All right.

I call the two thousand four hundred and thirty third meeting of the Milwaukee City Council to order.

This meeting is being held in person at City Hall and by video conference.

The public may participate in this meeting by coming to City Hall or joining the Zoom webinar.

The meeting is being broadcast live on the city's YouTube channel and Comcast Cable Channel 30 in City Limits.

There will be opportunities for the public to speak during this meeting.

If you would like to address council, you may come to City Hall or participate via Zoom.

If you are interested in speaking, please let staff know by filling out a yellow comment card for those at City Hall or emailing OCR at Milwaukee, Oregon.gov for those on Zoom.

When it is time to take public comments, staff will monitor the comment cards, email inbox, and Zoom participant list and chat.

We will take comments in the order they are received and seen.

Comments may be emailed to OCR at Milwaukee, Oregon.gov.

We ask that all Zoom participants who intend to speak label their Zoom username to show their first and last names for the record.

Spanish translation services are available upon request.

The public is asked to request translation and other meeting accessibility services at least 48 hours before the meeting.

For more information, contact the city recorder at 503 786 7502.

Servicios de Tradución en Español esta disponible cuando sea silicado.

Say Pide al Público que Selicite Servicios de Traducción y otros servicios de accesibilidad por lo menos 408 horas antes de la reunión.

Para obtener más información, llama a El Secretario de la Ciudad 53, 786, 75.

Translation services are also available in other languages.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation, underground, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

In 1855, the surviving members of the Clackamas signed the Willamette Valley Treaty, also known as the Kalapuya, etc.

Treaty with the federal government in good faith.

We offer our respect and gratitude to the indigenous people of this land.

And we will uh I will mention that um Councillor Stavan Jord is with us online.

She's not here in the room, but she is with us online, so we're all we're all five present today.

Um and here are announcements.

City staff are planning the return of the annual umbrella parade and tree lighting on December 6th and the winter solstice event on December 20th.

These well-loved traditions will be back in 2025, and we'd love your ideas to make them even better.

If you have ideas and would like to share them, please visit engage Milwaukee at Engage.

MilwaukeeOregon.gov and submit your ideas for one or both events.

Ideas will be collected until October 3rd.

And I uh I know there are about eight ideas on there already, and you can also go on and um vote.

You know, you can also express your support by a thumbs up if you want to support someone else's ideas for events.

In addition, anyone who would like to volunteer for the umbrella parade or the solstice event can now sign up to do so.

There are various opportunities for each event.

Just visit the city's homepage at Milwaukee, Oregon.gov to find a link to the volunteer application.

Applications are currently being accepted for the city's Climate Action Committee.

The Climate Action Committee will work to strengthen the city's capacity to meet its adopted climate goals.

Visit the city's homepage to find a link to the application.

Leah Sotille, author of Blazing Eyes All and host of the podcasts Hush Burn Wild, two minutes past nine, and Bundyville will be at the Letting Library on Wednesday, September 17th from 6 to 715 p.m.

This is part of the library's fall author series.

These events occur on the third Saturday of each month from uh March to June.

No, they occur on the third Saturday of each month from uh September through June.

Um, which is take a couple months off in the summer.

Volunteers meet at Southeast 19th Avenue and Southeast Sparrow Street.

The Letting Libraries Fall Author Series continues on Wednesday, September 24th from 6 to 7.15 p.m.

with Mike Richardson, the founder of Milwaukee's very own Dark Horse Comics.

Through Dark Horse Entertainment, Richardson has produced films such as The Mask and Time Cop, as well as more recent series such as uh The Umbrella Academy.

Um Richardson has also written numerous graphic novels and comics series, as well as comics between panels and blast off two critically acclaimed books about pop culture.

We'll also be having a reception in Mr.

Richardson's honor after his reading or after his talk that night at the library.

So come join us for a cool evening at the library.

Um for more information about these events and others, please visit the city's homepage at Milwaukee, Oregon.gov or call 503-786-7555.

Okay, and then I like to read a haiku each uh each week or each regular session.

Um we had some uh I'm always I'm usually like begging people to submit haikus, but Emma Fish from our public works department um submitted a few, so I and some lovely ones.

So I really liked this one.

She entitled it Late Summer Library Visits.

Rolling and Popping, Leaves Brushing Quiet Windows, Chestnuts Pelt the Roof.

So thank you to Emma for submitting her haiku.

I am always looking for more though, so please send me your haiku.

They can be uh wistful, serious, funny, comical, uh, whatever you want them to be.

They just need to be uh not political, not religious, and G-rated.

Um there aren't a lot of rules.

Um, with that, I will uh we will move on to two proclamations tonight.

The first one is Latinx and the Hispanic Heritage Month being presented by our equity and inclusion coordinator, Gabriela Santoyo Gutierrez.

Welcome, Gabriela.

Good evening, Wanastar the City Council.

Thank you for the introduction.

Okay.

To keep my message concise for tonight, I wrote my thoughts down in advance for us.

As someone who proudly identifies as Mexican American Latina, it's an honor to present this proclamation.

And I also want to recognize it's been a difficult one to prepare.

So I brought some tissues in advance here for me, and also I'm willing to share.

Um, so thanks.

Thanks for being here.

This proclip this proclamation acknowledges and appreciates the tremendous impact of the social, political, and economic levels that Hispanic and Latinx community members have contributed and sacrificed for the progress of their families and for this country.

According to the U.S.

Census in 2020, Hispanic and Latino communities make up the nation's largest and ethnic minority at 62.1 million, which is 19.5% of the total population.

In Milwaukee, it's roughly about 10.5% of residents who identify as Hispanic or Latino, which is also our largest minority group.

Many are still left out of decisions that impact their lives and live in fear every day.

This brings me to acknowledge what's happening today across the country, and yes, even here in Oregon, where the weight of recent political events is deeply heartbreaking, particularly the recent Supreme Court decision on allowing individuals to be apprehended based on race, language, or employment, fuels racial profiling, tears families apart, and leads to tragic losses of life in custody.

These actions not only instill feel fear and trauma within all communities, but it also erode trust among neighbors, which creates a greater American divide that at its core undermined the very values of humanity, unity, and justice.

Still we build, we contribute and we lead.

We are ambassadors of culture, of love and of belonging.

We bring people together, and literally and metaphorically build bridges.

These are our stories.

So from September 15th to October 15th, we celebrate Hispanic and Latinx Heritage Month to honor history and uplift voices.

Together we share a love and desire to build a community that cannot be shaken.

We live life with passion and a deep sense of family and comunità that help us overcome whatever obstacles may come our way.

Somos el futuro y el presente, nosotros sigamos luchando.

Because in Milwaukee, we stand for equity and lift up those most marginalized and vulnerable.

We'll keep advocating for the people we cherish and the community we call home.

Thank you, Council, for the opportunity to share, and please, if there's anything you'd like to add.

Well, thank you, Gabriela, for that really heartfelt message.

Um, in late January, we had our council retreat, and out of that we issued a statement in the early days of this present administration.

Um, but I think we can't uh, you know, we can't repeat those uh those pledges uh too often uh that we stand with our community and that our police department will not uh cooperate uh and assist uh the federal government in that.

Um I wish I'd thought to bring that statement.

I might have wanted to read a clause or two, but I didn't, I didn't think ahead.

Um, but I I really appreciate your your um your passion about the current uh current threats many in our community feel.

Thank you, Mayor Bailey.

I think you all did an incredible job too, honoring that and mentioning that also.

I think it was the March uh Milwaukee pilot.

So I think that's definitely something the community members can reference.

Yeah, and speaks to that.

Anyone else want to chime in here?

Yes, I thank you.

I just want to say uh and reiterate that uh to our community members that you are not alone.

Uh everyone up here on this dais will fight for you and physically if it has to be done that way.

Um, I'm married to the Latina.

Um, I have Latin Latinos in my family.

I have a lot of people that are undocumented in my family, so this has been a difficult time.

And to watch what's happening, first of all, it's unconstitutional, let's just put it blatantly.

Um, second of all, this isn't the way it's supposed to be.

Okay.

It's not supposed to be this way.

As a veteran as somebody who fought for this country, this is not a country I fought for.

This is not the values that I stood for.

It's not the values that I swore an oath to.

Um, but I will continue to fight for the country that I know is there, and I know it exists.

And I'm sure every one of these individuals on this diet is standing with not just me, but every one of you out there who feels scared and who feels threatened, you are not alone.

We are here for you.

We will stand with you, and I don't give a damn if I have to block the door for you.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to chime in?

Councillor Stavanger?

Okay.

Well, I mean, I think Gabriella said things very compellingly.

We don't all necessarily have to chime in.

Um with that, uh, we're gonna read the proclamation in English and Spanish, and you want me to read first.

I can go ahead and go first.

Okay, okay.

Let's do this.

El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

Sigue de Cerca por los Diaz de Independencia de Mexico and Chile el 16 and 18 de September, respectivamente las communidades Hispanics y Latinquis and Enriquecido de Milwaukee and Total Place, serviendo como educadores, leaders laborales, artistas, ingenieros, empresarios and servidores publicos equidadores, entre otras innumerables funciones.

Whereas each year, the United States observes National Hispanic Heritage Month from September 15th through October 15th by celebrating the rich culture, heritage, and countless contributions of those whose ancestry originates from Spain, Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, and South America.

And whereas National Hispanic Heritage Month began as a week-long celebration in 1968 and expanded to a month-long observance in 1988 to show our gratitude and recognize the profound impact of Hispanic and Latin communities on the nation's history and future.

And whereas in the face of historic and ongoing injustice, Hispanic and Latinx communities have persevered with remarkable resilience, courage, and an enduring commitment to social justice, championing civil rights, labor equity, and expanded access to education for all.

Thank you.

It's great seeing all of you.

Good evening, honorable mayor of the CD Council members.

My name is Tao Te.

I'm president of the Vietnamese community of Oregon.

On behalf of the Vietnamese community of Oregon, thank you so much for the proclamation in recognition of the Vietnamese American mid-autum festival that will be out on October 4 2025 at Dr.

Mark High School this year.

This is the traditional cultural festival that we help every year in other case, not only read the mace, but also uh the kids from other cultures come to joy with us uh music, um dance, lion dance, martial art, performance, and all of them will get the three letters also a free vote from the community, and we all hope that the mayor and the city council members be talking about that day again, October 4, 2025.

Thank you so much for the program Mason again.

It is so nice to see all of you today.

Um I said it and then I didn't do it.

So the slide has the details.

It's uh Clackamas High School, one to five p.m.

Uh on October 4th.

And uh it's really fun.

I've gone twice, I think.

Um, and uh beautiful music and some really cute little dancers.

I mean, there's good there's more uh experienced adult dancers too, but it's always the little cute young children dancing that is fun to watch.

Um and uh yeah, like you said, many kinds of of uh presentations and celebrations.

Um so uh I uh I recommend anyone go check it out.

And we have a proclamation which I will read.

Whereas after the uh oh, okay, there we go.

Whereas after the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, the first Vietnamese immigrants came to the city of Milwaukee in the state of Oregon in search of opportunity and freedom, bringing Vietnamese customs and traditions which have been passed down through generations.

And whereas the Vietnamese American community has made substantial contributions to cultural, religious, political, and business life throughout the state of Oregon, including in the city of Milwaukee.

And whereas many Vietnamese Americans and other Asian families in the community will joyfully celebrate the mid-autumnum festival, also known as the Moon Festival and the Festival for Children.

The Vietnamese Vietnamese community of Oregon will celebrate with special foods and activities under the full moon on Saturday, October 4th.

Now, therefore, I, Lisa Beatty, mayor of the City of Milwaukee, a municipal corporation in the county of Tlacabus in the state of Oregon, to hereby proclaim October 4th, 2025 to be Vietnamese American Mid-Autumn Festival Day, a time for celebrating with our Vietnamese neighbors and their contributions to our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Look forward to seeing you at the festival.

And on behalf of the Vietnamese community of Oregon, I would like to present the certificate of appreciation to the mayor.

Oh, okay.

Well, thank you.

Yeah, also if you do it.

Yeah, nice and recommended.

Well, thank you.

That was very kind.

Um so with that, we will move on to our community comment section.

This is the part of the agenda during which council will hear community comments on city business that is not already on the agenda.

Before we begin, is there any follow-up from the September 2nd community comments, Ms.

Segar?

Mayor, there were no comments made at that meeting.

I just want to provide a couple quick updates to council on.

One we actually touched on in the work session, but just for the record here, I'll also note we received a question about whether our the public safety fee that has been recently been passed will be levied on folks who do not receive a water charge from the city.

We do have several Milwaukee residents that are not Milwaukee water customers.

And so I think it was a great question.

You know, sometimes people call their utility bill water bill for shorthand.

And so the question was will those folks who don't receive Milwaukee water service still be charged for this fee?

The answer is yes.

We send a utility bill to all Milwaukee residents, even if they don't receive water and or sewer service from the city.

There are other fees that we levy on the utility bill, including our transportation safe and SSMP fees and the upcoming public safety fee.

And so those will reach all Milwaukee residents, even if they're not water and sewer customers.

The second piece of correspondence has come in since our last regular session was actually included in your study session packet on September 9th.

I just want to provide a verbal update on that too.

This was from Llewellyn Elementary that was asking for a reconsideration of a tree permit denial that we made earlier this summer.

I want to share a little bit of backstory and kind of our next steps, and I will be reaching back out to the school to follow up on this.

