Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordination Committee Meeting   7/21/2022

Jenkins, or like a hawk.

Right.

And so again, it's the expectations of the users, the pedestrians at that location.

You've got a lot of folks coming northbound from

The county that may not be expecting this and they don't want to create a false sense of safety at that.

Okay, I feel like you're hearing me that this is something the county really wants to include.

So I think this is where we have to leave it.

But thank you for the explanation.

I just want to reiterate, you know, we need the people from Southwood to be able to walk out of Southwood.

So that's, it's a priority for us, but we'll, we'll do what we can.

Yeah, I just finished up by saying yeah, I recognize that it kind of

I know that part of what we were talking with Chuck about when the Fifth Street Study was actually done, that a lot of the focus was on the connections from Old Lynchburg back towards the city.

And he said something along the lines, he sort of spoken with Kevin about the shared use path.

It seems to me it would have been, and this is, I wasn't participating at the time.

It's kind of like, if this is,

It should have been known, I can imagine that the county probably would have preferred for the project to actually be on the opposite side of the road.

Because I imagine the number of users coming from Southwood far outweighs those coming down Ambrose Commons.

So I'm not quite sure, to be honest with you, why those decisions were made back during the study period.

But I agree with you that it would seem to link in the folks from Southwood would be a higher priority.

So I do hear what you're saying.

Yeah, I actually had a question for Jessica.

Jessica, do you or the county, when you submit your projects in a SMART SCALE in the portal, do you have your economic development or your page open to where

And Michael correct me, but I think I can snag economic development pins from off the website if you have a certain box to, I think it allows like the public to view.

I don't know for sure.

I think

I don't know.

I can ask and find out what we decided to do.

I think that the only reason we would want to keep that information private is if there were plans that were not public yet, and for some reason wanted to be kept quiet.

But I don't think that that applies in our case.

OK. Yeah, I think that if you guys go the uncheck box route, I think I will.

And hi, Chris.

I see that you joined us.

We're just talking about SMART SCALE right now, Chris.

I think that this is going to be a light agenda.

I know that about two months ago, you mentioned some projects that you were working on.

If you wanted to touch on those, you can.

I have no more questions about SMART SCALE.

and Jessica, I don't know if you have any more.

I'm still not totally clear on the Rivanna River Bridge.

That's still a three mile radius.

And I guess the other project is half mile, but it's not for me to understand.

But I'm three with one scale.

Just sorry to interrupt.

Just real quick, like what we were looking at is sure there is a new bridge being proposed with the Avon Street project that's right there at the City County line.

But in essence, it's really it's associated with the road.

It's mostly a bike facility that's parallel to that road as opposed to the Rivanna Bridge, which is like I mean, you're driving the whole driving force behind the project is the new bridge.

That is not associated with roadway and it really is kind of a it's a it's more of a bridge project than it is a bike project.

It's I would grant you it's splitting hairs, but I think we're looking at that as an opportunity to pretty significant cost to try and help bolster the case that

or regional and a larger project, and therefore should have the tier three rating, which allows a three mile radius.

Hey, Michael.

Following that logic, if we were addressing the Rivanna crossing via, for example, a cantilevered bike

Okay, so I guess you can segue into one map I provided in your

Packett, the attribute tables out of one map.

The last spike file, I think, was updated one year, three months, one week, and six days ago.

And I think EVA's data is

almost three years old.

I know that the city is getting a new transportation planner and possibly a bicycle and pedestrian planner.

But with this information, at least in the system being old, when is the next update from the county and UVA to occur?

And Jessica, I don't think you might not have that answer.

I know that Kevin McDermott mentioned at a PDC meeting a month ago that there were several sidewalk projects being constructed or underway and possibly nearing completion.

I'm not sure if those sidewalks are mapped or have been mapped and my guess is that I don't have those digitized and maybe Brian at the county has those.

but I think we are in need of another update at some point if indeed the files that I have are two years, nine months, and one year, three months old.

Lucinda and Isabella went out to the rural areas.

Surprisingly, there has not been much change out there from what data sources existed at the PDC.

I know Jack raised some thoughts about whether or not we use center lines, do sidewalks, when we show them on the map, do they cross driveways?

And from doing some of the mapping for their rural town inventory, I think that is probably best that we do have or show the sidewalk crossing over driveways.

If not, it looks like there are a bunch of gaps and looks really messy.

