►
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
A
B
C
Begin
good
afternoon,
my
name
is
john
bernstein
and
I
am
the
chair
of
the
capital.
Long
range
improvements
committee,
transportation
task
force
before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
note
that
this
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d.021
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
I
will
now
call
this
meeting
to
order
and
ask
the
clerk
to
call
the
role
so
that
we
may
verify
the
presence
of
a
quorum.
C
C
B
B
C
C
B
C
B
F
B
A
G
B
B
H
C
I
mean
it's
a
nice
idea,
but
I
I
I'm
look
I'm
I
don't.
I
want
to
make
sure
people
get
heard
and
I
I
think
we
can
do
this.
You
know
there's
always
the
I
guess
I
would
ask
people
to
be
respectful
of
one
another.
If,
if
something
is
starting
to
drag
on,
we
can
always
call
the
question
which,
for
those
that
may
not
know
if
the
question
is
called,
there's
no
debate
of
that
it's
a
vote.
C
It's
an
up
or
down
vote
and
and
if
it
is
approved,
then
then
we
that
that
ceases
the
discussion
about
it.
But
let's
try
to
not
do
that
unless
we're
really
getting
behind.
So
hopefully
everybody
got
the
email
today
that
I
sent
about
between
9
10
this
morning.
With
the
updated
comments
for
your
reading
pleasure,
I've
put
all
the
ones
that
we've
passed,
there's
nothing.
We
need
to
do
on
that,
so
you
can
skip
past
the
first
two
pages
of
the
document
that
I
sent
to
the
third
page,
we'll
start
there.
C
C
C
C
Since
I
authored
most
of
it
I'll
speak
to
it
quickly,
I
mean
I'm
trying
to
capture
a
couple
of
things
in
there.
You
know
one
in
that
first
paragraph
and
basically
trying
to
hold
them
accountable
for
what
they
said
during
their
presentation,
which
is
that
they're
doing
an
asset
inventory
for
all
of
their
assets
and
that
one
year
away
from
having
that
completed
so
in
a
nice
way,
I'm
publicly
commending
them
for
that
and
saying
we're
looking
forward
to
seeing
the
report,
so
we
kind
of
hold
their
feet
by
that.
C
Then,
beyond
that,
I
I
went
back
through
and
listened
to
her
presentation
and
they
do
address
a
lot
of
this
stuff
that
that
previously
they
used
to
do
this
stuff
based
on
water
quality,
complaints
and
now
they're,
using
a
more
statistical
based
system
based
on
water
pressure
that
they
measure
at
hydrants,
which,
in
the
grand
scheme
of
things,
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
But
I
don't
think
that
they
should
ignore
comments
from
residents
who
have
serious
water
quality
issues.
C
So
that's
the
point
I'm
making
is
that
they
should
continue
to
use
the
statistical
thing,
but
when
they
get
a
lot
of
complaints
from
the
same
block,
they
ought
to
pay
attention
to
that
and
and
move
up
that
that
particular
water
main
as
well.
Even
if
it
doesn't
meet
their
other
statistical
stuff.
And
I
just
go
through
some
of
the
details
of
that
and
then.
C
It's
clear
that
with
seven
72
percent
of
these
pipes
unlined,
you
know
they
need
to
accelerate
this
program
they've.
They
are
asking
for
an
increase
from
nine
million
dollars
in
the
near
years
to
12
million
dollars
a
year
in
the
out
years
of
the
current
capital
budget
request,
but
clearly
they
need
to
do
much
more
than
this.
If
they're
going
to
get
on
top
of
this.
As
you
know,
one
of
the
residents
said
at
the
pace.
C
D
F
B
C
C
Okay,
we're
off
and
running
so
if
you
flip
the
page,
the
next
comment
up
for
discussion
is
pv
122.,
it's
dowling
avenue,
I-94
to
1st
street
north
in
art,
0-1
art
in
public
places.
To
be
clear.
If
this
comment
is
referencing
those
projects,
but
what
it's
actually
doing
is
asking
for
another
project
at
a
different
site,
which
is
26th
avenue
north
across
I-94.
E
C
I
F
C
I
C
I
C
A
H
F
C
A
C
I'm
going
to
just
jump
in
I'm
fine
with
the
comment
I
think
the
last.
If
I
understand
what
dan's
ask
is,
I
think
we
could
tighten
up
the
last
sentence
a
little
bit.
If
I
correct
me,
if
I'm
wrong
dan,
but
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
if
msa
funding
is
restored,
they
we
want
to
see
them
prioritize
prioritize
this
project
as
a
result
of
that,
and
I
think
that
could
be
stated
more
clearly.
If
that's
in
fact,
what
you
mean.
C
I
A
Yeah,
I
I
think
I'll
probably
support
this,
but
you
know
several
projects
have
been
delayed:
east
38th
street
from
what
park
or
portland
all
the
way
to
23rd
ave
avenue
has
been
delayed
multiple
years
so
on
the
south
side,
and
that
runs
through
george
floyd
square.
So
I
don't
know
it
seems
like
there's
a
financial
crunch
here
that
so,
if
we're
complaining
about
a
specific
roadway,
I
don't
know
there's
a
lot
of
them
that
got
delayed.
C
Yeah,
I
I
think
that's
a
very
fair
point
and
something
we
need
to
be
careful
about
the
reason
I'm
for
me
personally.
