You're on the show from the from this angle, right?

Yep.

Well if Jeff unshares his screen, you'll be able to see this even the Zoom screen.

Yes.

Are we on mute?

Nope.

We're good to go.

And we have Brandon Joe, Katherine King online.

Hanging around with the people in this room.

So you got just about everybody.

That's just jump.

So he has a question.

Go ahead, Chris.

Yeah, do you um are you all gonna promote us to the uh to active participants?

I just want to make sure you see us hanging out here.

Hey, I can promote you right now.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Morning, everybody.

I'm gonna give one more minute for stragglers and we'll get started.

Um, yes, City Celbury.

Oh no.

He's not on.

I think we have seven or eleven.

Steve Murphy here.

Sean O'Collaghan, Sean, Brandon's online, and Sunshine's here.

Todd is online.

So great.

Now Chris Sconders just joined.

Twitter.

So yeah, we have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight so far.

That's a four.

Okay.

We'll get started, everybody.

Thank you very much for joining our hybrid uh Wednesday meeting or uh Wednesday July 8th meeting of the uh MPO's transportation technical advisory committee.

I will go ahead and call this meeting to order.

Uh there's a bunch of information for how to be able to comment in writing and in person on your agenda.

And uh kick things off.

Let's have Marcy take roll.

Chris Saunders.

Not seeing him.

Nicholas Ross?

Here.

Katherine King.

Here.

Jason Murphy.

Sean O'Cullihan.

Here.

Leva Ewing?

Beth Clarkson?

Here.

Brandon Jones?

Yeah.

Sunshine Ross?

Claud Wilson?

Here.

Don Howe.

We have one, two, four, five, six.

Seven out of eleven.

Okay, core in place, so we can get rolling.

First up on our agenda is approval minutes.

Jeff and Marcy put together minutes from June.

Provide to you on your agenda packet.

I will accept the motion to approve.

Oh, to approve.

Thank you, Sunshine.

Okay.

Leave out second.

Okay.

Any comments, revisions, edits on the minutes from June?

Okay, hearing none.

Marcy, can you check to see if we have any folks from the public online?

We have two people online for.

I'll just keep that in mind.

Okay.

All right.

Uh so here, no objections, comments edits to the minutes from June.

Please go ahead and take the uh big call person.

Nicholas Ross?

Hi.

Katherine King.

Hi.

Levi.

Hi.

Seth Clarkson?

Hi.

Brandon Jones.

Hi.

Sunshine Ross.

Hi.

Todd Wilson.

Hi.

Oh.

I was gonna explain here.

We got Sean.

We can let Sean.

So if you don't mind.

John, would you like to vote?

I was gonna explain because I wasn't.

Perfect.

I can just float out of the radar.

Okay.

So yeah, so far.

Thank you, Marcy.

Motion passes meant to proved.

Next up is an opportunity for general public comment.

This is uh time for any members of the public to find a comment on any issues pertinent to the MPO.

Um, you will also have uh opportunity to comment on each agenda item from here on out.

So this would be time for general MPO public comments.

Meet hands, I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

One more request for public comment.

Still showing no requests.

Okay.

We'll close that item, move on to new business.

So uh right off the bat today.

We've got um the next leg of our very very comprehensive uh LRTP development this time um dealing with uh coordination of emergency services.

So we're grateful to have Kevin Larson from Rady Gallatin.

He's with Galvan County's emergency management uh group uh here for uh a little bit of an introduction, general conversation, uh with the goal of uh leading to some input on uh what might be able to be included narratively within our LRTP as uh a goal that has been set through the goal setting process and also in the requirements for the comprehensive planning uh of our MPO.

So um Jeff Butts provided a good background section um in your agenda, but to kick things off, I was hoping Kevin uh might be able to um well first introduce yourself a little bit, tell us a little bit about your group, and uh we'll have some topics coming from there.

Thank you.

Uh again, Kevin Larson.

I'm the operations and training manager for Gallon County emergency management.

Um we are a county department uh that kind of evolved out of um a section within the bosom fire department several years ago.

So we've been existence since 2018 in our prison format.

We have uh five primary staff, including she and um four uh program managers and we do a wide variety of projects and activities primarily were uh preparedness, mitigation, response, coverage, uh just kind of along the uh the model of federal emergency management programs and concepts.

Um yeah, personally I actually started with the Gallup County Sheriff's Office, uh did 20 years with them, retired out of that position.

So I bring that lens with me to emergency management where I've been since 2019.

Um, another part of what we do, all of our members are on incident management teams, so we um respond to large uh complex incidents around the country.

Uh so that's kind of our our wheelhouse is that emergency response.

Uh we spend a lot of time on preparedness uh mitigation.

Um, response is actually a smaller portion of all the people uh then we're heavily engaged in in all aspects of um community uh preparedness, uh response activities, uh connect with all of our not just response partners but uh non-governmental uh organizations such as nonprofits.

Um we do a lot of hazmat like reporting and uh formal reporting activities, uh fuels and medication, bird permits.

Uh we're also uh in charge of our community notification system.

Uh those are getting a little bit of uh traction lately as as communities realize that they from our end we have opportunities to reach a lot of people with timely messaging.

Uh and as more disasters come up around the country around the world, uh, people are recognizing the need to stay connected and to be able to be reached in time of need.

So uh we manage the Everbridge system within the county.

Uh and that may come into this conversation.

I'm not sure.

Um, but yeah, we're we're engaged in a lot of different things.

Uh support the elections department, this regular primaries will play a big role in the uh November election, uh supporting their their efforts and uh yeah, we're just here to help.

Uh I'm with the government.

We're here to help us do that.

Um, we we really do embody that so good, yeah you talk a little bit about the emergency planning committee so out of the hazmat reporting and monitoring stuff that came about back in the early 70s actually uh there's Epcra and all kinds of different stuff um every community should and most do have a local emergency planning committee or council uh for several years uh our model was and and still is all hazards in all disciplines um we we really reach out to to all levels and aspects of our community um with an opportunity to meet quarterly uh to discuss um we discuss a lot of like um security grants funding uh a lot of the different programs at the federal level and we ultimately are the go-between from locals to state and then to federal so that meeting uh that group started out as a head all hazards all disciplines um we're recognizing that our engagement was not what it could be or should be so uh starting last year we kind of revamped uh we really connected with the the folks that were coming to those those meetings with were engaged with that group uh and we asked them what okay we're not connecting with you so what what do you need from us how can we better deliver um our product our messages so we revamped it a little bit we're now called calling it the emergency planning committee within gallant county um it's the same it's just rebranded you know uh we invite uh vast uh large variety of of stakeholders partners um this last meeting we uh threw another meeting prior this spring connected with uh an EPLO with the Montana National Guard emergency planning liaison officer and so uh that individual covers the entire state of Montana she happens to live in three forks and so just through other meetings connected with her and she's gonna come back in October and give a presentation about um not just the National Guard but the military perspective on local and emergency preparedness and planning uh and how at our level we can begin to support those those large scale efforts um federal and national level um so that just kind of again to paint that picture of the the variety of uh stakeholder partners that are involved in that group so uh cover a lot of ground with that so we are a transportation focused uh planning uh committee here um got representatives from state county cities uh both belgrade and bowsman and then also the airport the transit provider and some of the major institutions like MSU um try to put you on the spot uh what would be your so maybe for everybody's awareness um so something hits the fan uh what's sort of like the order of contact that would go through each agency to sort of begin that coordination of you know if we want a snare to play like a an evacuation of a certain area because of the flood or wildfire or um you know a major snow event that shuts down uh I-90 or something like that um do you would you feel do you feel like the communication structures that are already in place with Calvin County um what let's start from the top.

How does that sort of chain of command or that order of operations go for awareness alerts coordination?

Yeah, um not on the spot at all.

That's that's a grounder, honestly, because that that's that's what drives us, that's what we do.

That's what we're here for.

Um the the most recent example on a fairly large scale is the um the shutdown of Bozem Pass a few years ago.

So um late late season um significant weather event, uh got a lot of people off guard, including the National Weather Service, and the list goes down from there, uh, turned I-90 into a parking lot that was seven miles long.

Uh there was some situational awareness catch up that everybody had to do, and then once the full scale of that incident um was understood, uh, we were requested very early on by the Gallon County Sheriff's Office to assist with uh incident support and all the different rules that we can play in that, and and that touches on um that whole order of operations um wherever that request or that recognition comes from uh and the specific requests that come to us, um we step into that uh into that role pretty easily and quickly.

