Loading...
2019-06-11 Mobility Committee Minutes1 �' `1 �;�, � '�, ' { /� / � �� �,�, 1 1 � 1 1' City Hall 215 E. McKirmey Street Denton, Texas www. cityofdenton. com Tuesday, June 11, 2019 9:00 AM City Council Work Session Room After determining that a quorum of the Mobility Committee of the Denton City Council was present, the Mobility Committee thereafter convened into an Open Meeting on Tuesday, June 11, 2019 at 9:00 am in the City Council Work Session Room 215 E. McKinney, Denton, Texas. Comrnittee Members: Council Member John Ryan, Council Member Keely Briggs and Council Member Paul Meltzer Staff Present: Mario Canizares, ACM; Pritam Deshmukh, Deputy City Engineer/City Traffic Engineer; Brian Jahn, City Traffic Engineer;; Trey Lansford, Deputy City Attorney; Marc Oliphant, Bicycle & Pedestrian Coordinator; Pam Alummoottil, Traffic Engineer; Kathryn Welch, Management Analyst; Daniel Kremer; Kim Mankin, Administration Manager; and Tracy Holt Administrative Assistant Guest Speakers: Nicole Recker, Vice President of Marketing & Administration, DCTA; Christopher Phelps, Senior Director of Transportation Services, LJNT; Brand Renton, Associate Vice President, Transportation Services and Stan Nixon Assistant Director, Transportation Services . .. A. MC19-032 Consider approval of the Mobility Committee meeting minutes of Apri19, 2019. CM Briggs motioned, CM Meltzer seconded Vote 2-0. Approved C. MC19-034 Receive a report, hold a discussion regarding updates from the Denton County Transportation Authority (DCTA). Nicole Recker provided general updates and follow-up on the items discussed during the previous meeting. The DCTA Board of directors began making a shift based on the legislative change which started May 23`d. They are moving toward having five (5) voting members on their board, three (3) from member cities and two (2) from Denton County. The city representatives have been identified but the county representatives are still under consideration but should know more in the coming weeks. They will also have non-voting members which will be determined by the new board as they discuss bi-laws. This may alter the updates that Nicole is able to bring to this committee in the future but they are excited to learn what their ideas are and how they would like to move forward. You may have heard them talk about the North Texas Mobility Corporation (NTMC). DCTA set up a local government corporation starting in Januaxy with the sole purpose of bringing over all of our Transit Management of Denton County employees. It was successfully launched June 2nd moving 180 employees over from TMDC to NTMC. This has allowed us to have more localized control over strategy and operations of the bus services for improved passenger experience and efficiencies. They have also been talking about Mobility as a Service. It is a trending business model in the transit industry of on demand services that you can book in real time via a mobile app. This went out for RFP in January and we are able to take to the board last manth a selectian of 31 firms that pravide a variety of an demand services. These could be ride share, bike share, scooter share, autanamous vehicles, software platforms that would enable them ta create zones within their service area to pravide on demand services. We are currently working with those firms to see where he on-demand services might be a better fit than a fixed route service. They really anticipate leveraging this larger toal belt af services in January af 2020 to meet the needs of the cammunities and the passengers. Follow-up information was shared on the bus stop amenity request near the Kroger on University Drive. There are twa staps and both were under the threshald for even a bench. They are looking internally at resetting some of the standards far qualifications of a bench or a shelter as well as where are the current amenities and can they be increased. This will be a moving plan that laoks at all the stops as they work taward bringing the an demand services on baard. 2020 will see a big shift in all of the bus stops that we have, where they can be placed and with which amenities. Accessibility has to be cansidered with this as well. They hope to bring the committee an entire plan that talks about nat anly a madificatian to the overall standards but also a plan for how they plan on implementing and executing more of the shelters and benches. A recap of the recent participation with the City in the Arts and Jazz festival was also presented. The Rails ta Trails event which was a follow-up fram the April event that was rained out on June 1 St was also recapped and a follow-up meeting is being scheduled. CM Meltzer asked for an update an the passibility of using the Discavery Park Route to give transit dependent people access to the Rayzor Ranch development far amenities or work. Nicale Recker commented the issue with providing the fixed raute bus service to in ar closer to Rayzar Ranch is that it anly has ane entrance/exit that is light protected. Pritam Deshmukh further commented that the study has been campleted for Heritage Trail at US 380 and received appraval from TxDOT ta mave forward design and have funds fram the Rayzor Ranch development fees to move farward with a signal. . MC19-039 Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the parking enfarcement on the city streets around the University af North Texas fram University Transportation Services. Chris Phelps, Senior Director of Transportation Services, LINT, visited along with Brandi Renton Assaciated Vice President, Admin Services and Stan Nixan Assistant Director far Transportation Services. Chris Phelps spake about the working relationships with the City and an overview of the universities transportatian services and initiatives and informatian about what they da and haw they can wark together with the community for residents, students, visitars and guests. A presentatian was made as a generic overview of: Paxking Resaurces, Parking Alternative Options, Parking Behaviars, Parking Enforcement, Where Do My Parking Dallars Go, and Next Steps. CM Ryan asked for a review of the addition af spaces and the future long term requirements. Chris Phelps added that part of that is a locatian issue although it may nat be where people want it. Changing the expectation of parking at or near the building being visited and the behavior to utilize the resources ta move from the available parking ta the desired locations but he recagnized there is and will be a need for additional parking. • CM Briggs asked for cost informatian on parking permits. Chris Phelps responded that it is free at Med Park all the way up ta reserve lats up ta $700 beginning this next year for one year. A general academic student is going to be $275 for a student living an campus or cammuting in far 12 months. CM Briggs felt this was a lat and maybe why students are parking on city streets and in the residential neighbarhoads. Chris Phelps confirmed the 13,000 available spaces are on LTNT property itself ineaning that all students on campus and commuters have a place to park on a daily basis. It comes back to paying for it. They are taking some steps to work and build in some structures that make paying for the permit easier. There are some hourly options. They are looking at some semester type and payment flexibility options with student accounts versus a one-time lump payment. They are working on ideas as to how to make the economic or financial choice a little easier. CM Briggs referenced the older methods of inetered parking and permits and the rumors of overselling permits. Chris Phelps responded that in the reserved premium lots they are generally not, Not everyone is on campus at the same time in the commuter lots and the numbers are based days of the weeks and volumes. They are continuing to work with students to utilize the options they have available to park and access the various parts of campus in more timely manner versus the added efforts of finding places and potential consequence of ticketing. The challenge is in getting students to understand the value that is available for them and making sure they have the means to pay for it and not in a one size fits all permit. They are looking at ways to make it more of a benefit, helping with price sensitivity, choices in expenditures and getting the information out there. Some of these are urban legends and legacy issues and we have to get past the old emotions. CM Briggs asked for additional information on how the parking garages work for the students. Chris Phelps noted the charges for the Highland Street garage are by permit by sernester, or