November 10, 2025 — Transportation Advisory Board Regular Meeting

Transcript

Captions from City of Boulder YouTube recording.

[0:01] And we're good. Great, thanks. Good evening, everyone. I'm calling the November 13th excuse me, the November 10th meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board to order. Our chair, Trini Willowton, is not available to preside tonight, so as Vice Chair, I will run the meeting. My name is Darcy Kitching. Sydney Schieffer will be our technical host this evening. Sydney, would you please review the rules of the virtual meeting for us? Yes. Okay, thank you for attending the Transportation Advisory Board meeting. To strike a balance between meaningful, transparent engagement and online security, the following rules will be applied for this meeting. This meeting has been called to conduct the business of the City of Boulder. Activities that disrupt, delay, or otherwise interfere with the meeting are prohibited. The time for speaking or asking questions will be limited to 3 minutes. No person shall speak except when recognized by the person presiding, and no person shall speak for longer than the time allotted.

[1:03] Each person shall register to speak at the meeting using that person's real name. Any person believed to be using a name other than the one they are commonly known by will not be permitted to speak at the meeting. No video will be permitted except for city officials, employees, invited speakers or presenters. All others will participate by voice only. The person presiding at the meeting shall enforce these rules by muting anyone who violates any rule. The Q&A function is enabled, and it will be used for individuals to communicate with the host. It should only be used for technical online platform-related questions. Only the host and individuals designated by the host will be permitted to share their screen during this meeting. Thanks so much, Sydney. So before we dive into our agenda this evening, we always want to take a few moments to recognize that despite our staff's best efforts, crashes and injuries still occur on our Boulder streets.

[2:03] might happen because of any number of factors, not all of which we can control, but we continue to try to create the best conditions possible. So, with that in mind, we wanted to honor two travelers who were using our transportation system on Sunday, November 2nd. and were injured. We don't have any further updates about these two people at this time, but there was a crash at, South Boulder Road and Manhattan Circle. Involving a… Driver and a person on an e-bike. And there was a crash. And see, that first one was… I'm not seeing the time of day, but the second one was at 7.40 PM, and it was a crash at 19th and Yarmouth Streets, and this was,

[3:01] a… this was between a parked vehicle and a vehicle that was accidentally accelerated. So we just wanted to acknowledge those two crashes and honor the people involved and send our best wishes. Blythe, is there any further information you'd like to add? I did want to add, unfortunately, Darcy, 3 others that, in preparation for tonight's meeting, Devin shared with me. Our, principal traffic engineer, In addition to the two. That you just described. There was also a crash. at Broadway and Balsam. Involving a southbound left-turning vehicle. that hit a pedestrian crossing on the east leg in the crosswalk, and a report in the Daily Camera on that crash, that was October the 28th. Also, Arapaho Avenue and Cherryvale Road.

[4:01] also on October 28th. Both of those crashes around 8am. And the one at Arapaho and Cherryvale was also a southbound left-turning vehicle hitting a woman walking her dog, crossing in the east leg, and… The third one I wanted to add as well, again, unfortunately, is… 19th Street and Elder Avenue on Friday, October 31st. An 11-year-old boy crossing 19th Street at Elder Avenue struck by a northbound vehicle. Not good news, to report, but important to acknowledge that these crashes are still happening, and just wanted to make sure Everyone was aware of those recent crashes. Thank you. Darcy. Thank you for the additional information, Vlad. Okay, and we send our best wishes to everyone involved in those crashes, of course. So the next item is approval of our October meeting minutes.

[5:05] We have, 3 members attending this evening, Has everyone had a chance to review those minutes? Any corrections or changes to make? Michael, Michael. Nope. Okay. Hearing none, is there a motion to approve the minutes? I move to approve the minutes. My second… Great, excellent, thank you. All in favor, raise your hand and say aye. I… I agree. Aye. Anyone opposed? No? So the motion passes 3-0. Thank you so much. Okay, our next item on our agenda this evening is public comment. We welcome, your comments on anything pertaining to transportation and mobility in the City of Boulder right now. Please use the raise hand function on your screen to be recognized and state your full name. You'll have 3 minutes to speak. Sydney, do we have anyone wishing to speak this evening?

[6:08] Sydney, you're muted. Thanks. We do have one raised hand. I will remind people, if you're joining by phone, you can press star 9, to raise your hand, and then it's star 6 to unmute once I give you permission to do that. But we do have one person, let me… Give you permission to talk. Lynn, you should be able to unmute yourself. Please state your name. Same one, Lynn Siegel that always talks, nobody else ever comes, nobody else ever seems to care, you know, and I ride my bike, I drive my car four times a year. 4, count them. You know, and I go down 6th, I'm at 6th and Dewey, I go down 6th, I go down Spruce. I have to drive so slow because of linear potholes, you know, like abrasions in the streets. You know, I…

[7:00] Ride my bike. to get places. I am not a recreationist. I want to get there fast. I cannot, you know? And tonight, I hear… Balsam on the 28th. The woman was killed at that same intersection. What is going on there? You know? Like, you need to make some changes. And, you know, the other thing is, there's something you're not changing, and that you really need to. You aren't a functional board. It's planning board that is the functional board. And it's you that does the medicine for planning board. Because this… Excessive growth into North Boulder makes it a raceway on Broadway. And people have lives, and they just try to get places fast.

[8:02] And the more we grow. the worse your job's gonna get, and you're not gonna be wanting to be here. You know, it's not a fun job. You know, I was up at a candidate forum. And, of course, Darcy, I had my… I didn't even have Gaza on my sign. God, I said the G word, excuse me. Okay? My son said, Jen Robbins and Sam Weaver want to sell your freedom to Xcel Energy. And the other sign said, no more progressives, quote-unquote. And I took them up to the Nomad Playhouse ahead of the you know, gathering for the candidates forum, and I had to get to the JCC for a de-escalation talk, and someone stole my signs. We have to have better communication in this town. I have a right to have my signs. The police said I had to put them down. I put them down, okay?

[9:02] Someone stole them. They were in Laura… Spalding's car. Lisa Spaulding's sister? Locked in the car. I had to look through these black windows, which you should get rid of black windows, because I can't see people, and say, hey, I'm here, don't run over me. You know? And the noise around Boulder is revolting. I want some peace in my life. I'm 72. I don't want to hear this. You know, like, obnoxious sounds from vehicles, you know, like. What can you do about that? Thanks, Lynn. Excellent. And I don't see any other raised hands. Okay, yeah, thank you very much. Shall we proceed?

[10:01] There's no one else to speak. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Sydney. So now we have the opportunity to weigh in on, the transportation and mobility aspects of the proposed project at 350 Ponca Place. This project was referred to BECTAB by City Council during, concept review for specific feet, or site review for, well, con… review for specific feedback, detailed in the memo that we received. Planning and Development Services staff will further define that role, and we're reminded that land use is not within TAB's purview. Blythe, would you like to introduce our guests? Sure, thanks, Darcy. Chandler VanScock is, I believe, with us and going to present on the development proposal at hand, so without further ado, Chandler, take it away. Alright, thanks, Blythe. Yeah, I will… Share my screen…

[11:05] I'm just gonna give a brief PowerPoint presentation, and then… Turn it over to the applicant for… Kind of the more detailed analysis of the project. Are you guys seeing the presenter view, or… no, you're seeing my notes, aren't you? Yeah. Let me… Alright, how's that? We're good. I can't see anyone, so please… Oh, sorry, yeah, that looks good, Chandler, thanks very much. Good. Okay, so yeah, I'll be, briefly presenting, just an overview of the 350 Ponca Place project. This project is currently in site review. The project site, which is comprised of the existing Fraser Meadows PUD at 350 Ponca Place, as well as the adjacent property at 355 Ponca Place, which contains the Mountain View United Methodist Church.

[12:04] It's a total of 18.86 acres in size, and is located in East Boulder, just south of Baseline Avenue, and west of Foothills Parkway. It's within the RH5, or Residential High 5 zoning district. Overall, the Fraser Meadows facility currently provides homes for about 500 seniors and 395 living units. Of those 395 units, 261 are 1-bedroom units, and 134 are 2-bedroom units. The net parking count is roughly 140… er, sorry, 423 stalls. There are currently 132 service parking spaces on the, MVUMC, which is the… Church I just mentioned. For a total of 555 parking spaces between the two properties. As shown here, there are currently 7 existing vehicular access points under the Fraser campus. There's 2 on Ponca Place to the west, 1 on Thunderbird Drive to the north, 3 on Thunderbird Drive to the east, and 1 on Sioux Drive to the south.

[13:05] The MVUMC property is currently served by 3 access points, 2 on Pawnee Drive and 1 on Sioux Drive, all of which lead directly to a large surface parking lot on the west side of the site. On-street parking is available on Pawnee, Ponca, and Sioux. and the northern segment of Thunderbird Drive. In terms of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, both the Fraser and MBUMC properties are served by attached sidewalks on all sides. There's a multi-use path on the east side of the Fraser property connecting to the Foothills Expressway, multi-use path to the north. Via crosswalks into the East Boulder Community Park path via a bridge over the expressway. Sioux Drive is also listed as a designated bike route, but does not include designated bike lanes. So in terms of the proposed project, the proposed design, this is the existing site. That's the church building on the left there. Ponca Place runs between the church property and the Fraser Meadows property.

[14:02] This is the proposed design. It's a 4-story building that will hold 96 independent living apartments and a variety of amenity spaces. There will be a second-story bridge connecting the two portions of the building over, the redesigned Ponca Place, to allow for vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation along vacated Ponca Place. A public access easement will be provided under the bridge along the redesigned street. Ponca Place, which I showed you before here, is proposed to be vacated, meaning the city would get rid of the right-of-way and return it to the property owner. They are proposing to redesign it, make it a private drive with enhanced paving, raised roadways, curb bump-outs, and rain gardens while still providing some on-street parking. They're also proposing 1.5 levels of underground parking Under the building, which would include 229 stalls that would be shared between Fraser Meadows and the church. There's also a small addition to the church, but that's,

[15:05] Not really pertinent to tonight's discussion. So just in terms of the review process, this project went in for concept review. It was submitted in February of 2025. At that time, it went to City Council. City Council referred it to TAB. They're now in site review, which was submitted in July of this summer. So we are requesting tab recommendation and feedback. on a few different items, on the proposed vacation and redesign of Ponca Place, including the public access component, permeability, and traffic flow. On the transportation demand management strategies that the applicant is proposing to reduce parking demand. As well as the project's overall alignment with site review, access, transportation, and mobility criteria, the Transportation Master Plan, and the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policies related to transportation. There will be public hearings on this item, those have not been scheduled yet.

[16:01] It will be a planning board decision on the site review, as well as a recommendation to Council on the vacation of the Ponca Place right-of-way. City Council will then have call-up authority on the site review, and will need to be the final decision on the proposed vacation as it is an ordinance. The feedback provided by TAB will be provided to the Planning Board and City Council as part of their decision-making process on this application. So I've just listed the key issues here, which are also included in the memo. There's three key issues we're hoping for TAB feedback on tonight. Key issue number one is, does TAB have feedback on the proposed vacation of the Ponca Place right-of-way and the proposed design of the private drive? I'm asking you to consider a criterion in your discussion and offer feedback, on whether you feel that the proposed private drive as shown would provide a greater public benefit than retaining the property in its present status. That is one of the criteria in the land use code. And if not, what changes should be made to achieve consistency with this requirement?

[17:05] For issue number 2, I'm asking TAB, to consider, does the proposed Transportation Demand Management Plan include methods that result in a significant shift away from single-occupant vehicle use to alternate modes? And are there additional measures that should be pursued to achieve these goals? These are the TDM strategies, just some of them, that I've listed, also included in the memo. The applicant is currently proposing, shared parking, designated rideshare and shuttle zones. Bicycle parking, with a fairly large reduction requested, and I'll let the applicant get into why they are requesting the bike parking reduction. On-site amenities, meaning, like, cafes, lounges, etc, things for the residents, to use that, reduces their need to travel. Employee EcoPass program, shuttle services for residents, car share education and promotion. Orientation materials and transportation information centers.

[18:01] Vanpooling, flexible commute benefit, or mobility wallet is in consideration by the applicant, but they have not committed to it at this time. Miles of Smiles program. I'm not actually sure what that is, I would have to… I have to look back at that, sorry. Uber and Lyft use, and monitoring evaluation of their, TDM plan. So for key issue number 3, Specific areas in which staff would appreciate targeted feedback, oh, sorry, I'll read the actual key issue. Is the proposed project generally consistent with the site review criteria pertaining to access, transportation, and mobility? As well as the transportation goals, the Boulder Valley Comp Plan, and the Transportation Master Plan. And then specific areas on which staff would appreciate targeted feedback include Accessibility, convenience and safety for residents of the project, as well as permeability, safety, and convenience for visitors to the development and residents of the surrounding area. I have some site review criteria listed here. I don't need to read all of these right now, I'm happy to bring them back up during the discussion if you guys would like.

[19:04] I also have some BBCP policies and some Transportation Master Plan initiatives, that can help guide the discussion as well. And that is it for my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions or hand it over to the applicant. Thanks, Chandler. I… I don't know… I don't think we have… well, go ahead, Mike. I mean, well, initial questions, because then when there's another presentation, then we can really get into the discussion. So go ahead, Mike. Just a technical question about the… Requested reduction in bicycle parking. What is the requirement, that they're requesting to be reduced? So the code just requires a number of bicycle parking spaces per dwelling unit. I'm gonna have to look up what the exact number is, but… So, yeah.

[20:00] Yeah, they're requesting a 75% reduction, and I'll let them explain more why, but I think that generally the reasoning they're offering is that residents… I mean, this is a… assisted living and, independent living for elderly residents, so I think they're, argument is that folks just don't use bikes as much as, other demographics, but I will look up the… Exact requirement here. Mike, it's on page 64 of the… Memo. It's on page 64 of the memo. Okay, I'm already in the code. Yeah. There's demand listed. Okay. They currently have 120 bicycle parking spaces. And… Yeah. Demand for 136… Yeah, so off-street bicycle parking requirements for residential uses, so…

[21:03] Dwelling units without a private garage. Our… the requirement is 2 per unit. But group living, all others, yeah, no, this is not group living, so… I think it's important to note that 26% of the residents own a bicycle, and that their average age is 84 years old. So this is… that's part of the discussion. Yeah. Michael, do you have more to… do you have another question before we see the other presentation? It's another question. I'm relatively new to TAB, so I'm… this is the first time I've encountered something being referred to us from another board. I'm wondering if this is simply because there are transportation aspects to this, or because there was some sort of disagreement that the… that the other board wasn't able to resolve, and so they needed us to kind of bring particular expertise to resolving some kind of disagreement.

[22:01] It was City Council that referred it, and City Council, it's pretty common. with a project this large, if… especially if there's some sort of change to a street proposed. In this case, they are proposing to vacate the right-of-way and redesign it as a private drive, so it's a fairly major, transportation element. But yeah, I mean, oftentimes, Council will just refer large projects to both Transportation Advisory Board and Design Advisory Board, just for… for feedback, so… Yeah, perfect. their set of eyes, right? And some more perspective on the potential impacts or the potential benefits of a project, so that's what we're seeing here. Okay. Okay, great. Let's go ahead with the next presentation. Chancellor, did you want to introduce them, or… Oh, Danica, step right in. Hi. I'm Danica Powell with Trestle Strategy Group, and I'm representing this project. I'm joined by a bunch of other people from our team, and so they're… some of them are our panelists, some are attendees.

