WEBVTT 00:00:02.018 --> 00:00:15.533 - We have a quorum. This meeting will come to order. This is the regular session of the city of Wilmington 00:00:15.533 --> 00:00:30.206 - Transportation Commission. Will the secretary please call the roll. Here. Here. Here. Davis here. Stossberg here. 00:00:32.386 --> 00:00:38.635 - And we have a quorum. Uh, this is the, uh, agenda for the regular hearing. We'll hear approval of minutes. 00:00:38.635 --> 00:00:44.650 - We'll hear reports and communications from commissioners and staff, including, uh, communications from 00:00:44.650 --> 00:00:50.899 - deputy clerk crossley on commissioner required training, a staff memo on the Smith morning side compliance 00:00:50.899 --> 00:00:56.973 - report, a staff memo on the update of college mall and covenant or a staff memo on updating speed limit 00:00:56.973 --> 00:01:01.470 - signs to be consistent with existing city code and update on 180 day orders. 00:01:02.082 --> 00:01:10.364 - and staff memo on agenda item tracking under cases. We'll hear TCP 26 18 a petition to implement roadway 00:01:10.364 --> 00:01:18.330 - improvements along Walnut College and done TCP 26 20 a petition to implement roadway improvements on 00:01:18.330 --> 00:01:26.455 - Rogers Road and TCR 26 19 a resolution to accept the 20 26 Walker parking rate study and comprehensive 00:01:26.455 --> 00:01:28.190 - review review report. 00:01:28.994 --> 00:01:36.034 - We'll hear discussion of topics not of the docket including the scheduling of a special hearing to review 00:01:36.034 --> 00:01:42.808 - the college and walnut corridor study And then general public comment on items not on the docket then 00:01:42.808 --> 00:01:49.715 - we'll adjourn Why don't we start with the approval of minutes? Is there a motion to approve the minutes 00:01:49.715 --> 00:01:56.555 - of July 27th? Second we have a motion in a second. Is there any discussion on the minutes for the July 00:01:56.555 --> 00:01:57.950 - meeting? Seeing none 00:01:58.306 --> 00:02:06.593 - We can just do a voice vote on this all in favor say aye aye Opposed say nay The ayes have it the minutes 00:02:06.593 --> 00:02:14.412 - are approved. We go now to reports from commissioners to any commissioners have a report to my left 00:02:14.412 --> 00:02:22.308 - To my right Okay, no reports from commissioners. Let's go to reports from staff Let's start with the 00:02:22.308 --> 00:02:27.390 - memo from deputy clerk clerk cross Lee who's here to present and 00:02:27.906 --> 00:02:34.815 - If anybody I can present on her behalf. I just wanted to clarify these were communications from Deputy 00:02:34.815 --> 00:02:41.656 - Clerk Crossley not necessarily a memo we were just emphasizing the receipt the receipt of the Message 00:02:41.656 --> 00:02:48.431 - from Commissioner Crossley to ensure that commissioners were aware that there is a required training 00:02:48.431 --> 00:02:52.254 - that they have been asked to schedule attendance for and 00:02:56.418 --> 00:03:04.381 - This is scheduled for Wednesday of this week September 30th. It'll be in council chambers from 530 to 00:03:04.381 --> 00:03:12.265 - 7 Just to clarify all members are required to attend and If you have any questions, please reach out 00:03:12.265 --> 00:03:20.072 - to Jennifer directly Okay, are there any questions or comments from commissioners? Let's move on to 00:03:20.072 --> 00:03:23.038 - the staff memo on everything. Okay, I 00:03:25.602 --> 00:03:36.589 - 30 second pause sorry this zoom is not up yet. Okay we're going to realize it was put a pause in the 00:03:36.589 --> 00:03:48.012 - meeting for a minute to make sure that people can attend remotely. We're going to debate it. We're going 00:03:48.012 --> 00:03:55.518 - to debate each item now. Yeah or they're going to fill it in for us. 00:04:36.642 --> 00:04:50.849 - recording in progress Apologies for that disruption clearly out of track out of practice Are we in fact 00:04:50.849 --> 00:05:04.509 - online again now we are online yes, okay This meeting will resume we are on item 3b 2 of the agenda 00:05:04.509 --> 00:05:06.558 - the staff memo 00:05:06.722 --> 00:05:14.726 - on the Smith Morningside compliance report who's here to present on that. Hi this is John Garzi traffic 00:05:14.726 --> 00:05:22.652 - engineer for engineering. So for Smith and Morningside there was a collision on the Greenway and after 00:05:22.652 --> 00:05:30.656 - that the community brought it to our attention and raised issues about safety and stop sign compliance. 00:05:30.656 --> 00:05:32.734 - In March at the commission 00:05:33.538 --> 00:05:39.856 - we were asked to look into this location and see what kind of improvements we could make. And so in 00:05:39.856 --> 00:05:46.427 - May, we came back and we shared some options, our plan, as well as our plans to do some evaluation just 00:05:46.427 --> 00:05:52.997 - to see if our changes were effective. And so now in September, we're coming back and we're sharing some 00:05:52.997 --> 00:05:59.378 - evaluation data as well as some next steps. So our findings from our improvements, which were to add 00:05:59.378 --> 00:06:03.422 - an additional stop sign in both directions on Smith, as well as 00:06:03.746 --> 00:06:12.422 - advanced warning markings or advanced warning signs and installing high visibility crosswalks just to 00:06:12.422 --> 00:06:21.608 - draw more attention to the crossing. The findings for this was that the stop sign compliance has increased. 00:06:21.608 --> 00:06:30.114 - If we can share the table with some of those data. We measured the difference between people coming 00:06:30.114 --> 00:06:31.390 - to a full stop 00:06:31.938 --> 00:06:38.538 - how many people were rolling the stop sign, as well as how many people were not stopping at all for 00:06:38.538 --> 00:06:45.137 - the stop sign. And so before and after, I'm just going to read the change in percentage. So what we 00:06:45.137 --> 00:06:52.133 - found is after we made our improvements, the number of people that came to a full stop increased by 7.5%. 00:06:52.133 --> 00:06:58.996 - The number of people that were still rolling through the stop went down by 5%. And the number of people 00:06:58.996 --> 00:07:01.438 - that did not stop went down by 2.5%. 00:07:02.274 --> 00:07:09.179 - Um, I will just note that these percentages are not a growth or decrease like overall. It's just like 00:07:09.179 --> 00:07:16.151 - the percentages difference from before and after. So like the actual difference is 12% for people that 00:07:16.151 --> 00:07:22.989 - are coming to a full stop. 14% for rolling stop. And then the number of people that are not stopping 00:07:22.989 --> 00:07:24.478 - has decreased by 62%. 00:07:32.802 --> 00:07:40.306 - One of the things I like to point out is that even though we made these improvements, there is still 00:07:40.306 --> 00:07:47.736 - a good percentage of people that are rolling through the stop sign. And that's about 30% of drivers 00:07:47.736 --> 00:07:55.315 - that are not coming to a complete stop. And when we looked at this intersection, we believe that this 00:07:55.315 --> 00:08:01.630 - is because of the higher volume of vehicle traffic on Smith compared to Morningside. 00:08:02.466 --> 00:08:09.240 - This intersection doesn't support having a stop sign based on the three main criteria, which is cross 00:08:09.240 --> 00:08:16.080 - traffic volume, crash history, and site distance. The intersection has proper site distance. The cross 00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:23.185 - volume is not equal. And so because of that, there are a lot of times that you come up to the intersection 00:08:23.185 --> 00:08:29.959 - at Morningside, and there's no one on the side street. And so people get used to that, and they start 00:08:29.959 --> 00:08:31.486 - rolling the stop sign. 00:08:33.154 --> 00:08:39.893 - Stop signs are intended to designate right-of-way and not necessarily act as a traffic calming device. 00:08:39.893 --> 00:08:46.043 - And so it's not intended to slow people down. It's just to make sure that people know who has 00:08:46.043 --> 00:08:52.586 - the right-of-way. And so if there's no cross traffic, it's pretty clear for people when they arrive 00:08:52.586 --> 00:08:59.194 - at the intersection. If we were to design this intersection now, we would not recommend a stop sign. 00:08:59.194 --> 00:09:02.334 - Some of the suggested treatments and additional 00:09:02.786 --> 00:09:09.483 - solutions that we thought of as the engineering department and also what we heard from the residents 00:09:09.483 --> 00:09:16.113 - was to look at traffic calming devices like speed humps, speed tables or race crosswalk. Some other 00:09:16.113 --> 00:09:23.009 - ideas that were brought up were rumble strips and traffic circles. After looking into this intersection 00:09:23.009 --> 00:09:29.374 - for several months, we have not identified a preferred long-term treatment and if we were to do 00:09:29.730 --> 00:09:36.822 - more improvements, we would need more time to analyze this. Our current recommendation is not to remove 00:09:36.822 --> 00:09:43.778 - the stop sign, but it's also not to do any additional improvements at this intersection. We'd like to 00:09:43.778 --> 00:09:50.734 - focus our near-term resources on other locations that have a clear need and a more clear strategy for 00:09:50.734 --> 00:09:57.826 - improvements. And that's just because we want to prioritize where we're putting our attention. And just 00:09:57.826 --> 00:09:59.326 - to give some context, 00:09:59.906 --> 00:10:06.579 - Um, the SS for a intersection priority score for Smith and Morningside is 37 out of a hundred, which 00:10:06.579 --> 00:10:13.252 - ranks it as number 90, uh, as in like the 90th intersection with, um, the most collisions and things 00:10:13.252 --> 00:10:19.990 - like that. So there are other locations that have a higher priority and also have less attention from 00:10:19.990 --> 00:10:26.994 - the public. And because of that, these other locations would benefit from us looking into them and seeing 00:10:26.994 --> 00:10:29.438 - what other improvements we can make. 00:10:30.018 --> 00:10:36.014 - So right now we're not recommending that we do any more investment in this intersection, but that we 00:10:36.014 --> 00:10:42.247 - look at other intersections that have higher needs. And then as we make improvements to those locations, 00:10:42.247 --> 00:10:48.302 - we can come back to Smith and Morningside and see if there's other improvements that are needed then. 00:10:48.302 --> 00:10:54.297 - Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Garzi. Are there questions or comments on the Smith Morningside compliance 00:10:54.297 --> 00:10:58.334 - report from commissioners? Any questions or thoughts? Mr. Sossberg? 00:10:59.650 --> 00:11:07.912 - I had a question. What is the in the top 10? Highest priority intersections in the city What is the 00:11:07.912 --> 00:11:16.504 - intersection priority score? Roughly, I mean just I'd say roughly about 60 like high 60s. I don't think 00:11:16.504 --> 00:11:25.096 - there anything with a hundred is a maximum, right? Yes. Okay. So there's quite a few intersections with 00:11:25.096 --> 00:11:29.310 - much more dramatic problems. Can you describe one? 00:11:31.266 --> 00:11:38.766 - I would not be able to describe that unless I actually took a time to like look at all the collisions, 00:11:38.766 --> 00:11:46.192 - but I would imagine something has to do with high speed And crashes that's correct, okay Well, I just 00:11:46.192 --> 00:11:53.765 - want to let commissioners know that if they want to do any follow-ups they can always Ask for something 00:11:53.765 --> 00:12:00.318 - to be put on the agenda during discussion of topics not in the docket at a future meeting 00:12:01.250 --> 00:12:07.698 - Bring it to my attention in scheduling for a future meeting outside of this meeting Thank you for the 00:12:07.698 --> 00:12:14.020 - presentation. Let's move on now to the staff memo and College Mall and Covenanter Is this mr. Garza 00:12:14.020 --> 00:12:20.595 - again back again, all right, welcome back. It's also my item so for College Mall and Covenanter We were 00:12:20.595 --> 00:12:27.296 - asked to look at this intersection and see how we can improve bike access to cross College Mall currently 00:12:27.296 --> 00:12:30.014 - there is vehicle detection via cameras and 00:12:30.818 --> 00:12:37.122 - Or currently the way that you can cross this intersection is by having a vehicle get detected by the 00:12:37.122 --> 00:12:43.364 - cameras Having a pedestrian go up and push the pedestrian push button or wait for a college mall to 00:12:43.364 --> 00:12:50.105 - max out its green time and then the cross street of Covenanter will get green The video detection available 00:12:50.105 --> 00:12:56.535 - here is a little bit old and so it's only able to detect vehicles and so some of the Improvements that 00:12:56.535 --> 00:13:00.030 - we've we've looked into we have three different options 00:13:00.514 --> 00:13:08.027 - And the first option is the one that we're recommending, which is to improve the signal timing. What 00:13:08.027 --> 00:13:15.986 - we'd like to install is a minimum recall for Covenanter, so that even if there is no vehicle on Covenanter 00:13:15.986 --> 00:13:23.425 - detected, that College Mall will eventually get a red and allow Covenanter to cross. The benefit of 00:13:23.425 --> 00:13:29.822 - this is that bikes won't have to wait, but the downside is that College Mall will get 00:13:29.986 --> 00:13:35.908 - a red, even if there is no cross traffic and then vehicles on College Mall will be waiting and they 00:13:35.908 --> 00:13:41.948 - may be wondering why they're stopped. But the impact of this is fairly small because this will happen 00:13:41.948 --> 00:13:48.166 - most of the time at night. During the daytime, there's enough cross traffic on Covenanter that a vehicle 00:13:48.166 --> 00:13:54.383 - will be detected and get a green. And so it's mostly during the nighttime when having the minimum recall 00:13:54.383 --> 00:13:55.390 - will be helpful. 00:13:57.506 --> 00:14:04.319 - And as I mentioned before, this is something that staff plans to implement first just because the cost 00:14:04.319 --> 00:14:10.933 - to do this is very minimal. There is no hardware that needs to be installed. We just need to update 00:14:10.933 --> 00:14:17.878 - the signal timing. And so the only cost is to have people on College Mall wait occasionally for vehicles 00:14:17.878 --> 00:14:24.559 - or bikes to cross. The second option that we looked into was to install a push button for bikes. And 00:14:24.559 --> 00:14:27.006 - so this would be installed on a pole 00:14:27.682 --> 00:14:33.420 - With a push button close to the curb or on the edge of the roadway. Um, when we talked to our consultant 00:14:33.420 --> 00:14:38.885 - about this, this was not something that they recommended just because it would increase the risk of 00:14:38.885 --> 00:14:44.459 - vehicles hitting it and then having to maintain it. Um, bikes would still need to go over to the side 00:14:44.459 --> 00:14:49.979 - of the street and actuate the button. And if a person on a bike were to push this, it would call the 00:14:49.979 --> 00:14:55.498 - amount of time needed for a pedestrian to cross the street, which is a lot longer than a person on a 00:14:55.498 --> 00:14:56.318 - bike needs to. 00:14:56.770 --> 00:15:03.493 - And so it would just waste a lot more green time that's needed. Since this was not an option that was 00:15:03.493 --> 00:15:10.612 - recommended by the consultant, and we also agreed with their recommendation, we didn't get a cost estimate. 00:15:10.612 --> 00:15:17.270 - The third option is to improve the video detection at this intersection so that it is able to detect 00:15:17.270 --> 00:15:23.994 - bikes. The cost for this investment would be $25,000 to $30,000. And the benefits of this would be to 00:15:23.994 --> 00:15:25.246 - provide green time 00:15:25.634 --> 00:15:32.938 - for Covenant are only when is needed. So we wouldn't have to have green time allocated just to make 00:15:32.938 --> 00:15:40.535 - sure that there is someone able to cross. Some other benefits of just having improved vehicle detection 00:15:40.535 --> 00:15:48.058 - is allowing us to have better counts for the intersection and to better optimize the signal timing for 00:15:48.058 --> 00:15:55.582 - this intersection and then further for the whole corridor. The downside would just be the higher cost. 00:15:56.258 --> 00:16:03.693 - After we look into option number one of changing the signal timing, we would like to pursue investing 00:16:03.693 --> 00:16:11.201 - in option three. Previously, we had also come back to the commission and we had made some improvements 00:16:11.201 --> 00:16:18.563 - to the intersection, so I just want to share about those. We have three improvements that were made, 00:16:18.563 --> 00:16:25.342 - which is installing high visibility crosswalks, adding a no turn on red sign, and installing 00:16:25.570 --> 00:16:34.783 - Left turn yield on green signs. Thank you Oh, is that it Yes, that's okay. Thank you. Are there any 00:16:34.783 --> 00:16:44.180 - questions or comments Commissioner Davis At that intersection is that at night it is so very dim were 00:16:44.180 --> 00:16:53.854 - any improvements to lighting considered or can they be They weren't considered but we can look into that 00:16:56.834 --> 00:17:05.373 - The issue tends to be that the drivers simply aren't seeing the people trying to cross So whether they 00:17:05.373 --> 00:17:13.746 - might be yielding but they might not be seeing Further questions or comments from members to my left 00:17:13.746 --> 00:17:22.285 - to my right Is there a next step here when will when should we expect to follow up with you on or when 00:17:22.285 --> 00:17:26.430 - we should expect you to follow up with us on this 00:17:26.594 --> 00:17:33.633 - question. That's a good question. I think in two months would be a fair amount of time. We would need 00:17:33.633 --> 00:17:40.880 - that first month just to install it and then to make observations afterwards and see how it's operating. 00:17:40.880 --> 00:17:47.919 - But if I understand correctly, you're not installing option three yet. You're doing option one, which 00:17:47.919 --> 00:17:55.166 - is just the changing the existing signal equipment. That's correct. So you're saying that as soon as our 00:17:56.450 --> 00:18:02.642 - but I think our next meeting is in December. No, we're in October yet. Our next meeting, our two meetings 00:18:02.642 --> 00:18:08.134 - now would be the December meeting. You're saying that you will actually be in operation? Yes, 00:18:08.134 --> 00:18:13.976 - that's correct. Okay. Well, you have had enough time then to, to get a sense of how it's working. I 00:18:13.976 --> 00:18:20.051 - can't promise that there'll be enough time to make a definitive conclusion, but I think it'll be enough 00:18:20.051 --> 00:18:26.302 - time for us to make a general idea. Okay. Well, we look forward to hearing about it two meetings from now. 00:18:27.266 --> 00:18:34.411 - Thank you. All right Let's go on now to The next item updating speed limit signs will be consistent 00:18:34.411 --> 00:18:41.628 - with existing city code. I take it that mr. Garzi is presenting. Yeah, that's me as right All right, 00:18:41.628 --> 00:18:48.917 - so as part of our effort to clean up code and To clean up the signage that we have out in the streets 00:18:48.917 --> 00:18:56.062 - and just make sure that they match each other we were looking at the city code to see what kinds of 00:18:56.226 --> 00:19:02.627 - speed limit signs or speed limit regulations we had. And we checked those with the speed limit signs 00:19:02.627 --> 00:19:08.965 - that we had out in the field. And we observed that there are several signs that do not match what's 00:19:08.965 --> 00:19:15.430 - in the code. For example, there were streets that had 30 mile per hour signs when in code it was a 25 00:19:15.430 --> 00:19:21.767 - mile per hour sign, or the opposite, where it was a 20 mile per hour sign, but in code it's only 25 00:19:21.767 --> 00:19:22.718 - mile per hour. 00:19:23.586 --> 00:19:29.752 - And so there were about 19 of these different locations that we found where we are changing just what 00:19:29.752 --> 00:19:35.918 - the signs say and we're not changing what the code says. And they, they vary in different situations. 