annual or by the hour with an attendant. The Union Circle garage is park mobile. CM Meltzer asked about the peak parking demand. Chris Phelps replied their numbers indicate on a daily basis anywhere from 20-22,000 transactions per day but includes some all day or all night counts. The busiest days are Tuesday and Thursday. The peak timing is from approximately 8:00 to 2:00. There is a discounted evening permit available for after 5:30 pm. It becomes a numbers, time of day, peaks and location along with communication challenge and behavior modification. The turnover begins with the incoming freshman class for communication where the services are highlighted and building relationships with faculty, staff and students. CM Ryan inquired about the possibility of integrating the toll tag technology like the airport has done with the universities parking options. Chris Phelps added they have the technology in the Highland Street garage that can read the toll tag and have the same equipment that NTTA has and have that capability. Integration is not something that is on their (NTTA) table although the university would like to be able to. It works at the airport because it is political and it is made to work. There is a lot that goes on behind the scene to make that seamless and they are interested in applying that dialog. The technology is there but it becomes how we integrate with our partners to make sure we are providing a great experience. Although the technology exists it is a matter of building that relationship. In terms of what we have right now for the services and variety our biggest bang is to make sure we are not flooding everyone with too many options. We need to make it simpler so it is easier to understand and then take a look at some of those higher level ones to use technology that folks already have. CM Meltzer asked who is responsible for parking enforcement of the 2 hour parking adjacent to iJNT on Hickory Street. Chris Phelps stated it depends but generally it would be iJNT. In the Fry Street business district there is an inter-local agreement with the City to enforce that. The reality is that they do not and it doesn't turn over enough. This is a density issue. There is an opportunity to continue conversations with the area businesses with the construction of the new bike lane and planned parking modifications and partnering with the City. F. I'�C�u"� �I����7 Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding updates on the Forrestridge neighborhood street improvement projects. Pritam Deshmukh provide background information and a brief presentation on what has happened, where we are and what is going on. The area was shown on an aerial map highlighting the area where a median exist and the width changes along the street. Several of the area streets were scheduled to be reconstructed this summer. When this discussion started, there were residents in the HOA who requested City Staff attend the HOA meeting in February. Based on the discussion in that meeting it was determined most of inembers did not want the median and wanted it to be removed as part of the street reconstruction. The median is currently maintained by volunteers from the HOA. There a very few members that pay into the HOA. A letter was received including signatures on a petition before the meeting from the HOA President saying that they were all in favor of removing the median. We are currently working on the Highview Court and Highview Circle with construction scheduled to be completed by the beginning of August. The Forrestridge segment is scheduled to begin the middle of July and do not want to change that schedule. We put out a survey in April after the meeting and a link was provided to the HOA to find out what the residents wanted. Questions asked were: Do you live along Forrestridge Drive and do you use Hobson Lane or Ryan Road when leaving the neighborhood? The responses showed most people exit to the north onto Hobson Lane with a quick connection to Teasley Lane or FM 1830 and Hwy 377. The overall results to the whether or not they wanted the median to be removed including all the extra comments were 45% voted to keep it and 51 % to remove it. The existing conditions were described and presented with a visual drawing for reference. Five design options were presented if the median is removed. Option 3 was presented at the community meeting and well liked. This option did not pull the buffer and bike lane above or out of the street space. The recommend option raises it 6 inches above the street level to create a fully separated area for biking and walking and is wider. The parking on both sides would create a buffer from cars traveling here. One of the concerns from the community meeting was speeding in this area. Allowing parking on both sides would provide traffic calming and cars would travel slower than in no-parking areas. With a selected option and direction, construction is scheduled to begin in July 2019. A consultant is on board for the redesign once direction is received from this committee. Carole Womack a resident of 6 Highview Court spoke in opposition of the removal of the median. She feels there are minimal residents supporting the removal. In addition she stated this is a silly recommendation. She and has not encountered any problems with the median and feels it is a waste to remove it and reconstruct the area. Lamont Brown a resident of 5 Highview Court spoke in opposition of the removal of the median. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and hear the voices of the citizens. Living on Highview Court, whether it is ingress or egress or whether we go to Hobson or Ryan we touch this effected area every time we leave our home or come back. We see it and feel it more than anyone else living in the entire Forrestridge area. It is his opinion the survey is flawed to say the least. He does not know anywhere there has been a survey where a group that did not vote for or against was grouped with the groups that did vote for or against to tilt the outcome the way it is now shown in this report. He also takes exception to a statement that perhaps with miss-stated or miss-interpreted giving the benefit of the doubt where in the presentation previous it was stated that option number 5 was not liked very much. Option 5 was picked 43%, Option 1 chosen 15% , Option 2 chosen 14%, Option 3 21% and Option 4 chosen 7%. Out of that he cannot see where it can be concluded that most people did not like Option 5. He agrees with Ms. Womack and feels like the median should stay. If it must be removed he hopes there is no parking. He has only lived there 22 years and was not aware that there was parking on the east side of Forrestridge. He thought it was two bike paths and it is not marked as parking that he has ever seen. He would request the parking options to be omitted from anything that happens. His number one preference is to leave the median because it adds a lot of character to Forrestridge. One of the reasons he purchased in that area 22 years ago was because of that character. If he wanted to live in a subdivision that allows parking on the street, there are others in the City of Denton where he could have chosen that as an option. Wendy McQuade a resident at 9 Highview Court spoke in opposition of the removal of the median. She noted that she is a total introvert and not one that likes to get up and talk. She feels very strongly about this issue, has taken time off work to be here and hopes her passion can be heard today. She has lived in Forrestridge since 2013. She loves the neighborhood, the bike lane and the residents are out and about walking with kids, pets, jogging and biking all on Forrestridge in those bike lanes. She loves the medians and they do give the neighborhood character and one of the things that drew her in and made her want to live there. As upset as she is about the whole survey, she is an HOA member, the survey was voluntary, she pays and do many other people pay. She would like to know how many people responded to the survey. How many people were residents in Forrestridge and what the percentage is that number of that total survey. Percentages don't really tell her how many people are actually having their input heard on that survey. Her input was not heard and she had no idea about the survey. She shared what she really hates about the proposed option and noted she is a cyclist and a pet owner that uses those lanes all the time. As a cyclist and a dog walker, she basically cannot use the south bound bike lane because people park in it. It forces her to walk out into a lane of traffic where people are