We do have a for the last couple of years now of formal uh 247 365 duty officer program um between our staff, our five uh chief and program managers uh we cover um every day of the year uh and our our number if we're trying to advertise it more and more so since it's formalized here five 406 548011 option three will trigger that phone tree to be able to talk directly to the new gaster.

Um and so once the this the type and scale of event is made known to us uh specifically what the needs are, um, then we put on whatever hat we need to put on uh for the moment and we start making connections.

Uh we can respond to the scene of where that is uh DOC is uh, you know, that's really a core part of where we the level that we would interact with with the group.

Um and we can do the community notification system from I could do with my phone if I was a little more technically inclined, uh, but fire up the laptop, log into our admin, we can put out a wide variety of like wireless invergence handler, so we can do internal messaging that some of our partners from the valley have taken advantage of those.

Um we can uh we draw um shapes to capture certain areas.

Uh our preference is that our community proactively and enrolls in Everbridge that helps us really target messages, but at the same time, uh depending on the incident and if if it meets a certain criteria, uh we can do wireless emergency alerts like the amber alerts that you get once in a while.

So we're the the um keeper of the keys for that whole system.

Uh we practice and exercise that pretty frequently so we're not sending out holistic inbound ballistic missile verification.

Yet, but um, but that's that's uh really big part of what we would what we would bring to the table.

Uh in addition to um, especially talking about our incident management team experience.

Um we can kind of formalize the use of the incident management system to any particular situation or or incident, um, even proactively uh for event planning.

Um we help pretty regularly help MSU with some of their larger events, um presidential visits, vice presidential visits, uh variety of you know cat grids were there to help them with that.

So uh we're we're just kind of the the Swiss Army knife of county government.

Um and uh we're like say we're we're always available, so that's kind of the beauty of it.

Anything more specific than it see, my perspective.

We're lucky to have a we'll really tight knit emergency responder community, and so between dispatch and PD or the sheriff's off goes to be here, sheriff's office down to fire, EMS.

Um it feels to me running the transportation department, boysman, like you guys, that whole area of um uh you know public safety is extremely strong in communicating with one another.

Yeah, um and I think you also do annual periodic sort of like uh uh I I don't want to use the role playing but like a um uh like practice for uh a certain type of event um can you describe that a little that exercise a little bit and if you've gotten to the point in um the the hazard planning for you know tiny path the transportation a little bit um you know establishing sort of protocol for the evacuation events yeah so we're we're kind of the the hub of that wheel of connecting having connections with all those entities and organizations um we have all the contact lists just went through all of them this spring to to update all those so we can we can get a hold of um the people that need to be involved uh for the emergency response um yeah that's connecting uh locals uh is connecting locals with the state uh particularly DES is is our main uh you know like DOT and the the city and then county I think that's a pretty um firm relationship and pretty easy to communicate up and down uh and then once once the word emergency is used and then we can step in and tap into DES uh disaster and emergency services at the state level there are connection then to federal level um or recovery response um a wide variety of resources that are available uh through activation on the park national guard for example uh FEMA whatnot so um yeah we're we're gonna be that um that bridge to that next level up um and if it's just a local you know all incidents start local and local doesn't matter how much of federal uh involvement ultimately is is there uh it's gonna end locally with recovery efforts whatnot so yeah we're we're gonna be engaged to some extent at every stage of that uh connection to FEMA recovery tax for um uh dollars that would go towards public assistance uh play a role in that as well so and we're not always going to be you know like writing the grants or but we're gonna connect the the resources and the needs so you've been around for a couple of years um you think of a an actual case where there has been uh maybe other than the pose and pass one since that was a little bit outside of our planning it certainly affecting people within it but um the type of event that we should be or maybe I'll say it this way type of event that we should be thinking about in advance within our so our planning areas sort of covers Bozeman Belgrade down at work.

Maybe this is a little bit more off the spot but you know what are the type of situations that we should be thinking through ahead of time from the the the transit transportation providers um that might come up that would need a good bit of coordination.

I think of highway 191 since it's in that um area responsibility district um it's one way in one way out and that would impact a tremendous amount of people um we actually get to exercise that plan you know a few times a year with uh semi-roll over sort of crashes during the during the winter in the canyon um most recently the the B spill if anybody heard about that one that's couple we were really fortunate that was in uh Yellowstone National Park so we've just got to spectators to uh to all of that but that was a really good example of the coordination that still needs to occur even with a a fairly isolated um event that was actually under the jurisdiction of somebody else, but we still connected with them.

We still helped with messaging.

We still um they were close to activating a little bit more incident response capability uh so that's one that comes to mind at another recent example uh the bear canyon overpass where the commercial vehicle uh struck the the underpass and um you know we helped out with communicating that to park county because that kind of a closure reroute will impact our partners outside of the county.

We have a coordination group that goes from I think we're out to like Columbus to the other side of Butte.

Because we're tied in with those emergency managers, and we have seen enough examples that it's not just a local problem when you're talking about whether it's a state highway, controlled access highway, like at 90, we recognize really quickly that not only does it impact our partners outside of the county, but our messaging, like our warning and pre-warning needs to happen further out, the longer it goes on.

So that's a big deal that we've had enough of those lessons.

Another one that comes to mind for me as far as like preparedness for everybody is earthquakes.

Floods and earthquakes are so wildfire is our bread and butter because that's such a predictable hazard and type of disaster that's going to happen every year in Montana.

No matter what the weather is, the weather will impact the severity and the length of the season.

But the large scale, the flooding and the earthquakes are, you know, they're pretty high on the, you know, where you're talking about potential impacts and severity of impacts, those are really high on that scale.

So those are the ones in my mind of how do we start to pre-plan for alternate routes, messaging, access for emergency responders, what kind of resources would be required for prolonged incidents in that regard.

Communications, what does an earthquake do to not only roadways, but all your communications infrastructure, your response capabilities from a wide variety of different entities, Northwestern Energy, Montana National Guard, all the fire departments, all the law enforcement.

In in my mind, and then floods can be pretty similar to that.

Floods are I hate to say they're they're nice or they're easy, but they're predictable.

So it's really interesting to see all the flip floodplain maps and the engineering and the science that goes into that and makes that, I don't want to say easy, uh predictable but straightforward, just because we know what that water's gonna do, and we have such a nice range of factors that even if it is uh you know the the blue day or uh blue sky day failure, um, well, that's we just plug in the the date and the numbers are pretty consistent.

Um, so earthquake in my mind, uh, just how far reaching, like something, you know, five plus you're gonna start to rattle a lot of people, 6.0 and over uh seven, that's significant impact to our community, our infrastructure, our response capability.

Um, and sometimes that can be challenging to plan for, but at the same time, um, you know, just what's the worst data you can think of and start plugging in variables into that?

Uh, continuity of operations is another thing that we work with.

Uh, how how do you I mean we we talk about it quarterly at least I try to get that plug in the the first steps and continuity of operations for your organization is starting with your people.

Make sure that your staff has plans internally, you know.

Hey, John, what's what's your plan to connect with your family?

You're at work, somebody's at school, somebody's at their job, somebody had to go to Livingston for the day.

What's your reunification plan for your family?

And once that is covered, then those that staff, those resources can start to kind of worry about their their work and how do they come to um to put themselves in a position where they can support their community's needs um and the response capability that's expected of them.

Um so that's kind of how we start that conversation.

You know, what's what's your plan at home?

Start with that don't go from there starlings we have tons of starlights that we can loan out to people um so we we do have the I don't say the toys but all the you know the the stuff that you hear about um that is supportive of response and communication um we take that with that's pretty near and dear to us uh so we part of what we do I certainly got from this conversation that we've got a great um a great resource in ready gallon and right off the bat that is highly responsive uh to coordination issues for emergency preparedness and coordination um tying this and wrapping up our session here to objective four in our LRTP which is strength and coordination cooperation preparedness among transportation partners to support mobility access and logistics during emergency response recovery question for the group conversation with Kevin um any any missing gaps that we could think of um any so again brain wise MPO is very much not going to be um another bureaucracy that is the way the great work ready gallatins already do it but if we can serve our duty and our role in the coordination transportation coordinated transportation efforts that's where the MPO wants to help what's the role so um any parting thoughts for Kevin questions for Kevin or from Kevin on how the MPO can play a bigger role.

