 All right, I guess we're probably ready to go at 6 o'clock. I'm going to step in for chairperson steward. She's a little into the weather. So that's why I asked her for the thumbs up whenever I make a need help and Phil's going to step in whenever I need help as well. So, I guess we officially start our tab. Meeting here on April 11th at 6 o'clock. Great, I see everybody nodding a thumbs up. Awesome. So, I guess we've been the call to order. I guess we'll do a roll call. Andrew stewart present. Liz Osborne Courtney, Michelle. David McInerney present. Steve Lainer present. Diane Chris present. Council member Yarbrough present chair. You have a quorum. Thank you so much. So, I guess the 1st thing to do here is to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Are there any comments about the minutes? Or any discussions? No, can I get a motion to approve the minutes? Move that we approve the minutes. Do I have a 2nd, I second that. Fantastic. So, let's move to communications from the staff. Specifically, it looks like we're going to discuss the gay street public meeting outcomes. And then discussion on crossing guards that are needed. So, Phil, I'll let you lead this discussion. Yeah, thanks. So, last week, we had that meeting with the gay street residents, both Ben RTS, Carolyn, Michael and I believe Liz Osborne, you were able to make it. And was somebody else from the board. Able to make it not sure, but anyway, I was just. Sorry for the late notice on that 1, we meant to get that out to you earlier, obviously, but we did not, but. Caroline, I might just ask you, I apologize to kind of put you on the spot, but if you had a few. Just a few minutes, a few comments to make about how that meeting went, or. It was basically just to talk about traffic mitigation in the neighborhood. Typically, we don't really. Send this out to the TAB because it's more of a. Operational item, just like the no parking signs on. On 3rd Avenue, West 3rd Avenue usually are, but with things the way they are, we want to make sure that we're. Being as transparent that you're, that you're aware as a board of kind of what's going on out there. Just in the almost day to day traffic operations, but this is 1, and I'll like Caroline just kind of go and tell us a little bit more about. What the project was and kind of what happened from the, from the meeting feel, mind. Yeah, no problem. Is it my video showing. Okay, you noticed. Alright, yeah, we had a neighborhood traffic mitigation program. Public meeting for Gay Street, specifically the segment from Mountain View to 17th. We sent out, it was the mailers were sent out to the frontage properties only just kind of. Start somewhere and keep it basic, but although that might change given the degree of traffic mitigation, we end up pursuing. But there was really good turnout actually. So a lot of people showed up some people from there. Most of them were from. The target, I guess segment of Gay Street, there were a few like outside like 300 block. Even a little north, I think there's 1, like, 1700 block and just a few. Just assorted residents throughout the city. But a lot of feedback, so still kind of going through all that. So we had survey sent out before and then we had comment cards from the meeting and then just kind of all the comments that came in. Lots of, you know, you always have people for and against certain options. You talked about speed tables, traffic circles. A lot of people interested in, you know, always stops maybe at some of those intersections. Yeah, I'm trying to think of anything else I have interest in enforcement as well. So, I did talk to, or I want to, I did talk to Eric Lewis briefly about some enforcement, although it's probably going to become more of an ongoing discussion we'll have. But he's one of our police chiefs or police officers. Yeah. Yeah, so yeah, it's still right now. So that was a week ago. So that was last Monday. So still kind of going through a lot of the comments I got and the next step from here would be for us to kind of put together like a mitigation plan. And then kind of meet, I guess, with kind of the area sensitive properties. So it's like, you know, you might have the speed table right in front of your house. So that might be a higher. I don't know, I guess potential downside in a sense for some people compared to others, but yeah, that's kind of my update on that. Good chair recognizes Liz. Sorry, member Osborne. Thank you. I just wanted to say I was there. I was grateful for the being alerted to it. And I wanted to say that Carolyn did a great job in the face of worse. There were some people that were somewhat, well, I guess had a lot of complaints and there was a lot of unfocused sentiment. I would want to say suggest that maybe in the future, a microphone be brought to these meetings because we were in an awkward space and people had a difficult time. It's not so much that Carolyn didn't speak loudly, but the echoes in the room made it difficult to hear. And so microphone would have been great. I noticed that a camera has been installed at 15th and gay. And I'm wondering if that's the city or if that's somebody, one of the people doing that. That's the city. Yes. Okay. I asked. Yes, we do. We have a camera we can put up and sort of watch for like, we can get, you know, hours of Turning movement counts. So we actually did that at Mountain View too. So good. It's not trying to spy on anyone. No, no, I didn't. I didn't think actually I was grateful because I know one of the repeated comments was concerned about 15th and gay. And with the fill in growth that's happening right around there. That was what a lot of the interest was. So I was grateful to see that. And I wanted to say, good job. Thanks. Thank you. We have great staff. Ben was there as well. So Running the show. We really appreciate about their help. And thanks for letting us kind of tell you a little bit about that when we usually don't. But I think, Chair, you have something else to Ask. Yeah, I think, Phil, you reminded me and we forgot to do this on the last item of the approval and minutes. Let's just do a quick vote to approve those minutes. If we could All those in favor of approving the minutes from the proceeding meeting in March. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And any opposed. Okay, so we do approve the minutes. Phil, go ahead and go to the next item there. Just real quick. Caroline asked that we ask for, we're always looking for crossing guards. So Caroline runs that that program for the city. And so we're always looking for crossing guards at school. So if you want to volunteer or if you have people out there. That you have talked to who have shown some kind of interest in the safety of the, especially the children of our city. Be wonderful if you could help them steer them toward our crossing guard program. And that would be much appreciated. So thank you for that. Do we have a URL a link or any material we can provide because I have a couple neighbors who have asked to get involved in some some of these sorts of things. So Caroline Yeah, so I guess minor correction. Jess Taylor, who is the more direct supervisor. Now for the crossing guard program, but either way, it actually is a paid city position. But right now, actually, when I checked it this morning, I don't think. The job is posted so I can definitely send you a link to where like we have jobs posted, but yeah, try to get that sorted out. But yeah, we definitely have openings. And I don't know. I would just exactly which schools. But I have an idea of some of them that probably. Any questions on the crossing guards. That will send you a link when we, when we get it when we have opening. So thank you for that. Okay. Anything else, Phil for communications from staff. Not at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Now I want to check to see if we have any folks from the public who would like to speak. Phil, I see you shaking your head Stacy correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see anybody from the public. On our call list so you are correct. There is no on the call list. Great. So it looks like the, the 2 action items that we have is an update on the bylaws. I know we started this last meeting. And then the board member appointment process. So Phil, I'll let you step in and discuss these 2. Thank you so much chair or vice chair. Sorry, Sandy. Yeah, we just wanted to go back over. We did talk about this in March, the TAB bylaws. We wanted to update those just to bring them up into current standards. There's a lot of different things that are going on these days with these virtual meetings, quite frankly, and some other things that we just wanted to clean up some of the work. The verbiage and I wanted to turn it over. To a tossy to explain a little bit more. She's our assistant city manager or city attorney. We have a really good boost there. Assistant city attorney and she did most all the work on this. So I'm just kind of writing her coattails on this, but a tossy. If you could just explain kind of what's going on and what we're asking for tonight. Thank you. Good evening board. It's a pleasure to meet all of you. And so, you know, as Phil mentioned, we, we kind of just tweaked a little bit of the bylaw language. It was really to bring it. We wanted to align with some of the other bylaws that we have in the city and also to put in some references to virtual meetings, just because, you know, the time that the day in age right now, virtual meetings can happen. At any point in time. And so we wanted to make sure that the board had the ability to remotely attend these meetings if needed. And so a red line was sent out to the board, I think sometime this past week. And so just going section by section. And the first section with regard to meetings. We just updated the language to specifically reference the location of the meetings, either city council chambers at the Civic center or by remote attendance. And the remote attendance meetings, they are going to be governed by the city's electronic participation policy. And if you haven't seen a copy of that, we can get a copy out to the board sometime in the next week. And then with regard to think section to there was just some clarifying language. The other substantive section that had some changes was section 5 with regard to voting. And so the. The language that was changed in this particular section was with regard to a board members interest. So if there is a board member that has a direct personal interest in any type of matter. That is coming before the board, then what will happen at that point in time is that the other members of the board will consider the interest and by vote will determine whether or not. The 1 member with that potentially conflicting interest can either vote on the matter or they would refrain and step back. And so we added some language with regard to that. In section. 6 with regard to proceedings. Phil had mentioned that the board had started to do informational items where it's just a discussion or, you know, staff discussion, listening to something that's being brought and no action is taken. No motion is made versus an action item, which in this particular case with bylaws, we'd be voting. Whether or not to accept the bylaws as written and so that would be an action item. And so that was just updated. With regard to section 8 rules of procedure. We added some clarifying language as far as Roberts rules that if Roberts rules wasn't followed exactly to the letter, then that would not invalidate any type of action the board took. And then any type of formal action. Would be done by emotion and then any type of informal action would just be items that could potentially be referred to city staff or the chairperson. Great. And I think that is. I think that is it and then we just added some signatures as well. Just always here. Yeah, should be at the March meeting. At the March meeting, there were 2 items that you brought up as a board. And so we did include the section 5 for voting. The comment about removing the raising of hands and that kind of thing. So, we, that we took out that piece. And then we remember making you mentioned. The 1 editorial comments we made the change from who to whom, I believe, or whom to who. Sorry. So we got that corrected too. So those are the 2 comments you had at your last meeting. We took those into account. We added those. So, the staff is now requesting that you as a board approve or move to approve. Those, those new bylaws as amended. I guess we'll open it up just to see if there is any questions for assistant city attorney. Thank you very much for the information. Board member McInerney. Yes, in section 6. A 7. That now reads action business. Is that an intentional change? Should actually be action items. So that would be the items where we're making a formal motion. So I'll make that change and get that. There's no, no change from the current language there. And then it appears that the intent is to consistently refer to bylaws as a single word. Yes, I saw some things in the red line version that indicated that. So there are a couple places where bylaws are still 2 words. I'll go ahead and make that change as well. Okay, great. And for some reason, section 10 is titled sections plural 10. And that's it for me. Perfect. Thank you. I appreciate that anyone else. I can't see everybody on the screen. So, oh, yep. Thank you council member Michelle. There was also there are in section 6, there are 2 nines. Near where that action business was instead of action items. It was like 7, 8, 9, 9. That's right. I will. And then I also noticed the bylaws there were by dash laws by space laws and then several just regular bylaws. And then let's see page. In section 5, I, it looks like it should be votes should be rather than vote should be. I'm not sure the following words after that. I can find exactly where I meant. So the 2nd sentence vote shall be cast by voice. Rather than should it be vote or vote? Yes, that's it. Votes I never did. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else have anything they would like to ask or add. No. Okay. So, I guess we need a motion to approve. With the amendments. The amendments. Well, a motion to approve the bylaws with the state. Gotcha. Motion to approve the bylaws with the stated amendments. Do I have a motion? I would be willing to move that we accept the bylaws with the stated amendments. Thank you, board member Osborn. Do I have a second? Seconded. Great. We had almost 3 so board member McInerney went ahead and seconded. So let's go ahead and hold a vote. All those in favor of approving the bylaws with the state of amendments. Raise your hand or say I, I'm going to follow the new bylaws here. Hi. Hi. And any opposed raise your hand or say nay. Fantastic. Looks like we've got that approved. Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate that time on the bylaws. It seems kind of bureaucratic, but it is something that's important for the city and our board. So appreciate that. The next item on the. On the agenda is also something that has changed recently and. We did want to bring this to you because it's very important to this board because we have mid year. Replacements on our board. So. We need to. Her counsel's direction is to. Either appoints a two member board or two member subcommittee of this board. So we need to be able to help with the interviews or have the four move to have the full board. Be part of the interview process, which will start in April or started May. Sorry, started May. So I just wanted to bring this to your attention. We are. I think you saw the attachment. That talks a little bit more in detail about what we're looking for or what the council's looking for. As far as a nominating committee. I think that is. Two folks that are up. And if they put their name back into the. The hat, I guess. They wouldn't be part of the committee. And I want to make sure I get it right. I think. I think you're correct on that. So I think it has to be. Yeah, so one. You're one of them. Correct. And I'm trying to think who the second one, Sandy Stewart. Yes. So those are the two people who would not be eligible in either case, as far as a full board or as far as a. The two person. Nominating committee. They cannot be on that nominating committee if they put their names in the hat, which. I don't know if you have or not. But we're hoping you do. So we're hoping that we can get the board's input on which direction you'd like to follow with the nominating committee piece. We're bound by council to follow. So it sounds like the question that is whether we want to create a nominating committee with two members of the current board. Or we don't want to do that. And we would all be part of the interview process. So I guess first thing. I see board member Chris comment or question. I have a question. Mr. Lanner. I'm just reading what they're saying here about if the whole whole board conducts interviews or they would be interviewed interviewed no longer than 30 minutes. But that we would receive a predefined criteria questions and scoring. Um, that I guess would be provided by the city council. And I wonder if, if you've received that or seen what that might, might entail. And that might give us some direction as to who would be qualified to conduct the interviews. Also, I'm thinking. If I knew what the predefined criteria was. I believe that'll come from our city clerk. And so I have not seen them yet, but I would. Maybe check with Stacy. Have you seen anything or Jane? You've seen anything from the city clerk's office that talks about that criteria. This is Stacy. No, I have not seen anything. And Phil, yeah, they out on our team site, they have a tab. Folder set up. They can go out there and see the interview questions. I believe that they've selected. Okay, so those are out there. They are out there. Yes, on the team site under council boards and commissions. And I'm not sure. You may need to ask permission to get to that folder, but I can download it and maybe send it over to you here in just a couple of minutes. This is the problem with being interim, I guess. So, interim executive secretary, right? So, we decided that in the bylaws. I will find that and I will send it out to the whole TAB for review. Now, question that I have for you, Phil, and maybe somebody else can step in. Will the rubric be based on those pre interview questions or is that a separate process by either. City council city staff and that sort of thing, because I thought I saw rubric was also included, you know, where you have the table that you put in. They meet the certain predetermined requirements. Yeah, you know, I'm going to kind of go out on a little bit here and say, it's pretty critical that we stick with the same questions and the same. So, I don't know if that's the case or not, but that's what I got from. These recommendations in these guidelines was that we're going to stick to a rubric and ask the same questions and not take more than 30 minutes. So it's a fairly, fairly quick interview and that we forward the names of the people that we want us that you want to see the board. Either as the full board or the two members acting on behalf of the board. Move those toward to the city council for consideration. And the piece that I didn't understand was, and I need to get further update on this is if it's just the two people on the nominating committee. Can they fully represent the board or do we need to go back to the board vote on vote on that. But I think that's just going to be 2 time consuming. So what I'm understanding so far is the 2 members would be. Would be, you know, given the weight of the board on their shoulders to make those decisions and forward that onto the council. So they would be the ones who would you would be choosing to make that decision. If you go at the 2 member nominating committee format. That makes sense and it made sense on the rubric. I assumed it would have been the same questions. So, as you said, we would be interesting 2 members to make the decision or right carry the weight of the whole board and the decision. Any, any other questions or yep. Board member Michelle 1st and then board member Chris after that. So, it didn't seem clear to me that if, for example, if I'm not going to reapply for another term. But could I still be on the nominating committee if it's a 2 person committee. Because I'll still be on the board in May. Those decisions get made June that new board starts in July, right? And so. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't read any language that it was preventing. Unless I were to apply again, for example, or Sandra and I. We were to apply again. And of course we couldn't be on the nominating committee, but could we not even if we're, if our term is expiring and we're not going to reapply. My understanding there. I think, I think part of that is you were to be there for November for the end of the year. So you couldn't fulfill your responsibility. By not being on the board now. You know, we're leaving in June. So you can't, you can't be on it. Even if you want to, because you're supposed to be there again in November, unless you decided to run. I mean, put your name in again, and then you wouldn't be. You wouldn't be able to go through this because you would have been at the, the interview process in May. Does that make sense? It does to me. Yeah, so no, the answer is no. I just wonder how that works. If it's a full board, if the full board wanted to do the. I think we would still. I'll need to check on this, but I think we could still use anybody who was on the board at that time in May to do the interviews and that would be. That's kind of part of this process is does this board. Want to figure out who is who gets to be on that selection committee, the nominating committee. Is it the, if it's the 2, then it's probably, yeah, it can't be 1 of the. People that is reapplying. Yeah. Well, yeah, it can't be somebody who's reapplying clearly. But could it be somebody who's going to fill out their role through June. Would you be comfortable with that person making a decision on. Who gets to be on the TAB after they've left? Well, I guess the 1st thing we should probably come to is, do we want to do a nominating committee of 2 members. Or the, or the whole, the whole board, does that sound. Oh, I'm sorry. Board member Chris, you did have a comment and question. Go ahead. Thank you board member. So I have 2 observations, I guess 1 of the 1st 1 I was going to make was, is it possible we could do a bit of a hybrid. In other words, maybe have 2 lead persons, but have them, you know, all of the board listen in on the interviews and maybe give some feedback, or maybe. Maybe it's a different 2, 2 people that ask the questions. It seems like a whole board might be a bit daunting for all asking questions of an interviewee. But maybe we all want to hear the input from the perspective. And then also in regards to the conversation between. Board member Michelle and board member Stewart, I would think if a person is not reapplying for their position that they might have some insight as to who would be their replacement. So I think I agree with board member Lanier that, or maybe it was Mr. Greenwald who said, if you're not continuing, maybe you would be able to participate in the interviews. So those are my 2 comments. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, I guess the 1st thing we should probably get to is, do we want to put to a vote, whether we do a nominating committee or the full board? Does that sound like it's, it's a good idea to start off with that. And then we move from there. Or do we want to add the hybrid that board member Chris provided. That we would have, I guess, a nominating committee of 2 that would be the lead. That the whole board would be involved in terms of, I guess we'll call what would be the vote of the new member. Which I tend to agree with Mr. Greenwald that that may add more time to the process and possibly, you know, slow things down. But I honestly understand, of course, the need for input from everybody because it would be board members that would be working with. So, I guess we'll put that up. Go ahead. Thank you. It's and correct me if I'm misunderstanding this, but the city council wants us to make recommendations, but they actually are going to be doing the appointments. No, well, yes, but they're asking us to first off create either nominating committee here or not to do that and instead conduct interviews with the entire board. That's pretty much what they're asking for us tonight. So that's really what we need to come to a decision on. And Phil, correct me if I'm wrong. Is that. Well, I think, I think their city council has put you in charge in 1 of those 2. Options either to or all, I don't think you can do any kind of chain mix of that, but they're asking you to vet. The next members of the TAB so that they don't have to go through every 1 of the applicants if you already feel like. Some of the applicants maybe don't meet meet the standard that you've had to meet to be on the board. I don't know how to say it nicer than that, but. I think they just want you to vet so that. You know, they don't get the full range of applicants and, you know. Basically, it's kind of a waste of city council's time to see everybody who's applied. If you as a board would say, well, this person really doesn't have any transportation. Understanding or background or maybe they just don't understand what it's like to be on a board and you can get that to an interview, I guess. So, I don't know if council member you had. Your video on there for a moment, but I don't know if you have more to say about that or. I don't want to switch on the spot either. No, thanks. No, you all are doing a great job. Basically, exactly what you just said is we wanted you all to have the opportunity to choose. Who you think will be, you know, representative of that board. I mean, we go through my first time, you know, we went through so many people for hours and hours and hours and hours. And if I had never been on transportation, which I hadn't. You know, I wouldn't have known who to choose to be on the board. I'm just using my better judgment, right. And so we felt like it would be more beneficial for you all to be able to choose. Who would be beneficial for your board, you know, and help make those impactful decisions and someone who can work with you. Right. And understanding. So, but no, you're right. You, you, you all would just have to decide on if you want a nominating committee or if you all want to be a part of that decision making. Yes, those as counsel, we still want to know who's on the, on the, on these boards. So when you pick the 2 people or the people that you want to on the board, you know. That will be beneficial for you all. You know, and then it comes back to us and then we make that decision. I think that's, I think this is a good motion. I mean, for my 2 cents, I think 2 of our members. I think would be sufficient to be able to help that and advance candidates that then the city council would would approve or bring on. That's, that's my opinion. If we want to go around the room, we can, or we could just take it to a vote. Again, if anybody wants to chime in with