MPO Policy Board Meeting   4/22/2026

All right, well, good afternoon, everyone.

I can't tell if I'm seeing the entire... Let me change my view here.

Got gallery view.

All right, we'll be at four o'clock, and I will call the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization to order for our Wednesday, April 22nd, 4 p.m. vote.

And with that, if we can do the roll call.

Gorjan, will you be handling that?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Present.

Councilor Oschrin?

She may not be joining.

She's in addition to Sean, I guess.

Sean, you look so far away.

All right.

Are there others to call, Gorjan, or are we good?

All right, we will then go to, we have to read the electronic meeting notice.

Is that accurate?

All right, in this meeting of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization, CA-MPO, policy board is being held pursuant to the Code of Virginia subsection C of 2.2-3708.3, which allows a public body to hold all virtual public meetings.

The meeting is being held via electronic video and audio means through Zoom online meetings, and it's accessible to the public.

The method for holding this meeting shall not change unless a new meeting notice is provided.

Should the electronic transmission fail, you may reach out to the TJPDC at T. Jenkins at TJPDC.org.

Notice has been provided to the public through notice at the TJPDC offices, to the media, website posting and agenda.

The meeting is held pursuant to the remote electronic participation and all virtual meeting policy as adopted by the CA-MPO Policy Board on August 27, 2025.

All right, very good.

And we don't have to, it's been a while since I've done an all virtual.

That is correct.

Thank you.

As for voting members, most notably.

All right, we will move to item number two, matters from the public.

By raise of the virtual hand, I see Peter put his hand up.

Mr. Yoder, are you putting your virtual hand up there?

I'm putting my actual hand up.

All right, any others?

All right, Mr. Krebs, you have three minutes to...

Yes, I also cannot find the raise hand button.

All right, Mr. Krebs.

And for the others, you have three minutes to address the policy board.

And we will note the time when you begin speaking.

We'll go from there.

Mr. Krebs, you're well rehearsed at this.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Good afternoon, policy board and members of the public.

I attended your last work session that was just a sort of good and very frank discussion about

I really appreciated the comments about the limitations of what SMART SCALE can do.

I mean that in a couple of different ways.

Number one, it tends to skew the types of projects that we pursue.

It limits the number of projects that we can pursue.

It's quite rigorous and at the same time the results are often very unsatisfactory and make it difficult for the elected officials on the board to go back to their constituents and declare wins or show progress.

Yet it is an essential tool that needs to be used for some things.

So as we finish up this set of applications and move into an off year, presumably we'll be exploring SMART revenue sharing and perhaps TAP grants.

But also let's use that opportunity to look for alternative ways to

really get done what the community would like to see as far as transportation and let's look broadly and creatively and especially let's do it together.

If I may, I'll take a quick moment to give an example.

So Albemarle County is pursuing a grant from DCRA, Recreational Trails Grant,

to extend the Old Mills Trail four miles west from where it currently ends at I-64 all the way to Glenmore eventually, which will connect one of the county's development areas to another county development area and the city of Charlottesville along the Rivanna River in a supersonic way.

So I think DCR is going to hopefully be the primary funder for the first phase of this.

But even this is going to require a lot of collaboration.

So there's city and the county, but there's also going to need to be help from VDOT because the trail will cross under the I-64 overpass at the Ravenna River.

There'll need to be support from the DRPT because it'll also cross under the Buckingham Branch.

But it looks like this first phase, if we do it right, will be under a million dollars.

So it could be a good opportunity and just an example of how working together can really bring dividends and always value creative approaches.

Thank you, Peter.

It looks like both Danny and Rory figured out the virtual hands.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Policy Board.

My name is Danny Yoder.

I am a Charlottesville Planning Commissioner and I am the Commission's Representative to the MPO Tech Committee.

I'm here to speak to two of the SMART SCALE application projects that will be before you today that are in your packet.

They are the on-ramp and off-ramp on the bypass US 29250 at Old Ivy Road and Leonard Sandbridge Road.

There is an issue in the written resolutions endorsing these projects.

The resolutions state, quote, whereas the 2050 LRTP includes the following transportation improvements, unquote.

The MPO's long range transportation plan does not mention these two ramp projects.

The LRTP identifies locations that are high priority needs for a region and these locations do not appear on any of these lists and the LRTP.

The LRTP identifies five major goals for the region's transportation system.

That's safety, multimodal accessibility, land use, environment, and efficiency in economic development.

The two projects in question will not contribute to these goals in a meaningful way.

These projects were identified in a VDOT pipeline study.

However, the state transportation plan, V-Trans, does not identify these locations as priority needs to be addressed.

The presentation in your packet states that these projects will address safety and capacity preservation.

However, neither V-Trans nor the MPO's LRTP identifies these locations as priority needs for safety improvement or capacity preservation.

Spending $24 million on highway widening projects that have not been identified as priority needs in any of our plans and do not contribute to our region's vision for the future is not good planning practice.

One argument for advancing these projects is that we should not leave money on the table.

Since the SMART SCALE formula does not favor the types of projects that our region needs or wants, we may as well get what we can.

If this is the philosophy behind multimillion dollar investments in our transportation system, why do we even create plans?

Planners in our local jurisdictions put a lot of time and effort into creating plans.

We asked members of the public to spend many hours helping us create a shared vision for the future.

As a planning commissioner, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that we should set aside these plans in order to get state funds.

In conclusion, the reason why we are in this situation is that the Smart Scale formula does not align with our region's vision for the future.

If you look at our local plans, you'd think we spend most of our transportation funds on multimodal connectivity.

Thanks to SMART SCALE, most of the transportation funding for our region flows to roadway capacity projects, such as roundabouts and DDIs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yoder.

Yes, thank you for your time.

That was a tough act to follow.

I don't have quite as prepared of a comment, but I did want to note a few new things.

I have reviewed the April 7th MPO Technical Committee meeting where they

made a recommendation in favor of this.

And I want to point out some issues I think with Albemarle staff's internal reasoning for pushing these projects.

As Danny said, these are not identified projects.

This is not an identified problem area.

And the purpose of them seems to be to solve a problem in another location because of a sort of lack of confidence that the

Those applications in that location to actually solve the problem will be approved.

Furthermore, there was a comment from staff that this movement serves the western neighborhoods in the county's development area and Crozet, which is where county is expecting significant growth.

