WEBVTT 00:00:00.194 --> 00:00:08.306 - All right, we'll call this meeting to order. It's 4.06 and this is meeting of the annual parking report 00:00:08.306 --> 00:00:16.496 - task force set up by the transportation commission to fulfill our ordinance mandate to produce an annual 00:00:16.496 --> 00:00:24.296 - report on the status of parking. Point of order, do we need to start reporting? It is reported. Oh, 00:00:24.296 --> 00:00:25.310 - okay, great. 00:00:25.538 --> 00:00:31.398 - And I see President, Commissioners Flaherty and Binder, along with myself, we are the three members 00:00:31.398 --> 00:00:37.667 - to whom the Transportation Commission delegated this task. We called it a task force so that A, it doesn't 00:00:37.667 --> 00:00:43.761 - have to be quite so formal as committees don't have to be, and B, we can invite people who are not part 00:00:43.761 --> 00:00:49.621 - of the commission to take part in it. And for the sake of an open discussion, there's no other item 00:00:49.621 --> 00:00:55.070 - on the agenda. I'm happy for us to use first names here as long as we're consistent with it. 00:00:55.586 --> 00:01:02.262 - So having said that, I just want to start by setting the frame. This is the most recent report that 00:01:02.262 --> 00:01:09.071 - the parking commission produced. This is the 2018 report. I want to talk about it to some extent. And 00:01:09.071 --> 00:01:15.813 - Iris Bull has sent a list for consideration that basically lists all the figures in this report. But 00:01:15.813 --> 00:01:22.823 - I can summarize the figures when it comes time to it. The goal here is to figure out what kind of report 00:01:22.823 --> 00:01:24.158 - we need to produce. 00:01:24.674 --> 00:01:32.273 - what it's going to take in terms of staff time, how long we should expect for it to take, and what should 00:01:32.273 --> 00:01:39.656 - be specifically in it, what kind of resources will those take to produce. So before I continue, I just 00:01:39.656 --> 00:01:47.040 - wanted to open up the floor to my fellow task force members. One of the things I'm hoping to do by the 00:01:47.040 --> 00:01:52.990 - next time we meet, not necessarily by the end of the meeting today, is to identify 00:01:53.186 --> 00:02:02.411 - specific people from each of the invited departments who have some bearing on this report to identify 00:02:02.411 --> 00:02:11.817 - a person who would represent them on the task force. So if, for example, I specifically asked for Megan 00:02:11.817 --> 00:02:21.403 - Blair from ITS because I know that she has expressed interest in taking data from Public Works and making 00:02:21.403 --> 00:02:22.398 - it visual. 00:02:22.562 --> 00:02:29.171 - But if there's somebody else from ITS who'd be more appropriate, I'm content for that department to 00:02:29.171 --> 00:02:35.912 - determine who that is. So having said that, first of all, Eobhan or Matt, do you have anything to add 00:02:35.912 --> 00:02:42.521 - to this so far? I've got a couple questions, but Matt, if you have anything, please go ahead. Yeah, 00:02:42.521 --> 00:02:47.742 - a few things as well. One, just noting that the section of code does call out. 00:02:47.938 --> 00:02:54.093 - specifics here, so there is guidance, it's not open-ended, it's about an annual analysis of parking 00:02:54.093 --> 00:03:00.432 - asset management, and specifies some of the data and metrics we're meant to be tracking to help inform 00:03:00.432 --> 00:03:06.586 - policy decisions. I think that also the prior reports from the parking commission are a great place 00:03:06.586 --> 00:03:12.802 - to start. I wasn't sure where to access though, I don't believe I received it via email, or maybe if 00:03:12.802 --> 00:03:17.726 - I did, I didn't, I missed that. And so I looked at the parking commission's old 00:03:18.306 --> 00:03:23.794 - It's not available on the reports there on board. Matt, I'll stop you there. If you just go 00:03:23.794 --> 00:03:30.057 - to the Transportation Commission's current page on the city website and scroll down about three quarters 00:03:30.057 --> 00:03:36.381 - of the way, there's a list of older reports there including the 2018 report. Iris did this several months 00:03:36.381 --> 00:03:42.405 - ago and everything now has been consolidated there. Yeah. And it goes back quite a ways too. There's 00:03:42.405 --> 00:03:47.774 - other reports listed and that should be helpful. Yeah. So, but just go ahead. That's all. 00:03:48.866 --> 00:03:55.793 - At the end of my email to Adam, I wrote the specific section 202-100-D7, we have to record all costs 00:03:55.793 --> 00:04:02.720 - and revenues for city-owned structured parking, surface parking, meter parking, neighborhood parking 00:04:02.720 --> 00:04:09.715 - zones, and other relevant city-owned parking. Is it up there? We have to document parking utilization 00:04:09.715 --> 00:04:16.162 - rates and longitudinal trends and conduct a contract for parking data analytics if necessary. 00:04:16.162 --> 00:04:18.494 - So those are, that's the mandate. 00:04:19.234 --> 00:04:26.537 - Yeah, to that point, I think we should probably identify whatever data sources we've got available because 00:04:26.537 --> 00:04:33.772 - I remember this being an issue that came up repeatedly in preparing the 2018 report and previous reports. 00:04:33.772 --> 00:04:40.597 - I think when we had to get revenue, it came from the city controller's office. But then when we had 00:04:40.597 --> 00:04:47.490 - to get parking utilization, that came from T2. Is that right? So, you know, just the two examples of 00:04:47.490 --> 00:04:48.446 - it's not like 00:04:48.706 --> 00:04:54.397 - We get someone from ITS and they can get us everything. I think we have to name and understand each 00:04:54.397 --> 00:05:00.372 - as a platform from which we're obtaining data just so that if there's like interval windows or something 00:05:00.372 --> 00:05:06.120 - that are involved or a certain staff member we have to be in contact with for that particular thing. 00:05:06.120 --> 00:05:12.039 - Or if any vendors have changed since 2018, those are just things to be aware of. So to that end, that's 00:05:12.039 --> 00:05:16.990 - why we've invited Public Works, the Controller, and the Clerk's Office. They all have. 00:05:17.250 --> 00:05:24.469 - basis of data that need to be synthesized. We've invited planning because they manage the transportation 00:05:24.469 --> 00:05:31.688 - plan, and we're trying to hue to that as well, that this report is meant to help us make decisions based 00:05:31.688 --> 00:05:39.045 - on the transportation plan. And of course, engineering supports the commission's work. And we also invited 00:05:39.045 --> 00:05:44.958 - ITS because they are one of the bodies that can help us synthesize some of that data. 00:05:45.506 --> 00:05:54.942 - So I think there was one more. Yeah, we also invited ESD, like planning, they, because parking in particular 00:05:54.942 --> 00:06:03.772 - is a measure of economic performance, not simply traffic safety, they too have a role in interpreting 00:06:03.772 --> 00:06:12.603 - this data for the sake of fulfilling our city plans. And so we look forward to their participation at 00:06:12.603 --> 00:06:14.334 - some point as well. 00:06:14.466 --> 00:06:21.983 - Does that answer your question? Yeah, I think so. OK. So now I'd like to open up the floor to talk about 00:06:21.983 --> 00:06:29.356 - what it would take to compile this data. There's a lot of data that Public Works has, but it's no less 00:06:29.356 --> 00:06:37.087 - significant the data that the controller has, because the report is supposed to also identify the financial 00:06:37.087 --> 00:06:40.094 - impact. One of the aspects of this report 00:06:40.258 --> 00:06:47.976 - and the report that proceeded in 2017 was we found out for the first time that with the advent of meters, 00:06:47.976 --> 00:06:55.621 - the parking system as a whole, meters, garages, lots, neighborhoods, zones, citations, was roughly break 00:06:55.621 --> 00:07:03.265 - even. Before meters, the city was spending money on the order of a couple million dollars a year because 00:07:03.265 --> 00:07:07.998 - the garages were not revenue neutral. Now, thanks to the meters, 00:07:08.162 --> 00:07:17.876 - We are at least as of 2018, we were roughly the same amount of money. It was an order of $100,000 