Given some what ifs the the what if that we get thrown at every year is uh what if there's a big disaster big sky so that's one thing I didn't mention we actually contract with Madison County to provide um fire DMS law enforcement and emergency management to the uh big sky portion of Madison County uh there's some pretty outspoken folks and groups uh what happens if there's a disaster talking about one way in one way out so that's a big deal for big sky um so that's you know that just to give a uh a little bit of sense of how far we reach um West Yellowstone obviously that's gallant county uh but that's that's a big one that we fret about uh you know how do you and how do you message such a transient community as big sky you know there's a core about 22 2500 people there year round and then like I can't imagine that many people are in big sky proper right now um so that's a challenge for us to think through that um but that's an interesting what if it's cool start the airport probably yeah really absolutely okay Kevin thank you please so are there certain agreements that need to be in place among um like I'm thinking transit specific but maybe there's others that like for if there's a evacuation and then um transit wants to be reimered FEMA is there and there's others that have vehicles like real chaircraft vehicles and sure um a lot of that would be covered just by mutual aid kind of standing mutual aid uh wording and state statute between especially like fire departments so that that would be really easy to kind of swing into that under the auspices of that standing um mutual aid agreement at the state level um yeah things anything really specific is gonna be tough to you know project out what your eventualities and your possibilities might be so the the mutual aid stuff is is pretty well established and covers a lot of I guess it's the lending vehicles and uh that would end up being like a probably a FEMA question because I I know we could connect you with the resource, but as far as like the the reimbursement for that, um not it yeah yeah, that would that would definitely get into the public assistance aspect what it does.

I just didn't know if there was a cooperative agreement that's even less group.

Not sure, but that that's where I would direct people to for that public assistance.

So we'll give you a question.

Okay, see no other hand from the group.

Thank you so much, Kevin.

Appreciate it.

But you guys want me to step out or we've got another hour to go.

So uh work programs and project lists.

So if you're curious, stick around otherwise.

Yeah, yeah, right up, very good.

All right, moving on to our next item of new business.

Jeff Butts, our MPO manager is going to bring forward uh our final um uh UPWP or UFI plan work program for our next fiscal year 2027.

This was the this is a full-up from the initial draft that we presented uh last month.

Um so Jeff's gonna give brief presentation and then I'll open up the conversation for any comments, questions that anybody has.

So ultimately, we're gonna look for a recommendation of approval from TAC after this item, and uh then have that finalized by our TPCC at the end of this month.

So Jeff, go ahead and think of it.

Thank you very much.

Uh as a reminder, the UPWP is an annual work program that includes both uh the work that we are going to do over the next federal fiscal year and the uh amount of funding that we are going to assign to that.

This is a second review today.

Um we're doing our final review, and we're gonna be asking this group to consider uh the motion to recommend adoption to TPCC later this month.

Um, may potentially be some modifications.

Uh this is one of our required documents, and so the MPO uh does have a few requirements that we have to do uh that you can see on here.

Long range transportation plan we're currently working on that will feed into the tip, uh the annual list of programs and then or projects from MDT and then uh unified planning work program.

Here is where we are at the end of July.

So you can see this is the food triangle on here.

After this, we'll go to FHWA and MDT for their final review.

Uh, we have two components to this, the MPO side that I'll be talking about.

I'll hand it over to Sunshine uh halfway through this, um, and she'll uh talk about the transit component on the PL side that we're looking at.

Uh it funds a two-person MPO staff.

Uh it's funding our required planning document, the long-range transportation plan, it's paying for rent and indirect costs, and uh we do have limited planning capacity, something we discussed last time.

Um, and then with the FTA portion of the UPWP as well, we will um talk about that in detail for this year.

Uh we are allocated 442,000 from the federal government.

We have 209,000 already existing in reserve for our next long range transportation plan, and then we have a little bit in unobligated funds, and we have a new state allocation this year of a little over $50,000, which leaves us with $600,000 for our work program and reserve.

With the draft UPWP, uh broken it up into percentages here.

So we have two staff members full time.

So about 4,000 work hours in total, and they're divided up on uh these different uh program elements that we will get into.

Is a pretty large one.

This is uh running this meeting, preparing for this meeting, doing a lot of staff training, any of our uh collaboration with partners, attending other events, the the TAC on transit TAC and stuff like that.

Uh hopefully, we'll be supporting grant applications.

We're putting that in there every year and expect to be supporting those grant applications and then benefit hours are in here as well.

Uh we talked about the costs last time, so no change.

Uh we have had discussions internally about the rent, uh, and we will continue to work on that.

But for right now, uh you can see our allocations here on non-staff time, making sure that we are maintaining our capacities.

So about 2% of our time developing our work plan and then doing our reimbursements and the accounting associated with it, and then input from partners.

And then on our costs as well.

We have indirect costs to the city of postman for hosting the MPO.

Public involvement.

This is a core to the MPO.

And one of the things that we have continued to put forth is improving our website, providing the transportation information.

We want to build out our e-notifications next year.

Over this next year, it's something we learned in our long-range transportation plan, is we would do well to the community to build an audience so they're aware of our planning.

And then the partnership building and valley trail loop.

The public engagement with that one is included in here.

And then we have a thousand dollars to engagement materials, and we'll see what we can use there, what we may need to, but um try to reduce those costs.

Just have a professional presence when we go out to the community and get um get them to sign up to our e-notifications.

Long range transportation plan.

We're currently uh working on that.

We have our next agenda item that's going to be focused on that.

We have to have it finished by December this year.

We're on track to be bringing you the plan in October for your review.

And um we are we're gonna put $20,000 towards the consultants, not that we have a contract amendment that we cannot exceed.

So this is just there if we if the contract goes over, so we have money that the data collection, so we're doing the at the federal highways required uh count and classification, the tubes that are around town, um, also socioeconomic data.

Uh we are working on bicycle pedestrian counts as well.

That was something TPCC wanted to work on, so we're looking at pilot locations and methodologies for that, and we're going to be exploring how to do that.

Um GIS capabilities, and then again returning that continuous count station because our budget we had two previously, and staff is um recommending return those.

And then here's our uh software licenses mostly for the equipment.

Finally, area transportation plan.

This will be a fun one.

It's not required, and we can maybe be a little bit more uh into what the community wants on this one, and um so connect Bozeman, Belgrade, Gallatin County at the Four Corners, and we have partners contributing to this one and financially to the consultants that we will hire, and then on the MPO side, uh we will be paying per SATA for that.

And then here's our indirect costs associated with it.

And then one thing, I guess, on the long range transportation plan and on this project list that we've been talking about, where we're going with this is programming the transportation improvement program, and so there will be a little bit of work into that near the end of the year, and costs of our reserves.

We anticipate having 2020 at the end of this year to go towards our next long range transportation plan.

Um we have noted the issues on the rent that we discussed last time, and we're currently working through those.

And so now I will turn it over to Sunshine to talk about the transit sections.

So Sunshine, come on up.

You are the next contestant.

Um, so just an overview of the transit section, which is separately called out in the UPWP and separate funding, it's not the PL funding, it's specifically from FTA.

Um, it just supports the economic vitality.

Supposed to increase safety for both motorized and non-motorized, which is something our board has been talking about a little bit more in depth as well.

Increasing security, access and mobility, of course, which is something we always talk about.

And then overall improvement of quality life.

Our total allocation this year is 144,000 of that, 28,0821 is the local match, and federal is the 115.

So this year, all starting this year, all of the um staff time, which it supports two staff members or partially supports two staff members, um is put under the transit management system, which is kind of like the admin, where we're uh working on grants, um, managing grants or applications, um training of staff and other planning activities.

Um, so this is where all of the staff um time is going.

Anything else, we still have all um five different categories, but the only thing we're calling out in those categories is uh specifically in this uh this plan is the uh any non-staff time.

So here we have um about 2800 hours of staff time plus uh three thousand dollars for legal fees, uh radio contracts, that sort of thing.

Um, and then this is just uh mostly graduated and um administrative.

Then we have the transit development plan, which we really are trying to wrap up now.

There's no so that's why you see no dollars there.

Um we're done, we're finished paying our consultants, um, and that the board will be adopting that plan hopefully this month.

Um and then our future service analysis, um, we just have some um uh $3,000 to facilitate the annual board meeting for strategic planning and kind of direct staff and um in our priorities.

Um and then we have our current service analysis, which is um we do have uh staff training in there, about five thousand dollars.

Uh and then this is just kind of looking at how we can better operate our system currently without expanding services, um, and then a little bit in the transit improvement plan, we don't have any consultants to pay, and um, although staff will be working on this again, all of the staff have in the uh the administration section, and then finally is the Americans with Disability Act.

Um, this is something we work on all the time, looking at our um accessibility of our routes and bus stops and getting to the bus stops, um so kind of the first and last mile, and that's something we've been talking about a lot more lately too.

Um, and then we have to consider our um requirements for pair transit, so those with disabilities that cannot ride streamline.