The
reason
I'm
okay
with
this
comment
is
because
it's
not
saying
goddammit
move
it
up.
It's
saying:
listen
if
you
get
msa
funds
back
sooner,
please,
you
know
come
back
and
look
at
this
again,
which
I
think
is
a
little
bit
different,
but
I
do
think
we
need
to
be
very
careful
about
that
between
this
comment
and
the
one
that's
coming
up.
C
Next,
we're
basically
asking
to
move
up
20
million
dollars
worth
of
projects.
These
are
each
right
around
10
million
once
10
and
a
half
million
one's
eleven
and
a
half
million.
Here's
how
I've
rewritten
the
last
sentence
of
this
are
we
the
last
couple
of
sentences
and
then
my
rewrite
of
the
final
sentence?
A
reconstructed,
29th
avenue
is
included
in
the
audubon
park,
neighborhood
small
area
plan
and
a
separate
29th
avenue
study
in
existence
for
over
a
decade.
C
C
F
I
G
B
C
C
C
First
of
all,
I
think
it's
important
and
and
really
good
that
we
continue
to
step
up
the
our
efforts
to
get
input
from
the
public
and
and
I'm
all
for
that.
At
the
same
time,
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that-
and
I'm
not
again.
This
is
just
broadly
speaking.
This
isn't
necessarily
specific
to
this
comment.
I
think
we
need
to
be
careful
that
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
go
to
bat
for
every
public,
for
every
comment
or
or
concern
that
we
get
at
public
input
meetings.
C
So,
to
the
extent
that
people
that
aren't
suffering
from
equity
in
the
city
come
to
these
meetings
and
we
further
advocate
for
them,
we
may
unintentionally
be
creating
more
in
an
inequity
around
the
city.
So
I
just
I
I
just
want
to
point
that
out
as
far
as
this
specific
project
goes.
First
of
all,
again,
it's
concerned
that
scott
rays,
that
I
share
that
we
can't
you
know
one
side
of
our
mouths.
Tell
the
city.
You
know
you
got
to
be
careful.
C
You
got
to
tighten
up
your
belt,
you
don't
have
enough
money
to
do
all
these
projects
and
then,
at
the
same
time,
write
a
bunch
of
comments,
saying,
accelerate
this
project,
accelerate
that
project,
etc,
etc.
I
I
for
the
heck
of
it,
went
up
and
drove
this
road
about
a
week
ago,
just
to
check
it
out
to
be
fair.
C
I
I
I've
seen
worse
around
the
city,
so
it's
just
an
observation
again.
I
think
the
way
dan
has
worded
this
comment.
You
know
it's
pretty
reasonable.
It's
not
saying
goddammit
accelerate
this.
It's
saying
hey!
If
you
break
this
project
into
two,
would
that
make
it
more
bite-sized?
And
could
you
do
the
part?
That's
in
worse?
C
I
personally
didn't
notice
a
huge
difference,
but
you
know
I'll
defer
to
residence
on
that
again.
If
you
drove
this
thing
in
february,
it
might
be
a
very
different
experience
than
when
you
drive
it
in
may,
because
they
can't
most
of
you
probably
know
this,
but
you
know
once
those
potholes
once
that
asphalt
comes
out
of
there.
They
can't
do
a
thing
until
it's
above
50
degrees,
so
other
than
throw
some
sand
in
there.
So
it's
probably
a
lot
rougher
in
the
winter,
especially
if
it's
not
covered
with
a
layer
of
snow
anyway.
C
F
I
H
C
So
I
just
want
to
say
something
quick,
I'm
not
calling
anybody
out,
but
I
know
we're
trying
to
get
through
these
efficiently.
If,
if
there's
some
no
votes
on
this
one
and
honestly,
I
have
a
lot
of
respect
for
everybody's
opinions
in
the
group
and
I'd
be
interested.
It's
too
late.
Now
we've
passed
this
one,
but
I
would
have
been
interested
to
have
heard
what
the
objections
were.
I
might
have
been
swayed.
I
don't
know
I
mean
so
going
forward.
C
I
Yeah,
so
I
sit
on
the
engagement
advisory
committee
for
hennepin
avenue
and
we
actually
just
had
a
meeting
yesterday,
and
so
I
have
some
information
on
the
first
part
of
this
to
confirm
the
availability
of
the
federal
funding
for
2024
that
has
been
confirmed,
given
that
the
project
has
been
delayed
a
year.
I
would
also
so
I'm
gonna
speak
against
this.
I
This
comment,
just
because
there
has
been
you
know
multiple
years
of
engagement
on
this
corridor
and
we
have
pretty
clear,
direct
city
policy
on
what
we're
on
the
vision
of
where
a
lot
of
our
you
know
for
our
transportation
system
in
general,
and
I
think
if
we
were
trying
to
ask
for
because
of
the
pandemic,
we
need
to.
You
know,
delay
things
and
reevaluate.
E
Hi
yeah
an
intent,
and
I
katie.
I
agree.
A
lot
has
been
discussed
on
this.
I
guess
my
concern
is
that
the
the
data
that's
being
used
for
the
recommendation
is
from
2018
and
a
lot
has
changed
right,
and
so
it's
not
a
matter
of
delaying
the
project.
But
it's
more
a
matter
of
looking
at
the
the
expected
traffic
and
commute
patterns
and
and
in
the
area
and
how
they
they
may
have
changed,
and
you
know
reflecting
that
in
the
plan.