00:07:17.876 --> 00:07:28.185 - to $200,000 difference either way. I don't know what those figures are because we haven't done a report 00:07:28.185 --> 00:07:37.502 - since 2018. So can we talk about sources of data? Why don't we start with the controller, OK? 00:07:37.730 --> 00:07:45.110 - Jeff McKim, City Controller. They're kind of going through the best financial sources that we have. 00:07:45.110 --> 00:07:53.007 - First of all, that I think everybody probably knows this, but maybe you don't, that there are four parking 00:07:53.007 --> 00:08:00.388 - garages in the city that are currently, that have debt service associated with them. And those four 00:08:00.388 --> 00:08:06.366 - parking garages, that debt service is all paid for through the consolidated TIF. 00:08:06.562 --> 00:08:13.283 - there's essentially 100% subsidy from the consolidated TIF. There's no operational revenue that covers 00:08:13.283 --> 00:08:20.070 - those at all. So that's the 4th Street Garage, Trades District Garage. Those two are paid directly from 00:08:20.070 --> 00:08:26.596 - the consolidated TIF. So that doesn't even enter any of the parking accounts. Those two, those bond 00:08:26.596 --> 00:08:33.383 - payments are associated with the, are made directly from the consolidated TIF. There's also the Mercury 00:08:33.383 --> 00:08:36.254 - Garage and the Walnut Street Garage leases. 00:08:36.418 --> 00:08:42.621 - that are made as well and that money is transferred from the consolidated TIF to the parking facilities 00:08:42.621 --> 00:08:48.585 - account and then paid from the parking facilities account. It's still dollar for dollar. It's still 00:08:48.585 --> 00:08:54.549 - 100% subsidy. It's just the transfer actually shows up in the parking facilities account. One thing 00:08:54.549 --> 00:09:00.811 - that I can give you all is just the, and actually I have them in a spreadsheet that I put together here, 00:09:00.811 --> 00:09:03.614 - is just the amortization schedule for the four 00:09:03.970 --> 00:09:11.902 - So you can tell how much is paid each year and how long the what the maturity is on the on the four 00:09:11.902 --> 00:09:20.152 - debt services So that's one that's that's the debt service then there's also a Really great data source 00:09:20.152 --> 00:09:28.798 - that is actually available on the city website right now through the open finance portal and it's actually a 00:09:29.730 --> 00:09:37.716 - It's essentially, there are a couple of files, but there are two data sets that are essentially extracts 00:09:37.716 --> 00:09:45.929 - from our financial system. They're not at an individual transaction level. They're at the fund, department, 00:09:45.929 --> 00:09:53.687 - and revenue GL line level. But that data is actually updated automatically every night, so it's up to 00:09:53.687 --> 00:09:58.174 - date within a day. It's fully publicly available, and it's 00:09:59.170 --> 00:10:05.185 - It's just basically there's one that's called operating that is the expenses and the other is called 00:10:05.185 --> 00:10:11.260 - revenue, which is the revenue. And they are, you know, they're very clean in that you could just open 00:10:11.260 --> 00:10:17.572 - them right in Excel and then do pivot tables just without any modification at all. So I highly recommend, 00:10:17.572 --> 00:10:23.707 - and I highly recommend that you kind of become familiar with those data sets. And I am perfectly happy 00:10:23.707 --> 00:10:27.518 - to kind of at some point, if it's appropriate, do a tutorial on 00:10:27.650 --> 00:10:34.165 - what accounts and what lines I think that you'd be most interested in. But that's a way that you can 00:10:34.165 --> 00:10:41.003 - see all of the budget versus actuals for the two main parking funds. So there are two main parking funds. 00:10:41.003 --> 00:10:47.647 - There's parking facilities and parking meters. And so you can see all of the revenue that was budgeted 00:10:47.647 --> 00:10:54.162 - and all the revenue that's actually come in to date by GL line. And the same thing with expenditures 00:10:54.162 --> 00:10:55.646 - on those two accounts. 00:10:56.834 --> 00:11:03.169 - question Jeff thank you so much this is very helpful and I think probably going to result in a more 00:11:03.169 --> 00:11:09.630 - smooth process for developing future reports than maybe what we had to undertake in in previous years 00:11:09.630 --> 00:11:15.838 - just to clarify when you were talking about the open finance portal is that the same thing as the 00:11:16.002 --> 00:11:22.186 - City of Bloomington open data portal budget and finance category or is it a separate portal? I don't 00:11:22.186 --> 00:11:28.555 - know the names to all those portals. Are you looking at back end or front end too? Yeah, no I'm looking 00:11:28.555 --> 00:11:34.862 - at the... So if you go to this page which is City of Bloomington open finance and what I'm showing you 00:11:34.862 --> 00:11:39.454 - is actually buried. You have to scroll all the way down to the very bottom 00:11:39.618 --> 00:11:45.535 - and there's a link at the bottom right that just says view and download. Okay, so it's not the same 00:11:45.535 --> 00:11:51.451 - as the general city Bloomington open data portal. Right, it should be ultimately the same data set, 00:11:51.451 --> 00:11:57.664 - but these two data sets operating in revenue, they're just nice because they're automatic, they're there 00:11:57.664 --> 00:12:03.344 - for you, you don't have to ask, they're updated daily, and like I said, once you find the link, 00:12:03.344 --> 00:12:06.302 - you've got it, you bookmark the link, and they're 00:12:06.722 --> 00:12:13.620 - Like I said, they're so clean, you could just pin a table without any manipulation. Thank you, Joe. 00:12:13.620 --> 00:12:20.517 - Would you be so kind as to send us this link, this magic link that you speak of? Yes. And I'll make 00:12:20.517 --> 00:12:27.484 - sure that the commission has access to it, especially the task force, for whoever continues to serve 00:12:27.484 --> 00:12:34.520 - on your behalf. But this is exactly the kind of information we need. Does anyone want to say anything 00:12:34.520 --> 00:12:36.382 - else about financial data? 00:12:36.578 --> 00:12:43.837 - If there is something, if you need to drill down on any of that, so once you look at it, if you decide 00:12:43.837 --> 00:12:50.954 - you need to drill down, I can also provide more customized reports from the financial system. Then I 00:12:50.954 --> 00:12:58.283 - think the next level of drilling down comes from... Right, we're going to talk about that data as well. 00:12:58.283 --> 00:13:04.414 - So just to, this is a good opportunity to point out the structure of the prior reports 00:13:04.770 --> 00:13:11.409 - What we tried to do, chapter one just reported on the commission itself. Chapter two gave an overall 00:13:11.409 --> 00:13:18.179 - performance of the system. The first figure in each chapter was inventory and a map of the particular, 00:13:18.179 --> 00:13:24.751 - either the entire system or one of the three sub categories of parking. So in garages, for example, 00:13:24.751 --> 00:13:31.456 - the first chapter, the first figure was inventory. Second figure was overall financial performance of 00:13:31.456 --> 00:13:33.822 - that program of the parking system. 00:13:34.114 --> 00:13:42.723 - The third was breaking down the revenue by source. The fourth was, the next several were details of 00:13:42.723 --> 00:13:51.332 - how revenue was gained, how many permits were issued, for example, or revenue from lots in the case 00:13:51.332 --> 00:13:59.942 - of garages. The seventh item in each chapter was expenses, and then any figures after that would be 00:13:59.942 --> 00:14:03.902 - breakdowns of expenses. So it's those middle, 00:14:04.386 --> 00:14:12.007 - figures, the fourth, fifth, and sixth figures generally in every chapter that were, that came from two 00:14:12.007 --> 00:14:19.703 - sources, Public Works and the clerk. So Adam, I'd like to ask now, I know that Michelle Wall is talking 00:14:19.703 --> 00:14:27.398 - about new equipment, but I also know that they're thinking about, I mean, I think you're thinking about 00:14:27.398 --> 00:14:30.654 - T2, aren't you? Like there's a challenge to 00:14:31.138 --> 00:14:37.768 - how easy, relatively, it is to get data from them. Yeah, customizable reports. Anytime we're going to 00:14:37.768 --> 00:14:44.463 - need something customizable, it's going to come at a cost. Sometimes it's a couple hundred dollars for 00:14:44.463 --> 00:14:50.963 - something easy. Sometimes it's been more expensive. I think Michelle just got out of her interviews 00:14:50.963 --> 00:14:57.528 - and may have jumped on. Michelle, can you briefly just explain the cost structure of when we request 00:14:57.528 --> 00:14:59.998 - things from T2? One second, Michelle. 