentages of where we're looking to spend staff time, and so we'll go through each one of those for you now on administration.

This covers um the program management, running these types of meetings, attending other meetings, staff trainings, conferences, um, any sort of collaboration, answering emails, finance, all that stuff.

Hopefully, we'll be supporting grant applications and doing some of that work.

Um, and then it also includes our benefit hours for tracking.

We keep it in here, and now I'll show you a list of the uh non-personnel expenses that we have.

This shows all of our costs that we are including, uh software, um, office management conferences.

One thing that we are adjusting this year, previously we had each member of the MPO attend an out of state conference, the state current on training.

Um we are recommending reducing that to one MPO person per year, attend an out of state conference and keep those in-state conferences.

The big item that has really come up as we've been working through this this year and um funding the next LRTP is rent, the office operations and cleaning.

Those are totaling about $50,000 a year in total costs, and so that's something that has been noted, um, and want to call it out for you all to be able to see.

Uh, UPWP, so this is time for developing next year's UPWP, submitting our reports, uh, and then getting any input on non personnel.

All we have are the indirect costs that go that cover the fees from the host, and so uh next is public involvement on public involvement, uh continue to develop our website and build that out, make that more useful for the public, provide transportation related information.

One thing that we do want to do next year that became an identified need in the long-range transportation plan is build our e-notification, and so attending uh public events and different places where we can go, maybe tabling and then having a sign up for e-notification.

That way, next time we do our long-range transportation plan, we have an audience to communicate to, potentially also including social media presence in this.

Partner building, something that has come up with our other MPOs as ways to be successful is to build partnerships.

And so over this next year, we're looking at building some long-term partnerships with people who are interested in community building from different angles, potentially health or business or just multiple aspects, build partnerships by first learning what others are working on.

And then I have valley trail loop in here as well for the community engagement, as well as the long-range transportation plan.

So our planning.

Go to engagement materials.

This would be to get an awning, a table, a tablecloth, chairs, and places to put our materials, and then additionally indirect costs for the host, which are right now at 10%.

Long range transportation plan needs to be adopted by December.

We're planning on getting those reviews, the final approval we are aiming for November for December as a backup because things always happen.

Consultant services, we are budgeting $20,000 for this.

Does not mean we will use it all, but we will have that there to finish up the plan.

And then a little over $1,300 in indirect costs for the host.

On transportation data, a couple of things.

We have our core requirements as far as doing the traffic counts.

We're also looking to expand our GIS capabilities.

How do we take our well, not how do we, but taking our long range transportation plan layers and use converting those into something usable for both the MPO and we've had external partners requesting this data.

And then additionally, staff training as funding allows.

Really experimenting with methodology, trying new things.

Since we are blazing new ground with this, we also want to put information on the website for other professionals to learn from what we have been doing, be a reference to the profession.

And then the final thing that staff is recommended is returning the continuous count stations, the two that were funded at $50,000 for a couple of reasons.

Primarily that we have some uh funding needs, and so making sure that we're able to meet those obligations and not include recurring costs with all of the electricity and everything that goes there.

Additionally, some stuff has changed where we were looking at a few different corridors, and the signal improvements on at least one of those corridors are going to include continuous count stations.

So it may be redundant at this point.

So staff is recommending returning those for a refund with a 10% restocking fee.

Our obligations for software for counting, we have two $900 subscriptions that we have been required to pay, and then for that pedestrian count ability, we have to pay a $600 licensing fee to be able to use that, and then we have the indirect costs.

This next year a fund study that isn't required.

And so hopefully, be a more um engaging on the planning level is the valley trail loop.

And so this was in this year's UPWV.

We've been making sure the long-range transportation plan is uh ready for adoption before starting on this.

So continue that into next year.

Our partners are going to fund the consultant work at 125,000.

So thank you again to our partners for that.

MPO will be playing the project manager role.

And uh PL funding will pay for that aspect of it.

And so there are some indirect costs associated with that that go to the city of Bozeman that are identified here.

At the end of the long range transportation plan, we will be turning the fiscally constrained project lists into a transportation improvement program.

And so we have some time uh scheduled for that.

Uh we'll be revised annually, but needs to be updated or revisited annually, needs to be updated every five years.

Finally, here's some indirect costs associated with it.

Uh, and then our reserve is for where we keep any money that we didn't use this year.

We are using this for our next long-range transportation plan, and we will have 202,000 in reserve approximately.

And so with that, uh, open it up for any comments and discussion and turn it back to you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Jeff.

That was concise and also very uh detailed.

Um, so I think high level um the MPO is in a healthy fund position for this upcoming next year.

We still have plenty of reserves in the hopper.

Um, one of the issues that I did want to uh make sure we highlight from Jeff there um is the continuous count station item.

Um Jeff is doing an excellent job of uh continually trying to be as uh thrifty with our budget and our PL funding as possible to make sure we extend this out as long as we can.

And um in the exercise of uh if you remember about a year ago, maybe a year plus at this point, Jeff, uh we had a big conversation about uh the MPO self-funding to additional count stations, continuous count stations across the valley.

Um I I say in addition because we were grateful to have our MDT friends already installed two, one on uh JackRabbit and one on Baxter.

Um Jeff's had a uh a heck of a time actually figuring out where um um uh technically feasible locations for those stations uh are gonna end up because of the power drop requirements and technical details about um string line counts and intersection movements conflicting with them, and in the course of that um it's become clear that we might need a little bit more funding than we were anticipating to make them work.

