* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          YOUR MICROPHONE, PLEASE. 
          [00:00:02]
THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPH, 
          [2. Public Comments]
ARE YOU STILL ON THE LINE? YES, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I HEARD YOU SPEAKING TO ONE OF THE MEMBERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MA'AM THANK YOU. 
          MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS. 
          I'M ZENOBIA JOSEPH. 
          MY COMMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ITEM 11, WHICH IS A DISCUSSION ITEM IT'S SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE $633 MILLION OF THE DEFERRED PROJECTS RELATED TO CAPITAL EXPRESS CENTRAL PROJECT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WHILE THE LANGUAGE IN THE PACKET ON PAGE 63, SPECIFIES PROJECT SCORES AND RANKING, THERE WERE THREE METRO RAPID LINES THAT WERE IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN. 
          THOSE PROJECTS ACTUALLY SCORED HIGHER THAN THE ONES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, AND THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON JUNE EIGHT, 2020 WHEN YOU APPROVED THE DEFERMENT LIST. 
          AND SO I'M ASKING YOU TO LOOK AT THAT AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO AT LEAST DISCUSS WHY THE PROJECT SCORES AND RANKING WAS NOT USED FOR THOSE PROJECTS. 
          SPECIFICALLY, THERE WERE THREE LINES MLK CAMERON WROTE TO ENDESA TO ACC, HIGHLAND AND PALMER, SAMSUNG TO APPLE. 
          EACH OF THESE LINES, THE METRO RAPID LINE SERVED MORE MINORITIES THAN THE ONES IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN. 
          THERE ARE 53% MINORITIES MLK, 74% AND 55% ON PALMER COMPARED TO BURNET MEN, CHAKA AND OAK HILL, AND SPECIFICALLY CONVICT HILL. 
          THERE WERE ONLY 37 TO 38% MINORITIES. 
          SO MY COMMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO TITLE SIX OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964. 
          AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SCORES WERE 88, 87 OUT OF 100 FOR THE NORTHEAST LINES IN 82 AND 85 FOR THE ONES THAT WERE SOUTHWEST. 
          IT COSTS MORE FOR THE ONES THAT WERE SOUTHWEST. 
          THEY WERE $41.2 MILLION COMPARED TO 18.4 FOR ALL THREE OF THE METRO RAPID LINES IN NORTHEAST AUSTIN. 
          THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF $22.8 MILLION. 
          AND SO I'M ASKING YOU, AND I DID TESTIFY BEFORE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2020. 
          I ASKED THEM TO FIND $4.7 MILLION OUT OF THEIR CATEGORY, 12 FUNDS TO ACTUALLY FUND THAT RAPID LINE ON PARMER LANE. 
          I WOULD JUST CALL IT TO YOUR ATTENTION. 
          THE 2014 PROJECT CONNECT NORTH CORRIDOR, A LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE STUDY ACTUALLY SPECIFIED THAT 53 58% OF THE JOBS WOULD BE IN THE NORTH CORRIDOR. 
          AND THEY ALSO SPECIFIED, UM, THAT THE NOT ONLY THEY EMPLOYMENT, BUT THE CONDUCTIVITY WAS SIGNIFICANT. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOUTHWEST AUSTIN, THAT ACTUALLY ALIGNS WITH THE STATE $633 MILLION OKO PARKWAY PROJECT. 
          BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO OPERATE UNDER ACCOUNTABILITY, INTEGRITY, AND TRANSPARENCY, THEN THE SCORES THAT ARE LISTED IN THE BOARD PACKET IS WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES. 
          AND I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO, UH, COMMIT TO ACTUALLY COMPLYING WITH THAT. 
          LASTLY, I'LL JUST TELL YOU THAT THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 2020 PROHIBITS THE USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PROPAGANDA, AND EVEN AFTER THESE LINES WERE CUT CAPITAL METRO AND THE CITY OF AUSTIN CONTINUE TO TELL THE PUBLIC THAT THE PARMA LINE WAS STILL THERE AND ALSO THE MLC. 
          UM, AND THAT WAS ON THE SEPTEMBER 25TH, UH, JOINT SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE. 
          AND I THANK YOU FOR TAKING MY COMMENTS. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL GLADLY ANSWER THEM AT THIS TIME. 
          THANK YOU, MS. JOSEPH. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          THIS IS COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          UM, I'M WONDERING IF ASHBY CAN EXPLAIN TO US ABOUT THAT RANKING OR WAS THAT A TXDOT RANKING? IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THE HIGHEST RANKED, UH, PROJECTS GOT INCLUDED AS MS. JOSEPH WAS LAYING OUT. 
          SO, UM, COMMISSIONER SHEA, THE AGENDA ITEM, UM, IS ABOUT THE DEFERRED PROJECTS. 
          AND WE CAN, IF THERE'S A QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT, WE CAN ADDRESS IT WHEN WE GET INTO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, BUT, UM, DURING PUBLIC COMMENTS, UM, W YOU KNOW, W WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IF THERE IS THE SPECIFIC, WHEN WE GET TO AGENDA ITEMS, BUT I'M NOT SURE WE RANKED SPECIFIC CAP METRO ROUTES. 
          SO, UM, I'M GOING TO LET, UH, STAFF ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE GET TO NUMBER 11. 
          OKAY. 
          IF WE'LL JUST REMEMBER THAT I WOULD LIKE, UM, SOME EXPLANATION OR INFORMATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER SHEA. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I WANT TO, LET'S SEE FOR THE RECORD, UM, I SAW MAYOR ADLER COMING IN ON THE CALL, UM, AND, UH, SAW COUNCIL MEMBER ELLIS AND JERRY MITCHELL. 
          UM, I THINK I SAW MAYOR SCHRADER 
          [00:05:02]
AND COMMISSIONER TREVELYAN AND OF COURSE, COMMISSIONER SHEA. 
          SO THE ONLY ONES I HAVE MISSING AT THIS POINT ARE ALISON ALTER, UH, JUDGE BROWN. 
          AND, UM, I THINK THAT'S IT. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOU SHOW UP, BUT WELCOME. 
          AND THANK YOU FOR CYNTHIA. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY, GREAT. 
          UM, SO I THINK WE'VE GOT EVERYBODY. 
          ALL RIGHT, SO LET'S GO AHEAD. 
          AND, UM, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW ON ITEM NUMBER THREE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. 
          UM, 
          [5. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on November 2, 2020 Meeting Minutes]
SO, UH, IF WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND JUMP TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER MEETING. 
          DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES? OKAY. 
          MAYOR MORGAN. 
          UM, MIKE, IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          UM, ALL RIGHT. 
          IS THERE ANY, WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR MORGAN A SECOND BY MARY QSEN. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          UM, IF THERE IS ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY 
          [6. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on CAMPO Executive Director to Begin Negotiation of Legal Services Contract.]
ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISCUSSING TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON CAMPO, UH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS OR LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT. 
          UM, I BELIEVE CHAD IS GOING TO UPDATE US ON THIS ITEM. 
          YES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MADAM CHAIR. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE CAN. 
          EXCELLENT. 
          UM, SO CAMPOS CURRENT LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT EXPIRES AT THE END OF THIS MONTH AND TO ENSURE CONTINUITY OF LEGAL SERVICES, TYPO BEGAN THE PROCESS TO PROCURE A NEW LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACT LAST YEAR. 
          UH, THIS PROCESS BEGAN ON OCTOBER 19TH, 2020. 
          UH, WHEN YOUR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS WAS POSTED FOR CAMPO LEGAL SERVICES WITH SUBMITTALS, FOR THE RFQ DUE ON NOVEMBER THE SIXTH, WE RECEIVED PROPOSALS FROM THE THREE FIRMS THAT YOU SHOULD SEE ON THE SCREEN. 
          PRICKER STAFF,  ACOSTA, LLP, KIM SMITH, LLP, TIM CAMPO, STAFF EVALUATION TEAM, INDIVIDUALLY REVIEWED AND SCORED THE PROPOSALS BASED ON A SET OF SELECTION CRITERIA. 
          AND THOSE SCORES WERE THEN AVERAGE FOR THE FINAL RANKING. 
          THE SELECTION CRITERIA WAS INCLUDED IN THE RFQ, AND IT EQUALLY WEIGHTED PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE OF FIRMS STAFFING AND ATTORNEY QUALIFICATIONS, UNDERSTANDING OF SCOPE AND PAST PERFORMANCE BASED ON THIS EVALUATION, THE RESULTS YOU CAN SEE ON THE STREET OR ON THE SCREEN NOW WITH THE TOP RANKED FIRM, UM, AS TIM TUNJI LAW WITH 91 TOTAL POINTS FOLLOWED BY KIM SMITH AND PICKER STAFF  AND NEXT TYPE, PLEASE, BASED ON THE RESULTS. 
          UH, THIS REVIEW STAFF ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE POLICY BOARD AUTHORIZED THE CAMPO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, CHAD BLASEY. 
          SO MOVE. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          BYE. 
          BYE. 
          IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION I'M SURE. 
          COULD, COULD WE GET A LITTLE BIT OF EXPLANATION? UM, I KNOW THE BIGGER STAFF, UM, IS A, A VERY EXPERIENCED LAW FIRM, UM, AND I'M INTERESTED TO KNOW, UH, WHAT, HOW THE, HOW THE FIRMS WERE RANKED BASED ON THE CRITERIA, BECAUSE, UH, UM, UH, TELL YOU AS A SMALL FIRM. 
          UM, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE RANKING AND THE CRITERIA. 
          SURE. 
          UM, SO YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO FOR PICKER STAFF, UM, THE PROPOSAL DID NOT INCLUDE ANY, UM, OR INDICATE ANY PRIOR MPO EXPERIENCE. 
          UM, THE TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE THAT IS PROVIDED IS REALLY UNRELATED TO WHAT WAS IN THE RFQ OR CAMPOS PROCESSES, UM, AND IT REALLY FOCUSES MORE ON FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION FOR, UM, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. 
          UM, THOSE SORTS OF PROJECTS THAT, THAT THEY TYPICALLY WORK ON, UM, AS WELL, THE RESUMES THAT WERE INCLUDED, UM, DID NOT INDICATE ANY, UH, EXPERIENCE THAT WAS RELEVANT TO CAMPO OR MPO. 
          WAS THAT THE CATEGORY THAT, UH, TONY AND I, I THINK THEY'RE FINE. 
          I, I, I KNOW, UM, UM, MR. TONY AND SHANNON, I THINK THEY DO A FINE JOB, BUT WAS THE GREATEST, UH, UH, WEIGHT GIVEN THAT GAVE HIM SUCH 
          [00:10:01]
A MUCH HIGHER SCORE BECAUSE THEY HAD EXPERIENCED PROVIDING, UM, LEGAL GUIDANCE TO AN MPO. 
          THAT WAS A KEY. 
          THE OTHER REALLY CRUCIAL ITEM FOR THE, UM, LAW FIRM IS THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY ONE WHERE BOTH OF THEIR PRIMARY CONTACTS, UH, DEMONSTRATED NPO EXPERIENCE. 
          UM, NONE OF THE OTHERS HAD THAT. 
          UM, MADAM CHAIR, I'LL JUST MAKE NOTE THAT, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE WE MAY BE SETTING UP A CRITERIA THAT WOULD GUARANTEE THAT THE ONLY FIRM THAT WOULD EVER SCORE HIGHEST IS THE FIRM THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDING LEGAL GUIDANCE. 
          AND I, AND I, WHILE I APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT, UH, EXPERIENCE, UM, I ALSO DON'T WANT TO SET UP A PROCESS THAT WOULD PREVENT ANY OTHER FIRM FROM EVER REALLY, UH, RANKING, UH, AT A LEVEL THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER THEM. 
          SO, MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK THIS QUESTIONS MAY HELP, UM, LEAVE YOU TO SPEAK TO WHICH AT SAYING, AND IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT, THAT THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA THAT WAS UTILIZED HERE HAD TO DENOTE IT SPECIFICALLY THE EXPERIENCE AND THE EXPERTISE WITH MPOS PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL APPLICATION PROCESS. 
          SO, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, CAUSE YOU GUYS DO THIS FOR A LIVING. 
          I JUST LIVE IN A VAN DOWN BY THE RIVER. 
          UM, THERE ARE OTHER FIRMS THAT WOULD HAVE JUST AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS SUCH, BUT THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT THEMSELVES TO THIS, UM, PROCESS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL ADD THAT THE, THE, FROM THAT WAS, UM, SECOND, UM, THAT KIM SMITH FIRM DID HAVE, UM, NPO EXPERIENCE. 
          AND THAT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS COUNTED AS, UH, AND THEY WERE IN THE SECOND PLACE POSITION. 
          THE ISSUES THERE WERE THEN THE PRIMARY CONTACT LISTED DID NOT HAVE NPO EXPERIENCE, AGAIN, TEMPO EXPERIENCE, BUT JUST MPO EXPERIENCE. 
          AND MOST OF THE FIRMS, UH, WORK ON WATER DISTRICTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, SO YEAH, THAT, THAT, UH, MIDDLE UNDER THERE REALLY GIVES AN INDICATION OF HOW THE SCORES WORK. 
          NO, EXCELLENT. 
          NO, THAT'S, THAT'S PERFECTLY FAIR ANSWER. 
          MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE JUST MOVING FORWARD. 
          WHAT I'M CITY COMMISSIONERS CONCERN IS THAT THE POOL OF CANDIDATES WE'RE HOWEVER WE'RE GOING ABOUT DOING THE SOLICITORS GIVING PROCESS AND LETTING PEOPLE KNOW THAT IT'S OUT THERE, I WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE FULLY, WE'RE HITTING THE FULL UNIVERSE OF THIS CANDIDATE. 
          SO EVERYONE HAS AN ABILITY TO DO SO. 
          I THINK THAT, UM, TIM HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB BY THIS MPO TO SAY THE LEAST. 
          UM, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, YEAH, WE WOULD JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD A GO AHEAD CHIP AND TRY TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO REGARDING SERVICES. 
          OF COURSE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, TOTALLY. 
          I'D MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, WE ACTUALLY THANK YOU, JUDGE, BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. 
          SO, UH, MOTION BY, UH, MAYOR MORGAN AND SECOND BY COUNCIL FOR KITCHEN. 
          UM, HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IF THERE'S ANYBODY AGAINST THE MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE, MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY 
          [7. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 Project Selection Criteria]
ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON FDA'S 10 PROJECT CRITERIA. 
          AND THIS IS RYAN CALLS WITH TELCO STAFF. 
          THIS ITEM THAT WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU IS AN UPDATE TO THE 53 CRITERIA. 
          WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS. 
          AND SO I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE 53 10 PROGRAM HAS A, IT'S AN FTA PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY A DESIGNATED RECIPIENT IN THIS CASE, THAT'S CAPITAL METRO, BUT SELECTION OF A DESIGNATED RECIPIENT. 
          UM, THEY'VE DELEGATED THIS SELECTION OF PRODUCTS TO CAMPO. 
          UM, AND THE 53 10 PROGRAM ITSELF DIRECTLY SUPPORTS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS THAT ARE TAILORED TOWARDS SENIORS AND INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES. 
          WE RECEIVE ROUGHLY A MILLION DOLLARS IN FUNDING EVERY YEAR. 
          AND SO WE DO, WE'VE BEEN DOING AN ANNUAL CALL SINCE ABOUT 2012, AND IT'S ACTUALLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS IS KIND OF INCREDIBLY COMPETITIVE. 
          AND SO LAST TIME WE DID THE PROJECT SELECTION. 
          THIS IS BACK IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY, THE POLICY BOARD DID REQUEST THAT WE KIND OF REVISIT THE CRITERIA AND THE PROCESS. 
          UM, IT WAS LAST APPROVED IN 2012. 
          AND SO WE KIND OF TOOK A HOLISTIC REVIEW TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WE NEEDED TO DO TO KIND OF CHANGE YOU KIND OF UPDATE AND, UH, MAKE IT A MORE COMPETITIVE, UM, PROCESS. 
          AND SO, UM, THAT IS WHAT THIS HAS TO MISS TODAY. 
          AND I'LL BRIEFLY JUST GO THROUGH THE CRITERIA THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE AND THEN THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR. 
          AND THEN IF 
          [00:15:01]
WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE CRITERIA, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, MR. ADMINISTERING OTHER PROJECTS, UH, ONCE WE GET THE PROJECT CRITERIA UPDATED. 