E
Just
has
happened,
you
know
back
in
the
1950s
and
that's
all
it's
not
a
matter
of
delaying
anything,
it's
more
a
matter
of
using
that
time,
and
and
that's
why
I
wasn't
sure
and-
and
maybe
the
city
report
should
reflect,
because
there
is
the
discontinuity
in
the
funding
it
says.
Funding
is
good
for
2023,
but
the
product's
going
to
be
in
2024.
E
So
maybe
we
can
adjust
that
note
in
or
that
detail
in
the
report
and
then
similarly,
it
just
doesn't
say:
what's
going
to
be
done
in
that
time
frame
and
it
seems
like
we
could
use
the
you
know
that
added
year
to
make
again
to
make
sure
that
the
solution
meets
the
needs
of
the
community,
because
there
has
been
a
fair
amount
of
concern
raised
by
the
community
in
particular
where
they've
trialed
it.
Apparently
you
know
people
the
delivery.
E
People
are
parking
in
the
bus
lane
and
and
that
obviously
commerce
has
suffered
there.
A
lot
of
businesses
have
gone
and
moved
away
from
hennepin.
So
there's
a
lot
of
concern.
That's
been
raised
in
the
community.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we
represent
the
interests
of
the
community
as
we
as
we
put
forth.
This
recommendation.
G
Yeah,
I
I
guess
I
moved
this
for
a
second
did
it
be
just
to
give
george
the
opportunity
to
discuss
it.
As
we
all
know,
this
has
been
a
fractious
project
and
I
would
agree
with
katie
on
most
of
and
probably
be
an
alliance
in
what
everything
she
has
said.
But
I
do
think
that
particularly
last
the
second
paragraph
is
perhaps
just
a
nod
to
you
know
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
the
right
thing,
and
so
I
appreciate
that
and
just
wanted
to
say
that.
A
I
In
line
in
the
right
right
spot-
and
I
I
think
just
the
the
point
that
was
brought
up
around
what
we're
using
2018
data
to
inform
what's
going
on
in
the
future-
and
I
just
I
think
that
that
situation
exists
for
a
lot
of
our
the
projects
that
we're
assessing
right
now
and
so
again,
just
kind
of
come
back
to.
I
don't
think,
that's
a
if
we're
going
to
be
making
that
argument
for
this
particular
street
would
be
needing
to
make
it
for
all
of
the
streets.
A
C
All
right,
there's
no
other
hands
up,
so
I'm
going
to
speak
on
this
one
as
well.
I
I'm
going
to
speak
in
support
of
this
comment.
I
don't
while
the
project
may
be
controversial,
I
just
don't
see
the
comment
as
particularly
controversial.
It's
not
asking
for
anything
other
than
confirmation
that
they're
not
going
to
lose
federal
funding
and
even
though
katie's
confirmed
it
informally
for
us,
I
don't
think
having
it
in
writing
in
the
report
hurts
anything
and
beyond
that,
it's
asking
for
thoughtful
consideration
as
they
move
forward.
C
I
don't
just
see
nothing
controversial
about
that,
despite
the
fact
that
there
are
clear
differences
of
opinion
among
this,
the
members
of
this
task
force
on
what
the
result
of
that
should
be.
Everybody
should
be
for
thoughtful
consideration,
so
I,
and-
and
you
know,
I
don't
subscribe
to
the
notion
that
if
you
ask
arguably
this
is
one
of
the
top
five
arteries
in
the
city
and
just
because
you
asked
for
something
on
this
does
not
mean
they
have
to
do
it
on
every
single
street
across
the
city.
C
J
G
Yeah,
I
would
just
offer
that
perhaps
we
could
table
this
and
that
george
could
maybe
come
back
and
kind
of
clean
this
thing
up
a
little
bit
and
maybe
remove
some
of
the
language
that
people
are
having
trouble
here
with
and
just
to
focus
on
the
the
sense
that
you'd
like
this
to
continue
to
be
thoughtfully,
discussed
based
on
the
pandemica
sector.
Thank
you.
C
C
D
Yeah,
so
just
in
so
far
as
so
many
projects
that
have
considerations
for
non-motorized
transport
are
delayed
indefinitely.
With
asks
for
more
data,
I
will
also
be
voting
no
for
this
particular
comment,
though.
I
really
appreciate
the
ideas
of
you
know
having
the
right
data
and
making
sure
that
we're
making
informed
decisions.
This
is
going
to
be
a
no
vote
for
me.
E
Sorry
delete
delay
getting
on
me,
unmuted
yeah,
so
I
appreciate
this.
This
is
my
first
comment,
so
I
wasn't
quite
sure
how
to
approach
it.
Just
the
reason
I
gave
those
examples
is
those
examples
were
provided
to
me.
As
I
talked
with
members
of
the
community
and
and
as
well
as
you
know,
people
live
in
the
area
as
well
as
people
that
have
businesses
in
the
area.
E
I
just
wanted
to
give
those
examples
of
you
know
some
of
the
concerns
that
people
felt
should
be
conce
you
know
would
want,
may
want
to
be
considered
as
part
of
that
it
wasn't
advocating
any
particular
view
and
if,
if
we
did
table,
we
could
take
out
those
specific
examples,
so
just
just
raising
that
as
a
possibility.
So,
but
I
understand
some
of
the
concerns
that
are
being
raised
and
these
that
are
being
raised
by
others
of
the
committee
as
well.