00:15:00.546 --> 00:15:09.843 - Making you co-host. There we go. Michelle, are you there? Yeah. Hello. Were you able to hear what I 00:15:09.843 --> 00:15:19.605 - said, Michelle? Yeah. Michelle, are you there? Can you hear me? Yeah, I can hear you. There we go. Yeah, 00:15:19.605 --> 00:15:30.110 - it's $150 per hour for a customizer or for a poutine, too. OK. Yeah. OK. And I have to give them, like, at least 00:15:30.882 --> 00:15:37.661 - No one's currently in that position to run the reports. I have to give them at least like a two-week 00:15:37.661 --> 00:15:44.709 - and three-week notice. Yeah. OK, that can be done with, it's not like a year's notice. It's like a month 00:15:44.709 --> 00:15:51.489 - or two, right? Correct. OK. Ask Eric's question. Please. What's that? Oh, I just wanted to draw your 00:15:51.489 --> 00:15:58.403 - attention to Eric's question on the chat. We just get raw data from them. We'll get to that. OK. Let's 00:15:58.403 --> 00:15:59.678 - start with Nicole. 00:16:00.514 --> 00:16:06.079 - Are you looking for a regular pull and report? Are you looking for specific data? Because you don't 00:16:06.079 --> 00:16:11.866 - actually have to use a specialized data that you pay for. You can do a find a report and teach you that 00:16:11.866 --> 00:16:17.541 - you don't pay for. You just do it yourself. Yeah, there is. I mean, yes, any customizable cost money, 00:16:17.541 --> 00:16:21.214 - anything that's regularly. You can do your own customized report. 00:16:21.570 --> 00:16:28.492 - you don't have to pull one of the regular reports and you don't have to ask them to do it. We can manipulate 00:16:28.492 --> 00:16:34.906 - within T2 anything we require of their staff is where that additional cost comes in. Can you give an 00:16:34.906 --> 00:16:41.829 - example of what would be something that would be a customizable versus I guess not customizable or something 00:16:41.829 --> 00:16:48.306 - where we would need their staff to assist? Sure. Michelle, can you go ahead and answer that? Yeah, so 00:16:48.306 --> 00:16:50.910 - let's say, sorry, let's say that we need 00:16:51.362 --> 00:17:00.175 - see how many citations are avoided on a specific date or a specific area at a specific time. It's all 00:17:00.175 --> 00:17:08.210 - those things that are customizable. While we can do it, if there's more parameters built out 00:17:08.210 --> 00:17:16.936 - with requirements, that's not a finder report. That is something that I would have to get them to do 00:17:16.936 --> 00:17:21.342 - for us. And go ahead. You can do it. OK. Well, OK. 00:17:21.954 --> 00:17:30.666 - I get it that T2 is non-trivial to access and that people who, I mean there's a few people who know 00:17:30.666 --> 00:17:40.075 - how to do it and some of them are in City Hall. It's clear that the task force at least needs to understand 00:17:40.075 --> 00:17:49.048 - how that data can be accessed and at some point I think we're gonna want a tour of how staff like you, 00:17:49.048 --> 00:17:50.878 - Michelle, access T2. 00:17:51.106 --> 00:17:59.190 - I mean, we can schedule that for some time in the near future. It's no rush. But is that okay? Yes. 00:17:59.190 --> 00:18:07.274 - I'll just state, yes, it's okay. Okay. But as big a deal as T2 is, Michelle, I also want to ask you 00:18:07.274 --> 00:18:16.005 - about IPS. Now, I know that, I mean, I've known for a long time that you are eager to improve the equipment 00:18:16.005 --> 00:18:19.966 - that we use. And I know that IPS is the provider 00:18:20.098 --> 00:18:29.526 - of the data from the meters. Do you expect that getting data about meters is going to get easier once 00:18:29.526 --> 00:18:38.769 - we upgrade to new equipment? What is your opinion? Absolutely. How much easier will it get? Did you 00:18:38.769 --> 00:18:48.105 - watch what was in the packet sent to the Transportation Commission? Did I watch it? Yeah, there were 00:18:48.105 --> 00:18:49.214 - two videos. 00:18:49.538 --> 00:18:57.828 - that was uploaded to the packet of the last section from both of those vendors. And it's really... Oh, 00:18:57.828 --> 00:19:05.876 - yeah. I remember. I mean, I'm just talking from your perspective, just being able to... Do you have 00:19:05.876 --> 00:19:14.247 - a person who works for you, who you go to for generating any kind of report? Or do you just go straight 00:19:14.247 --> 00:19:18.110 - to IPS? Go ahead, Michelle. IPS or Park Mobile? 00:19:18.914 --> 00:19:26.013 - So you just, there's nobody on staff who kind of can navigate those portals. You just have to, you depend 00:19:26.013 --> 00:19:32.710 - on them to generate reports for you, is that right? Correct. But you think that with new equipment, 00:19:32.710 --> 00:19:39.675 - you'll be able to do some of that in-house? New parking technology, yeah. We can give access to whoever 00:19:39.675 --> 00:19:45.502 - needs it, including the transportation commission, Jeff, who needs it, the controller. 00:19:48.546 --> 00:19:54.475 - We just haven't. I mean, so the what technology we move to is still completely up in the air. So I just 00:19:54.475 --> 00:20:00.233 - want to be cautious here before we commit to, you know, who gets access to water, how we get access. 00:20:00.233 --> 00:20:06.162 - Like, there's a lot of decision points that need to be made on what we move to with parking technology, 00:20:06.162 --> 00:20:06.846 - but we will 00:20:07.298 --> 00:20:13.630 - Of course, our end goal is to make all data captures as easy as possible. I really do look forward, 00:20:13.630 --> 00:20:20.089 - myself, even to getting a tour on T2 of what we can do in-house versus out-of-house. I don't know all 00:20:20.089 --> 00:20:26.991 - of our software systems in the weeds like that. So just with the caveat that we haven't made those decisions 00:20:26.991 --> 00:20:33.323 - and don't know, but our goal is going to be to make data capture as easy as possible. OK. Well, and 00:20:33.323 --> 00:20:34.526 - I know that that's 00:20:35.362 --> 00:20:42.528 - you know, pending it's farther in the future than our objective here is now. But Eric online asks the 00:20:42.528 --> 00:20:49.695 - question that's relevant here. Can you simply request the raw complete data from T2? That is what the 00:20:49.695 --> 00:20:56.861 - commission, the parking commission did in the past. We would simply, there's somebody from the public 00:20:56.861 --> 00:21:02.974 - watching here. And that is what the parking commission did. They would, we would take, 00:21:04.098 --> 00:21:09.615 - all the parking transactions and synthesize them. And I can tell you from personal experience, 00:21:09.615 --> 00:21:15.539 - it was hard. But I think that in order for us to do this next report, until there's new equipment, we 00:21:15.539 --> 00:21:21.463 - have to do that again somehow. We have to download data and process it. And we have to figure out how 00:21:21.463 --> 00:21:27.445 - we're going to do that. So OK, we've talked about T2 and IPS. Can we talk about it? Before we move on, 00:21:27.445 --> 00:21:32.382 - I want to recognize that Matt has had his hand up. Oh, Matt, sorry. Please speak up. 00:21:33.730 --> 00:21:41.028 - Thank you. Thank you, Iris. We can keep going down this data path if we'd like. That's fine. What I 00:21:41.028 --> 00:21:48.399 - wanted to interject, though, to ask and kind of just frame is, at least the way my mind works, like, 00:21:48.399 --> 00:21:56.062 - it'd be helpful to kind of set out in broad strokes, like, the timeline process, what it is we're trying 00:21:56.062 --> 00:21:57.886 - to contemplate in roles. 