          UM, SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT TYPE, PLEASE, UH, SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE, UH, WE DID THE, DID THE UPDATE, EXCUSE ME, THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
          AND THAT WAS PRETTY EXTENSIVE. 
          IT WAS AN ITERATIVE PROCESS. 
          WE STARTED WITH THE CURRENT CRITERIA AND WE REVIEWED THE FTA RESOURCES AND GUIDANCE, A FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS, ANY RESOURCES THAT FDA HAD. 
          WE ALSO LOOKED AT SOME TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, WHITE PAPERS. 
          UM, WE ALSO LOOKED AT OTHER 53 GRANT CRITERIA WITH ACROSS THE STATE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY. 
          WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT CAPITOL, METRO REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION COMMITTEE GAVE THEIR FEEDBACK ON IT BACK IN, UH, DECEMBER. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS IMPORTANT TO NOTICE THAT THE REGIONAL TRANSIT COORDINATION COMMITTEE, THIS IS THE 53, 10 FUNDING IS TO THEIR IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING. 
          THEY DO A PLAN EVERY FIVE YEARS AND THE 53 10 FUNDING IS REALLY DESIGNATED TO KIND OF FUND THOSE PROGRAMS THAT COME OUT OF THEIR PLANNING PROCESS THAT USE THEIR FEEDBACK WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT. 
          WE'VE TAKEN IT TO THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE TWICE. 
          NOW WE GET FOR INITIAL FEEDBACK. 
          AND THEN ONCE WE HAD A DRAFT OF THE CRITERIA TO GET BACK TO THEM AND ASK FOR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK, AND THEN OF COURSE, THIS WENT TO THE POLICY BOARD IN NOVEMBER AND A GOOD DISCUSSION ON THE HATS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION THAT THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY TOWARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
          UM, SO IT'S BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL ROUNDS OF DEVELOPMENT AND, UM, TALK ABOUT THE CURRENT CRITERIA. 
          UM, SO THE CURRENT PROCESS THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE THE ELIGIBILITY ON THE LEFT. 
          THAT'S JUST YOUR BASIC ELIGIBILITY LOCATION, THE SPONSOR TYPE IN THE ACTIVITY THAT WE WOULD BE FUNDING AND THE SCORING CRITERIA, WHICH IS REALLY THE MEAT OF IT ON THE RIGHT. 
          WE HAVE SEVEN CRITERIA WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE WEIGHTS ON THE RIGHT. 
          AND IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, DEEP DIVE ON THESE, BUT I WILL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          I'LL SHOW YOU WHAT THE PROCESS LOOKS LIKE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. 
          SO FOR THE PROCESS UPDATE, THE ELIGIBILITY DOES THE SAME, NOTHING. 
          WE REALLY CHANGED. 
          TWO MAJOR CHANGES THAT HAVE COME OUT OF IT IS THAT THE, WE HAD A PROJECT PUT INTO THIS SCREENING. 
          UM, PREVIOUSLY THE BUDGET WAS PART OF THE SCORING CRITERIA, BUT WE'VE KIND OF MOVED THAT INTO THE PROJECT IN A SCREENING, FLESHED OUT BUDGET. 
          AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SPONSORS ARE GOOD STATEMENTS WITH FTA AND CAPITAL METRO. 
          UM, AND SO THINGS LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING, JUST CHECK THE, THE, THE PROJECT ITSELF HAS BEEN FULLY FLESHED OUT AND IT WAS READY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER MAJOR CHANGE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE DO THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          UM, KIND OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS THAT WE SHOULD MOVE TO A TWO YEAR SCHEDULE AS OPPOSED TO DOING ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF FUNDING. 
          EVERY SINGLE YEAR, I WILL DO TWO YEARS WORTH OF FUNDING EVERY TWO YEARS. 
          AND SO THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL. 
          I THINK, ESPECIALLY TO THESE SPONSORS THAT APPLY MOST OF THESE ARE SMALL NONPROFITS AND BABY TAILORED PROGRAMS THAT WE'LL BE BETTER ABLE TO USE THEIR RESOURCES AND TIME BECAUSE IT DOES A TON OF PROCESS APPLYING FOR FUNDING. 
          I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN OVER TWO YEARS AS A SCRAMBLE EVERY YEAR TO GET RENEWED FUNDING SO THAT IT WILL BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO THEM. 
          AND THEN ON THE RIGHT, WE ALSO HAVE THE UPDATED SCORING CRITERIA. 
          MOST OF IT HAS REMAINED THE SAME WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE WEIGHTS HAVE CHANGED PRETTY SUBSTANTIALLY. 
          UM, SO WE'VE MOVED TO THE BENEFIT HAS REMAINED THE SAME PROGRAM. 
          SUSTAINABILITY WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA. 
          UM, WE DID HAVE PROGRAM EXPERIENCE OF CORONATION AND PARTNERSHIPS AND INTERCONNECTIVITY ARE BOTH PART OF THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA THAT WE PULLED OVER. 
          THOSE, THOSE THAT ARE, WE THOUGHT WERE IMPORTANT TO EVALUATE THE PROJECTS THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WITH THEIR BENEFICIAL THINGS, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO HAVE TO, WE REDUCED THE WEIGHTS ON THESE BECAUSE THOUGH THEY ARE IMPORTANT. 
          WE DIDN'T WANT THEM TO PRECLUDE OTHER NEW PROJECTS FROM BEING COMPETITIVE IN THE PROCESS. 
          UM, WE BUMPED UP THE TCC PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING FOR THE RTCC MISSION AND PLANNING OBJECTIVES, WE DID THE, ONE OF THE NEWEST ONES IS THE PERFORMANCE MEASURE OF MONITORING. 
          THIS IS 20 POINTS. 
          THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT THESE SPONSORS DO YOU HAVE A PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT PATTERN DATA AND HOW THE FUNDING IS BEING SPENT AND PARTNERSHIP. 
          AND THIS IS REALLY JUST TO LINE IT UP WITH THE, THE WAY THE FEDERAL FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE FAST 
          [00:20:01]
REALLY KIND OF DELEGATED, VERY PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING MECHANISM. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, IS REALLY JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN REPORT ON THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
          SO THAT'S WHY THAT IS. 
          AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY JUST A COST BENEFIT IN THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA. 
          BUT, UM, FROM THE DRAFT CRITERIA THAT YOU SAW, THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS WAITED 30 POINTS. 
          AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS, I BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER BECCA BROUGHT IT UP FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
          WE ALSO HEARD THIS ABOUT TCC DID THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. 
          ONE REPORT WAS OVERLY GRADED. 
          AND SO WE REDUCED THE 30 POINTS DOWN TO 20 AND THEN REDISTRIBUTED 10 POINTS INTO THE BENEFIT BECAUSE BOTH THE BENEFIT SECTION AND THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ESSENTIALLY WEIGH THE SAME THINGS, BUT WHAT WAS QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE. 
          SO THAT, THAT WAS A GOOD BALANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO CRITERIA. 
          UM, AND SO, UM, THIS, UH, THIS PHOTOGRAPH HERE ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THAT FEEDBACK. 
          AND WITH THAT REQUEST, WE'LL HAVE THE UPDATED CRITERIA AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, RYAN. 
          I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON THAT. 
          I KNOW YOU COMMISSIONER BECKETT AND OTHERS ON THAT. 
          UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SECOND PEG, UH, JUDGE OAKLEY MAKE THE MOTION AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS COUNSEL FOR MATEO WITH THE SECOND DISCUSSION. 
          I JUST HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER CHAIR. 
          UH, MY QUESTION JUST, UH, JUST SO THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND AND JUST TO REMIND US ON THE TIMING. 
          SO WITH THIS, WE'LL BE MOVING TO EVERY TWO YEARS. 
          HOW DOES THAT, UM, UH, CAN YOU JUST SPEAK TO AND EXPLAIN TO FOLKS WHEN THAT KICKS IN AND HOW IT MIGHT IMPACT, UM, EXISTING, UM, UH, GRANTEES, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT, THAT THEY MAY BE, UM, I JUST WANT TO ALLAY ANY CONCERNS THAT SOMEONE MAY BE RELYING ON A CERTAIN TIMEFRAME IS MY QUESTION MAKES SENSE, BUT I'M ASKING YOU YES, I BELIEVE I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          UM, SO RIGHT NOW, NORMALLY WE WOULD BE DOING, YOU KNOW, OUR ANNUAL CALL AT THIS TIME. 
          AND SO WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS, WE'LL JUST IMMEDIATELY GO INTO A CALL BACK. 
          WE CAN GET EVERYTHING UPDATED AND THEN IT, AND THAT WOULD BE GIVEN TWO YEARS WORTH OF FUNDING. 
          SO WE'D GIVE OUT THIS YEAR'S FUNDING AS WELL AS TO BE DISTRIBUTED. 
          SO HOPEFULLY FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THERE ARE ANY GAPS BETWEEN THE LAST CALL AND DOING THIS ONE. 
          SO IF SOMEBODY IS RELYING ON THIS FUNDING, WE CAN PROBABLY GET IT TO THEM PRETTY QUICKLY. 
          IT REALLY JUST A MATTER OF UPDATING THE MATERIALS AND EDUCATING THE SPONSORS ON THE NEW REQUIREMENTS AND GETTING GOING THERE SHOULD NOT BE MORE THAN A FEW MONTHS GAP BETWEEN THE NORMAL TIMEFRAME. 
          HOPEFULLY THAT, YES, THAT WAS EXACTLY MY QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          YEAH. 
          UM, IF I, IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION, UM, I AM, UH, JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT TOOL. 
          IS THAT AN INTERNAL TOOL THAT WE ARE MEASURING OR COMPARING, UM, THAT, THAT W THAT WE HAVE PUT FORTH, UH, FOR THE, UH, FOR THE PROJECT MANAGERS TO, UM, TO LAY OUT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS EXTERNAL, THAT THEY SET OUT THE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND MANAGEMENT PROCESSES THEMSELVES. 
          THAT'S GOOD, KIND OF A MIX. 
          SO WE DO HAVE SOME RECOMMENDED BEFORE IT WAS MEASURES. 
          THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO TRACK SUCH AS RIDERSHIP AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT A LOT OF THESE ARE SMALL NONPROFITS THAT HAVE A PERFORMANCE MEASURE SYSTEM IN PLACE. 
          AND SO THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE PART OF THE EDUCATION PROCESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS NEW UPDATED CRITERIA IS REALLY KIND OF GETTING THEM UP TO SPEED. 
          I'M SURE IT WILL BE POSSIBLY GETTING INTO THE SYSTEM. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT THE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD FTA, I THINK I'VE JUST SOME STANDARD PERFORMANCE MEASURE SYSTEMS THAT WE CAN USE. 
          AND SO I THINK REALLY JUST GETTING THOSE TOOLS TO THE SPONSORS IS GOING TO BE THAT THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT THERE WILL BE THAT EDUCATION, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT IS SOMETHING NEW FOR THEM. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          SEEING NONE. 
          I HAVE A MOTION FROM JUDGE OCULI AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MATEO. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY AGAINST THE MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE, A MOTION PASSES, 
          [00:25:01]
UNANIMOUSLY ITEM 
          [8. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on 2021 Transportation Alternative Set-Aside (TASA) Program Project Call and Funding of Eligible Deferred Projects]
NUMBER EIGHT, DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON 2321 TRANSPORTATION, UH, SET ASIDE PROGRAM CALL RYAN, THAT'S YOU AGAIN, YOU PRETTY MUCH. 
          UM, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          SO THIS ITEM IS A, IT'S REALLY KIND OF TWO THINGS THAT RELATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVE SET ASIDE. 
          ONE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PROJECT CALL. 
          AND THEN SECONDLY, WE WANT TO ALLOCATE SOME OF THIS FUNDING TO THE DIFFERENT LIST TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT THE FUNDING IS REALLY JUST KIND OF A CORE OF OUT OF THE TRADITIONAL TBG FUNDING. 
          THAT'S AVAILABLE KIND OF SMALLER SCALE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS WITHIN THE URBAN AREA, SUCH AS JUST KIND OF BIKE PATHS, BIKE, AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND SHARED USE PATHS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. 
          UM, WE GET APPROXIMATELY 2.5 MILLION IN TESTIFYING EVERY YEAR. 
          UM, THE LAST TIME WE DID A PROTOCOL, WE AWARDED FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS, 2018 THROUGH 2022. 
          UM, AND SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO DO A PROJECT CALL FROM FISCAL YEARS, 2023 TO 2026. 
          AND AGAIN, ALMOST APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION WITH WHICH TO UPDATE WHATEVER WE REFORMED TO THE DEFER PROJECT LIST. 
          UM, SO, AND THEN WE'LL BE USING THE PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS THAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN LATE 2017. 
          THAT'LL BE THE READINESS VALUATION PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND THE COST ANALYSIS. 
          I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN THOUGH THIS IS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO 2026, THE REASON WE'RE BRINGING IT TO YOU TODAY, ASK HIM TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PERFECT FALL. 
          IS, DOES UNLIKE LIKE STG FUNDING, HABITAT LIMITS. 
          ONCE IT HITS THE BANK ACCOUNT, WE ENDED UP FOUR YEARS WITH WHICH DO YOU ALLOCATE THAT OBLIGATED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT. 
          AND BECAUSE OF THE TIME IT TAKES TO DO A PROJECT CALL AND AFTER THE AWARDING PROJECT SPONSORS HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ASA PROCESS, AS WELL AS THE EMPOWERMENT OF THE PROCESS BEFORE THINGS, IF YOU'RE NOT AHEAD, WHEN IT COMES TO TESTIFYING, YOU'RE BEHIND. 
          AND SO WE'RE LOOKING TO DO THIS PROJECT CALL, UM, KIND OF GET IT WRAPPED UP THROUGH THE SUMMER AND THEN TOWARDS THE END OF THE YEAR, AND HOPEFULLY SOMETIME NEXT YEAR ACTUALLY DO THE ACTUAL SELECTION. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO GO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, UM, SO, UH, IN RELATION TO THAT, WE DID REVIEW THE DEFERRED LIST AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS TEST TO IDENTIFY SOME TASKS ELIGIBLE PROJECTS TO PRIORITIZE FOR REFUNDING. 
          SO WE WANTED TO GET THESE PROJECTS REFUNDED BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD WITH A PROJECT CALL. 
          SO WE KNEW, UM, AND SO WE IDENTIFIED THESE PROJECTS AND THEN WE HELD JOINT COORDINATION MEETINGS WITH SPONSORS, AS WELL AS TEXTILES. 
          I REALLY DID KIND OF GAUGE THE INTEREST IN RE FEDERALIZING THESE PRODUCTS AND ALSO TO GET TO KIND OF REVIEW THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE PROJECT READINESS AND WHEN THEY COULD POTENTIALLY USE THAT FUNDING AND ALSO DETERMINE WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS WOULD BE NEEDED SUCH AS WHAT WE NEED TO AFA OR REFRESH THE ONES THAT THEY HAD, UH, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO, UM, THROUGH THIS COORDINATION MEETINGS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE POLICY BOARD LIKE PAINTER SHARED USE PATH, THAT'S A PICTURE OF, THERE WILL BE ALLOCATING ROUGHLY $2.2 MILLION IN TASKS TO THIS PROJECT. 
          UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT PROJECT, WE ARE IN COORDINATION WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN, THE ADDITIONAL PROJECT. 
          UM, THERE'S STILL A FEW MORE, WE'RE COORDINATING WITH THEM, SOME NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH. 
          SO WE MAY BRING FORWARD SOME ADDITIONAL PROJECT SUPPORT TO THE TASK, PERHAPS, HOPEFULLY. 
          UM, BUT JUST WANT EVERYONE TO BE AWARE IN ADDITION TO THIS SPECIFIC FUNDING TODAY THAT WE MAY HAVE KNOWN LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. 
          UM, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CONCLUSION OF THIS, UH, THIS, I WE'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, REQUEST APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TASKS AND THE REFUNDING OF THE SHARED USE PATH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT, UM, IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? THANK YOU, MR. TREVELYAN. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WHO WAS THE SECOND JONES? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JONES. 
          UM, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION FOR THE STAFF IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A REFUND IN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS IS PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THAT W THAT HAVE BEEN, THAT ARE MOVED STILL MOVING FORWARD, THAT WEREN'T DELAYED. 