not expecting cyclist going slower than 30 mph or as many residents in Forrestridge know much faster than that in terms of how fast people drive. If we allowing to keep parking on one side and put parking on the other side, we are narrowing the sidewalk which is now no longer getting called a bike lane and pedestrian area it is now a sidewalk. We are losing a bike lane and putting parking in. You have no visibility of anybody on that side of the road. As a jogger, walker and cyclist she uses that north bound bike lane to get over to the South Lakes Park. She uses the medians on Forrest ridge at Highview Circle as midway stopping points so she nor her pets get hit by a car from people coming flying over the hill between the north and south bound ends of Highview Circle. She feels there is a huge visibility issue here that no one is talking about. She thinks there are a handful of residents on Forrestridge that have vehicles that are too big to make a U-turn from a property they purchased knowing those medians were there and they don't what to use Highview Circle to turn around to get oriented to get into or out of their property headed the right way on Forrestridge. She really does not like the sidewalk option. As a cyclist she knows getting doored is a problem. Now we will have cars next to an 8 foot sidewalk with no buffer between passenger side doors opening and the sidewalk. The sidewalk is as narrow as the bike lane is now and a popular times of the day she has had to move into oncoming traffic lanes to avoid people who are walking their dogs, pushing strollers, jogging or biking because it is not wide enough to be a 21ane for both bikes and pedestrians. Eight (8) feet is not going to cut it. If she wants to cross from the east side of Forrestridge, no one will see her with parked cars there. It is a huge hazard there. She had lots more to say as her time allocation expired noting she wrote a letter to the committee and thanked them for the time to speak. Anne Brown a resident at 5 Highview Court spoke in opposition to the removal of the median. She stated that she walks all the time and has for 22 years and very experienced in going up and down Forrestridge every way out of Highview Circle and every way back into it. She was called yesterday by Bill Smith who asked her to say everything she thinks and say I think the same thing. So today she is speaking as Anne Brown and Bill Smith. Wendy is so right the medians make a huge difference. When you drive into Forrestridge it looks elegant. It has planting and looks like a selected neighborhood. So they all like that and they are going to keep the tree in the first median. However the second median offends somebody because he has to make a U-turn. Her husband asked him "Did � you know that when you bought the house?" and he said yes. So apparently for all the years he has lived there he has been offended by that when I have a car that is very long and don't have any trouble making a turn. So she doesn't think his vote should hold as much weight. All the people that live on Highview circle like Ms. Womack said travel that area all the time and probably I do more because I go to the grocery store every day. Walking is crucial to that neighborhood. Walking your animals and elderly people walk. Yesterday a lady on her bike with a baby carrier behind the bike and four kids in line behind her all probably under 5 were riding in the bike lane and I happily stood aside so they could pass. I cannot imagine a raised sidewalk being called a pedestrian bike lane. She would think those small children could make one wrong move and fall off that described 6" raised area. It seems foreign to put that in Forrestridge. She noted they moved to Forrestridge because they did not want to see on street parking. They clutter up the area and make it unsightly. Forrestridge is very beautiful and don't mess it up by saying it is okay to park over here or over there. There is a big difference like kids that rent a house and there are four college students who all have a car and park all those cars on the street. That is unsightly. On Forrestridge it doesn't matter if the landscape people are there. We are happy to walk around them. They come once a week. A plumber, we understand that. She doesn't mind all the people there doing business it is the parking she finds very offensive. Pritam Deshmukh responded according to the web site for Forrestridge there are 396 single family home sites within that area. The survey had 112 respondents. The results are based on 112 people responding to the survey. There were 11 HOA members in the petition and most of them live on the other side of Forrestridge where they have to make the U-turn to access their properties. CM Ryan attended the neighborhood meeting where this and the results were presented along with several city staff inembers. One of the questions he had was when you put that 2' median in as described in Option 3 there is a concern when you put the 2 foot median in there over drainage that you are not really protecting it and when the trash trucks come down the street to pick-up on the north bound side with the 13 homes. Where are they going to put the trash containers? Will it be put in the bike lane or in the street, in which case you have lost about 3 feet of the travel lane? He noted in review of the numbers the 12 foot drive lane could easily be reduced to 11 which slows traffic by having a narrower lane and naturally slowing you down. He does not foresee that many more people parking there than currently do. Right now there are a lot of services that park on the north bound side that are not supposed to be parked there to begin with. People might continue to hope that median to park in the 12 foot area in then you have completely lost the entire are which is what commonly happens now as well as the trash. He would ask that the median be elevated and done in concrete as opposed to asphalt because of people walking their dogs concrete stays cooler and would be cooler as a path to drive down as well. As far as taking the median out, he could go either way. As he was driving home one day there was an accident at that median and because it was someone in the parking lane pulled out the person coming had nowhere else to go and could not get stopped in time. Now everyone before the previous break is stuck. The idea that the elevated sidewalk adds an element of safety that we have been looking to do on bike paths. Part of it is a misconception that we called it a sidewalk on the slide as opposed to a pedestrian path because the current width is 8 feet. The thought of adding the parking on the other side is that it is naturally done right now by certain people and groups. If we want to shift it he knows that once this is done and the road is in good condition the number of speeding complaints is going to go up. By narrowing it to the 11 foot it will definitely help to control speeds. CM Briggs spoke expressing she is not in favor of getting rid of the median. When she saw the first picture of what is there currently, she felt we are trying to bring other city roads to look like that. That is the complete street with greenery, a bike lane safe area, dividing the traffic to keep it safe. She wondered why we are changing something we currently have and we are trying to get other streets to look like. She personally heard the main issues were people pulling into the bike lane and to prevent them from parking there and keeping people out the bike lane. Why don't we just make that side a 6 protected bike lane and put pickets or something to keep people out of that lane so that it is protected for pedestrians and bicycles. She was there yesterday driving and saw 3 or 4 people walking and biking. She feels by adding parking lanes and taking the median out we are discouraging people from feeling safe in that neighborhood. We have Southlake Park at the opposite end and want to ensure that people can get there safely and continue to use their trail. She personally thinks we are going backwards with this recommended option. She has not received one email in support of this from the 11 people that did sign the petition and it would have been nice to hear from some of them for the reasoning they did want it. She does not feel that we should completely make this less safe for pedestrians and cyclist for people that do not want to make a U-turn. CM Meltzer added that he has done a lot of consumer research in his career and it is not like an election where 51 % can be massive. He would not say you have consensus but that people can feel different ways. Forrestridge is one of the most