00:21:58.306 --> 00:22:04.279 - You know, my intent generally, I guess, as a council member, I just drafted the section on this parking 00:22:04.279 --> 00:22:10.195 - report. And as a past parking commission member like yourselves, I don't anticipate the transportation 00:22:10.195 --> 00:22:16.225 - commission or a committee or task force of that commission to replicate the parking commission's process 00:22:16.225 --> 00:22:22.198 - of data acquisition, processing, to kind of look all of those things that proved frankly just untenable 00:22:22.198 --> 00:22:28.286 - for a volunteer group. And, you know, data tools might improve the ability to do that, but kind of what I 00:22:28.546 --> 00:22:35.486 - vision, I guess, is aligning on a template for an annual report that looks a lot like the 2018 report. 00:22:35.486 --> 00:22:41.820 - I think it's a really terrific starting point in terms of what's being analyzed. It's aligned 00:22:41.820 --> 00:22:48.558 - with Bloomington Municipal Codes prescription to the Transportation Commission. And if we can align 00:22:48.558 --> 00:22:55.363 - on that report, then it becomes the job of staff and or contractors to produce the data on an annual 00:22:55.363 --> 00:22:57.182 - basis, you know, that that 00:22:57.282 --> 00:23:03.391 - report template that we all align on, and maybe advise the commission on how to interpret that data. 00:23:03.391 --> 00:23:09.803 - But ultimately, it would be the commission's job then to analyze, interpret, and produce the final report 00:23:09.803 --> 00:23:16.214 - with any policy or recommendation. So it's more of a analysis and policy guidance role for the commission 00:23:16.214 --> 00:23:22.384 - rather than the data analytics piece of it. But as we set that up, this is the job of the task force, 00:23:22.384 --> 00:23:27.102 - essentially, in my mind, is over the next, say, five, six months figuring out 00:23:27.394 --> 00:23:33.253 - Like, what are all the questions? What can our data systems manage and do and produce in a, again, clear 00:23:33.253 --> 00:23:39.167 - template report? And then once we set that up, it's just kind of, you know, we run it on an annual cycle. 00:23:39.167 --> 00:23:44.970 - Maybe we want to produce this first annual report by something like March of 2027 for the calendar year 00:23:44.970 --> 00:23:50.550 - 2026, so complete data for 2026. That'd be the first year the commission's been fully in operation. 00:23:50.550 --> 00:23:55.070 - That would also have the benefit of, you know, being able to get policy guidance 00:23:55.426 --> 00:24:01.521 - in time to make changes for, I know the neighborhood permits kind of operate on a summer permitting 00:24:01.521 --> 00:24:07.678 - cycle, so that's kind of the time scale that might be true for some of the other permits as well. So 00:24:07.678 --> 00:24:14.139 - I just wanted to like zoom out and ask if it's helpful for us to have that conversation about anticipated 00:24:14.139 --> 00:24:20.234 - timelines, roles, and process that might then inform what we need to answer on the data upfront and 00:24:20.234 --> 00:24:21.758 - other related questions. 00:24:21.858 --> 00:24:29.221 - So please don't forget to ignore me and proceed. No, no, no. No, I just, I was really, I wanted to react 00:24:29.221 --> 00:24:36.373 - to something that you said, because I think I heard a contradiction in the language that's being used 00:24:36.373 --> 00:24:43.876 - around producing a report. And I guess, can you clarify what you mean by that? Like there's the production 00:24:43.876 --> 00:24:48.574 - of a template, and then mechanically, either the commissioners are 00:24:49.122 --> 00:24:56.322 - writing a report with that template or staff are writing a report and then bringing it to the commission. 00:24:56.322 --> 00:25:02.775 - I just want to understand the mechanics a little bit better. I want to say that I believe that 00:25:02.775 --> 00:25:09.636 - the commissioners won't have enough time by themselves to generate the data, but if they have access 00:25:09.636 --> 00:25:16.565 - to the data that's digestible, they can write summaries of it to say, here's what we see. And that is 00:25:16.565 --> 00:25:18.942 - the commission's role to interpret 00:25:19.426 --> 00:25:28.073 - And writing that interpretation should not be particularly difficult. It was always about getting all 00:25:28.073 --> 00:25:36.636 - this data wrestled. I mean, the chart that is the best example of it is 4.6. This broke down revenue 00:25:36.636 --> 00:25:45.113 - by block face. And I think it's one of the crucial tables for determining how the parking system is 00:25:45.113 --> 00:25:46.046 - operating. 00:25:46.434 --> 00:25:52.731 - It doesn't make sense to be charging a dollar an hour across the board when there are clearly blocks 00:25:52.731 --> 00:25:59.152 - that aren't used at all and clearly blocks that are being used much more heavily than a dollar an hour 00:25:59.152 --> 00:26:05.885 - would merit. And certainly other cities don't charge the same amount across the city. They charge different 00:26:05.885 --> 00:26:12.306 - rates. But that kind of data is crunching a million and a half or two million transactions to find out 00:26:12.306 --> 00:26:15.486 - where people parked. And that takes a lot of work. 00:26:15.650 --> 00:26:20.950 - I can't do by myself anymore. So that was my thought. But I welcome other interpretations. If, Matt, 00:26:20.950 --> 00:26:26.407 - you think that we should be doing it differently, or Aobahn, or anybody else? I guess, again, I'm going 00:26:26.407 --> 00:26:31.760 - into a conversation around setting the broad contours of what the responsibility of the tax force is, 00:26:31.760 --> 00:26:37.060 - what the responsibilities of the commission are, what we expect staff would be able to do to support 00:26:37.060 --> 00:26:42.675 - that. Code, Tyrus's question, code says produce or oversee an annual analysis of parking asset management. 00:26:42.675 --> 00:26:45.246 - So I think there's some flexibility there. Yeah. 00:26:45.474 --> 00:26:51.847 - When I say template, I mostly meant the data fields that we want produced, that I don't anticipate 00:26:51.847 --> 00:26:58.541 - commissioners analyzing the data systems to produce, but rather against staff or contractors to produce 00:26:58.541 --> 00:27:05.107 - those data fields. I think there's an open question about the text of the report, the analysis piece. 00:27:05.107 --> 00:27:11.673 - I think staff's opinions and guidance would be very welcome, but it's not ultimately the staff that's 00:27:11.673 --> 00:27:12.510 - charged with 00:27:12.898 --> 00:27:19.276 - ultimately, or you know, production or oversight of the report. So I think it would be advisory to the 00:27:19.276 --> 00:27:25.963 - commission if staff wanted to also interpret the data, you know, by way of how we sequence that production. 00:27:25.963 --> 00:27:32.279 - I think I'd be happy to, you know, to kind of draft a plan, I guess, or like a process, you know, one 00:27:32.279 --> 00:27:38.533 - pager to describe this. I mean, instead we're just kind of talking through it, but I guess that's my 00:27:38.533 --> 00:27:40.638 - vision. I think there's a little, 00:27:40.866 --> 00:27:47.568 - wiggle room on the writing of the report and exactly how they get sequenced and finalized. So I would 00:27:47.568 --> 00:27:54.269 - like to just propose to everyone who has an interest in this report to look at the 2018 report and to 00:27:54.269 --> 00:28:00.839 - look specifically at the figures. I told you how they broke down. There's a pattern to them. Again, 00:28:00.839 --> 00:28:04.190 - Chapter two is the overall performance of parking. 00:28:04.322 --> 00:28:10.389 - Chapter three is garages, four is meters, five is neighborhood zones. And in each chapter, it's the 00:28:10.389 --> 00:28:16.577 - same thing. We do the inventory. We do an overall performance. We do revenues. We do expenses. And in 00:28:16.577 --> 00:28:22.947 - between revenues and expenses, we do system performance, like how much are people actually using things. 00:28:22.947 --> 00:28:29.196 - One way to measure that has been money because we've charged a dollar an hour, at least on the meters. 