[23:10] I'm not a traffic consultant, but I work on a lot of these big projects and work with my clients to help build the TDM that's, appropriate for their project, and so I'm gonna make… I think I have 10 minutes, is that correct, or 15? 10? I'll go with 10. And you can cut me off if you want. So, I'll be presenting the… all the high-level details, addressing the specific things that Council wanted feedback on, and I will say that at that hearing, Council… referred it to DAB and TAB, because they really appreciate your work as a board and want your eyes on it, as Darcy said, and want experts to kind of look at this. So it wasn't… there wasn't, a debate. It was more like, let's, you know, this is a very big project, it's important to the community, and so let's send them to these boards, additional boards. Not all projects go to them, but this warranted additional discovery and discussion. So I will share my screen.

[24:20] Oops, I wasn't at the top of my deck, though, sorry. I was just adding some stuff based on the staff report to make sure I covered things, so… I think Fraser… or, I'm sorry, Chandler did a good job of describing the project. This is an important project for Fraser to add 96 new independent living units. They have a waiting list of over 700 households. Most of those live within the City of Boulder, so this is a high-demand senior housing in our community. The opportunity to work with their neighbor, Mountain View United Methodist Church, was an incredible opportunity to partner together. They've… they were both actually founded by the Fraser family. Fraser donated, the Fraser family donated Fraser Meadows, the retirement community, Mountain View.

[25:05] United Methodist Church. the school, and Admiral Park. So, this was, a big community project a long time ago, and to bring back two of those original partners to work together to help the church stay in their location and have continuity into the future, and an endowment to be able to stay in our community, as well as to build more senior living. And I'm happy to come back to any and all of this. So, hopefully you're familiar with the site. Fraser has been building here for many years. This is, the extension onto, zoned land that's also zoned RH5 onto the… adjacent property. Here's just a highlight of all the surface parking that will be removed with this project. There is parking that will be built, underground to share with Mountain View, so they have a very large surface parking lot, and we're going to do a shared parking agreement with them, as well as remove surface parking at Frazier.

[26:02] We have reduced the amount of parking, I'll note, since the concept plan and since City Council saw it, so we had significantly more parking there. Fox Tuttle is here if you want to get into the… drill into the data, but we took it from a two-story underground garage to one and a half. And significantly reduced the amount of parking based on feedback we heard from both Planning Board and City Council. So this is just a top-down look at the site plan. Again, we can come back to this. I will point out that the redesign of Ponca Place is what I'm going to spend a lot of time talking about tonight, but a big feature for Frasier is that they can provide a sky bridge over Ponca, the private drive that will have public access. Which will allow the seniors to have mobility between the services and the health center, which are located in the main Fraser campus, and this addition will just be independent living units. So this actually allows us To build units without having to build all the services and food service and healthcare service and recreation services that are on the main campus, but being able to be safe and have mobility options.

[27:09] So that is one of the reasons for Ponca Place. I won't say it's the primary reason, but it is an added benefit that, seniors can travel up to the second floor, cross over, and go, you know, via elevator, and get, over to the main campus. You can see the smaller footprint of Mountain View United Methodist Church and the smaller parking lot. This is regional circulation. I know you're all very well versed in the circulation in this area. It's quite good. I will note the one thing that has been missing since 2019 is the RTD stop that was here, and I… Frasier… residents are fighting hard to get that back, and they care about it deeply, but at the moment, we don't have a local RTD stop. We have really great regional trail system. This is the site circulation on site. There's a lot of it, very different types. I will note

[28:03] for purposes of this graphic is that we're maintaining the multi-use access through Ponca Place. So bicycles, pedestrians will be able to continue to move through Ponca, even though it will be vacated and turned into a private drive. There will be a public access easement for those folks, and emergency access. There will be access… limited vehicle access for Fraser to provide drop-off, which is in this location here. I'll show that in more detail, and there's service entrance back here. But it will significantly reduce the amount of vehicle traffic that currently just either is going to these two locations, or just kind of… Blowing through this pretty large, this neighborhood road. So this is what City Council asked for feedback on. Chandler, described that, I think, well. I wanted to share this photo because I think it shows… this is when Mountain View was built.

[29:03] You can see the people on the right are standing… I think it was built in, let's say, 56, and about 2 or 3 years later, they needed more space. This is when churches were expanded rap… expanding rapidly. And so you can see the people holding hands, standing in it. That's where they built the new edition, which was still built in the 50s. That's the piece of the building we're going to keep. I thought this picture is interesting because it shows that we were designing for cars and not people at this point in time. So, we'll start with Ponca Place. What we noticed right away, and what we heard from Fraser residents in Mountain View, is this is a really terrible intersection. I've been been here hundreds of times now. There's parking on all sides, it's extended wide, it's 125 feet. At its widest width, the sidewalk, you can kind of see over here, is… is not really connecting anybody to the park or to the things that happen in this neighborhood, and there's just parking around, and there's a lot of no parking signs, so I think the city's done a good job of

[30:06] trying to limit conflict between people and cars, but it's still really, I think dangerous, especially when we're talking about seniors. high-speed traffic. If somebody is going through here to cut through, they're gonna go fast. There's a lot of curb cuts. You don't see the attached sidewalks. one big thing that came up, and what's an advance… I've never actually vacated a public right-of-way before, but what would be really wonderful about this is that Fraser can maintain the road and remove the snow. And that's really important, so as people travel, a lot of people that, go to Mountain View live in Fraser and vice versa. Also, they'll be living in the new addition. So, Frasier will be able to provide the snow removal on Ponca, which is very important, and we would get rid of all of this parallel parking that is… I think you guys discussed a crash where somebody came out between two parked cars, and so…

[31:00] This is the rendering of the redesigned Ponca, as you come into Fraser, and I will show some more renderings later on, but you can see that what is now happening is that we're putting the bikes and the peds first on the street. There is limited parallel parking, but that's been taken over mostly by rain gardens, landscaping, detached sidewalks, a larger Multi-use connection. So, Frasier, or Chandler, sorry, I keep calling you, Chandler and Fraser, I keep getting confused in my brain, but the thing that I think we're looking for feedback is, is this… proposed vacation providing a greater public benefit than retaining the property in its current status. So that's an important question. We've been working on this for probably well over 2 or 3 years with the city. One other thing that's very important to them is there's a water line, a public utility in the street. We have already submitted tech docs where we have committed to removing that water line, paying for it.

[32:03] Relocating it, abandoning the old water main. ahead of any of this happening. We're actually almost done with Tech Talks, and construction will start this winter. So, that was important to the utility department, that if you vacate a road, you don't have a public utility in it. Not part of the discussion tonight, but a key reason, that we hope that City Council will support this. I've mentioned what this will do to help, provide public benefit. safer intersection, or intersection. It has green infrastructure. We are… we can do more things in a private road than we can do in a public road. We can do rain gardens, we can do enhanced paving, we can, actually do a lot of really great things that are sustainability-minded and slow speeds of cars, including enhanced crossings. And, other things to just slow people down. Chandler showed this diagram, I'm happy to come back to it, but this shows the revised Ponca, which has a… now a 25-foot width at the intersection with Pawnee. It has, you know, this enhanced paving, you're slowing down, slowing down, and then this is really the drop-off. So if you're getting dropped off by a family member, a friend, or the shuttle service, or, Uber or Lyft, you're gonna get dropped off here, and then

[33:23] and likely… come back out and leave. I think the most of the traffic that would come through Ponca would be a service delivery that's coming into this location. And this service will serve this building as well, we're not creating a whole nother service. delivery, for larger trucks in the new building. So we're really trying to consolidate the service in the existing place, reduce the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and bikes on Ponca Place. And I will note that when we went to concept, we had proposed the entrance to the parking garage here. off of Sioux, right next to Ponca, so two curb cuts next to each other. We quickly realized we'd made a big mistake, based on feedback from the neighbors and planning board and city council and staff.

[34:13] And so, our bad, we… and we realized, and we talked to the church, and we actually moved it to one entrance. We were happy that they were okay with that, because now all traffic will come in through this location into the parking garage, which they have shared spaces in the garage. They have dedicated spaces, as well as, more shared spaces during their… peak demand, holidays, Sundays, etc. They have a little drop-off here. I know we're not really focused on the church, but this really consolidates the use… both uses into one place. Here's the cross-section of Ponca, so you can see the rain gardens and the narrowing of the traffic lanes. Here's, more pedestrian circulation. On the right, you can see some of the aerial views of what Ponca

[35:01] existing versus proposed would look like. Happy to dive into these in more detail. And now I'm going to go into the TDM. So, Frasier's been thinking about this for a long time. As we all know, parking's very, very expensive. We don't want to build more parking than we need, and we have to realize the… the… community that's being served. So they do a lot of TDM already. They've… they've been building since, you know, the 50s, and so there's a great, I took this picture on the left in the elevator when I was going to a meeting. Because they have so many things that are just TDM happening on a daily basis, so they have A lot of shuttle service, they go to all different places, Costco, Trader Joe's, the hospital, here they're going to Rock Creek in Avista. They have a Tri-Shaw, you can, you know, go for a little ride, or go run an errand, and that was what Chandler was mentioning that I'll give you a little more information on. So, every day of the week, there's lots of things happening, cool, fun things for the seniors, as well as transportation options.

[36:01] They also have grocery delivery, wellness, dining, library. There's a lot of things that happen here that people don't need to travel off-site to get, They have, a shuttle, they have 3 full-time drivers, 2 shuttle buses, 1 electric car for on-demand and scheduled shopping and trips. They would do have a car share program, I can talk more about that. It hasn't been wildly, successful, probably because seniors have a hard time adapting to newer things, but Frasier's committing to… they pay for that, and they are committing to really try and promote that. We're looking at the vanpool. That was something that we talked to Chris Haglin about, and Darcy, and Boulder Transportation Connections. What can we add to their TDM menu for employees? Because probably 97% of folks that work at Fraser don't live In Boulder, so… but they also work shift hours, and so with no bus, we're kind of… the EcoPass isn't the best option. And just really trying to promote this TDM, strategy. As we move forward, here's the Tri-Shaw bike. Miles of Smiles is a program, and, it's…

[37:09] Great. I met with B-Cycle and asked if they'd be interested in a location here. We're still… they're looking at going into Safeway, but that would be the farthest southeast that their current program is at, but certainly would be open to Offering space for them, if that was something that… because we have a lot of, actually, people in the neighborhood who probably would use it, including, having two schools nearby. So here's the drop-off zone. You can see that it's focused on the pedestrian bicycle, but we do need to get seniors close to their front door. We need to get ambulances close to the building, and, you know, we can't get rid of the road entirely. Here's some more commitments, monitoring and evaluation, car reduction. Frasier already pays people to… or they charge for a second car. They're really trying to get seniors out of their cars. I will say, from all the time I've spent learning about this.

[38:02] moving out of your house into an apartment is really hard. Giving up your car is kind of that last… sense of losing your autonomy, and so Frazier works really hard to transition people away from that, but it doesn't happen on day one. It may happen in a few months, and so they provide incentives to, give up your car and to donate your car. But it is hard. I've had grandparents, and taking the keys away is probably one of the harder things I've had to do. So, I can get more into bicycle parking. We are asking for a 75% reduction. I have a lot of data on that. The average age of a Fraser resident is over 84. We have a lot of data on how many people have bikes. Actually, there's residents that monitor this. We have big spreadsheets to show exactly who owns a Schwinn, and an e-bike, and a tri-bike, and what condition it's in, and where it's parked.

[39:02] We have tons and tons of data. I will note, this is the same requirement for a multi… a student housing project across the street. from the campus the two spaces per unit as for a senior housing project. So our code doesn't differentiate between location or user type, and I think that's really important. If we want to dive into it, I'm happy to, but this is, nobody that… there are students that work at, Fraser, and they will take a Lime scooter, or a B-cycle, or ride their bike, but the majority of people that live and work at Fraser are not Using bicycles for mobility reasons, and for proximity reasons. So… this is a brand new code. I… I think you'll probably see more reductions. I'm working on a couple student housing projects where we're not asking for reductions. It makes absolutely perfect sense to… two per unit, maybe more. But this is, you know, these are units that might be studios, or one-bedrooms, or two-bedrooms, and with an average age over 84, it's hard to put that much

[40:09] Bike parking in, it's very, very expensive and takes a lot of space, and it reduces the amount of units that we can build for seniors. So here's more data on that. Again, this is, what the kind of… what kind of bikes are being used, by the existing residents. And so we… they're providing 120, and so the demand is for up to 109. And so we're providing, 75… or a reduction of 75% of what the code says should be required. I think I've gone over this. We've done lots and lots of surveying, we've done heat maps, we've… talk to people. This is just… this is a hard site for bikes, but we want to plan for the future, and we also put in our TDM, I believe, that we would be willing, kind of like we used to do with car parking, that if we need more spaces, we can convert

[41:10] auto spaces to bike spaces in the future, and that's what Fraser has done in the past, because when they started, there was no bike parking period, you know, it wasn't a thing. It was a bike rack outside. And so over time, they've made spaces in their garages to have secure bike parking, and we would, you know, work to do that if the demand increased beyond what we would build with the new building. Here's more data, and… I can go through the site review criteria in BBC, but I feel like I'm out of time. I think that there's a lot of things that are happening to meet, the TDM, or to meet, our Transportation Master Plan, the site review criteria. Vision Zero, reducing, you know, conflict with people, and also increasing, opportunities to move around both the community and Frasier. So, this is a lot of policy language, and I have a lot of backup slides, so I feel like I'm out of time. Darcy, is… should I stop here?

[42:16] Thank you, Danica, that was great. I think, why don't we do this? Why don't we transition to discussion, and as we have questions, relevant people from your team can, can jump in to answer those questions, whoever you deem appropriate. Does that sound good? Okay, awesome. Let's do that. So, so I'll just open it up to Mike and Michael for, initial questions or comments. So, keeping in mind the specific things that are asked of us. about, you know, our feedback on the redesign and the vacation of Ponca Place, and, how it might function, and is this redesign, an improvement for, for public, for the public good, essentially. There's other wording that we were given, but basically that.

[43:03] So let's… let's discuss whether we believe that that's… they're on track for… for those goals. I just wanted to look at that slide 23 again. Yeah, could you go back to that, Jennifer? I didn't get to see all the words about the bicycle parking. It says Planning Board is unlikely to support the reduction… This is a staff comment, and so this is why we're here to talk to you, is to get some input to take to planning board. So this was staff's, response to our bike… in our site review comments. I think what you said, Danica, was so important about how that makes a lot of sense for student projects, and for this particular project, that opposition might not make a lot of sense, given the, the ownership… level of ownership of bicycles among the residents, and also the average age. What is interesting to me is the prevalence of recumbent bikes, and, you know, larger bikes that need… that do need parking spaces. So that's interesting to me. What… what… where were you going with that question, Mike?

