It looks like we are waiting on Mayor to join us, and so I have not heard anything.

Maybe we'll give it a few more minutes.

Commissioner Brown is the vice chair of the committee.

Um yeah, just wait, but yeah.

So there we go.

Yeah, I just checked the roster there.

Well, we can we can wait, and then as soon as we give up waiting to say the word, and I can do my best to facilitate.

Okay, we'll call this meeting of the Downs Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Policy Coordinating Committee to order for Wednesday, July twenty second.

I second it.

Ms.

Jim.

Okay, could you pull the board?

Mayor Marson.

Hi.

Mr.

Bowdy.

Hi.

Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

Hi.

Mark Eggie.

Hi.

Jim Hansen.

Hi.

Okay.

We've got general public comment.

This is the opportunity for anyone, any member of the public to provide public comment on anything that is not currently on our agenda, but it's still with under the scope and purview of the MPO.

Do we have anyone online?

Oh, yes, I see.

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

We will close that portion and move on to new business.

Um we've got uh our memorandum of agreement of for a cooperative-based planning measures and targets with this body.

Um Jeff, I think you're up.

Oh, you're you're muted.

Yeah, great.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Appreciate it.

Uh, this item is to continue our performance-based target setting among uh the MPO, the state and transit district.

Uh this is a federal requirement.

We are federally required to coordinate on our uh performance measures and target setting.

There are two different options that we can take.

We can either support our partners' targets or we can develop our own targets.

We previously developed or we previously supported the statewide targets on a term of two years.

That two years has now expired and it is coming back to this committee.

The updated memorandum of agreement changes the term to be an ongoing uh term.

So we will be supporting the statewide targets on an ongoing basis.

Um the MPO does not currently have the data nor processes methodology for uh creating our own target, and so even if we do want to do so, it would take a little bit to develop.

We're currently in the long-range transportation plan development and the long stretch of that, and so setting our own targets right now uh would redirect the resources away from completing the long-range transportation plan.

Uh supporting this uh statewide targets does not prevent us from pursuing our own targets in the future.

And so uh staff is recommending that we continue to support the statewide targets for both um the transit and the non-transit side of things, and so uh recommended motion.

There's a motion for your consideration for record for approval of the memorandum of agreement and authorizing the chair to sign it.

So with that, I will open it up for questions and any comments you may have.

Great.

Thank you for that.

Are there any questions?

Yeah, Mr.

Eggie.

Thanks, Mayor.

Uh Jeff Sar, did you did you include the the current targets and information about the results from the the first two years towards the current sets of targets?

Uh they were not included in the memorandum, but they are incorporated into the long-range transportation plan at this time.

Uh I also have them pulled up on Excel sheet so I can share with you what they are if you're interested.

And those are the the same targets that were presented to us two years ago.

Uh they it it's the same methodology, however, because the methodology is taking a snapshot of time that rolls depending on how looking at safety, for example, dependent on the number of fatal incidents that's going to change that target um just based on the methodology.

Um so we have yeah, I can I can go into what those are if they're interested.

If you have those handy, I think it'd be great if you could just flash on screen what those targets are.

of time that rolls depending on how looking at safety for example dependent on the number of fatal incidents that's going to change that target um just based on the methodology um so we have yeah i i can go into what those are if they're interesting but if if you have those handy i think it'd be great if you could just flash on screen what those targets are yeah i have an excel spreadsheet here that i'll share with you and so this is um what we've used internally for the long range transportation plan so up here are the safety performance target as you can see the number of fatalities statewide was 208 uh the 2025 targets went up to 213 there was a higher number of fatals uh within the previous timeframe and so that methodologically brought it up but then they drop back down to 2026 and then the 2030 targets are more aggressive there uh and then the payment condition is a another aspect and so interstate and non-interstate uh sort of depend on on where we're at there but they really range from uh at least 15 percent uh well there there are um a variety of targets i guess that we have to meet when it comes to payment condition for interstate and non-interstate and then the bridges themselves so uh can go into anything else you may have here so travel time reliability you can see on the screen and then um our air conformity targets are down on the bottom they're not applicable many of them thank you yep yeah we should get into see those um any further questions commission bodie do you have a question yeah um the emissions reductions targets are those non-applicable because the state of Montana has decided to not um set goals in that area well they're not applicable to our MPO because we're in an attainment area is what they call it and so we're not having air quality issues here um as far as the statewide goes I um am not sure what the reason behind that is okay thank you great any further questions on this item okay seeing no further questions we will open this for public comments so this is um an opportunity for members of the public to um opine or share their thoughts on this item in front of us I'm showing no request for public comment okay close public comment portion and um bring it up here for a motion discussion and vote do you have your thank you and make the motion um I move to approve the memorandum of agreement for cooperative performance based planning measures and targets and authorize the transportation policy coordinating committee chair to sign.