So I guess the next thing really for this group basically I want to hear Michael's perspective and Peter judging from what you see on the attribute tables and knowing that we have data that's old or can be refreshed and the city possibly getting two positions.

I can jump in.

Yes, Ryan, we have a bunch of sidewalk construction projects that are just wrapping up or will be wrapped up by the end of summer.

And I'll just leave September out there, Jessica.

That might be too soon.

That might not.

As far as I can take the October, but yeah, I just do September.

Yeah, we'll definitely want to.

Well, Ryan, I think you're correct that the city having either of those two positions filled would be an important steward for the city's piece of that project.

So,

I think it is reasonable to expect major progress to wait until that point.

Now, you and I have discussed informally that there are certain things that this committee as a whole needs to decide and that city individual doesn't need to

necessarily be party to making the decision they can live with it.

So for example, we talked about there being a maintenance schedule, you know, or almost like an MOU developed between the City of the County UVA and the MPO that defines things like maintenance schedule, outlines what form that data handoff is going to take, where the data is going to live,

that sort of decision doesn't necessarily have to wait until the city hires those positions.

After all, we don't know when that's gonna be and we probably shouldn't wait.

But I do think that it is reasonable to expect that the project won't be finished until that individual has had a chance to at least take a look at it, you know.

But I would rather them come into their, this is just me personally, I would want for that individual to come into their job with the expectation that they're working closely with the MPO in the county and that this is one of the vehicles that is going to do that.

If I were stepping into the job and I were being told I need to work with my counterparts, my first question would be, well, what is the vehicle?

And this is the answer for that.

Thanks, Peter.

Good point.

Well, Peter and I, we had an in-front team conversation on the street the other day.

And I really think that that's going to be the crux of this whole effort, is getting the updates and the inventory and getting it mapped, whether it's used for a planning tool, whether it's used for the public,

It's just going to be someone dedicated on both city, county, university, and at the MPO to coordinate that update.

And I think one of the advantages that we have next month is that Sandy is back.

I know she would have some thoughts.

I know that.

I was just gonna say, so, Ryan, are you saying the big problem is that you don't have any data from the city for their sidewalks and bike lanes and shared use paths?

Yeah, it exists.

It's just that, one, I think Jack wanted to be cautious to put his staff on a project when they were already slunk.

I know that we didn't have any money, MCO did not have any money left

in the budget for this last fiscal year to talk about one map or to do much work.

And now in FY23, we have many programs for one map.

So the data exists.

I think Chris has worked with Amanda Ponce in the past and Michael, I know you've recommended Amanda.

You've been recommended me too.

I believe Mr. Simmons or Simpson at the city

So the city that exists, it's just that how old is it?

It's probably as new as when Chris and Amanda looked at it.

Yeah, I mean, it just, I apologize.

I did not do any, I didn't see this agenda until right now, so I didn't do any,

Sort of looking into the stuff.

I mean, I know that there are certain files the city has for the sidewalk layer and what have you.

Have you looked at sort of how date or unusable that is?

No, because we did not have any money left in the budget the last two months of the fiscal year to touch the map.

Sandy was out and she really wanted discussion to begin this fiscal year and so to resume the discussion.

and Jack was hesitant to take Kevin or Mark Simpson, Mr. Simpson off of his daily work to figure out what needed to be updated with that.

But I think the interest is definitely there from Peter and from me, Michael, to

You know, get this completed.

And I think it's there from Sandy as well to include it in the work program.

Yep.

because I think like Kevin McDermott mentioned, I think he rattled off about four or five projects that were either under construction or about to wrap up or just started construction or about to wrap up.

And I don't know how many, how fast sidewalks and bicycle buildings get built, especially with the private sector.

I guess part of what I'm wondering in that question is, and I guess this comes back to ultimately, what are we trying to achieve?

It seems to me that there's been

multiple goals set forth for what the One Map project could be.

I mean, on one level, it was a public facing document that people could use to sort of, for example, create an app and then your average person could know where to walk on facilities or know where to ride bikes on shared use paths or what have you.

And you'd think you'd want to have something fairly accurate for that.

The other vision was something that could be maybe a little bit less

You know current data or up-to-date data and that'd be something for a planning tool and matching that with you know it's coming up with the long-range transportation plan I mean how you know how accurate do we really need the data to be to be able to look at the system of bike ped facilities within the development area in the city of Charlottesville so that we can

sort of plan for corridors and then look for opportunities, start to prioritize going for the next three or four different grounds of grant opportunities to try and build a more holistic system in the city.