C
So
let
me
jump
in
for
from
a
prospect
process
perspective.
This
is
our
last
task
force
meeting
on
comments,
so
I
don't
know
that
it
works
to
table
it.
Maybe
what
we
can
do
in
a
more
informal
way
is
george.
If
you
just
want
to
withdraw
it,
you
can
bring
it
back
next
week
for
the
full
committee
we
can.
C
We
can
we'll
probably
go,
consider
comments
that
have
been
passed
by
the
task
forces
first,
but
every
year
comments
come
through
that
didn't
come
through
the
task
force
and
I
don't
think
we're
doing
any
kind
of
in
run
around
it.
It's
just
the
process
right
now
this
you,
you
would
like
to
rewrite
this
everybody
else.
C
E
Okay,
no,
I
can,
I
can
withdraw,
and
if
anybody
wants
it
sounds
like
there
may
be
some
concern
or
hesitance
in
any
consideration.
You
know
in
any
case,
but
be
happy
without
if
anybody
had
any
thing
that
they
wanted
to
incorporate
into
just
shoot
me
a
note.
I'd
be
happy
to
do
that
as
well.
Right
again,
I'm
trying
to
represent
the
interest
that
can
be
rather
my
personal
interests
in
this.
In
this
comment,.
C
C
C
Well,
I
think
I
think
george
wants
to
rewrite
it.
So
here's
what
I
would
hope
and
I'll
propose
this
for
any
other
comments,
be
after
today,
we're
going
to
submit
something,
I'm
going
to
submit
a
document
like
this
for
our
meeting
next
week,
which
will
be
forwarding
on
all
of
the
comments
that
have
been
approved
by
the
transportation
task
force.
C
A
A
C
I'm
just
the
only
thing
I'm
hesitating
about:
it's
got
nothing
to
do
with
the
common.
It's
how
we're
going
to
title
these,
because
we've
got
another
pv
122
comment
that
we
passed.
That
really
is
not
specifically
pv
122
right,
it's
the
overpass
north
of
there.
I
guess
we
can
deal
with
that
later.
That's
not
really
a
it's!
A
relatively
minor,
deep
local.
H
Yeah,
chair
bernstein,
I
would
suggest
that
the
earlier
comment
is
maybe
more
appropriate
as
a
general,
because
it's
actually
suggesting
new
a
new
cbr,
a
new
way
of
looking
at
things
so
we'll
see
where
if
this
one
goes
or
doesn't
go,
but
if
there's
a
an
issue
that
arises,
then
I
think
the
was
it
dan
miller.
I
think
his
could
be
a
general
comment.
C
I
don't,
I
don't
think
I
agree
that
it's
a
general
comment.
It's
clearly
a
transportation
comment,
because
it's
it's
basically
asking
for
a
transportation
cbr,
but
it's
not
specific
to
a
cbr
at
this
point,
except
for
the
fact
that
he's
sort
of
suggesting
one
possibility
is
to
just
piggyback
off
of
this
existing
cpr.
We
could
maybe
title
it
with
art
and
public
face
spaces
first
in
pv120,
or
something
like
that
that
might
solve
it
anyway.
C
A
H
H
There
was
a
gap
and
then
speaking
to
the
work
that
our
colleague
mr
brandt
did.
I
appreciated
his
research
and
I
just
think
that
my
thinking
is
that
it's
prudent
when
dealing
with
the
elected
officials
who
are
looking
at
a
high
per
mile
cost
to
just
highlight
that
and
bring
it
forth.
I
think
it
makes
the
committee
look
intelligent
and
well
informed,
which
I
think
it
is
not
everyone
agrees.
But
that's
that's
my
way
of
thinking.
In
my
experience.
C
Let
me
speak
to
this
briefly,
I
mean,
I
think
I
don't
think
every
comment
we
make
has
to
have
a
pointed
ask
to
it.
It
could
the
way
I
read
this
comment.
It's
basically
saying
we're
glad
you're
doing
this
project.
We
think
it's
important
and
thank
you
and
I
think,
that's
okay,
to
have
comments
like
that
and
to
the
extent
you
know
that
that,
in
a
circular
way
that's
sort
of
jeff's
way
very
polite
way
of
sort
of
gentle
pressure
to
not
take
it
out
of
the
out
of
the
budget
in
the
future.
I
C
G
Yeah,
I
I
have
nothing
to
dispute
about
this
comment,
other
than
that
this
project
is
moving
like
a
freight
train
and
so
in
some
ways,
I'm
I'm
not
sure
if
we
need
to
do
it.
I
like
what
you
said
in
a
short
comment
of
just
support
for
it
and
that
the
details
and
all
this
stuff
they're
they're,
ripping
through
this
right
now-
and
I
just
don't
know
if
it's
kind
of
repetitive-
it's
not
neces,
I'm
not
trying
to
be
negative,
I'm
just
thinking
it
may
not
be
necessary
ahead.
F
G
Just
here
just
to
be
aware
to
realize
that
there
are
two
darling
projects,
this
one
is
between
it's
basically
overpass
the
first.
So
that's
a
small
contained
project.
That's
not
the
big
one
that
goes
up
to
thomas
that
I
think
been
concerned
about
speed.
So
yeah
there's
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
work,
getting
done
around
the
upper
terminal
through
it
down
33rd
avenue
and
they
are
rolling
and
yeah.
So
thanks.
