Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee (2013-2026) Meeting   11/19/2025

Do you want to do that first?

Okay, call attendance too.

Yeah, we'll call attendance.

Mr. Stuart Gardner?

Here.

Mr. Jose Gomez?

Here.

Mr. Ethan Heil?

Here.

Mr. Lee Kondor?

Here.

Mr. Nathan Moore.

I'm here.

And that's it.

We do have a visitor with us today, so he'll stand up and introduce herself.

That's good.

So, thank you.

Thank you.

And if we don't have any other matters from the public, we'll go ahead and

Have you had a chance to review the minutes?

Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes for the last meeting?

I made a couple of corrections, which I did to Sarah.

Yeah.

Ed Schiff without the F. That's another character.

It was already minute two of the update.

I guessed it.

Do we have a motion to approve the updated minutes of the last meeting?

So.

First of all, things I'll just, my name is Ms. Bell.

Brad Spellweaver, Sunayo McAnally.

Do you have that, Sarah?

Thank you.

I would move to approve them.

We learned it today, but I guess we can get there later.

Oh, I think we're just talking about the minutes from the last meeting for right now.

Well, I will move that we approve those minutes.

So what is the era, Sarah?

Oh, okay.

Oh, yeah, sure.

Sorry.

I think that's understandable to say.

Sorry.

Okay, so I think we'll move on to a new business, starting with a discussion of the structure of the TAC.

So happy to open the floor and start the discussion on this one.

Do you want to briefly go over the quick proposal?

I remember there were three.

And that was just a very brief overview of what was included in your packet.

What does it look like if we do it now and what would that look like?

That is also a place where we would think that the public would want to weigh in on what are the projects that the MPO wants to submit.

I guess my question is what the scenario two says, that the CTAC would provide input on those plans.

Right.

So do we do that?

Not that I'm aware of.

So what would it look like for this group to do that?

But if we had other like small area plans or studies, we would also look to CTAC to say, how should engagement look for this actual plan that we're doing, whether it's LRTP or another study.

So the recommendations here on the bulleted items are only for the public engagement process with these particular items?

You know, if the tech committee is per the 3C agreement, if they are the committee and the group that's supposed to be providing those technical recommendations to the policy board, that's us trying to help, you know, differentiate these two committees so that we don't have that duplication.

Who does technical committee represent?

And so typically that is planning staff at Charlottesville and Albemarle and also planning commissioners are on tech committee as well.

What did the tech committee offer to that process?

So those, typically we get updates at different milestones at our committee meetings, and feel free to jump in Sandy, but there are also stakeholder working groups that are made up of staff at the local governments as well that are receiving information as the planning process develops that they provide input on.

I mean, did they collaborate with that?

They were presented to the study work group, which consists of similar stakeholders.

Like there's overlap in those.

And they did present an alternative for them.

pushing the ramp back, moving the ramp down and extending the turn lanes by 100 feet was because of a discussion we had at a study work group meeting.

You know, it's some big long document that rarely gets changed in the slightest before the policy board approves it.

Like these are also VDOT studies where we are a stakeholder, we participate, but it's ultimately not our plan and our process to be able to kind of, you know, move around and dictate where the engagement gets to happen.

Probably less money than at least two of them if not all three you could have a scenario that actually worked and it cost nothing for me to do to provide that information but If I could jump in though what I would say regardless of what features for this committee all the information I mean Mr. Kondor we took your concept that you sent us and we presented it to our consultants

So you as an individual citizen, whether you're representing CTAC or not, will still have an opportunity to provide feedback into those processes.

Go ahead, yeah.

This is the first speaker we've seen in a year and it's power that individuals have to voice their concerns and if this doesn't exist there has to be some way to do that.

a project or a theme selection where people wanted to voice you know one particularly strong opinion about something because it impacts their poverty but instead it's like becoming a committee of folks that's committed to coming here regularly to discuss these transportation investments at a larger scale and I think you don't you're not going to get that same kind of audience saying that individual citizens can go to any of these meetings I mean I agree in theory yes but in reality it's not how it plays out right

I don't remember.

Yeah, I believe it's every four years.

Yeah.

A year or two.

So it takes a year or two and it happens in five years.

Yeah.

I mean, I'm not, I don't really want to just see it go away, go away, but scenario one would be acceptable and two might be okay too.

So scenario two is just an expansion of it or does anything disappear when you go from one to two?

But I would imagine just as whenever we're in an LRTP update year, our policy board and tech committee go to meeting every single month, I would imagine CTAC would probably follow that same cadence if you all were involved in the LRTP, whether it's scenario one or scenario two.

advisory board for those tasks.