[44:19] Oh, I just wanted to read those words again. And I… I was just interested in, that notion that Planning board might be unlikely to… Support this. Reduction, so, yeah, I guess that's something we need to consider. Well, we're all guinea pigs here, and so that's why I think your board is really important. I think this… this is a staff comment in full transparency, this, you know, we go through this very rigorous process, and so… you know, we're in the middle of site review. We did update our plans from these comments, and I know that Chris Sobey's here if we want to talk about that, but certainly designing for those alternative bikes is very important, and…

[45:07] we've talked… we actually met with the fire chief to talk about e-bike and battery storage, because, personally, I've had an e-bike battery catch on fire, and so, you know, we want to really… Frasier's going to be here for another 100, hopefully 200 years, so we're not, you know, there's nothing… we want to do the right thing, but, This is… this is a brand new code, with this bike parking. It went hand-in-hand with removing the requirement for auto parking, so we're… we're guinea pigs here. Yeah. Well, and this, I mean, this is a… this is a really interesting test case for this new, Code and ordinance, because you know, in talking with people at Friser myself about their TDM, you know, opportunities and resources, you know, you kind of get this, like, nobody's gonna ride a bike here, you know, kind of feedback about workers in particular. But,

[46:07] You do mention in your, TDM plan the potential for adding a B-cycle station proximate to the site. And, that is an opportunity for people who both work at, Fraser, and residents who might want to use an e-bike every now and then, to do so without having to have their own, bicycle parking space. Or whatever. So, so I… I appreciate that you added that into your TDM plan, and that that is an opportunity here. Perhaps Frasier's willing to sponsor the addition of that, of a B-cycle station there. Which I think could really be beneficial. I think it would be great. I think, at the moment, they don't have the operational capacity to

[47:01] you know, this kind of would be the… the bottom of the loop, you know, they'd have to probably move a lot of cars back into the system, but I actually… there's this… I'm doing this on a project at Colorado and 28th, and dedicating a station is… it takes very little space, and you just need to pre-wire it. I can't speak for Frasier, but I can think of… a spot where that might work, and it might be a good suggestion, because it certainly would… B-Cycle just needs a land, and then they need to figure out how to move the bikes around, but… That's right. think that we did… if they go to Safeway, which is in their plans, then this would be a progression towards, kind of the East Boulder Rec Center. Yeah, yeah, great idea. Michael, go ahead. Well, for me, questions 1 and 3 that were put to us are the easy ones. Yeah.

[48:00] Thank you. I agree with the vacation, yeah. Yeah, that's… that's a… strikes me as something of a no-brainer. Accessibility also looks good. it doesn't look like you're trying to… confine the bicycles to a narrow, you know, bike path, but that they'll be sharing the larger road space through that area. That looks like it'll be low speed, and therefore relatively safe. You know, the curves are a little sharp, I guess, but that's probably just… something I experienced looking at it like I'm a drone. I would guess that… an actual cyclist would experience that as just a, you know, a relatively gentle curve. And so I'm not… I'm not concerned about that. I would maybe suggest, and I don't, you know, I didn't… pour every minutiae of the materials that we got, but I do… I am a little bit concerned that without some signage, folks are going to assume that this doesn't go through, because they can't see through it, right? There won't be a line of sight from one

[49:06] From, you know, entry to exit. And so maybe some signage to indicate folks that this is a public through-way, because otherwise they're going to assume it's a private facility, they're not allowed, and it doesn't go through anyway. And so… Well, I hate… It will become a private road, and… I think they're not trying to encourage people to use it as a through-way. That's… so that's a really important point, and I think I'd like to hear from Danica on this, because this is a really significant connection to Admiral Burke Park and to the Meadows Shopping Center over, you know, there's the overpass over foothills on, at Sioux, right? And so, this, you know, walking through this neighborhood is a natural pathway. I do that with my group sometimes. And so, I'm… I was glad to hear that it will remain public access. I think it's the way that you've…

[50:02] highlighted the design elements here really makes it look like it'll be a very inviting place, but… but I think you're right, Mike, that that can end up feeling, private and a little bit like maybe we don't belong here. Chris, you have your hand up. Go ahead, if you wanted to add to that. Yeah. Hello everyone, Chris Sobey. I did… I'm from Foxtuttle. I did the traffic analysis for this project, and… On your question, just looking at, some of the existing, volume counts that we took, we only found that in the AM peak at the, south terminus of Ponca. And so, there's only, 11 cars in the AM peak hour, and 11 cars in the p.m. peak hour. And it's very similar on the north connection at Pawnee. And what we found was there are two existing parking lots on Ponca Place, and that most of these vehicle trips are just going to and from those,

[51:04] lots, and they're not necessarily, using Ponca as a through route. So, I hear your concern, and I think that's very valid, but it's not really being utilized today. We're talking about active transportation, we're not talking about driving. Oh, I'm so sorry, I thought he was talking about coffee. Walking through the. Yeah, no, no, I, I… No, that wasn't clear. Yeah, the drivers… drivers just take money, right? You know, they don't care. The car's doing all the work. If I were a pedestrian. I would care about losing a more direct route. You know, that's a substantially further walk for me if I'm a pedestrian trying to get around that corner. And for a cyclist, too, that's, like, that's fairly far out of my way. So, yeah, I was… I was mostly concerned about maintaining this as an inviting pathway for cyclists and pedestrians.

[52:01] And I was thinking the same thing. As we come over the overpass, over foothills, and land on Sioux, and then come through the property here, it has the potential to be a really rewarding and lovely experience. And, you know, yes, if there… if there is, adequate signage to, you know, just note that this is a public there's public right-of-way, if that's necessary, you know, once it's designed and built, that may not be necessary, because it might be obvious that you can walk through there. But, Danica, what else would you add about how… so, regarding the kind of public good, question, you know, does this Does this bring a net benefit? looking at the site and this new building and the, the walkway over Ponca Place into the existing building and all the amenities there, One thing I've noted as I've walked through this neighborhood, is…

[53:02] I… I never see anybody outside of the facility, you know? I never see people who live there out… outside, and… well, I shouldn't say that. Seldom do I see residents or people kind of just enjoying the outdoor space around the facility, and I know that that happens. So, regarding the public good question, I'm hoping that this design, as a kind of plaza, as a connected space, I'm hoping that it feels inviting, so that residents And, people who are working there, and everybody can really be outside, kind of enjoying this space in a new way. I mean, I love this design, and I think you've done a great job to try to bring all these elements together. and overcome that autocentricity that the site was kind of developed with in the beginning, and to create more of a plaza feeling and a, you know, that shared street quality. So I imagine this feeling a lot like.

[54:03] In Boulder Junction, you know, where we've got a nice shared street and people, you know, can come out into the plaza and just sort of meet and greet and be out, but I hope that this feels even better and more welcoming for, the residents there. If there's anything you want to add about the design or what you're hoping to accomplish. In terms of just, you know, access for residents and workers. Yeah, and I'm not sure I showed this picture, let me see if I can share it. I don't know if it made it into my deck, getting ready for DAB. This is… I feel like I did show it zoomed in, maybe I did show this, actually. Yeah, you did… it was cropped. Okay, thank you. I did crop it, right? I feel like it didn't show all of it. So, I think that, yes, that's really important, and we heard that from the neighborhood. clearly, that they want… this… that this connection has been very important to them. There's, I mean, there used to be a little daycare here, and this was the route that they took, and we've had…

[55:12] two full community meetings, joint meetings with the church, at the church, and then other meetings with neighbors. And so… we enhance the… it's not a multimodal path, because it's not on the city system, but it's a wider sidewalk. It has, you know, it's on both sides of the street. We hope that people will probably just ride down Ponca, to be honest. Maybe not walking with little kids, but… I think on a bike that… with 11 cars, you know, I don't… I'm not the traffic engineer, I shouldn't do data. But the idea is that this is, significantly better for the public. I will say this, decreasing the width from 125 feet to 24 feet is huge. I don't think we could do that, if… I don't know if that would be possible through our normal processes. So this is, like, creating a different idea. I think there's projects that are proposing private drives with public access, because… oh, it says it's paused. Because…

[56:16] you can be more creative. You can actually do more things with the roadway, because as you're probably very familiar, the design and construction standards are very prescriptive, and… They don't allow you to do a whole lot, and so we're actually even talking about doing geothermal in the roadway, which we would never be able to do in a public right-of-way, so this actually opens up a lot of other opportunities that aren't just transportation-related. I, you know, I think it was really innovative. It was an idea that… you know, we discussed, it's a bit risky, you know, to do this, but Fraser's very committed to it. It's very important to their program. I think removing… being able to get snow off that street is a public benefit. I don't know if

[57:03] it's not in our code, but I think… the seniors living there would say it's a public benefit to be able to walk, safely. I know we have problems with that in other public roads near, like, the Academy and such. I've heard of issues, just not being able to get the snow off as quickly as one would hope. And we'll do snowmelt systems on… not in the Road, but on all the sidewalks, and… So, it creates safety. The… none of this is fenced off. I think your suggestion of how do we make this welcoming and tell neighbors that they're welcome to come through here, that's very important, and so we need to think about that. We… we haven't… Talked about a signage program, or… you know, Darcy, you'd be great at this, like, what's a neighborhood walk look like? You know, because you can see on the, plan, if I can go back to it… I'll try again. There's community gardens, you know, right here on the south. When I… when you were talking about B-Cycle, I was kind of like, this would be a really great spot for B-Cycle. You know, there's a lot of… I won't say it's going to be public property, but it's…

[58:09] not fenced off. It's… it's… and I would say, also, Frasier works with the schools, and they have a million partners in the community that do come to their site. This is creating a lot of outdoor space, and I can't underestimate the shared space between the church. All of this is now to share with the church. Outdoor… they actually have, in our detention pond, it's not shown in this plan, but they have an outdoor amphitheater in the detention pond, which… you know, I think school kids could come over and do a nature class there, so there's just a lot happening that, by vacating Ponca, it allows us some breathing space and room to really be creative with the rest of it, and not have cars just driving right through the middle of the site. I don't know if… Frasier would want… you know, this makes it a lot safer for the people That will live there. Go ahead, Mike.

[59:01] Oh. I just wanted to, make the distinction in the bike parking between the short-term and the long-term. Your slide… Said you currently have 103 long-term and 18 short-term, and I believe… The 48 you're adding would be divided, like. 20 additional short-term, so those would be more than doubled, which is great. Which leaves, I guess, what is that? Took back? 28… additional long-term… I'm just wondering, is that… Smaller fractional increase in long-term bike parking makes sense, given the The number of residencies and your slides saying that there's… Currently, demand for up to 109 spaces?

[60:02] I don't know off the top of my head. Chris, do you know what the Division of short-term versus long-term is? I think it's on your slide 25. Yeah, our report has, currently 18 short-term 102 long-term on existing… Supply, and then demand. we… Had 109, but we did not. Divy that up by short-term versus long-term. What's our proposed bike parking? That made it on the slide. I think it's 48 total. Yeah, 20 new short-term, 28 new long-term, or… 48. Yeah. Yeah, I'm just wondering, I mean, the, the, the…

[61:00] increase in short-term seems great. I'm just wondering if the… Increase in long-term would be… Sufficient for the increased number of residents? Well, I'm also wondering if Fraser has done any kind of market research on that, because as people age into the community, you know, they're coming with different backgrounds and experience and a different kind of… you know, they might be more likely to bring a bike with them. I don't know If that kind of market research has been done on their part. I think Colleen is on the call, if… Colleen, if you're… Yes, I am. Yeah, okay. You're the… you know this info. Yes, sir, can you… Can you introduce yourself? Thank you. Yes, and then… I'll restate my question. Go ahead, Colleen. I'm Colleen Ryan Mallin, I'm the Chief Growth Officer, and, I oversee marketing and communications, as well as growth at Frazier. Yeah, wonderful. Thanks for joining us this evening, Colleen. I was just asking if you've done market research into, the potential demand. I mean, we see here that there's demand for up to 109

[62:09] Bike parking spaces, but do you think that that will increase with the kind of people who are aging into your community, who may be more likely to bring bikes with them? Yes, we do find when people are moving in, and when you have a newer building, you tend to get people who are moving in a little bit younger than You would normally find, just because they, you know, kind of want the newest product on the market, but the reality is that as many people who are moving in with new bikes. we're finding people are aging, and they're getting rid of their bikes, so it's… you constantly have that, you know, turnover, and we have a, as Danica mentioned, a very active bike group. And they really don't want to see bikes just sitting in the garages, taking up space, so they police themselves, and really, you know, we'll say, you know, we notice that this bike

[63:09] has had flight tires, and it's not being used. If you're not using it, we encourage you to donate it. There's a lot of people out there who need transportation, and so they really are kind of encouraging their fellow residents to give up their bikes if they're not using them. Yeah, oh, that's wonderful. Pauline, can I show a screenshot of the data? I took the people's names out of it. I don't know if that… Sure. just… just… this is very… Fraser residents are very sustainability-minded as well, and so, also, you know, I think this is from this kind of volunteer thing, and I tried to take, you know, most of the names out of it, but what they do is they keep track of The make, model, type… The type of bacon, yeah, wow. If it's registered, where it's parked.

[64:02] And then, you know, if it's got, I don't… I think there's categories to this, flat tires, or things. So, I would say that this is a very active community who… who wants as many people to bike as possible, it's just… the reality is, and I think some of these people have 2 or 3 bikes… you know, there's people that bike, and they have, like, might have 2 or 3 bikes, and then there's just… there's a lot of people on wheelchairs, and I think I heard Colleen say one time, you know, there's… a lot of the wheels at Fraser are walkers and wheelchairs. Right. They're not necessarily bikes, and that's why that Tri-Shaw program's fun, because you could get somebody who's mobility impaired out on a… you know, a little ride in the neighborhood, but we are really talking… these are real data… this is real data that we've worked. To gather, and bike parking is very, very expensive. It's, I think, about 220 square feet of space, and that has to be conditioned, and, you know, at a…

[65:02] $300, $400, $500 a square foot, you know, we're talking… it's very, very expensive when we start to not be able to build as many units. So it's a balancing act that we're trying to present, and I think the idea that if people really do start dropping cars, and then we can do this deferred bike parking, which the city used to have in the code for car parking, like, okay, if and when the demand is met and needed, we'll start converting spaces. I think That would be our innovation, that… I haven't done before. Yeah, no, that's great. I just want to know, I want to get your question, Michael, but I also want to note that we're technically out of time for this topic, but there's a lot more to discuss, because we haven't really even gone over the TDM plan and all of the things that I would like to say about that. So, so Michael, go ahead and ask your question, and then we'll just do… wrap up with a few, kind of, just points for consideration, I think, maybe. Okay, sure, I'll try to make it succinct. So, what I noticed when I was looking through the materials, was that

[66:00] Every resident in the new… each one of the residents in the new units is going to get Or we'll have available to them a parking stall. And… Yet, you have a fairly impressive ray of TDM mechanisms. Which makes me wonder whether or not you have faith in the efficacy of those TDM mechanisms, because it should be the case that you will have fewer drivers, especially as they age. And… and therefore could afford to give up some space, right? Car… car parking is just as expensive as bike parking, right? It's… it's… it's space that… That's… it's exciting. expensive space. And so it occurs to me that you could conceivably, you know, be in the position to not offer

[67:00] Everyone a parking space, have a few fewer parking spaces, and have a little bit more bike parking. But I hear you when you're saying, but these folks are 84 years old, they may not be… you know, this sort of active mobility type. And it was nice that you shared that screen with me, because I was looking at the list, and yeah, there are a handful of e-trikes and e-bikes on there, but most of those are, you know, unassisted. electric, you know, unassisted vehicles, and I could see that for the, you know, as folks age, those may become less appealing. But I do… but, you know, the e-trikes, the Tri-Shaws. That kind of stuff, I would think would be pretty appealing. I'm also curious about why you're not getting high rates of adoption of the car share, or use of the car share program, and whether or not there might be a different strategy. What, like, what the core issue is with that, that's…

[68:00] That is, causing people not to use it, because that also, you know, strikes me as a potentially very effective way to reduce the amount of, vehicle parking, car parking in the facility, and make room for a bit more bike parking. And, yeah, so that's what I'm kind of wondering. I, I do feel like, You know, the size of bike parking reduction you're pursuing is a bit much. And… and that's not… not because I think, you know, you've done your homework, right? You've analyzed current rates of usage. But I'm wondering whether or not that's actually predictive, when we are moving into an age where there's going to be a lot more electric assist, bikes, trikes, that could be used by more of the elderly and more folks later into life. And so that's kind of what I'm… my sense of it, is that a little bit less parking, a little bit more bikes, and that might be good enough.