G
C
H
D
F
F
F
C
B
H
F
A
I
I
It
is
so
weird
you
know,
there's
these
federal
highway
guidelines,
which
then
we're
applying
to
city
streets
and
they're
out
of
con
like
they're,
not
the
right
context,
and
these
are
things
that
I've
just
been
learning
more
about,
and
I
think
fundamentally,
those
guidelines
which
are
now
10
years
old
and
are
are
being
updated
right
now.
The
comments
were
just
actually
accepted.
I
think
on
friday
or
last
comments
closed.
I
H
Yeah,
chair
and
members,
this
is
basically
from
first-hand
experience
and
one
of
my
neighborhood
resident
neighbors
julie,
voigt,
sent
in
a
comment
from
her
personal
experience,
and
we
did
have
very
detailed
comments
from
mr
peter
schmidt,
which
I
think
hearkens
to
what
the
chair
said
about
the
comments
like
this.
I
think
this
member,
this
president,
should
think
about
applying
to
the
clique
in
the
extensive
detail
that
was
provided
through
the
public
hearing,
but
I
guess
the
real
point
of
this
is
we've.
H
Yet
I
am
trying
to
as
a
resident
of
the
north
side
where
our
council
member
has
admitted
that
we
and
I
agree,
we
do
have
somewhat
poor
drivers
and
we
need
to
do
driver
education
and
training.
But
when
you
have
the
near
side
sign-
and
you
don't
have
a
far
side,
what
happens?
Is
the
people
will
go
around
cars?
I've
experienced
that
I
experienced
it
just
this
week
as
a
matter
of
fact
and
somebody
turning
and
then
there
could
be
a
t-bone
collision.
H
So
I
think
I'm
just
saying
we
should
transition
into
this.
Maybe
you
have
duplicative,
far
side
near
side
for
a
time
until
people
adjust
or
you.
You
know
that
the
the
other
project
will
be
a
hennepin
county,
but
the
osseo
bridge
right
now
is
really
a
hazard
where
you
have
a
yellow,
striped,
so-called
middle
area
that
nobody's
supposed
to
drive
in,
except
that
the
people
who
are
in
a
real
hurry
pass
buses
into
the
opposing
lanes,
and
you
know
we
just
see
all
of
this
extremely
dangerous
driving.
H
So
in
response
to
katie's
question,
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
highlight
this
further
and
say
that
we
I'm
in
full
support
of
piloting
these
these
changes.
But
I
think,
as
you
pointed
out
several
years
ago,
we
need
to
do
a
lot
of
education
and
perhaps
we
need
to
do
duplicative,
signage
or
other
programs
to
make
the
public
aware,
because
it
affects
pedestrians,
people
who
are
rolling.
H
C
C
They
don't
even
think
about
it
right.
They
pull
up
to
the
intersection
until
they
can
see
in
both
directions,
which
is
usually
well
into
the
crosswalk
and
well
past
any
signage,
and
at
that
point
they're
going
to
commit
all
sorts
of
violations
because
there's
no
signs
for
them
to
see
it.
We
can.
I
don't
really
want
to
debate
that
with
other
people.
I
know
there's
different
views
about
that.
Yeah.
C
More
importantly,
unless
I
heard
public
works
wrong,
they
responded
to
this
during
our
presentation
and
said
that
they
have
seen
studies
about
this
or
studied
it.
I
figured
it
was
and
they
don't
believe
it
works,
and
I
think
at
a
certain
point,
we
as
a
committee
need
to
allow
the
engineers
that
work
for
the
city
to
do
their
jobs
and
accept
their
response,
so
yeah
I'll
stop.
There.
I
Yeah,
I
guess
I
don't
want
to
hammer
this
too
much,
but
that
you
know
I've
been
in
conversations
with
them
and
the
the
studies
that
they
cite
are
are
decades
upon
decades
old.
So
I
have
concerns
about
that
and
that
they're
not
being
willing
they're
not
willing
to
look
at
what
works
in
other
places,
and
so
that's
why
I'm
really
wanting
to
encourage
them
to
to
think
more
creatively.
D
Yeah
this
is,
I
also
don't
want
to
sit
on
this
too
long,
so
feel
free.
If
this
is
a
if
I
need
to
take
this
question
offline,
but
the
language
here
doesn't
sit
with
me
super
well,
and
I
I
do
wonder
you
know
what
what
does
it
will
look
like
in
in
a
process
to
add
language
to
this
comment,
rather
than
passing
it,
as
is
today.
D
C
H
C
C
So
we'll
we
will
come
back
to
this
at
a
no
later
than
1
15,
so
we'll
have
at
least
15
minutes
for
it
all
right.
So
moving
on
from
this
one,
the
next
one
is
title:
2018,
2019
click
report,
comment
off
street
recreational
and
commuter
path.
Rehabilitation,
dan
is
the
the
author
of
this
one.
The
the
first
part
of
the
comment
is,
I
assume
word
for
word
what
was
in
the
report
in
the
past.
C
G
I
I
don't
know,
I
just
thought
that
this
I
saw
this
when
I
was
reviewing
previous
comments.
I
think
it's
it's
a
helpful
comment,
because
this
program
doesn't
exist
and
I
know
it's
been
talked
about
in
the
bicycle
advisory
committee,
but
it
doesn't
exist
at
the
moment
and
that,
if
anything,
it
may
be
better
referred
to
as
the
all
ages
and
abilities
network,
which
is
inside
the
transportation
action
plan
and
includes
both
paths
and
streets.