I would assume the data that we have, and that's kind of what I've been asking, if I can just get what the data is that you have, sort of start looking at it, get the shape files and what have you.

So we can just sort of see,

Is it something that's of enough quality that we could start planning on a corridor basis or an opportunity basis to sort of connect major centers within the development area within the MPO boundary?

So I guess that was a long-winded way of sort of setting it up.

I'm kind of curious, maybe Jessica, Chris, Brennen, I mean, as far as long range planning goes,

Do you guys see some value in this tool or are you all, you know, as the ultimate consumers of the information looking for something that really is more forward facing for the general public?

But where are we going with the one map?

This is Chris.

I would, I would think that we had gotten the data, you know, a couple of years ago that it was in the right format and it was all there.

So the question is, is it up to date?

That's two, you know,

If there's still a formatting gap between the localities, if that's the issue, that needs to be scrubbed up.

In terms of up-to-dateness, Brennen could probably correct me.

I don't think we've built new bike lanes or a whole lot of new sidewalk in the last year and a half necessarily.

I know the county has out in the Royal Road area and stuff.

I've seen a lot of stuff out there, but I think you could assume that we're up-to-date, but we might need to be data formatted.

This is Ruth.

I know when I was last involved with this project, prior to my role at the TJPDC, we were still struggling with formatting issues.

So, Ryan, I don't know if you've seen a more current version of the data.

The problem really is having consistent data standards.

So you have issues ranging from are people's attributes matching and are these geometries snapping to each other

across boundaries.

And I've worked on other larger projects like integrating our road center line data with other localities for the state.

And the way we handled that was we had agreed upon snap points.

And I think we probably need to do something similar for this project is have agreed upon not just attribute data, but snapping locations

for the areas where you cross from the city into the county.

So I think and honestly, when I was working at the county, the amount of attribute data that we were trying to collect for one map to get it to match between all the localities was a hurdle.

It's a lot of stuff that we were trying to

I understand the project is very, very important.

It has a lot of potential, but you have to make sure that the scope is appropriate, that it's still something that people can reasonably do.

I come back, if it's more of a planning exercise, how precise do we need to be as opposed to something that is more public facing?

It sounds to me, you know, those issues of snapping, I mean, you may be off by 10, 20 feet in the real mapping world, but from a planning perspective, that's not a problem.

It is a problem if you're trying to make it, you're trying to get it into an app for the general public to use.

I mean, it seems to me that it's like, it's always that

I think you really touched upon it with the scope question.

If we're trying to use this for a planning tool, we may not have to be as precise as what you alluded to.

And having your data standard set and known among all the parties is really critical there.

Because I was in a managerial role at the county trying to help guide the project.

And, you know, I'm talking with folks and, you know, they're asking, you know, is this supposed to snap?

Do I need to go, you know, to all of the locations where it crosses jurisdictions that are asking, you know, do I need to fix this?

Michael didn't say this explicitly, but I think that having a hierarchy of need

Driving the scope is crucial.

So just for me, the highest and most critical need is a planning tool.

Subset, a planning tool for the MPO.

Secondarily, a planning tool for the localities.

Tertiary, and there's a big gap, would be planning by nonprofit partners.

Fourth level of priority would be the public.

but I will say that it is a crucial need that TJPDC's bicycle pedestrian plan was delayed something like six or nine months because we didn't have an inventory of current conditions.

There was a very heavy cost for that delay.

One delay is that there's no implementation chapter on the bicycle pedestrian plan.

and that is costing us quite a lot as a community.

If we have the simple improvement of the MPO having solid data could use for the LRTP and other uses, that would be a great step forward.

You know, I don't wanna create a whole nother workload when, you know, like myself or anybody in the future that works at the PDC position, but would it be any value to get, of getting a rounding that snapping issue by just having this work at the PDC?

So basically,

Anytime one map is updated or released to the public or what have you, at least to get around that staffing issue, it's just done here at the PDC by me or future me.

And if, like I said, me or a future me, but then it'll take the logistics of making sure that the city and the county coordinate and provide information.

I think it's going to be primarily with the public sector side.

I know some of the

Some of the information probably updated, say, during a SMART SCALE year, just like the county submitted a few site plans, and then the city could probably just go in and digitize some files just off of that.

But, you know, SMART SCALE is like every two years, and then you've got the TIP process.

Sometimes those projects don't really get

Sorry to interrupt, Ryan.

I do think Peter brought up a good point, though.