00:28:29.196 --> 00:28:34.110 - That's not been true with the garages. Michelle can speak to that if she'd like. 00:28:34.306 --> 00:28:41.769 - we need to start tracking usage, not simply revenue. We can't use revenue as a substitute for usage 00:28:41.769 --> 00:28:49.381 - beyond that. So, you know, like having said that, I'm going to be asking people eventually, are there 00:28:49.381 --> 00:28:56.918 - any figures in the 2018 report that you wouldn't reproduce in a future report? Are there any figures 00:28:56.918 --> 00:29:02.366 - that you'd add? Okay. I don't think we need to do more than what's here. 00:29:02.754 --> 00:29:10.612 - But what's here was substantial enough that it couldn't be done by volunteer commissioners alone. And 00:29:10.612 --> 00:29:18.546 - I wanted to ask the clerk's office, because they also sit on a body of data, before we go any further, 00:29:18.546 --> 00:29:26.558 - if they had anything to add to the collection of data for this report. Did you have anything you wanted 00:29:26.558 --> 00:29:30.718 - to say about citations, for example? No. Okay. Susan? 00:29:32.642 --> 00:29:39.386 - Is it easy enough to get citation data and compile it? I mean, you have access to all the data you need. 00:29:39.386 --> 00:29:46.130 - We compile it on a monthly basis anyway. OK. All right. So Matt's point, I think, about trying to define 00:29:46.130 --> 00:29:52.682 - a process. I think we're starting to coalesce a process here, which is what you just outlined, Steve. 00:29:52.682 --> 00:29:58.334 - I think using the 2018 report as a basis, determining what, if anything, in that report 00:29:58.850 --> 00:30:06.356 - would be something that, for example, we don't have data sources for or would maybe just consume an 00:30:06.356 --> 00:30:13.861 - inordinate amount of staff time to prepare. And then if we can sort of just delineate that and then 00:30:13.861 --> 00:30:21.442 - decide, OK, that's not going to go in future reports because the ROI isn't really there. In my mind, 00:30:21.442 --> 00:30:26.846 - that's kind of the core of what this process would need to be, I think. 00:30:27.714 --> 00:30:35.507 - Although, Matt, I would be curious to hear if there's anything else in your mind when you're talking 00:30:35.507 --> 00:30:43.378 - about defining this process. You also earlier mentioned a kind of hypothetical timeline that would be 00:30:43.378 --> 00:30:51.402 - spring of next year trying to pull together a report for calendar 2026. I don't want to skip past that, 00:30:51.402 --> 00:30:55.646 - I guess, because I think that's an important thing for 00:30:56.546 --> 00:31:04.664 - probably most of the people in this room be at least roughly on the same page about. Well, before we 00:31:04.664 --> 00:31:12.943 - get to deadline, let me first just ask any department that's here, is there anything that we've talked 00:31:12.943 --> 00:31:20.981 - about so far that sounds like a too heavy a lift as far as data gathering goes? None of us. Okay. I 00:31:20.981 --> 00:31:26.366 - believe that staff just need to be told what data to gather. Okay. 00:31:26.594 --> 00:31:34.445 - I think it may come down to, Adam, what you were saying about identifying the, what's the term, like 00:31:34.445 --> 00:31:42.373 - the specific report that we need to generate a certain table. The one I'm most concerned about is the 00:31:42.373 --> 00:31:50.146 - report, the table you point to because everything I know about the data we try to do for block face 00:31:50.146 --> 00:31:56.286 - usage is going with the way park mobile zones work where the block face itself 00:31:56.482 --> 00:32:02.737 - is not as easily calculable maybe now as it was then. Why would you say that is? Because you can change 00:32:02.737 --> 00:32:08.991 - where you park in the zone for ParkMobile. So you might park in front of Uptown for your lunch and then 00:32:08.991 --> 00:32:15.426 - you might head within that zone to, I don't exactly know how big the zones are, but you can head somewhere 00:32:15.426 --> 00:32:21.561 - else in the zone. So it's not going to show you a perfect block face data point on the block in front 00:32:21.561 --> 00:32:25.470 - of Uptown necessarily. When you integrate ParkMobile's data with 00:32:26.082 --> 00:32:35.178 - Do we have any data at all about that user tendency to move? Do we have any ways of knowing whether 00:32:35.178 --> 00:32:44.364 - that happens a lot or not? We can look into that. That would be an interesting question that we want 00:32:44.364 --> 00:32:53.278 - to find out. I don't think so. If you think about the way ParkMobile works, you put your time in. 00:32:53.474 --> 00:33:00.311 - And then if you move, you're not telling them you move. And I don't think they're going to have geocaching 00:33:00.311 --> 00:33:07.020 - of locations or things like that. That's right. The only way for them to be able to calculate that would 00:33:07.020 --> 00:33:13.665 - be to track the GPS location of cars and be able to say, yes, we have a database of cars and where they 00:33:13.665 --> 00:33:15.774 - were at specific points in time. 00:33:15.874 --> 00:33:23.308 - I'll clearly state I'm not asking for that. Which is not, I think, what anyone is expecting is happening 00:33:23.308 --> 00:33:30.601 - with the service. May I? Yes, please. No, because we've always enforced based on zone with park mobile 00:33:30.601 --> 00:33:37.823 - instead of by space. Other communities actually do park mobile by space, which ultimately that's what 00:33:37.823 --> 00:33:44.478 - you guys want to look at. You could do it and change it, but then you'll have to also pay the 00:33:44.642 --> 00:33:50.914 - mark every single space in the city. So you're asking for something else. There's also another problem 00:33:50.914 --> 00:33:57.125 - with this data set and that's that there's no way to track when construction or spaces are closed due 00:33:57.125 --> 00:34:03.458 - to special events. Other things that will bias the data because the the assumption operating assumption 00:34:03.458 --> 00:34:09.608 - is that all spots are open all of the time. There are lots of routine situations that affect whether 00:34:09.608 --> 00:34:11.678 - or not any spot is actually open. 00:34:12.226 --> 00:34:19.292 - That is actually not true. It's just exorbitant. It's an expensive task to do, but I've been able to 00:34:19.292 --> 00:34:26.498 - do it because I've had access to raw data. You can see when a block, there's no action whatsoever. You 00:34:26.498 --> 00:34:33.564 - can conclude that the block was closed. It's just very difficult to do. Perhaps a block, but then to 00:34:33.564 --> 00:34:40.630 - do an individual space, which is sometimes what is required from, for example, construction right of 00:34:40.630 --> 00:34:41.470 - way permit. 00:34:41.666 --> 00:34:47.829 - The only way you could cross-reference that data would probably be to go to a Board of Public Works 00:34:47.829 --> 00:34:54.054 - packet. Staff are not individually tracking a spot. Each spot doesn't have a unique ID that is being 00:34:54.054 --> 00:35:00.340 - tracked in a system. This has been closed for construction. Again, as Nicole has said, it is possible 00:35:00.340 --> 00:35:06.750 - that if we change the way we do it, we're not proposing any such change yet. I will also point out that 00:35:06.750 --> 00:35:08.414 - when this report was made, 00:35:08.642 --> 00:35:16.157 - If you look at figure 4.3 when you get a chance, you'll see the breakdown of usage of the meters. It 00:35:16.157 --> 00:35:23.821 - was roughly one sixth app, one third coin and one half card. Those figures have flipped now. Literally 00:35:23.821 --> 00:35:31.336 - one half of parking meter transactions are being done by the app and only one sixth by coin. So with 00:35:31.336 --> 00:35:37.214 - as little park mobile data as there was at this time, it was reasonable enough 00:35:37.442 --> 00:35:44.131 - to just go with the first space where somebody paid for ParkMobile and to assume they stayed there the 00:35:44.131 --> 00:35:50.755 - whole time. We were looking for general figures, not the, I mean, even though there's great detail in 00:35:50.755 --> 00:35:57.639 - here, we're looking for trends over time. I mean, if we were to unify ParkMobile with IPS data, no matter 00:35:57.639 --> 00:36:04.392 - how imperfect, as long as we do it consistently from year to year, we can see trends. That doesn't mean 00:36:04.392 --> 00:36:05.886 - that we're not missing 00:36:06.018 --> 00:36:12.586 - a performance issue in a certain block because people pay there and they move and park somewhere else, 00:36:12.586 --> 00:36:19.091 - but it's close enough. There's some horseshoes joke in there somewhere. So it's still, I think, worth 00:36:19.091 --> 00:36:25.914 - our trouble to do some kind of depth into this and to combine the two even though we know it's not perfect 00:36:25.914 --> 00:36:32.419 - and we can move. Sorry, my mistake was thinking we were talking about what was available, not what we 00:36:32.419 --> 00:36:33.822 - want to be available. 