Bike,
boulevards
and
parks
and
recreation
board
trails,
so
it'd
be
all
inclusive.
C
C
F
C
C
I
think
that's
a
good
suggestion.
Oh
there's
nobody
else
in
queue,
so
I'm
going
to
jump
in
here.
I
I'm
not
sure
we
necessarily
should
call
out
specific
network
that
they
should
do.
I
think
we
want
them
to
do
this
all
across
the
street,
just
as
they
do
for
pavement,
and
I'd
rather
see
us
tell
them
to
do
that,
rather
than
narrowly
focusing
on
or
somewhat
narrowly
focusing
on
on
on
one
network,
and
in
addition
to
that
I
was
just
thinking
about
this
about
a
month
ago.
C
I
don't
know
how
specific
or
detail
we
want
to
get,
but
I
was
out
rollerblading
and
you
know
if
you
go
a
little
bit
on
these
a
pavement
condition
index
for
cars
is
clearly
different
than
it
is
for
bikes
and
it's
clearly
different
than
it
is
for
somebody
on
rollerblades
right,
a
crack.
That
doesn't
mean
a
thing
for
somebody
on
a
bike.
G
C
So
what
we
could
do
with
this
one
is
what
we're
doing
with
george's
comment,
which
is
dan.
You
can
rewrite
this
with
the
help
of
whoever
wants
to
contribute,
and
this
one
will
get
forwarded
on
to
the
full
committee.
As
an
unapproved
comment,
which
you
know,
I
don't
think
this
one's
going
to
be
super
controversial.
It's
been
passed
before
so
steve.
Go
ahead.
C
C
H
F
C
D
Yeah,
I
just
I
just
want
to
say
really
quickly
that
I
am
I'm
really
happy
that
jeff
wrote
this.
I'm
really
happy
that
katie
is
working
on
a
friendly
amendment,
and
I
just
I
really
appreciate
everybody
for
explaining
to
me
quickly
the
process
of
getting
something
like
this
updated.
So
I
just
thanks
all.
C
E
So
a
question
on
regarding
the
mutcd
guidelines
are:
they
are
we
required?
Is
the
city
required
to
follow
them
or
they
just
the
suggestions,
or
you
know,
what's
considered
by
some
to
be
best
practice,
because
by
not
following
them,
do
we
expose
ourselves
to
funding
limitations
or
cuts
or
legal
liability?
What
what
you
know?
What
implications
are
there
for?
Not
you
know
for
doing
what
we
think
is
right,
but
may
not
meet
the
guidelines.
I
So
that's
a
great
question
and
it's
so
if
I
can
talk
or
reply
to
that,
my
understanding
and
I
will
say
I'm
not
an
expert
on
this,
but
my
understanding
is
that
they
are
guidelines.
We
we
do
not
have
to
follow
them
and
there
are
actually
several
instances
where
we
have
not,
for
example,
the
at
loring
park
when
we
painted
the
the
rainbow
crosswalk.
That
was
like
explicitly
like
not
allowed
by
mutcd
guidelines.
So
there
are
incident.
I
You
know
the
city
does
follow
mutcd
guidelines
because
it
does
give
them
liability
cover
and
a
lot
of
I
mean
and
that
that
is
something
that
we
want
and
that's
why
I
do
want
to
call
out
that
it's
a
good
thing
for
us
to
generally
follow
these.
But
where
we're
outpacing
the
guidelines,
it
makes
sense
to
pilot
and
to
test
new.
C
C
A
I
F
C
All
right,
the
comment
passes.
Katie.
Could
you
email
me
that
paragraph
please?
Thank
you
all
right
that
takes
us
to
the
very
last
section
of
this
most
of
which
I
think
we've
taken
care
of.
This
was
all
submitted
by
jeff.
So
jeff
asked
for
your
clarification
on
these.
It
strikes
me
that
the
traffic
21
comment
that
you're
the
traffic
signals
comment
that
you're
addressing
here
is
was.
C
C
C
C
Since
we're
doing
well
on
time,
I'll,
just
read
it
for
everybody's
sake,
so
this
is
tr021
traffic
signal.
The
proposed
comment
is
a
continued
area
of
concern.
Is
the
timing
of
when
a
light
turns
green.
In
conjunction
with
light
rail
click,
members
have
observed
the
light.
Turning
green
before
light
rail
train
has
finished
passing
through
an
intersection.
C
We
encourage
public
works
to
to
work
with
metro
transit
to
re-examine
if
an
additional
lag
and
timing
may
be
needed
to
ensure
a
train
clears
the
intersection
before
his
car.
Buster's
bikes
and
pedestrians
are
getting
a
green
light.
We
wouldn't
want
to
lose
our
chair
of
the
click
committee
over
this
issue
right.
I
might
have
added
that
last
sentence
kidding.
A
I
I
B
C
C
That
addresses
so
the
comment
we
made
previously
was
about
the
pedestrian
markings
on
parkways.
This
comment
is
specifically
about
whether
the
this
is
the
parkway
paving
program,
so
they
consistently
for
as
long
as
I
can
remember,
ask
for
750
000
a
year
for
this,
and
so
the
gist
of
this
is:
is
that
really
enough
or
do
they
need
to
increase
that
amount
and
asking
for
an
inventory
seems
like
it's
still
a
relevant
comment
to
make
steve?