          IS THAT PART OF THE CRITERIA, OR COULD THAT BE PART OF THE CRITERIA? IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY? I THINK READINESS 
          [00:30:01]
IS A FACTOR IN PRIORITIZING THESE PROJECTS IF THAT'S LIKE. 
          SO, CAUSE I KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF THE SPONSOR IS MOVING FORWARD WITH STILL DEVELOPING THAT AND MOVING IT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PROCESS, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THIS AND THE INFORMATION I'M A LITTLE BIT LATER ON THE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS, BUT IT DOES, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BEFORE A OF THAT PROJECT HAS BEEN MOVE FORWARD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN DEFERRED, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN EXPECTATIONS AS FAST AS YOU'RE STILL DOING WHAT THEY CAN TO PRODUCTS. 
          AND SO THAT WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND THAT'S WHY WE HELP THEM WITH THOSE COORDINATION MEETINGS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BE FUNDED. 
          UM, IN THIS CASE THERE WERE ONLY TWO OR THREE PROJECTS THAT WERE ELIGIBLE FOR TASA FUNDING. 
          SO THERE WASN'T REALLY, THERE WAS ENOUGH FUNDING TO COVER ALL OF THE PROJECTS, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO A LIMITED AMOUNT OF FUNDS, UM, AND MOVING FORWARD THAT THAT DEPLOYMENT PROCESS WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 
          I HOPE THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. 
          YEAH, IT DID MOST OFTEN. 
          WELL, THE MAIN THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, ANNA DAYS AREN'T PENALIZED FOR KEEPING, YOU KNOW, GOING INTO CONSTRUCTION ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WOULD DIFFER. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          UM, THANK YOU. 
          UH, RYAN AND COMMISSIONER JONES. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM NUMBER EIGHT? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          THIS IS A CUSTOMER WITH KITCHEN. 
          I'D GO AHEAD. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU FOR, UM, UH, Y'ALL'S WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN ON THE WALNUT CREEK TRAIL. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S STILL DISCUSSIONS THERE AND THAT ALL THAT RELATES TO IT WHEN IT'S READY TO COME BACK AND THAT, UM, AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE POINT THAT Y'ALL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH HIM AND IF IT DOES BECOME READY, THEN THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE SPRING. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. 
          UM, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK WITH THE CITY OF AUSTIN STAFF. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          UM, ANY ANYONE OPPOSED TO THE ITEM NUMBER? OKAY. 
          HEARING NONE. 
          MOTION PASSES, UNANIMOUSLY ITEM 
          [9. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on Amendments to Transportation Policy Board (TPB) Bylaws]
NUMBER NINE, TAKE DISCUSSING, TAKE APART PRODUCTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY BOARD BYLAWS. 
          UM, JUST, UH, THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP IN OCTOBER AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, AND THEN WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT IN NOVEMBER. 
          UM, AT OUR POLICY BOARD MEETING, THERE WAS A REQUEST THAT WE NOT BRING IT UP IN A DECEMBER MEETING, SO IT WAS MOVED TO JANUARY. 
          UM, ON THURSDAY THERE WAS SOME FAIRLY SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, UM, SENT IN BY A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN THAT, THAT CAMPUS, UH, POLICY BOARD MEMBERS RECEIVED ON FRIDAY. 
          AND SO, UM, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO GIVEN THE VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE POLICY BOARD HAS HAD TO LOOK AT, UM, THESE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDED. 
          UM, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS PULL THIS ITEM FROM THE AGENDA AND I'M GOING TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE, UH, OF COUNCIL MERVIN MATEAH COUNCIL MEMBER, KITCHEN, COMMISSIONER JONES, AND JUDGE OAKLEY, UM, TO TAKE JUST THE ITEMS RELATED TO, UM, THE OFFICER ELECTION AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
          SO THE SCOPE WOULD BE THOSE TWO ITEMS, WHICH I THINK ARE THE TWO, UM, OUTSTANDING ITEMS THAT, UH, WERE LARGELY RAISED AND THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING I'LL BRING, WELL, WE'LL GET THE NON WHAT I, WHAT I BELIEVE HER, UM, CLEANUP ITEMS AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS, UM, TAKEN CARE OF, AND THEN ASK THIS SUB COMMITTEE TO ME, CLARIFY THOSE TWO AREAS OF SCOPE. 
          UM, AND, UH, LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED AND AGAIN, LET OUT, UM, SORT OF WHAT THE GOAL WAS AND THOSE TWO THINGS FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, IF YOU ALL, A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO LOOK AT THAT AND COME BACK, UM, WITH A RECOMMENDATION. 
          SO I'LL BE, I'M SETTING UP THAT SUB COMMITTEE, BUT I AM PULLING THIS ITEM FOR ANY ACTION, UM, TODAY. 
          SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 10 CHAIR. 
          MAY I PUT, MAY I SPEAK PLEASE? OH, I PULLED THE ITEM, UM, FROM THE AGENDA. 
          AND SO, UH, WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO IS JUST BRING THAT TO DO, UH, SO THAT WE CAN 
          [00:35:01]
MOVE ON AT A CHAIR. 
          I THINK I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE PULLED THE ITEM. 
          WELL, IT'S OKAY. 
          IF I'M THE ITEMS, THERE'S NOT AN AGENDA CHAIR. 
          I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SPEAK TO APP. 
          I'M GOING TO ASK TIM, SO THE WAY IN, IF YOU COULD FOR US, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT IT, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING, UM, THE RIGHT PROTOCOL IF THE ITEM'S BEEN PULLED. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON TIM. 
          COULD YOU WEIGH IN ON IT? I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK TIM TO WEIGH ON THE FACT THAT YOU WERE ANNOUNCING, YOU'RE PULLING IT AT THE MEETING INSTEAD OF AHEAD OF THE MEETING. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE, UM, UH, LEGAL COUNSEL. 
          THIS IS, THIS IS NEWS TO ME. 
          I DIDN'T KNOW THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PULL IT, EVEN THOUGH I WENT TO REACH YOU BEFORE THE MEETING. 
          AND SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO DO FOR YOU TO DO THAT. 
          I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO POSTPONE IT AND VOTE ON A POSTPONE, BUT TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA ON THE DAY OF THE AGENDA, WITHOUT ALLOWING AT LEAST SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          SURE. 
          I HAVE A LEGAL QUESTION AS WELL. 
          AND IS THIS ABILITY TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA AND THEREFORE PREVENT ANY DISCUSSION, A UNILATERAL AUTHORITY THAT ONLY THE CHAIR HAS, OR CAN ANY MEMBER OF A CAMPO DO THAT? SO, TIM, I THINK YOU'VE HEARD TWO QUESTIONS. 
          UM, OUR BYLAWS PROVIDE THAT VERY EXPRESSLY THAT THE CHAIR SETS THE AGENDA AND THE BUSINESS OF THE BOARD SUBJECT TO THE, UH, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TAKING UP A REQUEST TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, UM, IN A FUTURE MEETING, UH, WHICH OF COURSE COULD OCCUR. 
          AND THEN THE ITEM COULD BE PLACED ON THE NEXT, UH, FULLY, UH, ON THE NEXT AGENDA. 
          BUT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BYLAWS THAT SPEAK OF WHEN THE CHAIR HAS TO DO THAT. 
          AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT IN THE POSITION TO MAKE UP POLICY IN THAT REGARD. 
          I WILL SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY PROHIBITION ON, UH, COMMENTS FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT THE CHAIR'S ACTION. 
          IF ALL THEY ARE IS COMMENTS THAT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE BYLAWS, UH, THAT PREVENTS THE CHAIR FROM PULLING AN ITEM, UH, SUBJECT AGAIN, TO THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE BYLAWS THAT, UH, PERMIT THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO MANDATE THAT THE ITEM BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT A FUTURE MEETING. 
          UH, MAY I ASK A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION OF OUR ACCOUNT LEGAL COUNSEL FOR GO AHEAD. 
          UM, THANK YOU, MR. TARGHEE. 
          THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF US IS NOT PLACING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. 
          IT'S ALREADY ON THE AGENDA AND IT'S BEEN POSTED, UM, AND PUBLIC THAT IT'S ON THE AGENDA. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, AND WE ARE GOVERNED BY OUR BYLAWS. 
          OUR BYLAWS ARE SILENT ON THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. 
          THE OTHER QUESTION IS ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. 
          SO YOU, IS IT YOUR LEGAL OPINION THAT AFTER ITEM IS PUBLICLY POSTED AND PLACED ON AN AGENDA THAT THE CHAIR ON THE DAY OF THE, UM, OF THE MEETING AT THE MEETING ITSELF, CAN UNILATERALLY PULL AN ITEM OFF OF THE AGENDA? IS THAT, IS THAT YOUR LEGAL OPINION? YES, BECAUSE THE BYLAWS SAY THAT THE CHAIR DOESN'T SPEAK OF AGENDA PER SE ROBERT'S RULES, ROBERT'S RULES PROVIDE A TWO THIRDS RULE FOR PLACING AND FORCING AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO AN AGENDA. 
          OUR BYLAWS SIMPLY SAY, THE CHAIR SHALL SET THE BUSINESS AND THE WORD IS BUSINESS OF THE BOARD. 
          UM, IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO PULL IT, UH, THEN THE CHAIR CAN PULL IT SUBJECT AGAIN. 
          HOWEVER, TO THE SAFEGUARD THAT THE EXECUTIVE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CAN FORCE THE ITEM UP. 
          SO IF THE, IF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WANTS TO HAVE THE ITEM AS A MATTER OF MANDATORY PRACTICE TO BE ON THE AGENDA, IT CAN MEET AND A VOTE OR CAUSE THE ITEM TO BE PLACED ON NEXT MONTH FOR GENDER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO A UP QUESTION AND THEN I IMAGINE OTHERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MR. TOGI. 
          SO THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS, 
          [00:40:01]
IS, UH, IS IT ONLY THE CHAIR THAT CAN UNILATERALLY ON THE DAY OF AFTER IT'S PUBLICLY POSTED, PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA OR CAN ANY MEMBER, I THINK THAT WAS COMMISSIONER SHAY'S QUESTION. 
          OUR BYLAWS CURRENTLY SAY JUST THE CHAIR. 
          UM, I AM ASKING YOU ABOUT LOSS BEYOND THE BYLAWS. 
          THIS IS RELATED TO POSTING AND PUBLIC NOTICE BECAUSE BASICALLY WE ARE, UH, THE CHAIR IS PROPOSING TO TAKE AN ACTION THAT THERE WAS NO PUBLIC NOTICE ABOUT, AND IT'S NOT A POSTPONEMENT AND IT'S NOT A VOTE SHE'S UNILATERALLY, BUT OUR BYLAWS ARE, ARE PUBLICLY ON OUR WEBSITE. 
          PUBLIC AS COMPLETE NOTICE OF OUR BYLAWS ARE, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHAIR HAS THAT AUTHORITY. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT AS PART OF THE REASON WE WERE DOING THIS BYLAW REVIEW, IN FACT, UM, UNDER THE TWO COMPETING PROPOSALS WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THAT QUESTION IS UP FOR DISCUSSION. 
          ONE PROPOSAL SAYS THAT THAT GOING FORWARD, THE ENTIRE BOARD COULD FORCE AN AGENDA ITEM. 
          IN WHICH CASE THE CHAIR COULD NOT PULL THE ARM AND ANOTHER CASE IN, UH, IN THE OTHER PROPOSAL. 
          BUT TWO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COULD FORCE AN ITEM ON THE, IN THAT CASE, THE CHAIR, IF THAT WERE TO BE ADOPTED, THE CHAIR DID NOT PULL THEM OUT, BUT THE WAY THE BYLAWS ARE WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, THE BYLAWS ARE PUBLIC ARE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. 
          THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHAT SHE PROPOSES TO DO. 
          MR. TOGI I WILL MAKE ONE MORE STATEMENT AND THEN SHARE AFTER OTHERS ASK, ASK THEIR QUESTION. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. 
          SO MR. TUCKY, THE BYLAWS THEMSELVES SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE ABILITY TO PUT, TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA. 
          THE BYLAWS ARE OR SILENT. 
          I WOULD LIKE YOU TO READ TO ME IF THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS THE CHAIR CAN PULL IT OFF AFTER IT'S PLACED. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO PLACE SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA, BUT THERE IS NO LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE SEEN IN PERHAPS I'VE MISSED IT, BUT THERE IS NO LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT BYLAWS THAT STATES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE CHAIR MAY PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA AT THE MEETING AFTER IT'S BEEN PUBLICLY POSTED. 
          SO IF THERE'S LIKE, LIKE THAT, I INVITE YOU TO READ THAT LANGUAGE TO ME. 
          I IMAGINE THAT OTHERS MAY HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          SO, UM, I'LL ALLOW OTHERS TO ASK QUESTIONS. 
          NOW, COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE IS NO SUCH LANGUAGE. 
          THE LANGUAGE IS 10. 
          IF YOU'LL GIVE ME A MO MOMENT, THE CHAIRPERSON DESIGNATE IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED IT, DOESN'T SPEAK TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU OFFER ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE INSERTED BY YOUR INTERPRETATION. 
          I GATHER THAT AN ADDING COMMA AND THE CHAIRPERSON SHALL NOT CHANGE THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED AFTER NOTICE OF THE MEETING AND BUSINESS. 
          I DON'T, I'M SORRY THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THERE NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. 
          BUT IT'S NOT IN OUR PROPOSAL EITHER. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE CORRECT. 
          I, I DON'T, I DON'T, I I'M TELLING YOU IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION, I DON'T, UH, IN THEIR INDEPENDENT AS YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL. 
          THAT WAS MY QUESTION. 
          SO, UH, I HAVE SOME OTHER COMMENTS, BUT I IMAGINE THAT OTHERS MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS. 
          AND SO I'D LIKE TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN FIRST. 
          UM, JUST TO BE CLEAR, UM, I REASON FOR PULLING THIS IS, UM, I'M THE ONE THAT ORIGINALLY BROUGHT THE ITEM UP, BOTH WITH THE EXECUTIVES IN OCTOBER, AS WELL AS THE NOTE. 
          AND, UM, GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED BY YOU AT THE HOUR, I WANTED THE POLICY BOARD TO HAVE OPPORTUNITIES TO LOOK AT IT AND TO TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AT IT. 
          THERE'S NOT A RUSH ON THIS ITEM. 
          AND I FELT LIKE BY SETTING UP THIS SUBCOMMITTEE OR THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT IT, UM, WOULD GIVE FULL POLICY BOARD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT WHAT YOU SUBMITTED AS WELL AS, UM, THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT FURTHER. 
          UM, AND I, UH, AGAIN, THIS IS 
          [00:45:01]
SOME CLEANUP THINGS, AND THEN THERE'S SOME ITEMS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, THE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST YOU COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN OR OTHERS HAVE PROPOSED, UM, CHANGE ON, BUT, UM, OR THAT, YOU KNOW, TH THIS WILL COME BACK. 
          IT'S JUST AN ATTEMPT TO, INSTEAD OF, BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT MANY HOURS ON THIS ALREADY AND, UM, HOPEFULLY IT'LL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT IT A LITTLE FURTHER AND UNDERSTAND WHAT, UH, WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO REPRESENT WITH YOUR CHANGES. 
          I THINK NOVARI NEFARIOUS, OR YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO DEPAUL, BUT SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CHAIR, I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONS. 
          AND, UM, AND YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WANT EVERYONE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO UNDERSTAND AND HAVE A CONVERSATION. 
          AND I, AND I THINK THAT A, I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO TALK WITH OTHERS. 
          AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. 
          I, I DO WANT TO JUST SPEAK TO TWO THINGS, TWO WAYS IN WHICH THIS IS CHARACTERIZED. 
          THE FIRST THING IS THAT THE, THE CHANGES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, AS YOU DID MENTION, WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT OPPORTUNITY. 
          AND LET ME JUST SAY, I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE I THINK THE KINDS OF CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED ARE ONES THAT WILL BE, UM, FULL TO THE CAMPO BODY IN, IN, YOU KNOW, IN THE LONG RUN. 
          SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. 
          I JUST WANT THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED HERE, HERE WERE ONES THAT WERE DISCUSSED, UM, IN NOVEMBER AND EARLIER. 
          SO THEY'RE NOT AT THE 11TH HOUR. 