It's been moved is there a second I second the motion thank you Jim again coming in um it's been moved and seconded commission would you like to speak to your motion um just briefly I I agree with the report that was um written and uh Mr But's kind of um logic here that we don't really have the capacity to dig deeply into this while we're finalizing our long range transportation plan.

And um I I do think I will be excited and interested in building out kind of our our own targets in the future um but want to move at the pace that this body and um our our dedicated staff can bear.

Yeah Mr Eddy so I I have some reservations about this I think that target setting in general is uh is a very important part of how we plan for and manage our transportation system.

We have goals around having a safe reliable well maintained system and if we don't have targets uh we don't really know if we're making progress towards attaining those goals and I think the uh the targets that MDT have put forward are frankly they're they're pretty weak.

Um MDT says our goal is to not reduce the number of safety fatalities in the next or the number of fatalities happening on the roads in the next two years.

Like that's um I don't think that that's the I don't think that we should plan and program in a way that is going to achieve MDT's goals.

I think that we should plan and program in a way that it achieves a significant reduction in fatalities.

I think that we should plan and program in a way where the reliability of our roadway is at least roughly maintained and not seeing a dramatic drop off in the future.

So I mean if MDT doesn't want to take this exercise seriously I don't think that we support we should support their goals and I do think that we should have the capacity within our long range transportation plan to define our define our own goals like it shouldn't um I don't think it'd be a tremendous exercise for us to say that um for us to say that we we think that zero is the correct number of fatalities for our municipal area and MDT can disagree and say there should be more but that's what we think and we can I I think it it would fall well within the scope of developing developing a long range transportation plan for us to define our own targets that reflect our particular circumstances and the fact that our aspirations exceed those of the state transportation agency great thanks thanks for that and um Jeff I don't know if you have any response to that I'm I am sort somewhat curious about the relationship or of the timeline here of whether after the long range transportation plan is complete that we can set our own parameters there and we we incorporate those into this or does it specifically need to just relationship between these two documents and um the ambitions that we might have yeah thank you there's quite a bit there.

I think uh first of all on the aspirational target of zero we will be able to put that in the long range transportation plan regardless of this and it's already in the draft document and so we can still aspire to that nothing in this prevents it uh we do not uh currently have a methodology for this and the state's numbers go up and down based on the methodology and that itself is something that takes some time to develop and it's based on the numerical evidence that is coming in and what can actually be achieved.