Uh so all that in addition to a lot of the technological improvements that we're seeing in signal detection and the ability to effectively use those locations as continuous count stations to get the same type of data we would be from the traditional CCS sort of got us into uh the recommendation that we we might not that might not be the most beneficial use of our limited PL funding.

So the one little tidbit buried in there uh in the whole uh presentation, Dave, that I want to make sure everybody's aware of is uh that recommendation to um uh not move forward with two MPO funded count stations and bring the vast majority of that capital and operating cost back into uh the MPO for future plan purposes.

So with that, I will uh open up to my colleagues for any questions for Jeff.

Okay, and as a reminder, this is just the first look, and so um Jeff has provided the uh the draft here, and we'll be bringing this back next month for a formal recommendation for approval.

So um chew on it a little bit, and if you've got any questions along the way, feel free to email those directly to Jeff as well.

So again, no action needed.

And then also T-Tech questions or comments before we move on.

All right.

Thank you, Marcy.

See no hands raised amongst our TTEC colleagues either.

So thank you very much, Jeff, for that presentation.

Now we can move on to some fun stuff.

So next item up will be uh Jeff doing an introduction and then our uh planning consultant partners at Nelson Nygaard giving us the first look at our LRTP project list.

Yeah, great.

Thank you, Chair Ross.

Um, so we have been doing a lot of work on the long-range transportation plan.

We have gathered project ideas from this committee, from members of the public, from um multiple others, and so um we have taken all of the projects that were identified in previous plans, and then we applied um a scoring criteria based on the adopted goals and objectives to identify a list and unconstrained list of projects.

So this is going to be a first look at reviewing the unconstrained list before funding is applied.

Funding is going to be a key driver of this that will determine what is eligible and where it's eligible and such.

But we wanted to give you this opportunity to note any projects that uh maybe should come to the top and see um what you all give you guys the opportunity to review it.

So with that, I will turn it over to our consultants.

And so I guess that would be you, Zach and Chris.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you so much, Jeff.

Uh, can everyone see the the presentation okay?

Got access.

All right.

Um, well, thank you so much for having us today.

Um, so just a brief agenda here.

I'm gonna give a quick update on some of our recent uh public engagement events over the spring, uh, and then a review of our evaluation framework for how we collected projects and got to um the first round of scoring that Jeff had mentioned.

And then I'll share out some of those initial results for you all to review, um, and we can have a quick discussion around that.

Uh, and then a look at some of our next steps over the coming months through the summer through the fall.

Um, so spring community workshops.

This was our phase two of engagement, um, which helped us look at community priorities regarding proposed projects, um, as well as helping to increase awareness with the community in terms of how projects for the long-range transportation plan are collected, evaluated, prioritize, and ultimately fit into a plan with fiscal constraints.

Uh so we had three different workshops spread across the region on April 14th, 15th, and 16th.

Uh in the evening times.

Uh, the first was at Belgrade High School.

We also had one in downtown Bozeman at the Wilson Building Library.

Uh, and then finally at Home Two Suites in Four Corners as well.

Um, we had folks come out.

And with these meetings, we had five different interactive stations for people to participate in.

Uh, the first one, the this or that activity focused on differences between um alternative types of transportation investments uh and how those may trade off from each other.

So, for example, what does it look like if we focus on new connections versus adding capacity?

Uh and allowed folks to vote on those options.

The second activity, which we called set the budget.

We provided um 100 of uh transportation dollars, which we printed out for folks to allocate across a wide range of different project types with different levels of costs as well as trade-offs.

So they were given that budget to kind of build out their ideal section of a street or transportation investments.

And then third, pick a project.

So this looked at existing plan projects that have been collected through the call for projects process and allowed folks to provide any comments on those existing planned projects in terms of their preferences or maybe some concerns, as well as taking a look at if there are any gaps between those projects.

And then fourth was our map your idea.

So this was our charrette style workshop station where we had a big map of the region, which invited people to create and draw their own project ideas, both with strings and markers, as well as taking a look at different gaps or maybe intersection treatments that would make sense.

So there's a couple of layers of this, the program input.

So this provided an online platform for people to provide additional feedback related to preferences for programs and policies that will be part of the long-range transportation plan, but not necessarily part of those fiscal constrained capital projects.

So our partners at Big Sky have done a larger summary of these activities, but just some notable patterns that came out from what we heard from folks.

Trail improvements were definitely a common recommendation across all of those workshops, with four corners showing the strongest emphasis in those types of investments.

Folks in Belgrade were also interested in bike lane improvements, but in general, where facilities could be separated from vehicles were most favored.

People also noted a strong interest in projects that provide connection between the different communities or between neighborhoods, as well as providing access to existing systems such as the trail network.

For folks that wanted to provide additional input, as well as those that may not have been able to join our in-person meetings throughout the month of April, we also had an online map of the planning area on the MPO's website with an additional survey, which allowed participants to mark any locations in the region where they may have specific concerts or ideas around transportation related reproofs, in addition to new project ideas.

And through this platform, we collected 102 different public comments, which primarily focus on concerns around safety, expanding multimodal connections, and again enhancing connections between different communities.

So getting to our evaluation framework, as I mentioned, the collection of projects.

So this is the gathering of proposed and potential capital projects that are eligible through the federal funding process.

And then we take that through screening, which I'll go through in a little bit more detail in a second, in terms of how we refine our project extents, where they are on the map, as well as any of those descriptions related to the investments, and then scoring, which we'll focus on for the later part of this presentation.