We should have something available for the LRTP process.

And I would even, of course, one disadvantage I'm at is I was not involved with the process when we came up with the attribute requirements.

I assume, does somebody still have that document of what the attribute requirements that we were trying to commonly, you know, could join?

Is that document still around?

I might be able to get it from the county.

I had it in, when I was at the county,

The reason I ask that question is like we're sort of saying, oh, the city doesn't have its data in the right format.

And then my question is, what attributes does it not have in the right format?

And how critical are some of those?

Can some of those actually even just sort of be not knowing what they are?

I can't answer that question, but I can surmise that probably some of them are not as important as line work.

or you could like, even in this process, you could create that attribute table onto your own just for the pure planning exercise that we're about ready to undertake with LRTP.

I mean, it exists or doesn't exist or plan or something like that.

You might be able to, we're not talking about a huge geographic area.

And if we get into a planning process and, oh, hey, that one's not attributed correctly, well, then we can do a little bit of data scrubbing it.

I think there's a,

There's a temporal component about this as part of it's the immediacy of the LRTP coming up versus the tool that we would like to try and keep current across these three jurisdictions going forward.

And Michael, just for some context, the attribute table was something like 15 or more fields, each with its own data dictionary.

So it was a significant lift to convert existing data into that format.

Had to do a lot of research to figure out

what the appropriate attribute was.

So just so you know, it wasn't like, you know, you needed three fields filled out.

And do we have an understanding of how, first of all, it sounded like the city and UVA, I mean, the county and UVA were able to combine their attributes.

I don't think so.

One other thing I keep coming back to is I'm not the right person to have in this conversation.

Can we bring the GIS people from City, County, and UVA together to have this difficult technical conversation?

Whether the PDC is going to take on the overall management of the technical side or not, I think those are the people who should be having this conversation.

Good point, Jessica.

Ryan, we're in the new fiscal year and I assume you guys can start charging this.

I know you're kind of waiting for Sandy to get back in August, but is it possible we could set that type of meeting up?

Maybe we could also share the data.

What you sent right there looked like they were screenshots of

Right.

In some ways, you can almost kind of get an idea of what field probably would have been looked at.

I remember Sandy mentioning a couple of meetings ago that she believes that not all those attributes that you see were part of the One Map effort.

But by looking at the last editor column with Danny Butch and some folks from UVA, you can get an idea of probably where that data, where those columns are, like which data is like state data and which data was probably hooked up to the comprehensive plan and so forth.

Yeah, so in some ways you can almost

to get an idea of what was going on.

And my first meeting here with the bike ped committee, I think it was in January or February.

And I think Danny Butch had noted that the county and the city had their information together right from that it was the city that they were waiting on.

But it sounds like that maybe that might not have been totally correct from what Ruth is saying.

Part of the reason too, Michael, while I hesitated,

At least give you the files that I received from the county because I wanted to make sure that it was okay with the county that I did share this data.

So I just shared that Google Sheet with, I can't say it's the final list.

It's a list I found in my files from 2019, a list of attributes.

And I would recommend that whatever attributes are decided be as simple as possible.

So for example, looking through the county's data,

notes both the CAC and the Magisterial District.

That can be that if a planner needs that information, they could simply do a, you know, do a spatial search to find out, okay, I want to know which are in the CAC, you know.

I could imagine maybe a member of Congress would want to know what's in their congressional district.

That shouldn't be in our attribute table.

That data should be that kind of,

Output should be created spatially through a search, not through the attributes.

It's just looking for trouble having tons of unnecessary attributes.

Yeah, that's a good point.

Ryan, if you'd be kind enough to figure out, could you be kind enough to go back to the understanding your concern about sharing the data?

Would you be kind enough to go back to the people who provided the data and see if they were willing to share this with the people who were kind of on this call or on this committee?

Because it would be interesting for us to have a little bit of access to GIS just to sort of see what the data is, see how bad it is.

And then I think to Peter's point,

There may be stuff, if the problems with the line work, then that's a problem.

If the problem is with some of the attributes and some of the attribute fields are filled in like CAC, who cares?

I mean, it's really the line work that we really are most interested in because the whole concept behind the thing is to have one map that sort of showed the region's bike trails and sidewalks and other facilities.

Cause how do you do regional planning if you don't have them on a single map?

Yeah, it probably would not be just not, I'm busy with smart scale, but I can do that after smart scale.

That's not a problem.

Okay, well, that'd be great.