So the school applied in March to remove a 40-inch Austrian Pine.

Our urban forester reviewed that application and denied it because the tree was still in relatively good health and any die back we thought could be contributed to a lack of watering, and we advised greater watering over the summer months.

It sounds from this most recent comment that there still is concerns.

And so what we um what we would ask just to be compliant with our code, we are outside of the window for a formal appeal of that recent perm or that the previous permit decision.

So we would ask that the school, resubmit an application.

Um, we can get an inspector or our new urban forester out there very quickly to just do that inspection, and if we concur that that tree is sick and dying, we can proceed from there.

Um we just want to make sure that we're complying with our tree code as we would with any other applicant.

So I'll follow up with the school to tell them about those next steps.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, for those in person who wish speak, please submit a yellow comment card.

I have one found on the table on the side there.

Uh for folks who are on Zoom.

If you wish uh use the raise hand reaction to alert staff that you wish to speak, and when instructed to click the microphone button to unmute yourself.

If you are calling in through Zoom and would like to make a comment, dial ste R9 to raise your hand.

You may also submit a comment via email to OCR at Milwaukee Oregon.gov.

Before you make your comments, please state your name and city of residence for the record.

If you would like the city to follow up with you, please submit your contact information to OCR at Milwaukee Oregon.gov.

As council has other business items on the agenda, speakers will be limited to three minutes each.

Well, maybe not.

Um, because information provided during community comments may be new.

This is not the time for discussion.

The city manager will respond at the next meeting to comments that require follow-up.

So I have uh our county clerk, Catherine McMullen here to talk about National Voter Registration Day.

So I invite her up and we won't impose the three-minute limit on you.

I'm sure you uh won't go on overly long.

So thank you.

Um good evening, Mayor Beatty and City Council.

It's an honor to be here this evening to celebrate National Voter Registration Day with you all.

It's important to acknowledge the holiday and celebrate every citizen's right to vote easily and without hassle.

I invite you this evening to join local election officials across Oregon and the country as we celebrate National Voter Registration Day.

We're encouraging Oregonians to take a few moments to make sure their registration is up to date to make an impact and vote local in the November special election if you have one and beyond.

In Oregon, you're eligible to register to vote.

If you're a resident of Oregon, a citizen of the United States, and at least 16 years old.

Once you turn 18, you'll get your first ballot in your in the mail for that election.

So I encourage you to talk to the young people in your life and get them registered to vote even before they're yet eligible to receive that ballot to make sure they don't miss that first election.

First celebrated in 2012, National Voter Registration Day is a nationwide nonpartisan holiday.

And we have elections officials, organizations, and communities that come together to make sure our neighbors, our families, and our communities are registered to vote and ready to use their voice in local decision making.

As a county election official, I urge the public to do three things.

First, check your voter registration.

Make sure it's up to date.

If you've changed your name, your address, or you want to change your party affiliation, you need to do that at the Oregon Secretary of State's website, which is Oregon Votes.gov.

Second, um, in Clackhamus County, we have a service called track your ballot.

You can visit the Clackham's County elections website to sign up to get alerts.

So you'll get an alert when your ballot's being mailed to you so you know to check your mail, an alert when that ballot's been received back to our office, and then another one once we've verified your signature and accepted it for accounting.

Third, I encourage everyone to make a plan to vote in this election and the next one.

And that plan will include when you're going to receive your ballot, uh, where and when you're gonna vote, how you're gonna return that ballot, whether it's by mail earlier in the election cycle or as election date gets closer directly to an official ballot drop site.

Um, and then how making sure the patent does get counted, which you can do through track your ballot.

County election officials are a reliable source of trusted information about elections and voter resources.

So I encourage you to vote a visit Clackamas County Elections, our website, which is Clackamus.us forward slash elections for the most up-to-date information.

Um again, I thank you for your time.

Uh, I did hand um the city recorder uh this memo as well as some stickers to celebrate and a few posters.

Happy National Voter Registration Day to you all.

Thank you.

Thank you for coming.

And uh I had seen it online, but it's nice to have you come here in person and uh share help spread the message.

So we appreciate that.

And yes, we did get some posters in multiple languages and things, which I'll be giving back to the city recorder.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, uh, that's the only yellow card I have.

Uh, do we have anyone online who's looking?

No.

Okay.

Okay.

So uh we'll move on to the consent agenda.

Tonight's consent agenda includes minutes of the city council, August 19th, 2025 work session, and August 19th, 2025 regular session.

A resolution appointing George Stier to the Planning Commission.

A resolution acting as the local contract review board approving the award of a contract on the land is construction for the King Road Improvements Project.

Does any council member wish to remove a consent agenda item?

Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

I moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded to approve the consent agenda as presented.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed say no.

None heard.

The consent agenda is approved unanimously.

All right.

And then we move on to the transportation transportation system plan update with our planning manager and actually community development director now, uh, Laura Weigel and City Engineer Jennifer Garbly.

You got it, Steve.

I appreciate that.

Well, while he's getting that set up, sorry, I decided to say I've never carried this many pieces of paper to a meeting before, so we'll see how that goes.

Let's hope I keep them straight.

I gave you all a lot of pieces of paper too, so you're gonna have to keep them straight as well.

Big plan big paper, that's right.

Okay.

Yes, you're doing it now, huh?

All right, hello everybody.

Um, thanks for having us here tonight.

Um, we've got uh Matt Hugert here from Kittle City on the project with us, and obviously Jen Garley has been uh in the huddles and all the huddles with us throughout the whole project as well.

Um, and so with that, we'll just hop right into it.

Um, Matt, if you want to go ahead and switch the slide.

Okay, so what are we gonna talk to about tonight?

Um we're gonna give you some updates, we're gonna talk about the prioritization process of all of the projects that you see in your uh packet tonight.

We're gonna talk about the tier one project list and all the modal priorities.

We're gonna talk a little bit about the feedback from the Transportation System Plan Advisory Committee, technical committee, and the planning commission, um, and how that reordered the project prioritization list, and then we can talk and then we can talk about uh next steps.

And so I think since last time I saw you, we were here uh June in the middle of June, and during since that time um we had a public uh engagement event at Letting Library.

It was great.

We had a couple days after we all talked to you last, and we had um 15 people show up for that.

So it was really successful.

It was great.

We had a lot of folks there.

Um we also held focus groups over the summer.

We talked to people um at the Milwaukee Community Center and the Wichita Center.

We did a kind of combined um night with them.

We organized an event at Hillside Manor, and then we also had a BIPOC meeting and Spanish with uh Gabriela on a Saturday here at the city, and so we were able to talk to a lot of different people.

We went through the projects and the prioritization list or the projects in that time and got feedback from them.

Um we also met with the equity steering committee in uh July.

So we did a big push on public outreach, and some of that is reflected in how we did the prioritization of the projects.

And so we're gonna talk a little bit of I'm gonna hand this over to Matt.

This is like the really kind of the technical analysis, uh jumping right into that.

Yeah, hi, uh good evening.

Um I guess what I'm gonna do is give you a little bit more of a high points assessment of this prioritization process.

We can dive into the details as questions come up.

But um it was really started off as what we call the data-driven prioritization process.

So we took the valuation criteria that was developed at the very early stages of the project and created basically a scoring mechanism where every project that had been developed or dreamt up or thought of over the course of this project, whether it's a sidewalk improvement project or a roadway project or an intersection project, all projects were evaluated and scored using that valuation criteria.

That scoring basically presented a numerical basis for the initial stages of prioritization.

Um that data-driven analog numerical process was then filtered with some comments that we had received from internal discussions amongst the project team members.

Uh it was filtered via uh comments that were made over the summers um outreach efforts with the public.

And it was lastly filtered through just um the parting of the clouds, if you want to call it, where um you go through all these steps and then you kind of step back and look at it and say, you know what, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

Um, maybe we should move some of these projects around.

The outcome of that was um basically the data-driven project list, and that resulted in a series of projects that um we believe, at least for this initial data-driven process, um, made up what we would consider to be the tier one financially constrained project list, or those projects that have the greatest value for improving mobility and transportation choices uh in the city.

Um we knew that that was not first and last step.

Um we took that list to our advisory committees, our technical committee and our transportation advisory committee, and that process resulted in some changes.

Um, as people look through the list and realize, oh, I kind of value that project more than this other project.

I'd like to see these projects reshuffled.

So that refinement by our technical committee and our advisory committee led to one more round where we met with planning commission members, and we got further refinement through that process.

And planning commission in a lot of ways agreed with some of the comments that we receive from our advisory committee, but had their own um spin and wanted to make certain changes uh based on their own perspectives.

So those three layers um have led to us here this evening where uh we're hoping to get some additional thoughts and comments from you all.

And um, based on what we hear from you all this evening, we'll take one more pass through it, and that will become what we believe to be the financially or the final tier one project list for inclusion in the TSP.

But just because a project is on that list doesn't mean that we don't value the other projects.

Just means that we believe those projects have the highest value, and most importantly, they fall from a cost perspective within the range of what we believe the city will have at its disposal for implementing these projects over a 20-year period based on funding forecasts and known financial um pockets.

So I'll stop there because I imagine there's a few questions before we go any deeper, but uh yeah, thanks.

I guess just a process question about where we are in the TSP.

So you said you know, you'll get comments from us tonight, you'll make revisions.

Um is there more TSP discussion before we are thinking about adoption?

We will have another meeting before you're going out for adoption.

Yeah, the idea is I don't think that we will uh get through everything tonight, especially some based on some of the comments that counselor Anderson had provided ahead of time.

So what I'm imagining is that we can talk tonight, and then I'm looking at October 21st to carry on the conversation.

Then we should get to a list that that will be the list.

And then we will also be bringing to you the draft TSP, like the actual document.

And so that is scheduled to be um in November.

Can we start that?

Oh, we make it to you in December.

We've got to go to planning commission first.

So there are that's for adoption.

That's our adoption, yeah.

So we will get the project list right, we will go to planning commission.

We've got two hearings scheduled with them, and then we also have two hearings scheduled with you all.

So it's everything that you've seen up until this point, right?

We've brought all the bits and pieces of the document to you all, and then all culminating in this project prioritization list, which is what we're really wanting to get to at the end of the day.

So this is kind of the meat of all of the work that's gone to it ahead of time.

And you have one more advisory committee meeting, correct?

But the plan was not to spend that rediving into the list, but really present the full draft.

That is right.

And yeah, present the full draft.

Yeah, I'll take that explanation one step further and say there's still room, time to make adjustments, adjustments to the project lists, adjustments to the tier one uh financially constrained projects, and adjustments to um classifications of roadways and bikeways and pedways.

We're hoping, however, that we're starting to solidify those lists and um get to a point where we can move into the development of the actual draft of the TSP.

So thank you.

And I will just add to that just a little to add to that.

Our contract with ODOT is up at the end of January.

So we're we are supposed to be finished with this project adopted, ready to roll at the end of January.

That's what we're shooting for.

Thank you.

Um, okay, so I'll just continue here.

Um, this is just a refresher on those evaluation criteria.

Um, these came out of the development of our goals and policies exercise way back at the beginning of the project.

I won't read all these because I think we're all generally familiar with them, but um, all those kind of data-driven um scoring processes that I described earlier were rooted in um kind of measurable um quantities that came out of this list here.

That again resulted in the first round of evaluation scoring, and then we went through these refinements and three um um signs of a project list, and that's kind of where we stand this evening.

So um kind of a quick summary of how that all flashed out is uh the top row um is the tier one financially constrained that came out of the data-driven projects list.

And a couple things to point out here.

Um most of the projects in that tier one list fell into the bike and PID and shared um bike bed uh category.

Um, and that's I think by design when we set up to get this to begin this TSP update, uh, there was a kind of a focused effort to make sure that we um looked real closely and came up with fresh ideas and perspectives on how enhance the multimodal um capacity of the system, uh the transportation system.

So a lot of projects that you'll see here are really shaken out as bike bed and bike bed friendly type projects.

Um under the first data-driven project, we had a total project list of just a little over 30 million dollars with a projected um funding uh capacity of about 27 and a half million.

So uh we definitely came out too high on uh the data driven project list.

Um we went to the TC and AC um committees, uh that got refined, and um that that total project list uh dropped to about 28 and a half million.

Um the projects that changed um over the course of the day um quite a uh quite a uh list of project projects that are currently overshooting uh we believe to be our projective funding forecasts for a 20 year period.

Um, but that's why we're here this evening, kind of get some additional perspective from you all and uh fully expect uh maybe some additional changes to occur um following this project.

Council president, can I clarify?

So we are in the process of maybe approving a transportation package in the state legislature, and I sent over some different projections year over year of what that would do.

It's about a 50% or no, sorry, a 25% increase in our transportation funds over the next biennium.

How would that impact what our scope might be on this list?

Yeah, that's a really good question.

Um, I think that if we're looking over the next biennium, I think it was about $500,000 for the both.

Um, but I think that there should be before we just kind of decide that we're gonna take whatever that money is that's being allocated by the state and just put apply it to the TSP.

I think there has to be a larger conversation regarding like what's going on with transportation generally in the city and whether or not we kind of need to have to sit down, I think, with Jen and Peter to understand are we looking at any backup on maintenance?

Like the funds aren't tied to anything.

So I think that there would have to be a conversation with amongst council after we'd kind of do an assessment on what we think we would want to use the funds for and then have a conversation with you all to obviously you were the ultimate deciders on how you all would spend that money, but I think that there's not just an expectation that we would take that money and put it straight into the TSP projects.