any different viewpoint or any question. Yes, board member Christ and then board member Michelle after that. Are there 2 members that would like to volunteer. I feel like I'm pretty new. So maybe it should be somebody that's been on the, on the board for a little bit longer than I have. I guess I'll ask council or board member Osborne. Is that a yes, you would, you would serve on the committee or you have a question. I would. And I would too. Board member Michelle. I was just going to say, I think 2 would be sufficient and. If it's, if it's the whole committee, it would really be 5 if it's not the 2 that are expiring terms and that's just a lot of coordination. So I think 2 would be fine. Okay. We got to, it sounds like we've got some agreement here. So do we want to just go ahead and. Just do a vote here of the board for the nominating committee to be made up of 2 board members and cannot include those that are reapplying for their position. Is that something we can vote on tonight? Okay, and feel like I covered that correctly. You want to frame that in a formal motion? Yeah, exactly. So. I move that we appoint 2 members. Of the board to serve as a nominating committee. To recommend new and returning board members to for the city council. And with it can include those that are reapplying for their positions. You wanted to also state the name of those 2 people that would be wonderful. Okay. Do we want to do that during this as well? Okay. All right. That's that's. I feel like, yeah, if there's discussion about that, we can do that after the motions made. Okay. Well, a board member Osborne. Would be 1. And I'm happy to, is there anybody else that would be happy to. Just so we, because I mean, I'll step aside if somebody else feels those more qualified to be able to interview. No. Okay. Then I would say. Board member Osborne and myself. Would sit on the nominating committee. So I guess, can I get a motion for this? But you already moved. Okay. Can I get a second? I would second the motion. Okay. And board member. So I guess we'll go ahead and vote on this. All those in favor. And I'm not going to recap the whole motion. Raise your hand or say I. Hi. Hi. And any opposed, raise your hand or say nay. No, then it's approved. Thank you again for all the work on this interesting. Interesting. Just think different things that we're working on. To move the city forward. So thanks for taking care of that in this meeting. And we'll get with you in May. Or probably later this month actually and start organizing and seeing who's. Who's out there who's running or who's put their name back in the hat. Maybe I don't know who. Maybe there's 2 people on this board who'd like to do this some more. But otherwise we'll get, we'll get to the full slate of names. As well as the, the information that you requested about the criteria. So we'll get that out to you tomorrow. I'm hoping and then we'll get the. We'll try to organize times for everybody to meet and we'll try to figure out. Who's going to be rerunning and who, how many people we have. Sorry about that. Okay, so do we want to move on to the transportation improvement program project updates? So. Sure, that would be wonderful. Yes. In your package tonight. And I probably should have brought this up. So I could share with you as well. I don't know if I can share or not. I think I might be a. Might not be a co host, but I might be. Tonight we have 2 items for you that are. Basically, I think we took this in front of you a couple months ago where we talked about the various calls for projects. And so there's call number 1, which was a very. Quick turnaround short time frame. A bunch of dollars that went for regional projects. So things that were affecting the whole Denver region. And then now we're. We're still working through that. So those haven't been finalized yet, but they're all in the queue and they're being evaluated now by a doctor, the Denver regional council of governments, doctor cog. And I actually sit on the committee as a member of the Southwest weld. Sub region. Not the Boulder County, as you'd expect, but the Southwest world region was nice enough to nominate me to. Kind of vet these projects. So I was just on the call this afternoon, right before this meeting, in fact. And we talked about the regional projects. And so there's a bunch out there that. And some of them has some pretty direct influence on long, which is great. And they're. They're kind of toward the top of the scoring list, which is great, but that doesn't mean they'll be funded. So we kind of have to sit back. And I can't say much more than that at this point in time. We're also looking at call number 2, which is just the county. So now we're back in. Basically, Boulder and Southwest Weld County, because Lamont sits in both. And those smaller projects to go after this very short term amount of funding again, we have to. Basically spend all the dollars that we get from these grants by the end of 2026. Which sounds like it's way out there in a long time from now. And boy, can't even imagine that. You know, what it's going to look like in 2026, but. It's right around the corner in the world of transportation funding. So, in projects. So I just wanted to let you know, and I can bring these up if you'd like, but just let me know. Kind of your preference on these is. We've got 2 projects and 1 is a county line road project. So we've been working with actually both counties, Southwest Weld or Weld County. And Boulder County to see if they would split their money up in half. And so we're asking for. $2,720,000. As our total request of federal funding for that project, it's a 3.4. Million dollar project to add shoulders, which sounds incredible to me. Being in this business for over 30 years that we're going to spend 3 and a half million almost dollars. In shoulder widening, but that's the, that's the reality that we live in today. That's the, those are the numbers that we have to deal with. There's also going to be some road improvements to that. It's not just the shoulders, but there'll be some road improvements as well. And that's kind of line road from 17th North up to 66 state, I always 66. And so we just want to let you know that that's 1 of the projects we're considering. And we did forward that to a larger. Transportation committee or technical advisory committee for transportation today. As part of that sub region, we also took at the Weld County last week. And asked them to play pay for half of that. So. We, they were very generous and saying. That seemed to make sense for them. So we are. Let me get that number for you. Yeah, 1,360,000 dollars from each. County or each sub region. So that's our plan to move forward. We still have to be responsible for $680,000 for the local match. Which should be 20% if I've done my calculations correctly. So, 