Nick, are you ready?

Yes, sir.

All right.

With that, good evening, everyone, and welcome.

Hello, Transportation Advisory Board members.

Uh before I call this meeting to order, I want to remind the public listening of how they can participate.

If you would uh like to follow along from home like I am tonight, you can go to the city's webpage at Bozeman.net and click on the meetings link from that page, you can look under the upcoming meetings to find our agenda.

There you'll find instructions on how to stream the meeting live list on the phone or watch on cable TV channel one ninety.

There will be several opportunities to provide public comment this evening during the public comment period.

We'll first hear from those people in the room, and then we will take comments from those online.

And if you are following uh along online, please use the raise your hand feature and staff will call on you by name at the appropriate time.

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 emailing comments at Bozeman.net.

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

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

With that, I would like to formally call this June twenty fourth, twenty twenty-six meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board to order.

Um first off, are there any disclosures from any members on the board this evening?

I think there are none.

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

Uh we would like to uh uh move the action item to be the first item sign, and that is regarding the Bozeman High School residential parking permit district uh management.

And then we would also like to swap the special presentations.

So it will be I one H two and then H one.

Can I get a motion for this change?

Uh I'll motion to change the agenda so the action item becomes first on the agenda.

Thank you, Bryce.

Thank you, second.

I second that motion.

Thanks, Hayden.

All those in favor.

Aye.

I'm not sure.

All those opposed, eh?

And the motion carries.

Secondly, I would like to make a get a motion to excuse Mike Messley from the board this evening.

I'll motion to excuse board member Meslik.

Thank you, Bryce.

And can I get a second?

I'll second that.

Okay, and that also carries.

So now public service announcements, Director Ross.

Thank you, Rio.

Good evening, board.

Start out with heavy hearts tonight.

I want to take a moment to remember, recognize tragic loss of Addy McCurdy in our streets at Story Mill or excuse me at Griffin and Ralph's last week.

I know it's very heavy on a lot of people in town and very much with city staff and our commission as well.

And so personally and professionally, we want to remember and recognize her and her family and continue remembering people like Addy as we take up our charge as a board and as staff in a city to make our streets as safe as possible.

So for staff updates this month, we do have uh quite a long list.

Um, this is where I like to allow this to be a little bit interactive if there's any questions from the board.

Um, but I do want to highlight uh a couple topics in each.

One, we'll get to talk about this a little bit later on, uh, but we have uh released uh received uh responses for and made a preferred consultant selection for our transportation master plan update.

So uh team of Sandbell, Kittleson Associates, and Logan Simpson are gonna be supporting the city for the next year and a half, developing our 10-year master plan.

On the design side, I wanted to highlight uh some of the good work that's gonna be coming out towards the end of the summer next year, thanks to our commission's recently adopted budget uh which was approved last night.

Uh we had um one small but very impactful capital fund, um doubled in annual allocation to $300,000 a year, and that's our STR20 multimodal fund.

Um this is an annual funding source that allows us to take on more of small uh uh small but impactful multimodal and safety projects.

Uh and we have um a couple cool initiatives that are gonna be coming up that were only uh allowed to be brought forward because of this additional funding.

So one we're gonna begin development of a school zone speed feedback radar program.

So those are the um uh side of the road speed feedback signs, uh radar units uh that we're gonna roll out on all of our school zones across town.

Um we're gonna try to target five per year, starting with those schools on our higher volume, higher uh speed arterial and collector routes.

Additionally, we are gonna uh be able to bring next summer a pretty cool project down towards uh the tree streets neighborhoods, and so if you're familiar with that section of Highland, um there's pretty cool park system off to the side, uh, but no sidewalk along the the east side of Highland and no safe way to cross Highland Boulevard to the Shared East Path on the west side.

So uh with this funding, we're gonna be able to connect a section of sidewalk along the northbound or east side of Highland and then install a mid-block crosswalk with an RRFB at that location, which will extend to a future trail uh down into the park.

Um, we're also going to be able to add another uh grid tide RRFB at Wilson and Dickerson to support the school zone crossing there.

If you remember, we did one recently uh last year at Garfield.

Those are the ones that do end up costing a bit more because of the electrical involved, so that's one that we were only able to bring forth because of this additional funding.

Um we're also uh going to partner with Montana Department of Transportation, who has agreed to approve uh the installation of an RRFB on Bridger Drive at Bridge or Center, connecting to our new story mill park.

That's long been community interest in that part of town, and ahead of our Keggy Boulevard reconstruction project next year.

We're gonna bring pedestrian improvements in RRFBs at two locations along South Third.

So South Third is a project that we'll be uh getting talking about in upcoming years as one of our next street reconstruction projects.

Um, we understand though, especially with KD Boulevard project coming up and the likelihood of South Third being a detour route, that there's pedestrian upgrades that are desperately needed along there ahead of our big reconstruction project.

Only because of this funding, we're able to bring those forth next year and be able to complete them ahead of that detour to provide our pedestrians crossing South Third of Extra Production.

And then finally, just wanted to knowledge about four other RRFP.

So for those, apologize for the acronym language, those are our rectangular rapid flashing beacons, so the pedestrian beacons that help support uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks.

And finally, one construction updates.

So if you remember this, that project came before the board last fall.

Thanks to the board and our commission and our friends at MSU.

We did bring a pretty substantial revision to the project to not only extend the shared use path along the south side of college from 8th to 11th, but also redesign the project to be able to keep the street parking that supports the business district there.

Because of that and a lot of other again, really intentional and purposeful um coordination on construction impacts with property owners.

We weren't going to be able to get that project bid and started until schools back in this fall.

That's the exact opposite of what I was hoping to accomplish with the project of that nature in school and session.

And so because of that, we are going to delay.

So with that, I'll open it up to the board with any questions.

And what were those other R RFB locations?

Sure.

So we are going to be adding them at Oak and Yellowstone, Baxter, Riyadh, Baxter and Riata, South 11th and Brookdale, and South 11th in Brookdale.

So three additional other than the ones.

We had three planned for this year with the original 150,000 allocation, and now we'll be able to bring in, I think I counted five more.

Just one quick clarification for the doubling of STR 20.

Does that just roll through 2031?

Like this CIP.

Yes.

So that's an annual allocation in our street maintenance fund.

It will be raised to it has been raised to 300,000 per year.

So over the five-year plan, that's uh million and a half dollars that will be dedicated specifically to the small project improvements.

Um on the safe streets for all side of things, I had two questions I was curious about for the Curex platform.

Um first question was do we know yet which intersections that will be implemented at?

And if we do, what was the selection criteria for those intersections?

Uh we have our initial list of eight intersections picked out.

I can't name them off the top of my head, but I'll remember to bring that for next time.

Um, largely based on volume in known crash hotspots.

Got it.

And so um it was staff's sort of uh um recommendation for which intersections to include.

The cool thing about that technology is um the units will be able to be relocated to different signals over time, um, and so our goal will be to collect at eight, gain enough data to be able to make some informed decisions and then move those around town to be able to maximize our use of that equipment.

Gotcha.

Um, and then is that intended for the data to be actively monitored in the case of real-time alerts or more just collected for future analysis and decision making?

Mostly data collection.

Okay, yes.

Got it.

Thank you.

Any other questions on the board?

I've got a couple for you, Nick.

If no one else, or you can chime in after me, I guess.

Um, curious if you can discuss the what put the uh Stanville Simpson proposal over the top.

Uh If it would be uh better to say that for that.

Okay.

I believe it would, yes, thank you.

Um and uh I I love that there is a uh sidewalk being put in between C of you and Spruce.

Um I remember that being a consternation point for me when I lived over there uh previously, and so that's great.

Um, are there any plans to so the rest of the tree steeds streets will still need to walk to that crossing or down to the other pedestrian uh crossing?

And I'm wondering if there's any plans to um provide any more sidewalk on any of the other tree streets to connect to that crossing or the other one.

Sure, great question, Rio.

Um that was one of the neighborhoods in our bicycle pedestrian gap analysis, um, that we received uh feedback from the neighborhood and from commission that um you know it may not necessarily be in the interest of the neighborhood to do more of a full-scale sidewalk network where one does not exist now.

Um, however, I will say um part of this project will be um if you're familiar with that park uh in that area, there's sort of some fingers that split the streets and the homes and come up to Highland.

Um we'll locate the midlock crosswalk at a location where a future trail will be built down through one of those park uh parcels down to the main play area at the bottom.

So there will be more of a non-motorized way Rio within the park to access up to Highland.

Okay, great.

Yeah, no, I didn't I didn't uh I wasn't suggesting sidewalks necessarily on the tree streets themselves, but on that side of Highland, um to connect to that or that crossing.

In the winter time, it can be um yeah.

Good point, Rio.

No, no plans in the works right now.

That is definitely one of the priority corridors that we have in mind though for um sidewalk installation.

Uh last question are there, I know there's been there's been some concern with other um uh video monitoring and and face ID and privacy protections, and I just wanted to know what the correct vision, if that's something that has been thought about.

Yes, so uh when we made this proposal for the grant application two plus years ago, um to be frank, the the whole AI conversation was not nearly as um hot as it is now.

And so um what this uh so if you've if you are uh traffic nerd like me and close attention and intersections, uh you'll see that some of them are um uh are the some of the signal systems can be um activated by either radar or camera.

So uh it's the same type of video detection camera that already is operating some of our some of our signal systems now.

Um what this um uh software does though is collect other types of data that we don't have access to, such as uh red light running near misses, and uh speeding through the intersections.

So not only can it operate the signal like it did like they do now, um but they could also feed back a whole lot of data that we can then use to better design the signal phasing and understand where problem areas exist before the crashes occur, and so uh there's not like a recording capacity to them other than just the data points uh of the vehicles and the pedestrians and cyclists through the intersections.

So um these are enforcement cameras, those aren't allowed in Montana.

Um, so no enforcement will be done with the cameras.

Um none of the video will be recorded or used by our police department for any other means other than uh safety analytics that we hope to um use to prevent crashes before they happen.

Great.

Thank you for the clarification.

Uh uh I'll open it up to other board questions, comments, and let me know when there's your your uh finished so I can move to the next item.

Okay, anything else from the board.

All right, Rio, I think we're ready for minutes.

Great.

Um can I get a motion uh to approve the April 22nd, 2026 minutes of the transportation advisory board.

I move to approve the April 22nds uh transportation board meeting minutes.

I'll second.

Thanks, Bryce.

Motion carried.

Um sent items.

None.

Um moving on to uh public comments on non-agenda items that fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of this board.

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

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

And uh please note we cannot take any action on items which do not appear on the agenda.

Every person wishing to comment will have three minutes.

If you are here to speak to that, you can form a line next to the window for those commenting in this room.

You'll see a light on the podium and turn green when your turn begins, yellow when you have a minute, and red when your time has expired.

We respectfully ask that all people addressing the board uh speak in a civil and creative manner, and we will do the same.

We are also um we'd also uh members of the audience be respectful to one another, no cheering, uh jeering, etc.

Um, and we ask everyone to begin their comments by stating your name and whether you are a resident or property owner within the city of Bozeman.

Uh we'll take comments in the room first and then online.

So any um any public comments on non-agenda items.

Anyone in the room wishing to make comments.

Seeing no one at the podium, Malia, do you have anyone online?

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

Uh with that we'll move to our first uh amended agenda.

Actually, will be the action item on the residential parking permit district.

And that will go to our parking director.

All right.

Hello everyone.

My name's Nick Foken.

I'm the parking manager here for the city of Bozeman.

Tonight we're gonna be talking about the Bozeman High School residential parking permit district.

I'm gonna give you a little bit of background before we hop in here.