Um we have a obligation to provide complimentary service, meaning we have to offer service during the times that streamline operates and uh within legally within three-quarters of a mile of the route.

Um we currently do two miles, but um we may revisit that.

Yeah, that's all I am.

Cool.

Great.

Thank you, Sunshine.

I appreciate that.

And so now uh as a reminder, what we're asking this committee to do today is consider the motion that we have.

Um, the recommended CPCC committee adopt the federal fiscal year 27 work program.

Uh, and we received some comments after this was done, after we had the um agenda completed, there may be some comments on some minor tweaks for um regulatory compliance.

So if that is the case, something you may want to add there to the motion, and with that, open it up for discussion questions, any input you may have, and uh I can bring the motion up as you guys would like.

All right, thank you, Jeffrey.

Um, just alluded to some tweaks we might have come forward, and so um as a reminder MDT plays this sort of uh dual role in our MPO as uh not only a member of TEC the TPCC, but also um sort of a regulatory body over the MPO to make sure that all the documents are straight in order, you know.

So they were gracious enough to provide a handful of comments for the sake of transparency.

Um I would wouldn't mind if Beth could talk a little bit about those for everybody's awareness.

These will likely be the ones that fit into that um amended as needed portion that we're all gonna hopefully vote on.

Right, sure.

Thanks, Nick.

I appreciate it.

Um so as Nick said, most of our other MPOs go through this process actually after they've adopted the um the UPWP and they just add that to their um motion so that these kinds of changes can take take place after.

We typically send it to FHWA and through our um subject matter as experts for review um in that August and September timeline.

Um but because Jeff got this done early and we have it in our hands.

I tried to get some feedback from MDT and FHWA.

Um, we're still waiting on some input from transit, so FTA, uh, due to some absences in that.

So I do want to just kind of run through those quickly for you.

They're generally very uh very minor.

So um, I don't know, Jeff, if you can pull up the UPWP, I'll just uh give you a page number if that's easiest.

Um so I'm on page 19 of the UPWP and it's actually discussing the share screen then.

Um, I do easiest.

I'm not getting the oh you're not okay.

Well, I think Jeff um and and it's it's I mean you can work on that, I'll keep talking.

So uh page uh 19 is talking about the valley trail loop.

So we did get some feedback from FHWA regarding the valley trail loop that um is plan, very minor.

Um there's a sentence that just reads valley trail loop study to identify potential regional trail routes connecting Bozeman Belgrade and Four Corners, and just due to the fact that it's being monitored and some federal funds are being used for like Jeff's time regarding that, and we just want to ensure that it ties to the transportation system.

So just changing some of the wording to something like identify potential potential regional commuter trail routes, those just wording, ensuring that we're it's tied to the transportation system, um, and then the other comment related to that is uh Jeff has some the funding that is being provided by the city of Belgrade City Bozeman and Gallatin County is called out in the narrative part of the plan, but we just have some tables where it needs to be included in that as well.

So it's just compliance with including it in the local portion um in the table on page 20 of the UPWP.

So just down here right there.

We just want to call out those local funds there so that you're everyone's aware that that's happening through the MPO.

Um, and then there's just a consistency issue that one it's just adding a percent, so uh to a 10% dismissing.

Um, the next one is on page 20.

Um, and I think it's it's just a typographical error in general.

So this section is uh regarding the valley trail loop still.

And so there's a mistake.

Uh so under functional agency responsibility here, it says the Gallatin Valley MPO long range transportation plan.

We just want to change that to the valley loop plan because it's not the long-range plan here.

Uh it's just a typo I think, but then right below that in the SATO activities, um, we just want to confirm that that part is accurate, matching the valley trail loop.

So I I don't anticipate that being an issue at all, just cleaning that up, and then I'm on page 21.

Um same thing here as we talked about earlier, just strengthening that connection to transport transportation planning.

Uh we want to ensure it's not recreational, just because it's being funded with federal transportation dollars.

It's a simple, just a simple addition there, but but needed.

And then this is a recommendation on page.

Oh no.

Oh.

It's a very similar comment, just strengthening that can connection to transportation.

So um like efficient acquisition and analysis of transportation data to support the transportation system.

So I think that was a comment made by our federal partners.

And then the last couple here, I am getting close, I promise.

I'm in the tip section, which is on page 23 at the bottom.

And it reads develop a viable five-year program of transportation projects.

So we want to develop a fiscally constraint for your program.

The tip can go beyond four years, but FHWA approval is um only covers the first four years.

So we want to call it a viable fiscally constraint for your program there.

It's just wording it's it can be, yeah, we can chat through that if you have questions, Jeff.

And then a comment about air quality monitoring.

Jeff has mentioned in the MPWP that the Gallant Valley MPO does not meet doesn't have any issues with air quality.

They meet standards, and so it just says staff will monitor air quality for any changes that would require MPO modifications.

And because we have something in there, we just need at least some hours to match that.

So if there are any activities, we want to put some time in there.

So it could be an hour.

But uh just calling that out.

And then section three, that funding table just will match the comment from the top.

We want to put the local funding in there, just so it is included.

And then the last couple questions or comments were regarding the transit section for Sunshine, and they just um on top of page 37.

Uh, there's a coordinator called out in there.

So we just need some feedback on who that person will be for uh review of review of uh invoices and those kinds of things.

And then um our transit uh and fiscal uh had some questions.

I know we've moved a lot of stuff from transit into the um program admin section, and so had a couple of comments about potentially moving some of those facilitated facilitator uh salaries, I think is what they are up into program admin, um, anything that we can't.

So you can take a look at that, it won't change any funding, just where we're putting it in the UPWP.

Those were the comments that we got back from MDT and from FHWA, like I said, and then because we've done that now, we can hopefully avoid some of that coordination later.

Get those few things into compliance, and then we shouldn't have any issues with um timing this fall to get uh UPWP approved before that October 1st deadline.

Um so we just wanted to get you that feedback as soon as I got it so that we can take a look.

But like I said, most other MPOs will get those kinds of comments after they've approved it, and then they will uh incorporate them as long as they consider them minor with that caveat that uh Jeff can make those changes.

So that's up to you all how we'd like to proceed with that.

But uh ideally that we don't want these kinds of comments to create an issue with you all approving it and getting it through uh and having that approved UPWP in time.

Questions, I'm happy to answer them.

So would it be fair to summarize as no change in overall funding?

Right, um, no change in the work items necessarily that we plan to do over the next year.

Correct.

Um possibly some minor changes in language and then allocations depending on the federal procedures and how they're ultimately going to want to see these things split up.

Right.

So calling out that local funding just because it's being used to coordinate, I think is important, and there's a statute of coded there that um shares that, but yeah, but no changes to what Jeff shared in his presentation.

Thank you.

Let's start with it.

Any comments, concerns on uh the MDT comments?

Right.

How about any other uh well uh okay?

Sorry, rules procedures.

Um any other questions for Jeff?

I have a couple um so you mentioned rent, and I was for first of all, it looks extremely high.

Um, so I was curious about that.

I think it I don't remember how much I did the math a while ago, but I remember how much it comes out per month, but it seems like it's a mortgage payment.

Um then also I'm not as familiar with indirect cost rate, but um I I do have an accounting background.

Um, so that is kind of where I went.

It's uh so the when I worked for HREC, we did a cost allocation, so actual cost and then allocated across programs, and it was things like IT, HR, fiscal, and it included space.

So I'm curious if the indirect costs specifically does not include space for the city boseman, or if I just want to make sure it's not doubling.

That's probably the feeling, that's probably director level response.

I don't want to put Jeff on the spot on that one.

So excuse me, um, how the city boseman um allocates indirect costs, and I won't speak for MDT on their share, but um uh we take a 10% IDC that pays for staff.

So basically all of the sports staff from GIS up through IT, um frankly my time to support Jeff uh in the MPO uh all the way up through legal finance and the rest of it.

Um, that is what we are uh essentially allocating to the city for those sports services to host the MPO.

Um the rent is definitely a big one, and uh we very much acknowledge.

Uh right now our city offices are capped out, and so we have uh rented space where the MPO and a couple other other divisions are at.

We break down those costs of that rent proportionately to the staff in there, and yes, it's crazy kind of so um our uh city managers got involved and he frankly also agrees, and so uh within the next year we're gonna try to work out a better allocation to decrease that uh for the MPO itself, and then uh if we're not able to for whatever reason, we're already uh talking with County and Belgrade partners to see if there might be um at least a temporary uh uh situation where the MPO can get into for less cost to the overall PL funds that are going to support.