This is to identify projects that will perform best when scored against quantitative metrics developed to advance our LRTP goals and those six adopted goals.

So in total, we developed 21 different metrics with a total of 29 possible points for projects to achieve.

So after the scoring process and what we walk through today, our next phase of the process will be actually using the regional travel demand model to test a collection of these projects and understand future network performance.

And then that final stage, prioritizing and recommending.

So that's more conversations with this group, with TPCC, as well as the community, as we go through our final prioritization questions, as well as looking at what the revenues are for the horizon of the LRTP, so we can get to that list of fiscal constraints.

So as I mentioned, the call for projects phase.

Projects were largely collected within two different phases.

The first was coming through all existing recent local and regional plans to pull out any projects that have been identified in previous plans, as well as filtering those out for relevancy within the LRTP.

On the left side of the slide, we also submitted a formal agency call for projects for MPO partners to submit their relevant project concepts for considering the LRTP, as well as going through list of previous or existing projects to help us better understand which ones may have already been completed, which ones may now be off the books, or which ones are in progress.

So this included submittals from the city of Bozeman, the city of Belgrade, the county, as well as MDT and Streamline.

And mentioning that filtering process.

So in total, we collected over 1,104 projects, I believe is the total amount.

But with that, there's lots of filtering that and work that is involved in that.

So that includes taking out duplicate projects, maybe combining some at the corridor level that make sense to be delivered together, non-regionally significant ones.

So when we're thinking about ones at the really local level or maybe just simple crosswalk improvements at one intersection is another example of that.

And then also taking out those that have been marked as committed or in progress to date.

So in total, there were 888 projects from existing plans, an additional 29 submitted by MDT, 19 by the City of Bozeman, and 105 from Belgrade, who are currently working on a transportation master plan as we speak.

And then getting to our scoring exercise, which I'll go through in a little bit more detail on the next slide about what those metrics look like.

So to perform that task, we wanted to try to be able to whittle that with whittle that list down to ones that we know we'll at least be able to score fully through our criteria.

So that's really looking at the larger projects.

That's looking at ones with really in-depth project descriptions so that we can fill all out all those metrics.

And that total list was 116 different projects.

So those are the ones that we're going to look at today.

All of the ones that are still eligible or relevant, but did not go through the scoring, we still have those, and they will either make it as part of our illustrative list or can come back in in this next prioritization phase.

So what do our scoring criteria look like?

So again, we have six total goals, and we've created criteria that speaks to the different objectives that have been developed and set with this group as well as the community as part of the long-range transportation process.

So with this, we take the projects in the inventory and database that we've created in GIS and set up a script so that we can run spatially where these projects exist within the region as well as their different design components, how they may score when assessed across different layers that we've collected throughout the existing and forecast conditions period of this work.

So addressing goal number one, first and foremost for safety across all modes.

We have three different scoring metrics that we looked at.

The first one, crash reduction, looks at high injury corridors.

So these are any projects that address corridors within 500 feet that have two or more crashes on average per year that are either serious or fatal injury collisions.

And then that second score, we look more closely at bicycle and pedestrian safety.

So similar metrics, but those are corridors or intersections that have two or more bicycle or pedestrian involved collisions per year.

And then the third metric looks at ADA accessibility.

So any project that contributes to the ADA network or closes an existing facility gap related to ADA access.

Goal number two when we're looking at the sustainable maintenance and maintaining the system going forward.

Facility preservation, this is a really important one.

So this assesses multiple points depending on if a project will either improve or replace pavement bridges or facilities with a fair or poor condition rating through our MDT resources.

And then pedestrian conditions.

So this looks at projects that either will repair, restore, or improve pedestrian conditions within pre-1980s neighborhoods.

So this is something that we worked with the MPO in conjunction with to create a new layer for historic and heritage neighborhoods throughout not just Bozeman, but also in Belgrade as well.

Metric three, which looks at expanding or goal number three, which looks at expanding mobility choices throughout the region.

So a number of different metrics here.

The first focuses on essential services.

So projects that improve access within half a mile of schools and hospitals.

There's also an additional points awarded if projects will directly serve those locations.

We have got a second metric then that looks at a similar process, but that is focused on areas with the highest concentration of employment.

Our route choice metric.

So this looks at new intersections.

So essentially any project that's going to increase our density of intersections, which may result in shorter block lengths, more connected patterns, as well as building out a grid of four-way intersections throughout the region.

Transit access.

So this looks at addressing first and last mile issues, any project that may remove or address a gap when it comes to accessing bus stops within half a mile or general transit operations.

And then finally, active transportation network.

So this looks at both filling a gap within the existing pedestrian and bicycle network, as well as an additional point for any project that may contribute to low-stress walking and bicycle connections.

In this case, we're really looking at facilities that are going to create separated facilities such as shared use paths.

And then goal number four, enhancing health, quality of life, and preserving of regional character.

So we have a metric for accessing recreational and active facilities.

Again, this is related to half a mile for public recreation facilities, parks, or trails, as well as an additional point awarded to direct access.

And then wildlife, I think this is the one that we had the most fun with.

We actually looked at sensitivity layers as relates to wildlife corridors as well as female bearer populations to understand which projects are to bet projects not negatively impacting those corridors.

And this is actually something that came up quite a bit in our public engagement last summer and through the spring as well for things that folks were interested in.

And then natural preservation.

So some pretty typical layers here.