Uh the Bozeman High School uh previously previously had a parking demand and occupancy issue that led to uh students parking in the residential uh neighborhood around the Bozeman High School.

Uh so the neighborhood kind of came together and realized that the residential parking permit district was kind of the option that they would want to go.

Uh has four main uh uh items that this district uh addresses, one of them being the neighborhood uh promoting neighborhood tranquility, reducing noise, reducing traffic hazards, and minimizing littering.

So at the time of implementation back in 2001, uh this district helped mitigate some of these impacts by reducing that parking in the neighborhood.

So this is what the current Bozeman High School district looks like today.

On the right side there, in highlighted green are all the uh streets that are a part of this district that hold the restrictions.

And left there shows the year over year permits.

Uh having a a little bit of an increase uh over the last two years, but kind of leveling off there.

So why is this district being uh considered today?

With the addition of the Gallatin High School and the uh new spaces coming online that the Bozeman High School uh created, it's raised the question of whether or not this district is still needed.

Parking staff has seen from both residents and businesses that say they would like to see this district uh dissolved.

Observations also suggest from my officers that the need for the district is much lower than what it was when it was first implemented.

We also have a parking consultant, Walker.

Uh in 2021 recommend dissolving that district based on its current usage.

So the conversation that I'm looking for tonight is for direction on how we would like to move forward with this uh district pausing the district, reducing the size of that district, or making no changes at all.

Pausing the district, uh we would still try to keep it on the books, but um understand that things can change and be able to bring it back if needed in the future.

Reducing that size, like on the left there, bringing that down to kind of just the streets that uh are directly right next to that school, bringing in that enforcement power just to uh a narrowed section, or of course just making no changes at all.

Any questions from the board?

Hey Nick, um thank you for the presentation.

Um would it be useful to frame uh the transportation board's herbs parking commission and what authority we may have over this decision and otherwise uh what the parking commission may be asked to recommend to city commission?

Of course, yeah.

Apologies.

So as the Trans Transportation Board, you act as the parking commission.

Um, as in our PPD uh is created is is by the City Commission, they create the the size and they uh and all of the fees associated with that district are uh established by resolution.

So tonight coming to you guys, uh listening to myself, the board, and the public uh you're just giving us direction to see how we would bring this to commission and see how they would move forward with this request.

Appreciate that, Nick.

So is um board liaison staff liaison um our city commission has really doubled down in recent years of looking for looking to empower our boards to guide them decisions they make for our city, and so appreciate Nick for the presentation.

And so um, I would say this was not by no means like a binding uh conversation tonight, right?

And so um by way of action item, if the board would choose to take motion to make a firm recommendation, you may do so.

Uh, but otherwise, I think Nick would uh welcome general conversation uh guidance and maybe some additional questions that could help guide him in the city as we make any recommendations to commission.

Thank you, Director Ross.

Um we'll start with questions from the board and we'll start over uh Simon.

If you want to start, we'll just go from there down, and then we'll we'll uh take some public comment uh and uh hear from the staff and we'll um make our comments uh or recommendation.

Simon, if you want to go ahead.

Cool.

Yeah, thanks for you.

Um yeah, I think I mean one of the big questions that I had when I looked through the presentation was um do we have data for years before is it 2023?

I think, right?

Because we only had those three years of data, which if you're only looking at that snapshot shows a jump from like 90 something permits in 2023 to 210, which kind of like if you're just looking at the snapshot, says, well, there's a clear increase in how many permits are sold, and you know, clear sort of revenue generation there, at least to cover the enforcement of the district.

So, why would we consider reducing it?

And particularly, I'm wondering if we do have data before 2023.

Does it go back to 2020 and before, which I think was when Gallatin High opened?

And do we have any sort of way to look at how much of a difference Gallatin High opening and additional parking at Bozeman High actually made a difference in this uh the number of permits that were issued?

Sure.

Yeah, there are quite a few questions uh kind of looped in through there.

Yeah, sorry.

Um so definitely repeat some if I if I don't end up answering them all.

Sure.

We do have data that kind of shows 90 or around that 100 permit range, kind of goes back further and further.

Um so the 22 to 23 range was about the same, and it kind of steadily uh was that amount.

Um I apologize.

Well, what else were you looking for?

No, you're good.

Yeah, it was just um I'm curious if we have data that shows how much of a difference was made in the number of permits that were sold when Gallatin High opened and or when additional parking was created at Bozeman High.

Gotcha, okay.

So permits are only sold to residents within that district, yeah.

So with that Gallatin High uh school opening up, uh we didn't actually lose any of the residents that were buying those permits moving over to Gallatin High.

Right.

But there are residents in the neighborhood.

So there would have been fewer theoretically, there would have been fewer students parking in the neighborhood.

Correct, fewer citations.

Residents that felt the need to buy a permit, right?

Correct.

So I guess the heart of my question is do we know why there's an increase in the number of permits sold in recent years?

Because that would to me seem to indicate that the district should be maintained as is.

Sure, yeah.

Um, over the last two years, we've increased our enforcement presence.

Um we've gained staff before uh the 24 25 year.

Um we were running pretty thin for the uh entire city of Bozeman.

Uh currently I have five officers and one short-term officer uh fully staffed as of Monday.

Um that's the first time we've been fully staffed in three close to four years.

So we also cover the entire city of Bozeman as our uh jurisdiction.

So uh having more staff there has made it more of an option for us to uh enforce all of our districts kind of equally, and with that added enforcement.

Uh some of the residents in the past have been able to get around purchasing that permit because the lack of enforcement.

Got it, okay.

Um yeah, I think that answers the questions that I have for now, as there's additional discussion, I may have some more questions, but uh say that I'm good for now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Alright, so uh in the reduced district scenario, would you're saying enforcement would just be on 11th and 15th in that's in that case?

For the permitted section of the like yes, yeah.

Okay, gotcha.

That was just my clarifying questions.

Okay, thank you.

Do you guys have any data on where the uh citations are issued, like with along individual streets.

Um, like just as we consider the reduction option.

Um, just curious if that 11th and 15th would be reflective of like the higher concentration of the citations and therefore like kind of being the the central need of the project moving forward, or if it's pretty spread throughout the district.

Sure.

Um currently we don't have the the data that shows uh like the heat map is what we we like to use for some of this stuff.

Um we've recently had a little bit of an issue with our ticketing software that doesn't give us the the GPS uh coordinates for it.

So unfortunately I don't have uh an updated heat map for these type of violations.

I can say that they do get uh more concentrated the closer you do get to uh the Bozeman high school um and I guess just like is there any um like gut feeling about um like why because doesn't the existing program go all the way down 15th um like why it wouldn't extend all the way through 15th sure isn't that like very paired back scenario I guess let me make a little bit of a clarification that uh reduced district is just uh proposed uh I kind of just picked those streets um if it's your direction to push it all the way through 15th that is what we can end up doing um and then I'm just curious are is most of the enforcement just kind of look at hawk through the officers rolling through or or any of the residents calling in about you know repeat offenders.

Sure yeah um so on average uh this last year we did about 7,000 complaints for uh the entire city of Ozeman and I don't know the exact number off the top of my head for uh this specific district but it's a couple hundred that we get each year and for the size of this district that's I would say that's a decent amount um but for a scheduled uh enforcement we have my officers running through that district I want to say uh once a day if not uh a little bit more depending on uh the time of year thank you um yes so just to make sure I'm I'm looking at the right process here so it is $35 a year for somebody to get a permit and it's all done online annually right so they don't have to go to an office or anything to get these permits.

Right uh there is an option to do it online.

You can also come into our finance office and uh apply and purchase that permit here in person.

Okay.

And it's uh 3675.

Okay.

35 dollars and then that we have a a small admin fee from our uh permitting software um and the initiative to start this um parking district came from the neighborhood the initiative to dissolve it is that also coming from neighborhood request or is this from consultant um observation yeah um a little bit of both so I've been with the parking department for about five years now um and over the last five years uh those comments have been getting more and more frequent um from what I've heard and observed and now hearing from my officers almost on a on a weekly basis of an individual coming up to them and uh kind of ad hoc saying hey will you stop doing this so um it's taken some time last year we were we were thinking about doing it but it was right in the middle of the permit cycle so I wanted to give us enough time to kind of get to this point um and it it also does help that walker gave that recommendation back in 2021.

Okay.

And then as I'm looking at this map it does it's a little hard to see but it looks like most of these houses do have their own driveways I'm on my own Google map here.

So is this the kind of neighborhood where most houses would have would have driveways and not rely on street parking?

Sure.

I can't say for all of them uh but I would say a a large portion of those streets definitely do have uh off-street parking.

Okay.

Yeah, kind of looks like it.

Okay.

And then um if I got one more question?

Oh, I did um so I noticed that in the reduced neighborhood parking, 10th gets lost there.

And it makes sense to me that that south of Main Street, that does seem a little bit further away.

Um, but 10th still feels like it's in the zone.

And so the dropping of 10th from this district, was that also from neighborhood request and consultant?

Was it mainly that that's that one of the streets you're hearing from a lot that they would like to drop it?

Sure.

Um I guess the main request was to drop the entire district.

Uh the option to reduce it was just to try and uh give uh residents of North 11th still the ability to have that district and try to help them through this.

Um but some of the the comment that I've received uh since uh giving out our our mailer and some of the social media that we've done during this.

Um I've think I've got two emails and a couple of calls from residents on North 10th saying that we should get rid of it.

So um it really is just trying to reduce that and kind of keep it to a smaller area.

Okay, thank you.

Um great, kind of.

Um yeah, thanks for all those those insights and like a lot of that covered um any questions I had.

Um I guess I just wanna like clarify that the increase in, like you said earlier, the increase in permit purchase over the last two, like school seasons, if you will, has been due to enforcement increase and not due to student presence increase.

Like it's been not because spaces are being taken up more than they were, but because your enforcement's higher.

Um I guess uh twofold.

So yes, enforcement has been higher.

Um I'm gonna go back to this one here.

There was some new construction on uh Babcock and at 9th that created that uh new apartment building.

And during that construction phase, we had quite a bit of quite a bit of enforcement done in that area, which then of course residents, like I said before, getting away with it, and and now uh understanding that that's kind of needed.

Um so that was kind of a bigger push in that 24-25 uh time period.

Okay.

If it is paused, like you said, still be kind of keeping it on the books, it's still a tool that can be almost switched back on.

Would that process I imagine be pretty quick to do, or would that take like a full extra year to like do another flyer and another session of engagement?

Just like trying to get a sense of how adaptable it can be as a tool if demand does change for residents.

So with our residential parking permit district, um, it's it's a little bit on the older side of uh the ordinances that we have uh currently on the books.

So it is it is an ordinance.

Um we have to go to commission.

There's uh first read and then a second read if if uh that one goes well.

So it's not quick by any means, it won't take a year.

Um there's uh something else we do have currently a parking uh district, uh or I've said before a uh parking benefit zone where we could at a later date potentially uh put in place where uh the city commission does just create a larger area and then it's pushed back to this group uh the parking commission to uh make smaller areas that's done just within this room, within this uh group of people, and we don't have to really uh wait as long and like go through the same processes as the uh current district we're using.

Okay, but even if it even if it does stay under the current ordinance, like it might be one school year where it's off, and then it would be able to get it back and running by the next school year if it was correct.

If if we start that process uh during the summer, uh give us plenty of time to get it going, yes.

Okay.

Uh and then my last one was like does seem like there's a lot of um comment from the residents in that area to reduce it, there is also some to keep it as a tool, and um that those comments that we read have been like in the um like with the purpose of being able to kind of like control the parking in their area and then make sure it's available.