00:19:35.918 --> 00:19:42.326 - Um, they're on the list. They're about, they're 19 of them. Um, a good majority of them, we are replacing 00:19:42.326 --> 00:19:48.734 - 30 mile per hour signs with 25 mile per hour signs. They were just mistakenly signed as 30 mile per hour. 00:19:50.370 --> 00:19:58.763 - There are other situations where they're in residential neighborhoods and they're just signing properly 00:19:58.763 --> 00:20:07.399 - and removing the sign the signs or It's a school zone and it just hasn't been signed If you have questions 00:20:07.399 --> 00:20:16.195 - on any specific street, I'm happy to talk about those That's okay. Thank you questions to my right questions 00:20:16.195 --> 00:20:17.406 - to my left and 00:20:18.178 --> 00:20:24.960 - Sometimes you say remove a sign do not repost. Is it known to people that the citywide speed limit is 00:20:24.960 --> 00:20:31.742 - 25. Like is that are the places where you and the few places where it says do not repose the sign. Is 00:20:31.742 --> 00:20:39.056 - there already some other sign indicating the speed like how how does that work. I'm fairly new to Bloomington 00:20:39.056 --> 00:20:45.772 - so I'm not sure exactly what people are required to do when they take a vehicle test but I know that 00:20:45.772 --> 00:20:47.102 - when I took my test 00:20:47.490 --> 00:20:56.088 - I was asked if there is no sign, what is the default speed limit? And where I'm from, it was 25 miles 00:20:56.088 --> 00:21:04.601 - per hour. I'm not aware of any signage here that says the default sign here is 25. So again, why are 00:21:04.601 --> 00:21:13.452 - there some do not repost indications here where you remove a sign and don't post the correct or whatever 00:21:13.452 --> 00:21:16.318 - the default speed limit is there? 00:21:19.970 --> 00:21:26.445 - My understanding is that people here know that the default sign or speed is 25 miles per hour. I'm just 00:21:26.445 --> 00:21:32.796 - not sure what's required of people when they take the driving test. Okay. I'd like to know more about 00:21:32.796 --> 00:21:39.084 - it. Cause seven of the 19 say do not repost and that that one part is not clear why there should not 00:21:39.084 --> 00:21:45.683 - be a sign. For example, Miller, I'm sorry. Are you talking about Miller drive? Eagleson third to Atwater, 00:21:45.683 --> 00:21:48.734 - uh, university street park to woodlawn Vermilia. 00:21:49.090 --> 00:21:55.653 - Walnut to private drive it says treatment remove 20 miles an hour. Do not repost remove 30 miles an 00:21:55.653 --> 00:22:02.281 - hour. Do not repost That's the thing I don't understand yeah For us to maintain it's fewer signs for 00:22:02.281 --> 00:22:09.107 - the city to have to maintain okay, and we already know what the Unposted speed limit is so anytime that 00:22:09.107 --> 00:22:15.866 - you can remove a sign and take that off of the city's inventory of something that has to be maintained 00:22:15.866 --> 00:22:17.310 - is probably a benefit 00:22:17.602 --> 00:22:24.903 - No, I get that adjusted. How do who's we how do we know what the unposted speed limit is? It's on the 00:22:24.903 --> 00:22:32.276 - driver's test when you pass it when you take it in Indiana Thanks for confirming that I appreciate it. 00:22:32.276 --> 00:22:39.434 - All right. Thank you Let's move on to the next report 180-day order update. Mr. Garzi Yeah, it's me 00:22:39.434 --> 00:22:44.158 - as well All right, so this is an update on the 180-day orders and 00:22:44.546 --> 00:22:51.079 - Half of them are new orders and then the other half are just extended orders. So for the new orders 00:22:51.079 --> 00:22:57.613 - we have Cottage Grove Avenue parking and that's just to flip the parking from the north side to the 00:22:57.613 --> 00:23:04.473 - south side This is something that's already been installed out there And that was done just to eliminate 00:23:04.473 --> 00:23:11.202 - the door or the bike lane during conflict The other one is for the Matlock Heights neighborhood At the 00:23:11.202 --> 00:23:14.142 - neighborhood's request we are eliminating or 00:23:14.306 --> 00:23:21.920 - prohibiting parking on one side of the street. And this is just due to the road width not allowing people 00:23:21.920 --> 00:23:29.103 - to park on both sides of the street as well as parking demand especially during you football games. 00:23:29.103 --> 00:23:37.005 - And then for Summit Woods this is the whole sub subdivision that is being brought into the city's maintenance 00:23:37.005 --> 00:23:43.326 - inventory. And so we're just documenting all the stop control and parking restrictions. 00:23:44.386 --> 00:23:51.532 - And then the last one that's a new one is the Inglewood drive parking. Emergency responders requested 00:23:51.532 --> 00:23:58.748 - that we install no parking signs on one side of the street just to allow them to drive down the street 00:23:58.748 --> 00:24:05.965 - with their emergency vehicles. And then the other ones are extending orders for the four all-way stops 00:24:05.965 --> 00:24:13.041 - on 7th Street, loading zones on Kirkwood, two all-way stops on 13th Street, and on-street parking on 00:24:13.041 --> 00:24:14.302 - South Washington. 00:24:17.154 --> 00:24:28.873 - That's all thank you Okay, are there questions or comments on the 180 D order update to my right to 00:24:28.873 --> 00:24:40.709 - my left I Will say that I've never been supportive of The 2501 the four always stopped intersections 00:24:40.709 --> 00:24:46.686 - on 7th Street. I know that was a heated debate but 00:24:48.194 --> 00:24:58.395 - I'm wondering how many 180 day orders are appropriate. This one has been extended three times now. That 00:24:58.395 --> 00:25:08.400 - there's more than one that has been extended three times. Do we have a rule? I'm not aware of a rule, 00:25:08.400 --> 00:25:18.110 - but I can pass it on to Andrew. Okay. Let's move on now to the staff memo on agenda item tracking. 00:25:18.722 --> 00:25:28.516 - Is that your Ryan Robling planning services manager There are a number of items that we've discussed 00:25:28.516 --> 00:25:38.309 - in the past this is a Thing we've had commissioners requests that we do. So we'll do it periodically 00:25:38.309 --> 00:25:47.230 - where we go back and talk about things that have We haven't discussed in a while items like 00:25:47.394 --> 00:25:54.787 - traffic inquiries or Other resolutions that this body has made so there's a handful of those the first 00:25:54.787 --> 00:26:02.108 - one. Mr. Garzi covered tonight, which is the college mall and Covenanter We talked about two requests 00:26:02.108 --> 00:26:09.573 - specifically To look at bike infrastructure and signage infrastructure and then there's one outstanding 00:26:09.573 --> 00:26:14.526 - item, which is Mr. Commissioner Strasburg made a motion for staff to 00:26:14.626 --> 00:26:21.864 - Develop a resolution that reviews city policy on citing drivers for traffic violations This is something 00:26:21.864 --> 00:26:28.826 - that we are working on behind the scenes and will eventually hopefully have something to show for it 00:26:28.826 --> 00:26:35.582 - the SS for a Act safety the safe streets and roads for all safety action plan has it an action ID 00:26:35.874 --> 00:26:41.998 - that calls for the Safe Streets program manager to meet with all of the other governmental bodies, fire, 00:26:41.998 --> 00:26:47.831 - police, engineering, public works, et cetera, et cetera, and come forward with things like this. So 00:26:47.831 --> 00:26:53.663 - that is something that we are working towards. Hank Duncan is our Safe Streets program manager, and 00:26:53.663 --> 00:26:59.671 - we expect to have something in the not too distant future, but getting all of those people in the same 00:26:59.671 --> 00:27:04.862 - meeting room isn't always as easy as it sounds. So that's the first one. The second one, 00:27:05.026 --> 00:27:13.248 - Big one is Indiana Avenue. We brought forward TCP 2610 and This body reviewed it and asked for us to 00:27:13.248 --> 00:27:21.714 - consider redesign as is one of the options for a project like that and we so mr. Flayer or Commissioner 00:27:21.714 --> 00:27:30.017 - Flaherty made a motion or for the petition back to staff and we are currently not advancing anything, 00:27:30.017 --> 00:27:34.494 - but it is still It's it's on the back burner. It's not 00:27:34.658 --> 00:27:41.268 - In the water or anything. It's just something that will be reprioritized Hopefully in an upcoming project 00:27:41.268 --> 00:27:47.692 - that will look at all downtown streets which would be great because then we can coordinate things like 00:27:47.692 --> 00:27:54.178 - Indiana and done as a one-way pair and maybe come with a slightly different design that suits The needs 00:27:54.178 --> 00:28:00.476 - and wants of this body plus the needs and wants of stakeholders in the community There's a couple of 00:28:00.476 --> 00:28:02.846 - other ones Smith Road is a commission 00:28:03.426 --> 00:28:09.852 - Commissioner led traffic inquiry Smith Road between 46 and Morse Pike that will come in October. It's 00:28:09.852 --> 00:28:16.405 - been on our agenda for a little while but Mr. Drummey or Commissioner Drummey knew that he wasn't going 00:28:16.405 --> 00:28:22.705 - to be at this meeting so we are going to present it in October and then there's a couple of meeting 00:28:22.705 --> 00:28:29.069 - minutes that we'll take a look at in upcoming meetings once we get all caught up and happy to answer 00:28:29.069 --> 00:28:30.014 - any questions. 00:28:33.378 --> 00:28:40.235 - You blew through that pretty quickly and I could barely keep up with you. Are there questions or comments 00:28:40.235 --> 00:28:46.833 - from Christians to my right to my left? Mr. Stossberg Thank you for your report but point of order if 00:28:46.833 --> 00:28:53.430 - I'd like to make a motion to allow public comment on the staff reports before we move on That's okay. 00:28:53.430 --> 00:29:00.093 - I think there's some people here who might like to do that Okay, well staff reports aren't usually the 00:29:00.093 --> 00:29:03.198 - subject of public comment so that would require 00:29:03.842 --> 00:29:13.270 - A second and a vote Is there a second to mr. Sossberg's motion to your public comment on staff reports? 00:29:13.270 --> 00:29:22.516 - We have a motion and a second any discussion on the motion Seeing none will the secretary please call 00:29:22.516 --> 00:29:29.406 - the roll on the motion to hear public comment on staff reports this meeting 00:29:34.658 --> 00:29:42.193 - Yes Davis, yes Stossberg. Yes Copic. Yes The motion passes 5-0. We will now open the floor to public 00:29:42.193 --> 00:29:49.652 - comment on any Report issued by staff this meeting. Is there any one member of the public either in 00:29:49.652 --> 00:29:57.262 - the room or online who would like to speak? So please come to the podium You'll have three minutes or 00:29:57.262 --> 00:30:02.782 - use the raise hand function in zoom. So anyone who would like to speak or 00:30:03.874 --> 00:30:12.223 - to staff reports this meeting. I see no one approaching the podium in the room. Is there anybody on 00:30:12.223 --> 00:30:20.907 - Zoom? Nobody on Zoom. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, we come back to the commission to move 00:30:20.907 --> 00:30:29.674 - into our next, that's all right, the next section of the meeting. We'll start with case number TCP 2618. 00:30:29.674 --> 00:30:33.598 - Commissioner Volin, can I, sorry to interrupt. 00:30:33.730 --> 00:30:40.950 - Because we didn't have zoom for the first couple of minutes Can I make a request for transparency purposes 00:30:40.950 --> 00:30:47.832 - that we redo the roll call and the minute vote? Those are the first two things they were fully missed 00:30:47.832 --> 00:30:54.714 - by Members who are online and so we would just like to make sure we recap it get it recorded and have 00:30:54.714 --> 00:31:01.596 - it well Sure, why not? Thank you. Let's have the secretary. Please call the roll to call this meeting 00:31:01.596 --> 00:31:02.878 - again to order Yes 00:31:03.458 --> 00:31:12.514 - Volin here Davis here Here. All right. Well, we fixed that for those who are watching via zoom that 00:31:12.514 --> 00:31:20.030 - there is a quorum and this is an official meeting of the Transportation Commission 00:31:21.154 --> 00:31:27.138 - Again, let's hear TCP 26 18 the petition to implement roadway improvements along Walnut College and 00:31:27.138 --> 00:31:33.122 - done Okay, who is sorry to annoy you one more time. We actually did have a member of the public who 00:31:33.122 --> 00:31:39.105 - would like to speak And during the public comment about staff reports All right, I will hold pulled 00:31:39.105 --> 00:31:45.209 - back on the case. Let's go back to public comment on the staff report getting in just under the wire, 00:31:45.209 --> 00:31:49.278 - please Go ahead and oh, it's in the room. Please go ahead and speak 00:31:51.138 --> 00:32:15.067 - sign in your name and you'll have three minutes to speak. Hi I'm Brianna Alexander. I live in Parkridge 00:32:15.067 --> 00:32:17.598 - East and I 00:32:17.858 --> 00:32:26.983 - been here before in regards to the intersection at Morningside and Smith Road. I was honestly shocked 00:32:26.983 --> 00:32:36.018 - to see the report come up because I have asked both the neighbors in Parker G's and the neighbors in 00:32:36.018 --> 00:32:40.222 - Park Ridge a couple of times now if anyone had 00:32:40.642 --> 00:32:47.296 - Has seen anyone out there conducting any kind of study and not one neighbor has reported seeing any 00:32:47.296 --> 00:32:53.950 - of those So I have followed up I don't know if you guys are aware But the neighborhood actually has 00:32:53.950 --> 00:33:00.670 - a camera pointed at the intersection and we have been recording for many months All of the accidents 00:33:00.670 --> 00:33:07.391 - and we do have them We have that video cataloged and it is open to the public and I can provide that 00:33:07.391 --> 00:33:09.054 - if you would like to see 00:33:09.346 --> 00:33:18.793 - So I am double checking that those dates and times that somebody was actually out there conducting a 00:33:18.793 --> 00:33:28.333 - study. Furthermore, as that camera has been recording that intersection, there has been a lot of very 00:33:28.333 --> 00:33:38.622 - concerning activity at that intersection. One of the new stop signs has been ran over twice, and I'm assuming 00:33:38.946 --> 00:33:47.214 - The someone has to know because it's been put back up twice I know police officer has posted at that 00:33:47.214 --> 00:33:55.481 - intersection Multiple times and I travel through the intersection a few times a day But not terribly 00:33:55.481 --> 00:34:04.158 - often and I personally seen at least four vehicles pulled over For running those stop signs in the couple 00:34:04.158 --> 00:34:07.678 - of times that police were out there and so 00:34:07.778 --> 00:34:15.789 - I think that it is a bigger problem than is being acknowledged. I saw in your report that the two times 00:34:15.789 --> 00:34:23.647 - that somebody was posted out there studying was only for a 30-minute period of time, and I don't know 00:34:23.647 --> 00:34:31.504 - if that is enough time to capture what is actually going on. But like I said, there is a video camera 00:34:31.504 --> 00:34:37.744 - posted watching it in our section, and we do have 19 different videos catalogued 00:34:37.744 --> 00:34:43.358 - of people running the intersection that you can see over a... 00:34:43.682 --> 00:34:51.272 - between the dates of May 6th and September 27th 15 of those videos are after the additional stop signs 00:34:51.272 --> 00:34:58.937 - went in and the stripes were done And I would argue some of the most egregious ones There was one where 00:34:58.937 --> 00:35:06.306 - somebody did a donut in the middle of the intersection again. There was the stop sign was hit There 00:35:06.306 --> 00:35:08.222 - are two videos of someone 00:35:08.482 --> 00:35:17.051 - going through at a very high speed at that intersection and I First the city to continue looking in 00:35:17.051 --> 00:35:25.791 - to Other solutions miss Alexander your time is up. I'm afraid and you're addressing the Commission so 00:35:25.791 --> 00:35:34.702 - any Commissioner is welcome to bring up comments based on public comment during the Discussion of items 00:35:34.702 --> 00:35:35.902 - on the agenda 00:35:36.258 --> 00:35:43.982 - portion or of this meeting or future meetings We would urge you to send any evidence you have to the 00:35:43.982 --> 00:35:51.783 - Transportation Commission directly. Thank you for your time Any other public comment on staff reports 00:35:51.783 --> 00:35:59.737 - online Last call for public comments on staff reports Seeing none. We'll move back to the agenda. We're 00:35:59.737 --> 00:36:06.238 - going out of cases. Let's try one more time for TCP 2618 who is here to report that? 00:36:06.722 --> 00:36:14.720 - that case For Bloomington, I'm here to report on that. Okay, please Go ahead and may I ask everyone 00:36:14.720 --> 00:36:22.958 - to Get as close to the mic as you can because or at least if we can have the volume in the room turned 00:36:22.958 --> 00:36:24.638 - up just a little bit 00:36:39.234 --> 00:36:50.044 - Thank you Here this evening to present the maintenance maintenance project for our North walnut North 00:36:50.044 --> 00:37:00.959 - College in North Dunn Street This was a project that was requested of us to prepare a set of plans for 00:37:00.959 --> 00:37:06.046 - by public works it is a maintenance project and 00:37:06.594 --> 00:37:13.098 - to increase the pavement condition index for those three streets. In general, it's gonna consist of 00:37:13.098 --> 00:37:19.603 - a one and a half inch mill and a one and a half inch overlay for the majority of all three streets. 