          THE OTHER THING IS I DID PROVIDE THIS TO OUR STAFF ON THURSDAY AND REQUESTED THAT THEY SEND IT OUT ON THURSDAY TO PROVIDE MORE TIME. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONS, I DON'T OBJECT TO YOUR REASONS. 
          I JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE I WAS, OR WE WERE PROPOSING THINGS THAT WERE TOTALLY THINGS THAT WE HAD NOT BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAD BROUGHT UP PREVIOUSLY. 
          SO I JUST THINK THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S STILL FINE. 
          YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WANT MORE TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND TALK ABOUT IT, BUT THIS IS NOT 11TH HOUR. 
          GO AHEAD, MAYOR ADLER. 
          I WANT TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THE, THE, THE, THE DELAY TO GIVE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO, UH, BE ABLE TO CONSIDER IT AND, AND, UH, THINK THAT FORMING THE COMMITTEE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT, TO DISCUSS IT IS GREAT. 
          UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AT, YOU KNOW, QUICKLY, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HERE SINCE NOVEMBER, UH, SO THAT WE CAN GET IT RESOLVED, BUT I DO HAVE AN ISSUE, THE, UH, KIND OF THE, THE PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE SAT FOR A, FOR A CHAIR TO BE ABLE TO JUST PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA. 
          UH, ONE, I THINK THE COMMITTEE NEEDS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. 
          CAUSE I THINK THAT WE ALL REPRESENT DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES AND SHOULD HAVE AN EQUAL ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO GET THINGS ONTO THE PAGE AGENDA TO BE CONSIDERED. 
          SO I HOPE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ADDRESSED. 
          I CAN'T, I DON'T READ THE LANGUAGE OF OUR CURRENT BYLAWS TO SAY THAT THE CHAIR CAN PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA. 
          MR. TARGHEE, AS I READ IT, WHAT IT SAYS IS THE CHAIR PERSON HAS THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED. 
          AND THAT HAPPENED HERE. 
          THE CHAIR PURSUANT TO THE BYLAWS IN HER WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, IDENTIFY THE LOCATION AND THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED. 
          AND ONCE THAT'S HAPPENED, THEN I THINK IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED TRANSACTED OR CONSIDERED, OR THE BODY CAN VOTE TO POSTPONE IT OR TO REFER IT TO A COMMITTEE. 
          BUT THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT GIVES THE CHAIR ANY POWER OTHER THAN TO PUT IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE MEETING, THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED AND WHERE I THINK YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS. 
          THE INTENT OF THIS MEANING IS THAT IF SOMEONE WANTED TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA PURSUANT TO THESE BYLAWS AND THE CHAIRPERSON HAS A CHOICE, THEY CAN EITHER PUT IT ON THE AGENDA OR NOT PUT IT ON THE AGENDA TO PUT IT IN A WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE LOCATION AND BUSINESS TO BE CONSIDERED OR NOT. 
          IF THEY DON'T DO THAT A CHAIR, AND THEN YOU CAN GO TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO SAY, YOU SHOULD PUT IT ON, BUT IF THE CHAIR PUTS IT ON THE AGENDA, THERE'S NO REASON FOR YOU TO GO TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BECAUSE AT THAT POINT, NO, IT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE THE BODY AND FOR THE CHAIR, THEN TO BE ABLE TO PUT IT IN FOR A WRITTEN NOTICE AND THEN TO PULL, IT WOULD HAVE REMOVED FROM THAT PERSON, THE ABILITY 
          [00:50:01]
TO HAVE GONE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AGENDA. 
          SO I THINK THAT IF YOU READ THE BYLAWS, THE ONLY POWER THAT YOUR HAS IS TO PUT THINGS IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE OF WHAT THE LOCATION OF THE MEETING AND THE BUSINESS TO BE TRANSACTED ARE CONSIDERED, BUT THERE'S NO ABILITY TO PULL SOMETHING OFF THAT AT THAT POINT, IT BELONGS TO THE BODY AND A MOTION TO REFER TO COMMITTEE OR TO POSTPONE WOULD BE IN ORDER. 
          BUT I THINK IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT IN ANY EVENT AND ON THAT BASIS, I WOULD SUPPORT THE ACTION BEING TAKEN TODAY. 
          BUT I WOULD BE REALLY, I DON'T WANT TO, TO ACQUIESCE IN AN INTERPRETATION THAT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT GIVES ONE PERSON AMONGST ALL OF US, THE ABILITY TO JUST PULL SOMETHING FROM EGYPT. 
          WELL, I CONCUR WITH YOU THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, UH, GIVEN THE OPINIONS THAT ARE EXPRESSED HERE, THAT YOU ALL MAKE POLICY FROM THIS BOARD. 
          CERTAINLY NOT ME AND I, UH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CLARIFIED, UH, IN ANY COMMITTEE WORKUP ON ANY FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. 
          SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, HAD SOMEBODY ELSE SPONSORED OR PUT THIS ITEM ON, I WOULD NOT FELT THE LIBERTY TO PULL IT, BUT THIS WAS SORT OF MY ITEM. 
          I BROUGHT IT UP. 
          AND, UM, SO, UH, THAT WAS JUST ONE AS WELL, BUT, UM, I DON'T HEAR ANY OTHER, AT LEAST I WENT, OBJECTION IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE'RE GOING. 
          I DO HAVE A QUESTION THERE. 
          THIS IS USED AND I WANT TO BE IN LINE TO MAKE A POINT. 
          AND THAT'S THE QUESTION. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          GLADLY VOTE FOR THE POSTPONEMENT FOR THE REASONS GIVEN WHERE, REGARDLESS OF BYLAWS, WHICH OURS ARE SILENT, ONCE AN ITEM HAS BEEN POSTED, AND THAT MEETING HAS BEEN DONE ONCE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, IT BELONGS TO ALL OF US. 
          UM, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY ONE IN ONE PERSON HAS, I PULLED THAT OFF THE AGENDA. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MOTIONS TO POSTPONE. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO BECAUSE GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT POSTPONED, BUT IS OKAY, I'M GONNA, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK THE CHAIR HAS THE RIGHT TO PULL SOMETHING OFF THE AGENDA, REGARDLESS OF WHO POSTED IT. 
          AND I DON'T WANT THAT PRECEDENT TO GO FORWARD, BUT, UH, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT SO WE CAN DO THIS PROPERLY. 
          I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO BE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICIES ON THIS RIGHT NOW FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD SECOND THE MOTION TO PROVOKE THE ITEM. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          THERE'S A MOTION BY MARY AND HANG ON A SECOND MOTION BY MAYOR HOUSTON. 
          AND THE SECOND WAS BY JOHN, CORRECT? YES. 
          I'M WONDERING IF THE, UM, THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION IN THE SECOND WOULD ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THE REST OF, OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH WAS TO CREATE THE, MAKE ME, UM, AND PROVIDE THE TIME FOR THE, HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT IT AND THEN BRING IT BACK AFTER THAT PROCESS WAS COMPLETE. 
          I'LL BE HONEST. 
          THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. 
          THAT DEFINITELY MY MOTION TO POSTPONE THE ITEMS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED BECAUSE I WAS MAKING THE MOTION TO POSTPONE BASED ON THOSE ITEMS. MOTION WILL, UH, SECOND, MY RESTATED MOTION, UH, WOULD APPRECIATE IT. 
          OKAY. 
          OH, THE MOTION BY MAYOR AND JUDGE OAKLEY IS TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM. 
          UM, AND TO NOW AS CHAIR, I DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, THE, UH, AUTHORITY TO SET UP SUBCOMMITTEES, BUT THAT'S FINE. 
          WE'LL GO AHEAD AND INCLUDE IT IN THIS MOTION. 
          UM, THE COUNCIL, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WILL BE COUNCIL MEMBERS, KITCHEN AND COMMISSIONER JONES, AND JUDGE OAKLEY TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC ITEMS RELATED TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND, UM, THE OFFICERS AND, UH, THE THIRD ITEM THAT CAME UP ON THE AGENDA. 
          SO THAT'S THE MOTION. 
          UM, AND THE SECOND, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION MR. 
          [00:55:01]
COMMISSIONER SHAY? UM, I, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU AND FOR TOGI, I'LL START WITH HUGGY. 
          UM, ARE WE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER? I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WE WE'VE LOOKED THROUGH THE BYLAWS AND COULD NOT FIND THAT. 
          AND SO IF IT'S NOT, UH, UH, STATED IN THE BYLAWS, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO CONSIDER ADDING THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD STIPULATION, WE ARE OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER. 
          IT'S ACTUALLY PROPOSED IN ONE OF THE, UH, IN ONE OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY. 
          WE EXPECT WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING UNDER ROBERT'S RULES, SUBJECT TO A MINT, UH, AMENDMENTS TO THOSE RULES BY VIRTUE OF OUR BYLAWS. 
          ONE OF THE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN FROM A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          THAT'S RIGHT. 
          WE DID ADD THAT. 
          GOOD. 
          SO THAT'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION, I THINK UNDER THE COMMITTEE, ALTHOUGH I THOUGHT CYNTHIA LONG SAID THE SUBCOMMITTEE WOULD ONLY CONSIDER THE DURATION OF THE TERMS AND THE MAKEUP OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, IS THAT CORRECT? SHE, SHE, SHE PROPOSES SOME CLEANUP ITEMS THAT WOULD FALL IN THE CLEANUP AS WELL. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TASK OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UH, AND THEN MY QUESTIONS HERE IS, UM, I ACTUALLY, UM, FREQUENTLY WANT US TO HAVE MORE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME ITEMS BEFORE CAMPO. 
          SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS BE A REGULAR PRACTICE AND NOT A ONE-OFF OR ABERRATION. 
          I THINK THAT THERE ARE MANY TIMES WHEN WE NEED TO HAVE MORE THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION THAN OUR MEETINGS APPEAR TO ALLOW FOR. 
          AND SO I W I WOULD ASK THAT WE BE ABLE TO SEND THINGS TO A SUBCOMMITTEE LIKE THIS, UM, WHEN IT'S WARRANTED, THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS. 
          YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          THERE, THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT I HAD IDEAS ON. 
          SO IF THE COMMITTEE IS LIMITED TO WHAT YOU HAD, UM, UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'LL BE A FEW MORE THINGS I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE BEEN ON THIS COMMITTEE BECAUSE I HAD GONE THROUGH AND GOT SOME OTHER IDEAS. 
          SO, UM, I HOPE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENTERTAIN OTHER IDEAS AT OUR NEXT COMMITTEE. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THIS MOTION, UH, CHAIR ALONG? I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, I'M ASSUMING THAT, UM, AND IT'S FOLLOWS UP ON WHAT I THINK IT WAS MARY HOUSTON JUST MENTIONED THAT THE, THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE, UM, IS TO ALLOW A DRESSING OTHER ITEMS. I THINK IF I'M REMEMBERING EXACTLY HOW SHE, SHE MENTIONED IT. 
          SO I'M WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLARITY ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          I WAS, MY ORIGINAL IDEA WAS TO LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT OUTLINE BOTH OF OUR NARCO DISCUSSION OR THE ITEMS DIDN'T SEEM, I'M SORRY, YOU'RE BREAKING UP A LITTLE BIT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          WHAT DID YOU SAY? UH, I GOLD OR SUB COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE METADATA, WHICH WAS THE, THAT SORT OF THING. 
          SO UNDER PRINTED, STANDING, YOU CORRECTLY CHAIR, UM, THE SCOPE OF THE, OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE IS TO LOOK AT THE ITEMS WHERE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME, SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY, UH, ORIGINALLY PROPOSED AND, UM, AND THE SOME ALTERNATIVES, BUT ALSO, UM, UM, UH, ALSO, UM, AS MAYOR HOUSTON SUGGESTED ANY OTHER KINDS OF ITEMS. AND, AND I'M, I WOULD LIKE TO SUGGEST THAT PERHAPS MAYOR HOUSTON MIGHT WANT TO PARTICIPATE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT I COULDN'T TELL IT THAT SEEMED TO BE A REQUEST FROM HER. 
          SO, WELL, I REGULARLY VOLUNTEERED AT AFFINITY. 
          I'VE RECOMMENDED THE SUB COMMITTEE, AND, UM, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT INCLUDES SETTING UP THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS I'VE DEFINED IT. 
          AND, UM, THE SCOPE, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE OFFICERS, THE, UM, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE SET UP, HANG ON. 
          I THINK YOU'RE MUTED. 
          NO, IT JUST CUT OUT. 
          UH, ALL RIGHT. 
          CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. 
          [01:00:01]
THINGS ARE GOING IN AND OUT SOMETIMES FOR US, IF SOMEBODY TURNS OFF THE VIDEO, THE AUDIO WILL COME THROUGH BETTER. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE FOR YOU, BUT IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE COULD TRY. 
          UM, I'LL GET THROUGH IT QUICKLY. 
          I'D LIKE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS SET UP THE COMMITTEE WITH THE FOUR MEMBERS THAT I'VE LISTED AND THE SCOPE TO INCLUDE WHAT I'VE, WHAT I'VE STATED PLUS ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL AND WHAT THE CITY OF AUSTIN PROPOSED ON THURSDAY. 
          SO IF WE, THIS IS A COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          SO IF WE, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO HONOR MAYOR HOUSTON'S REQUEST TO BE ADDED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE, ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE NOT ALLOWING THAT I'M ASKING THE SUB COMMITTEE TO BE SET THE WAY IT IS? I'M TRYING TO, TO BALANCE IT OUT, UM, WITH CITY AND COUNTY, AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO BIG THAT WE ADD ANOTHER COUNTY AND ANOTHER CITY. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO HAVE TWO CITY PEOPLE IN TWO COUNTY WAS THE GOAL. 
          AND IN DOING THAT, UM, WELL ALSO TOO, I WANTED TO ASK A CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A FAIRLY SERIOUS ISSUE. 
          UM, UH, AN ATTORNEY HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE, CAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY ASKING THAT IF THE BYLAWS ARE SILENT AS TO AN ISSUE, THEN IS IT THE STANDARD VIEW OF THE ATTORNEY THAT THE CHAIR HAS THE AUTHORITY TO UNILATERALLY DECIDE ON ANY ISSUE? NO. 
          NO, BUT THAT'S YOUR RULING IN THIS INSTANCE? ISN'T IT? WELL, IN, IN THIS SPECIFIC QUESTION, YES, BUT NOT AS A GENERAL MATTER, OF COURSE NOT, NO, THE CRITERIA FOR, UH, COMING UP WITH A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION, THERE'S A REFERENCE TO THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE BYLAWS. 
          THAT'S ALL, BUT THE BYLAWS ARE SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. 
          EXACTLY. 
          AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT ADDING LANGUAGE TO THE BYLAWS, ALL THE QUESTION. 
          SO THE QUESTION, IT WAS A RECORD. 
          I DISAGREE WITH THIS LEGAL AND I THINK IT QUESTIONS, UM, IS, IS THERE ANYONE AGAINST THE MOTION TO POSTPONE SHARE LONG WHEN THE MOTION IS CALLED? WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE. 
          THAT REQUIRES A TWO-PART. 
          OKAY. 
          HOW ABOUT THIS? HOW ABOUT WE WITHDRAW THE CALL AND, UM, NOTE COMMISSIONER SHAY'S OBJECTION. 
          AND JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE. 
          IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT, CYNTHIA? I'M OKAY. 
          WITH GOING TO A VOTE JUST REAL FAST THOUGH. 
          I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT MAYOR HOUSTON WOULD BE PROPOSING. 
          UH, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          MAYOR HOUSTON PROPOSES SOMETHING AND THEN PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SHE WAS GOING TO DO UNTIL WE GOT TO THE MEETING. 
          SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT IS THAT SHE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KIND OF GET NOTICED OR GET CONSIDERED. 
          AND ONE THING SHE COULD DO IS SHE COULD GIVE IT TO ONE OF THE FOUR, OR SHE COULD GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THE COMMITTEE. 
          AND THEN THE COMMITTEE CAN MAKE THAT A PART OF WHAT THEY CONSIDER. 
          UNLESS I SAYING THAT IT'S LIMITED TO JUST THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT A COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN SUBMITTED. 
          THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONSIDER WHAT MAYOR HOUSTON SUBMITTED. 
          I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET HERS OR ANYBODY ELSE'S IDEAS INTO THE HOPPER SO THAT PEOPLE COULD COMPLAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT ARE, PEOPLE ARE NOT IN FACT SURPRISED AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          YEAH. 