If it was reduced, is another one of those like areas of data where you might not have uh like hard data for it, but do you have a sense of whether there would be demand outside of the students, like from the businesses in the area or like other higher density, you know, like those new apartments buildings or anything that would if this area is reduced, then like would there be an influx from another source of parking demand?

Does that make sense?

Sure.

Um there would be I would say a a small grace period from other residents or um businesses that were once within that uh district that would come flooding back, and I think it's really up to uh this board of whether or not we decide to kind of keep some of those restrictions near some of those uh kind of uh pinch points, or whether we would kind of reduce those.

Um from what I've heard south of Main Street, there hasn't been a need for any of that, and the the apartment building um has been using other parking kind of south of, excuse me, the the yeah, the apartment building has been using parking south of theirs.

So it'll all filter back in, and and I don't think it would be too much of a surge.

Okay, yeah, that was my main question, which is like is this if there's now open spaces, are they gonna be taken by other businesses or other um parking demand?

But it doesn't seem like that's the case.

I think that's all I have for now.

Thank you.

Rio, would you mind if I took a crack at a question or two?

Um, I would like that.

Sorry, just uh maybe help with the the conversation a little bit.

Um so Nick, in the option that we're discussing to pause the district, um, so that would mean leaving the ordinance on the books that the district is still created, um, but enforcement in particular would be paused, and so would the need then uh to pay for uh the parking pass to park on the street in the district.

That's correct, yes.

And so that would come with removal of the uh signage indicating the parking district?

Correct.

Okay.

And then if we were to um take a shot at it and heard from feedback on the residents in the area that ultimately they do prefer to put it back in, the process would be getting commission consent to do so, and then also putting the signs back up, right?

That is correct.

Okay, might be might be a little bit of a process there then.

Thank you for the clarifying question.

I have one more, if you don't mind, Rio?

Sure.

Uh yeah, go ahead.

From so uh Nick, you've done a good job talking about sort of the impetus of this being people that live in the neighborhood that you know, I I would could assume um would like to park on the street without paying for the the pass, right?

And so you've done a good job bringing this for conversation from the city operations perspective, um, do you have a sense for if the number of permits sold are paying for the cost of enforcement?

Uh excuse me, sorry.

Uh currently they're not.

They're not covering uh operations maintenance uh or the administration side of uh the district.

Do you know how generally that staff is funded otherwise?

How I guess if if the district is being subsidized by the rest of the I I will have to use the word subsidized, but just from the city operation standpoint, if the district is it, quote, paying for itself, right?

From that herb enforcement, where is that money coming from the public otherwise?

Just through other uh enforcement and permitting uh availability we have throughout our division.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, Director Ross.

I I have a uh quick question.

I'm gonna keep most of mine for um after we get received public comment.

Um most of my questions have to do with the letter that was sent in regarding this issue.

Um so I'm gonna wait until we hear from anyone else who wants to comment on it.

But to follow up on um, and I can't find this in the letter right now, but there was a uh I think there was a mention that between permit sold and fines from enforcement, it was self-suffining.

Is that not true?

Did I did I read that incorrectly?

I I did read that in the letter.

I I'm not exactly sure where that individual got the that data from.

We we haven't gotten a uh records request for that type of uh information.

Uh but no, currently it is not uh covering itself through uh enforcement or permits.

I think uh in the at least the materials I'm looking at, uh it's just says officer time, which was 6800 per year, and then if you add up the citations, um in 2526 was about 23,000.

Sure.

So in that uh uh initial finding, that was just officer time.

So the operations of maintenance also too uh pushed into that conversation, uh pushes that amount by quite a bit.

Lemon, did you have another question that you wanted to ask at this point?

Uh no, I did not.

Thank you for circling back.

Yeah, absolutely.

Um any other questions from the board.

I have one more or Commissioner Magic.

Um just a quick question to follow up on Nick's question about pausing the district and cost and time that would go into that.

So if these signs, sometimes I'm shocked by how expensive signage is.

So if these signs do all come down in the neighborhood, and then a year later, we say, oh, actually, we liked that.

Um would that be a prohibitive cost?

Is that quite a lot, or were these signs all just all the scaffolding still stays out there and the signs just go to storage somewhere?

Sure.

I'll take a crack at that and see if Nick Ross wants to fill in some gaps.

Um a decent portion of those signs uh are also, or sorry, excuse me, a decent portion of the the polls that the signs are on uh also have other signs on them.

So we'll be able to um kind of keep those up and and not have to take all of those down.

Um we would also be storing all of the older signs in our parking storage uh area.

So if we did want to bring those back, uh we wouldn't have to be uh getting all new ones.

Very good question.

So uh I'll say our site crew has got very good and efficient at large scale signing projects over the last few years between our altered side parking program and now our control stop sign program.

Um so I I have no doubt they would have the capacity to do so.

It would have to be one of those things that's weighed against the other uh obligations they have.

And so um for a project like this, it would take uh uh at least a few weeks um to do the removal and then the reinstallation, and so that would just be uh cost and time that uh we would be paying them for otherwise uh providing improvements to the community.

I do have a question.

Um thanks, Nick.

I was curious if there is precedent for dissolving the strike.

Have we done that before?

Right.

Uh to date we have not dissolved a district.

We've added streets uh here and there to make districts big excuse me, districts bigger, but we've we have never dissolved one.

So they always get bigger, they don't get smaller, and they've never just gone away.

Correct.

Okay, Nick, I I will have one question.

I guess uh uh that regards the mention in that letter of the uh development that is forthcoming and whether or not there has been um any study on what that new additional uh housing might look like in terms of parking in this area, sure, yeah.

Um at the current moment, I have not looked at the additional uh construction that is going to be hitting this area.

Um, but it's definitely something that we're gonna be looking at.

Thank you.

If there are no other questions, we can take public comment.

Okay, thank you very much.

Uh Nick.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on this action item?

All right.

Uh hello, I'm Kelly Wiseman.

Uh I am a resident and homeowner in Bozeman.

I was also uh manager of the co-op for over 30 years.

I was also on the um Bozeman Parking Commission from 2014 to 2020.

Um, and so I can tell you a few things.

One of the questions that were it was raised around the Galton High.

Um, you know what's always good news when we try something uh and it works, and when the district went in, it worked because it forced the school district to build a really big parking lot, and that solved the problem well before Gallaton High opened.

Um so we had a district that was if you walk this, I you know, walk those streets a lot, and I can tell you, they're empty streets all day long.

And uh so the district really did carve out the parking problem and fixed it, and so um we did modify some districts and around the university, um, but I I don't recall it's ever removing one.

So I would say that it's kind of a nice thing to be able to declare victory in something that worked.

That being said, and I was one of the original signers of the petition to create the district because we were inundated, it was started by Bob Hox, former mayor, um, because over by 11th in uh Babcock, he had an uh a business anyway.

So residents always want to keep a district once it's created.

That's because they have their own private parking in front of their house for the low low fee of $36 a year.

So if you drive a big rig to work, or you work weird hours at night and you want to be open during the day for you to pull in right in front of your house, it's great.

And so, one of the things I learned on the commission was don't necessarily trust the policy for what the residents are saying, it really needs to be data driven.

And we did a number of data studies when we got LPR technology license plate reader text.

Um, we did some counts in the neighborhood, then COVID hit, we lost our parking manager, and they uh the parking commission went away, right?

So I never saw that data.

But I can tell you just as a person who worked there for over 20 years in that neighborhood, once the district went in, there was there were this the streets were pre-empty, and like any district, it squeezes like a pressure bag people that want to park there from the businesses on Main Street, co-op, Luce and Clark Motel, Urgent Care.

It squeezes them south of all of Olive.

And that's what happens now.

So no one's talked to the residents south of all of Olive.

And they have more cars parking there because it's congested because all the streets north of there are empty.

I'm not addressing anything north of Main Street.

I don't know anything about that the um that district part, but I can tell you, I don't think you need to pause on the district south of Main Street.

I think it it needs to be we declared that it worked and get and walk away and then really concentrate on the area around the high school.

The good news is about the signs is you're gonna need them over by Gallatin High.

Right.

So and there's also a safety issue, um, you know, uh for people the people in this district live a block from a B-2 zone, right?

Well, the B2 actually goes to Babcock.

So they're they're living right next to a major commercial zone.

So to expect that their streets will be left empty for their private parking, and then we tell the women who work at the co-op who get off work at 9 or 10 at night along with the women at the Lewis and Clark Motel and others.

No, you need to walk three blocks by yourself in the dark because these people need their private parking spaces.

That's not good policy, in my opinion.

And I think that um I would urge you to eliminate the district south of Maine.

Uh, anybody have any questions?

Thank you.

Thanks for your service.

Thank you.

But there are any other public comments in the room.

Hi, my name's Conlin Ritter.

I used to live on 10th and Villard.

My parents own a house there, which is a rental, and uh continue to own that.

I manage it for them.

So I just thought I'd give my perspective on the issue.

I will concur with what was said about enforcement driving up rates of buying permits.

Uh we bought that place in 2019, never got a permit, parked on the street for years, never got a ticket, and then the last two or three years started seeing that enforcement, and our tenants started buying permits.

So that that tracks with what we've seen.

I like the idea of the downsizing to the two streets right next to the high school.

I think that the ability to expand back later would be, you know, make sense to me.

I also would say that the one streets on, I think that's 8th, and yeah, 8th by Durston that's not currently in the district.

I've noticed that that does get squeezed, and you see more parking there for the businesses on 7th, especially on 7th and Durston near uh, you know, where they've got the new brewery and there's a restaurant, and so you start seeing more parking getting squeezed in there, and that might help relax it a little bit if the other streets are opened up as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Ritter.

Any other public comments in the room.

Hi, Chris Wassio.

I live on at 1020 West Filler, 1020, 1022.

We own that place, and my daughter lives across the street, 10, 15, 1017.

We own that place as well.

Um, fortunate enough to have my own business in the area.

I own Genesis Engineering and work um at 204 North 11th right across.

We we've worked with the school district before, worked with uh uh folks in uh working on the the Mandeville Crick and getting that fixed, or at least uh put back to its normal beauty.

Um there's a lot of talk about data here, but I haven't seen any.

Um and the reality of it is I've Genesis has done has studied this many times.

I've I've lived at 1020 for 30 years.

I've had Genesis for 18 years at that location.

So if you want to ask somebody what we've seen, because I walk to and from work, I'm a block away.

I see it every day.

Uh the district having 15th, the school moving changed things dramatically, right?

The access and the or the portal is what we call it if you're in the biz, used to be on Main Street.

That's how those folks south of Main Street got pulled in.

It's not there anymore.

Where's the portal?

Portals right on 11th and Villard.

It's the one that's closest to residential homes that in any other school district in the state of Montana.

That's it.

So if you're gonna tell me we need a district on 15th, I'd say you're nuts.

You don't.

The parking lots that the coot students are going to use is between the portal and those homes.

So the parking lot's gonna fill up.

There's over, I think 500 stalls or so.

However, if you turn around and look at where those parking lots are located, they're on the west side of the project, portals on the east side.

They fill in our neighborhood because I've got data for you, I'll send you the report.

Within 800 feet of the front door of the school, guess how many parking stalls are in their two parking lots, the south and the west in 800 feet?

Zero.

Zero student parking stalls.

Guess how many are in our neighborhood?

350.

Pretty common sense oriented.

If I'm a student and you can turn around and say they don't do the math, but I guess guess what?

It they figured out really quickly.

And they're gonna park in our neighborhood.

But as to what the gentleman earlier spoke, um, I think we've seen the infrastructure change dramatically, and that explains that.

So I'll be sending you guys the report here probably tomorrow, at least via Nick.

I did throw together a couple exhibits that I'd love to share with you for two seconds, if if I may.