Yeah, if we can get that in the next, you know, six weeks, so we can start thinking about how to plan

to see what the problem is and then maybe start seeing where the solutions might be.

That'd be great.

Yeah, I would assume that the line work is really the basis of the whole planning exercise.

If it's obvious that the stuff doesn't match up, it's like off by like, you know, about 10 feet, but it doesn't even get close to each other.

We know the existing stuff, but we know we've got a lot of work to do.

If the line work sort of matches up, maybe the problem is that the sidewalks in the city are only polygons and not polyline data.

That's a problem.

I don't even understand the scope of what the barriers are to creating this map, much less, in some respects, what its purpose is.

I mean, for me, it's always been as a planning exercise, especially the idea of, let's say we want to get from where the county spent a lot of time in the Rio area, and we want to try and connect that down to destinations in the city like downtown and UVA.

What exists out there for infrastructure today and what's been planned for that infrastructure and what are the potential opportunities that have been discussed, maybe either by city staff, you know, people have ideas, maybe we should run it on alignment here versus alignment there.

We can start talking about how we create corridors to connect people from the Rio area down to the major destinations of UVA or

Pantops or downtown.

And then we can start a planning exercise of there's a corridor that looks like a good corridor.

And here are the places we're missing infrastructure.

And then we can get a good idea of what they might cost.

And then that might lead to grant applications.

That's kind of my broad vision of how this thing could be a very successful planning tool for prioritizing corridors of its major destinations.

And forgive me for being, you know, new to this whole One Map process.

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around this effort, per se, versus, say, your regional bicycle plan versus, yeah, just your long range bicycle plan or your city, your individual locality's bicycle pedestrian plan.

The only difference I see, major difference is that one had like the current facilities.

Yeah, that was one point.

But then does that get messy?

Yeah, I mean, there are so many details.

So Ryan and Michael, I think it would be a good idea for us at the TJPDC to internally discuss what our capacity is to technically shepherd the process and look at our capacity to potentially merge the data sets so that that isn't as big of a burden

for the individual GIS departments.

And then we can also schedule a meeting of the GIS folks at the different localities so that we can all come together and have consensus about what that process will look like.

And then also have a discussion about what those key attribute fields are so that that

maybe can reduce some of the burden also.

Well, that sounds great.

And I guess the only thing that's popped into my mind is perhaps Sandy has different ways she wants to tackle the long range bike planning regardless of maybe, you know, one alternative out of this thing is one map's too much work to try and pull off, but it would be good to understand then how are we going to,

to do the regional planning for these bike facilities.

I think one of the observations of the previous plan is that there was a lot of routes and that were put on there.

It was like, you know, over a hundred and, but it didn't, I never quite understood like what was the sort of the fundamental goals we're trying to achieve.

There didn't seem to, there was a tiering system but the tiering system didn't really lead to like sort of a,

Easy to understand narrative of, hey, we're trying to get, you know, most people just pick this one from Rio area to downtown and how is the city and the county working to make that happen?

The plan sort of has multiple routes, but it didn't really say, this is the corridor we're trying to build.

And these are the next projects for the next several different rounds of grants that we'll be using to try and build that corridor.

So I think that would be,

In VDOT we've been talking a lot internally about the need to try and for the city and the county to try and prioritize which projects that they want to build so that they have something that we can start doing the preliminary planning for these projects prior to application to get better applications and hopefully help things go more smoothly when it comes to the construction of projects that are well funded.

It seems a fundamental adverse step

is to pick out which projects want to be done and those things need to be part of what I would assume would be a concerted corridor of we're trying to get from point A to point B and so if Sandy has a different idea of how she wants to sort of achieve that, that'd be great.

I don't want to hang everything on the one map and fail on that but what seems to be a fundamental issue

of how are we getting people from the south side of town to downtown to UVA?

Those types of questions, just the fundamental ones is the planning process I think we need to go through.

And if one map is the right tool to do that, then it sounds like we need a lot of work to do that.

Yeah, so I would say that, but also

Another way, another shortcoming that the One Map addresses is not strictly for transportation planning, but like the transportation implications of land use planning would be helped a lot by having this.

So there's a lot of work happening in that like hydraulic 29 area.

You better not just use the city's transportation plan or the county's transportation plan and right,

It's better now with the regional plan, but still there's a little bit of people like me or county staff having in their head that something's happening in the city or vice versa.

Like having it laid out there and say, well, sir, you're saying your project's on the edge of town, but it's right in the heart of the urban area.