[69:14] Well, I'll just piggyback onto that, because I think we can, you know, our comments are aligned here, that, you know, I think one of the big issues with this site is that, yes, the removal of that RTD stop, which has disincentivized. employees from using their EcoPasses, which they, you know, have access to, but, can't readily used to get to work. And I appreciate everything you put into your TDM plan about van pools and all those things. We've got to make that happen, right? We've got to really, really make that happen. And I was also surprised by… I know that you've already decreased your amount of parking and the size of the garage, which will enable you to build more units.

[70:01] And, like Michael just expressed, I'm surprised at how the available, the parking that will be available is over the predicted demand to account for special occasions. And I just… I really don't… I just take issue with that as well, because if you're really going to mobilize all of these strategies, and put a B-cycle station there, and have the trash, and the shopping center is right there. They have… this is a 15-minute neighborhood, right, that's got so many amenities and so many wonderful things. What we're really talking about is the people who work there, the, you know, visitors and, family members, and how do we really help them, how do we help people who work at Frasier Meadows use the TDM resources more effectively. So, and car share is one of those things, right? So, if you have anything just to say about, you know, what you know about why the car share may not be working right now, I mean, we kind of know why transit's not working, but maybe we can, you know, collaborate on that to get that… that stop.

[71:07] Yeah, I think it's really interesting. It's parked right in front of the… it's in the main parking lot on this… in the best parking… because I've worked with CarShare a lot, and I know what they want… you know, they want their car to be highly visible, easily accessible. I… I… I think that what I've learned, and Colleen could probably add on, but… I get this, I'm 52, I knew… I don't really want to get in my friend's car and, like. drive a car, even, like, drive my son's car. Like, I don't know where… what the tires are like, or the headlights. I think there's this adoption thing that maybe there could… there's… they've done a lot of programmatic around it, trying to get, you know, the folks there to feel, like, safe in that car, and how to use an app, and, you know, there's just… so there's probably that barrier of… And I'm just gonna talk about people that live there, because I'm not sure Car Share's the solution for… employees, because it doesn't really solve the problem of somebody living 40…

[72:00] miles away, and that's a problem that we've got to solve with other solutions. We're not going to solve it on-site. you know, and I think that's where getting that RTD stop back, and we talked about Vanpool, that's what we're adding into, you know, exploration of that into the, TDM. Frasier's been doing a lot of TDM for a long time, and so we're trying to do what we know works, and add on, Harshare, I don't know… honestly, the neighborhood could know more about it, because I know it's available to the neighbors, and that's not really solving our problem, but it is part of the ecosystem, and I didn't really realize that car shares were open to anybody, even though they're parked on private property, so maybe that's something we can… think about. The parking is… I didn't go into parking, because it's actually not up for debate, because we don't have parking minimums anymore, but we're actually… it's a lot less than we need, because we've been spilling out onto the streets for years. The neighbors… this is a big issue with the neighborhood.

[73:02] is the amount of cars that are parked on the street. Fraser rents spaces from Mountain View currently for employees, so we're really, again, trying to balance the amount of parking that we actually need. It's not built for high holidays, it's built for a shared situation where then the church could say, hey, on Christmas Sunday, can we get, you know, your employee spaces back? that's what it's being built for. It's been a big point of discussion, It's very, very expensive, as you know. It's not something we take lightly, like, building underground parking. So, I think car share we can make work better, you know, and I… I don't know, like, maybe it's demo… Go ahead. Let's really get vanpools going. day with the seniors, or… I don't know, like, let's get creative, because I think people will get really set in their ways, as you know. No, it's really true. And it's the people who are working, who live far away and work, at Friser that we need to solve for. Yeah, go ahead, Michael.

[74:10] You're muted. You're muted. Thank you. I'm just wondering if maybe one of the factors is the pricing model, right? When you get parking space, right? It's kind of set it and forget it, right? It gets paid automatically every month, or every year, whatever your, you know, intervals for your billing are. But… it's there. It's like… and it's just like owning a car. Once you own it, infinite use is, you know, is the best strategy, right? There's no real disincentive to using it. Whereas with a car share or rental programs of one kind or another. When you pay per use, you experience, sort of, the pain of purchasing with each use. So then the question is.

[75:05] can I justify this purchase repeatedly, over and over and over again? And I am wondering if… if it were the case that they had access… if it was kind of like your parking, right? You're here, you get this resource. You're going to be paying for it, you know, in terms of your, you know, what it costs to live here, but this is, once you've paid that, it's kind of an infinite resource. Use it as much as you want. I'm wondering if a model like that might get folks to feel like, yeah, this is worth it. I've already got the car share. Why don't I just use it? As opposed to, oh, you know, I've got to go rent this thing, and I gotta get an app, and I gotta go do this, and that, you know, that kind of thing, creates friction. For users that… That might be a bit too much, for example.

[76:01] Just to clarify, even if Frasier is paying for everyone to have a membership with CarShare, people still have to use the app to reserve the car, and to find it, and all that stuff, so it is a process of, you know. Here's the process, I acknowledge. out, you know. Yeah, and I think there's… we put incentives in there for people to drop cars and get rid of cars. Christy is, she's the CEO. I'd love for her to say a couple words on this, because she's the expert on this community. Thank you. So, Christy Hendricks, President and CEO at Frasier. Just a couple of things. I don't know that it got tied up or finished, really, regarding the car share. We've talked with a lot of the residents. Who are not using it, about why they're not using it, and it is very much that they feel unsafe driving a car that they've never driven before. So, you know, I mean, they're… their response times are not as quick as they once was, they're not as intuitive as they once were, and so it's very much just uncomfortable for them to think about driving a car that they're not familiar driving. So when they do give up their car, they're more often using

[77:05] One of our vehicles that they can, you know, be taken to shopping in, or whatever it is, something like that. Regarding, sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead, Dorothy. No, go ahead, Christy, sorry. I was just gonna say, the on-demand shuttle service and the two shuttle drivers, those are very successful TDMs. So, and I think we should focus on those, because those are actually, you know, things that people are using a lot. Sorry, go ahead, Christy. That's okay. And then regarding the parking, one… because we heard that, with our first round, when we had significant more parking in there, a lot of the residents that move into our community are couples. And so there'll be more than one person, in the apartment, and oftentimes, they still have two vehicles. And so one of the things that we did is agree that we won't allow anyone to have two cars, that they can only have one car, and…

[78:06] so that, in and of itself, will be kind of a significant change for them to adapt to. And then I think Danica mentioned at some… oftentimes. later, they'll decide, okay, I haven't used my car as much, or I really like using the van, or whatever it is, and they may give up their car at that time. So, but our team members are a whole different story. Like, we flood the roads right now, and the neighbors are not happy about that with our team member parking, because I mean, I drive 40 miles every day. There's not going to be a solution for me. I'm going to need my car. And so, we were trying to clean up the streets by putting some of that team member parking underground, and so, you know. Again, shoring up not more than one car, regardless of whether it's one person or two persons in an apartment, and then trying to shore up some of the team member parking has been really our focus.

[79:09] No. I get that. Thank you, Christy, I appreciate that. And I think we should just kind of return to our mandate for this presentation, really, which is to comment on the street, the design of the street, the vacation of Conka Place, and I think we are in agreement, as far as I've heard, that we like the design. We think it's a net improvement. It will… it seems like it'll be something that will really benefit the, residents, employees, and neighborhood, people in the neighborhood, as well as remain open for walkers and bicyclists coming through. So I think on all of that, we are in agreement, am I correct? Mike? Yeah, okay, good. Yes. I think we've performed our duty to say we like your street design, and we think it'll function well, and it's a nice overall… it's a… it's a good overall design. And, I think when I first looked at the schematic, I was… I was wondering what the neighbors on the other side of

[80:14] of, to, you know, think about the prospect of a big building going up there, but, you know, that's for you all to work out, and we're not planning boards. So, regarding the street, I do think it's a good design, and I think it will be a net improvement. So, I think that's all that we really need to discuss, am I right? Yeah, well, we had three questions, right? As I understand it, one, vacation. Two, are they doing enough in terms of alternate modes? And this is the bike parking and vehicle parking question. And then three was alignment, you know, with the city's overall accessibility. And the 1 and 3, as I say, were kind of no-brainers to me.

[81:01] Clearly, The project, is… is great on those scores. I'm… you know, I feel like… I understand it's a very difficult… it sounds like you're between a rock and a hard place in terms of trying to address various objectives. I am, I guess, a bit uncomfortable with cutting that much of the bike parking out. But, you know, I feel like if… it just feels to me like something's gotta give. It doesn't make sense to me that you could have, like, you could have such an advanced TDM program and still have so many people who feel that they need to drive. You know, that's… that's what doesn't… Kind of calculate for me. And I'm just wondering if there's some way to better reconcile those two objectives in terms of design.

[82:01] Sorry to interrupt. I understand that, and I think one of the things we proposed was this deferred, you know, in our TDM. we can monitor this, and we can say, you know, if the car parking isn't… we'll do everything we can to get people… drop their car, not bring a car… sorry, my dog's barking. You know… I think it's in everybody's interest. We would love to share that, you know? It's just very hard to say, again, to a senior who's giving up a lot of autonomy by moving into an apartment and out of their home. you know, they… the last thing they want to let go of is their keys, and I think we'll do everything… Frasier is doing everything they can, because it's expensive to put that… car and storage, and also who's using their car. So there's a lot of seniors who, you know, can still drive and take their friends on a… you know, on a trip to Trader Joe's. But the deferred parking, I hope, is this idea that we can monitor this over time, and then if we have too much auto parking, we turn it into bike parking, because

[83:05] A lot of our bike… we're proposing a lot of the bike parking in the garage also for safety reasons because of this whole e-bike fire. thing. It's accessible to elevators, it's safe, it's, you know… So, I hope that was our way to wrangle this existential challenge that we've been thinking about for 3 years, so… maybe your feedback on that would be helpful. Like, how can we continue to increase our TDM, which we're proposing, and then keep, you know, moving the space… moving spaces, and that's what Frasier's been doing for 50 years, is they… they've actually been converting car spaces into bike spaces as the demand increased, and as they were able to get people out of their cars. So I'm wondering if it's possible to set some goals around that, right? To set some drivers, as opposed to, you know, we'll do it if it happens, if the demand materializes. I think the TDM can set some goals. If you had, like, you know, look, 5 years in, we expect to lose this many parking spaces. 10 years in, we expect to lose this many, you know, convert them over to… to multi… it doesn't need to be bikes per se, but some kind of multimodal

[84:13] You know, not… not car. Kind of thing. Car share would even be okay if, you know, if these were… if, you know, somehow you solved the problems with car share, and now you needed more parking spaces for… for car-shared or shared vehicles, that might make sense. But setting some goals around that, I think would be great. The other thing before I forget to mention it, because I always do, is, that… Conversion of parking spaces to bike spaces, particularly these days, needs to be planned, in the sense that you'll need to have electrical service there to handle charging. Because, of course, many e-bikes, as you mentioned, you, you know, the objective is to charge them down there in the garage, not for people to take the batteries. The 84-year-old would be hauling the battery up to their room. You want them to be charged down there for a whole host of reasons, not just for safety.

[85:12] Yeah, we've talked about battery rooms. I'll just… I think that… to answer your question, I think it would be better to do performance-based, which is a TDM, helps with performance, versus saying in 5 years we're gonna get rid of 5 spaces. I think that that would be, something we'd be open to, and… But what do you mean by performance-based? The TDM has monitoring, I think, built. Okay, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, that strikes me as a reasonable approach. Yeah, so we can report… I, I think… I… I believe we'll even be paying into the TDM group. We may not… I don't know. The T… the new TDM… program has a lot of monitoring, so we… I think there's just a lot of best practices that we can think about. I just… I can't say, like, in 5 years, we have 5 less spaces. Like, I don't think it's… I think it has to be based on programmatic and performance.

[86:09] Yeah, I was thinking more of at least having goals. Yeah. Along those lines, right? Like, I expect to have, you know, I expect to be able to convert 5 spaces in 5 years, and if I can't, now I gotta figure out, like, what I gotta do to juice my TDM program so that folks are willing to make this transition. Well, the good news is a lot of these car spaces are now equipped for electricity, so I'm not sure… I'm not a mechanical or electrical engineer, but a lot of these spaces will be, EV… not just re… there'll be EV spaces and EV ready. I think that's a big code shift as well. I… I… maybe I'm speaking out of turn, but I think that we've… our technology is getting set up better for this. That's great to hear. That would address my concerns. If you had some goals and a plan to address, you know, this transition from

[87:01] from… from car ownership to… you know, because I… I saw, and I bristled at. The language in there that suggested that, you know, people lack dignity unless they have a vehicle. I forget, there was one of… in some of the materials, there was a suggestion that, you know, it… People lose some measure of dignity unless they have a private vehicle, and I'm like, I don't feel that's true. But I understand that many residents may feel that. They may feel the loss of independence as a loss of the dignity. And so I think, you know, definitely we need to be attentive to that, but I think that private vehicle ownership is probably not an essential ingredient in Dignity, provided you've got some really, you know, top-notch TDM options, and it sounds like you're working on that. So, maybe there's some work that needs to be done in that arena, but

[88:04] I'd be reasonably confident you could do it. So, that's it from the. Well, and that just… yeah, that flows into the last thing I wanted to say about the TDM plan, is that I'd like to see this have, you know, the monitoring is great, I'd like to see it have some teeth in the respect that Frazier is committing to marketing language. That helps to meet the… the goals in the TDM plan, you know, so that we're… they're driving, team members to, to these resources, you know, to really get excited about Vanpool, the possibility of that, to really get excited about the possibility of that RTD, stop coming back, to really want to be part of that community. And then also, for residents coming in, I want to see, you know, marketing language that, again, helps to activate this TDM plan, such that residents who are being… people who are being invited into the community are people who are, you know, excited about living in a 15-minute neighborhood, you know, like, and being part of this

[89:11] you know, trying bike share, and trying all these things, like, being… and I know that… I know there's a certain population, and there's… but this plan, this TDM plan, is really good, and I want to see it work. And I want to see it work with the… partnership and cooperation of Fraser, because often we see these TD implants, they just go to the bottom of a, you know, shelf somewhere, and they're not actually activated and celebrated by the, property owner or the, you know, the, the responsible sort of party, right? So I want to see it activated through the language used by the organization. But anyway, that's really all the time that we have. We're over time, and we've got a lot to discuss tonight. So, I want to thank you. Thank you, Danica. Thank you, Christy and Colleen, for being here as well. It was really great to hear from both of you.

[90:05] And thanks to the rest of your project team, I think you've… have you heard enough from us, Danica, about The… the three questions that you feel satisfied with? Yes, and I appreciate your time. This is a big discussion. Appreciate your looking… Ponca Place was a big, you know, a big risk, so we appreciate you looking at that, and invite you all out to Frasier. I think the programmatic piece of, like, how do we do this is… is something that we can all work on. And there's a lot of, I would imagine, some Frasier Residents who would love to take this on as a project, as we… they've taken on geothermal and other things. community gardening, you know, the sustainability piece of this resonates with Frasier, so we're not… I can… I can see that, I can really see that, and there's, you know, it's a new… it's a new wave of people coming into the community, too, with these new residences, so… It's almost me. Just kidding.

[91:02] We're not there yet, Danica. Almost. No, I'm kidding. But get on the list! Get on the list. Yeah. Okay, thank you for your time, we appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank you all, appreciate it. Okay, great. And yeah, of course, we look forward to continuing to see how that all progresses, so I think that was a good discussion. So moving on to our next item, and related to our earlier comments this evening about recent crashes, our next, item is the staff briefing and tab update on the 2024 crash landscape and the Vision Zero Action Plan update. so, I will hand it over to, Devin Joslyn. Thank you very much.