And I'll put this in the right case, yeah.

What's your looking at here?

And there's no red in the school.

Um, if you didn't perspective cultures, you know, the two perspective.

Where are people going to be?

Um, we'll start with the folks at 15th.

Stadium is really good.

This parking district is going to be because it's after our same thing.

It's not the people.

Anyone wants to see the site?

Yeah.

We need the district.

Please.

I consider it to be seeing this sort of sense.

Don't yes, no.

I'm not seeing data.

I'm I'm in your report.

Hey, the data, I'll give you the data.

Thank you, Chris.

Uh will you stepped away from the microphone?

I lost your audio.

That's okay.

Uh I'm hoping the people that needed to hear it heard it.

Do you want me to do something different?

I was just wondering if you could uh just summarize your conclusion uh for recommendations.

Sure.

The summary was use the use the data.

The data shows there are 350 parking stalls in our neighborhood before you even hit the first parking stall in the school's parking lots.

When they moved the main portal to the west to the east side there at 11th and Villard, they did not pull their parking.

They left it where it is.

Nobody's gonna park that far away unless you're a captive audience.

That's the only way they can fill those parking stalls is because of the district.

The data's very simple.

Please don't remove the district, it helps us a lot.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris.

Any other comment in the room?

Hi, good evening.

I'm Abigail Brewer, and um I am both a homeowner and resident of Bozeman.

I live on North 11th.

Um, and I just want to say I'm one of four households I checked with between Villard and 11th and one on North 15th.

None of us got the postcard.

I'm here serendipitously.

So claiming that the BHS campus meets standard practice now that some of the students have been moved to GHS ignores that there are 13 years of information shared by neighbors with the school district and the city.

The North 11th entrance to the high school at BHS fails eight of 21 principals in a 2004 federal analysis of safe school entry.

That makes it a D minus.

It also gives rise to close interactions between students and cars that are unlike at any other campus in this town.

It is frightening.

It also rejects the findings of the district's own 2017 traffic study prepared for the stadium, which states that a removal of buses from the street along North 11th, and B development of a pickup and drop-off area on campus along North 11th would both be necessary to establish basic safety.

In spite of this, the school district counts street parking on North 11th as part of its requirement.

In turn, neighbors and I have lost at least three cars in recent memory to hit and runs.

The time a student did a U-turn around my car as I was leaving my driveway to get to those spaces, the student was trying to get to those spaces.

And I pulled over and spoke to the student to say this really wasn't safe.

That student said, I think my reflexes are good enough.

In midtown, the school district has ignored the 2012 interlocal agreement with the city for standard planning time and time again.

Nothing about North 11th by BHS is fit for more traffic or parking until we can fix well-documented issues.

It's a 13-year conversation.

So yes to finding real ways to improve student safety and slow traffic on my street.

I want to remove the district's street parking so that we can put curb extensions, planter bollards, boulevard trees, and most important, curves.

No to decision making that acts as if the school district hasn't refused requests to meet with neighbors since 2022, the president administration of the school district to so much as sit down and discuss these issues.

Several of us lived on North 11th before there were uncoordinated and unmitigated campus changes made project after project between 2010 and 2020.

Before the district built over Mandeville Creek and removed the former CJ buildings pickup and drop-off area, North 11th worked.

It hasn't since, even at half capacity.

BHS can hold 2,000 students.

There are only about 1,200 today.

So I really need the city to step up for Midtown and require reasonable and customary practice.

Students, parents, community members, all of us, we really need better.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Brue.

Hi, I am Angie Wassia and I live at 1020 West Villard.

Also work at Genesis on North 11th.

And I historically will take you back to 2009 when the renovation happened and the expansion of the high school into CJ.

Because when that door opened at Villard and 11th, what happened there is that the 300-foot setback was removed, the parking lot was removed, and the drop off area was removed.

And so me and my driveway and a neighbor around the corner on North 11th, we would beg the people dropping off their kids in the morning and picking up in the afternoon to please not use this as their oval.

And if you remove the district, it's not just parking places that you're talking about.

It's all of the people that find it convenient to use that door at North 11th and Villard to drop off and pick up, cross the street, almost get caught by cars all the time, bikers, skateboarders, everything.

Um, and then it took years.

I mean, it was an education process with not only parking enforcement, the police ticketing, but it was probably the high school begging the parents to stop using the neighborhood.

And the only thing they're gonna that would help is if you had any resource with the school to say close that door, that portal at 11th and Villard.

Then that would force the kids and everybody to use the receiving ovals and the parking lots.

You miss Washington.

Any other comment on the room?

Okay.

Malia, are we showing any comments online?

I am first up.

We have Emily Talako.

Well, Ms.

Fago.

Hi, uh, can you guys hear me okay?

Perfect.

Okay, I just want to let you know that if you're joining as an attendee on Zoom, this isn't my public comment, but it's just a slideshow of you can't see what's happening in the room.

So it's a kind of a strange situation going on.

Anyway, just so that you're aware.

Anyway, so for my comment.

Yeah, Emily Tlego, posing resident.

I've been involved with the Midtown Neighborhood Association, a couple different capacities for quite some time now.

I do not live in the parking district.

But I certainly appreciate you guys reading the public comment that I sent in.

So just because it doesn't directly benefit me, certainly doesn't mean I lack the empathy and care for neighbors who are impacted by the parking district.

Everybody loves when neighborhoods work better.

So I want to also stand corrected.

Um about it being financially sustainable and self-supporting.

And as one of the board members that I can't see uh mentioned, um, yeah, I I base that on the data that was provided to the public.

And so obviously that didn't include anything that's been mentioned tonight about like the administrative or maintenance cost that we're spoken of.

Um if that data is available, I I would recommend providing that with a um that information to the permit holders with what a permit would actually cost if if it was going to be self-sustaining and covered, and then let them decide at that point if if that's a cost that they want to continue to bear or not.

Um I will say I think it's a shame that Mike is missing because he did so much of the work on the the new management strategy um that for the parking uh management district and the parking benefit zones.

I will say I think in the 11th hour, the sitting commission at that time got pretty granular about it, and I'm not shocked that that tool isn't used right now.

We do know it contains elements of better practices, um, best practices if you will, but better certainly better practices um for managing the curb in an urban area.

But um, as I mentioned in my letter, uh like like I think from a process from here is that like I I do believe we need to fix that best practices alternative, and once we've got that in place and that's something that your board can take up, then I think it's a lot easier to say, okay, the the the old school residential parking permit district that can only be used by residences, you know, co-opting the public right of way in in an inefficient way.

Um, we have a better tool to replace it with, not we just have no tool for you now.

Um, I track a lot of the development approval in the neighborhood.

Um, part of uh being involved with the city's neighborhood programs.

We have a ton of NFL coming online that has been approved.

Um, and so the need for managing parking, um, many of you may not or some of you may not know Midtown Urban Renewal District for a very long time has had a zero parking requirement.

Um and so now we're in a day a phase where state legislature said that anything under 1200 square feet, which is I think 100% of the the 1200 and some plus units slated for the corridor.

Um, pretty sure almost all of them are under 1,200 square feet.

So they have they don't have to provide any parking.

I think it would be a questionable business choice of of your product if you didn't provide any parking, but I I doubt that we are going to see I um all of the units get parked and so the pressure and competition for the curb spaces are it it's gonna it's gonna be a thing.

We're becoming a city.

So I recommend you keeping that tool in place, respecting the neighbors, don't be rude about it, and um, yeah, when you have something better to replace it with, let's do that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Flugo.

Any more comment, Lilya online?

I'm showing no requests online.

Okay.

Thank you uh everyone, for your input tonight.

Um I would, let's see, go on to um uh Nick, do you have any response that you want to make in the in this uh to anything that you've heard tonight?

Um there's been some talk around the data that we are coming up with for what the district should be um or sorry, what the permit cost should be uh for this district district since it is not actively covering all of those costs.

So what we've um seen historically back in 2017 uh or fiscal year 2017, the district had about 2700 uh permits sold every year.

And that's one of the highest uh it's actually ever been, but that's because um those permit costs were about ten dollars a pop.

So um from fiscal year 2017, uh working its way up to us now.

We've uh increased it, but not very much.

The last time we actually increased the permit cost was uh 2020, and it was increased from 30 to 35.

So year over year uh we haven't necessarily been uh working with uh the district and then working with our own finance uh department to look at whether or not we should really be trying to increase that permit um for just cost of living increases, um, but also just staffing increases for uh operations and maintenance as a whole.

Um I can say now that uh we've done some rough estimates for uh the revenue and the expenditures that we have, and the the permit prices uh doubled tripled uh quadrupled from what it is currently.

So you're saying it would be 700 possibly 140 to cover the cost of enforcement or for the maintenance and for the uh for the program.

Sure.

Um so like I said, this isn't a concrete number.

We're estimating around $300 per permit.

Currently, right now for the area of this district um and the permits that we are historically kind of seeing uh and the expenditures that we're were uh spending every year.

Um three hundred dollars uh really does cover it.

Where uh the Montana State University district uh has kind of a foothold in where BHS doesn't uh is the amount of citations issued every year.

So Montana State revenue um from the last time I looked at it for last year was around I want to say a hundred and forty-ish thousand dollars.

Um this last year for BHS, it was around 7500.

So since we can't really rely on the citation side of the revenue, that really does need to be covered by permits, and that's kind of what drives uh the much higher cost that we're seeing.

Okay, thank you, Nick.

Um so I think we'll now we'll uh do discussion with the board.

Um and we'll start up on Simon.

If you have any questions, if you have any recommendations that you think we should do moving forward with this uh in this meeting, I'd I'd be I'd love to hear them.

Yeah, thanks.

Well done.

Chis Times.

I think Ben Bailey has something to add.

Hello, board.

My name is Ben Bailey.

I'm the neighborhood services and code compliance program manager for the city of Bozeman.

Um I oversee parking um as well.

Nick is the parking manager, but I directly oversee Nick.

Um one thing that I think is really important to mention with this is um BHS subsidy is something we've known about.

Previous parking manager Ed Meese uh brought to this board's attention in 2020 that there was around a $30,000 subsidy um occurring regularly from the BHS district.

Um and he identified that because the permit costs were so low, and we weren't recovering those costs with citations.

Um at that time, he actually recommended to the board to increase those permit costs to $57 a year.

It did not happen.

Um it is now six years later, and we've seen that subsidy grow, because we haven't taken any action to increase those.

Um so I think some with some discussion and some direction from the board about um instead of these infrequent large increases in permit costs that having some direction over a year-over-year basis, which is much more um tenable for people that are dealing with this on a on a daily basis, um, would be beneficial for everyone involved, not just with the solvency of the parking department, but also with the people that are experiencing this on a day to day, um, going from 3675 to multiple hundreds of dollars over a very short period of time uh is not anything that anybody wants to do.

So um, you know, discussing that and coming up with a plan or giving some direction to maintain that solvency, which is a requirement of the Bozeman municipal code uh for districts and PBZs.

Um so we do need to get there.

How we get there is what we need to discuss.

Thanks, Ben.

That's very insightful.

Okay, uh Simon back to you.

Yeah, thanks, Ben.

Thanks for you.

Um I just have a couple questions, and uh Ben or Nick, maybe you guys can address this one.

Um, do we have similar districts to compare this to and what those permit costs are?

And apologies if I missed that.

Um, but just like have permit costs in other districts.

I know we talked a little bit about about the MSU district, um, but other districts that are governed kind of by the city have permit costs kept pace with inflation and cost of enforcement and whatnot in those districts.

Sure.

Um currently we only have two districts within the city of Bozeman.

Uh the MSU and then our BHS district.

Uh I can say that neither have kept up or increased uh over the last uh I want to say four years.