Of course, you all just finished your AC44 comprehensive plan process, which had a land-use build-out analysis of projects in your pipeline and future build-out potential.

As I think you're probably aware, Neighborhood 6 and 7, your western neighborhoods, are not expecting serious growth.

In fact, they've had very little growth for many decades, and there is really only one project that is currently in progress that's proposed there, the Graystar Old Ivy Project, a student-oriented project where we can expect significant non-vehicular trips, especially if we accommodate them with adequate transportation facilities.

I can post in the chat a link to this analysis for anyone who hasn't seen it, but I just want to reiterate, you know, there are 532 approved unbuilt residential units as of April 2025 in neighborhood 7, 0 in neighborhood 6.

525 of those units are in this gray star development that's underway.

Crozet, additionally, similarly nearing the end of its build out, not like the western neighborhood several decades ago, but in the near future, and most of the growth that the county anticipates is happening up in Howley Mead and down in the southern neighborhoods.

I question the idea of using a highway widening as a backup plan for needs identified elsewhere.

Given the negative effects that we know as planners in 2026 of highway widening and induced demand.

All right.

You're welcome to submit written statements as well to us if you want to communicate that way as well.

Is there anyone else who wishes to give public comment today?

All right, we will close matters from the public and move to item number three.

We do have two items.

We have to review and accept today's agenda.

Are there any changes or edits to the agenda as presented?

All right, if all the policy board members could unmute your microphones.

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

We're going to have to do roll calls all day because it gets confusing with the virtual.

So I'll just go ahead.

Mr. Nelson?

Yes.

Ms. Malek?

Yes.

And the chair votes yes.

All right, the agenda is adopted.

And we'll go to item number 3B, approval of the draft March 2026 special session meeting minutes.

Are there any changes or edits to those minutes?

So moved.

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

Gorjan, why don't I hand over the roll calling duties to you, sir?

Call the roll when you're ready.

Yes.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Councilor Fleisher?

Yes.

Yes.

All right, very good.

The minutes are approved.

So we'll move to item number four.

We've got a slew of five different items under new business, the first of which will be smart scale round seven projects under consideration.

And Taylor, you have a presentation.

I know that we have seen these items before.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

This afternoon, our agenda includes items for action regarding SmartScale Round 7 projects under consideration.

MPO staff and its committees have worked diligently since last fall in coordination with VDOT, the City of Charlottesville,

and Albemarle County staff to bring forth information on projects as it's been made available.

So the pre-application for SMART SCALE has closed and we're now preparing for the full application period, which will open on June 1st.

So first I want to just offer a brief recap on recent meetings that have occurred.

So on March 20th, this body held a special meeting, which was the SMART SCALE workshop, where VDOT and local staff discussed future opportunities to begin building a regional funding strategy, as well as presentations from local staff on projects under consideration for submission by each jurisdiction and the MPO.

No action was taken at this meeting.

Following that meeting, the MPO Technical Committee met on April 7th and were shown the most up-to-date information on MPO projects under consideration.

At this meeting, there are multiple items for action.

As a requirement of the full application submission, all projects that are submitted have to have resolutions of support from their own governing bodies as well as resolutions of support from the MPO if projects are located within the urbanized area.

So for the resolution endorsing projects submitted by Albemarle and Charlottesville, the technical committee recommended policy board adoption unanimously of those.

For the MPO projects, those resolutions were presented individually for each of the four projects under consideration by the MPO.

For the Barracks Road and I-64 Fifth Street projects, MPO technical committee voted unanimously to recommend policy board adoption of resolutions supporting those projects.

For the Old Ivy Road on-ramp and Leonard Sandridge Road off-ramp auxiliary lane project, the technical committee voted to recommend policy board adoption of the resolution, though it was not a unanimous vote.

For the Old Ivy Road southbound off-ramp extension, the committee deferred taking action on making a recommendation until their June technical committee meeting.

So the purpose of today's meeting is to discuss these projects that are under consideration for the MPO to submit for round seven, and also to take action on the required resolutions of support for the projects.

So there are sort of two categories of action that you all are being asked to take today.

The first is a resolution of support for the locality submitted applications, and the second category of action would be the resolutions of support for the MPO submitted applications.

So three different options for the board here today.

Option one, under this category, you could adopt resolutions of support for the MPO projects.

Option two, do not adopt resolutions of support for the MPO projects.

And option three, adopt resolutions of support for all of the MPO projects except the Ivy Road southbound ramp extension and defer action on that project until the next policy board meeting, which would be June 24th.

with a recommendation from the technical committee after they meet at their June 2nd meeting.

So all of these slides are information that you all have seen before, but I just wanted to briefly cover them again, just to give everyone a refresher of the projects that are being considered by the NPO.

So the first project is I-64 5th Street DDI, shared youth path connection and sidewalk connection.

That includes converting the existing interchange to a diverging diamond interchange, constructing shared youth path along 5th Street, and adding various pedestrian crossings.

This project would also add fencing to the bridge,

and construct a bus boarding platform and shelter pad at Bit Street Landing.

This is a resubmission of a previous project and the preliminary project cost is $44.7 billion.

Next is the 29 northbound, 250 eastbound on-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

This project would increase the length of the on-ramp and add an additional on-ramp lane at Old Ivy Road.

It would also connect the Ivy Road on-ramp with the Leonard Sandbridge off-ramp by an auxiliary lane.

And the preliminary cost for this is $13.8 million.

The next project is the 29 southbound, 250 westbound off-ramp extension at Ivy Road.

This project would increase the length of the off-ramp by approximately 600 feet.

And the preliminary cost for that is $10.6 million.

And finally, the 29 northbound, 250 eastbound off-ramp and pedestrian improvements at Barracks Road.

And this project would include dual left turn lanes onto Barracks Road, connecting the Leonard Sandridge on-ramp to the Barracks Road off-ramp by an auxiliary lane, constructing sidewalk, and also adding a crosswalk across Barracks Road.

The preliminary cost for this project is $21.3 million.

So that was pretty brief.

The next steps for this process, so the pre-applications have been submitted.

So beginning in May, OIP, VDOT, and DRPT review pre-applications, and OIP provides a determination on screening decisions.

So they will let applicants know what projects screen in, which ones screen out.

And then June 1st, round seven, full applications open.

So that's when the portal is back accessible to staff for us to begin adding the additional documentation and continuing to work on these projects.