This just checks that projects are outside of environmentally sensitive areas, such as public or protected lands, and then emissions.

So really looking at any project that does not induce SOV or VMT trips by adding additional vehicular capacity.

And then our penultimate goal here, goal number five, enhancing transportation and land use.

The first one here looks at connectivity to destinations.

So these are projects that support our key destinations layer, which includes things like museums, grocery stores, and again, that's another new layer that we developed with the MPO.

There's also an additional point awarded for projects that create new connections or enhance connections between distinct neighborhoods.

So that's another layer that we worked on with the MPO, as well as including those urban renewal areas.

Growth plans, there's a couple of different inputs within this that we looked at.

We took a look at the suitability areas within the Gallatin Valley future land use model, as well as taking a look from Chris's work on the TAZs projected to have the highest growth.

So both understanding where growth is most likely to occur, but also where that growth is considered to be suitable within local land use planning.

And then finally, this is actually the one uh criteria where projects could potentially lose a point if they are inconsistent with adopted or formal plans within the region.

And then walk place support.

So this looks at projects that will improve pedestrian access for more complete and comfortable place supportive walking environments.

And then the third or the final one here, complete streets design.

So this is really looking at the project elements within a project to see if there are any pedestrian or multimodal counter safety measures for things that may support lower operating speeds and better align street development with the actual surrounding context.

And then our final goal here, goal six improving transportation system resiliency, freight reliability and access.

This is definitely something that's come up throughout the plan as well, and working to create a new layer for freight flow corridors.

So there are not necessarily designated truck routes throughout the region, but we have developed what we understand to be freight flow corridors, things like I 90, Hoffline through Main Street, as well as including any related trucking areas as well.

And then network redundancy, those this looks at any project that may improve route options by providing new access points or parallel circulation.

Also looking at projects that may help with emergency operations.

There's a number of projects that may add turn pockets and uh additional lane choices like that, which is something that we looked at for this metric.

And then the last one here, transit reliability and access.

So earlier in the plan, uh we work closely with Sunshine on the transit strategic plan.

So this looks at projects that intersect with our recommended uh future pilot on-demand zones for microtransit, as well as corridors that we identified for potential future high frequency operations.

Um, so with that, I can share out the initial um scoring outputs.

And what we do with this is we use natural breaks.

So we show them in tiers of one to four.

Um, so that the scores here themselves are not shown.

Um it is just on the tier levels themselves.

And then as Jeff had mentioned, the key point here is that this is really looking at how projects score for their intended performance based on the elements that they include for meeting our objectives and goals, but also where are they within the community in terms of how they interact with existing systems and different land use types.

So costs and revenues are not a consideration at all in here.

So that's definitely something to take into account.

And then I will talk about the prioritization phase in a little bit where there are some more qualitative considerations that we might want to think about as well.

So from this first tiering list here, you'll see there is a mix of different project types, um, definitely ones that are focused on complete streets corridors, as well as projects that provide a separation of modes.

So you'll see projects with shared use paths typically score pretty high, as well as roadway projects that include a full suite of different multimodal elements throughout their design.

Um and this sheet here, so I believe um the range of scores in this top end are 16 to 24 total points throughout that whole scoring system.

The tier two projects, and just to note some of these are very close to that exact sorry to sorry to interrupt you real quick.

Um I think it'd be helpful for us if we could see scoring because it'd be helpful to know like, hey, was Peach and Madison, were those point a piece or I know you mentioned there were natural breaks, right?

But for me, as a is a as an MPO member, it'd be helpful to understand just what the ranking is.

Um that you know, argument's sake, if we said hey, everything above the church main street, there's a clear delineation between those two and and everything else, then at least that's how I would like to see it.

The other thing I'd I'd like to know is, and I might have missed it in the criteria.

Do we look at that like the number of users impacted, right?

So for example, Key Street.

Yeah, that's great, but that really only serves argument's sake, 10% of the population versus the Menon Hall or the Airway Boulevard, actually serves 60% of the population.

Uh yeah, John, those are great points.

So for the the first item, um, we actually have our our project management meeting later this afternoon.

So, Jeff, when we go through that, I will show you what the full list looks like, and then we can get that out to distribution for this group.

Um, typically when we do this with the public, this is kind of how we'll do it because we don't want them to focus on those scores, but um definitely we can provide all of that information back to you.

Uh in terms of assessing for user potential, that's a great comment.

Um, this relative scoring that that this does not include a component of that.

Um, we could potentially do that as an additional scoring metric through um GIS.

We would have the layers to do that.

Um, that might also be something that would be a consideration as part of the alternatives as well, and the prioritization questions.

So that's a great that's actually a really good comment here.

Is um when we go through the final prioritization stage, we also want to understand what is the distribution of um investments throughout the region.

Is there one area that it looks like maybe we're over serving versus areas that we haven't addressed?

Um, so that's definitely something that we can take a better look at as well, um, and help with that cost-benefit discussion.

Yeah, and I would just add, Zach, sorry, this is Chris.

I'm also with the consultant team that we can for the roadway projects for sure.

We can take estimated volumes from the model as a proxy for you know how many users these projects would impact, or you know, if we've got observed count data, we could we could also layer that in as well.

So it's certainly um, you know, possible for us to factor that in.

Okay, and then I know Chris you're gonna hand up both.

The last thing I'd recommend is for those of us that are not familiar, i.e., the public of all these places, it might be helpful to say, as Chris, you just mentioned, hey, this is primarily in the Bozeman city limits, this is in the county, this is in Belgrade, right?