attractive neighborhoods in Denton from having block walked it. It is a very green area appearing area and the medians contribute. Along the lines of what CM Briggs has said, it seems like a massive over correction. It is hard to tell once you get through all of the options what it was we were trying to fix in the first place. It seems like a relatively narrow issue and probably introducing more issues than you are correcting. He actually lands in much of the same place. If the issue is people violating the bike lane then do more to protect the bike lane. CM Ryan added because he does drive it every day, if we were simply to raise the bike lane up because that is the best way to protect it and it is better than he little plastic sticks going along there. Now you axe down to a 12 foot lane and if anything were to happen in that lane there is no place to go. What do you do on Tuesdays when all he trash and recycle carts go out there and somebody puts it out a little too far you have narrowed that lane where it can be dangerous driving through there. He was not in favor of taking out the median in the beginning. If there was an option to keep it and still keep safety but he is keeping safety as the biggest part of the whole thing. This gives you a total of 38 feet across there that if there is an incident or a need to swerve out of the lane for somebody exiting a parked car or crossing the street or the way of anything you have that option that you don't have with the median because you don't have that much space. If we need to not put the parking on the north side, that's fine but people are going to do it anyhow and you still need some type of width in there for your trash and recycle bins or they are going to put it on the bike path. In which case we have narrowed the walking path and we are back to the same issues. When you are talking about safety, this is the safest of the options. Pritam Deshmukh emphasized the biggest concern received some of the homes between Highview and Highview Circle is there is no way for them to get in and out other than to make the U-turns. One of the safety concerns is that if we protect the bike lane as is in its current condition, this becomes a narrower path as CM Ryan pointed out but at the same time it does not provide enough space to make the U-turn. We are getting into a safety concern if we start protecting this area, elevating it or doing anything else to this bike lane. The other concern with the trash if we protect this bike lane there is no way for the trash truck to get it within the bike lanes if there is some sort of protection. It would have to be placed in the travel lane. There is no space for that or it would have to be left in the bike lane. Todd Estes added to for clarity, one of the original petitioners concerns is also a concern he has running up and down the street he lives on which is Montecito. It is when people make the U-turn and it is not that you can't make it because people have done it for a number of years it is that people try to swing out a little to the right which goes into that parking area/bike lane/pedestrian lane so they begin to make a right before the start the left so they get enough room to make the U-turn. Which when someone is behind them it appears that they are turning into a driveway or a street and they start to pull around and it causes that incident. That is the nervousness coming from some of these homeowners or one of many things. There are multiple other options and he agrees it would have been nice to have heard from them directly. One of the things he does not want to lose in conversation is that we are trying to maintain a construction schedule. We have a lot of rehab money that has been promised to be put into this area and we are trying to keep that on schedule and on task. While we want to try and address as many concerns as we absolutely can on either side of this issue we are still trying to make steady progress on improvements in these areas. CM Meltzer asked if it were possible to treat the intersection differently with respect to protecting the bike lane that does not dictate what you do to the whole length of it. Todd Estes responded it is and what we have been confronted with on this particular issue from the beginning is that everybody has an opinion and any option we select will have some trade-offs. Whether it is a safety issue or somebody is not happy with what we come up with. It is going to be on both sides and why we a seeking direction here to come up with the best possible scenario to go forward and giving this to you all with a format of what are the tradeoffs. There are safety concerns and realistically you have a lot of traffic cutting through that area on Forrestridge just like you do on Montecito that weren't there 30 years ago trying to get back and forth to Ryan in their daily commutes and up to Hobson. There are concerns that we are looking at realistically going forward that is just a fact of how much commuter traffic is moving through this area through the natural course of the day trying to get to 2 schools, trying to get to work or wherever they are headed that weren't present 20 to 30 years ago. CM Briggs asked what the classification of this road is. Todd Estes responded it should be residential but it is being used as a neighborhood collector and somewhat arterial. CM Briggs added she feels like the new proposed recommendations are more arterial and not residential and adding four lanes of vehicles is going to take away from the safety of children and people walking on the street. Marc Oliphant shared a bike and pedestrian perspective on the options. He is concerned a little bit about the width of the shared use path. Eight (8) feet is really the absolute minimum and looking at some standards and in rare circumstances 8 feet can be used. Now it is not a super dense neighborhood and he does not see it being used as a through way for many cyclist but more for people in the neighborhood using those facilities. So if there was a way to increase that width somehow, he would really feel a lot better as far as people passing such as a two pedestrian approaching each other and a bicycle 8 feet is quite tight. There are advantages of keeping it on the road too. Dooring is much more likely to occur on the driver side. It is less on the passenger side since there would be some sort of curb as a transition that would buy some space. It is much less of a concern on the passenger side. CM Ryan added that it is currently 8 foot wide and unprotected as the rest of the length of Forrestridge. There are quite a few cyclist that use it through from Ryan to Hobson to get to the park frequently and especially on the weekends. That is why he is okay with the 8 foot as far as the dooring issue goes. If you practice what you are supposed to which is keep right you will be closer to the homes going north and if you are going south you have a great visual of that person in that car and could see to move over because you can only park in one direction. There is not going to be that many people that do park on the street. It is mainly going to be your service trucks and a few residents actually on the other side where we normally have a home with two or three vehicles parked up front. That's pretty much all the parking we have on a regular basis on that street. It is not like we are going to have a lot going on but it gives you some safety for a place to go. It gives you the option that you don't have somebody trying to drag a lawnmower across the street. Marc Oliphant commented it was his understanding with the 8 foot sidewalk that people do walk their dogs and ride their bikes in the street currently. CM Ryan clarified that what happens right now is that they try and stay in that path but if there is a vehicle or on Tuesday which is the trash pick-up day they have to swerve around those vehicles even if it is supposed to be a no parking it is still used as parking for service vehicles. CM Briggs commented that there is a way to handle that and if it is no parking it is a violation which means that they could get a ticket. That is one thing we are not doing. We are not enforcing that no parking. If that is something we need to do then we should be doing that. CM Ryan added that he mentioned the lawn care but then you have UPS, FedEx those that can legitimately park there because they are making a delivery. Even in a no parking zone they can stop in the middle of the street if they wanted to. Based on state law we can't enforce it or give them a ticket as long as they are making a delivery. CM Briggs noted to CM Ryan this is your