As of the technical committee meeting, the dates that were communicated for the local resolutions of support, June 17th would be when the local projects would be brought before Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, as well as MPO projects that fall within their jurisdiction.

July 20th would be when the city's project would be taken to Charlottesville City Council.

And August 3rd at 5 p.m. is the full application deadline.

Following that in January would be when the staff recommended funding scenario would be presented.

That's the first look at the scores per how they're evaluated in the SMART SCALE process.

And so with that, I pass it back to you, Chair Galloway.

Is there anything, do we have any questions?

The first question is for Taylor on any of these that anybody needs to do.

And you may have to speak up.

Okay, Supervisor Malek, and I can't see everybody.

Is there any clarification about the comments earlier that these projects in question were not on the appropriate list?

Because they've been in discussion lists for 20 years since I worked in that area.

And I don't know how they fell off if they are not on there now.

So if someone with the actual authority could address that, that would be great.

Yes, I'm happy to speak to that.

So in the long range transportation plan, as a regional plan, it is pretty big picture in some instances and really far in the weeds in other instances.

And so included on our constrained project list, there is a line for Ivy Road corridor improvements that is listed in there.

Yes, I'm not sure if this is the right point for me to make a comment, but I do have a comment that I'd like to make regarding the Barracks Road off-ramp.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

I just wanted to express our concern at UVA with the Barracks Road off-ramp project due to impacts to the adjacent UVA property Sunnyside, which is both federally and state listed historic property.

I also expressed these same concerns at the March 20th meeting.

And we requested a conversation with VDOT, which has now been scheduled.

So we appreciate that because a conversation is the next step in the process.

But I just wanted to acknowledge all of this at the meeting today.

And I also wanted to note that in regard to the Barracks Road right turn lane project,

And I'm sorry, I don't understand.

Oh, OK. Got it.

Are there any other questions here?

No worries, I finally figured out how to do that.

Ms. Jenkins, are the votes per project when it comes to the MPO projects, or is it grouped?

That's where we were gonna go here.

I think the county and city projects, there didn't seem to be any disgruntlement at the tech committee about those.

And then there's the Fifth Street interchange,

and the 29 northbound 250 eastbound ramp extension barracks road off-ramp project.

Those all seem to be not of issue.

So in the interest of time and some constraints that the Albemarle supervisors have today, I would recommend that we dispense with those with votes.

And then it looks like there's really only two items that could invite further discussion today.

And then we can spend some time on those.

So is that to anybody object to that as an approach?

Then what I would be looking for is a motion

I move that we adopt that resolution for the county projects.

So we'll do the county first, then we'll do the city one second.

So the motion is there.

These are for the Albemarle County applications, not the ones the MPO is going to submit.

There didn't seem to be any issue with that.

All right.

If all mics can be unmuted, please.

Councilor Fletcher?

Yes.

Yes.

Right, that motion carries.

So moved.

All right, motion has been made and seconded.

If you'll please call the roll.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Yes.

All right, those motions carry.

That would bring us to the first two MPO submitted applications.

Is there a second?

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes.

Supervisor Mallet?

Yes.

All right, very good.

Motion carries.

It's been made.

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Supervisor Mallet?

Yes.

Councilor Fleischer?

Yes.

Yes.

All right, very good.

Then the next item is the old Ivy Road on-ramp Leonard Sandridge Road off-ramp auxiliary lane ramp.

And then the remaining item would be the US 29-250 southbound off-ramp extension to old Ivy Road.

Both of these items, I suspect, may invite further discussion.

So I'll just open it up to that discussion now.

I would do these.

We could do these individually, just like we did the other two.

And I was going to see if there was any discussion ahead of the motion, but we can also do discussion once the motion's on the table.

I'll go ahead and read that just so we have it.

Looking for a motion to adopt the resolution endorsing CA-MPO's SMART SCALE application for the Old Ivy Road on-ramp Leonard Sandridge Road off-ramp auxiliary lane ramp project.

So moved.

So moved, got it.

Is there a second?

I will second the motion.

Jen, did you want to?

Sure, I can jump in.

Thank you for opening the floor to discussion on this.

And this maybe ties into the letter that Councilor Oschrin and I sent earlier today to this group, which relates to both the Leonard Sandridge and the other old IV ramp and some of the discussion we've heard here already.

Just to clarify that that letter was honoring the fact that these two projects have caused some disagreements about their validity and whether they are necessary, but really more so about the process of how we got here with these projects.

We are very appreciative of the special session that was held and the work that has been done so far to bring this forward and feel like this is a great opportunity.

The discussion that these two projects have brought up is a great opportunity for us to improve our process to

Fund and develop the projects that serve us all regionally and showcase where we can collaborate and really work towards our unified and cooperative goals where we've maybe seen in this process that we've kind of diverged because the process isn't ideal.

It seems like there has been a lot of

Just for my short time here, frustration with all different angles of the process.

There's no one agency that is at fault here.

We're just really thinking that these two projects in particular give us the chance to discuss an opportunity to

review how we get here to these decisions for SMART SCALE and speaking back to that special session and Mr. Nelson's points about different methods and modalities and mechanisms of funding and where those gaps are and other chances and opportunities we have to advance projects

That being said, for this particular project, the Leonard Sandridge, one of the issues beyond those kind of mentioned in our public comment period and that we've expressed in the special meeting is that it will disrupt, if not kind of kill the Ravana Trail in its development on that side of

250, and later we'll see in this agenda that our work plan really supports unified efforts to sustain that trail and the three-notch trail that will also be running through this corridor.

So I think that work plan, again speaking of the opportunities that this kind of discord has allowed itself,

speak to a lot of process and are a great place potentially when we get their test two and three in that work plan to slot in process development and plans that we're agreeing to and one of those being the trail.

So I in particular

for multiple reasons, but one of them being that destruction of the trail can't really support the Leonard Sandridge piece of this and hope that we can later, I know time is short for our supervisors, but that we can discuss our potential for process improvements as we move forward.

Yeah, I think we want to acknowledge that we sent this letter not to cast blame, but to recognize that we have an opportunity.

We know that people from the county are frustrated and have expressed those frustrations with the funding, the structure, the

I don't want to overuse the word process, but we know that VDOT has been frustrated.

You know, everyone's operating within a system and we know that everyone here is operating in good faith.

That is something that we feel privileged to work in an environment where people are doing that.