Okay, thank you.

That's what it reads like.

To more of the public engagement, or does that make sense?

That does make sense.

and then I have another comment about too.

and didn't have bylaws until 2013 or 2014 but before then there's just like a one or two page memo that I was able to find on the establishment of Chart as a committee and it said meet once per year outside of the LRTP update years and so that's where a lot of this language came from just trying to mimic what it was at that time.

And that's very important.

I don't know how that would work, but that's my understanding of it.

If we continue, and if that's part of our role, how we constitute this group.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, so to build on it a little bit more then, really then we should have scenario four, which just becomes an advocacy group.

And I think that will not happen within the CJPDC.

But if it's going to be anywhere, it's going to be here.

What if you expanded a little bit the scope of the policy board and said let that also include citizens?

And then we have the same non-voting opportunity for MPO tech committee as well for the vice chair of CTAC.

Could that change?

Well, and what Sandy just brought up, so the 3C agreement that we signed with the state, the local jurisdictions and the transit providers, it identifies like what the structure of the policy board is supposed to be.

Yeah, I'll let that fly.

The policy board is one of the officials.

But I think you said the voting members.

And VDOT, there's a VDOT representative.

So it was always, you know, we were just always a couple steps behind.

Because we, yeah.

And if that is not something that this committee can do, then perhaps it should be dissolved because that's the thing that people are most interested in and feel one of the most.

because it's just natural and important politics being what it is.

At the beginning, at the end, we can sit through and listen to whatever they're presented, and then at the end, we provide our feedback to that mechanism that already exists.

In a spot like working towards aspiring to do that I would be much more comfortable with then then maybe framing this in a forum that we aren't present in as well if we can't do this then we might as well dissolve it and then all of a sudden it's like the road's been pulled away.

We are reacting to something that another

And I will say but even so like we are able to accommodate you all requested like the bike pad presentation be added on here so we found someone who could come and speak to that but largely right now how it's been set is anything the MPO policy board is considering is what ends up on the CTAC agenda as well the same with MPO tech committee they provide recommendations on the things that the policy board is taking action on so largely these agendas are pretty identical

Yeah.

Does TJPDC send out communications?

And so capacity could be a concern if we wanted to do like a more frequent sort of newsletter like that.

Is that what we just expected?

You suggested that maybe we should kick this around a little more.

or if there's a combination of them or if it's none of these at all, I think any feedback would be valuable for the policy board.

It seems like of the three options presented, one has more favorable reception than the other two, but I think the solution that most want is not what these scenarios present.

You are here and we are here to facilitate you, sorry.

So I'll make that final movement.

And the next step, I think that may be a problem.

And if no one seconds, then we might move for 30.

And then we can discuss that if we get the second.

I think, to your point, the number one is probably closest to why the CTAC was created in the first place.

Is it correct that all other decisions are dictated by the long-range transportation plan?

It doesn't have the long-range transportation plan itself doesn't have.

You don't know what it is.

It's not usually, you know, it doesn't dictate what happens when the animal base is going to get rid of budgeting.

that we can plug in that would dictate all of their decisions.

But it should be something where you expend a lot of effort to get everybody to leave.

That'll lead to other things.

That's right.

I would say it guides it, but it's not, it doesn't dictate what happens.

I'm not really making much on it yet, but just while we're talking about things.

It may not be perfect, but there's value in having forum.

So this idea of the LRTP year, when is that?

We just adopted one fiscal year 24.

So that's like dissolved light, I think, to me.

Once a year.

And just practically, is that correct?

These were just, you know, very highest level here, some ideas for you all.

And we do have an invited guest.

He is on, David Cook, for the bike-ped presentation this evening.

Do you want to cover that item, at least since he's here for that?

We're asked to vote on all of them, so why not just take one mass vote and say, yeah, let me approve it, because what order do we have?

I'm not in charge.

Well, so we did this many votes.

We'll get David, so I'll go.

And so David, can you hear us?

But for now, can everybody hear me?

Sounds good.

But let me see if this works.

You can share.

Any questions?

Just for David?

Would it be accurate to say that municipalities in the planning districts that we sit in are well aware of the tools you've just described?

Or if I'm invited to speak at a meeting, more than happy to do that as well.

And just to clarify, so David was speaking about VDOT has a BPAC as well, because I know Charlottesville has a committee of the same thing.

It was lessened not to count, but the tools that I want to make sure that city and county staff and elected officials know

So, yeah.

And so they're in regular communication with David about the resources that they have.