[92:04] All right. Well, good evening, everyone. My name is Devin Joslin. I'm the City's Principal Traffic Engineer, and I'm here tonight to provide an update on crash trends and implementation of the Vision Zero Action Plan. Before I begin, similar to how we started the meeting tonight, I'd like to acknowledge that there were 3 fatal crashes in 2024, and 2 fatal crashes to date in 2025. Across the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that there were 39,345 traffic fatalities in 2024. So I want to acknowledge and remember the 5 people who lost their lives in the 5 fatal crashes that occurred last year and so far this year. Let's take a moment to remember them as I now say their names. Virginia Knowlton? Fantasy Alejandro, Jennifer Newman, Richard Pulley, Veronica Chong, Dan Bench.

[93:10] Thank you, and just please also keep in mind that there will be a World Day of Remembrance event in Boulder this Sunday, November 16th, and this is another chance to remember those who lost their lives, and to recognize those who have been seriously injured in crashes. So after listening to tonight's presentation, you should come away with a crash… with a clear history of what Vision Zero is, an understanding of the most recent severe crash trends, emerging trends related to e-bikes and e-scooters, and progress on the Vision Zero Action Plan implementation. Vision Zero, of course, is Boulder's goal to reduce the number of traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries to zero by 2030. It was adopted in 2014 as part of the Transportation Master Plan, and it's now included as Priority Action 1C in the Citywide Strategic Plan. Vision Zero is also encompassed in the City's Sustainability, Equity, and Resilience Framework Goal Area of SAFE.

[94:16] Since 2012, staff have prepared 4 editions of the Safe Streets Boulder Report, and 2 editions of the Vision Zero Action Plan. And finally, you might recall that City Council, last year, in December, reaffirmed Boulder's Vision Zero commitment, via Resolution 1358. So in Boulder, just to get some terminology out of the way, we refer to crashes that result in someone being killed or seriously injured as severe crashes, and you might also hear across the industry these types of crashes referred to as KSI crashes. And in Boulder, the severe crash trends that staff analyze, really seek to understand the who, what, when, where, why, and how related to each severe crash that occurs.

[95:11] As we detailed in the memo, staff compiled the information shown here to help us understand the contributing factors, to identify areas of concern, and develop high-impact actions in the Vision Zero Action Plan. So the most recent 5 years have, in general, trended below the 10-year average of 3 fatal and 48 serious injury crashes, and the 2025 year-to-date trends appear to be very comparable to those of 2024. In terms of crash location by street classification, the latest trends reaffirm what we found in the 2022 Safe Streets Boulder Report. And that is that the majority of severe crashes occur on our principal and minor arterial streets. And this finding highlights the continued importance of the core arterial network.

[96:09] the high-risk Network, and the pavement Management Program Mobility Enhancements. In terms of where severe crashes occur, 80% of severe crashes in 2024 occurred at one of three locations. A signal, a one-way stop, which is something like a driveway with a stop sign, or a T-intersection. Or along a roadway segment between intersections. Nearly 80% of severe crashes involved a vulnerable roadway user, and crashes between vehicles and bicyclists accounted for nearly one-third of severe crashes in 2024. Of the 10 areas of concern tracked within the Safe Streets Boulder report, oh, I'm sorry, I'm…

[97:05] Looking ahead to the next slide, pardon me. In terms of the age of the at-fault driver, you'll see that the age of the roadway user varies, but most range between 20 to 29, or 30 to 49. And that's the same trend that we're seeing, in the year-to-date data. for 2025. yeah, here we see the 10 areas of concern tracked, and 5 have decreased significantly, 4 remained steady, and 1 has increased significantly. The reduction that we've seen in speeding. Brings this level down to the trend that was observed in the 2015 through 2017 data, which showed that at that time, nearly 10 years ago. Close to 20% of severe crashes also were related to speeding.

[98:03] And we've also seen substantial decreases in impaired driving and crashes involving younger and older people. The one area of concern that increased significantly is crashes involving people riding a motorcycle, and the state of Colorado has also noticed this trend So we are not alone, in seeing that unfortunate increase. This slide, illustrates that, as I noted before, crashes involving vulnerable roadway users have a disproportionate number of crashes compared to total crashes. And the crashes involving people bicycling have the largest disparity. As crashes involving a bicyclist account for 6% of total crashes. But 36% of severe crashes, which is a 30% difference.

[99:04] Just for additional context, crashes involving vehicles account for approximately 90% of total crashes and 40% of severe crashes. These next few slides were highlighted in the memo and just cover the crash rate trends in terms of vehicles, miles traveled, and crashes per 100,000 population. Overall, we've seen a decrease in the total crashes by VMT of about 14%, compared to 2018, and a slight uptick in the fatal crash rate per million VMT, of about 1.5%. And when you look at Boulder in the context of the most populous cities of Colorado, Boulder's faring quite well overall. We have the lowest fatal crash rate and second lowest severe crash rate among the 16 most populous cities along and east of the Front Range.

[100:15] And Boulder's fatal crash rate is well below the U.S. national average of 12.2 per 100,000. Our crash rate is, for fatal crashes is 2.8, so, about 3… 4 times less than the national average. In terms of the e-bike and e-scooter trends, those were stated in the memo and are reiterated here. Again, similar to the other crashes I noted involving vulnerable roadway users. Crashes involving e-bikes and e-scooters also have a disproportionate number of severe crashes compared to total crashes.

[101:01] And another new thing to note here is that nearly all e-bike crashes occurred with a vehicle. So thankfully, over the past 5 years, there have not been any fatal crashes involving e-bikes, but on the flip side, and unfortunately, over 90% of crashes involving e-bikes have resulted in some type of injury or possible injury. E-scooters follow some similar trends to e-bikes, E-scooter crashes result in, injury or possible injury two-thirds of the time, and again, thankfully, there have not been any fatal crashes involving e-scooters over the past nearly five years. So these next series of slides will go over progress in each of the, Vision Zero Action Plan, areas, categories.

[102:05] So you'll recall that the Vision Zero Action Plan organized actions into four different groups, highlighted here on the slide. The bulk of the actions focus on improving engineering solutions. And then the others focus on things like engineering and education, improving our Vision Zero practices, and data The overall crash data and the transparency of how we share and communicate that data. As noted in the memo, 7 actions are on track to be completed, or have already been completed. Nine actions are underway, but less than half completed, and 4 actions are not on track or are delayed for various reasons, such as staff vacancies or waiting on grant funding to get flowing. Staff will be adding the 2026 actions into work plans to ensure successful and timely completion of them, and in particular, updating the signal timing practices is a high priority work plan item in 2026.

[103:13] So I, you know, I think most of these slides, you got the presentation in advance, I believe, so I'm not going to read these word for word, and I'll let the next few slides and the photos do the bulk of the talking. To represent the tremendous progress that we've seen, on a lot of these actions to date. I'll just note here again that the signal practices is a key work plan item for us next year, and we're just waiting and continuing to remain hopeful in terms of the Safe Streets and Roads for All grant funding, that that will be authorized and headed our way soon. So, you know, these next ones, truly, I think, a picture's worth a thousand words, and we've tried to showcase here in the presentation,

[104:09] as clearly as possible, the before and after conditions, just to illustrate the… kind of the… the crash countermeasures and the multimodal design elements that we've installed across the system. And again, since you're familiar with most of this work, I'll keep it brief, but if there is something that catches your eye that you want to discuss in more detail, feel free to flag that, and we can Discuss it more at the end of the presentation. So some key design elements installed on Moorhead were things like speed cushions, an enhanced multimodal crossing featuring a short two-way cycle track, and center median islands. The mobility enhancements, added a bus-only lane and buffered bike lane on Colorado Avenue.

[105:01] And we were fortunate to be able to extend that bus-only lane, to the east of 30th Street. That was a… a really good addition that we could do with some restriping. And you'll note, also that the speed limit was reduced on this segment of Colorado Avenue, all the way from Folsom to Foothills, down to 25 between Folsom and basically 30th, and then to 35 From 30th to Foothills. There were a number of, the, you know, these photos are just, I think, really great, and I want to thank Blake Rice on my team, who has his, drone pilot's license and took a number of these photographs in the presentation for us. 6th Street improved a lot of the… Pedestrian crossings, as part of the mobility enhancements. This one near the Justice Center installed a median… a pedestrian refuge island.

[106:06] At 6th and University, there were some curb extensions installed. And at Pleasant, we, shifted the crossing to the south leg of the intersection. kind of narrowed the crossing and installed ADA-compliant curb ramps. Speed cushions and speed humps were added to Ashe Avenue and Martin Drive. The Arapaho Avenue Multi-Use Path and Stop and Transit Stop Improvements Project, really did just that, all the way between, 38th Street and Cherryvale. And then, you know, can't have a presentation without the can. And just really want to highlight the tremendous progress that we achieved on… on three CAN corridors, really four if you include baseline. But Iris Avenue, 30th Street, and Folsom, each secured council approval of the SEEP and proposed conceptual design.

[107:09] And so these, you know, this is just kind of a… A replay of those slides that you've seen, Us working on over the past year or so, most intensely. And it really was just a tremendous team effort, and really… Innovative and creative community engagement approaches. The pedestrian crossing treatment guidelines were updated, and now include reduced thresholds for installing both RRFB and crossings controlled with red indications. As well as new criteria to consider and prioritize pedestrian crossings near more key destinations. The speed limit setting framework was completed in June 2024, and the first phase of implementation across 13 street segments has been completed.

[108:07] I always debate with myself if we got this photo right, if it's clear that he's taking down the 35 and putting up the 30, and not the other way around. Done a lot of signal work, thanks to some grants. The Safer Signals Project implemented enhancements to left-turn signal phasing and indications at 13 approaches at 8 intersections. And we had 3 pedestrian crossings enhanced thanks to a CMPI grant from Dr. Cogg. And I just… this before picture at Colorado on 33rd just really struck me, because you see the pedestrian waiting to cross, and the car's not really yielding. And it just was a very clear desire line that needed an enhanced crossing, and that grant was able to bring it to fruition.

[109:09] These next slides, in terms of the education and enforcement, we've had a very good relationship with PD, and we're continually thankful for that, and we're thankful for the really rapid expansion of automated speed enforcement, that occurred this year. We got our approval from CDOT in July. And we've essentially already implemented that, you know, automated speed enforcement across, the state highway locations within the city. So I think that's a pretty… pretty big accomplishment and a testament to how we really can move swiftly at times for the right reasons. And we can't forget to celebrate our successes. We were fortunate to have some really great celebrations around the downtown Boulder station and the Boulder Junction reopening.

[110:11] And then we just continue to try to be… Leaders, innovators, thought partners, forward thinkers, storytellers, strategic advisors, as we interact, both with each other as colleagues, and then as we interact and learn from others in the industry. And then I think a development that occurred since our last update is there's now a serious bodily injury and fatal crash dashboard that the police department has put together. And then there's been some changes to the crash report format, and we've stayed on top of those and really worked with BPD to continue to ensure that crash reports are filled out as accurately as possible.

[111:01] So we do obviously want to continue marching forward with the action plan implementation, and then, we'll plan to come back, sometime probably in the… You know, late first quarter, early second quarter timeframe, and Report back on the final 2025 crash numbers, the results of our grant awards, and the status of other action items. So we just had the one question for you in the memo, and happy to begin that discussion now. Thank you. Great, thanks so much, Devin. I just have an initial question. With the rise in crashes with motorcycles involved. Does that include, eModos, or the, you know, not… not actually e-bikes, but more like toy motorcycle vehicles that are so prevalent these days? That is a great question, and I think to get you a definitive answer, I'll need to do a little more research on that, but my… my initial understanding of the data is that it does not

[112:09] really include any crashes that are… would be classified as eMotos. It's… it's truly just what people would consider a motorcycle. Motorcycle, yeah. I wonder if there's a new classification coming, because they don't… they just don't fit into any of those other categories. So, how are police being trained to identify those specific vehicles when they're involved, as one was just, you know, a day or two ago? Yeah, I think that's certainly something that we're tracking very closely, and I think I forgot to mention it in the presentation, but I think it was mentioned in the memo that that internal working group that's been formed, is really the means, I think, by which we intend to tackle some of those challenges that are emerging. Okay, great, thank you. Go ahead, Michael.

[113:01] Well, my question was related, which was… so, I think Darcy was asking about the motorcycle crashes, and I was wondering whether the e-bike data that you reported, the number of crashes amongst e-bikes, included those e-moto. things, right. Because that's… that, you know, very often the community lumps the two together when they probably ought to be lumped together. So that was, one question. The other thing I wanted to say before… I forget is, oh my god, thank you, thank you, thank you for the speed bumps on Martin Drive. They are working. I, you know, I walk that every day. It is so much different now than it was before those things went in. It's just fantastic. It's like… total transformation. It is no longer a speedway, cars go reasonable speeds, I feel safe walking there, and, you know, I gather it must be immensely frustrating to be doing all this work.

[114:03] and then have, you know, the number of fatalities and serious crashes not really drop precipitously all of a sudden. But I would say that, you know, if Martin Drive is any indication. that drop is coming, right? Because, you know, Martin Drive felt to me for literally decades, like an accident waiting to happen, and it no longer feels that way. So, I think there is progress being made. So my other question really is just one, and that regards the data that you reported on, the age of the responsible party, and there was another slide where you had age as well. And I was wondering if you know what that data is as a function of the number of people in that age group in the community. Like, are we seeing a… you know, I would guess that it's probably actually…

[115:10] a more substantial number as a percentage of the population, or even… probably even more meaningful would be as a percentage of the vehicle miles driven by people in that age group. That would really tell you, like, hey, is this… you know, is this a driver experience thing, or what's going on? Because that… That, I think, would be useful. I mean, I'm generally not all that enthusiastic about education campaigns, in terms of their efficacy, but I, you know, I'm prepared to be proven wrong. Yeah, I… I don't have the latest data at my fingertips, but it's… it is contained in the Safe Streets Boulder report from 2022. There are some statements in there that speak to

[116:00] At least what you initially were suggesting about how are things tracking relative to proportion of the population. And… what we say in the Safe Streets report was that since 2010, Crashes involving an older adult, had increased by 89%, While the older adult population increased by 35%. So the… the increase in crashes was… outpacing the… increase in… people getting older. And we saw, I guess, a similar thing when you look at the… The total crashes, between 2018 and 2020, People 65 and older accounted for 12% of Boulder's population, but were involved in 17% of crashes. So… But we will… I think those are good suggestions that we can certainly explore in the next, round of analysis.

[117:09] Yeah, I think infographics about that would be really, helpful for the community. Go ahead, Mike. Yeah, it seems like, from your data, we had Seen, decrease in, serious… Injuries and deaths, which has perhaps plateaued in recent years, which I believe is consistent, with national data, in which, Such decreases have… Have reversed, and… and that may have to do with… Larger… Vehicles that people are getting, and perhaps, People are driving at faster speeds. Do you have any insights into those factors? Not… not necessarily. I was so focused on Boulder, admittedly, that I… I wasn't necessarily able to…

[118:05] look outside at national trends as much as I would have liked. I do recall seeing something that, had noted, you know, a pretty dramatic increase in pedestrian, related serious injury and fatal crashes over, I think, the past 10-year period. You know, they had just… Spiked pretty dramatically nationally in terms of pedestrians being, hurt or killed on our streets. But maybe, if you wouldn't mind saying your question again, I can… I can… . just, I believe people have attributed the reversal and decline nationally of injuries to increases in vehicle size and Perhaps the speed people are driving. Just wondering if you had any… Insights in those factors.