district. Did you hear or have you spoken to any of the residents. CM Ryan responded he has hear from both sides. Again if there was some way to keep the median he would like to do that but when he looks at all the safety aspects of it. It was his recommendation to take it down from the 12 foot to the 11 foot because he thinks that adds to that safety factor. He asked staff if possible to give an example of a location where we have a 12 foot lane versus the 11. Right off the bat when he is driving down Hobson and in a 30 MPH zone driving 32 or 33 with people constantly on his tail and then when he turns on Teasley and it increases to 45 and people start passing him like there is no tomorrow because that feel of the wider lane with the median in the middle as protects you from oncoming traffic. Those are things that increase speed as opposed to decreasing it. CM Meltzer asked if accident statistics were available for this area. Pritam Deshmukh replied no he did not think we had any accident statistics but there were several reports of near misses but they are not documented. CM Briggs asked for the price on the project. Pritam Deshmukh did not have the actual cost for the reconstruction for this segment on hand. If we go ahead with the recommended option he thinks the pricing will be increased about $50 -$60,000 to add the extra concrete. CM Briggs stated again that she is not in favor of the recommended option and feels it is the less safe option. CM Meltzer commented that he did see that they had convinced each other of anything. CM Ryan responded that he didn't see how it could be considered less safe if you elevate the path where vehicles can't get where people are walking and riding their bike. CM Briggs added she had asked Bike Denton to review the presentation and that the recommended option was not the safest for them as cyclist. She is not a professional by any means in that and so she reached out for help. There is a whole response that she can share. CM Ryan asked what their recommendation. CM Briggs replied Option 3 because it is the most protected because it is separated by a median. Todd Estes commented that he didn't want to get away from one item. There is a tradeoff on the timing and the cost. If we don't have a consensus, which he can appreciate, and he is not trying to push the scenario that it sounds like there are strong opinions on multiple fronts and different ways of getting to a solution. The reality is that this roadway is in our CIP for being rehabbed. I needs to be redone and has been waiting for quite a few years to be redone. If we don't make a choice on its ultimate configuration, we can go forward with the rehab and people will just have to understand that when a decision is made to go forward whether it is a reduction in street width, a change in the cross section or whatever ultimately goes out there we would be back out to do construction again at a later date to keep the pavement rehab going forward and just put it back in place as it is. Some items we can move forward with are striping. Statistically across the country what we have seen is as lanes are narrower the feeling of being able to go faster is decreased. We can provide the statistics that bear that out. The best way you can provide that is to provide a physical barrier whether that is bulb outs at intersections, sidewalks or something that makes the motorist feel a little less safe going faster because the road is narrower. The more you widen it out with pavement and striping the feeling is not quite as strong to make you want to slow down. Trying to marry all those things up together is definitely a challenge and as you can tell, staff has done as much as we can to try and come up with multiple options trying to get feedback and opinions. He feels like staff has done a very good job of trying to look at all sides and there is not a good answer that makes everyone happy. Where we are today is how do we get one program moving forward and then potentially come back with another option or if we can come to a consensus on an option to move forward then we can keep the rehab portion of the CIP moving forward as well. CM Meltzer commented that if we narrow the set, there are 2.4 votes for keeping the median. CM Ryan noted that unless we are looking at dramatically expanding the cost we would have to actually buy more right of way in order to keep the median and create the safety aspect. Another option is on the north bond side where it is currently no parking that we protect it and we now have a bike path and a pedestrian path and keep it no parking. So you actually have 16 foot overall. Part of it could be used for bikers and part of it for walking. That is one thing that is missing until you get down to south of El Paseo where the sidewalks start to pick up. There are no sidewalks north of El Paseo on Forrestridge. Todd Estes added you could potentially add the sidewalks back in so you have an elevated pathway for the pedestrians and still have a 5 foot bike lane. It reduces into the cross section but still provides the passing area for limited spans of time when someone might be dropping off. That is an option we could put into play. We are definitely pushing other items around in the overall construction schedule the more we talk. If you go down one of those pathways, we could continue down the repaving aspect but we would be cutting into the asphalt potentially working on easements and right of way for sidewalks just as you get into the older portion of Forrestridge the right of way is a little different in the way it is established in its width and its setup as the southern portion of Forrestridge. There are definitely some challenges as CM Ryan was talking about bringing these other options to the table. What we were trying to achieve with these options is how we continue to move forward a street CIP that has been doing a great job over the last two years of catching up and not creating a delay. What would happen is that we would have to move other projects up to the forefront and delay this after we were done with Highview circle. It can be done and is an option but would mean we would be in the neighborhoods hair for a bit longer. We will go away and then come back and some folks will be just as frustrated that you went away and then came back as if we had just stayed put and made decisions going forward. CM Ryan asked to review the recommended option again. His option to change the parking lane to a bike lane was shared with the visual display. He felt people would be parking in it as they currently do now. CM Briggs noted her request would be to make the other side also a bike lane leaving just the two traffic lanes in the middle. CM Ryan added that would increase speeders and he would then forward all of the emails he gets. Once you don't have something there. There is one house on the other side that does have cars parked there on a regular basis. That is the area that everyone slows down for because you have a narrower path to get through there where the median is. If the median was not there you would have oncoming traffic. Right now there is 20' on each side of the median. If you get below that and something is blocking one lane or the other, you have nowhere to go. Although it has been that way forever, it has been a safety concern for quite some time. There are no accident statistics available. lo Todd Estes added to bolster what CM Ryan is saying is what is occurring here is those near misses and having been in one of those scenarios on Montecito where the exact same thing happened where he was right behind somebody who was turning left, didn't turn a signal on, started to go right like they were pulling over and I started to accelerate to go around and they immediately turned left to go into their driveway and there is no median over there. It is a nice wide street. Luckily I was going slow enough and hit the brakes and was able to avoid incident. That is a street without the median. It is hard to quantify that statistic. CM Meltzer commented he could see some argument for relooking at just the intersection part to modify that to make the turns possible. He doesn't know what all the solutions are but that we can be clever in moderating, tapering and guiding to avoid people moving over and turning. His reaction or input would be to take a look at the intersection but not change the lanes. We don't have consensus here but you are telling us we are under the gun and it's the first time it has come before me and at the last minute, he is willing to take a second look at something that has this much decent and community concern. He