Uh MSU permit is still 3675.

Okay.

Um and then do we know if high school students need permits to park in all of the lots that they have there?

That is I'm unsure about that one.

Okay.

They don't.

They don't.

Okay.

Okay.

Um, which would be a nice incentive if it's free there and they might get a ticket on the side streets, then um.

Yeah.

Interesting.

Um yeah, sorry, those are all the comments that I have for the time being.

Okay, thank you.

Simon, Grace.

All right.

Um, yeah, I went to Bozeman High and I was there before and after the split.

And just from my personal experience, uh that far lot uh that's a long 15th was almost never full, especially after the split.

And that's the difference between a 10 minute walk to the majority of classrooms versus if you park on North 11th, like a five-minute walk.

So I think a lot of people, or at least a lot of people that I talked to would always go to those spots first.

So I think a reduction of size in the district, but only maintaining it on maybe 11th and 10th, because I know that's where if given if that was an option, most people would choose to park just because it's so much faster.

That was kind of my only comment.

I don't think there's any purpose for it to be south of Maine as well currently, but yeah, that's all.

Thank you, Chris.

Aiden.

Yeah, I guess with uh staff, like the parking department being fully staffed now.

I know that the 24, 25 year was 16,000 in paid citations.

That's gets us what a sixth of the way there in that uh that delta.

Um do you think uh additional enforcement in that area would like you know get us back up to that 16,000 or more.

Um I'm just trying to think of like how to make it a little bit more solvent, sure.

Yeah.

Um I mean, currently our citation fees for this district are 2350.

It's one of our lowest citations that we have.

Um the expenditures that we're trying to cover are quite a bit more than sixteen thousand.

Um so the potential of increasing that citation price uh could be an option, it's not what is uh normal practice with uh I guess really any parking uh uh departments or services kind of around the country of using citation revenue to cover uh different things, but really just the the permit price covering the the largest portion.

Yeah, so I guess not the uh actual like dollars and cents per citation, but just like increasing citations, because I noticed there was a drop-off from 730 to 411 in that same time period.

That decrease.

Um yeah, I mean, I I know going back to uh Ms.

Talago's comment of uh not just uh actual permanent development on 8th and 7th, um, but that's uh the lot up north of Durston uh is is highly desired and uh might not kick in for the next five to ten years after a change of ownership, but uh I think that's gonna increase a lot of pressure, so I'd be reticent to uh wholly dissolve this district and to remove a potential tool in the future.

Um, um, gosh.

I am very concerned about safety on 11th and 10th, Mendenhall, Lammy, and Villard.

Should this be dissolved?

I I see what you're saying about the numbers, and that stinks.

Um, but I also think about um I've got a high schooler, I've also got a middle schooler, high schooler goes to BHS, middle schooler goes to CJ, so takes the bus right here.

And it is crazy.

And when those kids are getting off the bus, if you've also got high schoolers looking for parking, um, and those kids who are biking home or walking home, I just worry about high schoolers trying to find those spots on 11th and 10th and those cross streets, while you also have these younger kids getting to the bus or getting from the bus.

And so while it might not necessarily make economic sense in those neighborhoods, I do think it makes a safety sense to have fewer people parallel parking scanning for parking and more people just focused on getting to the parking lot, maybe.

Um I um I don't know if we're on to our opinions here.

But uh, okay, good.

Um I just I really feel like that 11th and 10th from a safety perspective are important, okay.

Okay, noted thank you, Sean.

Right.

Um yeah, I don't think I have any largely differing opinions.

Um it does seem like the district south of Main Street um isn't yeah isn't serving the purposes that it needed needs to serve or or is intended to serve.

And having worked in some of those businesses over there.

And just like commuting through there very often, definitely see um yeah, like the effects of workers not being able to park close to their businesses.

And doesn't seem like the students are going much farther south of Main Street.

Um hopefully we do get more data from one of our numerous sources.

Yeah, it seems like North 15th is not necessary in the district, but 11th, 10th and those east-west cross streets, both for a safety purpose and because they are so close to the school's entrance are serving pretty functional purpose right now, which yeah, does put a bit of a bind on the on the economic feasibility.

Um it seems like that's something that um speaking the daily's comment needs to be incrementally shifted.

Um I don't know, yeah.

I don't know about having different violation prices and different zones, or if that would even have an effect on sort of driving students to the west entrance and like to the parking lots closer to North 15th, but maybe that is uh kind of a case specific thing to consider in this situation.

Um yeah, it seems like from a safety standpoint and from a proximity to where the main entrance to the school is that parts of the district are functioning in both capacities right now.

Okay, thank you, Bryce.

Uh Ben, did you have something you wanted to add?

I saw your hat go up.

Yep, thank you for for seeing that.

Um one thing for digestion purposes for all of you to ponder, um, when talking about the safety side of things, we have a tool in in our parking tool belt um called the parking benefit zone, which we could also do permitting from uh to address some of these issues for supply within this within this area.

Um what that would take is the development of a management district set by commission.

Um, but then we can get very granular with these parking benefit zones on specific streets for specific purposes in any surplus that comes out of those specific areas within that specific um PBZ can be used for things like enhanced safety and crossings, um, and that's by code.

Um so uh, you know, while you sit here and digest what's been before you and the public comment that you've heard and what we've supplied to you, um there are other tools that we haven't tried that might address uh some of these concerns and be better for all of it uh within the community.

Thanks, Ben.

Commissioner Magic, do you have any you would like to say?

Don't thanks.

This has all been great.

Great questions.

Yeah, okay.

Um so this is um this is an enormous amount of uh opinions and facts, and maybe we don't have quite all the facts yet, and and so coming up with a um a motion to vote on is uh uh it's uh a tax thing to think about.

I think um what I have generally gleaned from this discussion is that the um removal of the district completely from especially the area to the east of the high school above uh and north of Maine seems uh like it it would be uh uh it seems like it would be prudent to keep some mechanism in that area to um to sort of manage this area.

Um it seems generally south of Maine and and then 15.

Um might it might be okay to remove this down from that area.

Um I am also a little bit concerned about um uh Emily Telego's comment in her letter that some of the neighborhood association weren't aware of this action item coming up.

And I think to me, I think uh a reasonable approach would be to propose removing the district from the area south of Maine and on 15th, keeping it in the rest of the area, or considering the parking benefit zone um by commission.

Um how we move forward, I think that maybe that would be a proposal that we could put forward to the neighborhood and try to engage a little more actively with those affected.

And so my recommendation would be that we we uh propose that and go for a round of public um outreach uh to that proposal.

Um I'm not quite sure how to move that forward, but uh I'm open to uh Nick.

Go ahead uh manager Mark.

Or Director Ross.

I was gonna hand that off to Director Ross.

Yeah, no, appreciate it, Nick.

Um so thank you very much for for that Rio.

Um I think it would be uh the responsibility of a board member if you would want to make a motion to make that recommendation to the city to city staff to carry that forward to commission.

Um, if you guys still feel you um have given your input and would like to hand it off from there, I also won't hold you to a formal action on this either.

I think Rio stated it very well, a lot of information shared, a lot to consider.

Um, I'm sure as the city and commitment to our goals of public engagement before any formal action was taken by the commission would um do additional outreach.

Um, so I will leave it to Rio summary and then uh initiative taken through motion by any of you five on the board now to make that a formality.

Uh not to complicate things.

I do like Rio's suggestion, uh, and I will stand to motion it with a potential caveat depending on other board members' input and not to put more work directly on the parking department, but I'd also like to see during that community engagement um data was uh around those hot spots.

I know that is a little difficult at the moment with the GPS, um, but any data that can be pulled specifically for um citations issued where they are issued, um, like hopefully down to the exact um uh longitude latitude, but potentially even just street um and also where the permits are being pulled, so that when we're making that fiscal judgment of um potentially reducing uh staff time and maintenance on 15th, that we also know that that is also the like the lowest contributor of revenue.

So we are like already starting to tailor and trim um staff times.

So I don't sorry to like kind of throw things even deeper in this discussion.

I just wanted to put that forward to you guys.

Um yeah, no, I think that's great.

I was uh gonna mention too, I think seeing a little bit more data, and maybe that's part of just moving forward here and engaging the public better on this one, um, would be great, including those hotspots, and then also maybe if there's to your comment, Grace.

If it's 10 minutes to go from the farthest lot to the high school, is there a way to overlay that 10 minute walking distance on the 11th AV side of things to maybe tailor a little bit more, right?

I assume it's gonna take you more than 10 minutes to cross Maine, given the crosswalk timing there and whatnot.

So that to me seems like you just get rid of that part.

Um which we could study more through public engagement as well.

Um, but you know, that could be another tool, just very simply 10 minute walking distance, and then also looking at the enforcement hotspots and where the permits are being pulled.

Um I think this would be great pieces of data to kind of have in our tool belt as we evaluate recommendations moving forward.

To point a little bit, um, I work in this neighborhood also, and I do think that that 9th Avenue that is that cut off, that street generally I don't see high schoolers parking there.

High schoolers do not like to walk.

The ones I know don't like to walk anywhere more than is necessary, and that North Ninth Avenue to the high school seems to be about equidistant where they're like, oh that's that's too far, I could die.

Um and so I think that's why I keep coming back to North Tenth because it's like, oh, now that I could walk to, um, but North Ninth is generally there's parking available there.

Okay, if I may assist.

Um for the record, it sounds like we're moving towards motion.

Um because this would be action taken to recommend to commission.

I think it would be useful to be very clear on what the motion would be.

So um what I've heard is uh coalescing around a motion to consolidate the existing Bozeman High residential parking permit district to um North 11th, North 10th, Lammy, Beale, and Villard.

MC nods.

If somebody would want to make that motion, then it's up for a second and for your discussion and vote.

I guess with uh with a contingency to still pursue community engagement.

Um I make the motion to uh continue community engagement uh from city staff on um the exclusion of 15th and south of Maine for the Bozeman High School District and studying the feasibility of retaining the 11th, 10th Lammy, Mendenhall Villard, and the last street that I forgot.

Um, okay, we think we have a motion.

Is there a second?

I'll second that motion.

And I think it was Beale.

Okay, all those.

I all those in favor, please say aye.

I opposed.

All right, the motion carries to uh look at consolidating this parking uh management district down to 11th, 10th, 9th, and the side street uh as it is now.

Okay, now I think we are um we are ready to move on to uh our next agenda item uh and that is the uh the presentation uh by Jeff Butts with the Metropolitan Planning.

Sorry, I'm I lost my agenda here.

Thank you, everybody.

That was good.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

My name is Jeff Butts, and I am the manager of the Metropolitan Planning Organization.

It is uh a regional planning entity that includes the city of Bozeman, City of Belgrade, and Gallaton County out to four corners.

And uh here today give an update on our long-range transportation plan that we are currently working through.

And so the uh metropolitan planning organization is really an intermediary between the locals and the federal government.

And so um we are created by um US code, any city that has more than 50,000 people in it, is required to have a metropolitan planning organization in order to receive federal funding.

We are also required to follow a three C's process that is continuing comprehensive and cooperative.

Uh this map here shows our planning area, so you can see sort of what our our boundary is.

We have our own governing body, and so the governing body for the MPO is uh transportation policy coordinating committee.

It has two members of the Bozeman City Commission on there, the mayor and another member, uh as well as electeds from other areas from the county, I guess, uh and representatives from others.

We are also have the transportation technical advisory committee that provides input to them, and that includes director level staff from around the area.

And really, what we try to do is balance the needs of federal, state, and local.

A lot of times they're working from different programs and different needs and different origin destination pairs, and uh how do we really come to a uh agreed-upon solution for um for the future of regional transportation?