[119:01] Yeah, we haven't looked… Too closely in terms of the… the specific vehicle types that are involved in crashes, to draw any correlation, I guess, as to whether You know, larger, heavier vehicles are involved in more crashes, or are resulting in more injuries from crashes. But that's certainly, you know, it's… it is a part of the kinetic energy equation, right? I mean, it's… it's the mass times the square of the velocity, so I think that's why we… we tend to try to focus in our work the most on controlling the speed, because that… Has, kind of, the exponential effect on injury outcomes. Well, it's also the height of the vehicle where someone is hit. This is really key, and it's kind of coming up in a lot of research. Devin, thank you for all those wonderful before and after pictures. It's so exciting to see these projects go in, and to really see our… our system becoming, safer, more complete, more… more,

[120:14] accessible for, for multiple modes. I love that, that crossing on, across Colorado, and, really great work, and it's wonderful to see these trends. I love that we're, like, lowest in the region, right, in fatalities, and second lowest in serious injuries, so let's get down to the lowest in serious injuries. Below… was it Castle Rock? Had fewer serious injuries than we do? How is that possible? More fatalities, fewer serious injuries. So, we want, we want to be at the bottom of all of those charts, and, you're doing great work to get us there. You know, it's interesting how people comment on, how it can feel,

[121:06] like, driving in Boulder isn't always, like, as easy as everywhere else, but that's because we're really, really working on making sure our system is truly, truly multimodal and accessible to everyone, and… and making sure that… that… that it's still, you know, fully functional for those who need to drive, and providing lots of opportunities for people to choose other modes, and so I really appreciate all your work in that regard. How… just… we're a little behind time, so I want to move on, but, anything else you want to add about the current funding issues? You know, it's interesting to see just how many projects are stalled or behind schedule. Is there an internal kind of plan to address those if the plan dollars don't come through, or are we really just waiting for a lot of federal funds?

[122:02] Yeah, I mean, that's a great question, and I'll certainly welcome colleagues to chime in as they see fit here, and Garrett's really our person best equipped to speak to the SS4A funding picture, and probably just in general, your question about the capital project and CIP. So, Garrett? Alright, thanks. Yes, thank you, Devin. Garrett Slater, Senior Engineering Manager for Capital Projects, and I would say that the primary grant opportunity that we are waiting for final execution is the Safe Streets for All grant. Which is sitting with the FHWA staff in Washington, D.C, and so, The agreement has been with them for quite some time. As you're all aware, there's a federal government shutdown, and so it's unclear to us when it will be signed and executed, but it still continues to be with them, and

[123:02] We are hopeful that in the early part of 2026, that they will allow that to move forward, and that, of course, is contingent on the government opening at some point, so when that happens, hopefully our signed and executed IGA is not far behind. But we are ready to hit the ground running with a slate of projects once we have that funding in place. The 30th Street North project that there was a seat on, approved earlier this year, will be funded by that. East Arapaho final design is moving forward, which will be implemented by SS4A, and we've identified all the pedestrian crossing treatments in the demonstration grant locations. So we're… we're eager and ready to go, and hopefully in 2026, We'll start spending money with the SS4A funds. Yeah, great. Thanks, Garrett. Appreciate that. Yeah, well, thanks to all of you for just your continued wonderful efforts and your demonstrated progress, even as, you know, the number of people using the system is increasing, which is what we really want to see. We want to see, fewer crashes

[124:12] more access, so thanks so much. And, Garrett, we might as well just move straight on to you, if there are no other questions from Mike or Michael. We're good to move on, we're a little behind schedule, so let's… let's go to, the staff briefing and tab feedback on the SUMAC Global Improvement District, or LID. So, Garrett, take it away. Yes, we are here to revisit with you about the Sumac Avenue Improvements Project. This is an atypical project in the city in that we are asking the residents who live along Sumac to participate in the creation of a local improvement district, and we have been providing updates to the Transportation Advisory Board along the way of the SUMAC design effort, and so I'm going to now hand it over to John McFarlane and Roger Kane to provide a presentation and overview about the status of Sumac and ask for

[125:14] your feedback on a couple of questions. So, John, go ahead and take it over. Yeah, thank you, Garrett, and good evening, TAB members. My name is John McFarland, Senior Transportation Planner in the Planning Division, and as Garrett mentioned, we're also joined this evening on the call by Roger Kane, who's also leading work on this project. So to begin, yeah, as Garrett mentioned, I just want to remind the board that we have brought updates on the Sumac Avenue improvements throughout the life of the project. As we've shared previously, and that we'll discuss later on in the presentation. This project began back in 2019, and was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic, but staff restarted work on the project last year in 2024.

[126:03] And then earlier this year, city funding for the CMAC Avenue improvements was included in the 2026-2031 5-year capital improvement program, or CIP for short, which was recommended for approval by the board at the June 9th TAB meeting. And then the CIP and city funding for the project was subsequently approved by City Council, as part of the 2026 budget process. So tonight, this is an opportunity for board members to learn more about the project, our ongoing work, and next steps, and then it's also an opportunity to ask the project staff here on the call any questions about the project funding, and why we're proposing a local improvement district to help fund the improvements on Sumac Avenue. And then we'll have time at the end of this presentation for discussion around this question here on the screen. So our last project update to TAB was back in… at the beginning of this year, in January 2025. So as a refresher, I'll start by reviewing the project's background and discussing the project's context, existing conditions, our work to date in the project timeline, and then also share a little bit about the proposed project improvements.

[127:16] And then I'll… I'll then provide an update on, the project funding, since, as Garrett mentioned, this project is unique, with, properties on Sumac Avenue and 17th Street having existing annexation agreements that stipulate they must cost… they must share in the cost of future transportation improvements when requested by the City on Sumac Avenue. And then I'll close the presentation, by sharing next steps. So Sumac Avenue in this project is located in the North Boulder neighborhood, and runs east-west between 19th Street and Broadway, which are the project limits for improvements. The context map here on the right of the slide shows the Wonderland Lake Trailhead at the west end of the corridor on Broadway, and then Crestview Park and Crestview Elementary on the east end of the corridor near 19th Street.

[128:13] This map also shows just other city projects that have been recently completed, or are in planning, design, construction, or are an identified future project in the Transportation Master Plan. And then this project is guided by and aligns with several, city transportation planning efforts, including the North Boulder Sub-Community Plan. That plan proposed a sidewalk or path connection on Sumac, between 19th and Broadway 1st, way back in 1995. The Transportation Master Plan In 2019, also identifies, missing sidewalk links on Sumac Avenue, and then the Low Stress Walk and Bike Network Plan, which was also adopted in 2019, identifies Sumac as a neighborhood green street.

[129:01] But today, the Sumac Avenue roadway is failing, which necessitates the city to take action with this project. The current roadway construction does not meet city standards for a residential street, and this current roadway construction contributes to Sumac Avenue being in the bottom 10% of city streets in terms of its pavement condition, as shown here in the top left photo on the slide. Similarly, the street does not meet city standards for roadway drainage. Over the years on Sumac Avenue, residents have filled in drainage ditches along the corridor, and now today there is an intermittent ditch condition Along the corridor that leads to poor roadway drainage during typical, everyday rainstorms. This causes water to pool, which further deteriorates the pavement, as shown in the top right photo. Finally, Sumac has discontinuous sidewalks on the north side of the street between 19th Street and the western edge of Crestview Park. In the early 2000s, the City and Boulder Valley School District shared in a project to construct a multi-use path at grade, with the street with parking stops, kind of acting as curbs adjacent to Crestview Park.

[130:08] Shown in that bottom left-hand corner, or bottom left photo there. And then just east of 19th Street, as shown in the bottom, right photo on the slide, constructed curb and gutter there, just, just east of 9… or just west of 19th Street. These improvements will need to be reconstructed with this project to meet today's standards for a residential street. And here's a timeline showing work to date on the project and upcoming milestones. Before the project was paused by the COVID-19 pandemic, staff introduced the project to TAB back in October of 2019. And before the project paused, we also hosted two project open houses to inform initial concept design work. As we restarted concept design after the pause, we had the opportunity to revisit public comments we heard and introduce new project elements for public feedback.

[131:02] We shared an updated concept design with the public in May of 2024, and made further refinements to the design based on what we heard in one-on-one meetings with individual property owners, which began at the beginning of this year and carried into spring. These one-on-one meetings provided the opportunity to receive additional feedback on the project's design, but also for staff to share updates with property owners on the project funding and their cost share obligations under the annexation agreements. Staff is currently exploring the formation of a local improvement district to defray a portion of the total project costs by lending assessments to property owners for their cost share obligations, and we'll discuss the LID more further on in the presentation. Pending permitting and finalization of the project's funding, construction is anticipated to begin in the second quarter or third quarter of 2026. Just to share a bit on the project improvements, the project improvements in the updated design that we received public input on, and that the project will really focus on include pavement reconstructing, pavement reconstruction and improving roadway drainage through curb and gutter and storm drain infrastructure.

[132:19] A vertical curb will be installed throughout the corridor, and at driveways, we'll transition to a malleable curb design. And so these next two slides, show typical sections of improvements along the corridor, each showing an 8 to 10 foot sidewalk on the north side of Sumac, and different curb-to-curb widths. The curb-to-curb widths vary based on, and are informed by the input we receive from property owners on where they'd like to have on-street parking in front of their property. Where we do have on-street parking, that results in a wider curb-to-curb width. And we also heard from some property owners a priority to minimize impacts to existing landscaping in the city right-of-way, and where we have preserved that landscaping that has resulted in a narrower curb-to-curb width.

[133:08] Also, you'll see in these cross-section images that the project will also not stripe a centerline on the road, and that will have 17 feet of travel way exclusive of the gutter pan. The narrower travel lanes and no center line will help provide, traffic calming on the street. So these first two cross-sections shown here are, toward the east end of the corridor, near Crestview Elementary and Crestview Park. Shown at the top in the first cross-section, we have a 10-foot sidewalk, In front of, Crestview Elementary. And that matches the existing sidewalk that's out there today. We'll also add striping in front of Crestview Elementary to better delineate the pickup and drop-off lane. Shown at the bottom right, which is further west, at Crestview Park.

[134:06] The curb-to-curb width will narrow, west of the school there, so in front of the school is a 27-foot curb-to-curb width. In front of the park, it narrows down to 20 feet. And as shown in both of these cross-sections, on-street parking will be restricted, between 19th Street and 17th Street, and this was based on that property owner feedback, and also feedback we heard from Crestview Elementary to help limit congestion during pickup and drop-off times at the school. As shown in the third cross-section on the slide, so top left here, the 20-foot curb-to-curb width will continue west for the length of Pressview Park, and at 1595 sumac, which is the first property, west of the park there. The sidewalk will transition to an 8-foot width, and that will be the width all the way west of Broadway of the sidewalk. The fourth cross-section at 1525 Sumac is representative of a 25-foot curb-to-curb width, where there's… where there is on-street parking on one side of the street, based on resident input. And then that fifth cross-section, between Broadway and 15th Street will be a 30-foot curb-to-curb, with parking on both sides of the street.

[135:20] Another focus of the design are new striped pedestrian crossings, one at 17th Street, shown on the left of the slide, 15th Street, shown in the center, and Broadway shown on the right. The crossing at Broadway will be a flashing beacon crossing, which will provide access to Wonderland Lake Trailhead and RTV bus service. The image on the right also shows an improved parking lot design at Wonderland Lake, which is being led by a separate open space and mountain parks site improvement project. And to get into the project funding, these next, slides, kind of focus on the funding.

[136:01] And as mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, the City of Boulder annexed properties on Sumac Avenue and 17th Street from Boulder County in the late 1980s and early 1990s. As part of annexation, property owners were brought onto the city's water and sanitary sewer systems, as well as the Boulder Police Department and Boulder Fire Department service areas. 50 property owners on Sumac Avenue and 17th Street entered into annexation agreements with the City that stipulate property owners must share in future transportation improvement costs on Sumac Avenue when requested by the City. These annexation agreements are tied with the land of the properties. It should be noted that two properties, 1590 and 1616 Sumac, shown on the map to the right in gray, are not subject to annexation agreements, but would still be included in cost sharing under the local improvement district formation under Boulder Revised Code 8-1, which we'll discuss further in a couple slides. For the 50 properties in Boulder Valley School District that do have existing annexation agreements, there are 5 different types of agreements, each with different cost-sharing provisions shown on the screen here. They range from paying a proportionate share of transportation improvement costs, to paying 50% of the cost, to paying 100% of the cost.

[137:19] And Boulder Valley School District's agreement is also unique in that their cost share amount is to be negotiated between the city and the district. So in order to satisfy all the annexation agreement types shown on the last slide. The City is proposing to cost share in about 50% of the right-of-way improvement costs with the 52 property owners. The City has also negotiated a cost share amount with BDSD, and will discuss the methodology for determining these amounts on the next slide. But the total project cost of $8.4 million is shown in the table on the right. This project cost is based on an 80% design cost estimate and includes contingencies for final construction and material costs.

[138:04] The City will fund 100% of all improvements to Broadway associated with the project, like the new flashing beacon crossing to Wonderland Lake, and all non-right-of-way improvements along Sumac Avenue, which includes subsurface drainage and utility infrastructure, and the engineering and administrative fees of the project. These costs and improvements total about $4.3 million. The right-of-way improvements along Sumac Avenue, which total just under $4.1 million, will be split roughly 50% between the city and the 52 property owners and Boulder Valley School District. In total, the city is proposing to fund about $6.3 million, or 75% of the overall project cost. So in order to defray the portion of the total project cost for right-of-way improvements on Sumac Avenue by levying by levying assessments to property owners for their cost share obligations, staff is proposing to create a local improvement district, or LID, per Boulder Revised Code Chapter 8-1.

[139:08] Per the code in Chapter 8-1, To form an LID, the city must show that properties within the proposed district are specially benefited by the improvements, and that individual assessments cannot exceed the special benefit each property receives from the project. For this project, we contracted with a firm, Gruen, Gruen & Associates, to calculate the special benefit the properties on Sumac Avenue and 17th Street will receive by the project improvements. From that work, it was determined all 52 properties, including the two that are not subject to annexation agreements, are specially benefited by the project. It also determined that our methodology to assess individual property owners based on a weighted average of their road frontage and lot size per the code does not exceed the special benefit the properties would receive. And this methodology of using,

[140:01] A combination of lot size and road frontage. It was also used to determine the contribution for BBSD, and was a starting point for those negotiations with the school district. When considering a formula to levy the assessments, staff considered a formula based on just the property's road frontage or just the property's lot size, but taking a weighted average of the two more fairly distributes the cost across all property owners. The table on the right shows the proposed minimum, maximum, and median property owner lump sum assessments, under our… under our formula. Lump sum assessments range from around $16,000 to $88,000, with a median assessment around $29,000. And it should be noted that City Council has the authority to establish an annual payment schedule and other terms of repayment as part of the LID approval process.

[141:00] So what comes next for the project? We are still determining dates to go to City Council, but it is anticipated early next year City Council will consider action on two items related to the project. The first is the approval… is approving the establishment of the LID, and the second action would be approving the project and authorizing project construction. There will be a first and second reading at City Council, with the second reading including a staff presentation, public hearing, and comment, council deliberation, and council vote. City's Council… City Council's decision on this will be quasi-judicial. Pending authorization from City Council, staff will complete final design in quarter 1, 2026, and advertise the project for construction. Construction is anticipated to begin in the second or third quarter of 2026, and last about 9 to 12 months. In the second quarter or third quarter of 2027, City Council will then consider a motion to levy the final assessments to property owners. Property owner assessments would begin after City Council approval and at substantial completion of project construction in 2027.