          I DON'T MIND SENDING IT TO, UH, THE COMMITTEE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN WE CONSIDER IT THEN CYNTHIA, IF IT WASN'T, IF IT COMES FROM MAYOR HOUSTON, AS OPPOSED TO BEING A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AND VERSION AND YOUR VERSION. 
          SO I GUESS HERE'S MY QUESTION. 
          I'M TRYING TO GET US TO AN END POINT. 
          WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS IN OCTOBER AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 
          WE'VE DISCUSSED IT IN NOVEMBER THERE AND, AND, UM, SO MAYOR HOUSTON, PLEASE LOOK AT BOTH VERSIONS WHAT YOU HAVE MAYBE COVERED, UM, AND IF NOT GET IT TO THE COMMITTEE TO LOOK AT AND THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHETHER IT'S COVERED THERE OR NOT. 
          AND I'M INCLUDED, BUT I'VE SPENT PROBABLY AN HOUR AND A HALF ON THESE ALREADY. 
          SO I KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE. 
          RIGHT. 
          WELL, THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          IS THERE ANYONE AGAINST THE MOTION? THANK YOU. 
          UM, TRY LA, I THINK MAKING A MOTION TO POSTPONE, UM, IS AN APPROPRIATE STEP, UM, AS A NEXT STEP. 
          UM, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, I HAD A QUESTION THAT I WASN'T ABLE TO, UM, ADDRESS WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, UM, HAVING TO DO WITH THE SIZE 
          [01:05:01]
OF THE EXECUTIVE, UM, OR, UM, THAT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO GET SOME CLARITY ON. 
          AND IT MAY BE THAT THAT GROUP NEEDS, DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY, THEY, UM, RECOMMEND BECAUSE AS OF NOW YOU COULD HAVE 10 MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD BY THE TIME YOU'RE DONE BECAUSE OF, UM, THE TECH STOP BEING EX-OFFICIO. 
          AND I JUST, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW FORUM RULES, ET CETERA, PLAY OUT WITH THAT. 
          UM, AND WASN'T ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT. 
          SO I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, UM, WITH THE COUNCIL. 
          AND THEN IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, UM, REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE TO THINK ABOUT THAT, UM, WHICH IS ON THE ISSUES OF THE SIZE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE ITEMS, UM, BY JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT PRECLUDED. 
          I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THAT DONE. 
          AND I APPRECIATE THE EXTRA TIME THAT THE POSTPONEMENT THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING CAROLINE, UM, WOULD ALLOW COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IS ONE OF THE ITEMS FOR THEM TO DISCUSS, BUT CLEARLY IT, UM, EITHER WILL BE LESS THAN A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD OR IF FOR SOME REASON IT'S NOT, THE MEETING WOULD BE POSTED. 
          UM, SO ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN A TIME WHERE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE HAS BEEN MORE THAN A QUORUM OF THE BOARD, NOR WOULD I FORESEE IT. 
          RIGHT. 
          MY QUESTIONS THOUGH, ARE ABOUT HOW QUORUM FUNCTIONS THEN IF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IS JUST UPS, DO WHAT A QUORUM IS, THEN THEY CANNOT SERVE THE FUNCTION OF INFORMING OTHER PEOPLE. 
          IF THEY CAN'T GO TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE AND I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT'S WORKING. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS, UM, THAT EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, I MEAN, THAT A SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT, RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION FOR CLARIFICATION CHAIR. 
          SURE. 
          UM, AND IT'S A QUESTION OF, OF HOUSTON AMERA, HOUSTON, THAT YOUR MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, WHAT DATE ARE WE POSTPONING TO? UH, I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WORKS. 
          I'D LIKE TO COME BACK TO THE GENDER, ET CETERA. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION. 
          NO, THAT WAS NOT. 
          WHAT I HAD SUGGESTED WAS THAT THERE WERE, UM, SOME, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS NON CONTROVERSIAL CLEANUP ITEMS, UM, THAT WOULD COME BACK AT THE NEXT AGENDA. 
          BUT I THINK GIVEN GIVING THIS GROUP A COUPLE OF MONTHS TO WORK THROUGH IT, UM, WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, UH, GIVEN EVERYBODY'S CALENDARS. 
          SO I'D LIKE FOR THE COMMITTEE TO MEET AND COME BACK AND JUST LET ME KNOW HOW MANY, YOU KNOW, AT WHAT POINT IN TIME YOU THINK YOU CAN BRING IT BACK, BUT I'M FINE WITH THAT. 
          LET'S CHECK THE TIME THAT WE NEED TO DO AND GET IT DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO THE MOTION? I HAVE ONE QUESTION CHAIR LONG. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          AYE. 
          AYE. 
          THAT I APPRECIATE THAT SUPPORT, UH, THE TIME FOR THE COMMITTEE TO, UM, TO CONSIDER, BRING THIS BACK. 
          BUT I THINK, UH, FOR ME, I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THIS WILL BE PLACED ON THE AGENDA THIS SPRING. 
          SO I WOULDN'T WANT TO, I WOULDN'T WANT THE COMMITTEE TO BRING SOMETHING BACK AND THEN NOT HAVE CLARITY FOR THE BOARD ON WHEN IT WAS GOING TO COME BACK. 
          SO I'M JUST ASKING. 
          SO I THINK I HEARD YOU COMMIT TO PUTTING IT ON AN AGENDA, UM, IN THE SPRING, AFTER, YOU KNOW, AFTER ASSUMING THAT THE COMMITTEE WORKS THROUGH THE PROCESS BY THAT TIME. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT YOU'RE A MEMBER OF READY. 
          Y'ALL COME BACK TO US. 
          WHY DON'T YOU GIVE US A REPORT AT THE NEXT MEETING AND TELL US WHEN YOU ALL THINK YOU CAN BE READY TO PUT IT BACK ON THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. 
          THAT PROVIDES SOME CLARITY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND CHAIRMAN LONG. 
          THIS IS PATRICIA. 
          I'VE GOT ANOTHER QUESTION. 
          UM, I HAVE UNDERSTOOD FROM, UM, A CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, UH, RECENT MEETINGS AT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND ARROW THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING THAT THEY NOMINATE MEMBERS FOR A BUSINESS ADVISORY COMMITTEE OR SOMETHING FOR CAMPO. 
          IS THIS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDED TO THE BYLAWS, OR I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THAT COMES FROM AND HOW THAT FITS IN, BUT I'D LIKE FOR IT TO BE RAISED. 
          SO I GUESS I'LL WAIT TILL THE END OF THE WRITTEN AGENDA. 
          AND IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW BUSINESS OR OTHER QUESTIONS, I THINK THIS BODY SHOULD AT LEAST DISCUSS IT, UNLESS EVERYBODY'S FINE WITH THE CHAIR DOING THINGS LIKE THAT WITHOUT BRINGING IT TO 
          [01:10:01]
THE, UH, POLICY BOARD, JUST AS A CORPSMAN. 
          I GUESS MY QUESTION, WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDING RULES, COMMITTEES, OR BUSINESS COMMITTEES OR ANY KIND OF COMMITTEE, IS THE, IS IT THE LEGAL AFFAIRS? IS IT THE LEGAL, HAD A PAUSE IN THE, UM, VIDEO THERE? YEAH. 
          WHEN IT COMES TO THESE COMMITTEES. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, SO IS THERE ANYBODY AGAINST ITEM NUMBER NINE CHAIR YOU HAD, UM, CORBIN SPEAKING, CAN'T HEAR YOU SPEAK UP CORBYN. 
          MY QUESTION WAS WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE RULES COMMITTEES OR OKAY. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I LOST MY, UM, AUDIO THERE. 
          UM, IS THERE ANYBODY AGAINST ITEM NUMBER NINE, CARAVAN ARES, DAWSON. 
          MIDDLE OF A QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I LOST MY AUDIO. 
          I COULDN'T HEAR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO LOT OF PLANNING LIKE A BUSINESS COMMITTEE WE'VE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT APPOINTING A RULE OR A BYLAWS SUBCOMMITTEE, IS, IS IT THE LEGAL COUNCIL'S VIEW THAT, UH, THAT THOSE COMMITTEES ARE WHAT'S UNDER SECTION SIX, A OF THE BYLAWS, IS THAT, IS THAT WHERE THAT'S FALLING UNDER RIGHT NOW? I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE SPECIFIC REFERENCE NUMBER REFERENCE, BUT YES, THERE'S A PROVISION WITHIN THE BYLAWS FOR COMMITTEES TO BE FORMED. 
          AND THAT IS APPLICABLE HERE. 
          THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CAN, UH, UH, UH, APPROVE IT AFTER THE MEETING. 
          AND OF COURSE THE POLICY, THE POLICY BOARD BY EMOTION CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS, NOT WITHSTANDING THE BYLAW REQUIRING THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE APPROVAL. 
          GOTCHA. 
          WELL, THAT WAS MY CONCERN BECAUSE, CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BYLAWS, WHICH IS SORT OF FUNDAMENTAL TO THE ORGANIZATION AND I DON'T THINK, I GUESS I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS, THIS IS WHERE WE'RE AT. 
          CAUSE IT SOUNDS VERY ADVERSARIAL. 
          IT SOUNDS VERY LIKE DIFFERENT FOLKS ARE SUSPICIOUS OF EACH OTHER. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT BEEN A WORK GROUP, UH, WORKING ON BYLAWS, WHICH IS EVERY TIME I'VE DONE BYLAWS, WHETHER IT WAS FOR A CHURCH OR A NONPROFIT, IT'S YOU DO IT COLLABORATIVELY AND WHERE YOU CAN AGREE TO BRING THOSE POINTS FOR. 
          AND I JUST, I HATE THAT. 
          WE, YOU KNOW, THE LAST TIME WE WERE TRYING TO DO LAND UP MEMBERS, NOW WE'RE DOING IT WITH SOME, WE HAVE SOME BRAND NEW WORDS, THEIR FIRST MEETING, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          I JUST, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US, YOU KNOW, BE MORE COLLABORATIVE ABOUT THIS AND NOT, AND LET PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT WHERE MEMBERS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO BRING FORWARD CHANGES. 
          UH, WITH PLENTY OF NOTICE. 
          I LIKE HAVING MORE NOTICE TO KNOW I WAS MYSELF TRYING TO DO SIDE BY SIDES OF ALL THESE VARIOUS RED LINES. 
          AND IT WAS A HELL OF A LOT OF WORK. 
          UM, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE US BE MORE COLLABORATIVE AND ERR ON THE SIDE OF TALKING AND COMMUNICATING AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 
          SO THEREFORE I'M ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE MOTION TO POSTPONE. 
          I WANT TO SUPPORT WHAT THE MAYOR SAYING RIGHT HERE. 
          IT'S LIKE WE, EVEN, WHEN WE ALL AGREE, WE STILL HAVE TO ARGUE AND IT IS, AND THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE OUR POINTS, HEY, WE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND IDEAS OF HOW WE GET TO IT. 
          BUT LET'S, LET'S, LET'S MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE'S HERE. 
          DON'T CAST DISPERSIONS WHEN IT'S UNNECESSARY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK ANYONE'S HAVING ANY MOUSE AND DENT, EVERYTHING ELSE OVER HERE. 
          THERE'S STUFF GOT SENT IN. 
          THEY WANT TO HAVE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT IT. 
          I GOT PULLED, WE ALL AGREE ON THAT. 
          LET'S JUST PUT FORWARD THAT AND I AGREE THAT WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE, IT GETS SUBMITTED TO, UM, SUBCOMMITTEE. 
          ADDITIONALLY, THIS UNTIL THIS DISCUSSION, I DIDN'T REALIZE WE HAVE TOO MANY ATTORNEYS ON THERE. 
          GOOD LORD. 
          YOU CAN ALSO WATCH THE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. 
          SO I'LL PUT THIS OVER HERE WITH THAT STUFF AS WELL, BUT HOPEFULLY WE CAN ALL GET TO THIS CONSENSUS, THEN HAVE A VOTE AND HAVE SOMETHING, GIVE IT ON THAT. 
          SO THANK YOU, MAYOR ALL. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO, UH, SORRY. 
          MY AUDIO WAS GOING OUT EARLIER, SO I APOLOGIZE IF I AM REPEATING MYSELF ONCE AGAIN, BUT UM, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO ITEM NUMBER NINE? OKAY. 
          UM, SO THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 
          [10. Discussion and Take Appropriate Action on TxDOT’s Unified Transportation Program (UTP)]
ITEM NUMBER 10 IS DISCUSS AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ON TECH SCOTT'S UTP PROGRAM AND READ THAT HEATHER, UM, THAT WILL UPDATE US  
          [01:15:04]
OKAY. 
          CAN YOU HEAR ME? LET ME GET MY PRESENTATION UP HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS. 
          UH, TODAY I WILL BE PRESENTING ON TECH STOCKS IF I HAD TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM OR UTP, WHICH IS OUR TENURE PLAN THAT GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ACROSS THE STATE FUNDING LEVELS IN THE UTP ARE BASED ON FORECASTS OF POTENTIAL REVENUE THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS BECAUSE FUNDING LEVELS CHANGE, UH, IN THE FUTURE. 
          THE UTP DOES NOT SERVE AS A BUDGET OR GUARANTEE THAT CERTAIN PROJECTS WILL BE BUILT. 
          INSTEAD, THE PLAN AUTHORIZES TEXTILES AND LOCAL PARTNERING AGENCIES TO PREPARE PROJECTS FOR CONSTRUCTION BASED ON A POTENTIAL FUTURE CASHFLOW. 
          NEXT SLIDE, THE UTP IS THE TEN-YEAR PLAN THAT GUIDES DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ACROSS THE STATE, A DETERMINATION IS MADE ON HOW MUCH FUNDING THE STATE EXPECTS TO HAVE OVER THE NEXT DECADE AND HOW TO DISTRIBUTE IT. 
          THE PLAN INCLUDES ALL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS, THAT TEXTS THAT IS DEVELOPING FOR CONSTRUCTION OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS ORGANIZED IN THE 12 FUNDING CATEGORIES. 
          THE UTP IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW AND APPROVED BY THE TEXAS TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION EACH YEAR BY AUGUST 31ST, THE UTP MAY BE UPDATED OUT OF CYCLE FOR MAJOR CHANGES. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE SET OF DOCUMENTS SHOWN HERE, MAKE UP THE PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCESS FROM LONG-TERM VISION TO PROJECT DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE RECENTLY ADOPTED 2050, NEXT SLIDE ACTUALLY BACKWARDS. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          THE RECENTLY ADOPTED 2050S STATEWIDE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IS ADOPTED EVERY FOUR YEARS AND DEFINES THE GOALS. 
          PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS FOR THE NEXT 24, WHICH PROVIDE THE BASIS FOR THE UTP IS FUNDING, DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECT LISTINGS. 
          ALSO IN THE LONGTERM VISION IS THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLAN. 
          YOU'RE CURRENTLY ADOPTED 2045 MTP. 
          AND THE MIDDLE OF TXDOT SERIES OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS IS THE UTP, WHICH LINKS THE GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS OF THE LONG RANGE PLANS, SPECIFIC TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. 
          AS THEY MOVE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
          THE STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS STEP IS TXDOT STATEWIDE PROGRAM AND PROJECTS THAT IT EXPECTS TO BE READY FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, THE STIFF INCORPORATES METROPOLITAN AND RURAL TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS TIPS INTO A SINGLE STATEWIDE DOCUMENT. 
          TXDOT HAS DILIGENTLY BEEN WORKING TO ACHIEVE FISCAL CONSTRAINTS WITH THE CURRENT FOUR YEAR STEP. 
          FINALLY, ONCE A PROJECT IS LISTED AND APPROVED TEXT DOTS TWO YEARS LETTING SCHEDULE AUTHORIZES AND ADMINISTERED IT FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          STEP ONE IN THE ETP DEVELOPMENT IS ESTABLISHING STATEWIDE GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND TARGETS. 
          THE COMMISSION HAS SET THREE STATEWIDE STRATEGIC GOALS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THROUGH THIS ESL RTP. 
          AND THOSE ARE TO PROMOTE HIGHWAY SAFETY, PRESERVE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS AND OPTIMIZE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE FOR DRIVERS AND URBAN AND RURAL AREAS. 
          STEP TWO IS TO DEVELOP THE PLANNING PASH FORECAST FOR TECH STATS, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT DIVISION ESTIMATES. 