And so uh while we have a shared uh goal of vision zero that is also a statewide goal and they've been very public about that um that's on the aspirational side and on the performance side of it uh it's more on the year to year uh biannual uh aspect where we're able to see how close we are getting to that and and setting achievable targets um did i i think there may have been one oh the relationship between uh the long range transportation plan and this so in doing the performance based planning looking at the maintenance for example looking at where the roads are in good condition medium condit good or poor condition essentially is what we're looking at there um we would have the same programs pretty much regardless that's a funding issue that really mandates well dictates how much road surfacing can be redone every year so even if the targets change um there's still funding limitations to it i certainly think we've had just on the internal staff side similar discussions uh trying to carry out this body's uh direction and um nothing in signing this agreement today would prevent us from being able to uh set our own targets develop that methodology when we move into our next long range transportation plan uh it will help us finish this year's long range transportation plan uh by um adopting the statewide targets and continue to support theirs okay thanks for that um any any further discussion from board members on this item and i don't know if if mark you had any reactions to that or my i guess my my uh my opinion is that if to the extent that we have identified our own targets that are more aspirational than the state we should reflect that through this federal reporting process um rather than simply going along with the the statewide statewide estimates i i get why there's reasons for expediency uh why we would just go along with the uh the statewide targets um i'm set i it it it is i mean at the end of the day this is kind of a check the check the box exercise but i think that that uh i think we do a disfavor to uh to ourselves into the broader planning process by treating it as such this um i i guess uh a clarifying question i have is like this is this is a short-term moment it it's it's done on the the buy-in

Um it is, I mean, at the end of the day, this is kind of a check to check the box exercise, but I think that that uh I think we do a disfavor to uh to ourselves into the broader planning process by treating it as such.

This um I I guess a clarifying question I have is like this is this is a short-term moment.

It's it's done on the the biennium.

And I know that doesn't sound like super short term, but what what I'm learning in in my role is that like the cogs move slowly here.

Um and so two years from now, we will have the opportunity to see this again.

And um I would I would like to see us do exactly what Mr.

Egggy is describing, making this not like a check the box situation, but really adding the methodology behind um reaching the the goals that we are shortly going to solidify in our long-range transportation plan.

Um so I I guess what one question I have is like how long could we delay the vote that we're taking today if if we were to say no, we want to go and define our own methodology to reach these goals.

Um by what what point do we have to check this box?

That is a great question, Commissioner.

Uh I would have to pull up the uh con or the agreement.

It is within the next couple of months here.

Um yeah, I can pull that up immediately.

Um Thanks for looking into that.

Um just as as you're pulling it up, I'll I'll say like uh that this is a decision about how we want our want to spend our time in in the very near term, um, whether it's focusing on implementing and um carrying forward our long-range transportation plan or spending the time to to focus on the methodology behind these goals in the shorter like two-year frame.

And I I think that's the place where um the the trade-off that I'm I'm seeing is that I I think it makes more sense to kind of stay the the course on um what we know is going to be the the most visionary document we can make with the long the wrong long-range plan.

And then um once we have that really defined and gaining traction, we can loop back to this kind of um methodology section and and get that uh really clearly defined for for our community and and for the state to see um what those targets are.

Uh but if if we have you know six months to do this or a year before we have to check this metaphorical box here, um perhaps there is time to to spend um developing our own methodology.

Yeah, Mark.

My my impression is or my understanding is that MDT has until October 31st to put together their entire package that reports their targets for the next four years and indicates whether or not any of the MPOs are choosing their own targets or uh agreeing with the statewide targets.

Um I guess I I'd like to uh I'd like to um I move to amend uh the the current motion to limit the term of this memorandum of agreement to the current two-year uh cycle um such that this would then come back uh in front of us two years from now to then have the option to either uh define our own course or to continue to support the state state's targets.

Okay, there's a motion.

Is there a second?

Second that motion.

Okay.

Um is there more that you want to add to that or just the the discussion you've already given on that?

The only thing that I would add is that it I don't um I guess I guess conceptually I don't agree with the way that MDT is uh is approaching this target setting uh studying approach.

Uh particularly if you look at some of their targets and they're like, we're gonna do worse in the future.

Um I understand why for the sake of expediency and with resources and priorities that we have, like this probably isn't the right time to uh do a deep deep dive on uh truck travel time reliability index.

Uh, but I also don't want us to say that we you know agree in perpetuity to just go along with whatever MDT wants to do.

Thanks for that.

Any further discussion on this proposed amendment.

Okay, seeing none.

We'll pull the board.

Hi.

Commissioner Bowdoin.

Aye.

Commissioner Brown.

Mark Eggie.

Aye.