But we are wondering and hoping that this is a time where we can revisit the structure in which we're operating and figure out if there's a way to choose projects differently to make sure that priorities are aligned to make sure that the priorities

Our constituents are understood and reflected and the priorities of the county's constituents are understood and reflected a little bit better so that we don't get to this point in the process and have this level of anxiety about putting these projects forward.

We also are concerned about submitting applications

that I know this is kind of how it's set up so again it's it's a process thing where it makes sense for us to like the county's projects where there's the roundabout and then the double roundabout and they're competing against each other but they're both overlapping good whereas they're also competing with the um if the off-ramp ends up getting submitted that's a

Easier project for the state to say okay to, but it doesn't solve the project that we want it to.

And so by that competing, we're worried that it's going to take away potential for the good projects, the roundabouts that we think are going to help solve not just the off-ramp issue, but flow through in general.

The process is something that we want to work on together because we do want this to be collaborative.

We know that we're going to have to make compromises and everyone probably will make some compromise of some kind, but it is not a... We want to make sure that people recognize that wasn't a shot across the bow of any kind.

It was a, hey, let's recognize that there have been frustrations that have kind of come to this point and see if there's a way that we can

Those kind of get aligned better a little earlier.

So I hope that helped put that note into some context.

And then, you know, as Jen mentioned, we have trail concerns.

We also have, I also have at least the, as former Planning Commissioner Stolzenberg mentioned, we in 2026 understand induced demand and road widening and how that doesn't

doesn't solve problems long term, which is something I know we've talked about in MPO before, but something that promises that I made to the constituents when I was running were that I wouldn't support additional parking lots or road widening in our area.

And so, given that these, I mean, not parking lots here, but this is the road widening matter is, to me, that is not

It's not solving the problem long term.

It's not a promise I made to my constituents.

All right, Supervisor Malek or Mr. Nelson, any comments?

Thank you.

I'll jump in here.

The trail is on the Gray Star property and is not in danger of being damaged and when you cross Leonard Sandridge it is significantly back east and south on Leonard Sandridge where the trail crosses with a crosswalk and it is not being damaged or threatened

And it's outside the highway right of way there as well.

Later on when it comes back through the woods over toward the Duke property, it's nowhere near the road either.

It's on the other side of the stream.

So I think that with some careful planning and design at the last minute at the end of the Barracks Road end, there will be no issue there.

I have not heard

I've not heard from county staff.

There's been no presentation about how they think that the process is flawed.

So the fact that others are speaking for them is troubling to me.

And so I will be glad to hear from them in a board meeting.

I guess my other question is the representatives of the MPO take all the projects to the Board of Supervisors for discussion and approval.

We don't just bring them here.

to the MPO and on our own account.

So I would like to make sure before any of this goes further that the full city council has discussed and approved these resolution changes that you are making, because no one has mentioned that.

Thanks, Chair Galloway.

I mean, I welcome the conversations to talk about process.

I would love to have those conversations together with everyone, including the NPO, the county and the city, to talk of things that we can do better.

The projects that are before us that are being talked about were a part of a pipeline study that I will say that I was kind of at the forefront of due to a meeting we had in Long County regarding some issues out there.

The solution to solving some of those problems and figuring out what needed to happen was this pipeline study.

This pipeline study looked at a large area.

There's lots of projects within that pipeline study.

There are lots of recommendations within that pipeline study.

These are two that were in there.

These are also two that the public sentiment in the survey was really high.

So there is a need there.

It checks the boxes for VTRANS.

It went through a process that is well-defined.

And the studies, the pipeline studies, they're not VDOT studies.

Those are studies that actually come from the Office of Enterprise Investment.

So they are engaged in that at the state level also.

You're muted, sorry.

When I was reading through the packet, I mean, I don't know if you've seen the pipeline study, but it kind of goes through and talks about

How these projects came about and if there were needs associated with them.

So it's all in the pipeline study.

I'm not muted.

Is that,

I'm remembering back to the special meeting that we had where these were noted as priority.

One of them was a priority three project.

I don't remember what the other one was.

Is that V-trans or is that something different?

That's V-trans.

Yeah.

And priority one is a higher priority than priority three, right?

All right, any further discussion?

I think I'll make a comment that's probably related to both motions or both projects.

And I want to recognize that the many perspectives that I've heard getting up to speed for today.

But I do want to make one observation about how this particular concern has come forward.

While individuals may have raised concerns previously, this is the first time it's been presented at this level in this way.

When disagreements reach this point, it's important that they are elevated earlier so the policy board and our respective governing bodies can engage before we each reach a decision.

As we consider what we've heard today, I think it's important that we distinguish between staff-level input, individual perspectives, and adopted positions of our respective governing bodies.

I'm open to reflecting on whether a broader conversation about process coordination going forward is pertinent.

That was not on today's agenda, so that could be put on an agenda for discussion.

I don't think that discussion should delay the actions that before us today and nor do I think it changes what would occur a month from now.

There's no time to maneuver around these applications.

The decision would simply before to advance them or not advance them.

From the county's perspective, the projects being advanced reflect direction from our full board of supervisors at our March 4th meeting and Ann and I are acting consistent with that direction.

A functioning roadway network is foundational to all modes of travel, and we have breakdowns at key points that impact safety and reliability for everyone regardless of how they travel.

So I think our responsibility here is to determine whether these applications should move forward for consideration in this round.

And the letter received today by the full policy board, voting and non-voting members, the vice chair and I can work into a future agenda for discussion and see what may come from that.

With that, unless there is any other discussion, we do have a motion on the table to adopt the resolution endorsing the campus SMART SCALE application for the Old Ivy Road on-ramp Leonard Sandridge Road off-ramp auxiliary lane ramp project.

Is there any further discussion?

I will just add one thought and that is if we're looking for regional benefit our public safety fire and rescue is a regional effort and our jurisdictional officers help each other on regular basis when the need arises and without a functioning bypass without open lanes of traffic for fire and rescue to move and police department vehicles to move

Nobody gets good service, whether it's in the city or the county.

And that's a really important feature to be able to deliver.

Was that part of any study that we did leading up to this?

Not for this study, but it certainly has been done on a regular basis with our local agencies.

If you drive, if you work in the area at all or drive the area, you will see what needs to be repaired multiple times a day, every day.

And I look forward to that.

Somebody turn the light off.

Thank you.