          THE REVENUE EXPECTED TO BE AVAILABLE TO TEXT THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS. 
          STEP THREE IS TO DETERMINE THE UTP FUNDING DISTRIBUTION BY CATEGORY, BY WHICH THE COMMISSION USES THE STRATEGIC GOALS, PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS LAID OUT IN STEP ONE TO DETERMINE THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS NEEDED IN EACH OF THE 12 UTP CATEGORIES TO BEST ACHIEVE THOSE TARGETS. 
          STEP FOUR IS TO SELECT AND IMPLEMENT PROJECTS BY WORKING WITH PLANNING PARTNERS, SUCH AS CAMPO TO MAKE THE INVESTMENTS. 
          FINALLY, DATA IS COLLECTED ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE, WHICH IS USED TO INFORM FUTURE PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND TARGETS ARE IDENTIFIED YEARS IN ADVANCE OF THEIR ACTUAL FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION. 
          AND THE UTP IS FOCUSED ON IDENTIFYING AND DOING THE VOLUME OF PROJECTS THAT ARE TO BE ADVANCED FROM PLANNING THROUGH DETAILED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TO CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS ARE GIVEN AUTHORITY TO ADVANCE THROUGH THE UTP PLAN. 
          AUTHORITY IS THE HOLDING AREA FOR PROPOSED FUTURE PROJECTS OUTSIDE THE FISCALLY CONSTRAINED TENURE UTP AND INCLUDES FEASIBILITY STUDIES PROJECTS AND DEVELOP AUTHORITY ARE AUTHORIZED TO BEGIN PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL TO ADVANCE AND TO DEVELOP AUTHORITY. 
          A PROJECT MUST RANK 
          [01:20:01]
HIGHLY AMONG OTHER POTENTIAL PROJECTS AT THE REGIONAL LEVEL AND THE PROJECTS ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION MUST FIT WITHIN THE TEN-YEAR PLANNING CONSTRAINTS. 
          FINALLY, PROJECTS AND CONSTRUCT AUTHORITY CAN PROCEED TO THE FINAL STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT AND PREPARATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MUST BE FULLY FUNDED. 
          NEXT SLIDE. 
          THE PREVIOUS IMAGE HAS BEEN FLIPPED HERE VERTICALLY. 
          AND SO HOPPER WITH VALVES. 
          THE TOP PART IN GRAY IS PLANTED 30, WHO WERE PROJECTS 11 YEARS PLUS ARE WAITING TO ENTER THE UTP. 
          THE TOP VALVE IS THROTTLED BASED ON THE TEN-YEAR PLANNING SCENARIO FORECAST. 
          AND EVERY YEAR, ONCE PROJECTS ARE LEFT FOR CONSTRUCTION, THEY MOVE OUT OF THE UTP, WHICH ALLOWS FOR MORE PROJECTS TO BE PROGRAMMED INTO THE UTP, DO UTP SIMPLY LION'S DOLLARS UP WITH ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION CLASS. 
          ONCE PROJECTS ARE IN THE ETP HOPPER, THEY BEGAN TO PROGRESS THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS. 
          ONCE PROJECTS IS ACHIEVED STIP APPROVAL AND CONSTRUCT AUTHORITY. 
          THEY HAVE THE TWO YEAR LETTING SCHEDULE AND WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DOLLAR OPERATIONAL CAST FORECAST COMES INTO PLAY. 
          AND THE LAST TWO YEARS, WHEN THE PROJECTS LINE UP WITH THE BIENNIAL BUDGET, THE VOWEL CAN BE ADJUSTED AT THIS TIME. 
          AND IF THERE ARE CHANGES IN REVENUE AND PROJECTS CAN SLOW DOWN OR SPEED UP AS NEW THIS NEXT SLIDE, THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE 10 KEY STEPS AND TIMELINE FOR DEVELOPING THE UTP. 
          THE DISTRICTS WORK WITH LOCAL PARTNERS, TPP AND ADMINISTRATION ON DEVELOPING THE UTP FOR COMMISSION APPROVAL. 
          IN AUGUST OF EACH YEAR, THE MAJORITY OF DISTRICT INVOLVEMENT IS IN STEP FIVE, WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE NOW SHOWN WITH THE RED STAR PRIORITIZING POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. 
          NEXT SLIDE DISTRICT HAS BEEN MAKING INFORMAL PROJECT SUBMITTALS TO PEEP TPP FOR THE 2022 UTP SINCE NOVEMBER, BUT THE DRAFT LIST DUE THIS WEEK THAT WILL COME, THAT WILL COMPETE STATEWIDE FOR PROJECT SELECTION. 
          NEXT, THE COMMISSION BEGINS REVIEWING THE STATEWIDE SUBMITTALS AND PRELIMINARY SCORING AND RESULTS WILL BE DISCUSSED WITH THE DISTRICTS AS PART OF THE SCORING PROCESS THAT EXTENDS THROUGH MARCH COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE PROJECTS TAKES PLACE FROM APRIL TO JUNE AND THE DRAFT UTP IS RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC THIS SUMMER WITH A PUBLIC MEETING AND HEARING IN JULY. 
          FINALLY, THE UTP IS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION IN AUGUST FOR ADOPTION. 
          NEXT SLIDE HERE IN SELECTING PROJECTS, WE HAVE PRIORITIZED FULLY FUNDED PROJECTS, CURRENT, UH, FULL CURRENTLY SHOWING A FUNDING GAP FUNDING, CAMPO PROJECTS THAT WERE DEFERRED LAST YEAR FOR  CAPITAL EXPRESS PROJECTS WITH COMMITTED LOCAL FUNDING. 
          AND FINALLY, BASED ON PROJECT READINESS, THE DISTRICT, IT WAS RECOMMENDING THE FOLLOWING DRAFT LIST OF CAMPO DEFERRED PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR CATEGORY TWO M FUNDS. 
          THE LOOP 60 GRADE SEPARATION AT COURTYARD IS THE TICKET ITEM. 
          ALSO ON THE LIST IS US TWO 90 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT TROUT AND HAYES COUNTY ALONG WITH APPROVED IMPROVEMENTS TO SH 29 AND US TWO 81 IN BURNETT COUNTY TO FINAL ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT ON THE LIST IS RM 2243 IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY BETWEEN SOUTHWEST BYPASS AND NORWOOD DRIVE. 
          ADDITIONALLY THREE CORRIDORS OF 71 RM SIX 20 AND PARMER LANE AND TRAVIS AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY ARE BEING SUBMITTED FOR ITS IMPROVEMENTS TO BRING A SERIES OF CAMERAS AND MESSAGE BOARDS AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS THAT GO ALONG WITH THOSE DEVICES. 
          ADDITIONALLY, AND THE 2022 UTP, WE ARE PROPOSING $66 MILLION IN CATEGORY 12 STRATEGIC PRIORITY FOR CAMPO DEFERRED PROJECTS. 
          THESE PROJECTS WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC THIS SUMMER IF FULLY COMPETE WITH OTHER STATEWIDE PROJECTS IN THE DRAFT UTP. 
          NEXT SLIDE PROJECT TRACKER IS TEXTBOOKS ONLINE PROJECT REPORTING SYSTEM, INTERACTIVE INTERACTIVE MAP. 
          HERE YOU CAN LOOK AT THE 8,000 PROJECTS IN ALL 12 UTP CATEGORIES AND THE VARIOUS STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          THE UTP IS A SUBSET OF THE PROJECTS AND CATEGORIES TWO, FOUR, AND 12. 
          THIS CONCLUDES TODAY'S PRESENTATION. 
          UM, THANK YOU, HEATHER. 
          THAT'S EXCITING NEWS TO SEE THAT WE'VE GOT SOME PROJECTS MOVING UP, UM, DOES ON ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          UH, IS THERE A MOTION ON ITEM NUMBER 10 AND YOU ALL HEAR ME? OKAY. 
          UM, THE CHAIR MAKES THE MOTION FOR ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          IS THERE A SECOND, RIGHT? UH, 
          [01:25:02]
THERE'S GOING TO MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          IT'S COUNCIL MEMBER ALTAR. 
          OKAY, GO AHEAD. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          I HAVE, I HAVE TWO BOOKS THAT YOU GOT ONE OF YOUR PROJECTS REINSTATED. 
          I AM VERY, VERY EXCITED AND THAT WAS MORE OF THE THINGS I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY WHAT THE MOTION WAS SINCE. 
          UM, THESE ARE CATEGORY TWO AND WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE MOTION AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER CHART. 
          UH, THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER. 
          I, MY MOTION IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THIS LIST AS PRESENTED BY TXDOT. 
          GREAT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. 
          I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          UM, YEAH, I'M REALLY PLEASED THAT WE ARE ABLE TO MOVE SOME PROJECTS FORWARD ON FUNDING THAT WERE DEFERRED. 
          UM, MY QUESTION IS JUST, THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT, UM, THE SPEAKER MADE TOWARDS THE END ABOUT ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT ON THIS THAT MIGHT BE ADDED AT A LATER POINT. 
          AND I DIDN'T QUITE FOLLOW. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK HER IF SHE COULD REPEAT THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE MANY PROJECTS THAT WERE DEFERRED. 
          SO I JUST WANTED TO THAT'S CORRECT. 
          UM, WE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING, UM, OTHER PROJECTS AND OTHER CATEGORIES. 
          THE ATP HAS CATEGORIES TWO, FOUR AND 12. 
          SO THERE ARE SOME CAMPO DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WE'RE WORKING, UM, WITH, UM, WITH OUR INTERNAL, UH, WITH DIVISION, UM, RIGHT NOW IN COMMISSION PRESENTING THOSE PROJECTS. 
          AND WHEN THEY, IF THEY COMPETE STATEWIDE AND MOVE FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE PUBLIC IN THE SUMMER FIRST, THE STRATEGIC PRIORITY, UH K-12 PROJECTS. 
          RIGHT? SO THE OTHER PROJECT, SO THIS SET OF PROJECTS IS JUST FOR CATEGORY TWO, AND THEN YOU'LL BE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER CATEGORIES AS YOU FINALIZE THAT WORK. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? GREAT. 
          THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE PROCESS AND I'M PLEASED TO SEE WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT APPEAR THIS COMMISSIONER. 
          SHAY. 
          I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF THE SPEAKER AS WELL. 
          I'M PLEASED TO SEE, UM, THIS COUNCIL MEMBER ALTAR JUST REFERENCED THAT, UM, SOME PROJECTS ARE BEING PUT BACK IN THE FUNDING STREAM, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT FUNCTIONS OR WHAT, WHAT THE BASIS IS FOR IDENTIFYING THE MONEY? THE COMPTROLLER JUST ANNOUNCED THAT THERE WILL BE LESS OF A SHORTFALL THAN HE INITIALLY ANTICIPATED, BUT WE'LL STILL BE A BILLION DOLLAR FALL IN THE STATE BUDGET GOING INTO THIS NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION. 
          AND, UM, MANY ECONOMISTS HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHAT I BELIEVE WILL BE A KIND OF A LONG TAIL ON THE ECONOMIC RECOVERY FROM THE PANDEMIC. 
          SO, UM, ABOUT WHAT THE, WHAT THE ANALYSIS IS FOR THE ADDITIONAL SOURCE OF FUNDING AND WHAT YOU'RE SEEING FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS GOING FORWARD AND WHAT WE MIGHT BE, UM, POTENTIALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO IN TERMS OF OTHER PROJECTS BEING PUT ON, BECAUSE AS YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE BECAUSE THEY A VERY UNHAPPY PROCESS WHEN WE HAD TO, UM, UH, GIVE UP MANY LOCAL PROJECTS, WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR FUNDING IN ORDER TO FUND, UM, I 35. 
          SO REALLY LIKE TO KNOW YOUR, YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THIS ADDITIONAL MONEY AND THEN WHAT YOU'RE SEEING FOR THE NEXT FEW YEARS. 
          SO WE MIGHT HAVE SOME SENSE OF HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL MONEY TO EXPECT. 
          UM, I FOUND KID WAY IN JUST A SECOND. 
          AND I THINK TUCKER, YOU MAY WANT TO WEIGH IN ON THAT. 
          UM, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A COMMISSION SORT OF DECISION, BUT TUCKER FEEL FREE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT. 
          IN ONE CASE IT IS A COMMISSION DECISION, BUT WHOEVER'S RUNNING THIS. 
          COULD YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE THAT, AND AM I CORRECT? IN UNDERSTANDING IT'S ABOUT $72 MILLION IN FUNDING? I WAS JUST GOING TO QUICKLY ADD THAT UP IN, IN MY, IN MY HEAD. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE A TOTAL THERE AT THE BOTTOM, BUT THIS, THIS CATEGORY TWO PROJECTION WAS GIVEN TO US BY OUR, OUR COMMISSION TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROGRAMMING DIVISION. 
          AND THIS IS AGAIN TAKING ALL THE THINGS COMMISSIONER THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED INTO CONSIDERATION FOR WHAT THE NEXT 10 YEARS OF OUR UTP WOULD BE. 
          AND I'M ONE OF HEATHER'S FIRST COMMENTS THAT EXPLAIN WHAT THE UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM IS, IS A TEN-YEAR PLANNING DOCUMENT. 
          IT'S NOT A BUDGET, IT'S NOT A COMMITMENT OF MONEY, BUT IT IS WHAT WE EXPECT TO RECEIVE FOR THESE FUNDS FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS. 
          SO IF WE HAVE A PROJECT THAT IS IN THE UTP AND WE'RE DEVELOPING IT AND IT COMES TO THE TIME FOUR OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW THAT WE LET IT IN THE BUDGET PROJECTIONS FALL THROUGH, 
          [01:30:01]
AND IT'S NOT THERE, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO LET THAT PROJECT. 
          SO THIS IS NOT A CASH FLOW. 
          IT'S NOT A BUDGET, IT'S NOT A COMMITMENT, BUT IT'S A TEN-YEAR PLANNING DOCUMENT ON WHAT WE ANTICIPATE WOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS. 
          AND I KNOW OUR COMMISSION HAS WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR PROGRAMMING DIVISION TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS INTO CONSIDERATION OF PUTTING THESE, UH, FUNDING PROJECTIONS TOGETHER. 
          SO EVEN LOOKING AT THE COMPTROLLER'S LATEST ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS A BILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL, AND, UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT ECONOMISTS, UH, ARE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW QUICKLY THE ECONOMY CAN RECOVER. 
          YOUR ANALYSTS ARE STILL PROJECTING THAT WITHIN THIS ROLLING 10 YEAR UTP TIMEFRAME, WE WILL BE SEEING ADDITIONAL THE 72 MILLION POTENTIALLY, AND THEN FUTURE ALLOTMENTS OF MONEY THAT COULD RESTORE SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WERE NOT MAINTAINED THAT WERE DEFERRED. 
          YEAH, AND WE ARE ONE OF THE 25 DISTRICTS COMING THROUGH THIS EXERCISE SO THAT THEY UTP ON IT ON A TEN-YEAR PLAN. 
          AND LAST YEAR WAS ABOUT, WAS IT A LITTLE BIT OVER $75 BILLION FOR THE 10 YEARS? AND I THINK IT'S COMING IN SLIGHTLY LOWER THAN THAT THIS YEAR AT ABOUT 73, 72 73, BUT THAT, THAT IS THE PROJECTION OF OUR ANALYSTS FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS OF ABOUT 72, $73 BILLION STATEWIDE. 
          WELL, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE INSIGHT INTO SOME OF THE ASSUMPTIONS AROUND THIS, I'D BE VERY INTERESTED IN SEEING, AND YOU CAN JUST EMAIL IT TO ME DIRECTLY IF OTHERS AREN'T INTERESTED, BUT I, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO SQUARE WITH WHAT COMPTROLLER HANGAR IS PROJECTING AND WHAT, UH, ALL KINDS OF ECONOMISTS ARE, ARE FEARING. 
          SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, LET ME SEE WHAT I CAN GRAB  CLARIFICATION. 
          THAT'D BE FABULOUS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, THERE'S BEEN A, THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR OR THERE, UH, TO, UM, EXCEPT THE, UH, ITEM NUMBER 10. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. 
          IS THERE ANYBODY OPPOSED TO ITEM NUMBER 10? ALRIGHT. 
          THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY ITEM NUMBER 
          [11. Discussion on the Prioritization Process for Deferred Projects]
11 IS, UM, DISCUSSION ON THE PRIORITIZATION PROCESS FOR DEFERRED PROJECTS. 
          MR. COLLINS. 