C
F
Support
the
comment:
the
only
question
I
have
is.
I
am
aware
that
the
park
board
did
a
inventory
of
the
parkway
system,
parkway
system
rather
in
2019,
and
I
don't
think
with
the
pace
they've
been
paving.
It's
changed
that
much.
So
I
wonder
if
we
need
to
ask
them
to
maybe
just
to
update
its
inventory
or
of
the
parkway
system
rather
than
do
a
whole
new
inventory.
F
F
F
C
I
should
have
done
it
at
start.
Let
me
read:
I'm
assuming
jeff.
What
you're
proposing
here
is
the
part
that's
in
yellow
correct
all
right.
Let
me
just
read
that
for
everybody
based
on
the
public
input
received
along
with
the
direct
experience
of
several
click
members,
the
committee
asked
that
public
works
inventory
the
parkway
system.
It
should
then
determine
whether
the
750
000
annual
expenditure
is
adequate
to
deliver
this
program
and
to
avoid
potentially
damaging
and
dangerous
roadway
conditions
along
the.
A
C
I
mean
I'll
speak
up
on
this.
I
think
it
is
doing
that.
I
would,
I
guess
I
think,
the
last
phrase
of
the
second
sentence
where
it
says
to
avoid
potentially
damaging
and
dangerous
railway
conditions
along
the
parkway,
instead
of
saying
that
it
might
be
more
effective
if
we
refer
to
that
something
about
the
pace
at
which
they're
doing
this
and
whether
they're
getting
all
of
the
road
condition
back
to
where
it
ought
to
be
before
they
have
to
start
all
over
again,
you
know
with
the
stuff
they
did
10
years
ago
or
whatever.
A
I
Do
we
want
to
recognize
that
we
understand
that
they're
that
mprb
is
going
to
be
undertaking
a
master
planning
process,
because
I
think
part
of
the
consideration
may
be
well.
It
may
not
be
a
road
going
forward,
they
may
be,
I
mean
it's
park
land.
They
can
choose
to
use
it
as
they'd
like
it.
It
may
be
functionally.
C
I
I
I'm
not
sure
whether
what
you
just
said
is
that
factually
accurate,
but
if
it
is
politically,
I
don't
think
there's
any
way.
Those
will
stop
being
part
based.
So
I
don't.
I
don't
share
that
concern.
I
think.
As
far
as
what
you
said
about
the
master
plan,
I
mean
we
could
highlight
it
in
here.
I
think
it's
equipped
for
me.
It's
kind
of
equivocal
you
can
either
highlight
it
and
kind
of
commend
them
that
they're
going
to
do
that
which
in
a
way
holds
their
feet
to
the
fire.
C
But
by
asking
for
an
inventory,
that's
I
kind
of
view
that
as
pretty
similar,
so
it
sort
of
does
the
same
thing,
but
I
could
go
either
way
on
that.
I
do
think
what
scott
suggested
and
could
be
addressed
in
the
second
half
of
the
last
sentence,
by
just
saying
whether
you
know
something
a
lot,
I
was
trying
to
wordsmith
it
as
we're
doing.
C
C
D
C
All
right
so
I'll
read
the
the
comment
one
more
time
without
all
those
revisions,
and
then
we
can
see
if
there
are
any
final
comments
before
we
vote
based
on
the
public
input
received.
Along
with
the
direct
experience
of
several
click
members,
the
committee
asked
that
public
works
update
their
inventory
of
the
parkway
system.
It
should
then
determine
whether
the
750
000
annual
expenditure
is
it
adequate
to
to
deliver
the
program
in
a
timely
manner.
F
C
F
C
D
F
C
That
takes
us
to
the
final
two
comments
that
are
on
here,
which
are
bike
protective
bikeways
program
and
traffic
22.
We
obviously
addressed
traffic
22
and
I
would
argue
we
actually
addressed
bike
28
in
that
comment
too,
although
we
didn't
it's
not
titled
that
way,
and
I
would
suggest
that
maybe
we
want
to
make
that
change
just
to
include
bike
28
in
part
of
the
title,
because
that's
the
part
about
educating
people
when
they
make
all
of
these
changes
so
that
drivers
and
bikers
and
everybody
else
knows
what
they're
supposed
to
do.
C
C
H
H
C
H
I
C
A
C
Let
me
respond
to
that.
You
did
have
it
wrong
and
I
did
too.
I
actually
thought
it
was
a
week
from
tomorrow.
The
27th
and
I've
actually
sent
an
email
to
the
executive
committee
and
staff
requesting
that
we
push
that
deadline
back
a
week
from
tomorrow.
There's
I
haven't
gotten
a
response
yet,
but
I
think
we
can
do
that
without
that,
impacting
the
full
committee's
work
we're
going
to
have
our
hands
full
next
week
with
dealing
with
comments
we
won't
even
get
to.
C
C
So
the
ask
that
I've
made
of
emilia
and
the
department-
which
I
don't
know
if
they'll
be
able
to
do
it
or
not,
is
that
some
of
us
can
go
through
and
do
that
other
people
may
be
less
financially.
You
know
literate
or,
however,
you
want
to
put
it
in
and
that
may
be
more
challenging,
regardless
of
your
ability
to
do
it.
C
That
would
get
that
would
get
distributed
and
to
my
understanding
the
points
that
we
suggested
there
are
they're
not
a
hard
and
fast
it's
more
of
a
suggested
range.