All right, hearing no discussion, the motion I've restated was made and seconded.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

All right, that motion carries three to two.

Thank you.

The next motion is the resolution endorsing Campos SMART SCALE application for the U.S. 29-250 southbound off-ramp extension to Old Ivy Road.

Okay, and did we...

I'm going to second the motion.

Oh, sorry.

We heard it was because CTB is considering the roundabout as part of a

high priority pool funding process instead.

And as such, it gives it a better chance of working.

And so if that works, then we don't need this.

So that was why the tech committee recommended a deferral and that meeting hasn't, the results of that meeting haven't happened yet.

So I would prefer a deferral instead of a thumbs up or thumbs down today.

Oh, great.

OK, so my understanding of all of that, building out of March 20, is that there's different ways to try to find funding.

That does not necessarily change because if we say, OK, well, we hope that gets funded that way, this project, in my opinion, still needs to be advanced for funding consideration as well.

There's no guarantees with any of this.

So I'm ready to make, the motion's been made and seconded.

I'm ready to vote on what we're going to do with this item today.

Thank you.

I will just add one comment that this project is separate from the others.

It addresses different issues, including a long time movement of historic population centers,

The community of Crozet and the whole Western County area, which I represent, has grown from 2,500 people to 15,000 since 2005.

And it is the responsibility of VDOT to be able to not have all this traffic backing up into the travel lanes for these people needing to get where they're going.

While we have the Afton Express and other ways to get people to work, which is terrific, and the John Crozet Connect, those are not sufficient at this point to allow people the flexibility to get their groceries and get to doctor's appointments, et cetera.

And there is just not enough capacity in this connection lane to be able to keep the highway safe, the roadway of statewide significance, as well as

to move emergency vehicles around.

So I very much support this myself.

I just wanted to make that point.

This is not talking about future residents.

This is talking about people who are already here.

Thank you, Councillor Fleisher.

All right, thanks.

Ms. Jenkins, you had given us an option three with some dates on it.

Oh, I could scroll back through the slides.

If say a motion to defer went through, does it still leave time before the July deadline?

So the deadline for applications is August 3rd.

However, we also have in the timeline the projects in each jurisdiction going to city council and the board of supervisors.

I just, so maybe I'm gonna make sure I understand the question.

I understand.

Right.

Because their tech committee's recommendation was to defer, not to recommend or not recommend this project.

I get it.

Thank you.

Okay.

That

Okay.

That's all.

Yeah.

And then I, um, for the, I mean, as our public commenters mentioned, we have done a lot of plans and a lot of studies, and this also did not, you know, it was a tier three, it was a priority three.

I don't believe there were, I mean, there, of course, anytime you're in a car, there are safety concerns, but I don't know if this stuck out in the safety management plan.

So I'll just note that we have data and we should use that.

I just want to reiterate that these are two different issues.

The roundabout at Bel Air is not solving the ramp backup issue.

The ramp backup issue has been going on for 25 years.

and far in advance of so much more growth, exponential more growth in the western part of the county.

These are people who come to the city for hospital care as well as for work and bring considerable value to the city in their coming.

But they also deserve the right to be able to be safer and be able to get the road going.

I'd be delighted if the roundabout is adopted and funded

But as I said, it does not solve the historic issue we've had of backing up onto the westbound ramp.

And I know you have to go in a few minutes, but how do we know they're not related?

I don't know where this other information that Mr. Nelson said this already is that there are different projects coming out of the pipeline study.

Yes, they're in the same geography, but the sequence of them has been very different.

Thank you.

I sorted myself out here.

So I think there is, I think I'd love for the technical committee to weigh on whether that roundabout does affect this off-ramp.

I think there is some discussion ongoing about that, that it actually will make a difference.

But I would love to hear their opinion on that.

I think the roundabout moving into the HPP pool

means that this project will compete for it with funds.

And that competition is what I'm worried about because the roundabout so far in what I've seen has such potential for a great impact here and has multimodal built into that design.

Wait, I mean, so you have to realize with high priority funds,

with making it eligible is going to be competing statewide, not just region wide, it's statewide.

So it will be competing with every other entity that has projects that are allowed to meet the criteria to be applicable for high priority funds.

So if the RAP extension scores higher than the roundabout,

It's going to be relevant to how it scores statewide.

But within the region, if the two applications are submitted in their score and the RAP extension score is higher than the roundabout, based on the criteria in which it's measured on, you would fund the higher rated project.

So this notion of it competing against each other, I think that's a good thing.

I think it's a much cheaper project.

It's a project based on scoring for a previous administration's rubric that

is into expanding highways that isn't really, again, upstream enough to solve the problem that the roundabout so far has proposed to do.

And I fear that because it is a cheaper project and it aligns that it would get done and not, and it would, I thought it would maybe bump out, um,

The other opportunity for the roundabout, which I would consider an upstream project, to do the work it needs to do.

So that conflict was what I was envisioning yet.

No, I was going to speak to something else.

Just another discussion at the Commonwealth Transportation Board and either Mr. Nelson or Captain Byers can probably speak more to this, but they did vote to allow innovative intersections to be eligible for HPP.

They have not yet determined the priority order.

So that is not something an applicant decides if they will put it in for HPP or put it in for DGP.

As a matter of fact, I think the OIP staff recommended bringing back to the Commonwealth Transportation Board in January when they have the staff recommended scenarios to bring it in both formats.

If you fund HPP first and then DGP, or if you fund DGP and then HPP.

Thank you.

Understood.

Noting that comment.

I don't think it changes the decision.

We just have more information.

At this point, the pre-apps are done.

So the question is the application will either advance or it won't.

Happy to have the information, but it's not required to have their recommendation either way for us to proceed with our decisions that are before us.

To my intent, the motion has been made and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Thank you.

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

All right, the motion carries 3-2.

I appreciate the conversation and the discussion.

That does conclude item number 4a.

We will move to item number 4b, our fiscal year 27 unified planning work program.

Supervisor Malek, I would invite you if you would like to exit to the supervisor's meeting, you can, or we can continue with these action items.

I'm going to remain until all the action items are completed.

Right.

I will

Thank you.

For the record, we have a budget meeting, but they will delay in being recess until Taylor.

There we go.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Sorry about that.

It just cut out on its own.

Thank you.

All right, so today included in your packet is the final draft of the MPO's work program, the UPWP.