Yeah, of course.

I just wonder over a 20-year horizon.

We have currently about 2 million, 2.5 million dollar gap between where we should be and where we are list, and over a 20-year horizon, I could imagine those funds, even if you're only allocating a small portion could help bridge that gap.

And so maybe that's something we could talk about in the media on the first once we know officially the packages passed, but is that not seemed to be well, I guess my only question back to you, and this is a question literally a question that I have is that it's projected now, but those funds could easily go in the way in the future.

They are just under this legislation this period of time.

So we would be sure that we were getting a couple of years, but in if something may change and we couldn't assume that we would be getting any of those funds in the future.

So I wouldn't want to be projecting out using those funds in our because those are outside funding sources that we can't necessarily rely on.

Is that a correct assumption?

Not necessarily.

So this would change our state highway trust fund or state highway fund allocation each bin.

So we would get more from the state highway funds representing these numbers.

You could imagine a scenario where the legislature changes that, but I doubt that they would pull back on those funds.

The sunset provision in the House Bill is on transit funding, but these funds are expected to go in perpetuity for cities.

To make sure I understand that, council president.

So I know in the past our transportation packages have sometimes had a sunset two on like gas tax increases.

Is this one just this was projecting it out?

There's no date for that.

No sunset.

No.

And this was discussed as opening itself to gas tax increases.

Um, I think a lot of people were original numbers and take our representatives package, nearly doubled our annual uh allocation.

So I think that I I would say with confidence that these numbers would just be anticipated year over year in our hybrid allocation.

But they are the gas tax anyway, is phased in, right?

So it's not all coming the first biennium.

It's kind of phased into 2020, 2032 or something.

So each biennium, it adds about one million dollars for the first uh, I think like three bienniums, and after that, it's about 1.2 million dollars.

Okay.

Um, and our current allocation is about 1.7 million dollars.

Um, but just like any gas tax revenue, it's pretty flat because of our the nature of gas tax per shading.

Um, but it does mean that we can rely on about a 50% increase in our gas tax allocation.

I sorry, I've said different numbers in this meeting.

They've changed a lot in the various packages that I've looked at, but I have the numbers right now.

I think we sent them you've sent them out at least once or twice.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah.

Oh called for agenda.

In addition, we can also issue an amendment to this TSP to accommodate those, you know, improvements that more we know exactly how much money we're gonna get and be able to like know what we want to put towards maintenance and towards this plan.

So we can adjust this just because we're saying this is a 20-year plan doesn't mean it's gonna stay solid for 20 years, right?

Like so we can do an amendment um partially through when we have more information that's confirmed and solid two in addition, just and so I have kind of thanks, Jenny, because I have kind of a higher level process question.

The council president mentioned a two million dollar gap.

I think what I what you mean by that, council president, is we expect we're gonna have 27-ish million, and the list right down there in the circle in the red is now at 29.

So how what are we gonna do there?

Can you clarify for us, team?

Do we where does that 27 target come from and how beholden are we to adopting a financially constrained list that meets that target?

Yeah, so the transportation planning rules and requirements for the state of Oregon require all jurisdictions to have a financially constrained project list in their TSP.

Um we can go up to 125% of our projected um funds or budget for for projects, and right now 2025 of the projection is 27 and a half million dollars.

So that that extra 25% is essentially that margin of error that the state allows you to go into, knowing that there's a lot of unknowns um ahead.

You know, you can get additional funds, you can get less funds, but uh 25% gives you that margin of error.

So we are required, however, um, to provide an initial list of projects that is not exceeding 125% of projected funding right.

Great.

And so then to kind of just connect dots between council president's question, Jen's response.

Do you foresee?

So say the state passes this transportation package, we have that kind of better clarity by October.

Um, do you foresee that 27 million dollar target being changed before the adoption of this TSP, or should we stick with that target?

That's what we know, that's what we're confident in right now.

And then to Jen's point, we could always amend the TSP, you know, as we see this is is that is the target number going to change?

Is basically I think the council president's question and I think we could change the target number.

I think, unless I'm hearing that there's any legal reason that we couldn't do that.

Um I think though that there should be a conversation still about what that number is and not assuming that it's the full amount each year because there's other things in transportation that we might want to fund that's outside of the transportation system plan cases.

Whether it's maintenance, whether it's hiring somebody, you can do all kinds of things with that money.

So I don't know what number we would want to end up going with.

So that's a little tricky because we need to have a whole other conversation about that, including Peter in that conversation.

And I guess where I'm getting to, Laura, is that that 27 million number we're we're confident in because of what we would the budgetary conversations we've already had.

We will through our next budget process have a whole CIP process and we'll look at the utility funds and we can incorporate this, and perhaps that might be the time to do an amendment.

Um but we're looking for direction from council, and I guess that's why it's great.

We have another conversation on October 21st.

Because right now, this is all hypothetical and indicates real.

Right.

I do think that's a great idea, Emma, though, because then we would have more certainty and we can kind of work through the kinks to see what it is that we are gonna move into the TSD bucket.

And then I think it's also um important to note that just because um it's on the is on the financially constrained list, doesn't necessarily mean that those are the projects that are gonna get built first.

So let's just keep in mind that all of the projects on the list, depending on what other CIP projects are going on, something in tier three to financially unconstrained list may get built before tier one constrained because we've got say we're doing a grind and pave overlay, or we've got a rip of the road to do a different utility project.

So we would take a look and say, are there any projects that we can do that are on the TSP list and pull those forward?

And so it's not a guarantee that the the ones in the in tier one constraint are gonna get done first.

It's kind of it's based on a lot of different things and say that there's a big moment that um there's a funding opportunity a lot, so grants available for say project that happens to be in tier two a constraint.

So you would go for the funding money.

So it's kind of opportunistic.

We try to budget for and and try to guarantee that we're gonna get these these projects built in that are in the tier one um constraint list, but there's a lot of factors that go into when they actually do get built.

That's just something to keep in mind.

Um can I ask um we had a reference in our work session to the 2018 amended TSP, but I know the really the the bulk of the TSP is a whole revision like this happened in 2007, right?

So did anyone look at that 2007 TSP constrained projects list and calculate how many we had done and how we how we did vis-a-vis the projection money at that point?

No, we did not.

We talked about it, and it was gonna be really complicated.

And we thought, you know what, we are already so knee deep in trying to do this TSP that we're just gonna kind of put that one in the past and go forward best we can.

But it's a great idea, there may also be added all those safe projects in the last eight years that weren't incorporating the image into the so that makes it kind of right.

And we have more projects added in 2018 that weren't there, so there's been lots of different factors that would have made it really complicated to figure out.

Fair enough.

Fair enough.

All right.

Uh my council president has another question.

Um one last thing I'll say for the 21st.

It's some mapping conservative estimate over the next 20 years, we raise about 11.7 million dollars with this gas tax increase.

And we would need 2.4 million dollars to be able to bridge that gap, which is about 20% of the funds that are getting from the state happening with that, but 20% of that increase.

And I guess what might be full not to answer tonight, but when we talk on the 21st, is 20% about what we're allocating right now to see like projects with our state fund allocation, that'd be about right.

Um that might be one way to that's a good question, but that's a good way to frame it.

I think um, counselor Anderson, it's only 20%.

It's pretty small just to get to that constraint list, so we don't have to bring anything off the constraint list.

I think for now, so maybe maybe we could have the conversation about what we're willing to say that we're pretty sure we're gonna have this extra two million dollars, and that will bridge our gap.

I think that that's might be not if we don't add anything to the constraint list.

Right.

We're probably going to based on some things that um have been swirling around over the last few days.

So um, okay.

So um, what I have on the screen uh here are just three maps that show where we currently stand with our um tier one financially constrained list on the pedestrian side of things from the planning commission um work session.

And I've got uh bicycle map, and I've got a roadway and intersection map.

Those are the three maps where we had projects from the planning commission tier one list.

Um happy to go through each and every one of these as necessary, but this is mostly just slides for reference at the moment.

Um I didn't know how we're gonna kind of proceed down the list of questions that have swirled around in the last 24 hours or 48 hours.

Yeah, I just want to give kind of like a couple of top line things that I think are good to know.

So if you look at so you I you all have got the three packets where you've got one that's written original, one that's the technical committee, and then one that's the planning commission um packet.

And so what I did is I went and looked at the original list compared to the planning commission list, and every single project that was on the original list, um, and that was actually in the AC list as well.

Um, if you look at the third packet, the um RS64, the planning commission one, all of the project on the first page and the first two projects on the second page are the same.

They're all in the unconstrained list or in the constrained list for every single um group.

So that's good to know.

So nothing much changed there.

Um there's a couple of things that moved down from when the advisory committee had looked at them.

I think B26 and P71 moved to the tier one financially unconstrained, and then a bunch of little projects got added to the PC list because there was a lot of low-hanging fruit that the PC decided that they felt that we're look filling little gaps in our system that were identifying good projects.

So I feel like um it's a pretty good list, working list from now.

And there was a lot of um overlap from each of the groups and just a little shifting.

We did change some, uh just a couple of cost of project descriptions, so it freed up a little bit of money um to add a few more project lists, and then most of what was added is really small projects.

Matt, did I characterize that correctly?

Yeah, okay.

So I just wanted to give that high-level overview of it's sifting out, and it's kind of the same with more projects than less.

Yes, counselor Kazrico, sorry.

Uh yes, thank you.

I appreciate a lot of work went into this, obviously and been going into, so I really appreciate it.

But did you did you you just mentioned that on the original the tier one financially constrained matches with the planning commission?

Is that what you there are no, there are differences.

I'm just saying that there are projects there's there's about I would say most of the projects are the same.

There's just been a couple of things that have moved around.

Okay.

And that was just, and that was done.

Yeah, I see three projects that were moved.

That was just done to get more bank for your buck.

Some project, there are a few projects that were moved.

Um, the PCE wanted them a couple of projects higher up, and then we were a they added just smaller, yeah, not as expensive projects to the list because they they were just weren't that expensive, and they felt like they filled really good gaps in our classification system.

Because I don't know if you all remember, hopefully remember, I should have put it in the packet.

I already put so many things in the packet, it was enough for one packet, right?

But there was the whole classification system.

So you know, we had the pedestrian classification map, and we had the bicycle uh classification map, and basically what we tried to do is identify all of the streets that we wanted to have, like as our major pro uh pedestrian ways and our major bikeways, and then tried to identify all of the projects uh to put them in this list.

We did maybe miss a few, and we're going to fix that.

There's a little few uh projects that didn't make it, but we're gonna fix that.

Um, so that was kind of the driver of a lot of the projects was the classification system map, making sure when PC looked at that, they said there's some little gaps that you didn't quite get.

So let's add those projects into the tier one constraint list instead of having them down at tier three.

I just call out that it's those red bubbles on RS64 through RS66.

That's like the guide for PC moved it, it's listed there.

If PC disagreed with the AC, you can kind of see it there.

That's the the cliff notes of those two.

Yep, exactly.

And it wasn't a bunch of random, you know, movement, it was gap projects.

And so by way of example, I'm if you can see the cursor moving on the screen here.

Um, there were a bunch of uh pet projects that were all kind of related to each other, but for one reason or another, one little sliver of of a continuous um um multi-use trail or or pathway project got was missing through the data-driven process, was caught by either our committee or planning commission say, you know, it doesn't make sense to leave that one out.

Um so let's move it, move it in.

And then some of these other random projects and outline projects, maybe they didn't hold maybe there's value, but from a system standpoint, they didn't belong, you know, on a on a tier one list.

So there's a little bit of deck chair reshuffling, yeah.

Um, but in a very smart way.

So thanks for no randomizing.

In addition, I would just add the projects that we moved down were majority like Harrison, and it doesn't mean that they're not gonna get done, it's just Harrison.

We need extra help.

We need actual grants to kind of do Harrison properly.

So the idea was it would move to the tier one unconstrained list.

Um, and we're we're going out to get grants to help us get those projects completed.

Um, and so you're freeing up your constrained list to be able to do more.

Microphone mayor.

I should have said it probably earlier.

Um I really appreciate I watched the planning commission hearing last night and this morning, and um really appreciated.

I thought a lot of what they were doing made perfect sense.

They were identifying, like you said, the little gaps that were really concentrated on the central Milwaukee connections between Monroe and 29th and uh a few other places.

I thought you know, they they definitely called out some things.

I think you know, and then the staff they recognize.

I think you guys all recognize some.

There was a little bit of duplication in a couple places, and then there were a few things that uh Jen said we had money for from elsewhere, so they hadn't needed to be on the constrained list.

So all of that was it was a great conversation.

Um I was concerned about what dropped off the list, and so I wanted to ask about Harrison because as I understood it, uh we dropped sidewalks on Harrison, but kept Michaelings on Harrison on the constrained list.

So there's P16 and P17, and I saw the numbering different in two different places, but um I can speak to that a little bit.

So there are a few projects on length of Harrison.

What planning commission discussed where the numbering is slightly different.

Because that section of sidewalks would have been a very low PLTS.

Or sorry, a very high PPS.

There would have been a lot of stress.

There was no buffer.

They discussed in the meeting that the buffered green space on the length of the sidewalk from 30 second to 40 second constituted enough of a like enough of a barrier that you didn't need to remake the sidewalks.