[142:14] So that concludes my project update tonight, and I just wanted to return to this slide for discussion and see if members of the board have any questions on why staff is proposing an LID to fund improvements on CMAC Avenue. Thank you. Thank you, John. I appreciate your presentation. This is something I've been watching for many years, and I'm excited to see this approach, the LID approach. And I guess my, My question… is… I mean, it seems as though you've had good cooperation from the neighbors, who would be involved in the LID. Is this something that is generally desired by them?

[143:06] Yeah, so we have, We have done some public engagement with the property owners, and have met with them to kind of discuss their, their cost share obligations, but maybe, Garrett or Blythe want to hop in here and talk about maybe, what we've heard from some property owners around the LID. Well, Darcy, I will speak first, and then Blythe could chime in if he would like to add anything additional. So, at this point, we're hearing from a number of the neighbors that they are not super pleased to be asked to participate in the cost of the improvements to Sumac Avenue, and therefore, some folks are, not looking forward to the creation of the LID. General sentiment from some of those folks who are opposed to the creation of the LID is that this is a cost that should be borne by the city, irrespective of the presence of the annexation agreements, and

[144:03] The city code also gets into specific requirements that must be in place for the creation of an LID, and so we are working carefully with city leadership and the attorney's office to make sure that we are checking all the boxes. That satisfy the requirements for the creation of the LID, and so that, if any of those sorts of questions arise from the residents, it can be demonstrated that the proper and thorough due diligence, took place. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I think it's a, it's a, it's a good mechanism for these kinds of improvements in a place that, you know, is an old… the old rural North Boulder, right, where there… these street improvements have happened. Yeah, well, they're obviously very needed, and they've… they've, just happened kind of piecemeal over time, and so it's time to really improve the whole street, but I understand the… the challenges to, making the case for funding that. Mike, go ahead.

[145:10] Yeah, I hadn't heard about these kinds of annexation agreements before this. Tonight, and just wondering, if there have been, any, any similar LID, Improvements done, and whether… The fact that this, Cost sharing… Is the requirement is… is, like, one of the reasons why Sumac has… has… Become, as you say, One of the lowest condition streets in the city, because Repairs that require this level of organization. improvements. I'm either, Matt.

[146:00] I might add, mike is, I don't… Garrett may know about other LID districts… And how they've been used, but I did want to add one thing that I understand. I guess two… at least two things that I understand in discussing with our attorney rep. My understanding is that Colorado law provides for this type of LID arrangement, and in this particular case. because of those annexation agreements, in a way, I think we feel an obligation To not distribute these costs to the taxpayers in general, given that the property owners on the street… many of them do have annexation agreements that clearly indicate an obligation. The other point I wanted to make is twofold, is to really thank Garrett and John and Roger For the hard work, because you can imagine going

[147:01] two people, and I understand that Roger and John went… went door-to-door, to a certain extent, and asked and and were the… were the messengers of this information to several people who were not the original property owners when the annexation agreements were put into place. So you can imagine that's a tough conversation to have with property owners, and so I want to thank them for that. And that was the other piece of this that makes it extra challenging, is that I also understand the annexation agreements that were put into place. Many of them were put into place many years ago, and in some cases, those property owners have since sold. And the obligation goes with the property, not the owner's, and so it has been challenging. It's been a challenging one to work through, and I'm appreciative of the hard work. That the team has put into it. Maybe, Garrett, you can speak to other LID projects? Yes, the city has used the LID process in other locations. Examples that we've cited in the past with TAB are Norwood and Locust. So the… the…

[148:06] the traffic mitigations that are in place, as well as the rain garden, stormwater treatments that you see along Norwood, that all was made possible through the creation of the Norwood Local Improvement District. And Locust Local Improvement District did the same. Those are two examples. There have been others along the way over the years. The key difference, I would say, is that at the time of annexation, most Properties are providing their public improvements at that point in time, and there's typically not a deferral, as was the case when some of these North Boulder neighborhoods annexed in because, there was some urgency at the time to annex due to, water contamination in the groundwater, and so they needed to connect to city water and sewer, and the agreement was made that they would participate in street upgrades to bring them to a city standard at a later point in time. And so, to your

[149:10] other question, Mike, has that been a factor? It has, because staff have been working to try to get improvements implemented on SUMAC for the last 15 to 20 years using the annexation agreements and the LID, and knowing that, we have avoided spending city funds alone to make the improvements, and now it's at a point that simple and straightforward maintenance that the pavement Management Program might typically use to make the street better is no longer a viable option. Because it needs a full reconstruction. Thank you. Yeah, that, that fully makes sense. Go ahead, Michael. To me, it's very interesting, because this… it's kind of the opposite of the kind of thing that gives me anxiety about lids. What gives me anxiety about lids is

[150:08] maybe the kind of Norwood scenario, where you have wealthy residents who are in a position to fund sort of higher and better quality of infrastructure than might… they might otherwise get, right? They're kind of oper… if they're able to fund, you know, superior, infrastructure for themselves, the lid might be a vehicle to kind of do that, and that would raise equity concerns for me. But this seems like it's kind of the other end of the spectrum. These guys, you know, Kind of committed to providing funding, and they didn't do it at the outset, so the bill has come due. I can understand their frustration, for folks who, particularly if they bought the property and, you know, and now they're in this situation of having to pay for these upgrades, but,

[151:03] I guess that's how it goes sometimes. I did, I was wondering about… so one thing I, you know, looking at sumac, it looks, you know, unlike Norwood, sumac looks like a street that's… too straight for its own good, in the sense that it would tempt folks to drive quickly, and I was wondering if there are traffic calming measures planned for this, so that you don't get folks speeding down That. And then the other question I had was whether you'd given any thought to using permeable pavers of some kind to help with drainage, and to use that as well as a form of traffic calming. Yeah, I can answer your first question, Michael, about, the traffic calming. We did consider, traffic calming, and in the concept design that we brought out to the public last year. So we were showing in the design a series of three, speed humps or speed cushions along the corridor, and got feedback on that, and the feedback was kind of mixed, whether residents, you know, wanted them or felt they needed them.

[152:14] And so we ended up taking them out of the design, which we're advancing, currently. But as I showed, kind of, the curb-to-curb width will narrow along the corridor, kind of in different parts of it, which will, you know, provide a little bit of, horizontal deflection along the corridor and provide some traffic calming, too. to vehicles, but I think we're also going to look at speeds after the project completion as well, because I think, kind of with the condition of the roadway, too, you know, I think people are generally driving slower on it, just because of the condition of the road. And so getting speed data after the project, could inform whether we had, traffic calming after the fact. And then, second question on permeable pavers. I don't think we considered that. I think, looking at, the curb and gutter, upgrades would, you know, would significantly improve the drainage condition of the road. And then, Garrett, if you want to add to that.

[153:16] Yes, one thing that we need to be bound to by the improvements to SUMAC and the creation of the Local Improvement District is building the streets in strict accordance with the design and construction standards, or the DCS, and there is no provision for permeable pavers in the DCS. That sounds like the definitive answer to me. Thanks. Thank you. Yeah, so, I mean, you're hearing from the community, you're following, you've got your model, and you're working with the lawyers, and it sounds like it's coming together.

[154:00] Well, I do hope that it continues, that it, you know, ends up, functioning well for students and families at Crestview, because they, you know, we heard a lot of concerns in 2019 about, the… how the sidewalk or the multi-use path sort of ends, and then people are forced into the street, and… and there… it does have that kind of rural quality still in some ways, you know, where people do tend to drive a little slower, but people were also very concerned about the potential for speeding, using it as a connector, you know, between 19th and Broadway. And, Yeah, I just… I think you're moving in the right direction with the LID, because it seems like the right… the most viable way to fund these, necessary improvements. I don't actually have other… questions or feedback? Anybody else?

[155:00] Thank you for the information. I think this is… it's really good to learn about the current status of the project. Thank you for the questions and the feedback. Yeah, appreciate it, Garrett. Okay, we're back on time. So, let's go, Let's go to matters from staff. And an update on, the transportation maintenance fee implementation, so Steven… Riho and Chris… Will… will, talk with us here. Congratulations to you both, Chris Haglin and Steven Rujo, for the success of getting the transportation maintenance fee Through Council, and let's hear about your next steps. Yeah, thanks, Darcy. So, before I hand it over to Chris, my name's Steven Grijo, I'm the Transportation Planning Manager, here to introduce Chris and a Transportation Maintenance Vee Update, which you all may remember as a component of the City's long-term financial strategy work.

[156:08] Just wanted to start by taking a moment to thank this board for your support of this initiative and letter to Council, as its passage will play a key role in helping the City better maintain its critical transportation infrastructure into the future, so… Just wanted to take a moment to thank you all for your support there, and with that, I'll hand it over to Chris Haglin for a brief update. Alright, thank you, Steven. Can everybody see the, title slide? Yes. Yes, we're good. Yes, all right, excellent, thank you. Yes, good evening, and thank you, Steven. My name is Chris Haglin, Principal Project Manager for Transportation Mobility, and I am here to give you an update on the TMF following Council approval of the fee on October 23rd. As Steven said, I would also like to thank this board, Transportation Advisory Board, for your support of the transportation maintenance fee in your letter, and all the other engagement that you've done that we are aware of, and we really appreciate that.

[157:12] All right, so just as a reminder, the TMF is a fee paid by both residential and non-residential or commercial properties to maintain our transportation infrastructure. It provides that real, stable, predictable, and scalable source of funding. to ensure that our city can perform basic maintenance to our most critical transportation infrastructure, and as Stephen mentioned, it is an important part of our long-term financial strategy as we seek to Kind of diversify our funding sources so that we're not so dependent on sales tax, which really doesn't have the ability to track the inflation of both cost and labor. The rates that a property pays is based on its proportional share of, of maintenance, based on its use of the system. In our case, looking at both vehicular and non-vehicular, trips, or person trips by the property.

[158:10] The revenue from the TMF would be used to pay for both underfunded and unfunded maintenance of our transportation infrastructure. Underfunding refers to maintenance that is currently being done, but not really at the level That we need to properly maintain, those pieces of infrastructure. Unfunded refers to maintenance activities that are just currently not being done, but ideally should be done, to properly maintain our transportation system. The focus of the fee revenue will be used for capital maintenance activities, and with a listing here on the slide, everything from Pavement and safety asset management, which is the majority, of that revenue, but also bridge assets, sidewalks, multi-use path, roadway markings, and bus stop maintenance.

[159:05] At the October 23rd City Council meeting, staff approved the ordinance, and then later the ordinance is tied to the budget. There's basically two ordinances that needed to be approved. One went individually as the TMF, or the originating or enabling Ordinance. The other one is part of the fee structure of the city, that was passed with the budget. Council, at their meeting, and following much discussion, directed staff to conduct some additional engagement on the transportation maintenance fee, and specifically engagement with the business community. In general, our goal is to inform the community that this is happening, this is a fee that was passed, it will be collected, but we want to discuss about when that will be, and really highlight the benefit, that the city will see from this additional funding for transportation infrastructure maintenance.

[160:03] Specifically when we want to build community awareness. With the general public and with the business community. That is one of our focus. We want to communicate the fee's purpose and the use of revenue, really the importance of this fee, and what it means to the city in the long run, in terms of long-term cost savings. We also want to answer any questions folks have on the fee methodology and the rates, clarifying that methodology and how rates are established, and clarity on land use categories. We'll receive input throughout that engagement process. Also specifically on the implementation of the fee, and then we'll share that, what we learned from that engagement with TAB and Council. While we are still in the process of finalizing our engagement strategy, we do have several proposed strategies included, including, promotion of, and development of a transportation maintenance fee webpage and frequently asked questions, or FAQ page.

[161:12] We would be driving people to that webpage through a variety of different mediums, including social media, press releases. Could be Channel 8, and utility bill inserts, just to name a few. We'll also, the transportation maintenance fee will also be promoted in conjunction with the City's Fund Our Future engagement process, and that is linked to our long-term financial strategy and the work that our finance department is doing on the budget. We're also proposing the development of a transportation maintenance fee dashboard. This is really about that return on investment, looking at both the revenue expenditures, and then also really highlighting what maintenance projects and activities

[162:02] are supported by this fee, and what that means in terms of the long-term financial health of the city, because as we know, deferred maintenance only costs more in the long run. And so we've taken a really important step in establishing that fee to help, Stem some of those future, costs. We also will continue to work with, the Boulder Chamber and Boulder Chamber Transportation Connections to conduct, the business community outreach. Not only in kind of group settings, using existing meetings, but also with one-on-one meetings with business representatives, that are real key stakeholders, that we want to engage. One-on-one with. We'll look at also, using our community connectors, that great group of folks in our community that help us reach kind of the underserved or non-English speaking populations, lower-income populations in our city, to help them grow awareness of what the fee is, and why the city is implementing that, and what is the benefit.

[163:09] Again. While all that's going on, we'll still continue our outreach, with those institutional, properties, those state, federal, local government, entities that are exempt from paying city fees and taxes, with the goal of negotiating intergovernmental agreements, or IGAs, with them, to increase, our revenue. So, just to summarize, Our next steps are to, finalize our engagement strategy. We're working with that, working with the city manager's office on that currently, so we want to finalize that strategy, and then also finalize, our implementation plan for the fee itself. There's a lot to do in terms of integrating this fee, possibly within our existing utility billing system, or possibly using a new system, to collect the fee as well. So, a lot of important decisions coming up on kind of that real technical side of things, to actually

[164:16] get to a point where the city can collect that revenue from the fee, and then be able to use it for these important maintenance projects. But, just wanted to provide you kind of a quick update after that, October 23rd meeting, and let you know that we are, moving full force into implementation. So, appreciate your time, and happy to answer any questions. Okay, thanks so much, Chris, appreciate it. Any questions from Michael? No, just… just congratulations. It's one… I think this is one of the best things that Council's approved, in the last year, because it… promises to, you know, make things better on a sustained basis for years and years to come, so I think it's…

[165:07] I know it was a difficult choice, and it was a close call in terms of the vote, but boy, you know, I think in time, everyone will come to see what a wise choice this was. And, you know, sumac is the illustration of what happens when you don't do it, right? True. Yeah, and also, I love the dashboard idea, and your before and after photos, like, showing folks what happens when you don't do this, and how expensive it is. That's a powerful story to tell, so I hope their dashboard, in some way, is able to communicate that to folks who are grousing about having to pay, you know, I think it's a great idea. We all need to pay our fair share to make sure we enjoy, you know, first-world infrastructure. And… and we need to be aware that If we don't… we should expect, deteriorating infrastructure and actually increased costs. So this is… this is, pound-foolish penny-wise, or whatever the inverse of…

[166:11] So, thank you so much. Yep, appreciate it. I agree, it's an important, basis for, Maintaining our roads and well thought out at the structure of What brings traffic into town and how to assess fees based on that. Thank you, appreciate your support. Yeah, and thanks so much for your openness to ongoing engagement, particularly with the business community, and to really clear communications. That's something we'll be talking about next with regard to our, letter to Council, but this is a priority that I think we all share, is really making sure that people fully understand, the need. Not just the need for this fee, but also its impact and its, I mean, what you said about,

[167:07] sales tax, not covering the inflation in materials and labor costs is really significant, because a lot of what we hear is, like, well, why can't, you know, why isn't that sufficient? Well, because prices and labor costs are constantly going up, and so we do need something that Is, gonna be able to cover that gap. So yeah, thanks for your commitment to really clear communications, to ongoing engagement, to make sure that this is well understood and can be implemented fully with full cooperation of everyone, so that we can, you know, enjoy and appreciate good infrastructure. Appreciate your support, Darcy, and look forward to talking to you soon on those engagement activities. Thank you. Yeah, thank you so much. Really appreciate it, guys. Any further discussion of that? I don't think so.