would be interested in a couple of options that respond to staff has heard today. He also doesn't mind meeting more frequently that we have if we need to. Todd Estes offered as a suggestion, given the amount of options he is hearing and the consideration for alternatives that all involve a considerable amount of design which will not get done on the timeline Streets was attempting to get to, his request would be that if we want to take another look at this in a different light, we can and are happy to do that but we need to reduce the expectation that Forrestridge is redone this year. It would be next year before Forrestridge would be redone from a pavement standpoint. He is sure from a pavement assessment standpoint condition wise what it is in. It was low enough that it was part of the 2012-2014 bond program. If we delay a year, does that give us too much heartburn? Probably not. We are definitely going to be all over the neighborhood for couple of years now back and forth doing multiple things but we can come back just understanding it is going to take longer to do this piece. CM Meltzer added hurry up and do something that people don't like doesn't strike me as a great answer. Taking the time to get it right might be the right way to go. CM Ryan said he would go back to his original comment that he just doesn't see a safe option. You can say it has been that way since 1980. In 1980 there was probably a tenth of the amount of traffic there is on this road right now. On the other sections where there is not a median, and there is someone walking in that bike lane because I drive it every day, if there is not oncoming traffic I have a tendency to move over to give them enough space. This is a natural tendency if you see someone to try and veer over. The way it is right now there is no place to go with that median in there. There is no place to get out of their path. It is stop or that's it. CM Briggs stated she was still feeling the same. As she looks at the picture of the existing condition and still sees the drive lanes the separation with the median with greenery and the bike lane and thinks that if we had something to protect that bike lane or separate it. If we wanted to redo the whole thing, could we make the median a little bit smaller? When she looks at the proposed option, she sees two parking lanes with cars or four lines of cars and a little area for the bike completely goes away and it is just a sidewalk. That is not going to be safe and it is not going to encourage people from the neighborhood to walk and not drive. They are going to drive to the park now because they are not going to feel safe riding their bikes. She thinks that is far from where she is at personally in her philosophy and so that is where she continues to stay. CM Meltzer shared he thinks the reality is we are going to futz around with it some more and we need to come back to the community some more. It reminds him of the Hickory Street Bike lane thing 11 where we took a lot of runs at it but we are ending up at a really good place. Goodness knows that stretch of road is in need of resurfacing really badly and he hears about it more frequently than any other but glad that we took the time to get to the right answer for the community. This is going to take some time. CM Briggs commented that because this recommended option is the new option is it possible to have another meeting and show them what this looks like with the parking and the sidewalk. Todd Estes responded based on the direction we have heard today, we would want to clean the slate and come back with some alternatives that would better reflect both sides of this. He would also put on the record that we are delaying the reconstruction as well so we don't throw money after this. Like go repave it and turn around and turn around and do another project that would cost more money to redo whatever we are going to do. His preference would be that we go down the pathway to explore some alternatives that might add to the cost of the project but he does not want to spend more money this time and turn around next year to come back and ask for more money to redo something again. It would just be a delay and the residents will have to understand as well that we are not going to get to Forrestridge until this issue is settled. We will repurpose crews to go do other things that are in the que. CM Meltzer doesn't think anybody wants to do it twice but does hear a lot of advocacy in getting it right for the community. We are not usually that contentious of a group of three. So it is possible that we will find our way to find something that will work for everyone. It is just going to take a little more work to get there. CM Ryan added that in hearing CM Briggs comments on this scenario if you took out the parking lane on the north bound side and made that a bike lane you could even do that as a 10 foot with a 6 foot sidewalk that little bit of a change would probably not hurt Engineering much. Now you have got both. You have got everything but a median that is currently there added a safety aspect at the sidewalk that protects pedestrians as an element that is currently not there. . Todd Estes summarized that we have the primary direction which is we will replace another element of the CIP ahead of Forrestridge from a paving standpoint. We have heard from the neighborhood and multiple citizens in that neighborhood how bad that road is and it needs to be redone but he doesn't want to go redo it to only have to turn around and go redo it again. He thinks that would be a waste of tax payer money as well. Mario Canizares offered there are so many options that are being discussed with you all being here and everything being designed at the podium it is always makes it a challenge. Why don't we offer up looking at the blended option of adding that bike lane where the parking lane is and see what the engineering requirements are and the cost differences, timing differences and let's bring it back to the committee along with some of the other things that have been discussed here. We can talk through it with staff on how long that will take. We need to bring that to you. He is sensitive to the fact that this project is behind. It is just going to cost more. We are going to add more frustration to the existing homeowners coming back. He would like to make sure the committee has all options on the table and you can see if we go down a path of delaying it further because we need to redesign the whole thing at least you all know and we can accommodate accordingly as best we can. The other thing we need to also fold in to the direction moving forward is that we go back to the public as far as a public meeting when we would do that especially in the summer months. We just need to fold that in as part of the timeframe. Again if it is going to take more time, we are not going to make the July kickoff of construction. That is a given but how much further will it delay what will it impact overall. Operations, construction, budgets etc. You need to know that. 12 CM Briggs shared her request came from the survey that said they wanted one option and the recommended option had never been seen before. By saying that is the one we choose without it actually being the one that was chosen is problematic. She also offered that if it is the median and it's the beauty and it's the greenery then if we could maybe reduce the parking lane a little bit and they have the really pretty lane separators with plantings the HOA could have a way to add some greenery back in somewhere that the HOA would continue to maintain. That is part of the main concern is getting rid of the unique beautiful character aspect of it. She is sensitive to that too because there is not a lot of neighborhoods with that left. I. MC19-040 Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding Texas Department of Transportation On-System projects in the Denton area. John Polster presented a review of the On-Systems Report. � FM 2181 — A replacement firm has not been selected for MCM and no schedule or timeline has been provided. Will probably stay in its existing condition through the end of suminer. The temporary sidewalks/ped path have been installed. � US 377/Fort Worth Drive - Currently having some issues with utilities and are working closely with the City in the area of the trailer park. We have gotten a better relationship with Union Pacific Railroad on the construction documents. We think we are still on track with the November 2020 completion date. � I-35E/Mayhill — Has a November 2020 Let Date, is fully funded and has been environmentally cleared. A schematic