And I think one theme that came out of the TSPAC, and I think was also back at the PC was a desire to build new sidewalks as opposed to reconstructing sidewalks that are already buffered and are already somewhat more contained.

That's why half the sidewalk project still is included because those aren't buffered, those aren't predicted as much, but half of it just shortened out.

Um which are freed up if we look at the totality of cuts across the four cuts, it's 73 million that then they were able to flex another spots.

Actually, I'd love to have you enumerate the four cuts.

Can you do that?

I can go through four cuts and kind of justifications that I heard.

The Harrison one we described already, it's the first one, P17.

The next one is it's not cut, it's just moving it down to the other list, right?

Like we didn't run, we didn't cut the project off, just to be clear, okay.

Which to Jen's point, I think part of this was if we're doing the whole length comparison, it will require some type of federal funds or larger investments, but having it still be on the um constrained list of tier one allows it to still be funded, given that we have federal funds.

So it's kind of a yes, let's not guarantee it unless we get federal funds.

Um that's Harrison P17.

Uh let's see.

R25 is the next one.

This was the one road project that we cut.

Um, this was an additional left turn at um railroad and 37th.

I think the TSPAC discussed this as one where we didn't see the same capacity issues on 37th, and adding a second left thread lane seemed excessive, considering the cost of the project and ways those funds could be spent elsewhere.

So they proposed moving it down.

The next one was a um sidewalk um construction.

The reason why this one was moved down to Jen's or sorry to Laura's we just give the number.

Oh, yep.

Uh that is P25.

P25.

P25.

Um the reason for that one is so the classification maps that Laura mentioned, this one was one of the unclassified streets, or it did not receive a pedestrian classification as opposed to other streets nearby.

So thought was let's spend those dollars on pedestrian projects that have a higher classification.

Um, and then the last one was a similar cut, V64.

This was a bike lane project right by my house.

But you know what?

I'll be okay.

Um, this one is on 34th Street.

This one is a neighborhood bikeway, which is our lowest classification of bikeway, other than local street bikeway.

And I think this one was moved down because there are more centrally located bike paths that could be invested in, and especially not just bike paths, but bike paths that also double as pedestrian connections as well.

And so the thought was to move that project down to free of funds for more bike.

Uh that's P or B 64.

So B means bike, P means PED, and R means road.

Okay.

But okay, okay.

Um thank you.

Appreciate that because that was hard to sort out.

Um, I do want to come back to talk about 37s more, but I'll let um let you guys go on with I mean we're good.

So this is your time.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Umbody else is chomping at the bit.

Okay, I have a I have a list of things I umted.

Um, some of which are suggestions for change, some of which aren't.

Um first off, I the railroad path is going to be on the road.

That's the way it's written in there.

So the idea of the future railroad multi-use path is it would be on the bed of the current road.

Okay, I feel like there's another extra um I'm gonna leave the RAF uh application, so it's a separated multi-use path on the north side, but then there's also a bike lane on the south side.

So bikes could be on either side if they wanted to.

Okay.

Um maybe that's what it's referenced.

But the bike path, I mean the multi-use path should be not, it's not on the road.

It's separate.

Yeah.

We already have a section that's been built from a development rate.

So we'll be connecting into that.

Yeah, as far as that goes.

Okay.

The descriptive characteristic is meant to just say it's meant to be on the north side.

Not the south side, not the railroad side, but the north side.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Thanks for that clarification.

Um there was a discussion about R6 and the river road turn lanes and stuff.

And um I will just say that, and you you clarified in that discussion that that that's kind of a placeholder for the idea that ODOT wants to consolidate river back to two-way traffic, is I gather.

No.

Uh no, you're talking about at the um the 99 and river that that signal right blue bird that wants to be reconfigured.

That's in the um regional transportation plan to kind of not have it separated and actually brought together.

Um, just at that spot, you would still have one way.

Oh, you still have a couplet.

You would just direct it.

Yeah, it's just a little bit confusing and kind of deal.

It's we would need ODOT funds to move that forward because that would be a huge project.

Um so yeah, yeah, it's in our yes.

Okay.

Uh I will just say that I was a little surprised that nobody and you know, there's a lot of attention in this whole process to bikes, and I was a little surprised that none of it called out river road and 99 and bikes.

Um my sense is that the trolley trail, the way the trolley trail is so close to uh 99E is uncomfortable for a lot of riders, and also the that they have two lights to stop at is a comfortable for a lot of riders.

So this is the intersection I use every day.

Um I will tell you the more experienced riders.

Um come off the trolley trail, go up 22nd to Bluebird, come across on Bluebird and get back on the trail, like cut across the people queued up at um River Road to go out on the light and get on the trolley trail that way.

So they are avoiding, and I know and uh there are also pedestrians who avoid standing at that light because there was a woman who lost her legs doing that uh when a car hit her about 10 years ago.

Um, so I guess I have felt like that whole thing.

It's not you know, it wouldn't be a high priority, it wouldn't be in the on the unconstrained list, but I it it feels to me like it should be called out for some study.

Um because it doesn't feel terribly safe, and I know from observance that a lot of bike bicyclists already avoid avoid the trolley trail alignment there.

So I may not have caught it because it was a nuance, but we changed the project description um for that project R6.

Um it now reads coordinate with Oda to implement geometric refinements that balance capacity needs efficient intersection operations and multi-botal safety.

So it's a pretty generic description to describe a lot of everything not being so specific that it focuses people on some unnecessary things.

So um that was purposeful and it's it's still consistent with what's in the regional transportation plan.

Um, on okay, and where it's on it's the R6 project description.

So R6 is now tier one tier tier two or tier one unconstrained.

Okay, okay in blue.

Perfect.

Okay, no, that's perfect.

We did have that conversation, and people felt like it needed a different description, so we updated it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Okay, great.

Um B26 was one that got moved down.

Yeah, it did.

Okay, it wasn't on the list that I think anyway.

Um B26 is 42nd Street bike paths between Harrison and Washington.

Um, I thought it was between Harrison and Monroe, but I somehow I wrote down in Washington.

Um I do feel like I was a little surprised by taking that one by deprioritizing that one because I do feel like um there's you know, there's a that is a hub that is a also a high density area where we're you know uh it's also you know, it's a mixed-use zone and uh surrounded by a high density area.

So I guess I was a little surprised that we would not want to do improvements there.

I mean, I know we just repaved it not that many years ago, but um, that we would not want to do improvements there to connect to the Monroe Greenway.

And so I guess I wondered what the conversation and discussion around that was.

Uh so this is one that TSPAC moved that project up and then the planning commission moved it back down.

The TSPAC's version or justification for moving it up is Washington Street there is a part of the Monroe Greenway.

So if you want people to go from Greenway up to the safe way hub, you need to have some type of protection there.

I think part of this that is also important context in the kind of bikeway bucket CIP project that we all talked about back in at the end of June.

We had mentioned some initial streets there, and I think one of them has been 40th as an area where you could see north-south bike connectivity.

If you have 40 of that, and it means you're north to south connectivity, it will connect to Harrison if we have bike lanes that then could be the route that you take to the safe way.

So not that it's not the route.

And I think in a dream world would have bike lanes, it's just moved out of unconstrained, because I think that there were other areas where you could create that opportunity.

So I didn't hear the planning commission really discussed that one, but I guess maybe everybody agreed.

Um yeah, I mean, uh again, I just feel like when we're you know, try to prioritize the mixed-use nature and the and the higher density around there.

Anyway, okay.

Um then uh oh, um, there was a bunch of conversation about R4 and B25 and the Harrison 42nd intersection.

Um and uh it was called out to um like I think Commissioner Edge even thanked you for putting in the delineators, and I was a little surprised by that because I thought, you know, we were trying to study what's the right solution there, and that we were even potentially talking about a roundabout there.

So have we settled on it's just gonna be delineators and it's gonna be the current uh 42nd and keep?

Yeah.

Um I would say we haven't had a final study, right?

We've had an initial study.

Um it would be difficult to put a roundabout there based off of the um study we've done.

We'd have to purchase additional right away.

And um so we could, yeah, without additional right-away, we could not fit an actual roundabout in that space.

Now I wouldn't leave delineators, I would put in an actual real median that was finalized if that's the problem you're going to initiate that actual arterial path.

Okay.

But you haven't settled on I mean, that's still under study.

Okay, I think nothing's a little surprised, yeah, by that conversation.

I asked a question.

Um we under R4, we have the description to say install permanent geometric delineators.

I'm wondering if the term delineators is the confusing.

Yeah.

I would say so, because I wouldn't we wouldn't leave permanent delineators.

Right.

We don't want to maintain this.

So um maybe for change, get rid of the word delineators and use medium or or some other more permanent um descriptive characteristic that implies that it's more than just flexible posts.

Okay.

Okay.

Um then um okay.

Uh well, I just a con uh a note I had was that it seemed to me we had a little conversation at a meeting back earlier in the year about uh where we uh trying to give a better treatment to bikes than pets in terms of the level of stress measure.

And I just would note that it seems to me there's a lot of curb tide sidewalks in here.

So to me, that's a you know, we're not we're not reaching the one level of stress one or whatever it is um with a curb tide sidewalk.

But I realize in some places we don't have the right way to do more.

Also in a bikes, like a majority of our local roads meet our requirements, right?

Or the where the PED is not.

Yeah.

So it's just it's just you know, you can't weigh them exactly the same.

They're not apples to apples in comparison, but we're gonna do what we can.

Okay.

I also wanted to talk about 37.

So I mean, that project at 37th and railroad that they um downgraded to the lower list.

I don't have super strong feelings about that.

I do think it's kind of a hotness of an intersection the way the 37th and railroad comes in across the railroad tracks there.

Um, but you know, there's not too much you can do with the railroad track in the middle.

Except for they have to address it on a RAFA project, right?

So that's why I also was okay with them downgrading it because I think we're gonna get Rafa dealers to fix it.

Oh, really?

Okay.

We're so it's in the design.

So we're going all the way from 37th Harmony on that railroad project.

So we'll have to look at that intersection.

Yeah, yeah.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, okay.

That makes sense.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, that makes sense.

So that's why I wasn't super nervous that they wanted to downgrade it because we're actually just we're gonna find grant money to do it.

We have to still find implementation dollars, right?

But design right now is being covered, right?

So that will be incorporated into that design.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Yes, you're in it's a hot mess.

The rest of 37.

So 37th going from railroad to 224.

I know it's um it's gonna call in here for a sidewalk on the east side, it's a pretty low priority, and you know, I can't really go with it being a low priority.

I will say that it's um I have noticed more recently more bikes at the at 37th to cross 224, and I don't really know why.

I never used to see bikes crossing there, and I do see more of that than I used to see.

Um, and I do um, you know, I still think uh, and I had this conversation with the city manager yesterday.

I still think we need a crosswalk in front of Minthorn, but I realize that's we're not at that level of projects here, and we will try to put in for a spot spot project or something to do.

So we have a proposal um coming to us, and with the good neighbor, there's a good neighbor.

Um that the that they want to do a new kind of connection there, and like it's a good chance that that'll get funded, um, which means it'll be a better connection through there, and we might have that connection off of the um police act.

Where's that name of that case at Mint Thorn Loop?

Is it Minthorn Loop?

I think so.

So they're looking at a new potential entrance into the park there, which we didn't want to move that from 30 from 37th.

But that only works once the boardwalk is built, right?

That that only I mean, yeah, I've I know I'm totally familiar with that loop back there, and I know that Jeff Jeff Tolentino talked to me about that.

And you know, I think it'd be great to have an entrance there and an access through there, but that only works once the boardwalk is built, which is probably a four or five year project, right?

Yeah.

We have uh we have a good neighbor grade as you can talk about one of the block.

Yeah, so I start all over I thought I had um yeah, so I we're gonna we're gonna be working with the applicant on uh on access to to that space there to where the board will be utilizing some some right-of-way that is on the like a southern side of of the Minthorn Springs area.

Well, so yeah, and there was a project in here, I think on that, right?

Um yeah, so uh P116.

Uh Southeast bin Thorn Loop.

Is that construct uh eight to ten foot bike head path on street pathway?

So is that the what we what we call the berm?

Is that the is that the the existing right-of-way on the on the south side of Mint Thorn?

Yes.

Okay, so to connect that from 37th back to the yeah, I mean, that'd be a great project.

That'd be a great project.

It's all yeah, anyway.

Okay.

Um I think the uh yeah.

Mayor, can I just piggyback on your your 37th comments?

It's the 37th between International Washington.

It talks about straight roadway, straight roadway lane marketing signage and traffic calming improvements.

I I hear what you're saying, Mayor, that yes, we all agree.

I think that the better access is going to be Minthorne Loop, but the problem is that really is contingent on the boardwalk.

If the boardwalk doesn't get done, there's still people we know using Mint Thorn flatlands coming often from Milwaukee marketplace and crossing 37th in kind of an unsafe way.

And so I guess what would you say in that B81 project?

We could, as part of traffic calming measures, potentially look at um a safer way to cross or at least slow traffic down to the folks who are crossing there to get to that natural area can do so safely.

Yeah, and I'm not saying we have to resolve that in this TSP.

Um Patty from the Wetlands Conservancy has a camera.

She's trying to count how many people are coming in that way.

So I think we'll have some info soon.

Um I think more people are crossing there than folks realize.

I really do.

There's a lot of people who walk in there, and um I think more people are crossing there and you know, an unmarked kind of odd place to cross.

And um, and the numbers gone up, I think, since uh Seven Acres opened too.