Jim Hanson.

Aye.

Five six.

Um okay.

One no on that.

Um, okay.

Now to the main motion to approve um the now amended targets and measures.

Any further discussion.

Um, I'm just wondering if if Mr.

Betts was able to pull up that that time frame.

Um, not that it will change my vote, but just you know, in the context of this discussion, it'd be great to have it in there.

Uh yes, I was commissioner.

The current uh agreement expires on September 11th of this year.

Okay, so functionally like a month and we would have to approve it next month at our next monthly meeting in order to meet that deadline.

There is one TPCC meeting next month between now and the expiration date.

Okay, thanks.

Gino, did you have something?

No, I was just gonna give that that timeline the 11th of September.

Great.

Thanks.

Okay.

Any further discussion?

Okay, seeing none, we'll pull the board.

Mayor Morrison.

Hi.

Commissioner Bowden.

Aye.

Commissioner Brown.

Hi.

Clark Eggie.

Hi.

Okay.

Appreciate that that discussion.

Um, and then I think we're on to our next item related to the work plan.

Um, the work program, sorry.

Um, Jeff, I think you're back up.

Uh yes, thank you, Mayor.

Sorry I for uh quit sharing screen there on the agenda.

So um, yep, I have a presentation.

And uh the fun stuff talking about work program and funding, everybody's favorite.

And so we are back today talking about the unified planning work program.

And uh this is your final review, your second review of it.

And we are asking you today to consider the motion of adopting the federal fiscal year 2027 unified planning work program.

And we are adding a little bit on here to authorize MPO staff to make minor modifications for regulatory compliance that would not change any of the uh substance of the uh content, just maybe some titles or something like that.

Uh as a reminder, we have four different requirements that you can see on the screen here.

The unified planning program is one of those.

It sets our program and the funding associated with it.

You can see the timeline on the screen here.

So June had the first review.

This is a second review.

Uh after this, we'll go to MDT and FHWA for any final comments they may have for final authorization prior to October 1st.

So we can get those reimbursements uh in the new federal fiscal year.

This position or the UPWP uh has two components to it.

It has both the MPO and the transit component.

The MPO has what's called PL or planning funds, and that funds the MPO two-person staff, our federal planning documents.

We're also paying the rent and indirect costs and building operations.

As noted previously, we're finding that we have limited planning capacity with the current funds.

But it does fund those.

And then the FTA, Section 5303 funds, which the director of the UTD is here, Sunshine Ross, and she'll present on them on assisting with the funding of two positions.

We essentially get 442,000 this year in federal funding, of which a little over 50,000 goes to the state for their allocation.

And then we have about 200,000 in reserve funds that we will have.

So a total of $601,000 available this year.

This is how it is allocated on a percentage basis.

And these are two full-time positions, so about 4,000 hours if you want to keep track.

And so I will go through each one of these on its own now.

Administration, this includes things like supporting this committee, respond to emails, uh minute meetings, uh, any staff training that we may participate in, uh, collaboration with partners, hopefully more supportive grant applications once we get our uh LRTP done.

And then finally, it also includes on the staff side any benefit hours that we may have.

Looking at the non-staff expenses, they do remain the same as last time.

However, have talked with the city of Bozeman about the rent and office operations and cleaning.

And we're currently having discussions uh with management on addressing those and exploring ways to have those at least reduced uh the next time that the UPWP comes back to you.

Um we will also be working as staff to see what we can do to get uh this taken care of before next year.

Um, but this is this is what we have still and uh going to the UPWP, about 2% of our time developing the UPDPWP, submitting any reports that we may have, uh getting input from partners and coordination that we may need to have on that one, and then we have $708 of indirect costs that um our city of Bozeman support in that public uh involvement.

This is something uh that uh we are continuing to work on improving our website to make it easier for the public to understand what we're doing, providing transportation-related information to the public and to elected officials and others.

One thing that we really want to work on over this next year is building an e-notification audience.

So when we do our next long-range transportation plan and any planning studies in between that we have an audience that we can reach out to who are interested there.