00:36:35.202 --> 00:36:40.545 - I'm talking about what is available. For this report, we're not gonna have the luxury any more than 00:36:40.545 --> 00:36:46.048 - we did in 2018. I still think it's worth combining the two data sets so we can see, I mean, it's still 00:36:46.048 --> 00:36:51.605 - gonna give us a good heat map. I completely agree that you can make that reasonable simplification that 00:36:51.605 --> 00:36:57.269 - where somebody establishes their mobile session is where they're parking. You're right, it's not perfect. 00:36:57.269 --> 00:37:02.238 - It's good enough. It's good enough. It's good enough, yeah. Again, we're looking for trends. 00:37:02.530 --> 00:37:10.397 - We're looking to make it clear that this neighborhood is being over-parked. We can do something about 00:37:10.397 --> 00:37:18.264 - it. And that's ultimately the goal. Matt. This is interesting and helpful. Also feels to me like very 00:37:18.264 --> 00:37:26.208 - weedy about a particular data point type of issue that, yes, warrants some caveats and interpretation. 00:37:26.208 --> 00:37:28.830 - And that's the job for the board. 00:37:29.282 --> 00:37:34.557 - You know, can I bring back the process? Of course. And again, we're charged with producing an annual 00:37:34.557 --> 00:37:39.832 - report. Prior reports have been on the calendar year time cycle. If we'd like to replicate that, our 00:37:39.832 --> 00:37:45.055 - first calendar year operation as a commission is this year. We could produce the report by sometime 00:37:45.055 --> 00:37:50.591 - early in 2027. I think doing it say by the end of Q1 makes it actionable for some of the policy decisions 00:37:50.591 --> 00:37:52.158 - that can follow from it. Yes. 00:37:52.258 --> 00:37:57.773 - And it seems to me, so, like, A, like, if people agree, like, can we, like, broadly have a line there 00:37:57.773 --> 00:38:03.341 - on that coming out of this meeting, for instance? And then what would be the next steps? I would think 00:38:03.341 --> 00:38:08.964 - maybe this task force, like the members from the commission, need to align on, like, specifically what, 00:38:08.964 --> 00:38:14.479 - maybe even producing a template, you know, from the 2018 report of, like, these figures, these, yeah, 00:38:14.479 --> 00:38:20.210 - these figures are what we'd like to see produced and what we in them and then stock, you know, can assess 00:38:20.210 --> 00:38:21.886 - what's feasible or what's not. 00:38:22.210 --> 00:38:27.333 - few instances in which there are limitations and then we can work through those issues and settle you 00:38:27.333 --> 00:38:32.457 - know over the next couple of months not exactly what it is that will be produced by staff on the data 00:38:32.457 --> 00:38:37.630 - front as well as you know with regard to any advisory interpretive type things and then you know again 00:38:37.630 --> 00:38:42.753 - a timeline for the commission itself whether it's through this task force initially or the commission 00:38:42.753 --> 00:38:45.566 - as a whole to actually write and finalize the report so 00:38:46.370 --> 00:38:52.766 - I'm trying to define the timelines and get alignment if we can, again, and roles and next steps, just 00:38:52.766 --> 00:38:59.350 - because I know our time is limited and I want to make sure that we're identifying the right path forward 00:38:59.350 --> 00:39:05.808 - that can get this to meet our requirements. Okay. Yeah, I appreciate that. And I want to just say that 00:39:05.808 --> 00:39:12.894 - my first goal was to find out if there were any red flags from departments about data that they considered to be 00:39:13.378 --> 00:39:19.241 - too difficult to acquire or that would take an inordinate amount of time. We may not know that today, 00:39:19.241 --> 00:39:24.759 - particularly public works. I know you have the majority of the data that we're concerned about. 00:39:24.759 --> 00:39:30.508 - And so, you know, before we even agree to a March deadline, which we're not really in a position to 00:39:30.508 --> 00:39:36.658 - do today, that's not the goal here, is to have everyone who is thinking about this to look at that report, 00:39:36.658 --> 00:39:42.636 - to look at specifically those figures and to see if there's any red flags and let us know at some point 00:39:42.636 --> 00:39:43.326 - in the next 00:39:43.650 --> 00:39:49.196 - Month or so? Two months? That's what we've been working on. Oh, that's great. That's the approach we're 00:39:49.196 --> 00:39:54.582 - taking is just reviewing the data points in there, what data points we currently have that aren't in 00:39:54.582 --> 00:39:59.968 - there, and thinking about it that way. And we're going to want to work with you to figure out how to 00:39:59.968 --> 00:40:05.407 - formulate the reports so that we can set them up once and then generate them. The setup here is going 00:40:05.407 --> 00:40:10.846 - to be the hardest thing. We should be able to do the same thing year after year with much less effort 00:40:10.846 --> 00:40:11.966 - than the first year. 00:40:12.706 --> 00:40:19.748 - So again, I'm going to be asking anybody who might have data to contribute to this report to let us 00:40:19.748 --> 00:40:26.932 - know if they, at some point in the next month, if they see any red flags. I'm encouraged to hear that 00:40:26.932 --> 00:40:34.045 - I think the answer is probably no. I just wanted to make sure that departments knew that that was my 00:40:34.045 --> 00:40:38.270 - first question, even though I also hear Matt's concern that 00:40:38.434 --> 00:40:46.646 - You know, we need to pick a deadline date. I do think the end of March is reasonable, but I don't want 00:40:46.646 --> 00:40:54.777 - to commit anybody to it yet until we fully understand the tasks. Are there any other general thoughts 00:40:54.777 --> 00:41:02.829 - that people have about getting this done? Has anybody seen this enough to know that there's anything 00:41:02.829 --> 00:41:07.294 - that we should be concerned about reproducing? Not yet. 00:41:07.618 --> 00:41:16.179 - I'm still a little unclear on what the, like, I hate to bring it back to the particulars, Matt, because 00:41:16.179 --> 00:41:24.410 - I really appreciate the bigger picture here, but just the mechanics of compiling data. If there are 00:41:24.410 --> 00:41:32.888 - expectations about what this looks like, because it's still not clear to me if the expectation is that 00:41:32.888 --> 00:41:35.934 - commissioners will be writing things 00:41:36.162 --> 00:41:43.552 - or if staff will be writing things and commissioners will be responding and reacting to the things. 00:41:43.552 --> 00:41:51.015 - Again, I would say that the hard part was the data compilation. The hard part was never the writing. 00:41:51.015 --> 00:41:58.996 - It was, did we know that this data was accurate enough to act on? And I know that I spent the vast majority 00:41:58.996 --> 00:42:02.174 - of my time compiling data and not writing. 