[168:00] Okay, great. Well, thank you to Stephen and Chris. Okay, so now it's our… time to, you know, address our, responsibility to advise Council about our priorities and what we would really like to see. Moving forward in this next year. And so, let's go over the… the two, letters. I'm just making sure that my fellow members are still here. I seem to have lost… Mike and Michael. Confirming. Darcy, that I don't see them Hey there. What happened? I saw that Chris became the host, and maybe that kicked some people off. Are we still recording? Are we still… yes, we're still recording? See, there is a little bit of power outage in, I think, somewhere, so I know Sydney's also offline. She texted me and said she doesn't have power right now.

[169:08] outage. Oh, no, I wonder if… Wow, so maybe Mike and Michael lost power at their homes? What do we do in this case? Hmm. We can't continue the meeting. can be… Sometimes it gets resolved quickly. Okay, if you were. Hop back on, maybe, I mean… the spend. Yeah, give them a few minutes. Or if not, if they can join by phone, we can always add them to the panelists. Yeah, I can see… Veronica, do I need to do anything if I am… If I was made a host. I don't know. anything I can do. Can you potentially click on my name and make me the host?

[170:03] Okay. Back on my cell phone. Oh, good, thank you, Mike. I was just texting you. I'll reach out to Michael now. Totally dark in the house, so… Oh my goodness. Alright, Veronica, I have made you the host again. Alright, I was gonna text Michael. The man of many talents, Chris. I'm trying. Okay, let's see if Michael can… Join us by phone. Oh, Devin's got his child! Hi! Okay, Mike's with us by phone, let's just see… You can call in.

[171:31] Michael said that his power is back. Mike, how's yours? Not back. Okay. Okay, so Michael's gonna come back. Sorry, we'll just suspend until we get our third member back, because we can't have a meeting without three. Hmm.

[172:08] I don't think that's ever happened before. Oh, there you are. Good. Okay, we're back. I was. Wow, that was… it was surprising, yeah, it was weird. Yeah, well, I mean… I don't know what caused the power outage. It's not that windy or anything, there's no snow around. My power is still out. Yeah. Who's this out? Yeah. Oh, dude. So all… you both received both versions of the, proposed letter, so I want to just entertain discussion about that. So, just to be clear, Michael… Mike drafted the first one that you received, and I sort of had made some comments, and then I drafted the second one, incorporating some of Mike's initial, verbiage for the opening and closing. So,

[173:07] did you… why don't you two share your thoughts about these two kind of different sets of priorities, and I can tell you why I am… In favor of advancing this… the… Second draft. Oh, one thing. I mean, Mike… Mike wrote the one, so… I wrote the first one, Yeah, so, I… I find that I like elements of both. And think that it might be worth trying to meld the two, so that we have a unified letter, in… You know, kind of advancing, a mix of the ideas that are found in the two, but I'm curious to hear from you, Darcy, what… what.

[174:00] Dummy. Prompted you to devise yours in lieu of… Well, I really, really appreciate Mike taking the initiative to write the, the initial one, because I, you know, I hadn't, Done that, and we had talked, about, kind of what I had been thinking, and then he, put together, materials. And the reason that I think it's important to move forward with, without the first three priorities that, Mike articulated is because those come from a very specific. group, and I think it's really important for us to not speak for that group through TAB, so I, I believe that that group should write its own letter, and, and that we should, articulate some different priorities. Mike, how are you feeling about that proposal?

[175:01] Well, I noticed in your letter, your first priority was about the on-street parking, moving back to transportation and maintenance, and I believe that is, something that's… that's happening… Is that not right? So I just felt like we should, have some points to… move towards the City Council in the coming year. Yes. And I guess I… I favor advancing… the most significant priorities, kind of regardless of where they come from. And that, just because I feel like you know, this needs… we need to give Council our best assessment of what's what they really need to focus on. And if those ideas happen to come from anyone, anywhere, I would want those to kind of rise to the top.

[176:04] So that… that was kind of my sense of it, is like, and that's kind of why, when I looked at the two, I said, oh, these both have great ideas here, we should, we should meld them. And, you know, frankly, they'll be in the position to sort out amongst those different ideas which they think are the highest priority. Maybe we can ask Bly. I didn't know if that was a done deal, to bring… the on-street… parking management that was under community vitality into transportation and mobility? Is that a… is that a certain… certainty? The caveat, Darcy, is I don't… I'm not looking at the… at the letter right now, so I don't. Sorry. the, the details of… but yes, the short answer is… .

[177:04] It is happening. CV is being reorganized, we are taking on parking policy, we are actively working on it. In the department with CV staff, and so if… If the wording in the letter gives some direction about how that change might happen. That… that could potentially be new and additive. To our operations and how we're organized? But yes, it is happening. So again, I… maybe… Maybe if I was looking at it, I could… I could be more helpful. I could share… I can share my screen. Let me just, Let me just pull it up. Well, Michael, I haven't heard from you of any other, any additional priorities you would want to see. Like, if we replaced the… the thing with… about,

[178:08] Transportation and mobility, or taking on parking management. What else would you want to see in that place? Oh my goodness, I've got so many priorities. That's the problem. Kind of sorting through priorities. It's a challenge on the fly. And I'd have to think about that. You know, kind of what I thought. mentioned a couple things. Yeah, I did. Yeah, and, you know, one of the things I thought, that I actually neglected to mention earlier was, I feel a certain sense of urgency surrounding the, the study of parking… of

[179:00] Bike parking utilization. Because that is going to inform, or that information is needed to inform work on that front. And I'm concerned about, Proceeding with an ordinance that doesn't get building developers… ahead of the curve. I'm a little worried that, you know, that we'll have insufficient bike parking, insufficient bike charging in buildings that are going to be constructed. And… and… have problems with that later on. Now, where that… falls vis-a-vis the other things, you know, in Mike's letter and your letter. I don't know, I'd have to think about it a little bit. That's why I was like, I don't know. Lots of priorities, right? Lots of important things that need to get done, but I… When is this letter due? Is there time to, kind of. Yeah, there is time, so we… so the other thing to discuss tonight is,

[180:07] our December meeting would be on December 8th, and this letter is due on December 19th to Council. So, the question is, do we want to have… do we want to… Keep thinking about this, and… Come up with a new draft? and, deliberate on December 8th. Or do we want… To just agree on some changes right now. that we can then vote on and, not meet in December. Well, as I said, I don't think I'm in the… I don't feel like I'm ready to vote on anything right now. I would be willing, -Oh, are you still there? Yeah, can you see my screen now? Just stop sharing your screen, okay. I've just had things go black on me, so I was… Oh, sorry.

[181:05] And I started sharing my screen. Do you see the two letters? Okay. Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah. Mike's on the left, mine is on the right. I… I was… I was gonna say I'm… I'm heading out of town on vacation, but I could, you know, take a crack at trying to meld the two together, and then… send that back and see what folks think about it, and that could be the basis for discussion on the 8th. I'd be… willing to do that, or we could stick Ednon with it, since he's not here. And that… and that's my question. Are there other things? So, for me, the really key thing, so I added in the… the thing about the… the paragraph on… Amps and making sure that parking went under transportation and mobility. My original thinking was really about communications, and so that's why I focused in the, kind of.

[182:02] last part, and my effort here was also to sort of condense. Mike's letter is 3 pages, and I got it down to 2, just to make it more concise, so if we could… if we can stay concise, if we can choose our topics and stay concise, that would be great. But this idea… so Chris actually articulated this in the TMF presentation just now, having a dashboard, having something that makes it super clear how the TMF is used. That's what I'm, you know, kind of proposing for all of the projects, because right now it's really hard to find that kind of financial, you know, and status information across projects. So that people really understand where is money for this project coming from, and where, you know, where is it in the planning and construction process, because it's… it's hard for people to understand these really big gaps between intensive community engagement and

[183:00] the work, or, you know, it's hard for people to really understand, well, why, you know, why isn't that being built? Or, where will that money come from, or why does it need another phase of planning? You know, it's like, it's hard often for people to understand that, and so I think that that should really be a priority, and we talked last time about About communications, and not further, I'm hoping that this approach would not really burden the department, whereas I feel like the points in Mike's letter, while they're important. and should probably, you know, be discussed, I feel like they're adding more to that list of undone projects, you know? So, like PICTIG and the other things, like, these projects are… could just be sort of added to that list, because they… the department may not have sufficient staff and funding right now to do these things. And so, what do we really want to ask Council to do, or to prioritize in the next year, knowing that that's going to staff, and that staff are going to need to carry out

[184:07] whatever council is prioritizing, right? And so we need to… I think we need to take care that what we present to them is well thought out in terms of impact on the transportation and Mobility Department. Yeah, I think that's a fair point. I would say, with respect to that, that I… It might be important to choose among these what we think are the most important. you know, priorities. Even if they are maybe, you know, somewhat burdensome, I mean, it may still be worth saying, hey, you know, this is… this has got to get done. And to the extent you don't have, you know, staff resources or whatever, that's a conversation that needs to happen between staff and council. Like, if you want us to do this, you gotta, you know, we're strapped as it is. We can't… so I think that's a conversation that may need to happen.

[185:09] But I think my sense is, anyway, that what Council's looking for us is not to sort of make judgments about budgets and priorities and staffing on the part of of staff, but is to… to kind of tell them, like, these are the, you know, these are the things that really require some attention. And I'm with you on transportation. I… I maybe would phrase it a little bit differently, like, you know. I like the idea of a project dashboard. I'm not sure that's the only way to do it, but I do think communication is critical. Like, you know, stepping up the game on communication is absolutely essential, because You know, there are a lot of members of the community who don't understand, what, what the city is doing and why they're doing it, and that just creates unnecessary friction for every project.

[186:02] we encounter, so I think that's, you know, that's definitely a priority from my perspective. I think DCS is… so for me, the things that kind of automatically rise to priority are things that are going to have a long-term impact. Like I was saying, like the standards for amps, for parking, right? That's gonna have a long-term impact. DCS also has a long-term impact, because we just live with that over and over and over again with each project. And if we got that right, if those were… if those were… Better standards in some respects. Then, you know, each one of the… the projects that we encounter are operating… they're kind of already elevated, right? We already have a set of standards, and we don't need to do everything, you know, in the kind of bespoke way that we did IRIS, that we can say, look, you know, here are the standards.

[187:02] it's kind of what Cambridge has done, Cambridge, Massachusetts, right? They have, really robust, standards and, for construction, and particularly for, you know, multi-mobile, facilities, and they just… You know, they just keep crunching those things out, one after the other, and as a consequence, they've been making huge strides, and relatively quickly. So that's… I think there are benefits to… to something like that. signals policy, it's like choosing your… choosing your favorite child, or, you know, whatever, a Sophie's choice here. I mean, we've had fatalities. Recently that, in my view, are at least a consequence of us not having a more robust signals policy. I think staff understands that, they're working on it, so… you know. I'd want to ratify that, but I don't think we need to tell staff that, like, you gotta do that, because I think they know.

[188:06] I knew that. Yeah, exactly. Well, here's what I would propose, and I, you know, other things come to mind as well after Devin's presentation, and the, you know. ongoing… the… the… the remaining challenges for Vision Zero and for, the safety of our system. So, why don't we… I… I would like to propose that we… That we… Work on this a little bit more. and vote on the letter on December 8th. I know people were looking forward to not meeting, but honestly, I do think we need that meeting. If we're going to have a well-informed direction. For this, this letter.

[189:02] Oh, I didn't know that there was a prospect we wouldn't have the meeting on the 8th. You didn't tell me that! Well, that's… I mean, There… there is that… so that's an option, right? Because there are no other… There are no other, agenda. We can have a short meeting to agree on the letter. Yeah. Yeah. And if that works for people, that really works for me, because I want to make sure that this is a good and meaningful letter, right? I want to make sure that it's meaningful, that it's useful, that it's not duplicative. And that it, you know, can actually help us do some good things in the next, you know, in the next year. So why don't we do that? Michael, will you be back in this time zone, December 8th? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'll be back in this time zone. And I can… I can, you know, I'll be… I'll have my laptop with me while I'm away, and I'll be sitting on trains and planes and automobiles with lots of time to kill, so…

[190:03] Yeah. You've got both versions, but let's… I encourage us all to think also about what we heard tonight, because I do think that there's… there are other… things that we could… we could add, and some things that we can cull. You know, clearly we've identified a couple of things that we can take out of, you know, at least one from each of these letters, and perhaps add something, meaningful about, about getting closer to our Vision Zero goals. Yeah. So… It seems like, I mean, I know we're not allowed to… Have more than two of us working on this. Yeah. Perhaps we could, you know, give it to Michael to sort of combine these I don't know. Well, and add whatever else needs to be done. Yes. Do we need to vote on that? I'd vote to hand it over to Michael. Okay, I'll take it on. But what I would ask, what I would ask is then, you know, like, do the Sophie's Choice. Tell me what, you know, things… particularly, Darcy, I think it's useful to understand where you were coming from in terms of, like, hey, we don't want to overwhelm staff.

[191:16] Those kinds of concerns can kind of make… help me be sensitive to those things as I'm trying to meld the two. That's useful, because I wasn't thinking in those terms. Yeah. I was thinking about what's the highest priority, you know, what's… what's… What's gonna get us the most bang for the buck, or for our time, or energy, whatever? Yeah, but it also has to be doable, right? Yes, indeed. Yeah. Well, how about this? Mike, do you… would it be okay with you if Michael and I conferred? Yeah. Okay, thank you for your work on this so far. I really, really appreciate it a lot. So why don't we do that, Michael? Why don't I sort of put these into…

[192:05] A document, and then… clean up some things and add a few notes, and then give it to you. Does that sound okay? Yep, sounds good. I'll, a week or week and a half, I'd say, before I can get something back, you know. That's fine. Yeah, we'll just need to vote on December 8th, so let's just keep that in mind, and there's nothing else we need to talk about that meeting, so we can make it short and just really focus on this and making it as good as it can be, okay? Okay. So that we can just drop sections, as opposed to having to… Yeah, and we will need to vote, so I don't think we can, like, further… We can… we can say that, you know, we vote, you know, given these changes, but let's get it as close to finish. What I'm suggesting is we could vote… I propose we adapt Section 1, Section 2, Section 4, and that… and that becomes the final letter, as opposed to…

[193:02] Okay. Having to redraft something that, Yeah. Well, we've got a really good start here. I think we just need to kind of take out and put in, you know, do a couple… a few meaningful changes, and I think it'll be good. Yep. Okay, okay, excellent. Well, I really appreciate your collaboration on this, and, you know, this is one of the more, kind of, impactful steps we can take, and it is important for us to be, to take good care with this, and make sure that we produce something we're proud of. So, yeah, great. Any other comments from TAB members? We're in open board comment now. Nothing? Okay. I've got a future agenda topic here for January, staff presentation and tab feedback.

[194:02] On the countywide strategic transit plan. I'm excited about that, that'll be really good to hear about. But let's do… Meredith, we're gonna go ahead and plan to have that December 8th meeting to finalize the letter. Okay, great, and to vote on the letter. Great! And… would someone like to move to adjourn the meeting? Move to adjourn. Any seconds? second, and I hope my power comes back on. We hope you're done in the dark too much longer. Okay, all in favor, say aye and raise your hand. Aye. We know you're raising your hand, Mike. Anyone opposed to adjourning? No. Alright, so we voted to adjourn at 9.15 PM. Thank you all very much, and Good night. Alright, thank you. Thanks.