So that when someone looks and says, well, airway boulevard, oh, goes at the county or is that in Belgrade?

Where exactly are you?

Yeah.

So thank you.

All right, thank you, John.

Um, Chris, I see your hand is up as well.

Yeah, um, two things.

One, just more of a clarification to start with on the Highland main decay, it says um to widen it to a two-lane.

It's already two lanes.

Is that supposed to be three or five, or it seems like two's off?

So you can follow up on that later, but it just kind of seems typo somewhere.

Um, the other piece kind of following up on what John was saying, and as we're thinking about ranking and showing how all this stuff fits together.

Certainly realize we are not at a stage to have this information today, but a cost per benefited user for the project, I think would also be a really helpful piece of data.

We're gonna spend a million dollars, we're gonna benefit X number of people.

It's gonna cost us how much money to do that work per person that benefits from it.

I think that becomes um a handy, not handy.

I think it's a useful metric to think about beyond just the total numbers of people.

Especially as we get to smaller projects, and we're more likely to have individual advocates for their individual things.

Yeah, let us sorry, Nick.

I think let me let me jump in, Chris.

You don't mind.

Those are both very, very pertinent and useful comments.

We do also have to be a little bit cognizant here.

Let me frame it this way.

This is not necessarily going to be the type of thing that has to be used as one through N of committing us to projects and timing of when those get funded.

So for the sake of I'm sorry, but our budget and how much additional scope we would have to add to some of these things, I do want to, I don't want to necessarily overpromise of wrapping in even more additional criteria here, but while also giving us, you know, confidence here that this doesn't necessarily lock us in to an order of operations to when these things get funded.

And to that end, too, the um, and we we can keep going on this train in the the general feedback section as well, but one other component um that we don't necessarily have identified and frankly might be all three of these things might be worth us remembering next time we do our goals and objectives because again that's sort of the the logical process to how the ranking comes in.

Those all of those super super fine-grained detail goals and objectives that we all settled on earlier and what Zach went over today, that's what's going into building the scoring matrix.

Um another one that uh we're gonna have to consider and will likely play into the decision of what projects move forward after the LRTP is done is a temporal component, right?

A timing.

Um all these projects are considered agnostic of the next 20 years.

Um that being said, when we get into breaking a lot of them down, especially some of the expansionary projects into areas that are projected to grow, right?

And therefore would rank, may rank very well as a new connection.

Um, you know, it could be decades, a decade or more until those are actually necessary.

So three really uh very useful points there, but also I don't believe are things that necessarily have to be baked in in order to avoid getting us into a pickle when we actually use this thing.

And Nick, thank you for that.

Um, I certainly on my you know, cost per user.

This that's not this project, right?

Or or this time, but I think it is maybe as we're getting to the TIC the improvement program, we're starting to score things at that more current level, becomes part of our public disclosure information to help people understand how all this stuff fits together.

Right on, Chris.

All right, um, I'm just gonna flip over to the the tier two ones.

Um, and I was mentioned if with the full scoring, you'll be able to kind of see where the split is of these.

There's not a huge difference between some of the ones that are on the lower uh part of that tier one list.

Um, so again, a lot of kind of the similar project types here again, shared use paths performing well as well as road construction projects that um include additional components in there.

Uh, and then continuing the uh tier two.

There's just quite a few projects in this category here.

Um this lower uh tier part um most of these scored between 13 and 12 points.

So you're gonna see some more of those intersection improvements starting to pop up that may um hit less geographic bounds.

Then the tier three scoring projects, so a lot more roadway reconstruction on here that may include less multimodal elements than um the previous projects.

In some ways, we are a bit constrained to the project descriptions that we have for some of these.

So you'll see a lot of these are more on kind of the recommended roadway extension and just kind of the facility type on here.

And then finally the tier four list.

Again, more road construction, and then spatial indicators may start uh coming into play.

So some of these may not be serving as many different uh destinations as some of the items we saw earlier up on those previous lists.

And then the last page here, um, these ones are going to be the ones that are kind of on those single digits scoring for different reasons.

Um, so I know we've had some comments and questions already.

Um, also the next two slides when it comes to the model as well as the final prioritization.

Hopefully, that should also clear up some questions related to the scoring of projects.

Um, but we can send out the aggregate uh total scores for each project after we follow up with the project management team staff group and uh additional questions or feedback, go ahead, John.

Oh yeah, Nick, I just want to go back to the comment you made on 20 years.

When I look at that particularly that tier four group, it seems more or less yeah, those are nice, but it's it's not necessarily where we're gonna get to it.

Do those still fall within the 20 year?

I'm just trying to think of logistically, right?

If there's I don't know how many projects, but 80 projects.

Well, really, we're gonna maybe get to the first 20.

And so I mean, I maybe this is just for due diligence, but I guess my question is how much of this is relevant versus okay, this just goes into appendix, and yeah, we we did the work to show that yes, we analyze the East Valley Center Road Alaska to low point.

The latter very much so, um, where it does become important in the hypothetical of where it would be important.

So um, you know, if we were other than amending our LRTP, um every project that ultimately takes on some form of federal funding, either through programmatic discretionary grant, otherwise, it needs to at least be on the big old list.

Um, but to your point, John, the vast majority of the stuff will end up in the illustrative side and won't be um it's certainly not within the next five years when we get to redo this thing again.

Yeah.