So updates since the first draft, staff have received the fiscal year 27 PL allocations and FTA allocations, so the budgets have been updated.

We also received the SPR budget from VDOT, that is their budget and the amount that's allocated to the MPO to support the work that we do.

Under program administration, following a request from VDOT and new guidance from Federal Highway, direct expenses related to travel, training, and professional development were identified as a separate line item in the UPWP.

We also added the hosting of a joint meeting of the Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Transit Authority and the Policy Board.

And we also removed administering the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee, or CTAC, following the February action of the Policy Board to sunset that committee.

Under task two, long range transportation planning, we added an activity line for special studies projects, programs, and contingency to match with task three, just to be able to capture if there's a long range activity that might come from left field that we should support.

And we also added a bullet under D, long range transportation plan to capture beginning to develop a public engagement framework, including exploring an ad hoc committee for public engagement.

And that was also related to the CTAC sun setting.

So just making sure we can capture being able to start doing that work next fiscal year.

In addition, we also sent the draft to Federal Highway and FDA staff.

So their input has been incorporated in here, mostly grammatical changes and a few lines just to clarify what some of the planning activities were.

So this has gone before both of our federal partners as well.

So here's the table that shows funding by source.

So primarily federally funded, all of the values are accurate and up to date since we have received those now.

The 528,000 is the amount that the MPO controls.

And again, that's for planning work, that's for professional development, that's for software, GIS, membership dues into things like the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

So that captures not just personnel, but also direct expenses as well.

And here's the updated budget table showing funding by task.

So how much is allocated to program administration, long range transportation planning, and short range transportation planning, all with updated budget values.

And just a refresher on what's captured in there.

So for the ongoing and continued activities, so continuing to administer the MPO, SMART SCALE coordination and full application submission is also captured in there.

Continuing to participate in STARS and project pipeline studies.

Annual adoption of the performance safety targets, continuing the TDM study that was included in this fiscal year's UPWP, and also developing and submitting other grant applications like Safe Streets and Roads for All billed as those discretionary grant opportunities come up.

Also included in there is best practices and benchmarking, so going out and doing more of that research.

What are our peers doing?

What are MPOs and the country doing as far as processes?

This is where the work related to SMART SCALE process could fall into, this best practices and benchmarking.

What do our procedures look like, our processes look like, and how do we make those better?

The LRTP and TIP data.

So we did develop and update a new TIP.

You'll hear about that shortly.

That's one of the items that Gorjan is going to cover during this meeting, but taking some time next fiscal year to pull the projects out of our LRTP and the new TIP and to actually do some mapping with that and showing that those projects and that work.

And finally, bicycle and pedestrian counting.

So this is something that's incorporated into the short range section of the UPWP, evaluating the feasibility of establishing a bicycle and pedestrian counting data program.

This would support the city and the county and the MPO in project planning, grant writing, safety analysis related to vulnerable populations.

And then we would also identify recommendations for count locations, equipment, procurement, and a potential pilot, if this is something that the MPO wants to pursue.

I guess I think at a recent meeting there was a discussion about the this

Bicycle Pedestrian Counting and it was raised that there's already existing software that a lot of hikers and bikers use and so I want to make sure that we're not recreating a wheel that already exists and spending a lot of money and time on something that is already is duplicating an effort that's already out there.

Yes, just about that.

That is a really good point.

There are heat map options available for seeing who's using Strava or Ride With, GPS.

Those are kind of the two most popular ones.

As someone who often bike commutes and also has those apps, there is a difference between when I log something or not.

It's not on all the time.

If I'm just bopping a city hall, no.

If I'm going on a big long ride, yes.

So I think there's value in being able to double check.

Also like kids might not have it.

And I think having a self-reported data is always going to be less accurate than consistently accumulated data via a third party.

Very good.

Any other comments or discussion?

All right.

So moved.

Is there a second?

All right.

The motion has been made and seconded.

Gorjan, if you'll please call the roll.

Supervisor Callaway?

Supervisor Malek?

Yes.

Very good.

The motion carries.

The next item is item C, fiscal year 27, fiscal year 30, Transportation Improvement Program.

Gorjan?

Thank you, Mr.

Linda Rides,

Alright, thanks everyone.

My name is Gorjan Gjorgjievski, I'm a regional transportation planner at the TJPDC, but also supporting the work for the MPO.

But then I want to talk about briefly about the new fiscal year or federal fiscal year 2027 to 2030.

The document in your packet, you will find this presentation.

A link to the draft document updated to reflect the feedback from the technical committee and the staff memo with information to the updates in the document.

Since this item requires action from the policy board, it also includes a resolution for adoption of the deck.

So the Fiscal Year 2730 paper reflects a comprehensive update of the entire document, including revisions to narrative sections, organizational information related to the CA-MPO bodies, and updated maps to improve clarity and accuracy.

This document has also been reviewed to ensure consistency with current federal and state requirements.

Updates have been made to reflect applicable laws, regulations, and funding sources.

These updates will ensure that the TIP remains compliant, transparent, and aligned with current planning and programming practices.

The TIP also includes roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects that reflect a comprehensive approach to transportation investments across the region.

The ongoing projects from the previous TIP or should I say our current TIP for fiscal year 24 to 27 are carried forward with updates to funding schedules and project phases reflecting continued progress towards implementation.

The TIP also includes projects that are funded through programs such as SMART SCALE and other federal and state sources, advancing regional priorities in safety, congestion, mitigation, and accessibility.

All projects are supported by identified funding with updated cost estimates to ensure the documents remain financially constrained and reflective of current conditions.

The project's costs and schedules have been updated to reflect current estimates.

The TIB remains with identified funding sources sufficient to support all program projects.

The last thing I want to talk about is the projects that have been completed, canceled or formally closed in the previous TQ.

have been removed ensuring that the document reflects the current project pipeline.

So one project was canceled with the statewide technology for operations.

This was a statewide project that was included in our TIP.

And we also have two completed project, which is the bridge replacement at route 702 and the Hillsdale Drive extended lane to three lanes.

I did want to say that the TIPRA reflects the state priorities, including in maintaining a state of good repair, improving transit accessibility and supporting multimodal transportation options within the region.

The last, I don't want to talk about a lot about these tables, but

In the presentation, there are two tables that are the summary tables.

These include the total of funding sources from the both transit and VDOT projects.

The current document or the document that was posted on the website includes detailed tables about all the fundings related to the projects in the document.