00:37:19.603 --> 00:37:26.237 - But in some areas where there's been advanced degradation, there's gonna be a deeper mill along North 00:37:26.237 --> 00:37:32.807 - Dunn and various locations of full depth patching on Walnut and on College. Now with the maintenance 00:37:32.807 --> 00:37:36.254 - project, we would like to also implement some safety 00:37:36.642 --> 00:37:43.527 - Components to the project given the opportunity to work on those corridors and those safety improvements 00:37:43.527 --> 00:37:50.281 - include eliminating sidewalk gaps that exist on two of those corridors college walnut Adding curb bump 00:37:50.281 --> 00:37:57.166 - outs at certain intersections where there are safety concerns protect the parking areas so drivers don't 00:37:57.166 --> 00:38:04.510 - use the parking areas as through lanes and then stripe intentionally stripe all the lane lines 10 feet wide and 00:38:08.578 --> 00:38:17.436 - some of the design considerations that we took into consideration with this was that Walnut and College 00:38:17.436 --> 00:38:26.125 - are both primary arterials. They are posted at 30 and 40 miles an hour. However, as Mr. Garza pointed 00:38:26.125 --> 00:38:34.046 - out, I believe it's Walnut should be posted at 25 miles an hour, the corridor south of 17th. 00:38:34.882 --> 00:38:41.150 - North Dunn is a secondary arterial and it's posted at 35 miles an hour. When we put the set of plans 00:38:41.150 --> 00:38:47.418 - together, we wanted to consider fitting the existing configuration, especially on college and Walnut 00:38:47.418 --> 00:38:53.872 - with the curb additions, particularly because it's part of an ongoing corridor study. So we also wanted 00:38:53.872 --> 00:39:00.202 - to make sure it fit the existing condition as well as fit any proposed condition that may come out of 00:39:00.202 --> 00:39:04.670 - the study. Would want to point out too that Walnut and college are both 00:39:04.898 --> 00:39:11.412 - part of the high injury network. So we wanted to pay close attention to those. And then speed is an 00:39:11.412 --> 00:39:18.252 - issue too. I don't know the speed of Dunn off the top of my head, but I do know that college and Walnut, 00:39:18.252 --> 00:39:25.092 - the speed studies coming out of the study show that over 50% of the folks that travel Walnut and college 00:39:25.092 --> 00:39:32.062 - are going over the posted speed limits. So that's why we focused on striping the lane lines at set widths. 00:39:32.578 --> 00:39:40.207 - Using specific tapers to posted signage posted speed limits so that we could Maybe help calm the traffic 00:39:40.207 --> 00:39:47.546 - and keep them closer to the posted speed. I Was Yeah, I actually already hit on a lot of these in my 00:39:47.546 --> 00:39:54.812 - account in my presentation we wanted to make sure the curb ramps which are required to be compliant 00:39:54.812 --> 00:40:02.078 - for the type of funding that we're seeking out of the state meet the ADA and pro-wag compliance and 00:40:02.882 --> 00:40:09.962 - Then of course we wanted to eliminate the gap, sidewalk gaps. And then the curb bump outs, established 00:40:09.962 --> 00:40:17.180 - curb bump outs that fit existing and future conditions. I have a set of snippets that just kind of shows 00:40:17.180 --> 00:40:24.398 - just some of the intersections that are part of the proposed layout at this point, just to kind of show, 00:40:24.398 --> 00:40:31.134 - give illustrations of what I'm talking about. So at Walnut and 12, there would be a curb bump out 00:40:31.330 --> 00:40:38.016 - on the west side of the road, pushing the traffic together, pinching them hopefully to slow them down, 00:40:38.016 --> 00:40:44.768 - providing a 11 foot lane with a curb face on the west side, a 10 foot lane in between stripes, and then 00:40:44.768 --> 00:40:51.259 - a bicycle buffer that currently exists today, and then a dedicated five foot bike lane. There was a 00:40:51.259 --> 00:40:57.880 - fatal accident at this particular intersection. That's why I believe it's on the high injury network. 00:40:57.880 --> 00:41:00.542 - So the other things that we can add here 00:41:00.962 --> 00:41:08.583 - our compliant curb ramps in the corners, add a curb ramps to cross Walnut if need be, but most importantly 00:41:08.583 --> 00:41:15.776 - to add the green indicators for bike lanes. The highest reoccurring accident in this intersection is 00:41:15.776 --> 00:41:23.254 - folks heading north on Walnut taking a right onto 12th and then colliding with a bike also heading north 00:41:23.254 --> 00:41:30.590 - on Walnut. So just to bring more awareness that there is a bike lane moving through that intersection. 00:41:34.562 --> 00:41:42.944 - At North Walnut and 17th, also a high accident intersection. There is not much we can do at that intersection 00:41:42.944 --> 00:41:50.639 - except to restripe it the way it currently is. So this shows the existing configuration. You have an 00:41:50.639 --> 00:41:58.411 - 11 foot left turn lane, 10 foot through lanes, a bicycle buffer, then the bike lane, and then putting 00:41:58.411 --> 00:42:04.126 - back the green striping for the bike lane as well. And at 19th and Walnut, 00:42:04.322 --> 00:42:11.302 - This is an area that receives a lot of pedestrian crossings over to the Miller Showers Park. There's 00:42:11.302 --> 00:42:18.351 - a voluntary crossing that you can see just with the worn down grass, the northeast corner of 19th and 00:42:18.351 --> 00:42:25.262 - Walnut over to Miller Showers. So we'd be proposing to add a formal crosswalk in that area with new 00:42:25.262 --> 00:42:32.310 - crosswalk striping and signage as well as continuing that same bike lane striping feature through the 00:42:32.310 --> 00:42:33.278 - intersection. 00:42:38.146 --> 00:42:46.044 - From the south end of college, of the project at college and 11th, we propose to bump in actually both 00:42:46.044 --> 00:42:53.864 - sides of college to provide two through lanes as exist today. Keep a full bike buffer and a five foot 00:42:53.864 --> 00:43:01.839 - bike lane that would end at the intersection and strike that accordingly. This would place the bus stop 00:43:01.839 --> 00:43:08.126 - that's currently just north of this intersection at the curb line, which is where 00:43:08.546 --> 00:43:16.632 - Bloomington Transit prefers to pick up folks on the curb line rather than an inset that currently exists 00:43:16.632 --> 00:43:24.641 - today. There still would be two through lanes in this area. And I'd like to point out that for traffic, 00:43:24.641 --> 00:43:32.958 - we're not reducing the number of lanes in any of this design. We're simply shortening up or making narrower 00:43:32.958 --> 00:43:37.502 - the through lane width, but no capacity is being affected. 00:43:38.562 --> 00:43:45.800 - So at College and 14th, this is an intersection that currently has a pilot project with the delineators 00:43:45.800 --> 00:43:52.828 - on it that pinch in the traffic to two lanes. Under this project, we would propose to formalize that 00:43:52.828 --> 00:43:59.857 - curb bump in or curb bump out and reduce the length of pedestrian travel across the intersection. We 00:43:59.857 --> 00:44:06.816 - would add a northern crosswalk as well to make it pro-wag compliant, allow pedestrians to cross all 00:44:06.816 --> 00:44:07.582 - four legs. 00:44:07.682 --> 00:44:15.076 - And then also continue the bike lane crosswalk as well with the green striping through the intersection. 00:44:15.076 --> 00:44:22.612 - You can see it on this one as well in the what's the bottom right hand corner of this slide also proposing 00:44:22.612 --> 00:44:29.936 - to add essentially the yellow line on the what would be the southbound the easternmost southbound lane. 00:44:29.936 --> 00:44:35.006 - And that would be to continue to define that 10 foot wide lane so folks 00:44:35.490 --> 00:44:43.307 - Stop using I'm sorry to interrupt is is every image here north facing up Every image is north facing 00:44:43.307 --> 00:44:51.046 - up. Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry about that To add that yellow line on the left side of the left lane 00:44:51.046 --> 00:44:59.095 - So that folks just stop using the free parking lane space if there's nobody parked there Limiting their 00:44:59.095 --> 00:45:04.126 - width of travel will Hopefully create a slower a slower corridor 00:45:09.186 --> 00:45:16.061 - Last one really is, you know, some of the intersections don't really have any improvements need to be 00:45:16.061 --> 00:45:23.138 - made, but this one on done in 19th just kind of lays out the pedestrian signal that's already installed. 00:45:23.138 --> 00:45:30.216 - And just in some cases, we're just putting back the pavement markings that exist there today to continue 00:45:30.216 --> 00:45:37.630 - to enhance the safety that's already present. So I'll take any questions if the commission has any questions. 00:45:39.362 --> 00:45:46.673 - Thank you for the presentation. Sure. Are there questions to my left? Mr. Stossberg Thank you, I have 00:45:46.673 --> 00:45:54.055 - a process question for the city we have these situations where A street is due for regular maintenance 00:45:54.055 --> 00:46:01.509 - as these are at the same time. We have long-term processes going on with them like We're thinking about 00:46:01.509 --> 00:46:08.318 - college and walnut. We don't have definite plans. It's not necessarily funds or a timeline and 00:46:08.546 --> 00:46:14.523 - So is the process there that we proceed with regular maintenance until the longer-term plan gets on 00:46:14.523 --> 00:46:20.799 - the calendar? How do we balance those? Because fiscally, there might be opportunities to save some money 00:46:20.799 --> 00:46:26.776 - if things align. No, that's a challenge. The estimated pavement life for college, last time college 00:46:26.776 --> 00:46:32.752 - was paved, I wasn't here, but I was told that it was about 12 years ago. So we have about a 12-year 00:46:32.752 --> 00:46:37.534 - expected 12-year life for the college and walnut pavements as we put them back. 00:46:38.114 --> 00:46:45.659 - I know the corridor study that's kind of in play and not Doesn't have a recommended alignment yet, even 00:46:45.659 --> 00:46:53.132 - if it were to be approved and then you get on the tip and then seek federal funding I mean the reality 00:46:53.132 --> 00:47:00.387 - in time is that you're at least halfway through The life cycle of the asphalt that we put down next 00:47:00.387 --> 00:47:07.134 - year Probably more because of the size of the project that's being proposed. So Yeah, it was 00:47:07.810 --> 00:47:14.148 - The life cycle of the concrete was actually more Concerning to us because concrete has a life cycle 00:47:14.148 --> 00:47:20.676 - should have a life cycle of 50 years or so So we really tried to make sure our curb bump outs fit with 00:47:20.676 --> 00:47:27.331 - All the options that we saw are as many as we possibly could so we wouldn't be wasting money on concrete 00:47:27.331 --> 00:47:33.859 - but knowing that the asphalt would Come to the end of its life before any Long-term improvements would 00:47:33.859 --> 00:47:37.598 - be made Thank you, that's all further questions to my left 00:47:39.586 --> 00:47:47.623 - Questions to my right. Mr. Pilsky, is it? Lubitsky. Lubitsky? Yep. There's at least one of these that 00:47:47.623 --> 00:47:55.740 - is not north facing up. In some cases, I can't tell which street is which. Could we briefly go through 00:47:55.740 --> 00:48:03.777 - each image again? And you can just, it's not even labeled which street is walnut, which street is 12, 00:48:03.777 --> 00:48:08.190 - for example, in slide five. Yeah, I apologize for that. 00:48:08.962 --> 00:48:15.765 - I've been in this project so long. It's just well I appreciate that but so yeah, this is obvious to 00:48:15.765 --> 00:48:22.704 - us. Yeah walnut walnut is The road that runs left to right. It's the okay. So north is to the what is 00:48:22.704 --> 00:48:29.711 - to the right or left here in this case? North is to the right. Yes, in all cases north is to the right 00:48:29.711 --> 00:48:36.650 - North is to the right. Yes, okay In all cases north is to the right in all cases north is to the okay 00:48:36.650 --> 00:48:37.534 - that helps I 00:48:38.914 --> 00:48:48.379 - There was Okay, so the slide for North College and West 14th Street That is that green the new green 00:48:48.379 --> 00:48:58.124 - striping is southbound southbound bike lane The new green striping is not for the southbound bike lane. 00:48:58.124 --> 00:49:05.246 - Yes it would be a dedicated bike lane with a five-foot dedicated buffer and 00:49:06.402 --> 00:49:14.098 - Okay. Now this these images make sense to me. It took me a while to parse them Questions commissioners 00:49:14.098 --> 00:49:21.794 - to Midas One the College Avenue lanes are currently ten feet or is this they're being restricted down? 00:49:21.794 --> 00:49:29.489 - No, actually there there's a center line separating them. Yeah, otherwise they're They're they're wide 00:49:29.489 --> 00:49:32.478 - there. There really is no definition of 00:49:32.738 --> 00:49:39.233 - Until you get places like the pilot project at college and 14th where they do they do neck down I believe 00:49:39.233 --> 00:49:45.360 - they're 12 or 14 feet wide at that point I'll just know Bloomington Transit buses other than on 7th 00:49:45.360 --> 00:49:51.548 - Street don't travel down any lanes that any roads that have 10-foot lanes We usually require 11 feet 00:49:51.548 --> 00:49:57.736 - minimum for any of ours and we have a number that travel on this section of college So when there is 00:49:57.736 --> 00:50:02.270 - a curb present, it does go to an 11-foot lane for that reason. Okay, okay 00:50:03.170 --> 00:50:10.051 - So the expected behavior for the bus driver is that they'll be driving slightly into the bike lane buffer 00:50:10.051 --> 00:50:16.608 - they will drive into the bike lane for pickup and drop-off for big up and drop-offs and then Anytime 00:50:16.608 --> 00:50:23.230 - that they're driving and their vehicles are larger than 11 feet. It'll they'll go into the buffer and 00:50:23.230 --> 00:50:29.852 - Yeah, thanks Got it Okay, a couple more questions. I know this is remedial, but what is the community 00:50:29.852 --> 00:50:32.254 - crossing matching grant application? 00:50:32.514 --> 00:50:40.071 - The community crossing matching grant application is a process that the state puts out. Um, I think 00:50:40.071 --> 00:50:47.855 - it's through, um, their gas tax collection for communities. It's a 50 50 match, uh, up to a $2 million 00:50:47.855 --> 00:50:55.413 - application, um, to do maintenance projects on roadways that hopefully the local see is needing the 00:50:55.413 --> 00:50:57.982 - most maintenance. So, um, through 00:50:58.178 --> 00:51:03.399 - Through the public works we applied for the two million dollar grant earlier this month. The window 00:51:03.399 --> 00:51:08.724 - actually closes Wednesday So hopefully we'll know soon whether we get that grant a two million dollar 00:51:08.724 --> 00:51:14.101 - application would yield a one million dollar grant from the state Say they get two million dollar what 00:51:14.101 --> 00:51:19.374 - the two million dollar application? If fully awarded by the state would bring a million dollars into 00:51:19.374 --> 00:51:24.646 - the city of Bloomington for these for these projects Where would the other million go? It would come 00:51:24.646 --> 00:51:25.534 - from local match 00:51:25.954 --> 00:51:31.361 - So it's a matching grant. Yes, it's matching. There's a word matching grant. Yeah, that'd be it. That'd 00:51:31.361 --> 00:51:36.872 - be a question for public works I'm not sure where that where that money comes the matching local matching 00:51:36.872 --> 00:51:42.228 - comes from and so this represents All the things we would do with that money and there's not like this 00:51:42.228 --> 00:51:47.687 - isn't like a rolling set of grants We in this year, these are the things that we would do with the money 00:51:47.687 --> 00:51:52.938 - if we could yes It's a very specific application. You have to do exactly these segments as you apply 00:51:52.938 --> 00:51:54.654 - for them at the state level Okay 00:51:54.978 --> 00:52:01.038 - And you said that there was a fatal accident at Walnut and 12th. Can you describe the nature of the 00:52:01.038 --> 00:52:07.279 - accident? Did it involve a pedestrian or a bicyclist or a scooter rider? I would call it a pedestrian. 00:52:07.279 --> 00:52:13.520 - I think it was somebody who was on their scooter, but they were standing next to their scooter at that 00:52:13.520 --> 00:52:19.641 - point in time. If I remember this accident correctly, I didn't think it happened at an intersection. 00:52:19.641 --> 00:52:21.822 - I thought it just happened on North 00:52:22.370 --> 00:52:29.677 - Yeah, I believe it happened in the northeast corner of Walnut and 12th Huh? Okay, that's news to me 00:52:29.677 --> 00:52:36.985 - any further questions on TCP 26 18 Before we go to the public Let's go to the public for comment on 00:52:36.985 --> 00:52:44.438 - TCP 26 18 the petition to implement roadway improvements along Walnut College and done as part of the 00:52:44.438 --> 00:52:50.430 - CCMG Project if you'd like to comment on this petition, please come to the podium 00:52:50.722 --> 00:53:00.537 - Sign in you'll have three minutes. If you'd like to speak to it online, please use the raise hand function 00:53:00.537 --> 00:53:09.801 - in zoom Sure, anyone who would like to speak to TCP 2618 Anybody online Last call for public comment 00:53:09.801 --> 00:53:19.341 - on TCP 2618 Seeing none we'll come back to the Commission for Debate. Is there any comment on TCP 2618? 00:53:19.341 --> 00:53:20.350 - To my left 00:53:22.242 --> 00:53:39.748 - Am I right seeing none can we have the role of a roll call vote on 20cp 2618? Yes Yes, Stossberg, yes 00:53:39.748 --> 00:53:48.158 - Copic yes, mr. Minus Yes TCP 2618 passes 5-0 and 00:53:49.122 --> 00:53:58.775 - We move now to TCP 26 20 the petition to implement roadway improvements on Rogers Road Who is presenting 00:53:58.775 --> 00:54:07.233 - on this item? Thank you nice to see you, please go ahead Thank you. I will just get my very 00:54:07.233 --> 00:54:10.910 - short presentation pulled up for you. I 00:54:44.418 --> 00:54:55.528 - So this is the staff report for TCP 2620 And it is regarding the resident led traffic calming program 00:54:55.528 --> 00:55:06.855 - for 2026 So just to give a brief background on what this program does each year. We have a small budget 00:55:06.855 --> 00:55:10.558 - this year. It's around $50,000 to 00:55:12.130 --> 00:55:21.253 - implement some sort of traffic calming device on a street that The public identifies so what that application 00:55:21.253 --> 00:55:29.546 - looks like is Co organizers will look at a street that they live close to and have identified Has a 00:55:29.546 --> 00:55:37.922 - speeding issue and they will come to staff and they submit an application describing the concern and 00:55:37.922 --> 00:55:39.166 - then they must 00:55:39.394 --> 00:55:47.284 - Collect signatures from other residents within 300 feet of this quarter which was done on Rogers and 00:55:47.284 --> 00:55:55.486 - then they must present us with a supportive letter from a council member in this case was council member 00:55:55.486 --> 00:56:03.532 - daily and then two letters of support from a Institution in the area. So in this case, it was Sherwood 00:56:03.532 --> 00:56:08.766 - Oaks Church and the woodlands HOA so once all of that was done and 00:56:08.994 --> 00:56:18.582 - East Rogers Road was compared to all the other ten applications or there were ten total sorry and in 00:56:18.582 --> 00:56:28.835 - that we found that East Rogers Road had the worst speeding issue so these were vehicle speeds that exceeded 00:56:28.835 --> 00:56:37.758 - the legal posted limit and We took into account how much they exceeded them by So as a result 00:56:37.922 --> 00:56:46.953 - of looking at that, the crash history and the vulnerable road users in the area. We sent that to engineering 00:56:46.953 --> 00:56:55.322 - for them to come up with a design. That design was then shared with emergency services and also with 00:56:55.322 --> 00:57:03.939 - the public at a September 10th meeting at Sherwood Oaks Church. The initial design was six speed tables 00:57:03.939 --> 00:57:06.590 - from High Street to Sarah Road. 00:57:06.818 --> 00:57:17.548 - two of those speed tables between each intersection. With, let's see, the Stan's Drive and then Spicewood 00:57:17.548 --> 00:57:27.772 - Lane and then Sayre Road from west to east. And then in a minute I will show you the revised design. 