20% of the project has to be matched by the. With other funding. And so we think that's a really good project. So I'll stop there and just see if you have any questions about that project. Yeah, I have a quick question, Phil. Was that a section of roadway that we had some issues on prior? And is that the reason for the widening of it? And this is where I'd really like to get. Let's see. So I'm going to have to get our downloaded document here that we have on or that we've been talking about. Let me just go to the section. I really do want to highlight. This 1 piece because it's pretty critical in my mind. I know there's a, there's a park that's going to be. Yeah, let me see if I can share looked on that. Right. I hope you can see that picture. Does everybody see my content? How about now? Yes. Else to click the word that actually says share. So anyway, this is what kind of land pretty much looks like. I mean, if anybody's been out there lately, there's a little, there's a little bit of changes closer to the 17th avenue. Intersection, but this is pretty much what it looks like. And so. We'll see that if a car has any kind of safety issues at all, there's no place for it to really go. If bicycles want to use this corridor, there's no place for them to really go, except in the street and share the road with the. The cars and as it's getting busier, that's getting more and more difficult to have cars try to pass. Bicycles without having to really slow down wait for oncoming traffic to clear. So it is legal to cross the double yellow line. I know a lot of people don't believe that it is, but it's. If you're passing a bicycle, it's it's okay to do so or any slow vehicle. If it's a tractor or whatever's out here, which we do get a lot of tractors in this section of County line road as well. Any kind of slow moving vehicle or anything in the road you can pass the double on the double yellow line if it's safe to do so and there's no oncoming traffic. If not, you have to do you do have to wait behind the slow moving vehicle until it's safe to pass. But anyway, this is kind of what we've got going and we do have a park that's eventually going to be built we think in the next. Five years will really have probably some good design. I don't know if it's going to be up and running by them, but we should be starting at least on construction and have some elements that part complete. Basically on the west side of Caroline road, north of 17th north of Jim ham pond and those different things too so it's, it's closer to 66 than it is to 17th I would say, but that's going to add the traffic. So I hope that answers your questions. Sorry. No, it helps because context. Here's the section that we're talking about right here. If you're not familiar with that portion of the city. It is from 17th north. Eventually it will be widened so any kind of project that we do with the shoulders will be able to be incorporated into the next round of widening as well. Yes, ma'am. I just wanted to add in terms of traffic there with the growth of the long speak hospital. We're going to have a lot more people cutting, you know, getting off the interstate. Coming down 66 from me and birth that in places like that. So I think that's an important place to have widening. That's a great point. So, the board member Chris. It's the reason why the cost is so high, because you have to purchase property from some of the private owners out there. We do, we, though, there will be some likely right of way acquisition but we don't think it'll be too much. But that is part of the project cost you're correct. Any other comment or question. Board member Chris, we can hear you. You're on mute. Still can't hear you. Uh oh. Can you put the question in the chat line? Any other comments or questions on this particular project for anyone. So, why don't you. I'm not sure if I can see the chat. I can. I can. Yeah. Okay. I was waiting for. Okay. We'll, we'll certainly get back to that. I didn't want to share with the other piece of this is. US 27 or what we effectively know as main street, correct. At 21st Avenue, we're planning to do an underpass. And with any kind of pass, we really do need to make sure that we are doing really good planning and design. Before we just started going for construction dollars. So this is a. And this again blows me away quite frankly as a professional. And this business for a long time, $1 million we need to. Based on what we've done, we've reached out to some consulting firms and just kind of got an idea of. What would be needed and it's, you know, it's anywhere from $900,000 to over a million dollars. So we're asking for a million dollars. For design work and that'll be full design of the intersection. At 21st Avenue, this is kind of a. Gloppy map, I apologize for having so much action on this map, but. And hopefully you can still see it, but we're really working to. Make sure that we have a good connection here that is great separated from the rest of traffic. And part of that is you'll see over here we have, I don't know if you can see my cursor, but we have a on the east side of this. Intersection, we have a pretty good greenway that's already built out to a point. Not, not very far, but it's, it's planned to be further built and have a further connection in the oligarchy ditch here. And then further to the west, we've got 21st Avenue, which is planned to be enhanced. Well, it already is an enhanced multi use corridor. So we've done an extensive extensive data collection as far as our volumes in that area. And we've seen that this, the volumes that are out there can easily be supported with just one line of traffic in each direction. There isn't really a rush hour component to the street. The growth is all there. So people don't really use this as a cut through because it's kind of a slower street. It has lots of stop signs and a couple of signals. So with that said, we're working to make that connection. Does somebody have a question? So what we showed here is this is the view of the intersection. You've probably all been through it at least once in your time in Longmont. If not many, many times. And even this, you know, this is from Google Earth. And already we see there's a bicycle list approaching the intersection. There's a pedestrian on the other corner. It's a really tough. It's a really tough intersection quite frankly for people not in cars. And even for people in cars, it's a little rough as far as the way you go east to west and and have to, you know, kind of weave or kind of. Traverse that intersection in a kind of funky manner. And it's, it's getting less and less safe. I'll just say that I don't, you know, we'll have the numbers to kind of corroborate that information. But right now it's, it's, it's a tough intersection. And we do have a ditch that flows through here. And so the