We may also do this with social media, but this is something uh specific to this year that we continue to that we want to build out, and then partnerships are something that we've identified as a need, and so looking for any partners that we can work with.

And then the valley trail loop study being funded by our partners.

Uh we'll have a community engagement aspect to that as well, which is included in here.

And then you can see our funding that we have.

Uh, last time we discussed having $1,000 in materials for anything that we're not able to get out of the community engagement office of the city of Bozeman.

Uh, and then we have our indirect costs to the city of Bozeman for the support that they provide.

Long-range transportation plan.

We're getting this puppy done, and we'll have it adopted by December 26th of this year, meeting federal requirements.

Uh, it is going to take about 5% of staff time we have predicted, could be more, and we anticipate a final approval coming to this board in your November meeting and then leaving December as a backup there.

Got mixed around, sorry.

The uh consultant services, we have $20,000 in the UPWP towards this.

And then we have our indirect costs for the city of Bozeman support that they provide.

And then on data, there's quite a bit here.

Sorry for all the text on the screen.

We basically have our core data sets, which are our uh required traffic counts, socioeconomic data, and then bicycle pedestrian counts.

We're looking at pilot locations and methodologies and how we're going to share that with others.

Our GIS, uh so building out the MPO database, incorporating the long-range transportation plan data, and then providing staff training as our budget will allow.

And then as mentioned previously, uh staff is requesting returning of the two continuous count stations to recover approximately $45,000 after uh 10% restocking.

And so here you can see the different licenses that we have associated with the uh counters and the indirect costs that we pay the city of Bozeman for their support.

And finally for the area transportation plan.

So the Valley Trail Loop this is partner funded planning effort for the consultant services of 125,000 that you see broken out here on the screen.

And we are grateful to our partners for this.

And the MPO will provide the project management on this through through the federal funding.

And so here you can see consultant support of 125,000 being funded locally from our partners.

So it's not federally reimbursable, but I have included it in here for uh transparency.

And then we have the indirect costs, which are federally reimbursable of just under $5,000 for the support that City Bozeman provides.

Once we're done with the long range transportation plan, we'll come up with a fiscally constrained project list.

And we're working through that with the transportation technical advisory committee, hoping to have a first review of the August meeting.

Umce that is finalized and this body approves that, I will go into the transportation improvement program, which then programs the fund to actualize the uh projects.

And this one we will revisit annually.

I say on here, it's a five-year tip, but I've been corrected.

It's actually a four-year tip.

Um, and we will have this developed by the end of the federal fiscal year, or not the calendar year, excuse me, and then about $500 for support to the city of Bozeman there.

And we will have about $200,000 for need in reserve for our long-range transportation plan.

And um, with that, I will turn it over to Sunshine Ross, who is the director of the urban transportation district, and she will talk about the transit section.

So Sunshine, turn it over to you.

Thank you, Jeff.

Um I just wanted to go over the sections that are required in the UPWP for transit and kind of explain those a little bit.

Um next slide, please.

Um, so all of the um, I guess the reason the transit planning funds are part of this program is for planning activities, but it really um is to support the community um through economic vitality um um safety of not only um our bus riders but the public in general, and of course, we're always working um on better improvements to accessibility and mobility when we're working on transit projects and plans, um, and just overall um try to help with quality of life.

And we talked a lot about um how the growing pains of a community such as ours is is not going to be solved by transit, but it can play a role in that um and helping alleviate some of those.

Um, our total allocation for this year is 144,000, and part of that is some funds that were rolled over from the first UPWP that we did not spend.

Um, so the match for our funds are 8020, and we can see those on the screen.

Uh next slide, please.

So the bulk of our work is um at the request of MDT has it will be um in the UPDWP will be housed in the transit system management.

However, I did still want to go through the um the different categories.

So this is basically to support our grant administration activities, such as milestone reports or budget applications, safety plans, attending T TAC meetings and coordination with the MPO.