Thanks, Nick.

And then that's a great reminder too of being the first LRTP for the region.

We've had the opportunity to then subsequently update LRTPs that we previously authored, and you'll start to see things maybe bubble up over the second update or things like that of projects that were on the lush rive and actually do come to fruition.

Same thing for lower priority ones or maybe more controversial things like large roadway projects or bypasses have been on illustrative lists for a number of years.

Communities eventually may take those off based on um discussions like TTAC and public comment and letters and things like that as well.

Um, any other questions or comments related to project scoring?

Okay.

Well, um, with that, I'm gonna just go over the next steps in the process, which are also equally important.

Um Chris, I'll hand it over to you if there's anything you want to mention on this, but essentially the developing of our future alternatives, we're looking at three different um packages here to assess through the regional travel demand model.

The first one is really um trying to focus on um that sustainable investments towards what we already have today.

So, what does it look like in terms of adding capacity to both existing and committing corridors?

Less focused on new roadways or new connections, and then a second package scenario is uh added capacity through new roadway connections.

So um, what do future needs look like if we create new connections?

Also building out that regional network and grid.

And then the third one is helping us get towards a more focused balance of investment and our fiscal constraints, a combination of different project types between that E plus C and new connections alternative.

Chris, is there anything you want to add on?

Yeah, and I'll just I'll just add that.

So we've gone through a fairly extensive process to try to understand where future growth and development is most likely to occur.

And so analyzing a couple of alternatives like this will help us understand how well, you know, how well our recommended our ultimate recommended plan does serve sort of those new areas of growth, right?

As well as help us with some deficiencies on the existing system.

So that's really where we're headed with this um with this exercise of modeling future alternatives.

So and then uh finally getting towards fiscal constraints and prioritization.

Um so after the scoring of the projects and developing of the alternatives, um, we will conduct um working sessions.

We'll also be meeting back up with this group to go through um different rounds of questions that can really hit on some of the things that we talked about today that may not arise in the scoring.

The scoring is really just one way for us to look at how projects perform, but it's not the final determiner by any way of what the recommended project lists are.

Um, these are just some example uh questions, but these are ones that I have gone through and worked with uh Jeff that we think make sense to the community.

Um obviously, we will also have the um revenues.

Um that's definitely something that we uh appreciate Beth's help on from MDT side, getting that to us, as well as updated project cost for projects.

So we will have those fiscal bounds is really the way that we really start getting down to the end of the list.

But when we're talking about projects that may um have trade-offs or when we're really looking to get to our remaining amount of money, beyond which projects have committed or partial funding, um, these are where we start to look at feasibility constraints, are there right-of-way needs, um, also do projects have particular strong support from the public, both from our process to the LRTP or maybe previous uh work that has been identified.

Um, TPCC should also be a great resource for that as well, um, as well as concerns from the public.

Um, this might not be so relevant here, but I have actually had that in some long-range transportation plans where there is documented support of a particular project and then it ended up getting removed after a long period of time.

Um, and then also the the kind of the feasibility around the construction itself, so is it preliminary design or engineering, things like that?

Um, and then another thing that we look at when we're talking about this horizon as well as um fiscal sustainability is um is the project responding to today's needs, or is it more future?

And if it's future, is that going to be speculative based on um maybe potential development or um increasing of traffic volumes or warrants?

So if you go through the project list, you actually see a lot of um existing or proposed projects that are on there, but they're only based off of future study or traffic warrants.

So that's kind of a type of project that we usually will see slide down the list, and then uh fiscal sustainable.

Something really important in the region is when we're thinking about the roadway preservation and maintenance, but also snow removal too.

How is that going to contribute to our costs going forward?

Um then uh finally some of the more kind of discussion-based things.

Um, are there uh geographic considerations that we need to think about?

Maybe certain neighborhoods aren't appearing in our our list of projects that we need to address, as well as how that might align with things like um job access, housing afford affordability, as well as other priorities within regional um land use planning as well.

Um, so with that, our next steps, and I'm primarily talking about uh July and August here is integrating that initial score and feedback, um, holding prioritization workshops that goes through the questions that I just talked about, as well as reviewing the assessment of alternative futures, uh, and then finally getting to that fiscally constrained list of projects, building out that illustrative list of projects so that we can continue um those in the future, and then also programs and policies as well.

So any of the um programs or policies or future studies, some may have some money allocated, others might be more of just kind of the recommendation level of um where we want to go in the future for policy making with the MPO and how the long-range transportation plan is implemented itself.

Any um additional questions?

Chris, I see that your hand is up.

Yeah, question on kind of how some of this stuff actually works.

So as you're looking at the the dollars and cents of the individual projects and the timing and the modeling and all the fun stuff.

How do you address situations where you have a potential for improvements that then have a very, very short service life because the next big project comes in and displaces them?

The example I have locally here, we had a subdivision out on Durston Road, failed intersection, developer um worked with us to install a traffic light, and then not too many years after that, the city can't had to come in, widen the road to five lanes, and move a bunch of the equipment and adjust it.

Um is that a level of detail that's finer than what we can work with this level, or is that you know where and how do we set the policy for?

Hey, our transportation model shows you know lots of growth in this area.

There's a likelihood of you know an iteration of projects that need to be put in place without wanting to have them butting heads.

I would I would say from a predictive standpoint, that's that's that's likely further than our analysis goes.

When we're prioritizing projects though, that that's definitely an important thing to consider.

Is the lifespan of those improvements?