So
each
person
each
raider
can
go
through
and
assign
the
points
based
on
those
numbers
that
are
calculated
by
somebody
on
the
city
staff.
C
K
No-
and
we
have
thank
you,
we
we
have
seen
the
emails
come
in.
I
think
as
they
as
they
started.
Popping
up.
We,
you
know
had
a
chance
to
look
at
what
the
operating
cost
calculations
are
and
similar
to
similar
to
how
the
cbrs
have
come
in
in
past
years.
There's
just
a
lot
of
the
information
is
vague
and
high
level.
K
I
think
for
folks
to
be
able
to
effectively
do
a
calculation
consistently
across
like
all
the
projects.
I
am.
I
am
curious
in
the
human
development
committee,
which
got
out
early,
which
enabled
me
to
pop
over
to
this
one
raised
similar
questions
about
it.
The
consensus
there
was
that
you
know,
essentially
the
information
that's
provided
is
the
information
that
gets
used
in
order
to
to
do
the
rankings
and
so
projects
that
don't
provide
information,
but
that
capital
long-range
improvement
committee
members
know,
for
example,
you
know:
is
it
new
infrastructure?
K
It's
it's
gonna
have
new
costs,
you
know
results
in
a
negative,
negative,
ranking
new
infrastructure
or
replacement
infrastructure.
Reconstructions
are
liable
to
be,
you
know
on
par
or
slightly
less,
and
so
it
might
anyway.
The
main
point
was
that,
to
the
extent
that
the
information
is
provided,
it
gets
used
and
then,
to
the
extent
that
click
members
can
rank
them
consistently
across
all
the
projects
it
results
in
a
defensible.
K
K
So
I
just
want
to
give
a
little
bit
of
background
there
on
what
the
human
development
task
force
had
just
discussed,
because
we're
kind
of
going
at
this
task
force
by
task
force
right
now.
There
is
an
option
for
I'll
say
somebody
to
you
know
do
all
of
those
costs.
Do
all
the
point.
Assignments
for
all
the
projects
and
just
have
click
use
that
one
person's
calculations
across
all
the
projects
in
the
interest
of
staff
time.
K
K
C
C
The
other
thing
I
would
just
observe
about
this.
That's
I
think,
is
why
it's
important
that
one
person
do
the
interpretation.
This
is
subject
to
interpretation,
even
though
it's
numbers
I'll
give
an
example:
the
concrete
street
29th
street.
If
you
look
in
that
cbr,
it
says
that
that
project
has
a
60-year
useful
life
and
that
until
it's
done,
they
spend
about
ten
thousand
dollars
per
mile
patching
it
and
that
street
happens
to
be
a
mile.
C
I
don't
think
that
means
you
take
10
000
and
multiply
it
by
60
years,
because
clearly
they
start
patching
again
well
before
it
gets
to
60
years.
So
you
have
to
make
some
assumption.
I
I
mean
if
I
were
doing
it,
I
think
I
would
just
give
it
30
years.
You
know.
Obviously
it's
not
going
to
be
like
it's
not
going
to
be
zero
for
30
years
and
then
suddenly
go
to
10
000,
it's
going
to
be
linear,
but
to
just
give
a
rough
estimate
that
would
be.
C
What
I
would
probably
do
is
is
multiply
this
cost
savings
of
10
000
per
year
over
half
of
the
useful
life,
because
clearly
they're
going
to
start
meeting
again
on
a
road
like
that,
but
that's
just
an
example
where
we
need
to
have
one
person
do
that
instead
of
having
14
different
or
33
different
interpretations
of
that
piece
and
then
assigning
points,
that's
going
to
create
a
lot
of
inconsistency
and
a
lot
of
you
know
duplicative
work,
all
right,
I'm
going
to
recognize
matt
and
then
jeff
both.
Thank
you.
J
Thanks
sorry,
my
my
comment
doesn't
address
this.
I
just
there
was
one
comment
here
that
I
believe
we
tabled.
It
was
it's
on
page,
seven,
that
the
off-street
recreational
and
commuter
path,
rehabilitation
comment
around
doing
a
pavement
condition:
index
assessment
on
on
off
street
paths.
I
believe
it
was
tabled
for
it
to
be
addressed
later,
while,
while
we
were
continuing
on,
I
worked
out
some
language
that
I
would
put
forward
to
address.
What
was
what
the
concerns
I
raised,
I'm
guessing.
J
C
H
H
In
my
view,
I'm
supportive
of
extending
it,
but
the
executive
committee
is
meeting
monday
and
so
we're
going
to
again
be
in
a
sort
of
a
time
crunch.
If
we
think
we
need
to
make
a
decision
that
we're
just
going
to
tell
people,
maybe
the
staff
and
just
like
they
do
with
the
other
rating
category,
we
just
have
to
get
a
decision
quickly,
so
people
can
do
the
both
of
their
scoring
and
then
we
add
that
other
factor.
H
C
I
would
propose
that
robert
and
jeff
stay
on.
We
should
probably
adjourn
this
meeting
were
over
and
if
you
guys
have
a
few
minutes,
we
can
discuss
this
and
and
because
I
think
the
the
main
thing
is,
we
need
to
make
a
decision
today
and
get
that
information
out
to
people,
so
they
know,
and-
and
so
let
me
just
go
back
to
my
script-
I
will
ask
members
and
staff
if
there
are
any
other
matters
to
come
before
this
meeting.