00:57:27.772 --> 00:57:35.870 - But just to go over a couple of things in the report before I show the concept. 00:57:36.834 --> 00:57:45.121 - This is, this road is eligible for traffic calming. It is a neighborhood connector, similar to last 00:57:45.121 --> 00:57:52.663 - year, something that makes this different from West 11th Street before, which was the 2025 00:57:52.663 --> 00:58:01.033 - winning application where speed bumps, or speed humps were installed. This neighborhood connector is 00:58:01.033 --> 00:58:05.342 - a secondary arterial, so it sees more traffic here. 00:58:06.498 --> 00:58:14.648 - There's more through traffic to other neighborhoods. For example, there's not very many drive cuts at 00:58:14.648 --> 00:58:22.878 - all on this stretch But is still an eligible application So the current posted speed limit is 30 miles 00:58:22.878 --> 00:58:30.868 - an hour the average observed this summer in June was 38 miles per hour and Approximately 97 percent 00:58:30.868 --> 00:58:35.422 - of all vehicle traffic exceeded the posted limit so that 00:58:36.482 --> 00:58:46.836 - It essentially was a was a worse result than all of the other applications here And the the purpose 00:58:46.836 --> 00:58:57.501 - of the speed tables would be to reduce the vehicle traffic through here To be closer to the post limit 00:58:57.501 --> 00:59:04.542 - We did do a bit of outreach to Emergency services which resulted in 00:59:05.026 --> 00:59:12.652 - Modification of the speed tables. So there is concern of the number of devices which were placed 00:59:12.652 --> 00:59:20.592 - strategically to reduce Vehicle speed like from one intersection to another so that Vehicles did not 00:59:20.592 --> 00:59:28.610 - speed up in between them And then in the revision we took a slightly different approach to prioritize 00:59:28.610 --> 00:59:33.406 - the safety of the intersections So I will show you that here 00:59:34.658 --> 00:59:44.039 - So over to the over to the West We did hear some feedback at that public meeting Just to verify the 00:59:44.039 --> 00:59:53.608 - north is up on these right correct. Okay. Thank you So to the west is high street nuts to the left as 00:59:53.608 --> 01:00:02.238 - well We heard some feedback that vehicles were going a bit fast through that roundabout and 01:00:02.594 --> 01:00:10.220 - that a lot of children use this path that connects south to the Goat Farm Park and north to Childs Elementary 01:00:10.220 --> 01:00:17.499 - School. And then as you go east for a good stretch of that path, there's only a very small portion where 01:00:17.499 --> 01:00:24.639 - it's like a five foot wide sidewalk. The rest of it is pretty wide, at least eight or 10 feet. So that 01:00:24.639 --> 01:00:31.294 - is a relatively recent addition in the last couple of years, but apparently is seeing more use. 01:00:31.522 --> 01:00:41.035 - People are taking it over to the bus stop It's route number five has a stop right there at the cross-section 01:00:41.035 --> 01:00:49.938 - or the intersection with the stands And then people are also traveling south on the stands perhaps to 01:00:49.938 --> 01:00:58.840 - Olcott Park as well if you go up to that intersection we've put there we've proposed instead of speed 01:00:58.840 --> 01:01:00.062 - table that is 01:01:00.290 --> 01:01:08.147 - Stretching the entire width of the road across two lanes now. It only shows one lane each so this will 01:01:08.147 --> 01:01:16.079 - reduce the number of Speed tables that a vehicle must travel all the way through the corridor from east 01:01:16.079 --> 01:01:23.860 - from When they're going eastbound and also reduces them from six to three when going westbound but it 01:01:23.860 --> 01:01:28.894 - does slow vehicle traffic at the intersections where a pedestrian 01:01:29.058 --> 01:01:37.103 - or a cyclist may cross. And then the intersections are also important because with the crash history 01:01:37.103 --> 01:01:45.227 - that we looked at, all of the eligible crashes on East Rogers Road for us to evaluate in this stretch 01:01:45.227 --> 01:01:53.510 - were in some way related to speed, where speed was a contributing factor. And those were clustered near 01:01:53.510 --> 01:01:59.006 - intersections. So we did hear some feedback that perhaps it would be 01:01:59.202 --> 01:02:06.432 - You know people have difficulty turning left out of say spice wood Where cross-traffic does not stop 01:02:06.432 --> 01:02:13.733 - and then also out of the stands or the woodlands right there? In the very middle of the concept where 01:02:13.733 --> 01:02:21.105 - cross-traffic does not stop So hopefully this will signal to drivers that they should they should slow 01:02:21.105 --> 01:02:25.758 - down and they will have to slow down to comfortably traverse the 01:02:25.954 --> 01:02:38.274 - speed table in front of the crosswalk, but that should also create an added benefit for Vehicle traffic 01:02:38.274 --> 01:02:50.950 - trying to turn left out of those side streets and then Lastly This is consistent with our goal of reducing 01:02:50.950 --> 01:02:53.438 - crashes and creating 01:02:53.762 --> 01:03:03.252 - Street that has opportunities for all ages all abilities to use it here. It seems like there is demand 01:03:03.252 --> 01:03:12.557 - for crossing Rogers north-south at these intersections and for using that path and for Traveling the 01:03:12.557 --> 01:03:19.006 - corridor on the bus as well. So we believe that this promotes a safer 01:03:19.298 --> 01:03:27.208 - Experience for those walking biking taking the bus or driving in their vehicles along this corridor 01:03:27.208 --> 01:03:35.514 - One one thing I wanted to mention about The revision is that we did hear some concerns about cut through 01:03:35.514 --> 01:03:43.583 - traffic through the stands There are some stop signs along the way like say you're going You're going 01:03:43.583 --> 01:03:49.278 - east on Rogers Road and then south on there you could potentially avoid 01:03:49.410 --> 01:03:57.660 - some of the traffic calming devices by turning right into the stands and then going through a stop sign 01:03:57.660 --> 01:04:05.593 - or two on the way to Sayre Road. In the initial plan, that would have avoided the majority of those 01:04:05.593 --> 01:04:14.002 - devices. I believe it would have been four out of the six. But I believe that this revision does mitigate 01:04:14.002 --> 01:04:16.382 - that concern because at least 01:04:16.962 --> 01:04:26.516 - Two of the three of them you would have already passed so there would be minimal incentive or time savings 01:04:26.516 --> 01:04:35.534 - if any to Route traffic through the stands. So I Think that concern is mostly mitigated as well So I 01:04:35.534 --> 01:04:42.142 - just I realized I haven't addressed the the size of them so for context I 01:04:42.338 --> 01:04:52.557 - There is no perfect analogy or example of a speed table in Bloomington at present. These are proposed 01:04:52.557 --> 01:05:02.777 - to be asphalt and somewhere along the lines of 22 feet long where you would have a six foot, six foot 01:05:02.777 --> 01:05:09.790 - rise to about three and a half inches tall. Could be 3.25 to 3.75 and 01:05:10.434 --> 01:05:17.621 - than a 10 foot table. So most passenger vehicles would sit atop the table and then come down on the 01:05:17.621 --> 01:05:25.240 - other side. So it is a bit of a gentler geometry than other speed humps or speed cushions in Bloomington. 01:05:25.240 --> 01:05:32.499 - There are some raised crosswalks that are kind of similar but constructed of concrete so they have a 01:05:32.499 --> 01:05:39.614 - bit of a sharper angle to them. But it shouldn't be terribly unfamiliar to drivers in Bloomington. 01:05:39.778 --> 01:05:48.712 - to use and this we think better fits the context of a street where the Speed limit is 30 miles an hour 01:05:48.712 --> 01:05:57.386 - as opposed to some of them where we've had speeding problems, but actually the speed limit is 25 So 01:05:57.386 --> 01:06:06.406 - dish this combined with the feedback that we had from our emergency services Meant that the speed table 01:06:06.406 --> 01:06:09.182 - was kind of a clear option here 01:06:09.346 --> 01:06:18.476 - And I'll just briefly Go through so that you can see them a little bit more up close So it would be 01:06:18.476 --> 01:06:27.606 - just ahead of each crossing as you travel both east and west on High Street the stands near the bus 01:06:27.606 --> 01:06:31.806 - stop and path to the north and spice woodland 01:06:35.874 --> 01:06:44.746 - I'm happy to answer any questions or cycle back through those images if you'd like to see Thank you 01:06:44.746 --> 01:06:54.061 - Let's go to questions from commissioners. Do are there any questions on TCP 2620 to my left? Mr. Coppock 01:06:54.061 --> 01:07:02.932 - Did you say how many accidents there were that on those intersections So there have been six in the 01:07:02.932 --> 01:07:05.150 - past five years At least 01:07:05.378 --> 01:07:15.019 - Let's see, three of them were at the intersection with the stands. One at, I'm sorry, four, because 01:07:15.019 --> 01:07:24.467 - one was labeled Windingbrook, so four of them there, and one at Spicewood, and that would be all, 01:07:24.467 --> 01:07:34.590 - I'm sorry, so five at the stands slash Windingbrook, and one at Spicewood. Also, didn't there used to be 01:07:35.970 --> 01:07:43.379 - speed bump or whatever east of the roundabout Over by I don't remember what the name that subdivision 01:07:43.379 --> 01:07:50.860 - is would something rather but that used to be there and has been removed is that Anybody remember that 01:07:50.860 --> 01:07:58.269 - Maybe it's too far back. But I'm sorry. I don't remember Well, if we're gonna put these in and say we 01:07:58.269 --> 01:08:04.734 - there was one down there further by the On further down I think but anyway, okay. Thanks 01:08:05.858 --> 01:08:13.838 - Mr. Stossberg What is the design speed of these the target speed at which you're trying to slow down 01:08:13.838 --> 01:08:21.739 - traffic to My understanding is that it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 30 miles an hour we 01:08:21.739 --> 01:08:29.640 - do have John Garzi here if you have more technical questions on that, but My impression is 25 to 30 01:08:29.640 --> 01:08:32.958 - Yeah, mr. Garzi, do you have any comment? 01:08:35.778 --> 01:08:44.175 - So just, we're not trying to really slow people down from driving the speed limit, we're really trying 01:08:44.175 --> 01:08:52.734 - to take speeding behavior and get them to drive what the sign speed is. Yes, right now, I think a better 01:08:52.734 --> 01:09:01.294 - way for me to have explained it is right now it feels like the natural safe speed for a driver is closer 01:09:01.294 --> 01:09:03.006 - to 40 miles an hour. 01:09:03.106 --> 01:09:13.276 - And that's where most of the flow of traffic is. So the 85th percentile speed is something like 41 miles 01:09:13.276 --> 01:09:23.155 - an hour and the 15th is 32. So you have the main like hump of the distribution is solidly in kind of, 01:09:23.155 --> 01:09:28.094 - you could get a ticket kind of zone. So right now, 01:09:28.674 --> 01:09:34.805 - people are perceiving that it is comfortable and safe to drive at that speed when we're getting a lot 01:09:34.805 --> 01:09:40.817 - of comments that it's hard to turn left out of your intersection because you're expecting people to 01:09:40.817 --> 01:09:47.008 - go 30 and they're going 40 and very few cars are yielding the first time they see a pedestrian because 01:09:47.008 --> 01:09:53.260 - they're only going at a speed where they can't slam on their brakes and react in time and then not risk 01:09:53.260 --> 01:09:54.462 - getting rear-ended. 01:09:56.130 --> 01:10:03.441 - Thank you, I think there's a misconception that traffic calming is to make us drive extra slow when 01:10:03.441 --> 01:10:11.409 - I think more often it's to have us drive a safe speed that was already the speed limit. Thank you. Questions 01:10:11.409 --> 01:10:18.793 - to my right. Am I correct that there is an elevation, significant elevation change along this strip? 01:10:18.793 --> 01:10:21.790 - Yeah, so I would say the biggest stretch 01:10:22.882 --> 01:10:31.515 - The biggest elevation change well, it's between these two pictures. So I'll show you this initial one. 01:10:31.515 --> 01:10:40.233 - It's from down from the circle to the stands, right? Yeah, so the the high street roundabout sits quite 01:10:40.233 --> 01:10:48.782 - a bit lower than oh, so we're at stands So we did hear some comments that You know if say a firetruck 01:10:48.782 --> 01:10:52.638 - is going up Up as an up in elevation which is 01:10:53.538 --> 01:11:02.120 - Eastbound towards the stands then having a traffic calming device there could prove difficult to Decelerate 01:11:02.120 --> 01:11:10.305 - and then accelerate So as so as to not cause damage to the vehicle we did also hear some concerns that 01:11:10.305 --> 01:11:18.410 - you know, perhaps That could be difficult to maintain or plow Which is a concern as well, but I think 01:11:18.410 --> 01:11:22.622 - most of our streets with traffic calming are able to 01:11:23.170 --> 01:11:31.409 - Be maintained quite well by streets. So the westbound Speed table at the high street intersection is 01:11:31.409 --> 01:11:39.893 - purposely well away from the walking path to give Downhill drivers time to slow down. Is that the idea? 01:11:39.893 --> 01:11:48.377 - Could you describe the location if you put up the high street intersection? I Note that the speed table 01:11:48.377 --> 01:11:51.966 - for westbound drivers is well back from the 01:11:52.514 --> 01:12:00.050 - the intersection from the path the walking path Whereas all the other speed tables are right up against 01:12:00.050 --> 01:12:07.513 - the walking path. And so I was just curious If the reason that it was set so far back was because it's 01:12:07.513 --> 01:12:14.686 - coming from Downhill and drivers may be going faster than like just out of curiosity. Why is that? 01:12:15.106 --> 01:12:23.318 - I think that's accurate and it's preferable to have a little bit more space than we do in some of these 01:12:23.318 --> 01:12:31.529 - areas. Like coming out of the roundabout is a bit awkward. Certainly the visibility of having the speed 01:12:31.529 --> 01:12:39.583 - table as you're coming down the hill towards the roundabout is favorable. But what we're working with 01:12:39.583 --> 01:12:44.478 - is some of these intersections don't have a whole lot of room 01:12:44.802 --> 01:12:53.652 - for example at At the stands you'll see the the westbound one it kind of sticks into the intersection 01:12:53.652 --> 01:13:02.588 - a little bit Which is not ideal But it it is still ahead of the crosswalk, which is very important But 01:13:02.588 --> 01:13:11.265 - I'd say that the biggest change is we've kind of crunched them to where it's more similar to a race 01:13:11.265 --> 01:13:13.694 - crosswalk and before we had 01:13:14.466 --> 01:13:21.432 - We had some speed tables that were like right smack dab in the middle between the stands and high street 01:13:21.432 --> 01:13:28.133 - Which is right on that hill and now we've kind of concentrated it Did I hear correctly that you said 01:13:28.133 --> 01:13:34.767 - that there are no other examples of speed tables in the city I Don't believe that there are so this 01:13:34.767 --> 01:13:41.468 - is that this is a first for us I'm I don't feel entirely qualified to answer on behalf of the entire 01:13:41.468 --> 01:13:44.254 - city, but perhaps John mr. Garzi, can you 01:13:45.634 --> 01:13:54.187 - That's correct. These would be the first asphalt speed tables that we have Does anybody on staff have 01:13:54.187 --> 01:14:02.656 - any concern has anybody raised any concern about speed tables compared to speed cushions or anything 01:14:02.656 --> 01:14:11.460 - else have members of the public? Objected for any reason to speed tables If your question is have people 01:14:11.460 --> 01:14:14.814 - push back and preferred speed bumps and 01:14:15.330 --> 01:14:23.906 - On this corridor and most of the most of the feedback that we received is that hey, this is a pretty 01:14:23.906 --> 01:14:32.483 - high traffic corridor It's one of the couple options we have to go into town and that this Basically 01:14:32.483 --> 01:14:41.569 - that the approach we could take could be less aggressive and I think the the speed table is a good example 01:14:41.569 --> 01:14:44.286 - of how this fits the context of 01:14:44.514 --> 01:14:52.409 - And we're not shoehorning in a solution that's actually built for a more neighborhood street with more 01:14:52.409 --> 01:15:00.074 - driveways and A different atmosphere to it Okay, thank you any further questions from commissioners 01:15:00.074 --> 01:15:08.123 - See none. We'll go to the public for comment on TCP 2620 if you would like to speak to this issue Please 01:15:08.123 --> 01:15:13.182 - come to the podium. You'll have three minutes. Please sign in and 01:15:13.634 --> 01:15:22.091 - If you would like to speak in your online, please use the raise hand function in zoom and we'll call 01:15:22.091 --> 01:15:31.051 - on you as soon as we can Hello Jeff, you're my fire marshal for the city of Bloomington We've had multiple 01:15:31.051 --> 01:15:39.593 - conversations About this issue with the two entities. We do appreciate them lowering the number of of 01:15:39.593 --> 01:15:42.942 - the speed tables our biggest concern is 01:15:43.554 --> 01:15:52.342 - Getting there our number one thing is time Fire grows at our doubles in size every 30 seconds so every 01:15:52.342 --> 01:16:01.130 - we've did a lot to Reduce our response times Two things this area particular is our furthest away from 01:16:01.130 --> 01:16:10.089 - any of our departments. It's It's about an eight to ten minute drive from our station five for the first 01:16:10.089 --> 01:16:13.502 - engine company to get to Sarah Road and 01:16:14.050 --> 01:16:22.484 - So anything that we do any any we're not denying that something needs to be done, but any type of traffic 01:16:22.484 --> 01:16:30.758 - calming devices Hinder our response whether it's a bump out where this curve whether it's a speed table 01:16:30.758 --> 01:16:38.953 - speed bump Our trucks are you know in excess of 80,000 pounds. They're slow to stop slow to accelerate 01:16:38.953 --> 01:16:41.022 - and with that like I said 01:16:41.122 --> 01:16:49.203 - Fire doubles in size is proven fact that every 30 seconds it doubles. So think about a small trash can 01:16:49.203 --> 01:16:57.126 - Beside your office in 30 seconds that grows to two trash cans in 60 seconds that grows to four trash 01:16:57.126 --> 01:17:05.128 - cans in 80 or in 90 seconds That's eight trash cans and in 120 seconds at 16 trash cans Approximately 01:17:05.128 --> 01:17:08.894 - you have approximately two minutes nowadays and 01:17:09.346 --> 01:17:17.061 - according to the FPA and national standards to get out of your house safely before Conditions come where 01:17:17.061 --> 01:17:24.777 - you wouldn't be able to survive in most cases. So Even though we just have three traffic calming devices 01:17:24.777 --> 01:17:32.272 - a whole lot better than the six we agree that still is Approximately going to slow us down 30 seconds 01:17:32.272 --> 01:17:39.326 - at each one according to what we were given from these individuals So that's going to still add 01:17:39.682 --> 01:17:48.740 - 90 seconds to our route across Rogers Road Like I said, we're not disagreeing that something needs done 01:17:48.740 --> 01:17:57.537 - but and we greatly appreciate the studies and everything our biggest thing is is the study is geared 01:17:57.537 --> 01:18:03.198 - towards vehicular traffic and not an 80,000 pound fire truck and 01:18:03.778 --> 01:18:10.599 - So we've asked for clarification They're going to try to work on it and we're going to try to work as 01:18:10.599 --> 01:18:17.821 - well is to try to get some more information on What a safe? Speed for the fire truck or any other emergency 01:18:17.821 --> 01:18:24.642 - service vehicle to to go over these speed humps What kind of things I mean the things that we face is 01:18:24.642 --> 01:18:31.463 - suspension issues braking issues and things like that our maintenance has went up tremendously in the 01:18:31.463 --> 01:18:32.734 - last few years and 01:18:33.186 --> 01:18:40.195 - Just for breaking in different things, you know our brakes no more we break wear and tear on the brakes 01:18:40.195 --> 01:18:46.934 - the suspension and things like that, so Anytime We can reduce the number of traffic calming devices 01:18:46.934 --> 01:18:53.808 - whether it's like I said whether it's bump outs or anything like that We're not denying we don't need 01:18:53.808 --> 01:19:00.615 - to do something but it hinders us tremendously and time is an Assessance when it comes in emergency, 01:19:00.615 --> 01:19:02.974 - so That's really all I have to say 01:19:03.266 --> 01:19:10.473 - I'm happy to answer any questions Thank you for your comment that this is a public comment portion will 01:19:10.473 --> 01:19:17.610 - if we'd like That's all for now. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Any other members of the public would like 01:19:17.610 --> 01:19:24.540 - to speak to this issue, please come to the podium. Is there anybody online who'd like to speak? I'm 01:19:24.540 --> 01:19:30.430 - not sure who's tracking that right now No one online again if you'd like to speak to 01:19:30.562 --> 01:19:43.557 - Item TCP 26 20, please use the raise hand function in zoom. We'll go to another commenter in the room 01:19:43.557 --> 01:19:56.297 - You'll have three minutes Thank you so much I live at the intersection of winding Brooks circle the 01:19:56.297 --> 01:19:58.590 - stands and Rogers 01:19:58.722 --> 01:20:05.735 - And could we ask your name, please? Shelly Taylor. Thank you. Thank you. I wear hearing aids. So if 01:20:05.735 --> 01:20:12.818 - I hesitate it's just because no problem to hear no problem. I Just wanted to say It does seem like a 01:20:12.818 --> 01:20:20.112 - pickle because I totally acknowledge what you're you know You're up against and I also know what I have 01:20:20.112 --> 01:20:23.198 - seen at that intersection which is you know 01:20:23.714 --> 01:20:32.982 - Lot of accidents a lot more than has been reported because a lot of times they don't you know They don't 01:20:32.982 --> 01:20:41.808 - call the cops to to report these things It concerns me greatly that the crosswalk is simply unsafe. 01:20:41.808 --> 01:20:50.634 - I've seen pedestrian crossing signs One of them was dragged under an SUV vehicle all the way up the 01:20:50.634 --> 01:20:51.870 - hill you know 01:20:53.218 --> 01:21:00.960 - and that sign was knocked down. I see speeding cars and I hear speeding cars multiple times a day. I 01:21:00.960 --> 01:21:08.626 - work a lot of the time from home and I've seen accidents and I've seen little kids out there at the 01:21:08.626 --> 01:21:16.598 - crosswalk and my own self and other people standing there with 10 to 15 cars just speeding by, standing 01:21:16.598 --> 01:21:18.974 - in the middle of the crosswalk 01:21:19.266 --> 01:21:28.048 - And nobody is stopping. So it is a concern. And I just wanted to say that I'm in support of this traffic 01:21:28.048 --> 01:21:36.746 - calming in this area. And I want to thank David and all the people that worked on this traffic calming. 01:21:36.746 --> 01:21:45.194 - I'm sorry I don't remember your name but I know you worked on it as well. And and I I also feel that 01:21:45.194 --> 01:21:47.870 - you know emergency vehicles are 01:21:48.418 --> 01:21:57.665 - Certainly an issue. So I hope that there's Some solution we can come up with that benefits everyone. 01:21:57.665 --> 01:22:07.370 - Thank you Thank you. Are there any commenters online who'd like to speak to TCP 2620? Mr. Roebling Nobody 01:22:07.370 --> 01:22:17.167 - last call for public comment on TCP 2620 See none, we'll come back to the Commission for further questions 01:22:17.167 --> 01:22:18.174 - or comment 01:22:19.554 --> 01:22:25.684 - Any questions, Mr. Coppock? Well, one comment, too, is like the fire department, I know the 01:22:25.684 --> 01:22:32.546 - street department, if you're plowing that, when you've got your plow down, you have to raise your plow 01:22:32.546 --> 01:22:39.476 - before you come up to either one, to any of those. That's a question, I think. No, it's not a question, 01:22:39.476 --> 01:22:46.672 - it's a statement. Oh, okay. And then the other thing is, I kind of question the ones down by the roundabout 01:22:46.672 --> 01:22:49.470 - because you're already reduced speed when 01:22:49.922 --> 01:22:57.963 - Especially when you're going eastbound, you're in the roundabout, and when you're going westbound, you're 01:22:57.963 --> 01:23:05.775 - almost to the roundabout. I know there's a lot of pedestrians in there, but I don't know why you would 01:23:05.775 --> 01:23:13.361 - need those two particular calming devices there. You're at the bottom of the hill when you're going 01:23:13.361 --> 01:23:18.974 - westbound, so anyway, my question is why you need those two. Mr. Brantes? 01:23:20.162 --> 01:23:27.502 - Yes, so the when you're coming down the hill we were getting complaints that cars were not yielding 01:23:27.502 --> 01:23:35.062 - at the crosswalk and they were there their field of vision was on the It was smaller and further ahead 01:23:35.062 --> 01:23:42.916 - and it was focused on the roundabout and so where you would pull up to is passing the passing the crossing 01:23:42.916 --> 01:23:45.118 - first and then for going into 01:23:45.282 --> 01:23:53.054 - East bound I'm going to pass that over to John if you would like to answer The the reasoning for for 01:23:53.054 --> 01:24:01.134 - the placement there Exiting the roundabout was because we were finding that people were not being slowed 01:24:01.134 --> 01:24:09.137 - down by the roundabout as much on the lower part just because the amount of curving that you go through 01:24:09.137 --> 01:24:12.446 - is not as significant as on the upper part 01:24:13.282 --> 01:24:21.548 - But we're also looking at this part of the street just because there's a crossing or a trail crossing 01:24:21.548 --> 01:24:29.896 - from the Rogers Farm Park Going north and there's also a It was like a school cross guard. So that was 01:24:29.896 --> 01:24:38.081 - another reason that we were focusing on here Does answer your question mr. Coppock, okay I do have a 01:24:38.081 --> 01:24:40.350 - question Can I do we have a 01:24:40.770 --> 01:24:46.766 - number off the top of our heads of the number of people who have been killed in Car accidents in the 01:24:46.766 --> 01:24:52.762 - city of Bloomington in the past year of the past five years any sense of it I Don't have that number 01:24:52.762 --> 01:24:58.818 - but we can we can find it. I mean, do you have an approximation? Is it one is a ten? Is it a hundred? 01:24:58.818 --> 01:25:04.755 - I Would imagine are you saying in the last year? Yeah, then the last year of the last five years. I 01:25:04.755 --> 01:25:07.070 - would imagine it's in the hundreds and 01:25:15.010 --> 01:25:23.455 - This report is showing 70 It's all records that we have this goes back want to say it's five years We 01:25:23.455 --> 01:25:31.817 - have 70 fatalities 1.1 thousand serious injuries. Okay, I would like to ask mr. Ullmeyer if he knows 01:25:31.817 --> 01:25:40.096 - Can you give us the comparable number of people who've been killed in fires in the past one to five 01:25:40.096 --> 01:25:44.318 - years? Have anybody has anybody been killed? Do we 01:25:46.946 --> 01:25:53.271 - Okay. Mr. Uh, Meyer says that he there have been people killed, but he can't give us a number. Um, my 01:25:53.271 --> 01:25:59.596 - understanding has always been that, uh, uh, something like 40,000 people are killed every year in the 01:25:59.596 --> 01:26:05.797 - States, uh, uh, in car accidents and the number of people killed by our fire departments is so good 01:26:05.797 --> 01:26:12.246 - that significantly fewer people than that are killed every year. Um, sir, please, that that's what I'm, 01:26:12.246 --> 01:26:13.982 - that's what I'm getting at. 01:26:17.122 --> 01:26:24.272 - was specifically talking about fires Those accidents you're talking about It's still respond us police 01:26:24.272 --> 01:26:31.352 - officers and emergency Medical services responding to those and all those they're still going to slow 01:26:31.352 --> 01:26:38.571 - our response down to those issues Well, I should have made that clear. I wasn't just talking about fire 01:26:38.571 --> 01:26:45.790 - That's understandable us down. So any any of those things are going to slow us down to any emergency or 01:26:46.050 --> 01:26:52.796 - We're responding to you. No, no, that's totally understandable. And again, I admire the efficiency with 01:26:52.796 --> 01:26:59.283 - which fire departments like ours have gotten You know better at responding to accidents, but what I 01:26:59.283 --> 01:27:05.769 - kind of I'm observing they don't build your church for Easter Sunday rule I don't want to build our 01:27:05.769 --> 01:27:09.726 - roads for a fire alarm fire When the broad widening the road 01:27:10.242 --> 01:27:16.654 - Increases the number of people who speed and more people die from car wrecks than fires So that's my 01:27:16.654 --> 01:27:23.383 - concern is as much as I don't want to slow down Your truck response. I would like to know Like how slowly 01:27:23.383 --> 01:27:29.922 - though your trucks have to go over the speed table since this is going to be the first time that We're 01:27:29.922 --> 01:27:36.334 - using speed tables on the regular Here because I I take your concern. I just don't want to throw the 01:27:36.334 --> 01:27:38.366 - baby out with the bath water. I 01:27:39.106 --> 01:27:45.995 - Again, I would say that our response is just not our response is that accident that you're talking about 01:27:45.995 --> 01:27:52.687 - So we're going to be slowed down to that accident that you're talking about as well. So it's not just 01:27:52.687 --> 01:27:59.642 - fires It's any emergency. It's a grandma having a heart attack. It's you know, it's the police responding 01:27:59.642 --> 01:28:06.334 - to something You know, it's EMS responding to things all those things are are concerned. So it's just 01:28:06.334 --> 01:28:08.958 - not fires It's so understood. Thank you 01:28:10.370 --> 01:28:18.530 - Any other questions before we go to or or comments where we go to a vote any comments to my left? to 01:28:18.530 --> 01:28:26.771 - my right Mr. Midas So I believe the number I was quoted as 30 seconds per Cushion is this time taken? 01:28:26.771 --> 01:28:34.285 - Can you speak to that at all? Is that what your estimations were when if you like look at it 01:28:34.285 --> 01:28:37.598 - an infrastructure development like this? 01:28:38.370 --> 01:28:45.088 - So that was a number that we got from Cincinnati when we talked to them about other quick build responses. 01:28:45.088 --> 01:28:51.366 - That's not something that the fire department necessarily like accurately recorded. That was like a 01:28:51.366 --> 01:28:57.770 - ballpark number. That was just like the easiest thing that we could share. We got other data from San 01:28:57.770 --> 01:29:04.111 - Francisco and Portland, but those were kind of on two ends of the spectrum. So it was hard to really 01:29:04.111 --> 01:29:08.318 - say what was really the truth. And then also for David, so this is 01:29:09.090 --> 01:29:14.894 - This is like a neighborhood greenway. Um, that's the nature of these grants and developments. 01:29:14.894 --> 01:29:21.378 - Is there a look, I assume that like as much traffic calming as we would benefit from all over the place, 01:29:21.378 --> 01:29:27.553 - these are on lower traffic roads that are lower priority for emergency response vehicles. Is that a 01:29:27.553 --> 01:29:33.851 - correct assumption or do you, could you really do a traffic calming infrastructure thing like this in 01:29:33.851 --> 01:29:35.518 - on any street in the city? 01:29:37.570 --> 01:29:46.530 - It is definitely not intended This program is not intended to be used on just any street in the city. 01:29:46.530 --> 01:29:55.313 - So this is for shared street a a Residential neighborhood road and then a neighborhood connector is 01:29:55.313 --> 01:30:04.185 - where we're taking extra care sending it to more departments having more coordination with emergency 01:30:04.185 --> 01:30:05.854 - emergency services 01:30:06.594 --> 01:30:17.297 - Think what makes this different is So it's the I had it written somewhere here so The neighborhood connector 01:30:17.297 --> 01:30:27.607 - is its typology I believe but its classification is a secondary arterial and so that means it's designed 01:30:27.607 --> 01:30:35.070 - to hair to See more average daily traffic and it is a bigger connection for 01:30:35.202 --> 01:30:44.552 - vehicles, so This would be the street that has the most volume of any of the other traffic calming projects 01:30:44.552 --> 01:30:53.469 - We've done but it also has a much less aggressive treatment for it So whatever traffic calming devices 01:30:53.469 --> 01:31:01.694 - we've put on previous Residential neighborhood streets those those would cause more of a delay 01:31:01.794 --> 01:31:09.416 - But they're also less likely to be a connection to some other neighborhood So it is less likely that 01:31:09.416 --> 01:31:17.113 - you're taking that route to get to yet another neighborhood street So this is where it's a bit unique 01:31:17.113 --> 01:31:25.037 - but not too terribly far off from like West 11th Street, for example I'll just make a comment as someone 01:31:25.037 --> 01:31:31.678 - who lived in the neighborhood for a number of years I can absolutely guarantee that the 01:31:32.002 --> 01:31:38.786 - I can say that I've experienced the inability of traffic or the frequency of traffic, not slowing down, 01:31:38.786 --> 01:31:45.570 - especially at this roundabout. I think this, the speed cushion specifically at the roundabout look very 01:31:45.570 --> 01:31:52.485 - strange. Um, but if you are coming, especially on the eastbound lane, trying to see out of your periphery 01:31:52.485 --> 01:31:58.878 - when you're basically pedestrians are coming from a 180 degree behind you angle, um, it's useful. 01:32:02.722 --> 01:32:09.839 - Further questions or comments. I actually have a question for the bus lady Are the buses as big as the 01:32:09.839 --> 01:32:16.128 - fire trucks and do the buses have a concern about going over these tables? No We go over a 01:32:16.128 --> 01:32:23.038 - lot of neighborhood streets that have speed cushions and speed humps our vehicles have to slow down 01:32:23.038 --> 01:32:30.846 - That's great for us and they don't have anywhere as near the need of the fire truck to go quickly. No, we know I 01:32:30.978 --> 01:32:46.689 - We're not responding to a fire alarm fire ever. So, okay last call before we go to a vote Will the secretary 01:32:46.689 --> 01:33:00.670 - please call the roll on TCP 2620 Davis Yes, Stossberg yes Coppock No, mr. Midas, yes full in yes 01:33:03.138 --> 01:33:14.755 - That vote is four to one. And I believe according to our bylaws, that means it does not pass. It requires 01:33:14.755 --> 01:33:26.263 - five votes of the nine member commission. So TCP 2620 is rejected. We go now to TCR 2619. And with this, 01:33:26.263 --> 01:33:32.510 - I'm going to pass the gavel to Mr. Sosberg since this is 01:33:32.962 --> 01:33:45.064 - Resolution that I'm sponsoring Yes, and if I can get Well, I don't know if there's a slide that staff 01:33:45.064 --> 01:33:56.928 - wants to put up I didn't really intend to put it up No, no, it was just what I submitted before but 01:33:56.928 --> 01:34:00.606 - I don't think we need it, okay 01:34:01.090 --> 01:34:09.274 - So I was just going to let me get my notes up here Also have the endorsed the tracker spreadsheet right 01:34:09.274 --> 01:34:17.222 - that might be useful to put up on the screen, although it's hard to read Yes It so I wasn't intended 01:34:17.222 --> 01:34:25.091 - for this to be facilitated over the screen So I did print out and everyone should have a paper copy 01:34:25.091 --> 01:34:30.206 - of this specific tracker just to try to keep everything straight 01:34:33.154 --> 01:34:41.429 - Okay, just to put everything into context, this resolution was part of another resolution in the July 01:34:41.429 --> 01:34:49.703 - meeting. It calls for the commission to review and accept the Walker study and to vote on each of its 01:34:49.703 --> 01:34:57.897 - recommendations and send its endorsements to the Common Council. So as I've noted in the memo, it is 01:34:57.897 --> 01:35:00.574 - our job to oversee such studies. 01:35:00.770 --> 01:35:08.781 - The study was not brought to I mean while the commission was consulted as a part of the commission's 01:35:08.781 --> 01:35:16.793 - process. It was not Neither the this commission or its predecessor had any involvement in the Hiring 01:35:16.793 --> 01:35:23.614 - of the contractor or the shaping of the questions. It came out of parking services. I 01:35:24.386 --> 01:35:33.427 - But it is our job to quote coordinate supervise and when necessary approve transportation related studies 01:35:33.427 --> 01:35:41.956 - plans consultant reports activities programs and projects So Walker submitted the draft in July The 01:35:41.956 --> 01:35:50.911 - they had made 12 recommendations This Commission has not actually weighed in on them. So what I'm asking 01:35:50.911 --> 01:35:53.470 - for is for every member to to 01:35:53.890 --> 01:36:01.431 - endorse or reject each recommendation accordingly. And so what I'm going to do is I'd like 01:36:01.431 --> 01:36:09.801 - to move endorsement of each recommendation. We're going to do it all under one resolution, but we're 01:36:09.801 --> 01:36:18.750 - going to vote on each recommendation separately. So I'll be asking the acting chair to call for discussion, 01:36:18.750 --> 01:36:21.982 - public comment and a vote on each one. 01:36:22.242 --> 01:36:29.964 - And with that I was going to start with the first recommendation Okay So Again, I move endorsement of 01:36:29.964 --> 01:36:37.989 - study recommendation number. Oh one a lack of a majority vote for the recommendation means the Commission 01:36:37.989 --> 01:36:45.787 - rejects it The indoor the recommendation is transfer all citation appeals duties from the city clerk's 01:36:45.787 --> 01:36:49.118 - office to the parking services division and 01:36:51.266 --> 01:37:03.334 - So I personally think that this is a mistake. In reading the, I oppose this recommendation. In reading 01:37:03.334 --> 01:37:16.222 - the reasoning for it, the consultants say that to increase the efficiency and clarity of the appeals process, 01:37:16.418 --> 01:37:21.706 - They recommend all citation appeals duties be transferred from the city clerk's office to the parking 01:37:21.706 --> 01:37:26.941 - services division. Parking services will gain increased oversight and control of the appeals process 01:37:26.941 --> 01:37:32.488 - and persons with violations will have a more clear process for filing an appeal. Any required adjudication 01:37:32.488 --> 01:37:37.206 - beyond the appeals process would then be escalated to the court system. So my problem with 01:37:37.206 --> 01:37:42.390 - this recommendation is that number one, we don't have a court system. Effectively, the court system 01:37:42.390 --> 01:37:43.582 - is the clerk's office. 