It's a close place for the people in Seven Acres, yeah.

So um anyway.

Um other people have questions right now.

Uh okay.

Um, did you okay?

Um I think that's I think that's all of my questions.

Um Counselor Stavanger, anything from you.

No, thank you, Mayor.

Just enjoying the conversation.

Thank you.

Council President.

Well, you can enjoy a little more.

Um I just wanted to say a huge kudos to all the folks on the TSPAC and the planning commission.

Um that was relatively painless.

And I think it reflects all the hard work that you did to dive into these maps, dive into these projects from the very start.

Um, it's been such a pleasure to work with all of you on the TSPAC.

And um should be really proud of the uh plan that you put together.

And to our staff we've had to respond to a thousand and one of my emails and all the other things that um planning commissioners and TSPAC members throw your way.

Um really thank you.

Like this is a lot of work, and I'm really really grateful to be able to work with you on this.

Well, thank you.

We're gonna have a big party when this is over.

Like we're gonna celebrate um council.

Yeah, although I hate to agree with the council president on anything, I will in this in this uh instance.

Uh, because uh this had so many moving parts, and uh it had a false start that I was concerned about after you know the the comp plan and the code amendments and that kind of thing.

I didn't know we were ever gonna get started, but it finally did get started, and it reflects things that I think the council president has talked about.

Just the number of eyes and the amount of gray matter that was gone into this is really just really uh uh mind-boggling.

And uh, you know, there's a there's a thing in in economics called the wisdom of the masses, and so there was a mass of people involved in this from the advisory committee to the technical committee to the planning commission.

Uh uh and to the council.

Uh who had a lot of great questions, and I really appreciate uh uh the council president's uh embedding himself in this whole process because as these questions come up, which he's been able to provide us the context about why these recommendations came forward, which is very enlightening.

But uh, I just think that it's uh it it can it can be difficult when you have a a mass of people looking at things, but you can also benefit from uh that many eyes and uh looking at things, and I think that this is a good product, not a perfect product.

It's gonna evolve as we go, but boy, I think it's a great starting point.

So I'm really pleased.

Thank you.

Yeah, I do I agree that it's a great product.

I do I did find some more questions while you were talking.

Talk too long.

Um question I had was back in in our North Milwaukee Innovation Area Plan, we had uh call out for a pedestrian bike connection across the railroad, like at Calvin.

I mean it's sort of, I don't know, Kelvin or Boyd or somewhere in middle of Ardenwald.

Um I'm a little surprised because I know Commissioner uh Sherman is kind of a fan of that and kind of uh that it didn't come up with uh earlier, but is there's no project for that, right?

Yeah, Malcolm or take care of looking at the complexity of projects list not seeing anybody, yeah.

Yeah, well, I guess I'll say yes, uh there was a lot of discussion.

Um there were a couple of different connections across the railroad tracks, pedestrian connections.

Um they were if you go back to our needs and gaps um memos, you'll see them reflected in there.

Um when it came to actually kind of cementing the projects, however, as we went through our kind of internal review, uh there were a handful of projects that we just recognized were um a little too aspirational, perhaps.

Um and uh the complexity of of getting to that grade crossing across a railroad tracks um just based on how experience has has led us in the industry.

Um railroads are meticulous for preserving their right-of-way and crossing opportunities like that are almost always met with requests to close existing crossings.

And so I think from the from a technical perspective, uh we just kind of felt like the aspirational elements um were just kind of too great to overcome, and as a result, they didn't uh continue forward in the project as noted.

But that like I said, we could create it some more.

Yeah, I mean, I here's our resident cycle.

Yeah, this is I'll say um I have some other projects that I think maybe are pie in the sky projects, but I think it can't hurt even if they're at the bottom of our tier four.

Um it can't hurt to have them there if a grant ever does come up.

I think it is helpful to point to while it was in our TSP, um, even if it doesn't happen.

But you can push back.

I would say if we were gonna put it back in, we would need to do a up and it would have to be an above, we couldn't do an at grade.

There's just that that's where I'm saying, right?

So yes, we could do high in the sky, but really realistic if you were you need to think it need to go up and over ND ADA compliant that sounds lovely in tier four.

Exactly.

So I do think it's people because it kind of brought us to nowhere to get down the sure.

Um so we can put this as like a tier three bottom of the list.

Um works maybe we'll take.

But um I heard that and I heard that.

Oh sorry, um line off again.

Um I guess I should just leave it on.

Um I've heard it from other people too.

I don't want to say it's just uh Commissioner Sherman.

I've heard it from a few people that um live at that end of not and not just Chirogino Farms, but live at sort of the that end of the Lake Road neighborhood that um if they could have an access.

The one uh the ones ironically, the uh the little carve out of not in the city of Milwaukee, uh that neighborhood that's the Casas L Ray Drive and stuff, they actually have a crossing, uh they have a pedestrian bridge over one of the creeks and can have an access to the park.

And but at the time Chiriguino Farms was built, there was some discussion about future potential for a head path into the park.

And so I just want to put that on your radar screens.

Yeah, we can put it on the list to talk about.

Okay, for sure.

Great.

Um so I this went a lot faster than I expected.

So I just want to clarify what we're doing on October 21st.

Because I think that we've got a series of suggestions that were sent by the council president.

Is the plan then for October first 21st that we're bringing back our responses and analysis to those pieces?

Were there any of those you wanted to talk through tonight, Laura?

So that we again, I just want to make sure we're we're being as you guys know the aggressive timeline.

So I don't want October 21st to roll around, and then we open more cans of worms that maybe push us off this this timeline we're on.

Yeah, I think that that's a I think that's a really good question.

Um yes, there's a lot of stuff that counselor Anderson said.

And like I will just show you, we have been working all day on collaborating with this, but I'm not ready to say, yeah, we're gonna do any of that.

We're but I will say that there, I think that there are a lot of good eyes ideas in there that we all kind of collectively agree, but there's also some things that we need to talk about.

There are also a couple of things that we are not the probably the decision makers and would should probably just point those things out as to whether or not we want to have a larger discussion about that.

Um I think that it's the big pie in the sky dreams that uh counselor Anderson had mentioned earlier.

When you look down to the roadway projects, is really where I see some meaty topics.

You've got the question of the jurisdictional transfer, which he had brought that up before, and there's like a lot of activity that's going on at the state level about that.

Um talking about the highway, the roundabout on 224, roundabout of king in Linwood, um, pedestrian bridge across 99E, um, and pedestrian bridge across 224.

So those are just projects that we have not discussed at all.

And those are big big ticket um projects.

And I think that I think that the idea, and I think that a pedestrian bridge um and a across 99E and 224, or potentially those are very pie in the sky things that we could put a tier three and we could put some numbers towards that.

Um, I don't know, there's an the roundabout at King in Lindenwood.

Um it's a county signal, and they just did upgrades to that.

So I'm not sure how feasible that is.

Um, and then the roundabouts along 224.

That's a much larger conversation.

So those things are the ones that I'm just I'm not exactly sure if we're gonna get those resolved or how we could deal with those, but we could talk about it a little bit internally.

I think that's smart, but I again I think it's also good to daylight those now.

So you all can be thinking about them.

There's not going to be another going back to the AC and asking for their feedback.

It's really those are now on the table.

What do y'all think?

And we're gonna need direction on October 21st.

Is that a oh fair?

Well, I mean, I think the you know, the jurisdictional transfer is a big conversation.

Um yeah, I mean, that's a lot of big things to go have a conversation about on October 21st.

But and I don't think we'll get any resolution to those things on the 21st.

I don't think so.

Some of these things I put out a call or I sent out a summary about here's where the TSP is and asked for any projects that you see are missing or any feedback.

Some of those things, like people said we want pedestrian bridges across the 990.

So I said, okay, maybe we just throw those on.

We've already got, you can see here three pedestrian crossings that we added, but I can see it being helpful.

You all can correct me.

My thought was it's helpful just to name the project at the very least.

Same thing with the jurisdictional transfer.

I don't think we have to make a decision if we want transfer or not.

But for the state jurisdictional transfer advisory committee, you get an additional like points in your application if it's mentioned in your TSP.

And so we may as well mention it, regardless if we're gonna do it or not.

Just the fact that we mention it sets us all, it keeps the door open for if we ever do want to go.

I hear totally what you're saying, Council President, but I'm still full of philosophical questions tonight.

My philosophical question is by putting in the TSP though, is the city saying we endorse this as a good idea.

And so I wonder if for these biggies that yes, you've heard from some constituents, but we have not had a broader conversation.

If instead we we could add them, so that's placeholders marked, but it's framed in a way of like study feasibility of explore further, you know.

I leave you into this the smart minds here.

But I think if you just sit put in there jurisdictional transfer of 99E, that that might imply the city of Milwaukee endorses that's what we want to do.

And I don't know if we're at this stage in the process going to be able to.

I mean, that's a that's a policy direction piece, but I don't think you've had your community conversation about that.

It wasn't on the list for right, and and we don't know.

I mean, we don't know, let alone the rest of the community what that means, what that costs, what the trade-offs are, you know, what that means.

Oh, and we're getting a little O Doddish right now with our project list here, right?

So let's let's kind of because what I don't want to do is spend so much time on projects that we know we have no control over, and then use and spend an exorbitant amount of time on these things.

Um, because I think that's kind of why there's some talk projects that are decades old currently on the list, right?

Like they're they're great.

I'd love to conversate them at some point, but I don't want to add those big pie in the sky thing.

Because again, just like uh city manager Sager said, I don't want to create expectations for something that we haven't even that that's uh literally a pie in the sky thing.

Um so I I would refrain from including that, or at least like city manager said, you know, change the language because I just don't want to get our feet stuck in the mud on something we can't control.

And I'll just it really was a question because I don't I you guys might disagree that maybe the inclusion doesn't indicate that sort of city endorsement, but I I could kind of see the interpretation there.

Um I could see ODOT looking at it and saying Milwaukee wants, and I just don't know if we've had that conversation.

Well, I was gonna say, and that what I hear from other mayors about that are pursuing jurisdictional transfers is it is contingent, and that came up in the conversation at the planning commission that it is contingent on ODOT bringing the road up to standards, right?

And so yeah, Tiger and Beaverton, and you know, there are definitely conversations going on around doing that, but uh around jurisdictional transfers, but they're all expecting um improvements to the road before it's transferred.

And so we know ODOT doesn't didn't get a pond pool of money for that, so although it had been proposed.

And I guess I should clarify I'm not opposed to the discussions with the powers that be, but we need to start those, but I don't want to spend a lot of uh like staff time on that um with us creating a whole thing because then knowing that ODOC could shut it down at any time or just say no or whatever the case, but I wouldn't mind the conversations started with the powers that are involved with the stakeholders involved, but yeah, just don't want to devote too much time on it.

The only reason I add these projects into this list is I've seen one for the JT.

If we ever do decide to go that way, if the state does create a pot of money, um, it really does benefit us to have line item in our TSP, and it could be a study, it could be whatever, but some indication that we have planned around this, um, it just keeps that door open with the big projects that are really pie in the sky, like the pedestrian bridges and what have you.

I've seen in the state legislature as appropriations are being made.

Um sometimes I've seen state legislators go to ways and means trying to advocate for certain projects that maybe seemed fantastical at one point that aren't in their city's TSP, and it's just more of like an uphill road to climb.

And so this my my thought with raising these things is not that they necessarily would get done, but it leaves the door open for those and it prevents a future problem of well, that's not in your TSP, so you must not care about it.

Um, but I I would agree with Council Moserati.

I don't want to have to add I bulked the idea that I created so much work for you all today.

I'm sorry about that.

Um I don't want to create a long conversation about should we transfer or should we not?

Um, I just want to make sure that we're prepared for dollars that might fall out of the sky.

And I yeah, and I think that I think it's good.

Maybe we'll talk internally about whether or not there's a way to have a little bucket.

We're not gonna call it the pie in the sky bucket.

We'll be more split for that.

Exactly.

So we're tier five exactly ideas aspirational projects.

Yeah.

We could definitely just call it tier five, council president Anderson's ideas.

Yeah, jet pack riddles.

Yeah, will has delivered zero out of zero projects on Will's list.

So thanks, man.

The one project that I don't think, or the set of projects that I don't think would go on Will's list.

There are a few bike projects that I added.

We talked in the TSPAC about our bikeway bucket and how that would cover a road like 29.

So we don't need to have it in the unconstrained list.

But I do think that a generic project that can be really vague that just says improvements along all of the identified um classified bikeways.

I went back to check.

I think all of the pedestrian classifications have them.

The bike line was the only one or bikes on those routes were the only ones that were missing it.

Yeah, those are really good catches, and I would agree with you.

So we can develop some little small projects to fill those gaps.

Thank you.

I wanted to ask, are we um are there any projects in here that are about freight?

No.

They're about improving freight movement or anything like that.

It's funny because in 2007, that was a big topic of conversation, especially in the North Milwaukee area.

Yeah, there's lots of projects on the larger list, but nothing that fell into the tier one financially constrained.

Okay.

So if you look on the very last page, F1, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, they just all fell to the F.

I never look at the very end of the very end of attachment 783.

Well, it's probably all of the attachments.

Okay.

And almost every one of those projects came from the North Milwaukee innovation archives.

So it's there's not a lot of fresh freight projects on here.

Um there are a lot of holdover projects from the current DSP.