will be brought to the next meeting. The right of way foot print has been minimized and in the process of acquiring the right of way. • I-35E Loop 288/Brinker/Mayhill — The next switch of traffic called Phase 2, Step 2 is expected to occur in the mid-July/August 2019 timeframe. The process to review the request for sound walls was presented to determine feasibility and to be warranted in response to the request for Unicorn Lake area. This area was not inside the noise envelope determined to be a benefit receptor. It was never warranted for consideration of a wall. The completion date is noted as an * because they have not met any schedule date provided or determined. • I-35E/35/35W Merge — We will know this summer whether we get the full $242,000,000. Currently designing this as an ultimate. The exhibit will be presented at the next Task Meeting with the City. If we get the full amount we will press forward with a schedule because it will be funded. If we do not, we drop back down to the $150,000,000 option. • I-35 North — Awaiting environmental clearance. The estimated cost is for the entire project and it is not funded. This is the segment that the North Texas Region has determined they are going to let the Commission deal with because they want I-35 to be 6 lanes. We feel confident that the Commission will pick that up once they see that the region is not going to north of US77. The environmental clearance makes the determination whether or not sound walls are needed. • I-35 Main Lanes — Anticipate the schematic in May 2020 which will allow them to move forward with the environmental clearance. • I-35 Frontage Roads — There are no continuous frontage roads in this corridor prohibiting economic development. The intent is to get the environmental clearance in March of 2020. 13 Should be ready to let in September 2023. A public meeting was held on May 16 and there were 54 in attendance. Most of the questions were about the timing to complete. US 380 East — Includes pedestrian improvements. Looking at a February 2021 let date. Parcel acquisition should be complete by February of 2020. The construction of the roadway is scheduled to start in February 2021. Loop 288 — In the process of getting it environmentally cleared in Apri12020. We are really pushing on this project because of all of the gas wells in the area and the associated transmission lines underground and they cannot be in the right of way and must be moved. There is a significant cost associated with this. Right now we are talking about a let date in April of 2026. The intent is to build the north bound frontage road access facility so it sets the developable expectations for the City because it will be in its permanent place and won' move. • FM 1515 — It will have a round-about at Western and a round-about at the airport so trucks can turn around easily. We have worked out at FM 1515 ties into Bonnie Brae. Looking at December 2020 for environmental clearance. If these get expedited the let date will move up and we think it will be expedited. � FM 1173 — Garver has submitted final concept schematic for approval. It is consistent with the City's thoroughfare plan to move it up to Barthold Road. If we get the full funding amount for the wishbone project will include the accommodation for FM 1173. FM 428 — Michael Morris is interested in partnering and only wants to make this a limited access facility. We will use him to convince TxDOT of what we want to do so we have a very strong Alai. This is one of the projects we are pitching to get additional funding from the MPO for the potential funding for the bond program in November. There is already a strong push to get the outer loop from Collin County area to get over to I-35. This first segment over to FM 428 is why we think FM 428 will act more like a spur. Nobody is going to want to come down all the way to US 380 and go through US 380 to get to Denton when all they have to do is cross the loop and come down a limited access facility main lining them right into town. CM Briggs asked about when the on ramp at Dallas Drive would be re-opened. John responded that it will be opened when the OHL job is done. There is currently nowhere to go because the bridge is not there. It will be barrier protected so when you enter you cannot cross over to the Loop 288 exit. John Polster noted that City staff is working with TxDOT on close to $2.SB worth of improvements to projects that significantly impact the City of Denton quality of life. CM Briggs noted the last time we talked about Teasley the contractor selection was close. John Polster responded that they have picked it. Based on the amounts of the new bids, in the new contract they were making the new contractor responsible for what MCM. The contractors decided that if they were going to be responsible, they were going to assume the previous construction was all bad and they would take it out and start over. The state does not have any leverage on the Surety to make them expedite in any fashion or form. The Texas Department of Transportation has no authority over the contractors once the project is let and the surety bond companies because the legislature will not give them any authority. John Polster expanded on the process of what happens when the contractor defaults. CM Briggs as if we had any options to get the road back at this time. Todd Estes responded that there are options that we can explore any and all of which would involve expenditure of funds that have already been there. The way this project was put together, the City's commitment was 14 funding to the project for water and waste water utility relocations. It was just a component of TxDOT's overall project. We will be glad to explore other alternatives to see if there is some other way to keep the project moving forward but it is a very complicated matter when it comes to a contract that has been breached by one party of the other and you get into the scenario where TxDOT's hands are really tied with what enforceable items they have. They just don't have it and have not been given it by the legislature. John Polster added the cost was originally $40M and not something you just want to unilaterally take on. The stuff that is in the ground is the issue a lot of which are the City's utilities. Todd Estes further noted that the City would have the same issue that any of the new contractors would have in assessing and determining the quality of work that has already been done to determine if it is viable and where to start. B. MC19-033 Receive a report, hold a discussion, and give staff direction regarding the Connected Citizens Program and Waze mobile application. Stephanie Yates Marketing and Outreach Coordinator with the City in the Public Affairs Department presented and update on the Waze Connected Citizens Program including some of the key features and benefits of the partnership and some current and future initiatives that the city is exploring to continue to evolve WAZE as a communication tool to improve mobility throughout the city. The program launched in February 2019. It is a free tool for everyone to use and allows partners to update City planned construction and improvement projects that will impact traffic as well as allow users to directly input through the app road congestion, closures, stalled vehicles or any type of inconveniences that may happen on the roadway. It also provides a current overview of road conditions throughout the city. It is a partnerships that is shared by other cities including Southlake, Frisco and Plano. As people drive throughout the DFW area they are able to continue to see updated road conditions. Once the partnership was confirmed a robust communication campaign began through press releases. DTV worked together with the Public Affairs Department to put together a quick video that was included in the social media campaign and we are continuing to different aspects of the social media campaign as well. It was included in the City of Denton newspaper as well as the web page and featured in a number of local publications including the Denton Record Chronical. Key Features we use to expand on our partnership is through the Daily Construction and Closure Report, Two Way Road Information Sharing and Emergency Help Features. The continued improvements being explored include: road closure alert updates, data-driven infrastructure planning and management, emergency help features, promotion and education. CM Briggs noted in the Citizen on Engagement Meeting they talked about this and had some discussion about not just this road is closed but an alternate route. They talked about how that