idea is to kind of connect up that those parts of the ditch with this intersection. And again, just trying to get the design done on that first and foremost. And we think we can do that the next, you know, two to three years, which puts us in line with this type of grant. So then I'll stop sharing my screen and listen to you. Bill, I had a quick question. So this is strictly for the design. And I know that you probably went out to some sort of a formal bid or RFI or what have you. How did they break down a million dollars just design because that's, that seems to me like, you know, that was just a quick estimate from the consultants that we've reached out to. Because there's a lot of complicating factors with the design. We have to go underneath Main Street, but then we also have to go underneath that one lane of 21st Avenue. Because that's how the ditch actually comes along from the West. I don't know what it looks like right on your screen, but comes from the West. And then dive straight south to get underneath 21st and then goes underneath 20 Main Street and then connects with with that Greenway trail that we talked about. So there's some strange complications there. We're not sure if all of it can happen, you know, underground to get all those different components and a bicyclist stays underground from all the way from 21st underneath. Or if we just go underneath Main Street and daylight on either side and then have them cross a grade somewhere, maybe further back, but we have to make the all these connections work. And it's not, it's not. It's very complicated. So it's not easy, but that's not the cost of construction. This is strictly the design site. So construction could be used to be the cost of construction. I'll be honest with you. Back about 10 years ago, or 15 years ago, you could build an underpass for about a million dollars. And that's what you look for. So what we'll do is in call number two, we'll go for the design dollars. And in call number four, which is, I didn't finish up my whole diatribe on that, but so there's one, two, three, four. And so three will be the furthest further out round of money, which is there's more money available. And it's further out goes further out into the future. So I think that has to be spent by 2028 the end of 2028 for that for those dollars. So our folks feel like if we can get to the design dollars in this round, in round four, we can go for we'll go for design and construction quite frankly. If we don't get the design dollars, we'll, we'll mix that in with call number four, which goes out end of December. So we'll be back to you really quick. You're getting, you're going to keep hearing this and hearing this probably almost at every other TV meeting. All right. Any, any other comments or questions from the, from the board? Again, this is just informational. So we're just trying to give you the heads up of what we're doing on staff. So what I'm hearing you say is the funny first, it's going to be, it's a, it's a work in progress. You're going to ask for a million dollars and see how far you can get and, and how much more you might need in a second or third pass. And what I probably should have said is I think people are saying that this is a three to five million dollar project, depending on what the design comes up with. So what we'll do is we'll just ask for the maximum amount. If we, if one million of that is designed, then we'll ask for four million dollars in construction in that call number four. If we don't get, if call number two doesn't get approved for us, then we will go for all the dollars in call number four, if that makes sense. We'll just ask for the full five million dollars, one million dollars being for the design, full design and four million being for full construction. And we might have some extra there, but we'd like to be conservative with grant dollars. Otherwise it comes out of the city pockets. So the first round is actually kind of feasibility design funding. Is that correct? We think it's feasible, but we just don't know what the design will look like and what it'll, what the final costs will be. So the design kind of goes in different rounds. It does a 30, 60 and then a 90, which is pretty much complete. And so at each one of those rounds, we'll get a better idea of the costs. And then we can figure out what to ask for from those. But, you know, we're not going to be done with this when we ask for the, when we ask for the construction dollars. It's going to be, we're going to be walking quite a little tightrope to make it all work. Warden Everton. Yeah, thanks. I just had a question because I was walking over there the other day. The Greenway trail that's been closed because it's over off of 119 heading. Is that eastbound? Okay, next step. But it's been closed since the flood. What, if we're looking or proposing to spend $5 million in an addition, what about the existing that's been closed or under construction? Yeah, anything that was closed and if it's been closed since the flood, I'm not quite sure which portion you're talking about. There's a section kind of closer of the green of the same brain greenway anyway. That's going to be closed for another. Yeah, so that section down by left hand brewery will be closed for another. Probably 12 to 18 months while we replace that bridge at Boston. And so you are correct. Those, those things get shut down and that is a flood control issue. But there's already money going to that. So there's a lot of FEMA dollars going to that there's a lot of city dollars going to that there's some federal other federal dollars going to that so. We, you know, to say we're set, we're set with the construction of that. It's just that because it's such a complicated project and it has to take a lot of things out of the floodway. So we're basically raising that bridge up. And then we're putting the, we're putting the trail higher up to so that doesn't flood as often as it used to. If you remember, if you recall, every June, I think that that section of trail would be under would be deep underwater, not just underwater, but like you could not really safely walk or take a bicycle under there. So we're working to get all that stuff up out of the flood floodway. Obviously the traffic will be completely out. And then that trail should only flood. And I think it's a, every 10 years or every 20 years, it would, there might get some water on it still, but you know, we're talking about 100 year floods so they talk about with the trails it's like 510 15 year floods. So. So those are being accounted for and still in the work plan them. They are in the work plan. You're correct. They're there. What we're going to come with you next next month is the CIP the capital improvement program. And that's where we built capital projects or the, you know, the hard concrete