Um I just had one other question about uh MDT allocation is that that's new this year.

So it is new this year in that we didn't charge it on the first few years of uh planning funds because we base it on the previous two years of allocation average, and so it's it's the state uh portion that uh of the average of the previous two years allocation.

So uh it wasn't charged the first few years on a new MPOs, all other MPOs in this state uh pay that it basically supports the um the planning department at MDT.

Um and so we use that for um for that.

It is uh like I said, charged across all MPOs.

Um but we didn't start with our Helena and Bozeman MPOs until this planning year.

Yeah, two years toward that.

Yeah, two years, and also to help you build up funds.

So we have a little bit of reserve in ours.

So yeah, that's why it started this year.

And I I believe that was a discussion point before I was on board, kind of in an original uh, but I don't know.

Uh so it's not something that I was even honestly aware of until uh this year.

Uh kind of in that setup and all of that.

I'm sure it was discussed by but maybe uh just forgotten about.

Yes, I was part of those discussions and I it probably was discussed, but I don't remember.

I will say that I'm MBT was very supportive of getting the MPO set up and very helpful.

I uh yeah, uh the people who came before me did a great job and laid a great foundation for me to be to provide some of that support now.

So thank you.

We appreciate that.

I'm a bitch isn't forgotten.

Yes, I need to still work with him.

Yeah, he's through trends and he does a great job.

Very thankful for their support.

Okay, any other questions for Jeff?

Thanks, Sunshine.

All right, then um in hopes of getting us on to our main topic.

Um, I'm gonna ask for a motion to approve, and then if we can get a second.

Any other comments before calling the vote?

Any public comment?

Probably should take that now.

Okay, thank you, Sean.

Uh so I'll close the item for from discussion and bring it up for public comment.

Do we have anyone online?

Uh or Kevin, I suppose, uh that is uh interested in providing public comment on this item.

Thank you, Sean.

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay, one more request.

Still showing no requests.

All right, public comment closed.

Do we have a motion?

I move to recommend that the transportation policy coordinating committee adopt the federal fiscal year 2027 unified planning work program and authorize MPO staff to make minor modifications for regulatory compliance.

Oh second.

Sunshine second.

So um by way of discussion on the item, thank you Beth very much for uh talking through some of the um regulatory comments, minor changes.

Um does anybody have an interest in uh commenting, objecting, or adding an ABRL.

I would just comment, say I think it's a good work program, it's a good plan, so a lot of good activity and components to it.

Um I appreciated Sunshine's comments about the rent and the indirect costs and having a little bit more information about those things.

Those are things we might not like and we might not agree with, but we don't have any discretion over.

So good to at least understand them and uh the support.

Thanks for get that on another good shot.

All right, seeing no other hands in the room or online, uh Marcy, please call the thing was Ross.

Hi.

Katherine King.

Hi.

Beth Clarkson.

Aye, Brandon Jones, Sunshine Ross, Todd Wilson.

Hi.

All right, thank you all very much.

Thank you, Jeff.

Okay, last item on the agenda for today is our next round of TTAC engagement in the project uh development section of our LRTP.

So uh Jeff Hunts is gonna do a brief introduction and then kick it over to our lead consultant, Nelson Nygaard to walk us through the presentation.

Yep, great.

Thank you very much.

And so right now we're starting to get into the meat of the long-range transportation plan, working towards that fiscally constrained project list that will lead into the tip.

Um we sent out the list of scored projects uh with this agenda item, and have received some feedback on incorporating changing some of the project descriptions to include pathways for bicycle pedestrian, which could impact some of the scoring, and so we'll have some review on that.

And then uh the modeling as we've had some discussion on the modeling.

We also have to have a performance-based plan, and so looking at the performance of the improvements.

So the consultants are here, they're going to provide some update on the modeling, and then finally um review any of the gaps that we may have between existing projects and what the modeling is showing.

Have some discussion there.

And as a reminder, um, we're we're gonna be uh hand over the consultants on the project list.

The project list had like 900, we're down to like 100 now.

We're gonna end up with maybe like what major capital projects are going to be constructed within this next five years.

And we already have committed projects there, so maybe it's like the next three years.

So it's gonna be a pretty small list, so let's keep that in mind uh as we move forward.

We plan on bringing the fiscally constrained project list um next month.

So that will be deeper discussion.

So with that, I will turn it over to the consultant team.

So Zach, turn it over to you.

Great, thank you, Jeff.

Uh Marcy, can I kindly ask you to please add Bethany as a panelist uh for the presentation as well?

Um, so as Jeff mentioned, so two key items for us today.

So, first we will be providing a refresher on um some of the additional detail, how the projects have been evaluated to date related to the scoring.

Uh, and then most importantly, what we've heard from this group and the jurisdictions to date since showing out those initial results, um, ways in which to respond to those recommendations.

Uh, and then finally open things up for discussion with this group on any additional remaining or questions on the scoring methodology, but most critically, um, any ways in which you think the projects that have been scored may need to be updated for this last final run.

Uh, and then the second half, I will hand things over to Chris to discuss um where we're at with the alternative analysis and um results from uh runs that we've worked on with MDT and the travel demand model.

So before I hand things over to Bethany, I just want to reiterate um from some of Jeff's comments a couple of uh minutes ago, um, that scoring is just one of the pieces for informing the prioritization for the long-range transportation plan.

And ultimately, it's gonna be those available revenues as well as um the actual project eligibility by different types of funding sources and um the readiness locally and through the partners to implement um these projects as we actually look towards near-term fiscal recommendations and um getting the TIP delivered uh at the end of the year in step with the long-range transportation plan.

So I know we've said this before, but just available revenue sources will be limited.

Uh and forming the NPO does not necessarily equate to the new generation of new revenue sources.

So many revenue sources, such as SPTU or SDPR funds, those are actually going to still be tied to the specific jurisdictions themselves.

And then just addressing some of the recurring questions which we've had from this group and some other folks since sharing those results out.

Uh, just a reminder that the scores have not been um weighted in any way towards a particular metric.

So things like traffic volumes and estimates of demand are not included in these scorings.

Um, what Chris will go through does take account into some of those considerations as well.

Um, another item that's come up is on the natural um protection score.

So we do know that within the GIS, there is um gonna be some limitations there in terms of we know that the likelihood of projects impacting those areas are low, but they may touch them within the GIS layers, just given the general context of the region.

So that's another item to adjust.

And then one other question that came up in our last meeting, which is a good reminder is that when we talk about the project scoring here, but also the baseline costs that we've pulled so far.

They're going to be based off the available descriptions from previous plans or what we've worked through with the partners.

They do not necessarily take into account complexities like right-of-way acquisition or easement needs, which we know are going to be a big concern for some of these projects.

So Bethany, I'll hand things over to you to just uh give another refreshment on the scoring and then some of the adjustments that we've made over the last couple of weeks.

Hey, hey, this is Chris.

Before Bethany gets started, can I call a quick time out?

I are you presenting from a deck, Zach?

Because I am not seeing a deck in my session.

Let me um I haven't already not anything super exciting yet.

Yeah, I just showed it in this.

Okay.

Um now I will hand it over to Bethany.

Perfect.

Perfect.

Great.

Thanks, Chris.

I was just about to ask the same thing.

Um, so hello everyone.

This might be uh a repeat of some information that you have heard in the previous meeting, but for those who haven't heard yet, I'm just gonna give a brief overview of how we conducted the actual project scoring process and what our methodology was.

Um, so we basically wrote a software script in the software R that we fed directly into the ArcGIS Pro Spatial Analysis software, and it allowed us to be really specific in how we um wanted projects to be evaluated against all of the GIS layers that we had.

So we collected GIS project layers for every single one of the projects, and then we also collected GIS layers for all of our evaluation methodology, and then we wrote the R script as you see here on the left part of your screen.

It's a little hard to see, but basically the script writes out how we wanted the project layers to be evaluated.

Um, so just as an example, um the very last metric down at the bottom of the black square is the metric looking at how the projects are um improving access to essential services like schools and hospitals in the region.

And so basically the script is writing that it wants the GIS software to look for projects that are within half a mile of a school or a hospital or within 500 feet of a school or a hospital, and a project would get a point if it is improving access to those places.

So essentially we had this script, and then we uploaded it into GIS, and that's the little gray box that you'll see on the right-hand side, and we input all of the projects into their results tab, and then all of our GIS evaluation criteria, like crash corridors, natural preservation zones, like Zach had mentioned, um, key community destinations, all of our metrics that we had.