And so what we are looking at when we get into the long range transportation plan are these factors you see over here to the right.

So performance, looking at different projects and programs, as well as uh community goals, and so we've went out to the community and heard a lot from them.

Uh and that feeds into our long-range transportation plan, which then goes into a transportation improvement program similar to the city's uh capital improvement program where we are currently at right now is in the alternatives analysis and transportation advisory committee section.

We have our set of projects that we've gathered all the projects from existing plans.

We went out to the community in March and gathered a lot of project ideas.

We've put those in together, and they're currently in review from the Transportation Advisory Committee or Transportation Technical Advisory Committee, and moving through that process.

Some of the things that we're really looking at, you can see here on the board, safety came up, walking and biking, connectivity, um, there are stuff you can see here.

And this was brought into six different goals, uh, safe transportation for everybody, uh, well-maintained transportation system, uh, mobility choice, uh, enhanced quality of life, enhanced transportation land use coordination, and then uh system resilience.

So those really were feeding into how we scored the projects, and those are currently under review based on um project scoring and trying to balance across these areas you can see.

And so we've taken all of the candidate projects and we're funneling it down.

Uh we are currently at the available funding aspect of that and are going to produce a fiscally constrained project list.

And so, really, um, we're focusing a lot on the projects.

If you guys would have any input into programs, I know we were just talking about parking here.

That's a city program, it's certainly not an MPO program, uh, but if there's anything from a regional standpoint that you guys would think would be interesting, we've talked a little bit internally about transit serving those uh intercity routes, and what could that look like?

If you guys have any ideas, a commuter van, maybe anything like that.

Um, and then uh with all of this, of course, we're looking through that regional lens.

And so uh if we're looking at a programs that we'd want to include, this is what we're looking to address here: safety connectivity, demand, um, performance, and so other areas on where we can maybe add some value.

We've heard a lot about data and making the data that we have available to the public, and if there's any needs that you guys have, maybe as well that would be useful.

Um so right now we have our projects, we're refining those with the programs.

If you guys have any input there, and here is a small uh overview of where we're at as we get to the finish line by December of 2026.

And so with that, I'll open it up for any discussion, any questions or any uh feedback you may have.

So thank you.

So um meeting with the MPO is one of the uh work plan items on our 2026-2027 list.

Uh Jeff is our MPO manager.

He's also City Bozeman employee, so we're really grateful to have him here with us today.

So again, the goal here was to align this with the upcoming development of our city transportation mastery plan.

And I will have a little bit of a uh another session with you after we get done talking with Jeff.

But just wanted to thank Jeff for coming and by all means any questions you have for the MPO.

This is one of the couple chances we get to meet with them.

Cool.

Thank you, Jeff, for that and Nick.

Um Bryce, do you want to start out?

Yeah.

Um, yeah, we can go reverse order this time.

I guess I'll just uh off the top of my head.

Um I think yeah, program side is an area that um we might have some ideas for slash could use um like the the greater MPO um tools and just like larger scope help um the commuter van slash yeah programs for for allowing more easy public transport.

I know um streamline is both kind of in the city's master transportation master plan scope of things.

I'm not sure where that is also falling under yours.

Um and then I guess this is less program and more of a project, but just like the connectivity within the regional area for um active transportation, I think is in some something we're all interested in, something I'm definitely interested in.

So I don't know if you can speak to um like what the possibilities are there or what's already maybe been generated in those two areas, but yeah, great, fantastic.

A couple things on transit.

Um we are also going to put transit into our plan.

Transit develops their own uh uh development plan for the routes they're gonna do, but we um align will align with theirs on the active transportation and having a safe uh network.

Uh one of the things that uh our board has identified that they pushed for is a regional um, I don't know if I'd call it a bikeway or trail system, but a regional network that is safe for all agents and abilities to be able to walk and bicycle.

So that's a big thing that we're looking at.

Um we've also uh talked about connectivity of the arterials and collectors, and then the connectivity of the local streets would be much more of a uh TMP sort of thing.

Uh we may measure that on just high-level metrics, but no real uh direction provided.

So hopefully that gives some a little bit there on the yeah that's great.

Uh we'll probably have more questions once everybody else asks.

Thank you.

I don't have anything at the moment.

Okay, thank you.

I was curious if um you are planning on on dropping by on a Wednesday evening later in the summer after the alternatives analysis.

Um just curious to like kind of see what the progression is because I don't know what how many times we're supposed to uh to meet this year.

But we usually have uh the MPO joined about once a year, but um there's I'm sure Jeff can carve up the time if needed.

Um yeah, I was just curious because uh I was just actually on the MPO site.

Um and was curious what uh comment had been collected.

Um, but since the window had closed, the SRE screen is just blank and telling me that the map failed, but I'd be curious to see what uh folks submitted for um for projects, and especially as we uh do the long range plan here in Bozeman.

I'm sure um Sandbell and Co.

Um have a lot of coordination with with your folks.

So I'm just curious to see the things under the hood, but that's all I have.

Yeah, thanks on the public comment.

Uh I thought the map was working.

Uh just can't comment on anymore.

So we'll double check on that one.

We did get a lot of comments.

I don't know how many we had, several hundred comments, a lot of it related to walking and bicycling and safety and transit.

Transit was a big one.

A bus to the airport was something we heard a lot of early on.

Um, the uh community engagement.

I think some of the things for the TMP that may be quite useful.

Uh there were some real connections between like where students are starting from and where they're walking to, and normally we look at projects from a corridor level for trails or something.

You know, as people walk, they tend to like to walk crooked.

And so that was something that we brought into our project list that maybe we could forward on as well, some of those minor details.

Thank you.

I was just wondering, is there any process of like reconciliation or collaboration between the Bozeman long range plan and the MPO plan?

Like, is there any dialogue between those two or are they totally independent?

Yeah, there's a lot of dialogue.

A lot of everything that we have taken so far to date, because this is our first plan, um, has come from existing plans.

And so the MPO really has not forwarded ideas on our own that haven't come from the public or haven't come from existing plans.

So all of our projects they came from the TMP, and new projects came from City of Bozeman staff, and so that is where we have been.

Uh and now we're moving forward with uh with the update.

And so I think it's a dynamic situation, and everybody is trying to work together collaboratively and have uh alignment between them.

That's great to hear.

Thanks for the clarification.

Um, let's see.

And our what was that?

April transportation advisory board meeting.

Um we talked a lot about uh when it came to the Bozeman TMP road ecology, and I'm curious to what extent we could maybe roll that into or how appropriate it would be to roll that into the MPO.

It seems like a lot of the systems that the MPO is gonna be looking at are kind of larger scale regional connections, right?

Like you had that that map in your presentation that was pointing out a lot of um connections between here, four corners and then up to Belgrade.

Obviously, those roads are generally higher speeds, um higher traffic volumes often wider, and I'm just curious how um moving forward we could make those roads maybe a little less surface highway-esque.

Um or if that's part of the purview of the MPO, but that would be something that I would kind of be curious how that's how that could maybe pan out or integrate into the MPO.

Didn't know if you had any immediate thoughts about that or if that had come up in any project suggestions.

Uh it's consistently come up, I think, throughout the entire process.

Right now we're doing the modeling, and the modeling is showing a lot of um things that model show.

And uh I think, you know, the big regional framing side of things, and we haven't talked about this yet.

One of the things that's just sort of rattling through my mind is when you talk about the federal government.

Uh at their level, they're really looking at mobility and access and where roads are on here.

And for the city of Bozeman, maybe where you want to go, I don't know.

Um could be more towards that access side, which means you're gonna have slower streets.

You're maybe gonna live with a little bit more to have a walkable community, and you know, not widening the roads and narrowing the intersections are things we've heard, and so balancing balancing that one regional framing might be just let's kind of ratchet down the high end here and go towards that human scale a little bit more.

Um, but those fine details we uh this is our first long-range transportation plan, so we're focused mostly on requirements, but appreciate the input.

Gotcha, cool.

Yeah, and then uh one other question how much does the or how much sway I guess does the plan once it's published have over uh MDT and their own requirements for a lot of these um kind of major connector roads between cities.

Yeah, well, the area where we are very firm in our plan is with the federal funding and where that goes, and that leads to the transportation improvement program, and that is very black and white.

I think a lot of the work that we do is collaborative, and so uh we have to get everybody together and convince uh make make good arguments no matter who we are, but working together as a team, I think is going to balance perspectives, and um again that framing of this area as being walkable, I think is something that we're certainly going to help with, and um can point out to the state.

Uh the I think one thing that we're thinking about is the just origins and the destinations, and so being local, we have that um local lens that we can share as well.

Simon, I think that was a really important question, if you don't mind Jeff, if I would opine a bit from the city boseman's perspective.

Um first and foremost, at the staff level, MDT has really good people, and we they have taken a concerted effort to improve how they're engaging with local agencies as well as local community.

So I don't want this to ever come as you know, anything but you know, maybe don't hate the player, hate the game kind of situation, right?

Um I think and I believe our commission will feel um the MPO will provide a very, very prudent check and balance towards what projects um the state transportation uh commission would seek to bring forward in our community, because all of those will now have to be approved for funding through the MPO and uh the transportation improvement program.

And so uh specifically since we do have our city commission do have does have two members on the policy committee that ultimately approves all documents from the MPO.

I don't want this to sound like a threat, right?

But it will provide a higher level of local input on funding decisions that ultimately lead to projects that ultimately affect our community.

And so um Jeff gets put in a really fun position here where he gets to be the manager of a multi-agency organization within the city Bozeman structure.

So he does a great job of um uh keeping peace uh amongst all involved.

Um but I'm really glad you pointed that outside, and because I think it will be a necessary and beneficial check and balance to all agencies involved in the MPO.

Cool.

Yeah, thank you for that clarity.

That clears things up quite a bit.

So appreciate it.

And you were you raise a good point on the governance because we do have our own board, and there is stuff that comes to the MPO that used to be in the state's purview, and so now we're gonna have local input on it and local decisions, and sometimes uh transportation alternatives, for example, uh we within the city of Bozeman have oversight on administering that, and it used to be the state, and um so that's one area I think, and um time will tell.

We'll do our best.

Yeah, no, yeah, and I recognize that it's the first, it's our first one, so it's uh yeah, we're we're coming at it from maybe a new perspective, so trying to listen and learn.

Jeff, I was curious.

Um if their the public engagement was was through um there was the uh comment through the website have uh two questions.

One have what like you mentioned there was like bus service to the airport, which um sounds great.

I think uh were there any other significant um kind of discrete things that you couldn't say from that public comment?

A and B, was there any attempts uh at surveying the community?

Um being a bit more um uh statistical about trying to you know who you get input from.

Uh great, thank you very much.

Uh we'll answer the first question, and the thing that comes to my mind immediately was I-90 and how the state is planning a new interchange for I-90.

And one of the community members pointed out, uh business owner in Belgrade that we need to have land use planning uh ready to go when that new interchange comes in.

And so that coordination between land use and transportation, that's kind of the first thing that came to my mind.

Uh, and I think we're gonna have to continue pushing on.

Uh I'm sorry, I forgot your second question.

I guess I was just curious if there was any um, you know, sometimes public input mechanisms uh, you know, they're very self-selective to those who are are very engaged.

And I was wondering if there's any attempt to reach uh people who might not know about the website or um uh if there would have been any surveys done.

Yeah, great great question.

Uh we did a survey and it received about 30 responses.

It was not uh statistically significant sample size.

Uh to do something of that does take more resources than we have.

We're on a pretty limited budget and doing the best that we can with it.

And what we plan on doing now that we're getting through this long-range transportation plan, is uh beginning to work on increasing our um list of people who are on our e-notification and likely building our own social media presence and so uh, yeah, yeah.