projects, most all of them. Whether they're bike ways, whether they're streets, whether they're bridges underpasses. And we'll be coming to you next week with our next month with those items. Thanks. I appreciate it. Yep. Board member Chris. If I can return to the question I was trying to ask when I couldn't unmute myself. Absolutely. You this plan for our 17th. County line road from 17th, going north. It says that you want to expand it by 5 feet. But then you said you, you're actually planning other expansions there. How much total expansion are you going to have in that area? Well, Boulder County did a study 2 years ago is right when the pandemic was kind of starting. But they got into the study was to look at county line road from state highway 66 all the way down through Erie. And so all the way down to I think state highway 7. And it included a 4 lane section for most all that roadway. For the long term future. So this would be this was included as part of the 4 lane section. So when you talk about right away needs. I mean, that's really where we're going to have to talk about the right away, but the city has acquired the property on the west. So basically what we'd probably do is hold the right away line on the east and not not buying that property to the east. And just expand the roadway into city property because then we don't have to. It's all we already own it. So we would just. We replat it so that we would have the right of way. Either street and then the property for the park be the parcel for the park if that makes sense. But we would just expand that right of way footprint. With our own with our own land with your land. The city's land. So, I hope that makes sense. It's kind of complicated, but. It's just swapping 1 city property with another basically. Is it going to reduce the size of the park significantly? No, it shouldn't. No, but it'll. It should make it easier for 1 event events get out of the park to make to get people. To the arterials that they're trying to get to either 66 or 119 or 17. Okay. Any other questions or comments from anyone. Okay. Thank you, Phil for the information and the. Context on all this. I guess now we'll move to. Comments from the board on tonight's meeting. I think we're past all the. All the items. Should I go around the room or. We can also take comments on any issues you have. I should say, sorry. No comments for me. I just wanted to say, you did a good, brave job tonight. Vice chair. That was very well done. Thank you. And everybody else from the staff as well. We really appreciate all you do to help us understand what's going on. Yes, I agree with your 2nd point. Board member McNair. I would just comment that both of the TIP projects that were presented look great. Very worthwhile projects. Board member Chris. I want to thank board member long for bringing up the continued. Work in progress over the green way where there was flooding. And I agree with board member McInerney that these, both of these. Projects in the works look promising. Board member Michelle. Great information tonight and you did a good job. So. And I just, I think it's a, I think it's a good idea for the current board members to look at the future board members. So I really, I think that's going to be helpful and help take some of the burden off of city council because. I mean, remembering we went through those interviews and imagining all the people they had to interview for. Multitude of hours that if, if current board members could recommend and then city council review and vote on that would take a little bit off of them. I think that's with purpose because we are, you know, the board members currently already know what's going on and would look for someone with some sort of skills or at least enthusiasm for this topic to help move forward with this project. Thank you. We'll put. Yeah. We'll put. Count board member Stuart or I should say chairman Stuart. Thank you, Steve for filling in for me. And this was a great meeting. Thank you. For all the stuff we talked about. It's all important. I hope to be well. My next. Great. And I agree with everybody's comment. Staff. Fill you did a great job filling us in. As well as other staff members. Along with the assistant city attorney. So we all appreciate that. Council member. Yarpura. Would you like to add anything? Any comments on tonight's discussion? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Great. Good to hear your comments on tonight's discussion. Discussions. Only that you all are doing such a wonderful job. I love hearing all the questions and I'm learning too. You know. Board member. Chris and I are new. And so we're learning together. I appreciate all the knowledge and I appreciate all the questions and. In the comments so. me, for me not knowing everything. But I appreciate all that you all do. So thank you. And you did an awesome job. Thank you. Great. And I think, Phil, do you have anything you want to add? Just thank you all for your service. I volunteer at some point to do these jobs. So we very much appreciated the staff and your inputs critical to us moving forward. So every time you comment on something or say something about the projects or even if it's the little things that we do as far as helping us with the public meetings. We really appreciate your comments on that. We understand this is not your chosen profession necessarily. It is ours. We love doing it, but we really appreciate you coming at least once a month if not more to volunteer at times. So thank you. Next month we plan on doing the we plan on doing this the Capital Improvement Program with you all. And you'll get to hear somebody else speak finally besides me. And so that'll be good. And then we'll probably talk about the tips some more. But I'm hoping we're kind of have a little little buffer times with that. And then obviously in May we'll be looking forward to our meeting with you, the two of you for the Nominating Committee. So those are kind of the things on our list right now. And then you've given me a small list of things to maybe put out tonight. And Jane is, you never see Jane or Stacey really and even Ben was kind of quiet today. We got to see Caroline, but they're all wonderful staff. They kind of behind the scenes that really take care of this whole thing for especially me. But then you guys get to see hopefully more of a seamless things. We really appreciate their time on this too. But they've already sent me some things to send out to you. So we'll get those out to you tomorrow morning. Great. Thank you again for your time. Yeah. And so next month's meeting just for bookkeeping is the 9th of May. So I guess without any more comments, move to adjourn the meeting. Second. Second. No opposed. Great. Thank you, everybody. We'll talk next month. Great. Have a great night. Thank you. Thank you.