I work a lot with Tommy and Alberec and other folks out there.

If not, I guess I'll just take it in which we will return to the discussion about the charge for CTAC.

Thanks David.

If we're not going to get to his report, we shouldn't make him sit.

Well, Gorjan's also MPO staff, so it benefits us.

These are mostly informational, and I think this is the only thing that we have to have an action item on.

So the performance safety targets and regional transit partnership dissolution, those two were action items as well.

So that's my whole thing.

I would move that we just not vote on it.

And we can bring it back at your meeting.

So we might as well come up with a recommendation.

And so we can table the safety targets for another meeting.

So we had a motion to perhaps go with scenario two, using that as a base to...

I didn't make a motion, but I can.

We had a motion for it.

So the table's open.

We could also say we want to have the next meeting focused

Well, that might be too late, right?

Then give us two months planning period.

I think we need to be prepared that they may say, no, we're going to vote anyway, that we may want to make a, if you cannot, to waive the decision, what our backups, based on what I've heard.

I believe Sarah met with, represented the policy board to, to basically hammer out these options as a course.

So it was really just, and Donna, you could speak to it as well, since you were also there.

No, it was not options.

So I want to make sure we keep that in mind as well.

Well, and to add where I generally agree with you as I've already stated,

Again, I would also still say, and we need to be prepared, that they may not do that, and we may want to have it, if that's our, if that is our response, to be able to say, if you're not willing to delay the view of what we think, to the best of our ability, to the short notice.

and that we would like time to talk to the public or whoever wants to talk to us and discuss our thoughts and have a bit more time before coming up with our recommendation that everything is helpful.

Mr. Elm.

One advocacy, then I'll just choose option three and we're done.

Elected officials not wanting to hear from their constituents.

Well, I mean, those elected officials are who appointed us.

No.

Yes, they did.

And the MPO chooses us, am I correct?

We have three different bodies right now.

I applied to the county board.

Just like for any other board or commission that would fall under the county.

Exactly.

I don't think just having Albemarle County by name necessarily means that all the time.

Well, I mean it does with respect to the President, I don't think.

Sorry, I'm getting busted.

And, you know, Sandy, you know, when you were on the MPO staff, we had more advocacy than we've had lately.

And you all were able to express your opinions to the policy board.

So, but yeah, I think lately we've been throttled a bit in that regard and yeah, I've noticed the difference.

Yes.

making my pitch to use that as our backup if we don't get the extension.

Or do we want to just request that, you know, we like sort of the scope of scenario too, because it lists more engagement with different activities from the MPO, but that we would like to include the advocacy slash advisory component that folks feel strongly about.

How did it come to just kind of continue to exist after that process broke out?

I don't know if you came up over anything in your research.

But what I did find was, and I wasn't being.

That's why they put sunset rules on.

I don't know when that stopped though.

So there is a precedent.

I'm not trying to like, down anybody's, you know, level of getting together every two months.

Oh, that's not my point.

And then proceeding forward, how do we build our projects around that and helping us articulate, you know, from the highest level?

So maybe we could come up with some combination or some assurances with the under either number one or two, which we probably can't do tonight.

Is that enough of a response to give staff, to give to the policy board that we would like more time to think this is where we're hanging on to, we would like to get back and put some more flesh to the bone, let's put a straw in it.

Well, sure.

We don't exist if we stay here.

We want to continue.

But I don't think anybody's starting with we should stay.

We asked for more time and then once we have a better charter we start bringing those people in and we start listening to people who happen to know how to design roads and so on going forward and we're

We can bring these experts in to make recommendations ahead of the stuff being presented to us.

There are people that know all about something.

But the LRTP is the largest deliverable that the MPO actually has control over.

It does feel like we're almost over-stamped, and by the time we're asked for input, we're in step 10 of 9.

In staff, we do ask.

But to the best of our ability, to be of service, we need to be everywhere we're asked, so it's possible.

And I'm wondering how that may look like.

I mean, that's a, you know, a thing we could do for those interim three and a half years.

And it may be, it may be more about listening from city staff or anything else, maybe more about like organizations and digit, various like NGOs, stakeholders.

Exactly.

Do you need a motion or something?

Keep to my hearing the best way forward in terms of, you know, telling them that we've considered these, but we're going to consider more.

I second.

All those in favor?

Yes, I am.

I went out.

Please enjoy.

That's good.

Given that we're near out of time, I guess we can also end the meeting at this point.

Do we need some action on these actions?

And so we were just following that same process.

We have.

Please repeat the conversation.

Please repeat it.

Stuart, man, just do that to add out.