          THANK YOU VERY MUCH IF YOU'LL JUST GO TO THE NEXT LINE, EMILY. 
          UM, SO THIS ITEM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PLAYING OFF WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, BOTH IN THE ITEM AND ALSO IN THE UTP ITEM IS PUTTING TOGETHER A PRIORITIZATION PROCESS FOR PRODUCTS THAT WERE DEFERRED BACK IN JUNE FOR THE . 
          AND WE WANTED TO GET A DRAFT PROCESS TOGETHER FOR DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE NOT QUITE SURE WHEN FUNDING WAS COMING IN, BUT WE DO EXPECT WITH THE DATA PROCESS IN PLACE, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, IN CASE WE DO RECEIVE ANY FUNDS FROM THE CARES ACT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO WE'VE PUT TOGETHER A PROCESS HERE, UM, AND HAS A FORM TO IT BRIEFLY. 
          UM, ESSENTIALLY, UM, IT'S JUST A FOUR STEP PROCESS, BUT WHAT IT REALLY FOCUSES ON IS PROJECT READINESS. 
          BUT WHAT WE'LL START WITH IS THE FUNDING SECTION. 
          WE'LL LOOK AT FUNDING AVAILABILITY AS IT COMES IN LEGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT'LL DETERMINE THE PRELIMINARY LIST OF PROJECTS FROM THE DEFERRED LIST THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO CONSIDER. 
          AND THEN WE'LL REACH OUT TO COORDINATE WITH THE SPONSORS TO DETERMINE THE INTEREST IN FUNDING AND CHECK THE INITIAL STATUS OF THE PROJECT. 
          AND THEN REALLY THE MEAT OF THIS PROCESS IS REALLY LOOKING AT READINESS. 
          SO WE'LL EVALUATE THE PRODUCTS JUST TO LOOK AT THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT STATUS. 
          UM, AND WE ALSO WANT TO LOOK THROUGH PROJECT CHANGES THAT MAY IMPACT THE ORIGINAL SCOPE. 
          WE DO KNOW THAT AT THE TIME WE ARE REFUNDING PRODUCTS, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES. 
          THIS IS A PRACTICALLY DEVELOPING REGION AND HAVE SOME SPONSORS EITHER MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR PRODUCTS OR SHELVED THEIR PRODUCTS OR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT MAY IMPACT OUR PROJECT ORIGINALLY EVALUATED. 
          SO WE DO WANT TO REVISIT THAT ORIGINAL SCOPE AND ALSO THE FUNDING REQUEST AND THE COST ESTIMATES TO ENSURE THAT IS WINDUP OR REFUNDED. 
          UM, AND THEN WE WILL DO A JOINT COORDINATION CALL BOTH WITH THE SPONSORS AND TECHSTOP TO DO THAT ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW, THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT AND POTENTIAL WHAT DATES. 
          SO WHAT THIS PROCESS REALLY DOES IS IT PRIORITIZES THAT EARLY IS A PROJECT THAT IS THE MOST READY PROCESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UM, WILL BE PRIORITIZED FOR FUNDING FIRST. 
          UM, IN THE CASE THAT WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT HAVE SOME SCHEDULED POTENTIAL DATES ARE KIND OF FROM THE SAME DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AT THAT POINT, WE'LL DIP INTO THE EVALUATION SCORES THAT, UM, BECAUSE WE HAVE SCORES FOR EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, WE'LL USE THOSE IN THE EVENT AND THEIR SCHEDULES. 
          THAT'S THE ONE WITH 
          [01:35:01]
THE HIGHER RANKING. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY JUST A SUMMARY OF THE PRIVATIZATION PROCESS, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          UM, IT'S A FAIRLY SIMPLE PROCESS. 
          IT'S REALLY JUST GETTING THE INFORMATION ON THE READINESS AND THEN USING THE EVALUATION SCORES AS NECESSARY. 
          AND THIS IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE PROCESS EVALUATING THE TESSA ELIGIBLE PROJECTS. 
          UM, SO TECHNICALLY IT'S THE PRESENTATION. 
          CAN YOU GO BACK AND ADDRESS COMMISSIONER SHAKEY'S QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENTS? YEAH. 
          WHICH ONE WAS THAT? I THINK IT WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP BASED UPON WHAT MS. JOSEPH RAISED. 
          AND IT WAS COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, SHE RAISED SOME ISSUES AND IT WAS ABOUT SPECIFIC BUS ROUTES. 
          YEAH. 
          I THOUGHT WAS A RANKING PROCESS FOR TRANSIT. 
          AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THERE. 
          IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS, COMMISSIONER, I WAS SIMPLY ASKING WHAT, WHAT THE RANKING PROCESS WAS THAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO, BUT IS SHE TALKING ABOUT, UH, US GETTING DEFERRED PROJECTS REINSTATED? SO COMMISSION, COMMISSIONER, SHEA. 
          UM, I, UH, I HAVE HAD AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH MS. JOSEPH WHILE WE WERE IN THE MEETING AND SHE SENT TO ME, UM, THE TAPE, THE TABLE FROM, UH, PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT HAD THE SCORES IN IT. 
          AND IT WAS WHEN WE SCORED THE, THE, UM, PROJECT FOR THE LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THE 2045 PLAN. 
          IT WAS NOT FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S CAUSE I WAS, I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED AS I WAS LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS BECAUSE CAP, METRO DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY OF THOSE FOR INCLUSION IN THE TAPE. 
          SO THEREFORE THEY WILL NOT DIFFER. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND, AND, UM, WHEN WE LOOKED, WHEN I LOOKED AT WHAT MS. JOSEPH SENT ME THE LET YEARS FOR, UM, WELL, THE ESTIMATE LET YEARS FOR THOSE PRODUCTS WERE OUTSIDE OF THE TIP WINDOW. 
          SO THAT'S HOW I KNOW FOR SURE THERE THEY'RE 2045 PLAN PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED, SO THAT CAPITAL METRO CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND MEET REQUIREMENTS AND NOT DEFER PROJECTS OUT OF THE TIP. 
          SO THAT HER QUESTION REALLY ISN'T, UH, GERMANE TO THIS DISCUSSION. 
          CORRECT. 
          BUT MAYBE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO, UM, AT LEAST PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE SCORING IN AN EMAIL. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE SENDING THAT OUT TO BOARD MEMBERS, BUT I'D BE INTERESTED TO SEE AS IT RELATES TO WHAT SHE TALKED ABOUT. 
          YES. 
          MA'AM, I'LL SEND YOU THE, THE, UM, I SIT ON RESPONSE BACK TO MS. JOSEPH, ALEX BANNED ON MEDICINE TO THAT. 
          OKAY, PERFECT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          BUT ON THIS, UM, PRIORITIZATION PROCESS, UM, I'M SURE THE BOARD WILL RECALL BECAUSE IT WAS A, A VERY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION. 
          WE USE SEVERAL DIFFERENT SCORING CRITERIA AND, UH, UH, THAT, THAT THOSE DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES PRODUCE DIFFERENT RANKING. 
          AND, UH, IT MADE VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS UNHAPPY DEPENDING ON WHERE THEIR PROJECTS RANKED. 
          SO I AM NOT CLEAR AT ALL, RYAN, FROM WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, WHAT EXACTLY THE METHODOLOGY WILL BE FOR RANKING THESE PROJECTS, BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT WERE DEFERRED THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR FUNDING, RIGHT. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PRIORITIZATION PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING THOSE PROJECTS. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          AND TO CLARIFY, WHEN I TALK ABOUT THE EVALUATION SCORES, UM, THERE WERE DIFFERENT PROCESSES. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAD THOSE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS WHEN WE HAD THAT PROCESS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL EVALUATION SCORES THAT COME OUT OF OUR PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS. 
          UM, SO IT LOOKS AT THE PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND A COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. 
          SO ALMOST ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE AFFORDED IN 28 LAST YEAR WERE EVALUATED THROUGH THAT PROCESS IN 28 FOR THE PROJECT CALL. 
          AND THEN IF YOU RECALL, WE HAD LIKE EIGHT OR NINE PROJECTS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE SCORES FOR BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN AWARDED PREVIOUSLY. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY WENT BACK AND SCORED, BUT IT WAS THROUGH PRECINCT PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS. 
          SO THOSE ARE THE SCORES I'M TALKING ABOUT. 
          I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIOS THEMSELVES, ONLY THE ACTUAL EVALUATION SCORES. 
          THAT'S LIKE THE ROADWAY PROJECTS. 
          IT'S 50% COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND 50% PERFORMANCE MEASURES. 
          SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE OBJECTIVE SCORES ON THESE POLITICS. 
          UM, SO, BUT IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'VE LISTED HERE ON THIS SLIDE IS READINESS GOING TO BE A TOP, UH, CRITERIA FOR RANKING. 
          SO NEVERMIND READINESS IS GOING TO BE, AND READINESS IS BASED ON THE TIMETABLE FOR THE PROJECT, BECAUSE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ALSO LOOKING AT PROJECTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE COMPLETED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. 
          YES MA'AM. 
          SO THAT'S 
          [01:40:01]
WHAT THIS PROCESS REALLY DOES FOCUS ON READINESS BECAUSE ALL OF THESE PRODUCTS AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER, WERE SELECTED BY THE POLICY BOARD AND HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT ACTIONS IN JUNE WERE PRIOR TO US FOR REFINANCING. 
          SO IT WAS REALLY LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WE, IT'S VERY BENEFICIAL FOR THE REGION TO REALLY FOCUS ON SPENDING THE FUNDS AS THEY COME IN AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          THAT WAY WE CAN, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDING AVAILABLE, WE CAN PULL IT UP. 
          SO THAT'S WHY IT FOCUSES SO MUCH ON READINESS SO THAT WE DON'T REFUND A PROJECT. 
          THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE BETTER FOR FOUR YEARS WHILE OTHER ONES READY NEXT YEAR, IT'S JUST SITTING THERE. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT FOCUSES ON THAT. 
          AND ONLY IF WE GET SIMILAR LED DATES, UM, THAT'S WHEN WE'D PULL THE EVALUATION SCORES AND JUST TO USE IT AS A TIE BREAKER MECHANISM, ESSENTIALLY, AND, AND THE READINESS AND THE DATES WILL BE BASED ON, UM, IF ALL THE ENGINEERING DONE, IF ALL THE RIGHT OF WAY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED, IF ALL THE UTILITY LOCATION AND RELOCATION ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DONE, WHAT OTHER FACTORS ARE INCLUDED IN THE READINESS, IT'S REALLY ENVIRONMENTAL. 
          UM, AND YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS ITSELF WILL REALLY KIND OF FOCUSED ON THOSE. 
          THERE'S A BAD ECHO. 
          I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU CAN PEOPLE MUTE IF THEY'RE NOT SPEAKING. 
          YEAH, I CAN HEAR THAT TOO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO YEAH, THAT THAT'S REALLY, I MEAN, I THINK YOU KIND OF CUT TO IT IS REALLY LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT IS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
          AND SO WE'RE HOPING, YOU KNOW, THE TOPICS THAT ARE ALMOST ALL OF THEM, CONSTRUCTION FUNDING. 
          AND SO WE'RE EXPECTING THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REALLY CONTINUE DEVELOPING, AND THAT INCLUDES FINISHING ENGINEERING PURCHASING RIGHT AWAY AND GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS LIKE YOU HAD MENTIONED, AND THOSE ARE THE KEY PROCESSES. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE HOPING THIS PROCESS WILL REALLY KIND OF PRIORITIZE THOSE. 
          WE WERE CONTINUING TO WORK ON THE PROJECT. 
          WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE TIMETABLE FOR BRINGING BACK THIS NEXT TRAUNCH OF, UM, PROJECTS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR PRIORITIZATION? WHAT'S YOUR TIMETABLE ROUGHLY? I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT, UH, A YEAR OR TWO, UM, WE'RE WAITING TO SEE ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF CONGRESS. 
          SO THAT'LL BE INTERESTING. 
          I DO BELIEVE WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE STP FUNDING THAT WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY RECEIVE. 
          AND I'LL LET ASHLEY TALK TO THAT. 
          I THINK HE'S GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE MEETING, BUT WE ARE EXPECTING SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO COME INTO THE POT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. 
          AND SO WE CAN HOPEFULLY START AT THAT DEFERRED LIST PRETTY SHORTLY. 
          SO THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO GET AND GET THIS PROCESS IN PLACE. 
          WELL, YEAH, AND IF IT'S CURIOUS FUNDING THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE POTENTIALLY VERY QUICKLY, SO LESS THAN A YEAR OR TWO, IT JUST, I, I THINK THE, ALL, ALL THE COMMUNITIES NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE SCORED. 
          AND AS PART OF IT IS GET BUSY, GET YOUR ENGINEERING DONE, ACQUIRE YOUR RIGHT OF WAY, UH, DO YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL. 
          LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE GETTING BUSY ON. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THERE'S A QUESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ALTER. 
          UM, I DO WANT TO INTERJECT ONE QUESTION ALSO, AND I THINK THIS CAME UP WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS LAST YEAR, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          UM, THAT RAISED THE ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENS IF DURING THIS INTERIM TIME THAT SOMEBODY, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINDS OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDS AND FUNDS A PROJECT THAT HAD PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED FUNDS, UM, WHAT HAPPENS AND DO THEY GET CREDIT FOR THAT? AND SO IF INTO THAT QUESTION, AND THEN WE'VE ALSO GOT A QUESTION I THINK FROM COUNCILMAN WALTER. 
          YES. 
          AND THAT'S ACTUALLY SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE THAT LIST AND MOVING FORWARD WITH THOSE PROJECTS. 
          SO WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET PRODUCT FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS, I THINK WE WERE JUST GOING TO FOCUS ON THE PREFERRED LIST, BUT I'M ACTUALLY MAYBE REMEMBERING THIS DIFFERENTLY, BUT THAT'S ALSO A POLICY DISCUSSION AS WELL. 
          IF YOU, THE POSSIBILITIES CREDIT FOR SPENDING, FINDING, AND MOVING THEIR PROJECTS FORWARD, THAT'S SOMETHING I CONSIDER. 
          UM, WHAT I HEARD THAT WAS A DIFF WAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION AND MAYBE I MISHEARD IT ENOUGH. 
          SO COUNCIL MEMBER, PLEASE, UM, PLEASE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. 
          SO IF THE QUESTION IS, UM, UH, LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS CONTINUED TO WORK ON A PROJECT, UM, AND IT RECEIVES, UM, RESTORED 
          [01:45:01]
FUNDING, LET'S SAY NEXT YEAR, IF THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU GET REFUNDED FOR THE MONEY THAT YOU, YOUR LOCAL MONEY THAT YOU SPENT GETTING THE PROJECT READY? THE ANSWER IS NO, BECAUSE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF AN AFA AND THE, AND THAT WAS RELAYED AT THE TIME THAT HAS NOT CHANGED. 
          THAT'S OKAY. 
          UM, JUST TO CLARIFY, I DON'T THINK THAT WAS COUNCILMAN CULTURE'S QUESTION. 
          I ADMIRED, UM, INAPPROPRIATELY MISSTATED, REMEMBER KITCHEN'S QUESTION, BUT IT'S ONE I HAD AS WELL. 
          IT WAS FAIRLY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU CAN'T GO BACK IN TIME WITH AN AFA, BUT WA AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT, TO RYAN'S POINT THAT THE POLICY BOARD NEEDS TO ADDRESS. 
          UM, IF CITY OF AUSTIN, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD BEEN, HAD A PROJECT AND THAT PROJECT HAD BEEN DEFERRED, UM, AND THEY DECIDED WITH LOCAL FUNDS TO GO SPEND MONEY ON THAT PROJECT. 
          I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION. 
          WE NEVER LANDED ON ANYTHING, BUT THE POLICY BOARD WILL NEED TO ADDRESS THAT AS WHAT HAPPENS. 
          THOSE CITY OF AUSTIN GET CREDIT FOR THAT 5 MILLION OR WHATEVER THEY MIGHT'VE SPENT ON THAT. 
          UM, AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? AND I'M JUST USING THAT HYPOTHETICALLY, UM, AS, AS A QUESTION, IT COULD BE BASTER OPER, WHOEVER. 
          IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. 
          IT DOES THAT ENTITY GET CREDIT. 
          UM, BUT SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THAT TODAY. 