And since this

This item requires a public hearing for the campus adopted public participation plan.

We have sought public feedback at least 30 days prior to this meeting through various newsletter in the media.

And as of today, we have not heard any feedback.

Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments on this item?

Motion made by Councilor Fleischer, seconded by Supervisor Malek.

Without objection, Gorjan, please call the roll.

Supervisor Galloway?

Thank you.

Motion carries.

Next is 4D, fiscal year 2427 TIP amendment number 14 and adjustment number 27.

Yes, if I may.

So we did have public hearings noted for the UPWP and for the tip that Gorjan just presented on listed on the agenda.

Oh, I didn't catch the public hearing.

That's my mistake.

So we're at the tip now.

So we will open the public hearing.

Is there anyone who wishes to speak to this item as part of the public hearing?

All right, seeing no hands, we will close the public hearing.

The matter is back before the board.

The motion has been made and seconded.

Is there any further discussion?

Yes.

If I have to get the next level up on my reading glasses, that's going to be a problem for me.

I just want everybody to know.

Then we will go back to item four.

B, the Fiscal Year 27 Unified Planning Work Program.

The presentation has been made.

We will open the public hearing.

Two years ago, what?

All right.

I'm not seeing any requests to speak to this item, so we will now close the public hearing.

Christine and or Taylor, we've already voted on this.

Is it advisable to take another vote since we did that?

All right.

I've never missed the public hearing portion before.

All right.

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

Without objection, Gorjan, please call the roll.

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes.

Thank you.

My apologies for that.

We will move now to item 4D, fiscal year 24-27, TIP amendment number 14 and number 27.

Good afternoon, everybody.

It's me again.

So this current item reflects for an amendment that is in our current tip since this adopted tip that was just adopted is not in effect yet.

So this one reflects to the fiscal years 2024 to 2027.

It's going to be tip amendment number 14.

Just a little bit of summary.

In the beginning of FY25, TJPDC received the FTA Section 53 funding to support the PATH program.

That meant that we were including 3,000 of FTA 5310 funds, 3,000 in state funds, and 1,000 in local matching funds.

This amendment will add additional funding to that program for federal fiscal year 2026.

in the amount of 6,000 federal FDA 5310 funds, 5,000 in state, and 1,000 in local funds supporting that program services.

This item requires an amendment to the document because the additional project funding surpasses the 100% funding increased threshold of the entire project's total.

For this item as well, we have sought public feedback based on the adopted public participation plan at least 15 days prior to this meeting.

And as of today, we have not received any.

The last

The item is just informational.

It's a tip adjustment specifically for the mobility management program.

It's adding additional funding for federal fiscal year 2026 in the amount of 140,000 in FDA 5310 funding, 28,000 in state funding, and 7,000 in local funds.

This item does not require action from the board.

All right, so you're saying

This one has got public hearing listed.

Oh, then I just misheard what you just said.

All right, we will open the public hearing.

Is there anyone who would, well, first, any questions or comments from the policy board on this item?

All right, we will open the public hearing.

Is there anybody who wishes to speak to this item?

All right, seeing none, we will close the public hearing.

And the matter is back before the board.

So moved.

So moved.

All right, the motion has been made and seconded.

Any further discussion?

All right, Gorjan, if you'll please call the roll.

Supervisor Galloway?

Yes.

All right, thank you.

The motion carries.

I'm seeing under item 4E, this is the CAMPO bylaws and public engagement plan provisions.

Taylor, this does not have the asterisk by it for public action today.

All right, so all the action items are now complete.

Supervisor Malek, I'm saying that this, we won't be doing any other votes today.

I will withdraw.

Thank you for everyone's patience as we- Have fun with the budget.

Dealing with budget, yeah.

Yes.

So following action at the February policy board meeting to sunset CTAC in its current form, staff stated that we would bring before you bylaws updates and revisions specifically related to CTAC.

CTAC is included in the MPO technical committee bylaws and the policy board bylaws as a non-voting member.

And so we went in and made revisions related to that.

And we also found that CTAC was listed in our public participation plan, also known as the Campo engagement plan.

And so we also included that in your packet and some changes related to that.

It's only informational for you today and it'll come back before you for approval at your next meeting.

Part of the process for bylaws updates states that you have to have at least 25 days to review.

We wanted to give you more than that.

And so we will send this out before that 25 day mark so that you have it in your email as well one more time.

And it also states in the policy board bylaws that these changes have to be read aloud at a regular meeting.

And so in doing that, I'm going to pull up the bylaws briefly just to walk through these.

There aren't too many changes, so it shouldn't take too long.

All right, so the changes that we made included in your packet was a clean version and also a red line track changes version.

So anywhere where you see red or something crossed out is where staff made changes.

So at the top of the bylaws, we made an update to add amended the date of your next policy board meeting and moving down here, the date of the last amendment, which was in 2013.

And scrolling through the document,

We removed up here, these were dates of previous amendments, but since this was not consistent across all of the years, we just crossed this part out and would refer to the top of the bylaws where it has the dates of all of the amendments and adoptions.

Under Article III membership, here crossed out is the Long-Range Plan Citizens Advisory Committee.

That's what CTAC was formerly known as.

So we crossed that out of the bylaws.

Under Article IV, Terms of Office and Voting, the Long-Range Plan Citizen Advisory Committee was also crossed out.

And finally, under article seven committees, the long range plan citizen advisory committee was crossed out and the section two citizens transportation advisory committee where it describes the role of CTAC was also crossed out here.

And then we had subsequent renumbering of the sections that followed that.

So those were the changes in the policy board bylaws.

Yes.

I just want to clarify that we're not forgetting to do what we, you know, the ad hoc and special meeting are the same thing, so.

All right.

Well, very good.

Sounds good.

Good luck.

Thank you all.

I'll come back and watch the rest of the meeting.

We'll be here.

All right, thank you so much, Supervisor Galloway.

We included a few written updates in your packet, and I'll touch on a few of the high-level ones.

The Safe Streets and Roads for All Notice of Funding Opportunity did come out at the end of last month, and so PDC and NPO staff have been reaching out to local jurisdictions just to gauge everyone's interest in participating in an implementation application for that funding opportunity.

We've already had pretty significant discussion about the CTB meeting that occurred yesterday and today and the action that they took related to SMART SCALE eligibility.

So that's included in there.