Hey Lucinda, I see your comment about using a grant to potentially work on this.

Well, there's lots of planning grants right now with the Infrastructure Act, so it's possible that one of those could be used for that.

It's probably kind of a small project.

Those tend to be larger amounts of money.

I know that this committee meets every month.

I know One Map, we can definitely bring this back within the update that we have from today, but are there any other agenda items that folks want to talk about?

I know Jessica, you have your, maybe at the next month, next month's meeting, the county will know about the status of your range grant.

I don't know if you want to talk about that next month if you guys get it or what have you, but if One Map is the only

Yeah, we may or may not be able to schedule a meeting with all the GIS folks before this meeting next month.

It would be reasonable to pause for August.

Lots of stuff does pause for August, but I would mention that this gathering, not only about SMART SCALE, is one of the recommended outcomes from the bike ped plan.

So having the check-in itself has value.

There are issues to discuss every single month.

like the RAISE grant is a potential example.

But it's a good idea to hold the calendar date and cancel it if there is no agenda as kind of is happening for August.

Also, this is not about the agenda, but I'm just so excited having Ruth on this call when we're talking about GIS stuff like that.

I was...

What a bonus that is.

If there are no bike and ped related comments and concerns from the public, I know there were a couple of emails from, I can't think of a different name.

So I was aware of the emails that Tommy has been sending around.

I'm not,

Pardee to that other than being copied.

I will observe that right now the city is getting really intense and serious about tactical urbanism because of the expanded walk zones.

For those who don't know, the city is dramatically increasing the size of its walk zones, and many more children are walking to school.

And so

As a result, the city is applying some human solutions to the gaps in the infrastructure, such as hiring crossing guards and also walk-in school buses.

They're also looking at tactical urbanism.

And I can say that

Ryan, if I could just add in, and I know everyone here knows that I used to have your position.

So just thinking through some additional ways to make these meetings more productive.

We used to have a lot of the public attend.

It's mostly people who are already very involved in the bike and ped world, but they often have useful comments or thoughtful comments that can be shared directly with bike and ped staff at the City of the County and UVA.

So I think

You know, making these meetings open to those folks again would be one way to increase content for each meeting.

Bringing in the safe routes to school coordinator from the city, especially given the new walk zone policy for the coming school year would be a great idea.

Again, especially if you have those members of the public there to ask questions and voice opinions.

And then lastly, Livable Seaville is another like nonprofit advocacy organization.

I know that, you know, as localities and as the PDC, we're not advocates for anything, but it is our job to make sure that people can get places, whatever mode they choose.

So having those folks come and maybe talk about the work they're doing and how that might align with

Yeah, so it sounds like Jessica maybe try to bring in some folks to talk to the committee.

Yeah, I owe you apologies, Jessica and the whole group.

So the

The working agreement that PC has with the TJPDC is that PC would assist to drive participation in all the processes.

This would be one of them.

This time, I did not publicize this meeting because it seemed kind of like an internal business taking stock.

With the One Map project, we see there's some behind the scenes work that needs to be done.

So I didn't push that.

I'll do a better job at future meetings.

And definitely, there will be public if we advertise it.

The one thing that TJPDC could help with that would make that easier is if it

And this might be the case with this meeting is if this meeting appeared on TJPDC's meeting list on its webpage or whatever.

Yeah, the other thing too is, you know, with the Lead Bike Pay Coordinator,

Coming on, but I know the city has the bike pay for your position.

I'm not sure if the county does as well.

It's just like how much overlap, you know, does a guy like Thomas Safranek make that comment to Brennen and the city solely, or does he bring it up at this setting?

So, and it could go either way, but

Yeah, you know, you wonder just how many groups to tap into to advertise this meeting.

Yeah.

And so there is like a little relevancy test and with any public process, you never know somebody, you know, could show up at city council meeting and

complain about their tax bill to the state of Wyoming and the city council has to listen even though it's not relevant to them.

But they're not gonna ever add Wyoming taxes to their agenda, just as an example.

But a different example that Tommy is also involved with is there's an increased momentum around the tax bill

Meadow Creek Greenway System that would connect hydraulic and the John Warner Parkway, for example.

That's like an RT Rivanna Trails led project, but it's really of extreme regional bilateral importance.

Good to know from here.

Well, thank you all for joining.

I'll try to type up some minutes.

I know that they're not approved by this committee, but I think that we can type them up and we share them with the public.

Thank you Ryan.