could be beneficial to show the quickest alternate routes. She asked it this is something that could be done through WAZE. Stephanie Yates replied currently that is not a feature that we can do through WAZE. In the committee meeting we talked about linking because a lot of the information that we input as a City is exactly what people can find on the SCR. On Improving Denton if we are able to link the detour maps that are included with the project mailings could be one avenue where we can push that information out to residents. Currently it is a little restrictive and we are not allowed to put the detour information in as of today. CM Meltzer commented he is thrilled that is has gotten this far because it has been in the works for a long time. It is a very on target tool. The communication he looked at talked about getting through traffic. He offered an opinion that the real dialog is about construction. There is no need for us to hide from that message because it is not like people won't notice. The logo of Improving Denton 15 really speaks to that. There is a lot going on because we are improving Denton and WAZE will help us get through it together and this is the message he would like to encourage. D. MC19-035 Receive a report about the planned roadway updates for Parkway Street/Oakland Street from Carroll Boulevard to Withers Street. Pritam Deshmukh background information. Parkway is a very small segment of street that stretches between Calhoun Middle School on one end through Carroll, Elm and Locust then turns around and becomes Oakland Drive and meets the TWU campus. Currently it is a very wide roadway between Carroll all the way to the where it connects to Withers. It is about 43 feet wide and two lanes in each direction. When we look at the traffic volumes, currently it does not warrant that kind of capacity particularly the short stretch where it goes in. Staff conducted studies with warrant analysis for the Elm and Locust signals and determined that it does not really meet the warrant. Back in the day when these particular intersection signals were installed it had quite a bit of traffic commuting back and forth and the reason it was installed. Current demands change in land use, change in traffic patterns do not warrant signals at Elm and Locust along Parkway. We have submitted the analysis to TxDOT requesting to remove those trafiic signals and go back to stop signs. In addition to that we are also planning on a reduction in capacity which is a road diet going from a four lane section to a three lane section. That would allow us to add in bike lanes on both sides for the entire segment. Stop signs would be installed on Parkway at the cross streets of Elm and Locust similar to the street intersections south of the square at Mulberry and Sycamore. We have received concerns at the intersection of Congress and Oakland due to the curve. There are two travel lanes and people traveling along Oakland have a sight distance issue as they approach Congress going north. If someone is trying to make a left from Congress going north there is no refuge if they can't see oncoming traffic from the south curve of Oakland. The proposed option would create the center refuge area from anyone entering from Congress to merge safely into the main travel lane. It is a two-step process to address the existing concerns. There is also a concern for pedestrians crossing at this intersection. This center refuge area would also allow pedestrians to take a break if necessary when crossing to look in either direction and continue crossing. The proposal today is to provide direction for staff to move forward with this alternative. CM Ryan gave it a thumbs up approval. CM Briggs was very for the road diet and asked to confirm the Elm and Locust intersections would become two-way stops along Parkway. Because people go up and down Elm and Locust and we are putting in bike lanes encouraging more biking, there will not be any specific crossing signal to help them cross. Pritam Deshmukh confirmed there would not be any signal to help them cross but we could look at other options. We currently have the signal infrastructure so we can move forward with something to help them provide a separate signal or flashing light to help if the bikers show up in the bike lane we can detect them and the flashers can activate. If needed we can add more safety. There are gaps in the traffic created by the Signal at McKinney that will help traffic trying to cross Elm. On the other side the available site distance is way down the street and you have enough visibility in all directions and open space to stop. CM Meltzer thinks this is right on the money in all particulars and the safety idea presented by CM Briggs. He asked if staff would be inclined to mark a cross walk at Congress near the library parking lot. Pritam Deshmukh responded that since we are not adding stop signs it is not recommended to mark a crosswalk. There will be crossing available but it will not be marked. People get a false pretense if it 16 is marked that I am protected. Whereas there is obviously a crossing indicated by the sidewalk and ramps that people can actually cross. We don't want to give a false sense of security by adding marks. It has not been designed yet and the on-street parking will need to be reviewed in section of Oakland. CM Ryan noted that Elm widens out in the block by north of Congress and then one becomes a right turn lane between Congress and McKinney. He asked if we could drop that back one block to improve the safety for the newly created bike lane crossings. G. MC19-038 Receive an updated report and hold a discussion regarding the North Central Texas Council of Government's (NCTCOG) Policy Bundle Program. Katie Welch with Capital Projects presented and update on the MTP Policy Bundle Update submitted to the Council of Governments. The application was submitted back in April of this year. We find out in July with an official approval and then will figure out our next steps. We spoke in the previous meeting about the policies that we were not currently meeting and the next steps we can take for policies that would be good for the City. Employer Trip Reduction is one we have focused on. The recommended strategies presented were: telecommuting/flexible work schedules, subsidize transit passes, encourage carpooling, biking, and walking to work and utilizing TryParkit.com. Next steps presented as recommendations for participation were to create and provide information material for staff and external employers and to work with NCTCOG to learn more about the TryParkingIt.com's implementation process. CM Briggs commented that she is in favor of this. With the recent list of 42 new employees over 60% of them commute and do not live here in Denton. This would be really important for us to get to City staff so we can do better. It can be really important if we can create other ways besides individual cars coming in. CM Meltzer concurred especially by the idea of sequencing it by City staff testing it first. He wondered in terms of bringing it out to the business community if it would fit with the Green Business Program. It might become a part of the communication so as not to create to many different communication sources. Adjournment: 12:32 pm CONCLUDING ITEMS Under Section 551.042 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, respond to inquiries from the Public Utilities Board or the public with specific factual information or recitation of policy, or accept a proposal to place the matter on the agenda for an upcoming meeting AND Under Section 551.0415 of the Texas Open Meetings Act, provide reports about items of community interest regarding which no action will be taken, to include: expressions of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; information regarding holiday schedules; an honorary or salutary recognition of a public official, public employee, or other citizen; a reminder about an upcoming event organized or sponsored by the governing body; information regarding a social, ceremonial, or community event organized or sponsored by an entity other than the governing body that was attended or is scheduled to be attended by a member of the governing body or an official or employee of the municipality; or an announcement involving an imminent threat to the public health and safety of people in the municipality that has arisen after the posting of the agenda. 17 � �� '� -, �'� .�" ` aw � �4 � � Jp � Chair ����� Council Member Meltzer r� . � � , � �- ��, � � � ���. ,. �� 1. a � �' � � �'s dd. �.� m_. _ .�.:r. ,..... �..... _.,.... Recording »���:�µ�t�r�•� Becky Owens �