01:37:44.354 --> 01:37:52.988 - but there's no formal court system and I think the consultants misunderstood that. Secondly, the reason 01:37:52.988 --> 01:38:01.621 - they gave in their observations for this recommendation were that it improves customer service and that 01:38:01.621 --> 01:38:10.006 - there's a need for the two offices to communicate. And I just don't think that that is anywhere near 01:38:10.006 --> 01:38:11.998 - enough justification to 01:38:12.162 --> 01:38:19.826 - To unify. I mean our job is not per se to improve the customer service of parking we want to have the 01:38:19.826 --> 01:38:27.715 - best thing we can but You know, there's also a question of to what extent Like how does parking services 01:38:27.715 --> 01:38:35.679 - handle appeals versus the clerk's office the clerk is at least a neutral body so Whereas parking services 01:38:35.679 --> 01:38:40.638 - has stated that their goal is customer service if that means that 01:38:41.058 --> 01:38:48.181 - more people get their tickets waived or voided, and are we even tracking those numbers? I think we are, 01:38:48.181 --> 01:38:55.029 - and I think the city collectively is, I don't think the commission has done so yet. We don't have a 01:38:55.029 --> 01:39:02.426 - proper annual report yet. And so for these reasons and others, I think that this recommendation is actually 01:39:02.426 --> 01:39:09.822 - not one the commission should endorse. So that's my opinion. I'm looking for discussion from other members. 01:39:10.306 --> 01:39:22.480 - Recommendation is now open for discussion that The Council for Community Accessibility was supposed 01:39:22.480 --> 01:39:35.263 - to receive the parking fines from people who park illegally in handicapped spaces and One of the reasons 01:39:35.263 --> 01:39:40.254 - given for us not receiving that money is 01:39:40.674 --> 01:39:50.917 - is because so many of those tickets are dismissed. So I don't if in fact there is a chance that more 01:39:50.917 --> 01:40:00.349 - tickets will be dismissed if everything gets transferred to parking services which it could. 01:40:00.349 --> 01:40:07.550 - I don't know. I would not be in favor of that. Thank you. To my right. 01:40:10.722 --> 01:40:17.924 - Yeah, I am aligned with Mr. Voland. I think it's a useful separation of powers for to be able to appeal 01:40:17.924 --> 01:40:25.195 - to a different body than the one that issued the ticket. So I will be voting in alignment at this point. 01:40:25.195 --> 01:40:32.397 - Is there any further comments from commissioners? We're going to take public comment for each of these. 01:40:32.397 --> 01:40:35.998 - Is there anyone from council chambers who'd like to 01:40:40.802 --> 01:40:50.309 - Please come to the mic. You'll have sign in you'll have three minutes And if you're online go ahead 01:40:50.309 --> 01:41:00.102 - and raise your hand we'll look for you soon I'm Susan stole. I'm a deputy clerk for the clerk's office 01:41:00.102 --> 01:41:10.750 - I'm probably I've been with the department for six years and I'm probably the person that is most involved with 01:41:11.202 --> 01:41:18.636 - adjudication but I do believe our office does a really efficient job with Taking care of all those and 01:41:18.636 --> 01:41:25.999 - giving good customer service and explaining and I think the separations of power is something that we 01:41:25.999 --> 01:41:33.289 - Definitely promote. So I don't know if you want to ask me any questions at all about what our office 01:41:33.289 --> 01:41:35.454 - does, but you're welcome to I 01:41:48.834 --> 01:41:57.173 - Thank you. Okay, you're welcome. Thank you Moving to ask people on anyone online Seeing no we'll move 01:41:57.173 --> 01:42:05.512 - on to the next item. So actually no at this point we vote you wanted a vote on each item I would like 01:42:05.512 --> 01:42:13.933 - a chance to say something in response to what I've heard just briefly that I think that the Commission 01:42:13.933 --> 01:42:17.694 - should be tracking things like how many voids 01:42:17.922 --> 01:42:25.492 - are done in a given year, how many tickets, I mean, that are appealed or dismissed. I know that the 01:42:25.492 --> 01:42:33.290 - clerk's office is capable of drawing those numbers up, but not every number is in the clerk's control. 01:42:33.290 --> 01:42:40.936 - And so I don't think that they've given enough reason yet to change the way we're doing things, even 01:42:40.936 --> 01:42:46.462 - though I get the motive for it. I think we should move carefully and not 01:42:46.722 --> 01:42:56.815 - endorse this recommendation So now we will move on to a vote our vote is to support Mr. Voland's 01:42:56.815 --> 01:43:07.844 - recommendation, which is a no on the recommendation that Would you like to I just I think that the motion 01:43:07.844 --> 01:43:13.150 - should be I'm sorry. I need to pull it up here and 01:43:16.450 --> 01:43:24.645 - Moving I moved endorsement of study recommendation number zero one. So a yes vote agrees the recommendation 01:43:24.645 --> 01:43:32.688 - a no vote rejects the recommendation so When I make a motion for every one of these it will be to endorse 01:43:32.688 --> 01:43:40.504 - it whether I agree with it or not Okay, so I'm moving endorsement of recommendation. Oh one a Yes vote 01:43:40.504 --> 01:43:44.222 - supports the recommendation a no vote rejects it 01:43:44.578 --> 01:43:51.238 - So a no vote agrees with you in this case, that's correct No vote agrees with Commissioner Voland's 01:43:51.238 --> 01:43:58.031 - initial recommendation so we don't need to attend to what Commissioner Voland's recommendations where 01:43:58.031 --> 01:44:04.757 - we can think about the recommendations from the Walker study face value whether or not an individual 01:44:04.757 --> 01:44:11.483 - Endorses that recommendation or does not endorse that exactly right and we're going to structure all 01:44:11.483 --> 01:44:14.014 - those the same the same way Thank you 01:44:15.586 --> 01:44:25.795 - Thank you. That's a easier way to do this. I think so. OK. So the motion is to endorse the recommendation 01:44:25.795 --> 01:44:35.427 - to transfer all citation appeals duties from a city clerk's office to the parking services division 01:44:35.427 --> 01:44:43.806 - and we'll have a roll call vote on this. No. At this point we do not need seconds. No. 01:44:46.082 --> 01:44:58.176 - Copic no, mr. Midas. No Bowen no Davis no Okay motion fails I move endorsement of study recommendation 01:44:58.176 --> 01:45:10.974 - number zero Number oh to a lack of majority vote for the recommendation means the Commission rejects it this 01:45:11.170 --> 01:45:18.658 - Recommendation was to develop a parking system and parking services division mission statement that 01:45:18.658 --> 01:45:26.147 - is supported across city departments. I Think this is a good idea But I don't know that I should be 01:45:26.147 --> 01:45:33.635 - presenting it I think we should you know, just talk about it, but I do think this is a good idea It 01:45:33.635 --> 01:45:39.326 - doesn't hurt for there to be a mission statement. I do question who will be 01:45:39.778 --> 01:45:47.211 - Creating the parking system and the parking services division mission statements whether there'll be 01:45:47.211 --> 01:45:54.717 - one or two but on its face, this is a reasonable thing with there should be something consistent that 01:45:54.717 --> 01:46:02.149 - employees involved with parking follow in the effort to make parking More useful and equitable Thank 01:46:02.149 --> 01:46:07.742 - you We'll move to discussion from commission members will start on my right 01:46:09.730 --> 01:46:20.253 - on my left. All right, we'll take public comment on this. Anyone in council chambers would like to comment 01:46:20.253 --> 01:46:30.678 - on recommendation number two, parking mission statement that is supported across city departments. Seeing 01:46:30.678 --> 01:46:39.038 - none online, I think our online person is out of the room. That's okay. Brief pause. 01:46:41.762 --> 01:46:52.728 - No one no one online. All right. We'll come back to a vote unless there's any other discussion seeing 01:46:52.728 --> 01:47:03.586 - none. The motion is to develop a parking system and parking services division mission statement that 01:47:03.586 --> 01:47:11.326 - is supported across city departments. We'll have a roll call vote. Yes. 01:47:11.586 --> 01:47:20.227 - Yes Yes Yes Yes Motion carries. Thank you moving on to the next item. I move Recommendation 01:47:20.227 --> 01:47:29.902 - I move endorsement of study recommendation number Oh three I'll just read it now. So this is the third 01:47:29.902 --> 01:47:39.295 - there there were the twelve recommendations divided into four categories the first three are all in 01:47:39.295 --> 01:47:40.798 - the category of 01:47:40.898 --> 01:47:49.443 - Organization this third one adopts a data-driven approach to parking operations and management with 01:47:49.443 --> 01:47:58.329 - recurring transparency of key performance indicators so the The report talks about The parking revenues 01:47:58.329 --> 01:48:07.557 - not being transparently linked to the parking system or city improvements or mobility goals or reinvestment 01:48:07.557 --> 01:48:09.950 - plans There's been You know 01:48:10.146 --> 01:48:18.951 - in other words, no science behind the way that we manage parking. It's just sort of, uh, by our gut. 01:48:18.951 --> 01:48:28.017 - And, uh, uh, it was the parking commissions observation as far back as 2016, uh, 2017 when they started 01:48:28.017 --> 01:48:36.995 - rather that, uh, the, the commission needed to look at parking as a holistic system made up of a bunch 01:48:36.995 --> 01:48:39.262 - of programs that garages, 01:48:39.746 --> 01:48:49.984 - meters lots neighborhood zones and citations were all part of a single Parking service provided by the 01:48:49.984 --> 01:49:00.122 - city And that there was no there had been no one person or department in charge of it all For several 01:49:00.122 --> 01:49:08.670 - good reasons and that somebody needed to study it across departments so You know this 01:49:08.834 --> 01:49:15.917 - This is a pretty anodyne recommendation. I think that it's important though that we get our reports 01:49:15.917 --> 01:49:22.433 - done so that the things they call for, parking occupancy rates, maintenance response times, 01:49:22.433 --> 01:49:29.586 - revenue per space, revenue allocation, compliance rates are something that the members of the public 01:49:29.586 --> 01:49:33.694 - can easily call up. So for those reasons, I endorse this. 01:49:33.794 --> 01:49:42.458 - And it just sort of underscores the need for the Commission to complete the work It's called for in 01:49:42.458 --> 01:49:51.642 - it in the ordinance to do an annual report of parking data Thank you Thank you Discussion from commission 01:49:51.642 --> 01:50:00.653 - members to my left To my right No, I think this is consistent with other things the city has been doing 01:50:00.653 --> 01:50:03.166 - to move for more data-driven 01:50:03.490 --> 01:50:13.555 - decision-making, and I think it's overall good for equity, and so I will be endorsing this. Is there 01:50:13.555 --> 01:50:23.719 - any further discussion? Oh, awesome. Right. Any public comment? In chambers? Online? Seeing none. Any 01:50:23.719 --> 01:50:33.086 - further discussion here? No. All right. The motion is to endorse recommendation number three. 01:50:33.186 --> 01:50:45.629 - Adopt a data-driven approach to parking operations and management with recurrent transparency of key 01:50:45.629 --> 01:50:58.441 - performance indicators roll call vote, please Terminus yes Boland. Yes Davis. Yes Stossberg. Yes Copic. 01:50:58.441 --> 01:51:02.014 - Yes Motion passes. Thank you 01:51:02.914 --> 01:51:11.695 - Mr. Chair, I move endorsement of recommendation p1 This Is the second tranche of recommendations all 01:51:11.695 --> 01:51:20.736 - about policy and the recommendation is quote implement on-street metered parking rate changes Utilizing 01:51:20.736 --> 01:51:28.734 - a zone based system considering high demand and lower demand areas the consultants say that 01:51:29.154 --> 01:51:36.256 - They recommend that parking rates in the high demand zone defined as metered areas north of third and 01:51:36.256 --> 01:51:43.706 - south of Seventh Street be increased to $1.50 an hour. Low demand zone south of third and north of seventh 01:51:43.706 --> 01:51:50.878 - can be set at a minimum of 125 an hour. And they go on to talk about the idea of zone pricing. But the 01:51:50.878 --> 01:51:57.214 - recommendation does not specifically say what prices should be set at. I think this is the 01:51:57.698 --> 01:52:04.198 - policy that we should, or this is the recommendation we should most strongly endorse in the exact wording, 01:52:04.198 --> 01:52:10.394 - implement on-street meter parking rate changes utilizing a zone-based system, considering high-demand 01:52:10.394 --> 01:52:16.772 - and lower-demand areas. That's fine. What the prices should be is another question. It's my very fervent 01:52:16.772 --> 01:52:22.846 - belief that there are some zones that are so underutilized that the price should go below a dollar, 01:52:22.846 --> 01:52:26.430 - that we haven't experimented with variable pricing at all. 01:52:27.042 --> 01:52:35.410 - and that if we have to test a 25 cents an hour on a very obscure block for a semester or a year, it 01:52:35.410 --> 01:52:44.364 - will be worth it. But at any rate, at least going away from one price for the entire zone is long overdue. 01:52:44.364 --> 01:52:53.150 - In fact, it's more than a decade overdue. We should have done this a long time ago. I'm glad to see that 01:52:53.346 --> 01:53:01.137 - Walker endorses this I think it's going to be up to us to decide how many zones there are how many prices 01:53:01.137 --> 01:53:08.635 - there are But just the idea that we would go to two or more Prices is an idea whose time has come. So 01:53:08.635 --> 01:53:15.838 - I endorse p1 Thank you, sir discussion from commission members on recommendation p1 miss Davis. I 01:53:18.466 --> 01:53:28.543 - I don't feel that this should apply to disabled parking spaces because those of us who need them don't 01:53:28.543 --> 01:53:38.717 - have much choice in where we park or Even if we could park farther away that might be further disabling 01:53:38.717 --> 01:53:47.326 - so if we could do a carve out and have a you know a standard rate or the Whatever it is 01:53:48.258 --> 01:53:59.379 - 25 cent rate That would be if we can do that then I would agree with this Oh This is something that 01:53:59.379 --> 01:54:10.945 - the parking commission talked about quite a bit the biggest issue isn't do we want to carve out special 01:54:10.945 --> 01:54:18.174 - Audiences we also talked about a special rate for volunteers and 01:54:18.402 --> 01:54:25.121 - volunteering downtown and the like. There are things we can do with ParkMobile to affect that. The big 01:54:25.121 --> 01:54:31.645 - problem is gonna be in enforcement. How do you prevent, I mean, the lower you drop the price in the 01:54:31.645 --> 01:54:38.495 - disabled spots, the more you incentivize people who don't wanna pay the full rate next door. So we wanna 01:54:38.495 --> 01:54:45.018 - make sure that as a result of lowering the price, we don't actually cause the spaces to become less 01:54:45.018 --> 01:54:46.910 - available. Having said that, 01:54:47.074 --> 01:54:54.359 - I don't have a problem with that idea personally. It really matters how we implement it. But I don't 01:54:54.359 --> 01:55:01.644 - think it should, I mean, if we're talking about making disabled spaces a zone, that's an interesting 01:55:01.644 --> 01:55:08.929 - idea. But right now we're just talking about geography. And one thing I've noticed is that there was 01:55:08.929 --> 01:55:16.574 - a, we received data through Council Member Flaherty from, what's the name of the, Arrive, the consultant. 01:55:16.674 --> 01:55:24.694 - that pointed out that Disabled spaces represent almost 6% of downtown parking spaces, which is a much 01:55:24.694 --> 01:55:32.872 - higher number than I'd ever hoped for I I've done the impression that 4% was doing great so I just want 01:55:32.872 --> 01:55:40.735 - to make sure that those spaces are actually available and I want you know, so I Share your concern. 01:55:40.735 --> 01:55:45.374 - I Don't I think we can accommodate it and still change the 01:55:45.538 --> 01:55:59.390 - prices at least two different zones. Thank you. We'll now move to public comment on recommendation P1 01:55:59.390 --> 01:56:09.982 - in chambers online. Back to the commission for final comments. No. All right. 01:56:10.306 --> 01:56:21.807 - Move it take it to a roll call vote on recommendation p1 implement on-street metered parking rate changes 01:56:21.807 --> 01:56:32.657 - Utilizing a zone based system considering high demand and lower demand areas Yes Yes, yes Yes Thank 01:56:32.657 --> 01:56:34.718 - you motion carries 01:56:35.074 --> 01:56:41.426 - Moving on to recommendation P2. I move recommendation P2 which reads implement off-street parking rate 01:56:41.426 --> 01:56:47.778 - changes So the consultants say here they recommend increasing surface lot parking rates using the same 01:56:47.778 --> 01:56:54.131 - demand based on street parking zones Lot one lot three and lot five are located within the high demand 01:56:54.131 --> 01:57:00.298 - zone. They recommend to set that price at a dollar fifty an hour Lot six is a low demand zone. They 01:57:00.298 --> 01:57:03.998 - recommend raising the price to a dollar twenty five an hour 01:57:04.482 --> 01:57:11.296 - Garage transient rates are recommended to increase from 50 cents to one dollar an hour. Once again, 01:57:11.296 --> 01:57:18.315 - I agree with the recommendation I believe though that And and I'm less Concerned about the pricing for 01:57:18.315 --> 01:57:25.402 - garages. I know that a Fundamental principle the Parking Service is trying to observe is that it should 01:57:25.402 --> 01:57:31.262 - be less expensive to park in the garage than on the street which is the more valuable 01:57:31.650 --> 01:57:38.937 - Parking having said that I think this is very much dependent on what rates we go to for the meter rate 01:57:38.937 --> 01:57:46.082 - sets all other rates So I wouldn't necessarily endorse The exact amount but again the recommendation 01:57:46.082 --> 01:57:53.793 - just says Implement off-street parking rate changes. I do think that most rates need to go up but especially 01:57:53.793 --> 01:58:01.150 - especially considering the 4th Street garage and the impending opening of the new convention center and 01:58:01.346 --> 01:58:09.830 - That's going to make a big difference in demand for parking in 4th Street, and it will be good to have 01:58:09.830 --> 01:58:18.890 - rates more appropriate to demand by next February. Thank you. Thank you. Moving to discussion from commission 01:58:18.890 --> 01:58:27.374 - members, starting on my left, on my right. Seeing none, we'll move to public comment. Any in chambers? 