Um, and then we ran the scripts, and so the software assigned all of the points based on if projects were within a certain distance of certain criteria, if they were directly intersecting or impacting certain areas, um, and it gave us the results.

And so then after that, we did some post-processing and Excel.

We did have a couple of categories that we had to manually assign the points, so it wasn't directly connected to kind of spatial data.

Um, so things like if the project would reduce single occupancy vehicle emissions or if it had any kind of ADA upgrades, those were points that we just manually assigned ourselves.

And then that resulted in the final scoring list, which I believe all of you have had the opportunity to review.

And we have been uh closely looking at it as well, and kind of as um Jeff spoke about earlier, some updated project descriptions have allowed us to reassign points and have allowed projects to get extra points that maybe they hadn't previously gotten.

Um, and so we're just continuing to refine all of the project descriptions and also the scores.

That this is just an example of one of the projects that was able to score some more points because of new information that we received about it.

And so for a lot of the different roadway projects in Bozeman, all of the projects are evaluated for complete streets compliance, um, and would be looking at multimodal improvements to add on to just the roadway um upgrades and maintenance projects.

So bike lanes, sidewalks, potential shared use paths, those would all be considered.

And so this allowed this project and also many other projects um in Bozeman and within the county to receive some of some extra points in the kind of more multi-modal categories.

Um and then these are just some other additional updates that we are looking at.

Um, so you know, Bozeman let us know that the project descriptions for the roadways could include extra multimodal improvements.

We heard similarly from the county that um depending on the functional classification of the road, um, additional shared youth paths could be constructed um near roadways.

And then we did also receive some updated GIS shape files um from the new Belgrade TMP, and so those were not included in the first scoring run.

Um, but we do anticipate doing another scoring run um soon, and then those will be included in this next one.

And so we'll have scores for a few additional projects.

Great.

And then a couple of other um updates within the script itself.

So the bicycle and pedestrian safety metric um was previously based just on the spatial location of hike crashes of those modes within a corridor.

Um so we'll adjust that to make sure that that just accounts for projects that include treatments that actually address those types of collisions, um, and it's gonna also allow for roadway projects that include these multimodal upgrades to receive points where they may not have additionally been receiving those active transportation or safety points, um, and then also um an update to the active transportation network metric there as well in the script for filtering projects with bike lanes and shared use paths that spatially intersect existing active transportation facilities as well.

And then one other item here, which is also an item just overall for discussion is the ability to combine projects as well.

So we have got some feedback where um there may be roadway projects that are adjacent to shared use path projects and how we could combine those to be more efficient with the just the overall delivery in the plan and um making sure that we can account for those in the score as well.

Um so with that, I'll open this up for our discussion or any additional feedback as relates to the scoring itself, but um most importantly that the project list that um has been distributed out.

Thanks, Zach.

And then is that gonna be the end of your presentation?

Uh Chris is going to go over the uh alternatives piece.

Might I suggest we hear from Chris or do you think this is a time that you want to dig into anything that Zach just talked about?

To the group, okay.

Let's hear Chris's piece and then uh so for what it's worth, um, all these updates that are on the screen right now uh have come from a lot of great engagement that um the consultant team has gotten from county, Belgrade and Bozeman.

Um, and I think this covers.

I'm glad to see all these come up.

I think this covers a lot of the early questions that uh break the all three of our agencies had.

Um, so with that sort of uh good progress made, maybe let's hear from Chris, and then we could have a big session at Conference Questions discussion at the end.

Yeah, that'll be great, because this should actually isolate some projects as relates to vehicular demand and um conditions.

So Chris, I will hand things over to you.

Perfect.

Are you gonna run the deck then, Zach?

Absolutely.

Okay, cool.

So in addition to the kind of the technical and analytical project prioritization work that Bethany just described, um another thing we do in support of these long-range plans is to leverage um travel demand models, right?

And so um the um these models allow us to calibrate to existing conditions in terms of demand uh and understand where um you know where current needs are indicated.

Um and sort of and they also allow us to sort of get in a time machine and sort of fast forward you know 25 years and in and account for future growth and development and understand where future needs um are gonna come up.

So this first slide, and for um for our purposes or for the purposes of this plan, um the um MDT, our our friends at MBT um have developed and and calibrated a travel demand model for us to use uh for this planning process.

Um that model is calibrated to um to a base year of 2022.

So, you know, fairly recent past, right?

Although I know things are changing on the ground quite quite rapidly in Bozeman these days.

But um so this map, this graphic that I'm showing you is intended to depict what we call um volume to capacity ratios, and so these are segments of the um of the the regional sort of roadway network where um demand is essentially exceeding supply, sort of at a at a at a system level and at a you know a planning level.

Let's call it that.

So um, so this is a representation, the the MDT model um does represent sort of what I would call the the full network um, if you will.

Um we are um incorporating sort of local functional functional class systems as well as sort of federal functional class systems because we've got a little churn in kind of developing that right now for for the for the Bozeman area.

But the the map itself is intended to depict, I get like I said, those areas where demand is currently exceeding supply.

So the reds, the reds, the thick red lines are sort of um the areas where um you know where that um where the indication of need is is most acute.

Um the orange um the orange lines that are the orange segments are are those segments where um where we're you know we're we're we're coming up on sort of level of service C D and these are um these are segments where needs are starting to emerge, and then the green is sort of the rest of the network where we're under that that level of service C and things seem to be okay.

So again, we use that that base year to um to help us then take a look into sort of the the future to understand where uh where future needs might emerge.

And Zach, if you could advance it to the next slide.

Um okay, so this is a depiction of future needs.

So um for those of you who participated in our um in that um side project to um to come up with uh plausible sort of land use projections for the region based on you know current current adopted plans, suitability, um, and all sorts of the other factors we included.

This is the impact of those growth projections on the um on the regional network.

So um, so lots of red, right?

Lots of red and lots of orange.

So it's probably not surprising.

The underlying network here um is what we call the um the existing plus committed network.

So Jeff just alluded to this in terms of um of what's um what the uh the tip is gonna take into account.

Um so existing plus committed projects.

So so remember that we're working with the base year of 2022.

So what we do is we we we move forward from 2022, sort of the current days um here in 2026, and we um we factor in those projects that have either been built since 2022, those projects that are either committed to or those projects that are either in motion right now.

So um, so we've got a few of those projects that are are accounted for here, um, but still at the end of the day, we're seeing um we're seeing a lot of of red and a lot of indications of of sort of need for the region.

And so this is this is kind of our jumping off point um when we start to consider um future um future improvements and future alternatives that are sort of beyond the existing plus committed um condition, right?

And so um so keep I guess keep this map in mind as we as we advance forward and look at some of the the alternatives that we've that we've modeled to date.

So if you could advance the slide Zach.

So we have carved up some of the the the tiered projects that Bethany referenced into a couple of different categories.

And so we've created one alternative where we're just going to take into account those projects that are that I would that I would call exist on the existing condition that significantly increase sort of the the capacity of of those of those projects and these for um for for purposes of today are the tier one and tier two projects and so the the red lines and the numbers on this map correspond with the project list that you've all seen and so what we've done is we've modified that existing plus committed network to incorporate the the change essentially in capacity or the change in the number of lane that these projects as implemented would result with.

Oh back one slide.

Thanks sorry.

So these actually back sorry I think we need to go back one more slide.

One more slide thank you okay there we go okay um so I've circled in blue the areas where we've made um we've made changes to the system and so we've essentially in the in the context of the model we've implemented those projects and so um so some of these maps are hard to see but for all intents and purposes um those interventions those capacity interventions have served to um essentially resolve um resolve the needs in those sort of those very sort of those very specific areas but what remains are you know our needs elsewhere right so then what the model does is it will take into account um take into account the um the travel time um improvements from from those capacity projects and then it will it will load um continue to load traffic on on those um on those new segments or those those modified segments because they are they are showing travel time improvements for for travelers um and they will also at some in some cases draw traffic from either existing uh parallel routes who are you know that are you know over capacity or um you know and and because they're overcapacity they are um they're experiencing um you know poor travel time conditions and so um but what I wanted to show is that the interventions at least for alternative one are proving to um to um to improve travel times and to resolve for the most part the um the significantly overcapacity conditions for those for those very um for those for those several projects um in that case um okay we can advance to the next slide just talk about the second alternatives so the um the other alternative that we've run through the model so far is what we're calling the new connections alternative and so these are also tier one and tier two projects but instead of projects that essentially occur on the existing system so an expansion of existing roadways these projects would be either extensions of of you know of current roadways or um or entirely new roadways altogether and so there are several projects that are um shown in green on this map and again these numbers correspond to the project list that you saw so we also ran through we also ran these through the model as a separate package of projects.