I would also say that it would be dependent on how expensive a project costs, right?

So if we have our kind of first constrained amount, like our near-term improvements, and we only have a smaller amount of money where we may not be able to get one large corridor project in there, but a number of different spot treatments or smaller improvement projects, those could go in there, but we would definitely want to consider um if they are going to be replaced within the horizon of the plan, that might not be the best use of funding.

Yeah, and I would say that I think within this, you know, plan there's an opportunity to identify corridors and locations like that, Chris, where you know it may need a closer look before we we start to program improvements.

So as you know, we would we would recommend a study, right?

And then a study would lay out sort of phasing and timing of improvements, right?

Um, before we're, you know, we're recommending sort of project solutions, right?

So that's I think that's a lot in a lot of cases, you know, a wise approach for for these kinds of plans, these regional plans.

I'm sure that helped answer your question though.

It did, and you know, at some point any any work has its limits, right?

Um, so if it's just beyond scope at this point, it's beyond scope.

Yeah, I would say it's we would be focused on sort of the latter example rather than the former example of the of the you know the situation you laid out, I think.

So okay, thanks.

I'll just add that that's the value of this committee as well.

You guys are deep into this work.

Our team here spans the breadth of knowledge, impact, and development.

And so we would hope that you're would bring up any concerns if there is a project like that, even though you know, might not be in caught with the technical analysis with the consultants or the MPO.

We're hoping that you guys could come in and if hey, let's construct this road is showing up well.

There's more growth, so there may be some changes.

That would be the role also of members of this committee.

So if you do see that uh or it is a concern as we move through this, please um please raise those because we have limited funding, and we need to be wise stewards of the resources.

Um, so just want to welcome that additional input as we move into the fiscally constrained list.

Okay.

Thank you guys very much.

Any other comments for the group?

I'll just say good work.

I know it's a heavy lift, and it looks like a lot of uh valuable inputs going in.

So thank you guys.

Thank you.

I guess one other note before you see.

So again, these are all going to eventually feed into our tip.

That tip though is going to include a lot, well, has to include all the projects that are um have been previously committed as well.

So um you'll you won't see very many what I'll call MDT projects on that list.

You know, um, general maintenance projects on uh on system routes, very much will be planned and included in the tip.

No surprises coming there, but a lot of those projects that uh Brandon Jones talked about uh in March, you're not seeing show up there, not because they're not important or they wouldn't score well or whatever, but because they're ones that are already in the works and will get pulled uh eventually into the tip.

So thanks, Els Nygaard.

Uh, for you to get the uh information over to Jeff, and Jeff can share with our T tech before we uh circle up again next month.

All right, thanks for having us.

Okay, so we've got 15 minutes to go.

Um, did anticipate this was gonna be uh a full meeting.

And so, last item on our agenda, um uh Jeff and our MPO have um completed uh a project that we have all been talking about for quite a while in the valley, and that's uh uh a study on the Valley Center Spur location.

Jeff, um, by way of um budgeting our time, um, uh how long do you think your presentation might run?

Uh four minutes, five minutes, I can shorten it.

I love that.

Okay, take the uh raise.

Okay, wonderful.

So uh I'm gonna do a different theme.

I'm experimenting with the layout of the presentations, and so maybe this is a good one to try the new a different different layout on.

Um, and so a lot of background on this Valley Center Spur.

Uh the real purpose of this for presentation mode.

Oh, am I not in the right one?

Sorry about that.

I didn't mean to cut you off, but it wasn't showing up on my end.

There you go.

Appreciate it.

Now it should be.

Um, so the purpose of this background report, which I'll just give high level on in this, um, is to ensure that there's a shared set of background and history, uh, understand some of the key constraints, and then some potential next steps.

Uh, this is an important connection.

It's very short, but it connects Valley Cent East Valley Center with Frontage Road.

Um, pretty uh significant connection there, one of 10 on the interstate, and there's growth to the north, very narrow underpass with the bridge there.

There was a lot of history with some fatal and severe injury crashes that MDT addressed in 2019 by installing signals at um either end of this.

However, there is still a gap in the multimodal network, and so uh those crash concerns were a real big issue previously after those signals have been installed that it's certainly stabilized the safety for the motorized public, but it has moved from an urgent motor vehicle safety problem to an incomplete multimodal connection.

Complicated, really complicated stuff.

Um railroad preemption being one of the number one factors there, making sure that automobiles are not parked on the railroad tracks in such a short stub with all the movements.

Uh that's very complicated.

How are we going to work with those peers?

There's not even room for a shoulder.

Our partners all have different perspectives because they're um looking at different OD pairs and they have different mandates and different policies from their um uh constituent bodies, and then finally on the fourth leg, there's different views on that one.

Um, what we've heard from the public, and we've heard pretty consistently throughout this uh is just that we're walking, bicycling, and emergency response.

The more direct route is the most useful route.

So a couple of potential uh areas where there may be some consensus about how to move forward.

First would be a near time, near-term improvement, putting up a pedestrian signal uh to cross frontage road.

People are crossing that right now.

I have pictures of footprints in the winter time.

Um, if feasible, maybe some mark or some ADA ramps and march crossing.

Uh the railroad might complicate that though.

Signal timing and phasing is gonna be important.

Um, so maybe we can get a pedestrian signal up in the in the mirror in the near term to address uh a visible non-motorized gap that people are using.

Um, and then as we're doing that, lighting was another thing that came up.