00:42:02.690 --> 00:42:10.401 - I couldn't write some things when I was contributing to the 2017 report, for example, because I didn't 00:42:10.401 --> 00:42:18.186 - know what the answers were. I couldn't know whether the data I had was complete or whether it was fully 00:42:18.186 --> 00:42:25.673 - accurate. Again, I was working in a silo when I was doing data in 2017. The 2018 report, there were 00:42:25.673 --> 00:42:29.790 - more of us working on it, but it was still a big lift. 00:42:31.938 --> 00:42:39.835 - Did that answer your question? No. Yeah, I want to try to make sure we address your question, because 00:42:39.835 --> 00:42:47.809 - I think I understand what you're asking here, which is who is ultimately responsible for maybe, if not 00:42:47.809 --> 00:42:55.706 - the final stage of the report, but each stage of the preparation of it. And then also, I suppose, who 00:42:55.706 --> 00:43:01.822 - is putting their name on the report at the very end, so to speak, or literally 00:43:01.922 --> 00:43:09.153 - Is it the commission signing off on it or is it staff? In other words, is it a staff report done with 00:43:09.153 --> 00:43:16.242 - the help of the commission or is it a commission report done with the help of staff? I think that's 00:43:16.242 --> 00:43:23.757 - kind of an important distinction. I think one probably commits more time on the part of the commissioners 00:43:23.757 --> 00:43:30.846 - to shepherd the process along, make lots of individual requests of staff and other relevant parties 00:43:31.330 --> 00:43:40.817 - Whereas maybe the other is someone on staff kind of needs to be that role, that shepherd, and keep the 00:43:40.817 --> 00:43:50.396 - process moving along. Is that sort of the essence of your question? Yes. Yeah. And I know at this stage 00:43:50.396 --> 00:43:58.686 - perhaps it's a little bit of an arbitrary answer to the question, whatever that might be. 00:43:58.978 --> 00:44:05.534 - I agree, it's I think an important one for everyone to be on the same page about because I don't want 00:44:05.534 --> 00:44:12.283 - to leave that open too long, that question of sort of who is the person shepherding the process. I mean, 00:44:12.283 --> 00:44:18.710 - I think currently as we speak, it's the task force doing so, but that isn't to say that staff isn't 00:44:18.710 --> 00:44:25.523 - going to, yeah, go ahead. I think the short answer would be let us take a look at any other non-statutory 00:44:25.523 --> 00:44:28.094 - commission that reports to the council. 00:44:28.674 --> 00:44:35.509 - Uh, who writes those reports? Okay. Well, in that case, Matt, I would address you here as member of 00:44:35.509 --> 00:44:42.823 - the council, um, from reports you've seen from, you know, different entities like this, maybe it's another 00:44:42.823 --> 00:44:49.726 - commission or maybe it's a city department. Um, what do you feel like is most useful for the council 00:44:49.726 --> 00:44:56.766 - and what kind of has set the precedent for what, you know, we might follow for this commission report? 00:44:58.466 --> 00:45:03.911 - Good question. I mean, I think, actually, Deputy Clerk Crossley probably has some good insight on that 00:45:03.911 --> 00:45:09.621 - as well, as helping oversee for the commission. My general sense is that the commissions that are reporting 00:45:09.621 --> 00:45:15.278 - to us, they have staff liaisons who are their support, but they are delivering those products and creating 00:45:15.278 --> 00:45:20.935 - them themselves. And so the thing I feel is important is that the commission is ultimately the one driving 00:45:20.935 --> 00:45:26.750 - the policy piece of it and recommendations. That's the role of the commission. It's their advisory in nature. 00:45:26.978 --> 00:45:33.188 - They're made up of appointments from different bodies of our local government. And it's not simply meant 00:45:33.188 --> 00:45:39.517 - to be a place for public to participate in something staff is ultimately responsible for. That's something 00:45:39.517 --> 00:45:45.431 - different. And so I think that we're talking about where the handoff point is, essentially. I think 00:45:45.431 --> 00:45:51.346 - we should document this in a proposed process for discussion in our next meeting. I'm happy to take 00:45:51.346 --> 00:45:55.486 - the lead on that if one of us as the task force member would like to. 00:45:55.778 --> 00:46:02.117 - just spitball it. I think, again, once we establish a template in terms of the data fields that need 00:46:02.117 --> 00:46:08.644 - to be produced, that's the staff job, I think, we've established. Maybe we would also like a memorandum 00:46:08.644 --> 00:46:15.108 - or a few memoranda from the relevant staff members about their interpretation of the data, what trends 00:46:15.108 --> 00:46:21.447 - they see, what they think is important about it, what the implications are. And then it would be the 00:46:21.447 --> 00:46:25.150 - commission's job to actually finalize and write the report 00:46:25.634 --> 00:46:31.352 - bringing its own insights and analysis, but also taking as advisory staff's input and analysis. Now, 00:46:31.352 --> 00:46:37.183 - I mean, the final writing and narrative form of the report would be a responsibility of the commission 00:46:37.183 --> 00:46:43.071 - and maybe a particular commissioner is designated to draft. And then there's, you know, some discussion 00:46:43.071 --> 00:46:48.845 - amendments, et cetera. So like that's a version of this. I think that could work pretty well. This is 00:46:48.845 --> 00:46:54.846 - my feeling as well. I think that I don't want to obligate staff to feel like they have to interpret data. 00:46:55.010 --> 00:47:02.762 - But I also don't want to, if staff wants to have input in the interpretation data, we welcome it. But 00:47:02.762 --> 00:47:10.590 - I do feel it's the obligation of the commission to interpret the data, to think about policy. In fact, 00:47:10.590 --> 00:47:18.342 - the last item under 202-100-D7 is recommending changes to the parking system necessary to advance the 00:47:18.342 --> 00:47:24.574 - goals of the comprehensive plan and other applicable city plans. What we can't do 00:47:24.738 --> 00:47:31.565 - What we've proven, we just don't have the capacity to do as commissioners is compile that data. And 00:47:31.565 --> 00:47:38.596 - whether we get help from existing city staff or we have to ask for contractors to do it, that's beyond 00:47:38.596 --> 00:47:45.423 - the scope of our ability. And then another question is going to be, how much will that cost? We are 00:47:45.423 --> 00:47:52.455 - authorized to have a budget to get data, but we haven't asked for it yet. We don't want to have to ask 00:47:52.455 --> 00:47:54.366 - for it if we don't need it. 00:47:54.946 --> 00:48:02.465 - But there is a cost to generating that data. And it's simply one that volunteer commissioners can't 00:48:02.465 --> 00:48:09.457 - bear. So I think that for sure it's that we need staff help to generate the data. We welcome 00:48:09.457 --> 00:48:17.276 - staff interpretation of the data, but we don't want to obligate staff to do that interpretation if they 00:48:17.276 --> 00:48:23.742 - don't feel like they have anything to say or they don't want to have to do that work. 00:48:24.514 --> 00:48:34.242 - It is our job to interpret that data. I do think there are some departments, again, planning and ESD, 00:48:34.242 --> 00:48:44.351 - that ought to be interested in interpreting the data since they're keepers of plans. But I don't begrudge 00:48:44.351 --> 00:48:54.174 - any department interpreting the data. So I don't know if the answers from both of us are sufficient to 00:48:54.402 --> 00:49:02.628 - answer your question. I believe my question was answered by Matt's commitment to propose a workflow 00:49:02.628 --> 00:49:10.854 - for whatever next task force meeting, whenever that will happen. OK. I didn't even propose to set a 00:49:10.854 --> 00:49:19.163 - second meeting for the task force. I just needed us to start the conversation. And I want to be able 00:49:19.163 --> 00:49:22.782 - to report to the Transportation Commission. 00:49:22.914 --> 00:49:29.441 - Does do the commission members want to meet again for any reason before the next regular hearing of 00:49:29.441 --> 00:49:36.229 - the Transportation Commission? I would just say that I think it is important for the task force to meet 00:49:36.229 --> 00:49:42.952 - again, but I don't think it has to be before the next commission meeting. As a point of order, I don't 00:49:42.952 --> 00:49:49.675 - know that we could simply because as a task force staff have been advised by the first office to limit 00:49:49.675 --> 00:49:52.286 - task force meetings to an hour a month. 