And so the next slide shows the result of of those projects.

So again we're seeing um you know for the most part um these new connection projects are sort of resolving underlying um underlying needs you know they're they're sort of um taking care of those thick red lines and either changing them to green or orange um and um and we're seeing um impacts of of significant um positive impacts of these projects modeled together um but again um what we're also seeing is is um the the resulting needs um or the the the needs that are left over um the um the the from the rest of the system are still there so they're still present right and so we're still seeing a lot of red on the map even even after uh considering these projects and so what um what we um what we are going to proceed with is is Zach if you can advance it to the next slide so um so we're gonna proceed with a few additional model runs so what I showed you in the um the model results here are sort of the uh the effects of modeling alternatives one and two separately um so the next step in MDT has this model run underway as we speak is to uh uh incorporate a combined run of models one and model or uh alternatives one and alternatives two so it would combine the the capacity projects on the existing system along with those new connection projects um and as a you know as a way to understand sort of how the system is how this is his system is reacting to that to that package or that portfolio of projects um we are also um in the process of identifying sort of the the broad revenue envelope that we're gonna be operating with in terms of kind of the the the bottom line of our our physical fiscal constraint if you will and so as we as we make those determinations and as we um understand sort of um any tier three and tier four projects that could be added to our our financial constraint um uh project list uh that jeff um said we'll be um uh we'll be sharing with you next month we will um we will model that package of of projects right so we'll have at the end of the day we'll have some additional tier three and tier four projects that will probably move up into our financial constraint of course it's kind of depending on how much how much revenue we identified um and sort of how how our our cost informations are are are sorting themselves out but we'll have a like a package at the end of the day of of a financial constrained model run that will include all the capacity projects that um that essentially the um the revenues um uh the the current law revenues can can afford and then um for those projects that are sort of below that that financial constraint line we'll also include those as what we call in a an illustrative run so um we'll have sort of the the rest of the tier and tier three and tier four projects that um that we can't demonstrate connection financial constraint for but we'll be able to include those in a model run to understand sort of how they um how they help move the um the needle in terms of of achieving um uh you know resolution on some of these needs that um that we've identified here with these with this modeling exercise so I think I'm gonna stop there um and um and let folks try to absorb what I've just presented and feel free to ask any follow-up questions I don't mind you you said alternatives one was pulled from tier one and two two or just tier one projects tier tier one and tier two okay so there were there were a mix of those existing capacity projects in both tier one and tier two uh as well as there were a mix of the new connection projects in tier one and tier two.

So at this point this is a conservative I think exercise because we we know um we're we're well tier one and tier two we wanted to to do some prioritization with with sort of those projects that were that were scoring a little higher um but as we identify as we start to reconcile costs versus revenues um you know we will be able to um to move some you know what we feel are tier three and tier you know tier three projects up into sort of maybe the financial constraint above the financial constraint line um but um I don't think we left out any tier one or tier two capacity projects is is another way to answer that question.

Well we're chosen Ron before you updated the scoring I don't know how much are you putting to judge this past week has changed the scoring if at all I mean it's really easy for a lot fewer residents than Bozeman right but I see Alaska I don't know I'd have to dig into the scoring to see that's it that's a good yeah that's a great point sorry for interrupting yeah good model if if the new if the adjusted scoring has resulted in um in tier three projects moving into tier one or tier two prior to kind of us reconciling costs and revenues then we will rerun that model because that'll become kind of our starting point I think moving forward okay does that make sense I guess yeah yeah if I could just jump in a little bit I think what you're getting to Levi is that's an important project for the county that you guys have uh grant application in for we've written a letter of grant for one of the failing intersections on either end but another application and for a full corridor capacity enhancement along what is a giant red one in the county that seems an important connection so even if how you weigh that against the area of other projects is always tough for you maybe this is a good time for me to jump in with some of my comments um looking so one of the things I'm struggling with is this presentation you know was helpful but a lot of information was just thrown at us so actually getting this slide deck after the meeting so you can sort of digest it and think critically about it after the meeting and provide some feedback would be helpful and that's sort of what hasn't happened until the last week and a half with the the scoring criteria um you know those were shown initially and we kind of got an e-jerk reaction but just got those really a week and a half ago or so and thinking about thinking critically about them and how they work um they really prioritize movement within our population centers rather than movement between our population centers and obviously the county projects are are the latter category um and uh the way when you look at the individual goals and the scoring criteria that are nested under those goals they all make sense when you think about how they all work together um county projects are are falling or getting zero scores of zero basically the same issue multiple times through the various criteria because for just like pedestrian for example that that doesn't just hit us in one place it hits us under multiple of those goals sooner we're cumulatively we're getting dinged multiple times right so it's gonna be very hard for county projects to complete compete equitably with projects that are in Bozeman or Belgrade um when you look at the scoring criteria the way they're set up I wouldn't disagree with that um it is a little bit baked into what everybody agreed to with the goals and objectives to begin with and maybe that's a lesson that we can bring into the next LRTP.

I think though it I'm not gonna say it's gonna resolve itself but those sort of capacity specific type projects when this ultimately gets down into fiscally constrained lists right all those caveats about it with information it's not all sign up.

Yeah I try to really have capacity money available to do so you know I I I don't know though that in the LRT people could certainly be written narratively in a way that um does not detract from any grant opportunities to just go it help certainly in our current administration that's diving up federal federal grants those type of projects are even laid up from the ones uh that might be more um locally uh uh discussed within our RTP, you know what I mean?

Um but that being said, um the point about regional connectivity is sort of what we're up here for, right?

You know, we are all still doing our own local transportation plans yet, right?

And the LRTP is is kind of working ground up, um, but it's a regional MPA.

R MPOs are regional planning organization, and so I wouldn't um uh you know, I I would not think that it would be um you know gaming the system or whatever to put higher importance on some of those connectivity projects that we all also agree are necessary.

How to do that within our framework is I think the challenging part.

And maybe then the question becomes not why does it matter, right?

But what is the reference?

You know, um, and to you know, without kind of restarting the wheel of that going back and changing our goals and objectives, you know, maybe as this plays out.

For what it's worth, the the whole goal with having the T Tac do these monthly things, and uh typically this would show up in the draft plan that we all get, you know, two weeks or whatever to to kind of look at and then say, oh crap, now we gotta start over or whatever, right?

And so um, you know, to Del Snyghardt's credit and to Jeff's credit, I I agree and I share with him as a member agency.

It's I felt like I haven't exactly had all the information I needed to really dig in, and these monthly meetings are sort of an opportunity to keep Laird on so that when he comes to us, Nelson Eiger comes to us in September with the draft plan, we've had an opportunity to engage local.

I guess my message to reinforce that is showing us information is different than giving us information to actually really take back and think critically.

You know, uh, I have the opportunity to give kind of an e-ject response to to the criteria, which I appreciated, but if I had been given those criteria in the right and actually think about how they interact with one another and how that framework is set up, like this is an example of a concern I would have been able to identify earlier, right?

And I'm not saying we should go back and unwind and redo how the scoring is set up, but in hindsight, I think we should probably have had less criteria and identify scoring metrics that met multiple of those goals rather than having redundant scoring criteria under each goal.

I couldn't agree more to be honest, but I think it's learning lesson to next time we come back into this whole goals and objectives conversation.

It's great to get it all out there, but I mean, even to be honest with you from a schedule perspective, I think we spent six months uh hashing all hashing all that stuff out, and now we're sort of feeling compressed when the rubber meets the road, so to speak.

Yeah, we gotta move forward.

Yeah, totally understand these will be ultimately approved by TBCC and the county has representation on there, and so that's another element once we go through these technical exercises step by step.

Um I've I've seen multiple times every MPO does things differently, but I have seen instances where projects that maybe are down on the list number 16 below the funded projects get moved to number one when you get the political, and so uh that that is another aspect of it, and that's really good feedback around the um giving of the information for you to sit with and digest outside of just the T TAC meetings.

So appreciate appreciate that feedback and additionally it's also handshake, it's our job as TTAC members to kind of totally beam up the chain in advance and provide it.

So let's not try to get to so totally uh totally and yeah, I don't have any surprises.

Yeah, it gets, I think that's you know, to the policy board and they're putting on the brakes or which interjecting politics to move things around.

I I think that's the last resort we need to uh yes, I don't uh cutting reward.

Uh do we have any folks online?

Not public right now?

We'll take public comment in a minute, but um I the hybrid meetings I always feel like the the virtual people get the chef.

Um anybody want to contribute from our uh our folks online.