And then I also wanted to just mention to the group that the CTB, VDOT, and DRPT are beginning to host

public meetings for the draft six-year improvement program.

So the date and the location of the meeting for the Culpeper District is included in that staff report in your package should anyone want to join that public meeting.

And then finally, I also wanted to share an exciting update that we are preparing to transition to being back in the office after being pretty remote since January.

And so the week of May 4th will mark our first full week back in the office.

So just wanted to make everyone aware of that transition.

Great.

One of the notes in the... Actually, this might not be the staff update, so I'll wait till the end.

Any questions on any of that from policy board members?

Are you taking this, Chuck, or do you want me to take it?

The stars in the pipeline studies are moving along.

I think we already updated you that we are planning to transition the Interchange 118 pipeline project.

We are doing an expanded Phase II, which means that we are not developing a preferred alternative as part of the pipeline study.

Using the pipeline study to do some additional analysis and then we'll be transitioning that into a STARS study or a bigger study that will kick off probably a little bit later this year.

So that one will continue to move forward and we're still doing work on it.

We just don't have anything that we're going to be bringing forward for discussion at this time.

We're doing some additional technical analysis.

The US 29 corridor and the US 29 interchange projects, we are moving forward with just finalizing the alternatives to advance for additional analysis and public review.

We have a meeting scheduled with the study work group on May 7th.

We just scheduled that this afternoon for the interchange alternatives portion of that study.

And then we will be going out for public survey on the advanced alternatives that has agreement from the study work group and meets technical feasibility requirements to get public feedback.

And then we'll be able to start working through

recommendations for that study.

We do anticipate that we will wrap that one up later this summer.

The pipeline studies are moving along.

Chuck, did I miss anything that you want to add?

Any questions?

I do have a question, which is we, at the neighborhood walk earlier this month, which was in the North Grounds area, people noticed some tree cutting along Emmett Street in between JPJ and the Taco Bell and wondered if that was VDOT getting ready for work there.

To our planning studies, I couldn't speak to other experts there.

Or Julia, maybe?

Yep.

Sorry, I was trying to get my video to come back.

Yes, that is related to the SMART SCALE, the Emmett Street SMART SCALE project, which is a streetscape bike head improvement

that goes from Ivy Road to Arlington.

So that's why you're seeing, there's a shared use path that goes on the west side of the road and there'll be a tunnel that goes through the train trestle there as part of that.

Okay, great.

Yes, I'm familiar with what it will look like.

I just wasn't sure if that had started yet.

So I'm happy to see that it has.

Any other questions about the planning studies for pipelines?

Okie dokie.

Then we can go to the, well, additional matters from the public is next, but before we jump to that, I do want to highlight in the staff updates, the very last thing, which is the Virginia Breeze east-west connection, the Tidewater Current opened up this week, which is just

Very exciting, and I wanted to call that out and celebrate it, especially because today's Earth Day, but also because it's the first East, best reliable connection that we've ever had, or at least had in a long time.

So that's super exciting.

Now moving back to matters from the public.

If anyone would like to speak, please raise your hand and

I will call on you.

Before I call on anyone, do I keep the time or does someone else?

I'm happy to.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

All right.

Yes, thank you.

Thanks for the opportunity to speak.

I've run out of time earlier, so this might be more of a lament when it was intended as a caution.

I want to first say that I'm speaking solely as a private resident.

I hold no official office anymore.

But I served on the Planning Commission and as the Planning Commission representative to MPO Tech from 2018 to 2025 and as chair of MPO Tech from 2019 to 2024.

I can recall many occasions where we had disagreements between localities.

And usually those disagreements were worked out through collaboration and cooperation.

I can recall countless times where Mr. Proctor, Ms. Shackelford, Mr. Boyles, and Ms. Jacobs abstained from votes when it was a topic of interlocality dispute to allow that process to play out.

And so I was surprised to see both the technical committee earlier this year and today to see votes being taken when two localities were in disagreement.

I was also surprised to hear from Chair Galloway that this was the first time that people on policy had heard that there were concerns about these projects.

I know that discussions at Tech had happened as early as mid last year, if not earlier.

I hope that as this SmartScale application round comes to a close, you all will do some introspection about how to keep

Collaboration between localities and between tech and policy working well, hopefully better than it has in the last round or two.

and keep that in mind and not take actions that will harm or cause difficulties for interlocality cooperation and relations.

The MPO is the body for

Interlocality Cooperation, Continuing Cooperative and Comprehensive Transportation Planning.

And I think that it's quite important that everybody involved keep in mind that things should be done in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration.

Thank you, Mr. Scholzenberg.

Are there any other comments from the public?

Not much public left here.

Okay.

Well, then, with no other additional speakers, before we adjourn, are there any other comments from members?

All right.

I did want to say something.

This is Work Zone Awareness Week.

So I just want everyone to be aware that it's Work Zone Awareness Week.

We just had a Workers Memorial visual up on Hampton Mountain.

Just remembering those that died in work zones serving the public.

So the slogan this year is safe actions, safe lives.

So it's all of our duties to ensure that we're paying attention in work zones as construction is ramping up.

So I just kind of wanted to put that message out there.

Today is go orange day.

I have no orange socks.

You can't see it.

This works on Awareness Week, so I just wanted to kind of bring that to the group.

Great.

Thank you so much.

Sorry I missed your hand.

Oh, you're muted.

Thank you, Mr. Nelson, for that.

I was not aware of that.

And since most of Charlottesville is under construction, I think that is, you know, it's timely that we pay that attention.

I just had a maybe technical question, which was in thinking about, you know, we just signed off on the work plan and seeing how robust it is and

and Chair Galloway's recommendation that we talk about processes as an agenda item.

Is there some is there some staff that I can contact to figure out how that technically becomes an agenda item and what process?

Okay.

Taylor's nodding.

So, yeah.

Super.

Oh, excellent.

Thank you so much.

I'm sure it's in a packet somewhere that I missed.

I appreciate that.

All right, great.

Thank you so much.

I think my one kind of closing comment is that we have a space where we can disagree and still proceed forward, and I think that's important.

And what the consternation shows is that we do all prefer to be on the same page.

So I hope that in the

Coming agenda item to talk about that we can come up with a kind of clear way to make sure that we continue to do that.

So thanks everybody for bearing with us and for understanding and for listening and for continuing to show up.

All right.

Do we have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

All in favor say aye.