Slowly but media would be great, I think.

I would follow you on Instagram for sure.

Instagram or Facebook is Facebook still cool or you don't have to answer.

I think to a lot of them for the community, yeah.

Yeah.

Um so okay, uh I you know I have uh my my regional uh wish list, but I'm gonna hold off on on uh talking about that.

Um we'll see if there's any uh public comment in the room or online at this point.

Is there anyone in the room that would like to comment on this?

There's nobody in the room.

Okay, thank you.

And Emily, is there anyone online?

I'm showing no request online.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right, I'll I'll expand with my quick wish.

I like I if I wanted to see half hour bus service to the airport in big sky, is that something that this planned, or is this is that more of a uh uh uh the uh streamline uh sorry, I'm I've lost the Yallon Valley Urban Transportation District.

Is that something or is that is that a is that a wish that's not encompassed in any of the governing bodies uh at this point to to work with big sky.

So a couple of questions there.

Uh if there's to be bus service from Bozeman to the airport, that is within streamlines purview uh and it is something that they are having discussions about uh seeing how they could make that work.

Uh down to Big Sky is a different transit authority down there, and we have I've reached out to them and they reached out to us.

We just haven't uh connected yet.

Okay, cool.

All right, thank you.

Um, is there anyone else uh in the board?

Uh let's start with Bryce again if there's any last comments on this.

I'd like my turn now.

Okay, Janet, yes, please.

Um, I'm just just curious if there's anything on the horizon kind of um with with transportation of kids.

We've got our school bus, um, and that's kind of it.

And I know some other areas do a little bit more to get their kids moved from place to place without parents.

Of course, every parent dropping a child off at an event is four trips back and forth with pickup and drop-off, and so in some communities, there's kind of a push to to get more of a public transportation, kids on public transportation.

Is there is there anything in the pipes for for getting children transported in this town?

On transit.

Um, I mean, in Boulder, interestingly, the school bus is the public transit system.

It's the same system.

Right.

Which I find fascinating.

Yeah.

Because we never see children or rarely see kids on our public transit system here.

Yeah, there's a couple of things that we have looked at when it comes to transit, uh, high-frequency corridors along 7th up to MSU, potentially, and then over to the mall.

We have not yet discussed um anything for children outside of Safe Rouse to school uh with our last transportation alternatives, the city of Bozeman put forth an application that was successful to revive the Safer House to School program.

But beyond that, we have not had to.

This is the first we've heard about uh using transit as a resource for children to get to school.

So it's a great uh great little uh nugget there.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Great to see Simon.

Yep.

All right.

Okay, Jeff, thank you very much.

Look forward to uh talking about you more in the future.

Thank you all very much.

Yeah, all right, and that brings up our last.

Go ahead.

I was gonna say, Rio, would we mind extending to 815?

Oh, yeah, look at the time.

Uh, not a problem for me.

Uh that sounds good.

Do we need to take a formal motion on this?

Nope.

Okay.

And then with that, let's uh talk about the RFU discussion and scope.

Okay, good evening, everybody.

Nick Ross, Director of Transportation and Engineering.

Um, first of all, thank you very much for a great conversation on the parking district.

Uh, first meaty topic that we've had in a while, so uh welcome to public engagement in the city of Bozeman.

You're in the hot seat now.

Um, and also really want to thank Jeff for coming.

Uh we intentionally tried to align these items so that we tried to help um explain the differences between the MPO's LRTP and our city transportation master plan.

And so I'll follow up with our ongoing discussion on our city TMP.

Um, so I presented this slide before, but I think it's again a useful tool for differentiation here, as Jeff mentioned.

You know, there the MPO is really looking at the regional connectivity of the area.

The primary focus um for a funding standpoint at least is going to be more of those on-system routes.

Um the MPO's LRTP does have to be fiscally constrained to federal revenue sources.

Um I mentioned before when we were creating the MPO.

I'm pretty sure 99% of the interest in it was the hope or expectation that additional funding would be coming to the area.

Not necessarily the case, but as we described, as we talked about earlier, it will be a useful check and balance to how that funding is spent.

Um, City Transportation Mastery Plan that we get to talk about now, that's refined only to the Bozeman Planning area.

Um, this does serve as our Montana Land Use and Planning Act facility plan for transportation.

So this is tied directly to our community plan, our land use plan that will guide then the development of land throughout the city over the duration of both plans.

And then finally, the projects that we identify with in our Bozeman TMP will be what get pulled into our city capital improvement plan that we get to start discussing.

Oh, geez, probably any day now that the budget is approved for this year.

So we talked about a little bit of the team alignment.

So our city engineer Miliano Esparza will serve as the project manager for our TMP.

I get to be the uh project principal that focuses more on decision making and overall approach to the project, and then we have our excellent city transportation engineer, Taylor Lonsdale, leading our staff effort with our consultant team, public including our advisory boards, and then also what we plan to form, a technical working committee that's really made up of uh agency, uh different departments within the city and some of our agency partners from more of that technical perspective.

So the big news um we have selected a preferred consultant.

We received uh four responses to a request for proposals.

I shared the RFQ with you all as part of this item.

Uh Montana law requires projects of this size to be selected on based on a request for qualifications.

So we don't necessarily get to outline the specific scope of the project within that requisition, and then ask for consultant teams to respond on their approach to that project and give us a price and pick off that.

So we more or less have to frame the overall scope of the project in broad terms.

That's why you saw the scope in the RFQ being relatively light, and then have applicants propose their teaming and their qualifications to us, select from there, and then get into the final scope and fee negotiation for the final contract.

So we are happy to have a team of Sandbelt led by um, quite frankly, what I consider to be our preeminent local transportation planning and engineering firm in the area leading the project.

They'll be supported in large part by Kittleson Associates, who is one of the top national transportation planning firms we have available to us.

If you're roughly familiar with those two teaming uh partners, it's because they're also our selected consultant for our comprehensive safety action plan.

And so one of the the great benefits that we saw in this team is that we'll have to now complete the safety action plan, which is funded by that federal safe streets for all grant, and our transportation master plan in coordination in parallel with one another.

So the majority of our talk today is going to be on our community engagement plan for the TMP, and that alignment is going to come up in what we discussed there.

Um last but certainly not least, and um what was one of the differentiators with this team in our decision to select them uh was their inclusion of the firm Logan Simpson.

Um so we talked last time uh about the scope and the city's interest in bringing road ecology as a framework into the development of our TMP.

Well, Logan Simpson is the firm that led our uh Gallatin Valley Sensitive Lands Plan, and our uh was one of the key firms in our um uh 2020 community plan.

So they're uh not only experts in the field of ecology, uh, but they've demonstrated to us in this valley uh all the the resources that they could bring to this project.

So that combination of team with the local presence of Sandbell was really the differentiator for us in providing the best team to serve our community with this TMP update.

So on to a little bit more discussion on the scope of this project.

As I mentioned, they are our selected preferred consultant.

We've now begun the final scope and fee negotiation with them that will lay out all the responsibilities of the project, and then ultimately the cost and the fee for the Transportation Master Plan update.

What I wanted to focus on with you tonight and gain a little bit of feedback as we develop this final scope.

So with all major projects, and especially now for our MLUPA compliant facility plans, the city has to develop a community engagement plan that ultimately gets the blessing of our city commission.

So as part of this effort with bringing these topics to you early, the goal is to provide city staff feedback and ultimately commission feedback in the decisions they're gonna have to make on this incredibly important project.

So here's our IAP2 framework that we use when we develop our community engagement plans.

It basically works on a spectrum from least amount of public involvement to the most amount of public involvement.

What we're proposing for this plan is a combination of our consult and involve methodologies here.

Basically, what that means is we are going to reach out to the public not only to obtain their impact, excuse me, obtain uh their feedback on all the analysis and alternatives and technical stuff we do, but also work with them directly in a very hands-on way to develop this plan for the community.

Where that differentiates from a master planning level project from uh one that may need more of that collaborative or empowerment, um, typically those levels are what we see at the individual project level.

So the TMP is more of that 10,000-foot look that then develops the project ideas that get brought into our capital plan for more of the intensive involvement.

Our Fowler Avenue Connection project is the perfect example of that, being the more higher level input that led into that project being identified as a need and several past transportation plans, then the real nitty-gritty fine-grained involvement that we had from the public with the actual design of the project before uh it goes to construction.

Some of the techniques and tools uh that we would plan then to use in compliance with the consult involve uh mode of engagement here are uh things that we're quite familiar with now in the city.

Um things like surveys, folks groups, public meetings, and then if the need arose through development of those early engagement activities for more of the fine-grained type feedback, that's when we would break that down more to the community level or neighborhood level with more intensive public engagement before the plan is finalized.

And so uh by way of generating discussion with a little bit of uh the proposal that we're working on right now in our draft, um, we want to start with a little bit of an explanation of strategy.

Um, first and foremost, um, we are proposing to join the public engagement efforts between our safety action plan and our TMP.

So, a couple reasons uh that we're proposing that alignment.

One, uh we very much feel at the staff level in service of our commission goals, and ultimately what we hear from community that safety is intertwined in every type of planning, design, and construction project we do in the transportation field.

Uh I did not feel that it was going to be a conducive way of engaging with the public to try to separate out all talk about safety and only showing up to those safety action plan meetings and not talk about that at our transportation master plan meetings.

The safety action plan is going to be its own document that's approved as a compliant SS4A safety action plan and make us eligible for capital funding through that program.

And it is going to be integrated into our overall TMP as well.

So because the two issues are so closely aligned, and one plan will be part of another, we're proposing that we hold most of the public engagement as joint engagement meetings between the two plans.

This also hopefully is going to uh cut back on a little bit of the engagement fatigue that we hear from our community sometimes when we're doing multiple plans over the same time, especially after we've just done extensive public outreach for our LRTP at the MPO level.

I was not confident that I could explain that to myself, let alone our public and get the kind of quality engagement we seek.

Further in the strategy, then we will uh be recommending to establish a technical working group, but not necessarily stakeholder groups within the public.

So, what is a technical working group?

Um we understand that there are going to be very technically nuanced parts of this plan that require coordination with our planning department from a land use perspective, our police department and fire department from emergency services, some of the more institutional partners in our community, like the Montana Department of Transportation, like MSU.

And to that end, we feel aligning those technical resources within the project development will be important to the overall quality plan.

What I don't want to do though is give the perception or reality of special seats to the table by inviting certain members of our community to take part in sort of stakeholder groups that aren't open to the general public.

This again is a little bit of a lesson from those early days of the Fowler Avenue Connection Project.

Stakeholder groups are very common in public engagement.

And we often hear then that those who weren't selected to be on the stakeholder groups feel sort of left out or unheard, or at least put down in the order of importance.

And so all public engagement, all truly public engagement, will be done open to anyone in the community that's interested in joining.

That is a differentiation from the technical working group since that's really the staff and agency representatives that will be working on the actual development of the plan.

So all public engagement, public input towards that plan will be open to the general public and not sort of um bifurcate that from other stakeholder groups.

This again is very similar to all of our project specific engagement plans as well as our unified development code uh project that we've completed over the past several years.

Engage BZN is going to be your what the public's one-stop shop for all project updates, meeting invitations.

That's where we'll host uh any community surveys that we develop as part of engagement for the TMP.

And it's also where we're going to look to host sort of the issue and project maps that we hope will uh elicit a lot of that lived experience feedback on our actual transportation system.

Um Hayden mentioned that he pulled up the MPO map uh from the LRTP.

I was literally just looking at it today as we were going over a scoping meeting with our consultant.

Uh it was active earlier today.

Sorry, the hamster must not be turning the internet wheel uh fast enough uh tonight.