And we did have freight representatives, uh, two different freight representatives come to a few of our meetings, but this is very heavily bicycle and pedestrian focused, and they weren't particularly interested in talking about that.

Okay.

Um they didn't identify needs that hadn't been filled out by anybody else or anything like that.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I just had another question on now I've forgotten it.

Um, we'll be back on the uh if I think of it.

Oh, I know what it was.

Um I was hoping so there was like reference in the materials to uh in that memo you have at the end about what is that memo at the end?

Is it the regulatory solution then?

Yeah.

So in that memo, then you also reference the policy and something else memo, which I don't know.

Is it we see that earlier?

Yeah, we did.

Yeah, we have yeah, we've gone through all those.

Could you maybe put all of those things on the website?

Like in one under the TSP website so that we can easily find them.

Yeah, we can do that for sure.

Okay, it's all lives on engagement walk-in on the buried in the TSP advisory committee and TC stuff, but yeah, I can totally do that.

Okay, yeah, that'd be great.

Yeah.

Um, I mean, there's one issue from last winter that I feel like I I'd asked for some follow-up on, and we never really followed up on, which was the suggestion that we um get rid of uh uh classifications, road classifications, a ABCDE grades, and we somehow measure road success in other ways.

And I never really understood what the other ways are.

So um whatever you can do uh to explain or to point me to the explanation of how that how that's supposed to work if we're getting rid of the how do we know and how does this public know?

How is there something understandable and digestible to the public and to the planning commission and future applications and all those things if we get rid of the grid the letter grades for freight land for yeah, okay, yeah.

And even tonight in the even earlier in the um in the SDC uh discussion, the SDC consultants used, you know, use those as, you know, if your intersection is a C and you're going for, you know, anyway.

So I mean that that is so much inherent in the way we've always talked about this that you know I I'd like to see what we're proposing to replace it with.

Good question.

We'll come back with an answer.

We're working actually, we had just uh started attracting.

That was one thing that we realized that we had written up all of the classifications along with the classification memo.

We had forgotten to include the roadway classification description.

So Ryan's actually been working on that, so we will bring that back to you all.

Okay, yeah, great.

Great.

Okay.

Oh, council president.

Um, as we opine on classifications quickly, can I raise some of the things that I talked about in the email?

Um I think that there are a few, we even touched on some of them today.

Mayor Betty, you brought up the crossing on 37th is one that I think we need to um upgrade in our bike classification or some what like walkway classifications that I think we need to improve.

Um you were saying, Matt, that it's still possible to make these tweaks or um, I think just to quickly summarize it on the dice if there is any need for discussion here.

Um, 40th and 42nd are two routes that we kind of mentioned for pedestrians walking.

42nd is the one from Washington up to the Milwaukee marketplace, and 40th is where we're doing CIP investments.

Um, I think upgrading those in the pedestrian classification would reflect kind of the priority that those streets have for pedestrians.

Similarly, there's projects to create a path from Willow and Howe connecting the two of them.

Um, and if that does get completed, I know some of our classifications are kind of aspirational.

I think that we should have an aspirational classification there to make that a neighborhood walkway and bikeway um more continuous throughout there.

Um, for bikes, the two classifications that I put forward aside from Willown Howe is that kind of Edison to Silwood Street connection to connect right now.

37th is a neighborhood bikeway and it just ends at the highway and it doesn't connect over to the 34th um classification.

So I think just adding that connection where people might need to travel to be able to connect the two would be helpful.

Um the other connection was I know we talked about before we move on on that one.

Um that was a question that we had um collectively uh as we're going through your list of of comments earlier, and this might be something we can confirm offline just with a map.

But um I think we were just wanting to know in some cases um the specifics of that route and how far does it go beyond 33rd.

Um so we don't have to get into that one, but I said maybe expect a comment back from us on clarifying what you really mean with that particular comment.

Yeah, I think the bigger idea is like the mayor described, bikes are using that connection on 37th.

And if we want to make 37th a neighborhood um bikeway, just to have that connectivity demarketed as well.

Um the only other bike one was on home av.

Um we had talked before in the TSPAC about how there's a diversion at park in wood because that's what Strava data indicates bikes using more predominantly.

I think going back and looking at the policy document where we say we want to minimize out of direction travel as much as possible for bikes, it just makes more sense to make it all the way down home.

And I could imagine bikes divert off park and go on wood because it's lower traffic or they feel less comfortable, but I don't think that that is necessarily indicative of a preference so much as like a deficiency in our classification.

So we don't have to, again, it doesn't have to be a perfect classification, but I think it's better to be noted that way.

Um Yeah, and we we collectively basically agreed with all those things.

We haven't sat and talked with them, but we're generally in agreement, so we can make some tweaks.

Yeah, we will bring those changes to the next to the meeting on the 21st after we've kind of conferred.

And if we have any things that we're like, we're not sure, then we'll bring that back to you all.

Um here are the spicier reclassifications that maybe we all discuss some of the car reef classifications.

The ones that are not really controversial, we had talked in the TSPAC about using the multimodal travel priority arterials outside of the town center along Lake Road, King Road, Linwood, Harmony, because those are all bikeway and walkway major routes.

The other areas, Stanley, 42nd, Monroe, and 43rd, are all either a pedestrian walkway or a bike um bikeway, or some combo of both.

And I know especially on Stanley, we've had talks about how because it's designation as a collector, like implies treatment types or constrains us in some way, it might be helpful to change that to a neighborhood route.

I've talked to a lot of folks in the welling about that one particularly.

But I could also imagine Cake Monroe, as we're doing all of these improvements, it still remains a collector.

That poses some challenges in what we're trying to achieve there.

Yeah, that's the one that we were just gonna, we were gonna talk about the street classifications a little bit more because those are a little bit more complicated, I think, than the other pieces that you have identified.

But so we'll come back with some thoughts on that.

Consider it daylighted, colleagues.

You were talking about Stanley north of King Road, though.

Don't worry, Robert.

I don't need it anymore.

Um Stanley north of Kingdom.

But I think that that would be.

I mean, that's we've got a plan for that, right?

That's that's on our short-term project list, right?

Uh-huh.

I would say what we've heard from as I've talked to Nick or Philip or the folks in Bewelling who are working on the safe routes to school project there.

I think they were struggling with the classification and ways that cars use that street as a thoroughfare when there is the school that they're trying to get to there.

And I think they felt constrained in some their abilities to treat the road.

And I think frankly, that also might apply to the whole length of Stanley, where we're also doing now sidewalk projects to access Linwood Elementary.

So I think it might make sense when we have Linwood that is a higher pretty adjacent for cars to drive on, but that's the street that we direct them to.

Um, or at least keep marking in our transportation maps.

But maybe staff will have more to comment on that too.

And we can follow up with Jen on that because I know she's had a lot of thoughts and conversations about that.

Um I did want to follow up on Stanley Sidewalk, because the planning commission talked about that.

So there was a that was something that got downgraded, as I recall from constrained list to non-constrained.

But it or it stayed on the constrained list, but only one side sidewalks or something.

What was this?

What was the resolution on that one?

Yeah, it's project P43.

Um, and we modified it.

So instead of sidewalks on both sides, group talking sub books on one side.

And which side is left off.

But yeah, that's where in doing so it cut the cost of that project down by almost half.

And but we kept it on the constraint.

Yeah, it's still on the constraint list.

Great.

Great.

Okay.

All right.

Oh, mayor, I've got to ask an elephant in the room question.

So this has been great.

And then we have game plan for October 21st.

But I'm gonna go back to something Matt said about this 27 million target.

That's the 125%.

We are already two million over that with the PC's list.

And we may be adding some more sprinkle things from from the will list.

Sorry, those aren't added to the constraint.

Okay.

That's just projects add on the TCP.

Just put it on the list.

Okay, so so we're still two million over.

What a what what's the plan?

How do we how do we cut out two million so that we can get this to an adoptable format?

And what does this body need to do to support you in doing that?

Oh gosh.

Um, well, I think that's a good question.

Yeah, so um, you know, I think in a lot of cases, uh, we could just target a particular project or two.

I mean, there's several on here that are in that price range that would remove it.

Um question, however, is um it's basically just shuffling the you know, the deck chairs, right?

It's not we're getting rid of the project.

We're just recognizing that we probably don't have the funds to outright assume we're going to be able to afford it within known funding limitations.

But as we all know, um pass a funding package and you get 20% more, and that makes up the gap.

Um, unfortunately, just the way I'm reading things coming out of Salem, I'm not confident that this thing's going to get resolved anytime soon, particularly um before we have to start drafting final versions of this plan for adoption.

So um I think the hard choices and hard assumption is we've got to make some cut now.

Um I'll stop using the word cut.

Um we'll move a project from tier one financially constrained to tier one financially unconstrained.

Um, and the question is which project we can make a recommendation and come back on the 21st, um, based on just our own review and and knowledge of this process and see where it lands.

Um process or take suggestions who see me.

And to kind of go back to my philosophical questions.

I mean, and I feel like I've said this to several of you in my in my recent one-on-ones that the TSP matters, the constrained list matters, but we're really matters when you're putting actual dollars to projects is your CIP.

And there is no law that says you can't pluck a project off your unconstrained list and put it on your CIP if the right things fall.

So I don't want to bring up this elephant to like freak us out, and we gotta get it absolutely right.

Um, but I do I do think we need to talk about it.

Are you comfortable with staff proposing what might move to that unconstrained?

And again, it doesn't mean it can't, you know.

I I see even the four million dollar mini roundabout at the worst intersection in the world.

It's so important, but but that's an easy way to just get this down to the number we want, and then we get the right things fall, and boom, you have it.

Or do you guys want to weigh in and is that more of like a policy statement you want to make?

The constrained list is really our top priorities.

I I think we need to sort of define that, otherwise or or talk about it on the 21st.

I mean, I I'm fine with staff making a recommendation, or maybe making you know a couple of alternate recommendations for us to think about.

Yeah, I would say if the legislature doesn't have this figured out by the 21st, either yes or no, we're in a like uh.

Um so I think the 21st can they came down the road till then.

If you bring recommendations, um, and if the bill passes, if you bring funding scenarios that might create additional opportunities, I think that that is a good time to decide.

I'm good with the staffing.

Uh recommendations.

Yeah, I I'm I'm okay with stuff.

I mean, I I it would be nice to have uh T spec input too on some of that stuff, because I would hate to just have recommendations and then not have the advisory committee see those two.

Um I don't know if there's too much to ask for, but I can send that to him as a courtesy, but we just we just don't have the time to take things.

Yeah, I can absolutely some of the questions too.

And if they have any concerns, they can let us know and we can bring that to the other.

What I can do, yeah.

What I can do is I can send them the pack at the same time that the packet goes to council and say, hey, this is something that we had to consider.

And so if you have any thoughts about that, please, you know, come to come to City Council and I mean I felt felt that way about the planning commission um comments, right?

The planning commission changes.

Like I wanted them to know those the TSPAC to know those were made in case they want to come here and talk about that.

So I mean sort of calling that out for them in an email, I think it'd be great.

Yeah, we can totally do that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I'll I'll think I gotta pour over these things between now and the twenty first.

If I can just real quick to make a comment.

I I love the the questions, but I do feel like for the sake of efficiency, there's a lot of questions that are minutiae.

And that could be answered in an email or in one-on-ones as opposed to because then it almost feels like you know, two of you guys are asking questions, three of us are sitting waiting.

It almost feels like a one-on-one with you guys and staff as opposed to a council discussion.

Um, because I mean some of these questions is not much discussion that we can come because they're like I said, minutiae.

So it'd be great if some of these questions could be answered or asked prior to the get to the meeting.

So we're not spending forty-five minutes on questions that really only one counselor is concerned about.

No.

Just for efficiency sake.

So I'm saying me and Robert are sitting here like, I mean, uh, how do we how do we contribute to a conversation when it's more minutia than well, I don't I don't know that it's so much minutia.

Well, I mean, a few things might qualify this.

For efficiency, I think it'd be uh maybe we talk about it in the council retreat.

Yeah.

Um I do appreciate getting the large printed copies.

Uh I guess yeah.

Anyway, um, okay.

Thank you all.

Ten minutes?

Two minutes.

Two minutes.

Oh, okay.

So we need uh a short break, so we'll take a quick break, five minutes.

Twenty is plenty.

We can keep this really quick.

Twenty is plenty is uh the titular thing there.

Uh one of our TSP constrained projects is replacing all speed signs and certain roadways.

Um can speak to those classifications better.

Um, but replacing those signs uh that are at twenty-five, reducing that speed down to twenty.

Um I think the key thing here is that would require a vote of council to change the speed limits.

And so we wanted to daylight is this a policy direction that we want the city to go in.

I know that a lot of cities, including Portland, as they've adopted Vision Zero policies, have thought about this twenty is plenty mantra.

Um, I think also like as we talk about Stanley and certain collectors, I think these types of treatments are especially important on the greenways and um walkways that are supposed to be more pedestrianized streets.

Um all that to say, I think this is an important conversation, and just wanted to gauge interest on counsel for adopting it when he's money on our local streets.

Counselor Massey.

And um, you know what?

I like the idea, and you like the idea, and you like the idea.

There's gonna be a lot of people who aren't gonna like this idea.

And um, I think we need to socialize this more, and I don't see this uh being um uh still put on the fast track.

Uh I did you want to weigh in?

Um, I mean, I agree we have to socialize it to some degree.

I guess I feel like uh is the question, can we do it as part of this TSP adoption, or is it a separate thing?