I mean, I guess I just wanted to say that I would also love a chance to like look over this slide deck after as well.

Echo that appreciate that, Todd.

Jeff, I'll give you the duties.

Yeah, I'll send it out.

Yeah, we'll send it out to this to TTAC.

Um, thank you.

And I'll just offer.

Sorry, this is Chris.

I'll just offer that we can make, you know, the the mapping graphics.

Um we can make larger versions of those in PDF forms so folks can take a look at at sort of what's going on in a kind of a smaller area.

Um trying to get those on a slide on a slide sometimes is pretty hard to do and pretty hard to tease out sort of projects that are in very sort of sort of small segments, right?

So we can we can make that information available as well.

I missed the last meeting, right?

Jeff shared the recording of the meeting with me.

Being able to go back and listen to that, see the slide deck, which was a really good presentation last time for Nelson Nygaard.

That was really helpful.

So again, that's a us as members to do, right?

I think we're all learning, yeah.

To that end, um I was going to suggest.

Uh so um, so again, this is gonna all be iterative, and then Nelson Igard's keeping the ball rolling towards that list that they're gonna present to us for further comment next month.

Is a week too short.

So we're the the goal is to for all of us, right?

To be feeding Jeff and the consultant comments suggestions along the way, and at some point like they're gonna have to, you know, develop that next piece that then goes into what they put the presentation together and present um next month, and then we'll have uh so that'll be August.

Um and then September, we hope to have the actual full draft together for at least a month of review for T tag, right, Jeff, and it'll all go through public notices, public notice account as well, and then so that gets us into October for revisions and then adoption by TPC in the we're sort of expecting a joint November December meeting uh because the way the holidays align and the likelihood or unlikelyhood that we're gonna get uh both of them together, so um, you know, six months to go, so that's there's time, but but they'll be being able to get together once a month from here on out.

Um without that closing the door for any comments, can we try to maybe shoot for that week or two weeks to get feedback over to Nelson Igard and Catherine?

Um don't certainly don't want to leave you out either you and Jason.

Um but uh thanks.

Thank you, Nick.

Yeah, I I feel like from um from where we are, two weeks would be really helpful.

Um actually I'm gonna be out almost all of next week.

Uh and I know that Jason still has a very very full plate, so uh two weeks feels more reasonable for for us, but obviously we'll go with the flow.

Okay, I can respect that.

So Chris and and Bethany and Zach, you guys will continue working moving forward, right?

With project development, and then um as we provide comments, those can be incorporated.

Yep, yeah.

Okay.

Updated project scoring, I assume would kick back up if they changed.

We're assuming they didn't change, or it sounds like they're in the process of changing.

Yeah.

Where on the updated project scores.

Have you guys completed that yet, or is that still in process?

I mean, it's not really something we want to do until we get um consolidated feedback and comments, right?

Because we we have had some.

We we know how we would update them, but if there's anything identified from the jurisdictions that needs to change, it'd be good to know that first, because we have to go in and update the script.

Okay.

Send your comments that you would have.

And then just to clarify for the alternatives that uh Chris shared out today when we're referencing tier one and tier two, that does not reflect any updated scoring, which we've talked about for the county or those men.

Yeah, I was gonna say it's the updated scoring thing seems to be the crux at this point, right?

For now, I mean I get the riggle, right?

We're gonna have to do our best to simply stage this, trust what comes out the other side and have zero time to do about it.

Whatever, that's not we don't have any things we're gonna do.

But you know, I forgot to say it, but it's not gonna have money.

No, you know, I mean, I just we should better see scoring it made sense, but we'll be on that, so yes, we've got to march on it.

And and I think a couple examples that were shared, theirs.

I'll be honest, that's what we I flag for both projects.

County does the same thing in their plan.

Like, you know, when you say construct minor arterial here, it's assumed in that description that yes, we're building the sign boxes, bike lanes and paths with it, and all those things were getting missed out of even those.

Right, and so that alone with what they're already working through to change, I think it's gonna hopefully you know adjust the scores in a more appropriate way so that those new connection projects aren't getting buried because the script or whatever assumed it was only like the road lanes and nothing else.

So I'm I I'm expecting just as we saw there, that those scores are gonna be pulled up because it's acknowledged that.

I mean, I don't think you guys are building any roads either that aren't gonna have side logs or bike lines or the crap of that, right?

No roads in a while.

Yeah, you can just stop and build the grounds, and when you can put your application in for a last or right, and it should be better button if you got it.

Same thing we're doing first, right?

What do you guys need from this group to get that updated scoring list?

What are you guys waiting on?

I mean, I just I would I would reiterate that through this process and and with other LRTPs is that the scoring is just an iterative piece of it.

These questions that are on the screen right now ultimately are gonna be the things that have the trajectory to change prioritization and what gets included.

So feedback on projects from you folks that includes these things, most particularly that key priority for implementing jurisdiction and agency is critical.

I think if there's any um projects that we haven't discussed in terms of where the project details may not include enough information for things like if it's just assuming that a functional classification is including a certain type of facility, that's something we'd want to know.

Um we do have that from the county and um Bozeman already though, but but those are the types of things.

So anything that will actually change um what is included in a project, the other piece would be if you think it would make sense for certain projects to be combined together, um, particularly if you're concerned that they may not be scoring well.

That's another way that we could we could update that there.

So red like projects, guys.

Yeah, and particularly like if there's something you see that there's like there's no reason why this shouldn't we understand, and there's definitely reasons as to why items might not be scoring, particularly as um they you know it may not be serving a number of different um attractions or job centers, things like that.

But if that's a red flag for you, fee please let us know.

Because that's the type of stuff that really moves things uh up the list because ultimately when we well we have the project listed in the plan, but in that appendix, we like to have an in-depth justification and rationale and any of those notes really helped to build that case, and that can go into future grant applications that can help inform future TIPs, things like that.

Thank you guys.

Um, we're running over a little bit.

Any opportunity or any folks online um give a chance for public comment before we wrap up here?

Should we know request for public comment?

Beth, any parting words?

None for me.

Um I do just want to ask, kind of clarify moving forward next year's UPWP comfort level with those kinds of comments and how you'd like us to address those.

In the UPW, yeah.

Um, just so before you, you know, if if you're comfortable with Jeff and I coordinating that post um agreement, I think, but we can discuss that at the next few meetings, but just keep that in mind while it's fresh.

Very well.

Any final thoughts on the LRTP project discussion from those online?

Yeah, quick question.

So I see on the attachment from the agenda that was sent out that there was an XLSX file, but when you click on it, it looks like it's still a PDF, and it's hard to really it'd be a lot easier if you could look at the source Excel sheet and the full width rather than you know seeing this project, the score, and then like the the commentary on it is it's like hard to splice that together.

Is that Excel sheet available?

Yeah, that's the the granica system that Bozeman has to develop the agendas.

Jeff attached the Excel sheet and then it converts it to a PDF.

So Jeff, if you can see that I'll send out the Excel sheet with the PowerPoint from today, and I mean enhanced graphics we all receive.

Okay, yeah, and then I guess just as a further note, um, you know, as I was reviewing some of this, it looks like there's um some projects that have been recently nominated.

I think I talked with maybe Nick about it when we nominated them, but probably nobody else.

Um, you know, like our four corners intersection improvement projects, and I see that was listed in that LRTP as an improvement necessary there, and then the frontage road.

Uh we have a project that was recently nominated there as well.

And um, there could be, I guess, further discussion, maybe warranted about adding features to those projects with or without uh MPO contribution, if there's low hanging fruit there.

Um, but I'll try to flag those in my comments to guess.

Cool.

And that might be discussion if those should move to commit.

So that there's the oldest projects within this that we don't even see right now are the ones that are quote committed, so things that are already on the tip or in development or have grant funding coming to them.

And so maybe that's a conversation for ended on a couple of those should be moved over to the committed list.

Yep.

Right on.

Gotta check.

I'll review.

Yeah.

All right.

You're a good job, Joe.

Yeah, we appreciate you.

Uh, you know, I appreciate you guys too.

I know that this is challenging uh working across jurisdiction like this, and as the MPO, I think we do handle these tough questions up front.

So there are tough questions that are coming up, and I really appreciate it.

And I think just going through this process, there's also been some learning, you know, on the goals and objectives and other stuff.

So everybody stick around for more years, and we'll get the tip again.

All right, folks, thank you for joining.

Appreciate the extra time you gave us.

Um everybody have a good month.

Enjoy vacations, and we'll see y'all in August.

Meeting a jerk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, they're probably not really bringing it there, but um common issue