And so we have the staff supports two step two positions, and that's about 2800 hours.

So 133,000 roughly.

And that's that's also there's also some non-staff fees in here, which are legal is what's listed here.

But the amendment from MDT is to add there's a couple others that I'll mention in the other categories, but they're all actually going to be rolled up into the transit system management, which is sort of just like a general admin administration of transit.

Next slide, please.

So one thing that we're happy to report that the board in um earlier this month was able to adopt uh the transit development plan.

So that is something that um we're really excited about.

Um we there will be some short-term um enhancements that we'll be able to make um likely this fall.

Um and so we also will be looking at um uh I guess I should share the board prioritized of these these services, what we think we could um we could achieve, and um we'll look a little bit um closer at how much of the services um if we can achieve some sustainable funding, how much of the services, how much of the funding could go towards services and how much could go would need to be um dedicated for capital, so buses and/or facilities.

Um next slide, please, Jeff.

Thank you.

Um so future service analysis.

This is something that was also done in the transit development plan, but we are working um on financial sustainability, of course.

And then we're also looking at budget projections over the next five years as well as capital planning for five and um five years and beyond.

Um so we we know that um, for example, buses.

If you if we want to expand services, um when we don't have enough buses to do that, we need to uh anticipate about 18 months to two years just for production of a bus.

So that doesn't include the procurement process.

So we would we need to be planning for those things as we talk about serve where we want to serve and how we want to serve the community in the future, um, based on a lot of feedback from the public as well, which is what that um that word word cloud is over there, the um the feedback we received from the public during our two um uh engagements with during the public uh the transit development plan.

Um next slide, please.

So the current service analysis category is where we look at things like um um writer amenities.

So we implemented new software that created a writer app and we can push out alerts.

One alert we just pushed out this week was that with the closure of Garfield this week and most of next week, we will have to shift um to a different street.

And so those are that that's a really great improvement that we were able to implement.

Other things um that we do in this category is we're looking at bus stop improvements, um, ridership data, and um some of the software helps with that, and then how we can um transition from hand counts given uh taken by the drivers to automated passenger counters, which we do have installed in the buses.

Um, and that just takes a little bit of time to get approval to use that as our our main source of um collecting data.

Um, and then with this will also be um some immediate improvements that we can make or um we're working on um enhancing the the Belgrade route to include service to the airport in both directions.

Um we're working with our partners at ASMSU to also bring back um our late night service that operated Thursday through Saturday.

Um, and then a couple of route expansions.

So we're extending a route in a couple areas.

Um one is to Billings Clinic.

So we'll hopefully have service there in the near future.

Um and then of course we do some trainings and outreach and education uh um as we try to participate in public events.

Um next slide, please.

This is where um we have as Jeff had mentioned in his presentation um on the transit side, we've done very little work in this area so far, um, but that was to be expected, and and this will likely we'll see a little bit more.

But we'll we have at least had um preliminary conversations between the MPO, MDT, and FTA to make sure that um FTAs will review the CHIP as well, but to make sure that transit is included in this category too.

Um and the final um, if you want to move to the next slide, please, Jeff.

Um, is Americans with Disability Act.

Um so we are required to have complementary paratransit service.

So we do have a contracted provider for that.

Um so there's um some coordination with them.

We staff has conducted some um on the fixed route bus, as you see in this picture has conducted some trainings with the um Montana Association of the Blind.

Uh the local Bozeman chapter president has organized some statewide training and has brought them to Bozeman a couple of different times.

And I think it's gone really, really well.

Um we also have had all the fixed route and paratransit drivers trained in um the transit standard is passenger assistance safety and sensitivity training, and that is that needs to be done every two years.

So they've done that.

We've also um uh participated in walk audits.

Um sometimes in that incorporates our bus stops, sometimes not, but it's always really useful um to get out there and actually um do those walk audits, and particularly if it's somebody with a mobility device that or another um disability that might prohibit them from accessing the bus or um our our bus stops, and then of course, just general uh promotion of accessibility.