I will say that I when the TSP AC launched, I went and gave a little like kickoff talk, and I said I twenty is plenty is one of the things I called out there that I hoped they would work on.

So I'm excited to see this come forward, and I heard uh I heard Ms.

Garville's speak to it before the planning commission.

So I guess I feel like we need to do some amount of outreach, but I don't guess I think it's uh necessarily needs to be huge.

I don't know.

Um, I would say I purposely actually brought this to the TSP because of that ordeal of I didn't want to make a one off on a street that says, yeah, this street will go down to twenty is plenty, right?

So we've had several conversations with the TAC with the Planning Commission, but they are they would let no one has opposed to dropping it to 20 is plenty.

In addition, we can actually drop any local street or collector by five miles per hour.

Arterials, we'd have to go out for our special study, but selectors or local roads we can drop for your policy direction.

And I guess I know we've talked about this a lot at the TSPAC, but what I'm still a little unclear about is is that a parallel vote or can that be rolled up into the TSP?

And if we make that change, does that presume in the next CIP that we have to add in the 400,000 project to reduce speed limits or the change the signs?

So we would need a policy from uh council to actually implement the five month five miles per hour drop.

Um so that would be an ordinance that we'd come to you for approval.

Um yes, we'd want to put something in the CIP says we're gonna do that.

We can do that in multiple ways, though.

That 400,000 would be like we're getting a contractor to do it, and they are doing it all at once.

We could potentially phase it over a couple years and do it in-house.

There's a lot of options there as far as how we want to see that implemented.

Has there been any conversation with the police department?

Do they have any concerns about it?

I've not personally talked to the police department yet.

Um so I you know, I'm I'm I'm obviously not opposed to this idea.

Uh the one thing that I spoke to council president about this earlier too.

It's a 400,000 project.

We're already pretty tight as it is.

Um, and we want to make sure that it has an impact.

Um, because if if we do all that and it has zero impact on driver psychology or driver habits, then it's really 400 grand that we're throwing in nothing.

I think we're pretty limited on being able to do that.

So I'm not saying I'm opposed to it, but I I would like to learn more about it because Portland is the same thing, and I know when a study came out said that it had no impact on driver habits.

So with that said, since Portland already did it, it'd probably be a good thing for us to check with them and see what their data shows.

Um, because again, I I just if if reducing the speed is gonna have an impact, I'm all for the spending the money.

But we just got talked about how there's two million that we might have to cut.

So if it's gonna have an impact, then I'm all for but if it's not gonna have an impact, then um that's gonna be a different conversation.

Well, I guess I'd like I'd love to see I had not heard that Portland thinks it didn't have an impact.

Um I'd love to see that study or whatever.

Um yeah, I mean, yeah, if it didn't have an impact, then I think we do have to think about it.

But um, so it'd be interesting to know what the cities that have, but I mean there was a whole wave of cities doing it like 10 years ago, or you know, before the pandemic, um, eight, seven, eight years ago.

I remember when the signs went up in Sellwood, and I was like, yeah.

Um, but if the studies are not showing that it's having an impact.

I mean, in all, of course, that that's part of why I asked about the police, you know, because it all depends to some degree on enforcement creating an impact, right?

Um I I can propose some steps forward.

So what I'm hearing is general maybe policy support for it, questions seeking a little bit more data.

And I I think you know, I I yeah, I'm I I know that Portland's Vision Zero numbers are not going the direction they want.

I'm not sure what they what data they have on speed, but we could reach out and capture those and look at other smaller cities too.

I wonder if um I mean we keep the project on the constrained list, so it's the markers there.

Um we are always looking for kind of easy things, easy things to do on engage Milwaukee.

And I think this could be a quite a simple and narrow question that could garner some interesting discussion.

I I hear you, Jen.

We've done a lot of outreach through this process, but might be a good way to get the tenor of a broader audience, and then we could bring back both what we learned from that and some data um and have uh another discussion.

It sounds like what Jen's saying, we there will need to be two votes.

There's the there's the adopting it as part of the TSP as a project on the list, and there's also the ordinance that you have to adopt to give the the, you know, to change the traffic um piece.

So I think we've got some time to move on that.

Um, if if you like the sound of those next steps, staff could take those on.

Yeah.

Sounds good.

Okay.

What are you thinking?

Time frame.

Well, what if we what if we brought something back?

So TSP adoption's not going to be till December/slash January.

So what if we tried to squeeze an update in the second meeting in November?

I think the I'm I'm envisioning this engaged thing quite brief, like a couple questions, you know.

Um, just you know, you've probably seen 20 as plenty signs.

That's the city is considering it.

What are your thoughts?

You know, and and um, so I don't think the legwork of setting that all up is gonna be a lot.

I think it, you know, we'll just it'll be the synthesis of that and bringing it, bringing some data back.

We could also do it in the new year post-tsp adoption if you're comfortable adopting the TSP with that in there, and then considering the actual policy move more in the springtime.

I'll I'll defer to you on what timing seems most appropriate.

I know that there are a lot of folks in the TSPAC who thought of this as a component of the TSP.

Um, and so I think a timeline that allows for that keeps the door open to that remaining a possibility, I think would align with what some of my colleagues there would have as an expectation.

Staff, how you've done about second meeting in November, November 18th.

Sure.

Not October 21st, when someone will be in Italy.

I can also send around after this, I'll send to Scott to include in the packet.

There's um, I think two things that are getting metal tier.

There's some studies that show if you reduce speeds without actually changing some of the infrastructure, it has a nominal impact on the speeds the drivers travel at.

Um, but Portland does have a study that they're 20 is plenty, saw some uh marginal safety improvements as well.

So a bit of a mixed bag, and I think I would be curious to dig into the reducing the speed limit um if that is on local roads or if that's on uh material or somewhere with the speed limit is much higher if you're reducing a 60 mile an hour to a 40 mile per hour if you see actual changes there.

So I'll send these two links out under council.

Okay, okay.

I have a plan.

All right, anything else on that?

Okay, all right, and that just leaves us with council reports.

Council reports.

Yeah, yeah.

Council Coastal Body.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor.

Um so I I did have a West meeting last week, but I'm gonna have to I'm gonna have to watch that one to make watch rewatch it to make sure that my notes are good because I had both my kids with me on Zoom.

So I just want to make sure I didn't cross over any of their numbers with my numbers.

Um, so I'll I'll I'll have a report on that by the next council meeting.

But we did also have a CAP meeting, uh the community action board, and it was uh you know, we had a two-month break, I would say, just during the summer.

Um, and just to go over a little bit of what we discussed.

Um we we we did talk about the meeting that myself uh and the director of uh for health and sort of H3S had with uh Congresswoman Maxine Dexter's office in terms of financial policy.

I know I mentioned that prior.

Um we looked at uh the year ahead strategic plan review, upcoming needs assessment, and cab goals.

Uh speaking of the needs assessment, I do want to talk touch on that a little bit because uh we did put together a 2026 community needs assessment plan draft.

Um, and just to give you a little timeline on the needs assessment between October and November this year is the format and process development, December to January is gonna be assessment tools development, January to September is assessment data collection and analysis.

Uh June will be the CAP update to identify information gaps, and then in October of next year needs assessment report to the CAP, which uh we are planning to do another uh listening tour uh to municipalities within the county um to make sure that they're aware of what's going on in their in their uh respective communities.

The key topic areas for this needs assessment are our poverty, access to information, education, employment slash income, child care, food, health, housing, and transportation.

Oh, look at that majority of that stuff is under attack.

Um the community needs assessment.

Obviously, it's it's it's it's a huge process.

It's it's it's a it's a lot of data collection.

Um, but I think it's super important and it tells a story, an actual story of of what people are facing when it comes to uh basic needs uh to to get by and survive.

Um so that's gonna be a big deal.

I'm looking forward to that.

And who does the actual county staff?

Yeah, okay.

They um they're great at that stuff, they're really good at doing all that.

Um the other thing I I wanted to talk about in discussing the capsule is uh just to give you guys some of everybody out there listening, uh, an idea of what some of the cuts we're looking at, because some of that information is starting to trickle down.

Um, so for OHCS rental assistance, the adopted budget for fiscal year 2526, just for the rental assistance, it's broken down, but I think the rental assistance took the largest hit.

Right now, the budget for that is 675,878.

That's a cut of 74%.

It's massive.

It's a massive, massive cut.

So, uh not quite sure what's gonna happen with that.

Uh, this is another reason why we're really trying to get municipalities more involved, cities more involved.

Um, so it's not just all in the county, because obviously the county hasn't really done much to uh decision makers, I should say, haven't done much to quell the fear and the anxiety.

Um with that, to go from that, I just want to segue into this uh transportation bill because I know it's gonna go up for a vote tomorrow.

And I I I've I've been struggling with my support of this bill.

I really have.

Um really because and kind of what put the cherry on top was an Orgonian article that I read this morning, and how it's disproportionately affecting EV drivers.

Now, I'm not I'm not I I drive an EV, but I'm not worried about that.

I I thankfully I have I have uh a good job, and and yeah, it's gonna be a hit, but there's I mean I'm gonna manage.

What's upsetting though is how much disproportionately it's affecting them and how it's almost cheaper to get a gas car.

So I'm kind of curious, like at what like where's what happened to the climate goals?

What happened to all this, you know the progress we were making in terms of that.

And for a state that prides itself on equity and diversity and inclusion, um, all the things that we hold dear to us and and that we value, I mean, this is a pretty inequitable bill here.

Um there's no low income out.

So when you're when if you're somebody who's a DoorDash driver, let's say you just bought a little ODV because it's all you can afford and you're trying to save money on gas.

Well, you're gonna get hit already, your registration fees are double.

And that's fine.

I get that.

We gotta make up the gas tax.

But under this new pay per mile road usage fee, which the Oregonian reported would be about 2.3 cents a mile.

I've had my car for two months.

I've already driven driven over 3,000 miles.

And you can opt out of it.

It's worth $340 for the year.

So you're gonna pay, I paid over $600 for my vehicle registration on a two 2017 Chevy bolt.

Okay, when I registered that car and I had to pay for registration, it was over $600.

Based on this on this article and these fees, it's gonna cost me an additional almost $700 in that same span of two years.

So to own an EV, it's gonna cost me about $1,300 in two years to own that car.

The man in the high castle sitting there doing, you know, we don't really do a good job of holding our part accountable either.

Because I don't see anywhere where ODOT is held accountable, A, for their budget bungle, which was a 1.1 billion dollar hole because of bad math.

And then B, we are gonna throw more money at the issue thinking that it's gonna do better.

Like I just, I just it's kind of hard to say, hey, you messed up.

We're gonna go to the people over here and get more money for you to hopefully not mess up again.

And I just I just don't see a lot of measures in place to ensure that like, okay, so the governor can fire the head of ODOT, but is she going to?

Maybe if her political uh future was on the line, maybe she would.

But I don't think she would do it if it necessitated it.

Because it's politics.

It's not beat around the bush.

So I'm struggling with it because I don't want people to lose their jobs.

But I feel like they put all of us, ODOT's mismanagement and the state legislature at the time, not saying this current rendition, but at the time, had the pie in the sky type of thinking, and this is why we're here.

So I'm struggling to give them any more of the hard-earned money people have already given.

And allow them to take more and say, here we're gonna give all this money to the same organization that was unaccountable in the first place that caused us to increase everybody's cost of living across the board.

Right?

So I struggle with that because it it's it's I feel like we're we're we're competing.

It's it's a competition of values.

Like, what do we care more about?

We say we care about the climate, but you're penalizing EV drivers.

And then you say, and then on the other hand, we care about cost of living, we care about low income, we care about these things, but we just increased it quite heavily on people.

And we're expecting people to just be able to make this work.

So I'm I'm I'm I'm struggling.

I don't want people to lose that job.

Um, I know it's a difficult situation, but I feel like the state once again really put us in the corner to where it's like, well, do you want people to lose their job?

Yeah, well, it's your guys' fault.

You guys mess this up, not the taxpayers, not the people paying the bill.

So I want to resume my support for this bill.

Um the only thing holding me back are those 500 plus employees who are gonna lose their livelihoods.

And I I can't, I can't, I'm not okay with that either.

But damn, something has to be done with accountability in the state because this is getting ridiculous.

Um, I would uh offer the council president the opportunity to uh uh educate us on whether there's anything in this package that is I mean, there was a lot of talk in session about some ODOT accountability measures being part of it.

So I would invite him to uh educate us on that if it's if there's anything like that still in there.

I'm really curious to read the Oregonian article.

Um so it was sending it was saying that I mean that $1,300 over two years is more than somebody's paying in their gas tax, an average person is paying in their gas tax.

Yeah, so I'll I'll pull it up right now.

That's basically what they were saying is that it's it's gonna be more expensive.

It's cheaper to have a gas car with display transportation.

That's this is what doesn't make sense.

It does not make sense.

And this is I mean it I do think the EV drivers have gotten, you know, and have not carried their weight, so to speak, um, up to now, but um, but yeah, that does not make sense.

Do you have any insights for us, council president?

I get to do the fun role of defending ODOT.

That's almost wrong, they're wrong.

Yeah, everyone is titled through a defense.

Yeah, yeah.

This is my John Adams from the um I would say so.

ODOT has done over the last two binniums, they've already cut hundreds of jobs.

They're an agency that I think is hurting as is.