01:58:27.374 --> 01:58:30.174 - Seeing none. Online? Seeing none. 01:58:30.562 --> 01:58:43.077 - Back to All right. We'll just move this to a roll call vote. It's recommendation P to implement off-street 01:58:43.077 --> 01:58:54.773 - parking rate changes Yes Stasberg, yes Copic. Yes, mr. Minus. Yes Boland. Yes Motion carries. Thank 01:58:54.773 --> 01:58:58.750 - you moving on to recommendation P 01:58:58.882 --> 01:59:05.918 - I move recommendation p3 which reads quote reduce on-street paid parking enforcement hours unquote the 01:59:05.918 --> 01:59:12.817 - reason that the consultants gave for it is Based on peer review and comments from stakeholders. They 01:59:12.817 --> 01:59:19.784 - identified enforcement hours as an opportunity for adjustment Current enforcement hours end at 9 p.m. 01:59:19.784 --> 01:59:26.751 - And are considerably later than those of pure cities I perhaps disagree with this recommendation more 01:59:26.751 --> 01:59:28.254 - than anything else in 01:59:28.674 --> 01:59:37.351 - the set the original set of the original our set for downtown meter enforcement was 8 a.m. To 10 p.m. 01:59:37.351 --> 01:59:45.858 - And we've seen data over the years that show that demand for parking is as strong in the evening if 01:59:45.858 --> 01:59:53.854 - not stronger than it is during peak demand during the day and that the fact that people don't 01:59:54.146 --> 02:00:01.171 - necessarily like to pay parking that late doesn't mean that when you're on the square or Kirkwood at 02:00:01.171 --> 02:00:08.335 - nine o'clock at night or ten o'clock at night on a Sunday that you're not still seeing a Complete lack 02:00:08.335 --> 02:00:15.429 - of available parking spaces because the demand is so high combined with the fact that Effectively the 02:00:15.429 --> 02:00:22.384 - dollar an hour rate that was set in 2013 has dwindled to the equivalent of 75 cents an hour in 2013 02:00:22.384 --> 02:00:23.358 - dollars today 02:00:23.650 --> 02:00:30.824 - I don't think we have anywhere near enough data to show that this is a problem We should be pricing 02:00:30.824 --> 02:00:38.786 - parking according to the demand. There's a great deal of demand in many zones for For for parking after 9 p.m. 02:00:38.786 --> 02:00:46.103 - And we're only going to 9 p.m. So I really couldn't disagree with this more I don't think we have the 02:00:46.103 --> 02:00:52.990 - data to and I definitely disagree with the idea that peer review and comments from stakeholders 02:00:53.282 --> 02:01:02.364 - I think that pricing should meet it should be set according to the demand for a given place if we're 02:01:02.364 --> 02:01:11.715 - in more demand than say Iowa City or Jefferson City, Missouri then so be it That's that's what it costs 02:01:11.715 --> 02:01:21.246 - to park in Bloomington Thank you moving to discussion from commission members on recommendation p3 Walker 02:01:21.378 --> 02:01:28.181 - To stop enforcement at 8 p.m. Instead of 9 p.m. Is that the specific reduction? They don't say that 02:01:28.181 --> 02:01:35.120 - in the recommendation. They say that in there Well, I mean I guess they do the the thing we're voting 02:01:35.120 --> 02:01:42.127 - on is reduced on street paid parking enforcement hours They recommend going cutting back to 8 p.m I'll 02:01:42.127 --> 02:01:49.065 - just say I very much agree with their recommendation. I think the city of Bloomington our enforcement 02:01:49.065 --> 02:01:50.494 - between 8 and 9 p.m. 02:01:51.490 --> 02:01:58.814 - I don't want to say I want more enforcement but I think it's it's lacking. I think having an earlier 02:01:58.814 --> 02:02:06.211 - time where enforcement is cut off encourages people to go to restaurants and downtown businesses more 02:02:06.211 --> 02:02:13.898 - and specifically potentially attract people who are spreads out the business goers into the later evening 02:02:13.898 --> 02:02:18.974 - hours which I think some restaurants would appreciate. I also kind of 02:02:19.074 --> 02:02:24.771 - see it as a little bit of a safety issue. I do think I mean I understand that you want to price things 02:02:24.771 --> 02:02:30.302 - according to demand but specifically in the late night hours putting a higher priority on on street 02:02:30.302 --> 02:02:35.832 - parking when that is often the only place that people feel like safe walking to and from businesses 02:02:35.832 --> 02:02:41.363 - feels important to me. I'll likely be voting in support of their recommendation and not necessarily 02:02:41.363 --> 02:02:46.894 - for those reasons. I agree that ours doesn't need to. We don't need to mirror every other city just 02:02:46.894 --> 02:02:48.830 - because that's what they're doing. 02:02:52.514 --> 02:03:00.344 - Thank you. Mr. Villalon, for the benefit of people who are not less familiar with how this parking theory, 02:03:00.344 --> 02:03:07.882 - the idea is if you price it appropriately, you're targeting a particular occupancy rate, like 80%, for 02:03:07.882 --> 02:03:15.346 - example. So by actually raising the price, you can provide better customer service in a sense because 02:03:15.346 --> 02:03:20.542 - there's likely to be a spot available because you're at 80% occupancy. 02:03:20.674 --> 02:03:26.793 - And if you price it too low, you're at 100% occupancy, which could actually be more frustrating. Is 02:03:26.793 --> 02:03:33.096 - that did I? Capture that right? Yeah, I mean the my counter to mr. Midas would be If anything, I think 02:03:33.096 --> 02:03:39.461 - pricing it right would make it safer because there's a greater guarantee that a space will be available 02:03:39.461 --> 02:03:45.702 - when people need it I I love telling the story of January 2013 when I was driving to City Hall at 720 02:03:45.702 --> 02:03:49.374 - on a Tuesday night it happened I remember it because it was 02:03:49.474 --> 02:03:55.787 - Mike Pence's first state of the state address and I was going to a meeting at 730 and I had 10 minutes 02:03:55.787 --> 02:04:02.222 - to kill and I noticed that the square was packed on a Tuesday night at 720 and I drove around the square 02:04:02.222 --> 02:04:08.473 - looking for parking spaces and in six circuits of the square I counted three spaces max available out 02:04:08.473 --> 02:04:12.702 - of 130 that was before meters were implemented in August of 2013 and 02:04:12.994 --> 02:04:20.044 - But there were never more than three spaces out of 130 spaces on the square available That's a sign 02:04:20.044 --> 02:04:27.516 - that the square was underpriced at that time. There was no almost no way to find parking without Cruising 02:04:27.516 --> 02:04:34.989 - for parking which is the kind of thing that Donald Shoup talks about being inimical to a city. It creates 02:04:34.989 --> 02:04:42.039 - traffic. It creates frustration It does not increase business the whole reason we have meters is to 02:04:42.039 --> 02:04:42.814 - Is to help 02:04:43.234 --> 02:04:51.110 - commercial and government and people get to services and so if people who Don't need to be parking there 02:04:51.110 --> 02:04:58.610 - are staying there because they can afford it or it doesn't cost anything Then that keeps the person 02:04:58.610 --> 02:05:06.111 - who's looking for a spot close to their business away from it. So I Also don't think that 8 p.m. Is 02:05:06.111 --> 02:05:13.086 - late Or even 9 p.m. Is late. There are some places that charge till much later than that and 02:05:13.506 --> 02:05:20.459 - but For our peer cities, perhaps we are later than most but there's a good reason. Bloomington is a 02:05:20.459 --> 02:05:27.482 - popular downtown. So once again, I I respectfully disagree. I think that This is a bad idea at least 02:05:27.482 --> 02:05:34.644 - not until we get better data about what's happening in that last hour of parking Thank you any further 02:05:34.644 --> 02:05:42.014 - Commission comments before we go to public We'll now move to public comment is there anyone who'd like to 02:05:42.690 --> 02:05:52.268 - Comment on recommendation P P three reduce on street paid parking enforcement hours. Seeing none. We're 02:05:52.268 --> 02:06:01.663 - asking online. I'm seeing that there's not online. Last chance for commission comments. We'll take it 02:06:01.663 --> 02:06:10.873 - to a roll call vote then on recommendation P three reduce on street paid parking enforcement hours. 02:06:10.873 --> 02:06:12.254 - No. Copic. No. 02:06:13.218 --> 02:06:26.796 - Yes, no Davis No Okay motion fails, thank you. Mr. Chair. I move that recommendation ot1 be endorsed 02:06:26.796 --> 02:06:40.509 - It reads quote transition to multi-space on-street meter pay stations operated using pay-by-plate the 02:06:40.509 --> 02:06:42.526 - the study says 02:06:42.882 --> 02:06:48.701 - They can recommend replacing the existing single space meters with new multi-space meters that allow 02:06:48.701 --> 02:06:54.866 - users to enter their license plate. Replacement is recommended to avoid the increased downtime and ongoing 02:06:54.866 --> 02:07:00.974 - maintenance and support costs that occur with technology at end of life. I could go on, but I can confirm 02:07:00.974 --> 02:07:06.851 - that when the meters were purchased in 2014, they were used and they were purchased because they were 02:07:06.851 --> 02:07:12.094 - about half a million dollars less than the 1.5 million it would have cost the city for new 02:07:12.322 --> 02:07:21.480 - meters and we paid the price for that there was a lot of of of Maintenance required to keep those meters 02:07:21.480 --> 02:07:30.377 - running parking services done a heroic job of keeping them going but there are More efficient ways to 02:07:30.377 --> 02:07:39.710 - provide parking that that even though they don't provide that visual cue of a meter in front of every spot 02:07:40.354 --> 02:07:48.142 - that the city would benefit a great deal from new technology. There was also, we should point out that 02:07:48.142 --> 02:07:56.006 - ParkMobile was adopted at the same time as meters, but it would have cost a significant amount of money 02:07:56.006 --> 02:08:03.642 - then to make the meters react to somebody who paid via ParkMobile, and so the city decided not to do 02:08:03.642 --> 02:08:09.918 - it. I didn't blame the city for it. I do hope that new technology will allow us to 02:08:10.562 --> 02:08:18.066 - To make it clear. I mean, I don't even know what I'm talking about. Let me just go away. There won't 02:08:18.066 --> 02:08:25.571 - be that visual indication that a spot is That a meter is in use with the blinking light on the front 02:08:25.571 --> 02:08:33.521 - Anyway, I do agree that it's time to go to more efficient technology. So I endorse this Thank you comments 02:08:33.521 --> 02:08:39.614 - from Commissioner commissioners on recommendation ot1 to my left to my right miss 02:08:40.098 --> 02:08:47.421 - I know that they brought in two devices to test in here and they for some reason it was the minimum 02:08:47.421 --> 02:08:54.963 - amount of parking time on those two devices was 15 minutes and I would just I assume that that doesn't 02:08:54.963 --> 02:09:02.285 - negate this but I would want to make sure that our current parking rates with her You would be able 02:09:02.285 --> 02:09:09.022 - to park for less than 15 minutes even with these new devices, which wasn't demonstrated Mr. 02:09:09.730 --> 02:09:18.128 - When the meter ordinance was adopted there was debate about how to set the price and ultimately that 02:09:18.128 --> 02:09:26.610 - this price was set at 25 cents per 15 minutes And so I think that that needs to be changed Maybe they 02:09:26.610 --> 02:09:35.341 - said it because they assumed that that was the minimum but I I Think we get people somebody gets charged 02:09:35.341 --> 02:09:38.334 - 25 cents no matter what You can use 02:09:38.594 --> 02:09:47.405 - You can chart you can park for three minutes right now or for six minutes using other coinage and I 02:09:47.405 --> 02:09:57.009 - would want that. Oh, I see. Yeah. Well, I wouldn't I don't disagree. Yeah. Mr. Coppock. I've got a question. 02:09:57.009 --> 02:10:05.908 - Does the pay by play have to go with the license plate recognition technology. You have one you have 02:10:05.908 --> 02:10:07.582 - to have the other. 02:10:09.378 --> 02:10:18.060 - No, if you if you go to say the Wells library to park you have to enter your plate into the the kiosk 02:10:18.060 --> 02:10:26.741 - to park there I don't know that they have a license plate reader, but it's a small lot. It's easy for 02:10:26.741 --> 02:10:35.678 - them to see I don't I think these are two different things for a reason Yeah Is there an ability to have 02:10:35.778 --> 02:10:41.806 - Multi-space on-street meter pay without using pay-by-plate and there is because the other option would 02:10:41.806 --> 02:10:47.775 - be to use space numbers So rather than going up and putting in your pay-by-plate, you could go up and 02:10:47.775 --> 02:10:53.745 - put whatever space number you're in So we've grouped those two together But my understanding is there 02:10:53.745 --> 02:10:59.655 - is an option to separate them Are you saying then that the problem is with the specific phrase using 02:10:59.655 --> 02:11:03.518 - pay-by-plate so that we have a choice? We do have a choice on the 02:11:05.410 --> 02:11:12.682 - Well I just played technology reader technology recognition technology mean if you use pay by plate 02:11:12.682 --> 02:11:19.955 - I know like you do in the Dunn Street parking lot but I don't know how that translates to if you're 02:11:19.955 --> 02:11:27.446 - parking on say Third Street or someplace else. I know in Indy they have the spots have numbers on them 02:11:27.446 --> 02:11:34.718 - like you're in space 15 25 or whatever you pay like that. Do we have to mark all the spaces then or 02:11:35.202 --> 02:11:45.445 - Think that you're basically arguing that maybe we should cut the phrase operated using pay-by-plate 02:11:45.445 --> 02:11:55.893 - So that we can make that decision later Is that what you're suggesting? Yes, I would second that Just 02:11:55.893 --> 02:12:02.654 - as a point of order the Walker room at the Walker recommendations 02:12:04.418 --> 02:12:12.844 - These are not being put forward by any staff person at City Council. So I just am not sure why you're 02:12:12.844 --> 02:12:21.435 - right the purpose of amending the motion at this time would be because there is no relationship between 02:12:21.435 --> 02:12:29.696 - The vote happening tonight and like actual like parking policy that might be implemented Okay, then 02:12:29.696 --> 02:12:32.670 - I would suggest that we endorse ot1 02:12:33.122 --> 02:12:39.486 - But anybody who doesn't believe in pay-by-plate should vote against ot2 That way it would send 02:12:39.486 --> 02:12:46.521 - the appropriate message. I think that and just as a reminder if and when staff decide to Take any action 02:12:46.521 --> 02:12:53.689 - on any of these recommendations. There will be another opportunity Right for the Transportation Commission 02:12:53.689 --> 02:13:00.254 - to weigh in so this is not the last time you'll be asked for an opinion on any one of these items 02:13:04.194 --> 02:13:13.131 - Seeing none moving to public comment in chambers Member of the public not as my position in the city 02:13:13.131 --> 02:13:22.156 - I'm I would request that we have multiple stations that we can easily find there are often times when 02:13:22.156 --> 02:13:31.269 - I go out there with my kid and he likes running around and I'm usually having to kind of like scramble 02:13:31.269 --> 02:13:32.862 - and hold them and 02:13:33.122 --> 02:13:39.304 - And if it would be easier for me to go and find a spot as opposed to having to walk far down the block, 02:13:39.304 --> 02:13:45.604 - that would greatly help me or my wife. It would also be nice to pay by spot as opposed to pay by license, 02:13:45.604 --> 02:13:51.786 - just to be easier to remember like the place that you've parked as opposed to the multiple digit number 02:13:51.786 --> 02:13:58.146 - that you have as your license plate. And also just to maintain the nice social nicety of paying it forward 02:13:58.146 --> 02:13:59.870 - and just like overpaying it. 02:14:00.418 --> 02:14:07.492 - It is nice. It's like really trivial. But in this world, it's nice that you can do something for your 02:14:07.492 --> 02:14:14.497 - community or your random neighbor or show up to a spot and you find that, oh, I've got like 30 extra 02:14:14.497 --> 02:14:21.987 - minutes. Thank you. So those are my comments. Thank you. Thank you. Other public comments on recommendation 02:14:21.987 --> 02:14:24.414 - OT1? I see none in person. Online? 02:14:30.114 --> 02:14:38.210 - None coming back to the Commission final comments. Mr. Roller reacting to the public comment. I Do think 02:14:38.210 --> 02:14:46.075 - that parking services has talked about two kiosks per block face one on either side of an alley Which 02:14:46.075 --> 02:14:53.940 - I think is a reasonable accommodation I'm agnostic about pay by space versus pay by plate. I do think 02:14:53.940 --> 02:14:59.646 - there's an argument for both so I don't have a problem endorsing this and 02:15:00.034 --> 02:15:06.751 - But I share everyone's concern about Which method we might prefer and it's something that will need 02:15:06.751 --> 02:15:13.602 - to be talked about when it comes up Yeah, I think I will be voting to endorse this but do share these 02:15:13.602 --> 02:15:20.453 - concerns and one thing I'm considering is that we'll have another opportunity to weigh in and perhaps 02:15:20.453 --> 02:15:27.304 - between now and then there can be some refinement in this language on for example pay by plate versus 02:15:27.304 --> 02:15:28.446 - pay by space and 02:15:29.378 --> 02:15:37.011 - whether or not this clarification on whether we need license plate readers to do this. So thank you. 02:15:37.011 --> 02:15:44.870 - Any further comment from commission? All right, we'll take this to a vote. The we are voting to endorse 02:15:44.870 --> 02:15:52.578 - recommendation OT one transition to a multi-space on street meteor pay stations operated using pay by 02:15:52.578 --> 02:15:57.566 - plate. We'll have a roll call vote, please. Copic. Yes. Mr Midas. 02:15:58.946 --> 02:16:07.748 - Yes Davis Sossberg, yes Motion carries. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I move recommendation ot2 quote upon moving 02:16:07.748 --> 02:16:16.467 - to a pay-by-plate Multi-space meter system for on-street parking update the enforcement system to mobile 02:16:16.467 --> 02:16:24.936 - license plate recognition LPR technology and transition to digital permits this was one that I wasn't 02:16:24.936 --> 02:16:26.846 - willing to say no to a 02:16:27.234 --> 02:16:35.914 - my biggest concern was mobile license plate recognition technology. We have a huge and growing concern 02:16:35.914 --> 02:16:44.511 - about privacy in the world thanks to AI and technology. Flock cameras are very controversial. License 02:16:44.511 --> 02:16:53.023 - plate technology, that's essentially what flock cameras are. And so there's a big question about how 02:16:53.023 --> 02:16:56.478 - would parking services handle that data. 02:16:56.706 --> 02:17:05.011 - Where would it reside? What rules would govern it? I don't think the city has a data policy You know 02:17:05.011 --> 02:17:13.234 - That's at least not one that's commonly known for that reason alone. I'm very hesitant to recommend 02:17:13.234 --> 02:17:21.950 - this even though I support Improving the technology to make the job of parking services Easier so I'm not 02:17:22.434 --> 02:17:29.731 - Saying no yet. I'm eager to hear what other people have to say on this one But my inclination is to 02:17:29.731 --> 02:17:37.246 - not endorse it simply because they recommend LPR technology Thank you start on the right, yeah I think 02:17:37.246 --> 02:17:44.835 - that's an excellent point and at this point I don't I think we have a very reasonable other alternative 02:17:44.835 --> 02:17:52.350 - This technology of collecting everyone's data and I'm very comfortable saying no on this one Thank you 02:17:52.866 --> 02:18:00.440 - My left Thank you, I'll also be voting no for the similar reasons I have concerns particularly with 02:18:00.440 --> 02:18:08.696 - the Public Center around flock if we're using license plate reader technology We need to clearly communicate 02:18:08.696 --> 02:18:16.649 - how this system is different for example that it's isolated that it doesn't do other things that there's 02:18:16.649 --> 02:18:21.118 - a lot lots to clarify there I think before I would endorse 02:18:21.442 --> 02:18:28.828 - The license plate recognition technology. However, I have worked previously for a parking company and 02:18:28.828 --> 02:18:36.360 - I know that This is a common technology in parking. It hasn't been a long time long before flock People 02:18:36.360 --> 02:18:43.818 - were using this to track when you enter and leave a garage So there are reasonable ways to do this but 02:18:43.818 --> 02:18:50.046 - for today I would be voting no We'll now move to public comment on recommendation ot2 02:18:52.386 --> 02:19:02.730 - Any online not final opportunity here we have a public comment As a member of the public I would just 02:19:02.730 --> 02:19:12.972 - like to express a comment on this particular item just in hearing commissioners express concern over 02:19:12.972 --> 02:19:15.710 - the Applicability of flock 02:19:15.810 --> 02:19:22.616 - related technology to what's being proposed. I would caution against making any kind of conflation of 02:19:22.616 --> 02:19:29.488 - the two technologies as Commissioner Stossberg pointed out mobile license plate recognition technology 02:19:29.488 --> 02:19:36.361 - has been around for a really long time. And the thing that has made flock possible has not been around 02:19:36.361 --> 02:19:43.033 - for a very long time. And so I think that while it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the 02:19:43.033 --> 02:19:45.502 - use of surveillance and enforcement. 02:19:45.890 --> 02:19:53.533 - I think that it's very likely that what's being proposed here is not at all Comparable to a flock system 02:19:53.533 --> 02:20:00.813 - Thank you. Thank you for your comment Yeah, I would agree with that public comment. I think this is 02:20:00.813 --> 02:20:08.456 - really a more matter of clarification That will be helpful to move this forward Any other public comment 02:20:08.456 --> 02:20:13.406 - in person online. No, all right. I Think we're ready for mr. Vullen 02:20:13.730 --> 02:20:21.907 - I just wanted to respond to public comment by saying that We don't have to worry about flock to be worried 02:20:21.907 --> 02:20:29.626 - about Collecting data that might be usable in different ways Mr. Midas's suggestion that we could go 02:20:29.626 --> 02:20:37.421 - to pay by space removes the personal identifier from it until the person gets a ticket and again, I'm 02:20:37.421 --> 02:20:40.478 - not even saying that we shouldn't use a 02:20:40.610 --> 02:20:47.835 - Technology this is why I wasn't an outright no on it. I I feel like I have to be a no Only because the 02:20:47.835 --> 02:20:54.849 - city has yet to adopt a data policy if the city had a policy for how it handled data like this that 02:20:54.849 --> 02:21:01.864 - was written out and adjudicated that was it was you know thought out I would have much less trouble 02:21:01.864 --> 02:21:07.966 - supporting this recommendation until then I'm just too queasy to endorse it. Thank you 02:21:10.082 --> 02:21:20.359 - We're ready for a roll call vote on recommendation Oh to upon moving to a pay-by-plate multi-space meter 02:21:20.359 --> 02:21:31.125 - system for on-street parking Update the enforcement system to mobile license plate recognition LPR technology 02:21:31.125 --> 02:21:39.934 - and transition to digital permits. That's ot2 ot2 Mr. Midas No Bone no Davis Stossberg no 02:21:40.962 --> 02:21:48.789 - Copic no motion fails Mr. Chair, I move recommendation ot3 This is again in the tranche of operations 02:21:48.789 --> 02:21:56.693 - technology recommendations and it is quote replace the existing off-street gated parking equipment the 02:21:56.693 --> 02:22:04.674 - Study further says that the city should replace existing off-street parking equipment with a new system 02:22:04.674 --> 02:22:10.046 - that will continue to be supported by an equipment vendor they have a 02:22:10.722 --> 02:22:19.063 - You know a problem with data technology and they need to To update it. I endorse everything they said 02:22:19.063 --> 02:22:27.731 - there and I support this recommendation Thank you comment from commissioners left right no public comment 02:22:27.731 --> 02:22:35.991 - in person say none online Say none I think we'll just make this one easy and go straight to the roll 02:22:35.991 --> 02:22:37.054 - call vote. I 02:22:43.106 --> 02:22:52.940 - Yes Davis Stossberg. Yes Coppock. Yes, Mr. Midas. Yes All right motion fit motion passes, thank you 02:22:52.940 --> 02:23:03.266 - Yeah, Mr. Chair, I move recommendation c1 quote create a recognizable city of Bloomington parking system 02:23:03.266 --> 02:23:12.510 - logo and brand identity separate from the city's brand identity unquote to that end they said 02:23:12.674 --> 02:23:18.468 - To promote parking as a distinct holistic entity parking services should develop a consistent brand 02:23:18.468 --> 02:23:24.667 - including fonts colors and a logo all Street parking signage parking facility entrance signage the parking 02:23:24.667 --> 02:23:30.634 - website and online parking portals should use this format for a consistent look and feel They continue 02:23:30.634 --> 02:23:36.428 - about that a unique and easily identifiable parking brand would improve the customer experience and 02:23:36.428 --> 02:23:38.398 - encourage our utilization I agree 02:23:38.626 --> 02:23:45.181 - In principle with everything they said here, but I don't agree with is the idea that parking should 02:23:45.181 --> 02:23:51.736 - go on its own and do its own branding that this is the job of the city as a whole and regardless of 02:23:51.736 --> 02:23:58.357 - what Branding may have come out of the mayor's office recently that you know has been the subject of 02:23:58.357 --> 02:24:05.043 - amusement The principle is correct that there should be a coherent citywide branding scheme so again, 02:24:05.043 --> 02:24:08.190 - it's not like these things aren't necessary and 02:24:08.386 --> 02:24:19.371 - But I don't think that parking should be going it alone. They should be doing it. There's no acknowledgement 02:24:19.371 --> 02:24:29.449 - here that it's In coordination with the mayor's office. So for that reason alone, I can't recommend 02:24:29.449 --> 02:24:37.310 - see one Thank you discussion from commission members public comment Online no 02:24:38.082 --> 02:24:53.744 - Yeah, I agree with Mr. Voland's comments here. So I'll be voting against this. Let's take this to the 02:24:53.744 --> 02:25:07.102 - roll call vote then. Davis? No. Stossberg? No. Coppock? No. Stermitis? No. Voland? No. 02:25:08.834 --> 02:25:15.126 - Motion fails. Mr. Chair. I move recommendation c2 quote develop and launch an ongoing parking system 02:25:15.126 --> 02:25:21.855 - communications and marketing campaign unquote Bloomington should in fact create and release a comprehensive 02:25:21.855 --> 02:25:28.271 - campaign that educates visitors about parking locations rules and regulations a little surprised We're 02:25:28.271 --> 02:25:34.501 - not doing it but parking services impulse here and Walker's impulse is the right one again, I think 02:25:34.501 --> 02:25:37.118 - it should be in the context of a citywide 02:25:37.570 --> 02:25:44.908 - Marketing campaign that's coordinated with anything else that the city is doing but Walkers impulse 02:25:44.908 --> 02:25:52.247 - parking services impulse is correct here. We should have a marketing campaign to promote Garages if 02:25:52.247 --> 02:25:59.952 - there's one thing I'd love to see personally. It's a sign Outside of every garage saying how many spaces 02:25:59.952 --> 02:26:07.070 - are open like why haven't we gone to that yet? that should be the first thing we do to promote a 02:26:07.394 --> 02:26:20.678 - Parking availability, but otherwise I endorse this Come on comment from commissioners Public comment 02:26:20.678 --> 02:26:34.488 - on recommendation c2 in chambers online All right final final call Take this to a roll call vote, please 02:26:34.488 --> 02:26:37.118 - Stossberg Yes Copic 02:26:37.474 --> 02:26:46.117 - Yes, mr. Midas. Yes, Nolan. Yes Davis Motion passes. Mr. Chair. I move recommendation c3 install 02:26:46.117 --> 02:26:55.027 - informational signage at key locations unquote This is the same thing as C2. I Have no no change in 02:26:55.027 --> 02:27:04.205 - my comment. It's I agree with it. We should have informational signage at key locations perfect simple 02:27:04.205 --> 02:27:06.878 - comment from commissioners of 02:27:07.618 --> 02:27:23.503 - Public comment on in person online Seeing none roll call vote, please Copic Yes, Mr. Midas. Yes, Follon. 02:27:23.503 --> 02:27:27.134 - Yes Davis Stasberg. Yes 02:27:29.890 --> 02:27:36.615 - Motion passes. Mr. Chair. I move approval of TCR 26 19 with the document quote findings regarding the 02:27:36.615 --> 02:27:43.275 - Walker study unquote attached Which includes the record of the vote of each study recommendation the 02:27:43.275 --> 02:27:50.066 - vote shall be recorded in the In the form of yeses nos and abstentions The last names of commissioners 02:27:50.066 --> 02:27:56.857 - who were in the minority for each vote shall be noted adjacent to each vote in case of a tie All votes 02:27:56.857 --> 02:27:58.110 - shall be specified 02:28:00.034 --> 02:28:08.548 - Thank you motion is on the table discussion from commissioners on this overall Seeing none public comment. 02:28:08.548 --> 02:28:16.743 - Did we get a second on that? I need a second Approval of the document as With this document, I'll read 02:28:16.743 --> 02:28:25.019 - it again I move approval of TCR 26 19 with this document attached which includes the record of the vote 02:28:25.019 --> 02:28:27.326 - of each study recommendation 02:28:28.578 --> 02:28:38.709 - in the form of yeses, nos and abstentions. I'll say it. All right. Great. Commissioner comment. 02:28:38.709 --> 02:28:49.472 - Seeing none. Public comment in person online. None. I think we'll take this to go ahead and take this 02:28:49.472 --> 02:28:57.598 - to roll call vote, please. Mr. Minus. Yes. Bowen. Yes. Davis. Stasberg. Yes. 02:28:59.010 --> 02:29:07.206 - Yes Motion carries Thank you And now I return the gavel to mr. Vola. Thank you, mr Sossberg We go now 02:29:07.206 --> 02:29:15.322 - to section 5 of the agenda discussion of topics not on the docket We need to talk about scheduling a 02:29:15.322 --> 02:29:23.518 - special hearing to review the college walnut corridor study. I believe this is mr. Roebling Thank you 02:29:23.618 --> 02:29:30.480 - Ryan Roebling, Planning Services Manager. As you are all familiar with, we have been working on a College 02:29:30.480 --> 02:29:34.494 - of Walnut Corridor study for a couple of years now, and we've 02:29:34.818 --> 02:29:41.438 - Received a final recommendation and we would like to show that to first the Transportation Commission 02:29:41.438 --> 02:29:47.994 - and in order to do that We need to pick a date To have a special meeting that this is a project that 02:29:47.994 --> 02:29:54.809 - is big enough to warrant its own meeting So we didn't want to include it in the October meeting In order 02:29:54.809 --> 02:30:02.078 - to make sure that it is fully heard and we have plenty of time for public comment and Commissioner questions so 02:30:03.458 --> 02:30:10.408 - Are there any dates that work I can give a list of potential dates or however you would like to go about 02:30:10.408 --> 02:30:17.291 - this. Let's just start by reviewing our next meeting is October 26. Correct. And then our final meeting 02:30:17.291 --> 02:30:23.976 - of the year would be December. What date is our December meeting. It's after Thanksgiving. It is the 02:30:23.976 --> 02:30:30.595 - seventh December 7th. OK. So you want something in between those two. That would be ideal. So we're 02:30:30.595 --> 02:30:32.382 - looking at another Monday. 02:30:33.282 --> 02:30:47.595 - That's agreeable to everyone. Any Monday November 2 9 16 leap out to anybody. The second is open for 02:30:47.595 --> 02:31:02.334 - chambers is open for the second and the 16th. I cannot do the ninth. I could do the second second word. 02:31:05.474 --> 02:31:15.201 - Oh, actually, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. I see now that Public Works will be in chambers on the second 02:31:15.201 --> 02:31:24.740 - Those bums and then Planning Commission is on the 9th. So 16th and then are we okay with a non Monday 02:31:24.740 --> 02:31:34.654 - for this special meeting? Someone else will be here Anybody have problems with the 16th I can do the 16th 02:31:34.978 --> 02:31:42.216 - There's only four of us who are saying yes to it. We haven't consulted other Members, but we can follow 02:31:42.216 --> 02:31:49.314 - up via email, but I wanted to get an idea of what date so the idea is to send a press release ASAP So 02:31:49.314 --> 02:31:56.343 - I can lock in and try to get a member or two to confirm that they can make the 16th But this is is a 02:31:56.343 --> 02:32:03.998 - good enough for tonight well if Nobody objects will tentatively schedule it for the 16th. We have a chance to 02:32:04.194 --> 02:32:12.290 - Amended at the October meeting, but this will give everyone plenty of heads up So let's shoot for Monday 02:32:12.290 --> 02:32:20.309 - the 16th of November at 530. Will it be here in chambers? Okay Okay, we go not a general public comment 02:32:20.309 --> 02:32:28.019 - on items not on the docket. This is a question for staff Our items that have been placed in this to 02:32:28.019 --> 02:32:34.110 - be announced Because they seem to be like letters to the Commission We receive 02:32:34.370 --> 02:32:41.907 - We've received public comments of this nature before we have not announced them or talked about them 02:32:41.907 --> 02:32:49.519 - necessarily They have been made available to commissioners in a way that you guys can access them and 02:32:49.519 --> 02:32:57.430 - bring them up I will note that the item C Was a message that was a direct follow-up from our July meeting 02:32:57.430 --> 02:33:01.982 - from one of the vendors that came and spoke about the kiosks 02:33:02.114 --> 02:33:11.590 - they provided some graphics that We aren't able to make screen reader accessible for what I hope are 02:33:11.590 --> 02:33:20.971 - somewhat obvious reasons but There was a letter that staff sort of amended by providing some visual 02:33:20.971 --> 02:33:29.790 - description that one is fairly substantive, but staff liaisons do not expect to hear from the 02:33:29.954 --> 02:33:37.654 - vendors in follow-up communications they There's there's I think was maybe a miscommunication as to 02:33:37.654 --> 02:33:45.355 - the The next opportunity that they will get to meet with the Commission and so if if letter C was a 02:33:45.355 --> 02:33:53.209 - Basically a report shouldn't it have been under reports and communications it because it's not really 02:33:53.209 --> 02:33:55.134 - a report. It's more of a 02:33:55.234 --> 02:34:01.960 - their attempt to address some of the comments or questions that were raised at the last meeting and 02:34:01.960 --> 02:34:08.753 - I see there I sort of had to make a judgment call whether to append it to the July meeting agenda or 02:34:08.753 --> 02:34:15.479 - to carry it forward here and I decided that given the distance that it The average person would not 02:34:15.479 --> 02:34:22.473 - think to go back that far to note this information. So for transparent the sake of transparency, I just 02:34:22.473 --> 02:34:24.222 - noted it here instead and 02:34:24.962 --> 02:34:34.309 - Okay. Well, I don't think there's a need for us to Discuss these items per se they're just here for 02:34:34.309 --> 02:34:43.937 - our information. I I will say that the the letter about electric dirt bikes on Bloomington trails that 02:34:43.937 --> 02:34:52.350 - one may become more relevant in for the October meeting there may be some item related to 02:34:55.362 --> 02:35:03.637 - Electric bikes or scooters or something similar. I think we may want to consider As a commission changing 02:35:03.637 --> 02:35:11.677 - the agenda so that general public comment comes before cases and discussion because for example, I did 02:35:11.677 --> 02:35:19.718 - read the Boshir's letter and thought that it would be worth bringing up under discussion of topics not 02:35:19.718 --> 02:35:25.182 - on the docket So that's something we can talk about in scheduling but 02:35:25.474 --> 02:35:31.851 - Like I do think that that's a relevant issue that, you know, might be the subject of an inquiry, but 02:35:31.851 --> 02:35:38.608 - we're already past the point of the meeting where we could bring that up. So, but I appreciate the comment 02:35:38.608 --> 02:35:45.112 - here. If there's anyone who wants to discuss it, or if there's any member of the public who would like 02:35:45.112 --> 02:35:51.552 - to make public comment on items not on the agenda, you do have an opportunity to speak now. If you're 02:35:51.552 --> 02:35:54.078 - watching online, please raise your hand 02:35:54.722 --> 02:36:02.454 - In zoom and we'll call on you for any subject that is not on the agenda. You will have three minutes 02:36:02.454 --> 02:36:09.497 - to speak. Is there any member of the public who'd like to speak on items not on the agenda? 02:36:09.497 --> 02:36:17.382 - Anybody online? All right. Seeing none. Uh, once again, our next meeting is October 26th, October 26th 02:36:17.382 --> 02:36:23.966 - at five 30 in this room. Uh, if there's no other business, this meeting is adjourned.