So I I that is what I wanted to share with this committee today, and um happy to answer any questions or receive any feedback if you have any.

Thank you.

Great, thank you, Sunshine.

And uh my camera does not want to come back on.

Okay, well okay, there you go.

And so before this committee today is the motion that you see on the screen.

We include the language at the end and brackets around being able to change it for regulatory compliance because after this, MBT and FHWA will review this.

And so this just captures uh that into the motion.

So with that, open it up for any questions that you may have and uh any comments.

So thank you.

Great.

Thank you.

Um thank you both for that presentation.

Any questions for Jeff or Sunshine.

Okay.

Well, I I have just one that's really just a follow-up on the indirect costs to the city of Bozeman piece and the rent question that we were swirling around um last month.

And I had a conversation with city manager, I had a conversation with Commissioner Brown, just kind of curious where where things settled out.

Um our side is that your question are you asking yeah, if there were if those are if there has been any correction or reduction for those for the rent costs and things like that, or if there's still action needed from us to do something about that.

Uh what I have been informed is that those discussions have taken place and they are looking at how to reduce those costs.

And so we haven't landed on an exact number yet.

Uh it's an identified need, and the city manager is working through uh it's it's it's really complicated because of the costs here in Bozeman.

And so I think it's gonna take a little bit of time to work through.

Um, but those discussions are ongoing.

Okay.

I'll add that uh Chuck followed up with me and assured me that it was going to get taken care of and that um it yeah, shouldn't be a problem moving forward.

But um Jeff, I think you know, the tenor of the conversation that we had a month ago, and just our intent is to really make sure uh not an only a reasonable amount of your budget is being obligated to overhead.

Um and so just keep us posted as the numbers flatten out.

But uh Mayor Morrison, for your benefit, what I was told was that it was uh that the actual office space rent uh is a certain number that was commensurate with what we would probably offer at the atrium building.

So like roughly uh commercially square footage rate that is market rate and seems very fair and reasonable.

Um, but that the big um uh exponential jump was due to how the uh folks in the stiff building calculate shared space charges, um like conference rooms and bathrooms and stuff, and that I think they're working through that.

So that's what I know, but Chuck assured me that it would be a non-issue moving forward, hopefully.

But Jeff, please let us know if that changes.

Yeah, thank you.

And thank you all for your uh work on that.

Um just on the inside, one of the difficulties we have is that the city of Bosnian uh is renting this space from a third party, and so we're using it.

And um, that's a part of the complication, but we're continuing to have those discussions and certainly appreciate your guys' support.

Great.

Any other questions?

Okay.

Seeing no questions, um thanks again for that for that presentation.

We'll open it up for public comment.

Any public comment this afternoon on the uh UPWP.

I'm showing no request for public comment.

Okay.

Um we'll move on.

We'll close the public comment portion and bring it up here um to this board for a motion discussion and vote.

I'll move to approve, Mr.

Chair.

Move to adopt the federal fiscal year 27 unified planning work program and authorize MPO staff to make minor modifications for regulatory compliance.

Is there a second?

Uh second.

Awesome.

Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded.

Um any discussion.

Okay.

Seeing none, we will pull the board.

Mayor Morrison.

Aye.

Commissioner Bodie.

Hi.

Commissioner Brown.

I.

Mark Gagey.

Aye.

Tim Hansen.

Aye.

Oh, as is six six.

Great.

Um, well, that was our final action item for this meeting.

Um, all that remains is any um FYI and discussion if there's anything that members of this board want to bring to the attention of the public and the other members of the board.

Okay.

Um, the only thing that I'll I'll just telegraph uh lightly, uh, we last night at the city commission approved um our community engagement plan for our transportation master plan update.

Um, so there will be opportunities for um this board for members of the public, of course, to to participate.

Just wanted to flag that as um this body's labeled is named as a external partner for that work.

Okay.

Well, if we are if there is no further discussion, then there's no further no more items um to come before this body.

Um this meeting is adjourned.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.