00:49:53.090 --> 00:50:02.431 - thereabouts. By the clerk's office? By Jennifer Crossley? Yes. That's news to me. That's totally fine 00:50:02.431 --> 00:50:11.954 - with me. I just want to make sure you weren't eager to go any further than that this zoom. That's fine. 00:50:11.954 --> 00:50:22.302 - No. Okay. I don't again feel we need to discuss that now. We can talk about it. I mean, if you two would like to 00:50:22.498 --> 00:50:29.220 - set up a regular time, I feel like we need to consult with anybody else who might need to be at any 00:50:29.220 --> 00:50:36.412 - future meeting to find a more congenial regular time to meet. And just as a reminder, it would be official 00:50:36.412 --> 00:50:43.471 - business, so just make sure that we're given the opportunity to notice meetings appropriately. OK. Yeah. 00:50:43.471 --> 00:50:50.193 - Is there anything else anybody would like to contribute just as a general comment on this effort? I 00:50:50.193 --> 00:50:52.478 - just want to know, should I email 00:50:52.770 --> 00:50:59.878 - you Steve or Iris or the link in the immunization schedules and that sort of thing. So you as a general 00:50:59.878 --> 00:51:06.098 - policy always go to CC the Transportation Commission email on communications with Steve or 00:51:06.098 --> 00:51:13.002 - other commissioners on the task force. It's just transportation.commission at bloomington.in.gov and 00:51:13.002 --> 00:51:19.837 - that goes to me and all the other staff liaisons for commission. So yeah I mean that at least makes 00:51:19.837 --> 00:51:20.862 - sure that it's 00:51:21.666 --> 00:51:30.174 - received by the commission and we can go from there. So yeah, any those links will be very useful and 00:51:30.174 --> 00:51:38.514 - any data that departments that happen to have that they want to just submit early because they know 00:51:38.514 --> 00:51:46.605 - where it is, we'd like that. I'm going to want to meet with individual departments to ask about, 00:51:46.605 --> 00:51:50.942 - you know, how hard any given data request might be. 00:51:51.554 --> 00:51:59.049 - And once again, I'm going to ask everyone, please review this report, look at each figure, and tell 00:51:59.049 --> 00:52:06.695 - me if there's anything that's a red flag, that's something that you think we can't do, don't need, or 00:52:06.695 --> 00:52:14.265 - maybe there's something missing. We need to add some data, okay? Because I think this is as decent a 00:52:14.265 --> 00:52:21.086 - template as there is, at least the figures in this. But I, for one, am open to any kind of 00:52:21.986 --> 00:52:29.398 - rethinking of this template. In other words, if somebody wants to propose a different template, now 00:52:29.398 --> 00:52:37.032 - would be a good time. Any thoughts from planning? We don't keep any data that will be helpful to this, 00:52:37.032 --> 00:52:39.774 - so maybe my concern isn't warranted. 00:52:39.842 --> 00:52:45.358 - Before our next meeting, would it be helpful to just have all the data in the 2018 that we could replicate? 00:52:45.358 --> 00:52:50.669 - And if we can't, then we can have that conversation. I'm worried about this meeting was a lot of people 00:52:50.669 --> 00:52:55.827 - in high-value positions kind of just sitting around. And I don't want to do that again. I would much 00:52:55.827 --> 00:53:01.037 - prefer that we came with something that the body could look at and be like, yep, this looks good. And 00:53:01.037 --> 00:53:04.254 - then that'll answer the question that you're saying, which is, 00:53:04.418 --> 00:53:11.493 - What are we missing and providing? So I think that's a question. Sorry. But I had hoped to involve the 00:53:11.493 --> 00:53:19.049 - people who were most closest to the data to be part of this task force that didn't mean to require department 00:53:19.049 --> 00:53:26.193 - heads. And I'm grateful for their presence. I share your concern. Can each department identify somebody 00:53:26.193 --> 00:53:33.406 - who could be their liaison or basically be a member of this task force so that we can ask them for data? 00:53:33.954 --> 00:53:41.089 - I guess I'm just, it's an ask for data. That seems like a thing that can happen offline if it's a request 00:53:41.089 --> 00:53:47.820 - to attend a meeting, just encourage like advanced planning, getting a large group like that was the 00:53:47.820 --> 00:53:54.753 - urgency of getting this made it hard to get key people involved at the last minute. So those are maybe 00:53:54.753 --> 00:54:01.754 - two separate requests. No future meetings require this high level. This is our first time talking about 00:54:01.754 --> 00:54:02.494 - it at all. 00:54:02.850 --> 00:54:08.740 - And so we are grateful for your presence. It was not unnecessary. Future meetings are going to be much 00:54:08.740 --> 00:54:14.630 - more in the weeds. So we just need points of contact. We don't want to be disturbing department heads. 00:54:14.630 --> 00:54:20.462 - We want to be talking. I mean, again, Rick Dietz could have been here, but Megan Blair was the person 00:54:20.462 --> 00:54:26.409 - who would process the data. So if we can get help in identifying contacts who we can ask questions that 00:54:26.409 --> 00:54:29.726 - the task force can ask questions of, it would be helpful. 00:54:30.146 --> 00:54:35.119 - It might be helpful in future meetings to have those list of questions in advance of the meeting to 00:54:35.119 --> 00:54:40.091 - make sure the right people are there. Because with this meeting, we had no idea what was even going 00:54:40.091 --> 00:54:45.213 - to be discussed. So that would be helpful. Understood. And again, there will be no future meeting like 00:54:45.213 --> 00:54:50.285 - that. There will be agendas for future meetings. We just needed to talk about what we're going to do. 00:54:50.285 --> 00:54:55.258 - Just to clarify, for future task force meetings, because we don't really have a procedure for this, 00:54:55.258 --> 00:54:58.142 - is the expectation that each individual task force member 00:54:58.434 --> 00:55:05.160 - has equal authority over setting the agenda and preparing documents and just what the mechanics of scheduling 00:55:05.160 --> 00:55:11.398 - are just a little challenging. Well, I'd hope that each department could name somebody who would join 00:55:11.398 --> 00:55:17.818 - the task force if departments would prefer not to do that and just wait for the three commission members 00:55:17.818 --> 00:55:23.933 - to ask for that. Just to clarify, staff cannot volunteer to participate on the task force. The task 00:55:23.933 --> 00:55:28.030 - force exists for the benefit of the commission. This is your show. 00:55:28.386 --> 00:55:34.849 - So to the extent that staff come here, it is because you have requested them to be there. It has nothing 00:55:34.849 --> 00:55:41.005 - to do with their intense wants or desires. I appreciate your desires, thank you. And Steve, I think 00:55:41.005 --> 00:55:47.469 - just to add on to that a little bit. So I think really the gist here is that the task force is the three 00:55:47.469 --> 00:55:53.747 - of us. So no one else is a member of the task force. They may be attending a meeting here or there or 00:55:53.747 --> 00:55:56.702 - responding to the press for data, but I believe 00:55:57.154 --> 00:56:04.545 - What Irish is trying to get across is that Matt, you and I are the task force and I think the agenda, 00:56:04.545 --> 00:56:12.008 - the scheduling, that sort of thing, that's largely up to us. All I wanted to know was who specifically 00:56:12.008 --> 00:56:15.486 - to invite from each department that's relevant. 00:56:15.746 --> 00:56:21.321 - So if each department wants to volunteer somebody who will be here when we need them, we don't need 00:56:21.321 --> 00:56:27.343 - them all the time. There won't be volunteers. And I guess who is the chair of this task force to facilitate 00:56:27.343 --> 00:56:32.918 - that? You have helped, but I guess just that's a maybe direct question is, who is in charge of this 00:56:32.918 --> 00:56:38.270 - task force? That has not been established. We didn't name a chair. I've been the default chair. 00:56:39.138 --> 00:56:46.007 - As the chair of the commission as a whole, I'm happy to, we need to wrap it up. I'm happy to continue 00:56:46.007 --> 00:56:52.809 - acting unless Matt or Ayobhan would prefer to be chair. I certainly don't object. Matt, do you care? 00:56:52.809 --> 00:56:59.678 - Can I chair it? You want to chair it? Do you want to? Matt wants to chair it. I have to step out, but 00:57:00.130 --> 00:57:07.056 - than Mr. Chair and Mr. Chair. If you just email the clerk at bloomington.in.gov, we will try and send 00:57:07.056 --> 00:57:13.846 - somebody or any information that's appropriate. I'll follow up with email after consulting with the 00:57:13.846 --> 00:57:21.043 - chair about how to proceed. Thank you all for being here. That's all we have. Is there any last comments? 00:57:21.043 --> 00:57:28.104 - None? We will let you know what our next meeting is. Thank you for attending. We appreciate your coming 00:57:28.104 --> 00:57:29.598 - on such short notice.