Um, but one of the ideas that we came up with there was a way to actually migrate all those Bozeman specific comments that were already generated from the LRTP into our TMP map.

So again, we try to reduce that engagement fatigue a little bit.

Somebody thinks that they were already commenting on the LRTP, they've said their piece.

I don't want to lose all that great information because it is very specific to Bozeman and very pertinent to include in our TMP.

But that's similar concept.

So the kind of engagement map where people can put the dot on the screen, tell us their piece, and get feedback from that way.

Online engagement certainly won't be our only form.

Um, and one of the issues or one of the uh um uh topics I want to um get some feedback for tonight is how we set up our in-person engagement meetings.

Um, so uh what we are um uh proposing right now, and again, very much in draft form, up for discussion.

Um, we feel that there's gonna be parts of this TMP development that truly are kind of universal to the entire city.

Um we'll go through an exercise at the start of the plan where we set our and define our own goals and objectives that we then are tasked with meeting through the TMP.

Uh to me, that is a community-wide conversation and the kind of conversation that we should be having together in one place, so we can be sure that we are responding to the public's needs.

Um also then when we develop the draft plan and it goes live.

That's another one of those community-wide type meetings where we want to hear feedback on the plan that we developed before it goes to commission uh for their review and approval.

Within that, though, we found a lot of benefit from the UDC once we re-engaged and broke it down on more of that regional city level.

So having targeted meetings in different areas of the city where we can hope to encourage some of that more local issue feedback within the community that all then gets rolled up into the master plan from there.

So, I'm already a little bit late.

Um, that's my uh TMP update on our project team selection and our initial strategy here for the community engagement plan.

And I would love to hear any feedback and our waning moments on how you think that direction's going.

Nick, thank you very much for the update.

Um do we have anyone in the room for comment?

I feel like we should do public comment if there is any first uh to the end of of making things more uh accessible for people.

Um and so is there anyone in the room for public comment at this time?

Nope.

And anyone online, Moya, that you're showing for public comment.

I'm showing no one online.

Okay, thank you.

Uh then uh let's start with Simon for uh let's do comments and questions all together.

Yeah, thanks.

Um, I think that's a great uh overview, Nick.

Let me just see if I had anything.

I mean, I guess I had a couple of kind of things on my notes for the RFQ itself.

I don't know if it's necessarily relevant to talking about public engagement.

Um I don't know that I necessarily have any specific questions.

I think it's great that we're rolling over feedback from the LRTP into this because um yeah, I believe I heard from a colleague the other day that it's like sometimes the number of projects that are on engaged boseman is a little bit overwhelming.

Um there is oftentimes a lot of overlap between those those different projects, and so yeah, if you are going to one of these meetings and saying something and assuming that it's for something else and it's not, and then you're like, wait, I didn't that didn't you know show up and the engagement for that.

Um so I think it's great that we're we're rolling that in.

I think if there's any opportunities for that in the future through other projects that are immediately adjacent to the TMP update, um rolling that input in would continue to be a good idea.

Um so yeah, I think this is all great stuff.

I might have more to chime in on once we go through the whole board, but that's all I have for now.

Okay.

Sounds like you've secured a great team, and yeah, hearing about your uh community engagement strategy was really cool.

I appreciated that, and I believe that's all I have.

Okay.

So apparently Firefox doesn't load the session browser.

I was able to find a it was just saying like this data is inaccessible, so I thought it was just yanked.

Um I like reiterating what they said, uh, combining the engagement, so Castle Widernet reduces potential fatigue.

Um I like your idea of like bringing in the Bozeman specific comments.

I don't know if they have any like metadata tagged to their their comment of their email, but it might be nice to just be like, hey, just so you know, like we hear you, we're bringing you in to this this next plan just to to make them feel kind of heard.

Um, I think building off Simon's comment, like, just looking at like the LRTP map, you can see existing conditions of streamline, but if there are any like proposed, I don't know any off the top of my head, but stops um line expansions, uh, like additional like park developments that might be just things to like get the uh wheels spinning of of what we might expect uh on the grounds infrastructure look like the next three to five years would probably help people start to think about things like that.

Um which I know is gonna produce a could produce a busy map but hopefully people can filter it down but um yeah that's all I have right now.

Um yeah that's all sounds good.

You nailed it the pairing of the safety action plan and TMP seems very common sense and yeah pulling in whatever engagement we already have from uh the LRTP also makes a lot of sense.

I think um it seems like CJ did a pretty good job at this but just getting notice of engagement up like early and I think maybe Hayden has a good idea about yeah maybe picking some attractive things that could fall into the TMP are already in there to get people's um ideas generated um would be helpful because I I think there's like large group or like a large portion of the city that is like oh a workshop just happened I wonder what they talked about.

I know that you know reach only goes so far um but yeah whether it's the engage page or social media um and maybe like publishing a little bit about what the technical working group is working on so then the the public is like okay this is like what they've got their resources looking at already um both will help generate some ideas and will help reduce that exclusionary feeling since since it's not a stakeholder group but just so people are like oh the reason they're talking to MSU yada yada yada is to look at these specific subjects.

Cool otherwise it looks great though.

Not otherwise it does look great.

One sorry if Rio go ahead that's the problem with doing this remotely and the ghost of the machine I I do um I like a lot of the collaborative like the collaborative or you know combining um combining comments everything like that.

I will say and and this is something that I just have a general beef with all engagement processes is they just they self-select for uh the wonks the nerds the the the busybodies and and it's it doesn't represent the true you know wishes probably of a good chunk of Bozeman.

And I like when your first slide where you had um interviews and focus groups.

And even if you do like you know uh flyers in every business in town you're still gonna have a huge thing of the population who does kind of care about these things but they're just never going to input their their opinions they're just life is too busy and and this is not fun and and I think um like a focus group uh that's you know sort of representative of of the general you know I I don't think that that's probably within the budget or the timeline of changing it at this point.

But that's I just um I feel very strongly about that that a lot of these processes just don't um really capture uh the real Bozeman so that said uh with what the resources we have I think yeah you've done a really nice job of of making things more um efficient uh I also really like the idea of the like the streamline, like sort of like somehow putting that plan or you know, talking with streamline and sort of plan how to plan out maybe bus stops or um the whole transit disconnect with federal dollars versus what the city does is that's a whole nother topic, and I don't really want to get into it right now.

But um yeah, nice job.

Hey, sorry, I was just gonna say that um I am one of the guilty culprits of like having not even commented on LRTP map because I got it in like the one uh monthly like digest email, and then just slip my mind, but hopefully with like the increased efficiency of combining the plans, we can like maybe send out like a reminder email or extend the commenting block uh with like multiple touch points during that, so that uh folks like me, the brain of a goldfish, right on.

Son.

Um to your point, Rio of public engagement being self-selective, it's almost like you need what we had at the beginning of June with all the um people are canvassing the public for all the ballot initiatives.

It's almost like you need somebody in front of the post office with like a board, it's just like, hey, do you want to say we agree with TMP?

Or like, I agree with that 100%.

Is there a way to put yeah, or put input spots at like well used bus stops in town, or is there a way to somehow integrate something into Streamline itself where like you get on the bus and it's like, oh hey, Bozeman's redoing their TMP?

Like, do you want to say anything about it?

Here's a I don't know.

Then you get the fatigue of like, here's a QR code, oh I gotta scan everything nowadays.

Um I don't know, but those are just some ideas that popped into my head.

Um I did want to briefly circle back to something that you had on one of the first slides, Nick.

Um, the TMP talking to the community plan as uh yeah, serves as MLUPA's facility plan for transportation.

Um, and I think you mentioned that this is gonna be tied into community land use planning.

Is the land use plan or community plan being updated around the same time?

I forget how recently that was updated, and or if that's if we feel like that's out of date at all, are we kind of tied to what that recommends when the transportation plan is talking to that or what's the back and forth there?

Sure.

So late last year uh we did um adopt our latest update to the community plan.

Um that was all in around the so the bigger planning activity over the last bigger land use planning activity over the last several years is clearly our unified development code.

Um so our um uh for MLUPA compliance, we did update and approve uh a revision to the community plan ahead of that.

Um, but the the real meat and potatoes um came through that UDC discussion.

And so um for those that weren't super involved in that uh the Montana Montana Land Use and Planning Act.

Um I'll be kind and say um that now forces cities to uh front load um all plan the vast majority of engagement and planning activities for the development of land within their cities, and then has taken away some of the um uh more project-specific development proposal engagement opportunities and uh some authority from local governments from the at the commission level for approving certain types of those applications.

Um so why something like a TMP is so important is because the TMP essentially then sets the standards for future development that we'll have to that they will have to hold to with the development of land or redevelopment of parcels within the city.

So our UDC, right, which guides the actual development of land, then we'll point to the TMP to define what sort of transportation improvements are required as a condition of development for those projects.

Not necessarily at the development project specific level, we get to come around as a community and have those discussions.

So the TMP is critically important there to basically set the bones of our future city so that when a new parcel does come in for development, we clearly define what routes, what streets will need to be built to serve that and their form and function as well.

And so this is where in the past, some of the, to be quite frank, some of the streets that we're now working on going back and revising were ones that were built sort of at that formulaic master planning level.

The TMP said Oak Street needs to be five lanes wide and go in this line.

And so every time one of those tracts of land came in for annexation development along the way, they built the five lane section, and now we are here trying to refine how streets like that operate.

So we get to decide what these streets look like into the future when they do get built.

Got it.

But it's not necessarily as specific or granular in the sense of like, oh, there's a new development on Wilson.

Wilson has to be upgraded to meet that.

It's more so when land is annexed into the city.

What type of development are we planning for, and then what type of streets are we intending to serve that?

Unless there would be a certain intersection that's impacted by that development that then the TMP decide sets the standard for what that improvement would look like in the future.

So the development on Wilson comes in, we do the traffic impact study, it triggers mitigation of traffic impacts.

That then looks to the TMP to say we've already planned out what that intersection that's being impacted, it needs to be mitigated will look like in the future.

Got it.

Cool.

That clears it up.

Thank you.

So transit has come up frequently.

Guess what?

We also just finished uh transit development plan as part of the UTD.

So that was another recent planning activity that has been completed over the last year, led by our urban transportation district, that then sets the transit development plan for future build out of the transit system.

So that will be included again as a component of our TMP.

We want to make sure this is effectively a layered approach, right?

We add layers for the existing conditions of our streets, existing land uses, future land uses, future demand, transit improvements, ecological resources, and all these layers build into the final map, if you will, of projects and future improvements for our transportation system.

So transit will very much be included, but in respecting the urban transportation district, who does manage uh not only operations of our streamlined bus, but also the future planning of the transit system will rely on their transit development plan to guide the street development within the Bozeman transportation plan.

Great.

Sorry, Rio.

I should have said 8 30.

You're fine.

Are we uh do we have any other questions or comments?

Okay, so schedule.

Um I'm gonna try to squeeze uh commission item on July 21st to bring the community engagement plan.

Um so hearing your feedback here, it does seem like we are trending in the right direction.

Uh so we'll take that as a thumbs up to continue finalize the community engagement plan.

We'll get commission approval for that plan.

Uh, and then I hope to bring um an item on consent to commission uh the last meeting of the month on the 28th, I believe, uh, to approve um the uh approve the professional service agreement with Sand Bell for our transportation master plan.

So if all goes well, we'll have the contract in place by the end of July and be able to get underway with plan development.

Okay, thank you all very much.

Thank you, Nick.

Thank you, everyone, for staying long tonight and for a really um really great discussion uh throughout.

Um and with that, I would like to uh adjourn the June 24th meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board.

Big gabble bang.

Thank you, everyone.

Goodbye.