Um, and then longer term uh potential feasibility study and so uh underpass and connecting to a trail along frontage roads.

What would that look like?

Um, we may want to also include uh direct walking and bicycling connection north to Nelson Meadows for people to walk around that right now.

They're not doing that.

Um, but if they were to it'd be an extra like half mile out of their way, which is um not reasonable.

Um railroad, so what are all the responsibilities here?

And so uh we could look at potential alternatives, constraints, and further detail, come up with some planning level uh preferred alternatives and planning level costs, funding strategy, and then tying in to the other stuff, and so just a bit of a recap here.

This is this background port is to help make sure we're all sort of working from the same assumptions.

If anything, correct, please let me know.

Um, and then uh consider advancing uh limited crossing concept involving the pedestrian signal before moving into a feasibility study.

So hopefully we can move uh collaboratively from planning and the implementation.

So that is it.

Open it up for discussion.

So thank you, Chair.

Yeah, appreciate it, Jeff.

And uh so Jeff, I want to commend Jeff on this one.

He came into this uh conversation um joining our MPO and moving to Bozeman after a whole lot of history behind uh this location.

And so he's done an excellent job digging back through, you know, really years of information to develop this report.

Um the report was included.

I certainly don't anticipate this being the last time we all talk about it, and I will welcome any suggestions moving forward from the group uh to bring this back on to an agenda for discussion.

But for the purpose of the meeting today, um we'll take any questions for Jeff in discussion, and then I'll also open up to the public if anybody is joined.

So I see one hand raised with Chris.

Uh, this is uh related to what you need, Jeff, but uh little bit peripheral as well.

Uh you mentioned lighting at that possible location.

Um, I have no objection to that.

I think that's a good safety feature, but just FYI, we're getting in my office a lot of uh interest on um lighting overall, and uh there may be some action with our commission here before too long.

Well, we don't know yet, to perhaps modify the city's lighting standards.

So just as much as anything uh for anyone else who's working on things that may involve lighting, be aware that's uh an issue that seems to be bubbling up a bit more as we go forward.

So thanks.

Thank you for that, Chris.

That's just some information.

Lighting is something that we have no need as well for the LRTP to discuss this.

Okay.

Any members of the public interested in um providing comments here.

I'm showing one request.

Marilyn Brown, go ahead.

Hi everyone.

I just wanted to say that I briefly read the report and I thought it was amazing.

Thank you for putting in so much work on gathering all that information and doing it.

Thank you.

Good to see you joining us, Marilee.

Appreciate it.

Um, one other um tangential update I can add is uh City Bozeman.

Um we uh closed out responses for an RFQ to a pre-design effort for our section of uh uh um front and uh shared use path uh just last week.

I haven't got an update on the clerk for how many applications that we got, but we're gonna move forward with uh grading those and selecting a consultant to come on board and start pre-design uh for the frontage road path um from this intersection all the way over to the Cherry River fishing access.

So a good amount of uh conceptual work has been done to date there.

We have a good idea about all the uh technical cruxes of the project, and so now we'll get consultant on board to design um uh the the 30% design planning level design for both uh pretty substantial sewer interceptor project that our utility department has along the same route as the frontage path and then the frontage path as well.

So uh goal there is gonna be to uh quickly get into negotiations for right-away access and get a pre-design um completed and hopefully uh find that we can defer uh the utility project to a point where we can get moving on the capital path project uh sooner than fiscal year 2029, which is where the city currently has it scheduled in our capital improvement program.

So that I think would be a cool one to bring to this group in the future, and just wanted to give you an update uh tangential to this report.

Okay, any other comments, questions for Jeff?

Uh again, this is one uh please take some time to read through it, and if any members of the committee would like to bring this back onto an agenda in the future for discussion, I'm more than happy to do so.

Okay.

Uh moving on to general discussion.

Um, one item I did want to welcome Jason Murphy who is uh Belgrade's acting uh director here.

And uh Jason, welcome.

I don't know if you want to uh put you on the spot to say any words or any hellos, but I um uh I'll assume for the time being that you'll uh cover for our vice chair, but um, in the future, if that's not something that you're uh super stoked about taking on, then maybe we can bring a conversation to next month to assign a new vice chair of RTAC.

Um, maybe well, hello, Jason Murphy, currently the acting public works director here in Belgrade.

Um, maybe we you and I can have a conversation about that, um, before I say yes or no to anything, and uh get get back, get up to speed a little bit on that.

But I'm I'm happy to be here, and um, there's some cool stuff going on with this process.

So that's thank you.

Appreciate Jason.

Uh, you want to tell us a little bit about yourself?

What you uh have been doing over here.

Yeah, sure.

I've I've been here with the city of Belgrade for about nine months, um, in the role of the public works superintendent.

Um, before that, I was down in Yellowstone working for the National Park Service for about 20 plus years, predominantly in the water, wastewater utility stuff for the park um in the interior and then in Mammoth and all those kinds of things.

That's where I came from.

But I've been living here in Bozeman for the better part of um all that time, back and forth, back and forth.

Um, not doing the back and forth anymore.

Yeah, a little better commute.

Yeah, like that.

All right, nice to meet you, Jason.

Yep, thank you.

Okay, uh, well, we are right up to the edge of our hour and a half today.

Thank you all for uh joining and for a great meeting.

Appreciate Jeff and our consultant friends at Nelson Nygaard.

And unless I hear any additional conversation, we will move the meeting to adjourn.

See you next month.

Thank you.