Um, I still cannot explain the accounting error where you lose a billion dollars, and I I don't know enough about that story to like truly understand what the problem is.

Since the start of this session, ODOT's had two different audits on it.

There, I think the governor is really trying to push down on it.

Um, because if you say, how do you feel about Odot average Oregonian?

I think people would be displeased.

Um, I have sympathy for the the area that I think I have sympathy for ODOT in is um like Councillor Coast Rabati was saying in House Bill 2017, re we required ODOT deliver projects, and we did not give them the funds to actually deliver those projects, and so now they've been taking out debt to start to scope and deliver those projects, and now they're paying more in debt than comparator agencies across the West Coast, and so in some ways, this is the legislature's like problem that they've pushed on to agency, and I think it is a really difficult problem to unwind.

You have to take back promises that you made back in 2017.

You have a muddled like form of constituencies who will complain about their project that's undone.

I mean, what would it look like to go to Clack Miss County and say you no longer get um the I-205 widening, but Portland is going to get that.

There are a lot of legislators who I mean, just shocked about some of the dynamics.

There are some Republican legislators who will die on the Rose Coral project.

They need to see it done.

That's about half their caucus because the troopers really want it, and about half their caucus say, why are you wasting money in Portland when you should be spending it in other parts of the state?

And so I think that ODOT, there is like two things happening.

One, ODOT has had some real problems in mismanagement.

I think that more accountability is coming.

Just like any accountability metric, it's hard to weigh the magic wand and make ODOT accountable, but I think that there are people pushing ODOT in that direction.

That larger kind of fiscal problems that ODOT has are unresolved and unresolved in this version of the bill and will continue to be a problem that our legislature is gonna have to address.

It can't be ODOT alone that fixes it.

Um in terms of this EV question that you raise, um, I know that when Kelly Brooks has talked about this problem, she has said the intent of the bill and the RUC is to have EVs pay their fair share.

And I don't know exactly how ODOT cuts their numbers.

I think they said for certain types of EV drivers or for certain amounts, you're paying less for certain amounts, you're paying more.

It the article certainly made it seemed if you're driving the average amount, you're paying more in an EV than you would a gas car, which seems antithetical to our climate goals.

Um so I do think that there is work that needs to be done there.

But I also I've heard from people who I hold Tilly Brooks in high esteem, and I know she was involved in like trying to figure out the balance of all of these numbers.

And so I like put a pin in it, we'll come back to it.

I don't know exactly what it does.

Um, but I do think that I mean the environmentalists have been saying this since the start of this package.

This package does not deliver for EVs and our goals and around electrification and our multimodal system that will reduce VMT in a way that we would like to see as a state.

Um, and I think that that's a real problem.

Um, so it is like you're saying, Council Aquasarwadi, a short-term fix that saves 500 employees their jobs and keeps the roads plowed this winter, but there's a lot more work that needs to be done.

And I really hope that our legislature continues to do it.

Um I would say kudos to Gamba, who I think has been leaning in on these conversations and has been pushing for both EVs and um just a package that he he is a lot of legislators are not willing to confront how tangled of a system it is.

And I think he's willing to have that question um or call that question.

Yeah.

That's been great.

And and so and same with uh rep and this hardman okay.

Um other council reports seeing.

I can go okay, sorry, I'll go really quick.

I have a few things.

Um, I talked to um the district director for Bynam's team recently and flagged for her the grant that we received on Harrison that we received in name only and have not actually received so her office in addition to Mercury and Wyden and every other federal delegate under the sun will be hopefully digging into this a little bit more.

Well, I will tell you sort of uh we got some kind of indication yesterday that that that might be moving.

Okay.

So um we don't know definitely, and it was sort of like keep it mum for now, but we got some indication that it might be moving.

That is good.

I'll follow up with Jen.

The other um we talked about this a little bit as we talked about.

I'm forgetting where I had this conversation, but I thought it was on the dais.

Uh the safe routes to school program, we did not get money for Stanley last cycle, but we're gonna have the project team for safe routes to school meet with our city staff kind of talk through where we could improve our application and or where some challenges let A in the application last time.

So hopefully you see some progress there.

Um thinking of neighborhoods, um, I wanted to flag that I'll be doing a town hall in Ardenwald on the 29th, if people want to come.

If all the people who are watching at the 9 p.m.

hour, um, the other flag that I had was um a constituent reached out, um, Lisa Rousseau, who um you all might know from Bridge City and Prof.

Um, she reached out um with a family friend who owns a business called Pushcart, which is a cannabis delivery service.

Um, and she had raised this idea that Milwaukee opt into allowing cannabis delivery from jurisdictions outside of Milwaukee.

Um, so I raised this on the dais after talking to folks at Pushcart to see if this is something that we would want to have a council discussion about.

Just as a way of background, um, state law allows for cities to opt in to allow out of um out of city delivery of cannabis products, but you have to opt into that.

I think that the pluses that I would describe is um if you're having people deliver cannabis as opposed to walking to a retail shop in their neighborhood, you see less retail shops of cannabis around town.

It's a little more discreet, um, which I think might help with some of the concerns.

I've heard a lot of people when we talk about neighborhood mixed use areas say, my god, we don't need another cannabis shop.

Hopefully, this makes it so retail cannabis is not as prevalent in our neighborhoods.

Um, and I think it also if you're going to get cannabis and you're driving to get cannabis, I would sure hope that you're not using the cannabis, or I think that a delivery system maybe helps alleviate some of those.

Um, I think flip side is there's worry about does this proliferate drug use um or the people who are delivering cannabis already need to be using cannabis anyways.

Um a larger council discussion, we can invite folks from Push Cart to talk about it.

Um, but wanted to raise this tonight to see if this is something wanna add the job.

Also, if it puts the current uh dispensaries in Milwaukee at a disadvantage business wise, yeah.

I was gonna say, then we're they're bringing stuff from outside, they're hurting the businesses.

They're hurting local businesses, yeah.

It's a tough one.

So that's what I was gonna bring as well.

I mean, I you know why would we give advantage to outside people from outside of the city?

Yeah, I thought about that.

I to quote our city manager, I got philosophical.

And I think where I landed was we allowed delivery of other products, and if we want to remain like you allow Amazon to operate in the city, and if we allow Amazon to operate in the city, I think it makes sense that we would allow that same commercial activity to exist for a company.

All of these companies, I guess, where I felt better about it was these companies are still organ-based because of the nature of how cannabis has to be regulated in the state, and a lot of our local businesses, some of them are truly local, some of them are also national chains or not national, but organ chains like nectar is not a Milwaukee exclusive.

Um certainly have some.

So I don't know.

I think there definitely is a philosophical conversation to get there.

Well, I'll give you the counterpart to that philosophical conversation.

Is that Amazon has a uh inventory list that's you know 20 miles long that's not duplicated by other retailers in Milwaukee.

So they deliver a lot more products that are not available from local retailers.

Uh I'll also say that there are trillions of dollar company that goes through there, and right now it's a it's a kind of an odd comparison because the cannabis market right now is pretty because we have an overabundance of cannabis in the state.

Um so if you talk to any of the cannabis owners, like you see that they're selling some of this product to achieve because it's already so competitive.

And I just won't want to, you know, Amazon's kind of story, right?

So it's it's a big more of a conglomerate as opposed to like a small up shop that really makes the money off of people that buy from their specific shop.

Also, you said that we could bar Amazon.

I'm not sure how we would do that.

I think we could tax deliveries, and I wished that the that had stayed, you know, the transportation bill was looking in doing some of that originally, and I wish that had stayed in.

But um, because I do think deliveries are putting strain on roads and everything else, you know.

Um, but and as well as in local businesses, but um yeah.

Um I'm not hearing a second for your uh for your I'm okay with that.

I will say um I'm not totally sold on that yet, but I do I was committed to bringing it up to council.

Well, and Ms.

Brusseau should feel free to write up a description of what it is she wants to do and why she thinks it's in Milwaukee's interest, and she can send it to all of us, and maybe you'll get a second.

But I didn't hear a second here tonight.

Yeah, if there was an exclusive to where it's like Kushcore will only deliver from Milwaukee from within Milwaukee City Limit uh dispensaries, then yeah, I would do that.

You know, if they were only going to deliver to Milwaukee residents from Milwaukee dispensaries, but if you can't do something that's exclusive like that, I just wouldn't want to bring in additional competition for those businesses who are they're already strong.

No, I'm good with that.

Okay.

Um I had in mind to uh give a few more notes out of last week.

I put uh I sent you guys all an email and put in the record the um some follow-up from the NCPRD DAC meeting last week.

I had some other notes that I thought I had with me, and I apparently don't.

Um the uh the big thing is the system plan is going to go forward to the county commissioners.

I don't know, next month probably.

Um there I sent you some comments that I sent about how they mischaracterize uh who's supporting Milwaukee Bay Park.

They have um they have relied on self-identification of Milwaukee residents versus unincorporated, and it's pretty clear that that's includes the fair number of people in unincorporated.

So I think that whole distinction they've been drawing trying to draw about only Milwaukee residents care about Milwaukee Bay Park, is not supported by the uh the numbers in their own surveys.

Um there's also a concern expressed by another DAC member about the failure to prioritize um uh uh accessibility assessment of all the parks.

They are, I mean, I think the um Concorde is gonna be a uh you know probably their most uh accessible park uh and you know facility.

Um they have it is something that they're you know trying to address in the newer stuff in Concord at Jennings Lodge, et cetera.

But the system plan called for a assessment across parks uh to be done, and they put that in the middle uh midterm list.

And uh so one of the DAC members um voted against uh the plan for that reason.

Um I feel like there was something else I wanted you guys to know, but I didn't bring my notes.

Um the uh yeah, yeah, my apologies.

Um anything else?

Yeah, yeah.

It's one of the I mean, I usually have this notebook, and it's one of the times I forgot the notebook, and so then the notes are on a separate piece of paper, and that's my problem.

Um anyway, anything else?

Well, I was gonna say is for those who have not registered, your deadline register for LOC is the 19th, three days from now.

So register.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Good, good.

I'm glad to hear glad here, folks are planning to go.

Um, I mean, it's it's especially for somebody like you with kids.

It's it's nice that it's here and you don't have to, you know, you can be home at night and all of that stuff, right?

Um Scott did have one thing he wanted to real question for council and for the general public.

Uh we launched a new website a couple months ago, and part of that new website comes with a new way to deliver uh meeting records, and there's this new documents on demand kind of sub-website.

And for anyone out there who is used to getting notification emails with new packet information, new meeting information was posted.

I just wanted to highlight the way to do that.

Um we kind of rely on on this distribution email list uh as a way of doing our public noticing requirements.

So I really wanted to make sure the public and council uh knows how to do this.

It's really easy.

It is a little different from the old site, and that you actually have to register at the new site.

So you go Milwaukee.gov, go to government agendas and minutes, and it takes you to the documents on demand site.

Uh, and then if you want to get email notifications, you click on email notifications.

And this is the stage where it asks you to register.

It's pretty easy.

Registration asks for an email, kind of password.

They do this little caption thing, make sure you're not a robot, and then you can get the whole list here.

And this is these are the email alerts that I signed up for to get.

But um, when we got the we we don't get to manage the list directly.

Uh, but we did get a list from the email, the website folks the other day, and uh not a lot of people are on the list, which is not a great thing.

Uh so I encourage council and anybody in the public to go to the city's website, make the way on the documents on demand and sign up.

And you can get as many of these as you want or don't want, but uh just want to.

And so you're saying the former mail lists you had, you're not gonna use anymore.

They're gone with the old website.

And oh my.

And in this new website, I can't staff, for example, for council.

Staff can't sign your emails up because we have to create a blog in.

So even members of council, if you want to get these alerts, uh, you have to go in and sign yourself up.

Again, it takes like 30 seconds.

as you want or don't want but uh just want to hear you're saying the former mail lists you had you're not gonna use anymore they're gone with the old website and oh my and in this new website I can't staff for example for council staff can't sign your emails up because we have to create a blog in so even members of council if you want to get these alerts uh you have to go and sign yourself up again it takes like 30 seconds it's not a terribly onerous system but you do have to register uh and I can't do it for you and we'll be doing uh we'll be we'll do a big communications push about this both in the pilot and in social media so that folks know good sign up okay thank you um and uh you you started on the website that had the picture of the football field at the high school which made me remember uh are we going to have is the new principal going to do students are we going to have students this year we met with um it's his name is Mr.

Mayor which I love it's M-A-I-R but pronounced mayor uh Louie Mayor this week seems like a wonderful addition to our community and Louis B.

Mayor yeah he was metro golden um Louie comes from Atlanta um uh but did have a previous principal stint in the Portland metro area um in the pandemic years um loves loves this area and loves Milwaukee I think the exact quote was Milwaukee is a vibe it is a vibe so um this was a meeting with both um principal mayor and former principal kellog to kind of do that transition they are excited to bring back student of the month in October and so we'll um we'll be working with with the principal mayor on that um and collaborating in lots of other ways including the homecoming parade um which I'm blanking on the date October I don't think they actually said told us the date I think it's October 9th I think it's October 9th I think it's the Thursday yes Thursday October 9th um you know Million Mustangus had a had a friendly dance off during Milwaukee Fest.

They have put their differences aside and both will be marching in the homecoming parade.

So we highly recommend coming on for that okay all right if nothing else I will entertain a motion move to move to adjourn in second it's been moved a second to adjourn all those in favor say aye aye opposed say no unheard we are adjourned