          WE JUST NEED TO PONDER THAT, BUT GO AHEAD AND COUNCIL MEMBER ARTHUR, THANK YOU. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          SO IN THE PRIOR ITEM, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CATEGORY TWO FUNDS, WHICH THE POLICY BOARD DOESN'T, UM, SORT OF DISTRIBUTE. 
          WE WERE ACKNOWLEDGING, THIS IS WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          THAT WE'D BEEN BRIEFED. 
          NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT CATEGORY SEVEN FUNDS, WHICH ARE FUNDS THAT WE DO HAVE A SAY IN ALLOCATING, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WERE DEFERRED IN ORDER TO PRIORITIZE . 
          AND NOW WE'RE SAYING, WHEN WE GET NEW FUNDING, UM, FOR CATEGORY SEVEN, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS? AND, UM, WE HAVE SAID WE ARE GOING TO PRIORITIZE THE PROJECTS THAT WERE DEFERRED. 
          UM, AND THEN THIS IS THE PROCESS FOR DETERMINING YOU'RE DISCUSSING THE PROCESS THAT WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE DIFFERENT PROJECTS WOULD BE FUNDED NEXT FROM THAT FUNDING. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? UNDERSTANDING BEFORE I ASK MY QUESTION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THEN, UM, I UNDERSTAND A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROJECT THAT'S READY IN FOUR YEARS VERSUS ONE THAT IS READY NOW THAT WE WOULD WANT TO PRIORITIZE THAT, UM, REGARDLESS OF PERHAPS REGARDLESS OF THE EVALUATION SCORES. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IF WE HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS READY IN ONE YEAR THAT HAD A SUPER EVALUATION SCORE THAN ANOTHER WHY WE WOULD SET UP A PROCESS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT US FROM FUNDING, THAT PROJECT THAT HAD A MUCH HIGHER EVALUATION SCORE, BUT THAT WAS READY TO SAY IN A YEAR. 
          UM, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THIS PROCESS REALLY PRIORITIZES THE READINESS OVER THE EVALUATION SCORES. 
          AND I'M, I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE ARE NOT PUTTING EVALUATION SCORES ABOVE THAT ARE DOING SOME COMBINATION, WHICH IS, I THINK, WHERE WE LANDED ON, UH, WHEN WE MADE OUR CHOICES BEFORE, BECAUSE IT WAS THAT COMBINATION THAT WE WERE TRYING TO GET, RIGHT. 
          WE WANTED PROJECTS THAT WERE GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY, BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO DO THE, WITH LIMITED FUNDS. 
          WE WANTED TO CHOOSE THE PROJECTS THAT WERE GOING TO HAVE THE BIGGEST BANG ON REGIONAL MOBILITY. 
          SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE DIDN'T DO MORE OF THAT MIX OR PUT EVALUATION, UM, WITH HIGHER WEIGHT? UH, YES, MA'AM REALLY KIND OF TALKING TO THE READINESS AND EVALUATION SCORES. 
          YOU KNOW, THESE, THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE COMING AT DIFFERENT TIMES AND, UH, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS, LIKE YOU SAID, WE MAY HAVE DONE THAT SCORE. 
          YOU KNOW, MAYBE THE NUMBER ONE PROJECTS, BUT IT'S NOT READY FOR A FEW YEARS, BUT SO BY THE TIME IT IS READY, WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER BUCKET OF FUNDING COMING IN. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE READING THIS WEEK IS THE PRIMARY FOCUS BECAUSE ALL OF THESE ARE THE REFUND THAT AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS APPROPRIATE THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          I GUESS WHEN WE'RE FLESHING IT OUT REALLY TO, TO REFUND THE PROJECT THAT REALLY ISN'T GOING TO USE THE FUNDING FOR A FEW YEARS WHEN WE CAN GET THE OTHER ONE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S LOWER RANKING, WE CAN GET THAT ONE BUILT AND ON THE GROUND BEFORE THE OTHER ONE WAS EVEN READY. 
          SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE MOST EXPEDIENT WAY TO USE THE FRONT END SINCE THESE WERE ALL IN SOME WAYS, SHAPE, PRIORITIZED, AND GOING TO GET REFUNDED AT SOME POINT. 
          UM, IT'S REALLY JUST TRYING TO GET THE MOST, THE PROJECTS ON THE GROUND AS FAST AS POSSIBLE. 
          THAT'S REALLY WHERE THAT THINKING IS BECAUSE YEAH, I THEY'RE ALL, EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE SCORES ON THESE, THEY'RE ALL A PRIORITY. 
          SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND. 
          I UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED THAT IF THERE'S THE DIFFERENCE OF MULTIPLE YEARS, BUT IF IT WERE LIKE ONE 
          [01:50:01]
YEAR, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THAT? YEAH, I GET THAT. 
          THAT'S A GOOD POINT. 
          UM, I MEAN, I GUESS IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHEN THE FUNDING, IT WE'RE EXPECTING IN THE FUTURE TO COME IN. 
          SO IF WE'RE EXPECTING SOME FUNDS TO COME IN, I MEAN, WE DO, WE GET FUNDING ANNUALLY. 
          UM, SO WHEN YOU'RE DIFFERENT, IT'S PROBABLY, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM A READINESS PERSPECTIVE IS I GUESS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SINCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BUCKET CURRENTLY, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER BUCKET IN A YEAR. 
          UM, SO WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SIMILAR LIGHT THAT DATES, I WOULD THINK WITHIN A SIX MONTH TIME PERIOD TO ME, UM, IS WHAT FEELS LIKE A SIMILAR LET DATE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, OKAY. 
          AND THEN, CAN YOU DESCRIBE AGAIN, I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THIS A LITTLE BIT EARLIER IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER SHAY, BUT JUST SO THERE'S CLARITY, UM, FOR THOSE WHO ARE WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS, WHAT IS BEING EVALUATED AS READY? YES, JUST REALLY ENGINEERING. 
          I WOULD SAY ALMOST ALL OF THE ONES ON THE DIFFERENT LISTS WERE FUNDED FOR CONSTRUCTION. 
          SO ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE LEADING UP TO CONSTRUCTION, UM, THIS GOES INTO IT'S REALLY ENGINEERING, PSD WORK ANY RIGHT AWAY AND UTILITY WORK. 
          AND SPECIFICALLY ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS, THE DEEP NEPA PROCESS, THESE ARE ALL GOING TO BE FEDERALIZED PRODUCTS. 
          AND SOMETIMES I CAN TAKE, YOU KNOW, THEY ALL KIND OF TAKE A WHILE I THINK RIGHT AWAY PURCHASING REALLY DOES TAKE THE LONGEST OUT OF ALL OF THOSE. 
          BUT, UM, THOSE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED ON. 
          UM, JUST SO I CAN GET READY TO LET, AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT ANTICIPATION IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE SOME FUNDING COMING IN PRETTY MUCH ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. 
          AND SO THAT A PROJECT THAT SCORED HIGH ON AN EVALUATION, BUT WASN'T READY IN YEAR ONE WOULD HAVE A GOOD CHANCE OF GETTING FUNDED IN YEAR TWO. 
          AND IF IN YEAR TWO, THERE WERE TWO PROJECTS THAT WERE BOTH READY, THEN YOU'D PICK THE ONE THAT WAS A HIGHER VALUATION SCORE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION AND RYAN, TO BE CLEAR THAT APPLICABLE INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR FOLKS. 
          SO EACH ENTITY TO GET IT QUARTERLY, CORRECT? OH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          COOL. 
          THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER KITCHEN. 
          I BELIEVE YOU HAD A QUESTION. 
          YEAH, IT'S JUST A FOLLOW-UP UM, TO THIS. 
          SO, UM, I KNOW THAT THE READINESS CRITERIA IS, UM, WRITTEN. 
          I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE'VE, WE WENT THROUGH THAT IN THE PAST AND, AND Y'ALL HAVE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AROUND THAT. 
          UH, CAN YOU JUST REMIND PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO SEE THE DETAIL ABOUT WHERE THEY CAN LOOK? I MEAN, YOU'VE EXPLAINED IT PRETTY WELL FOR US. 
          I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          BUT CAN YOU, UM, CAN YOU POINT PEOPLE TO THE DOCUMENT WHERE, UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE THOSE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF READINESS ARE EXPLAINED IF THEY WANT TO SEE SOMETHING IN WRITING? ABSOLUTELY. 
          AND WE CAN CERTAINLY SEND US THOSE AS WELL. 
          THE PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA, THERE IS A SECTION OF TOP THE READINESS, BUT I WANT TO ACTUALLY POINT YOU TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, OTHER PROCEDURES FROM TECHSTOP, THEY HAVE A MANUAL THAT TAKES YOU THROUGH THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OF A FEDERAL WELLNESS PROJECT. 
          SO THOSE STEPS THAT ARE IN THAT LIST IN THAT MANUAL, ACTUALLY, I USE THAT MONEY ALL THE TIME, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT RESOURCE FOR ALL OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WHO WERE WORKING ON THESE PROJECTS TO, TO READ THROUGH THAT, TO SEE WHAT THEY NEED TO DO TO GET THESE PROJECTS READY. 
          SO I'LL GET WITH, UH, OUR ADMIN AND GET THAT SET UP TO EVERYONE BECAUSE IT IS A FANTASTIC RESOURCE. 
          YEAH. 
          OR YOU INTO, YOU MAY WANT TO JUST DO, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DETAIL PEOPLE WANT TO SEE. 
          YOU MIGHT MAKE A SIMPLE LIST AND THEN REFER PEOPLE TO THE, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS TO THE DOCUMENT ITSELF, YOU KNOW, SO, UH, AND YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF KIND OF VERBALLY LISTING THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          SO I APPRECIATE THAT. 
          UM, SO THEN RELATED QUESTION, I KNOW WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT, UM, AND THERE IS AN EXPECTATION OF, OF ADDITIONAL FUNDING COMING IN. 
          UM, AT WHAT POINT ARE, UM, I GUESS WHAT I'M WANTING TO SEE, AND I REALIZE THAT IT'S, IT'S NOT AVAILABLE TODAY, BUT WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS SOME KIND OF PROJECTION OF THE DOLLARS THAT WE EXPECT AND THE TIMELINE WE EXPECTED, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD HELP US, UM, SEE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF WHEN THESE DEFERRED PROJECTS MIGHT COME UP AGAIN, IS WHAT'S THE THINKING ABOUT PREPARING SOME KIND OF PROJECTION FOR THEM. 
          WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. 
          AND GOING BACK TO THE UTP, TXDOT DOES A D PROJECT PROJECTIONS FOR CATEGORY SEVEN FUNDING. 
          UM, SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE RECEIVE ABOUT 35 MILLION A YEAR OVER TIME, AND THEY'VE GOT A PROJECTED OUT FOR 10 YEARS AND IT THINK IT GETS UP 38, UH, TOWARDS THE END, BUT I CAN SEND THAT OUT. 
          THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE LOOK AT SO WE CAN PREPARE SOMETHING FOR THAT AND GET THAT OUT AS WELL. 
          SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING TO DO THOUGH. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          NOW, DOES IT, IS THAT, I MEAN, WE ALSO KNOW THAT THERE ARE FEDERAL FUNDS THAT 
          [01:55:01]
THE EXPECTATION IS THAT ADDITIONAL FEDERAL FUNDS, UM, HAVE BEEN, UM, IDENTIFIED IN WHAT WAS RECENTLY PASSED, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          AND SO, UM, I'D LOVE TO SEE SOME KIND OF PROJECTION RELATED TO THAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT IN WHAT YOU JUST REFERENCED, UM, P SO, UM, THAT WOULD HELP. 
          UM, AND THEN I, I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITH OUR VARIOUS STAFFS, SO TO THE DEGREE WE GET, UM, YOU KNOW, CAN THINK IN TERMS OF A HEADS UP OF WHAT'S COMING, UM, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO, I THINK OTHERS HAVE ALREADY MADE THIS POINT IN RDS, THIS QUESTION, IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ALL WANT TO BE ABLE TO, TO, TO MOVE AHEAD, YOU KNOW, WITH, UM, VARIOUS PROJECTS, BUT WE DON'T WANT THAT TO RESULT IN, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, PENALIZING US, UH, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF BEING, UM, ELIGIBLE FOR PROJECTS. 
          SO, UM, I'M SURE YOU'RE WORKING WITH EACH ENTITY IN TERMS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY HAVE PROJECTS THAT ARE ASKING ABOUT THAT. 
          SO, UM, SO ANYWAY, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT HELPING US MAKE SURE WE SEE WHAT'S COMING AND, UH, WE DON'T, YOU KNOW, LOSE AN OPPORTUNITY. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE ALSO AREN'T, UM, LOSING AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME THINGS THAT WERE DEFERRED. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          THAT CONCLUDES ITEM NUMBER 11 ON TO 
          [12. Discussion on CAMPO’s Transportation Development Credit (TDC) Policy]
ITEM NUMBER 12, THEN I THINK THAT, UM, LET'S SEE THE TDC DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SO, UM, THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO THIS ITEM IS TO DISCUSS THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CREDIT POLICY POLICY UPDATE BACK IN 2017, BUT DEFINITELY THIS CAME OUT FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER SHADE. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO TAKE A, KIND OF A FRESH LOOK AT OUR POLICY. 
          EVERY SINGLE THING ABOUT FOR SOME TVCS, ONE THING THAT ALWAYS COMES UP IS IN THIS REGION, IT IS IT'S A FINANCIAL TOOL. 
          UM, BUT SO THE IMPETUS FOR DOING THIS REVISITING THE POLICY IS TO SEE, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO TO EFFECTIVELY USE THE TVCS? AND SO WE TOOK A STEP BACK AND I THINK IT WAS A, A REALLY GOOD EXERCISE TO GO THROUGH THE POLICY. 
          AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'M GOING TO GET THROUGH THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. 
          IT'S A LITTLE LATE, UM, BUT TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT TDC IS, WHERE THEY COME FROM AND REALLY HOW THEY IMPACT THE REGION AS A WHOLE PORTFOLIO OF PROJECTS. 
          AND THEN I'LL BRIEFLY RUN THROUGH OUR POLICY. 
          AND THEN I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS. 
          AND AFTER LOOKING AT THE POLICY, WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND RECOMMENDING REALLY ANY CHANGES. 
          AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS. 
          UM, BUT FOR ANYBODY WHO'S NOT FAMILIAR WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT, IT'S KIND OF A DRY SUBJECT, BUT IT'S A FEDERAL TOOL, ESSENTIALLY WAIVES THE LOCAL NATURAL PROJECTS NEEDED THE FEDERAL FUNDING THAT WE GIVE OUT AS A POLICY BOARD. 
          UM, THERE'S A, A LOCAL CASH REQUIREMENT AND IT'S ALSO, IT IMPACTS THE REIMBURSEMENT PER PART OF THE PROCESS OF THE PROJECT. 
          SO, UM, A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS THAT I WANT TO MAKE ARE THAT TDCS ARE NOT CASH AND WAS ADDITIONAL FUNDING. 
          UM, THEY ONLY CHANGED REALLY THE REIMBURSEMENT AND THE PROJECT AND NOT THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT. 
          UM, ONE IMPORTANT THING THAT SLIDE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THIS IS THE TDCS SPONSORS TO INVEST THEIR LOCAL FUNDING INTO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 
          IT'S CALLED AS A PEPPER A LITTLE BIT, BUT HOPEFULLY YOU GOT A CHANCE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PAPER AND LOOK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN 2017. 
          BUT WE KIND OF DESIGNED THIS TO ENSURE THAT IT ADHERES TO FEDERAL AND STATE REGULATIONS AND PROCEDURES. 
          WE DIDN'T REALLY ADD ANYTHING. 
          WE JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT WE ADMINISTERED THESE THAT WERE FOLLOWING THE FEDERAL AND STATE RULES THAT WE HAVE. 
          UM, SO YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, EMILY TO, TO KIND OF NOTE, UM, SO THERE AREN'T ACTUALLY PART OF THE STATE, IT'S A STATE PROGRAM ACTS AS THE PROXY FOR THE STATE BECAUSE THE CONDITION HAS DELEGATED A 75% OF TDCS AND THAT THEY ARE RETURNED TO THE MPO IN WHICH THEY WILL WEIGH THEIR TOTAL REVENUES. 
          IF THEY'RE REINVESTED INTO THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR EVERY DOLLAR, QUITE SURE WHAT THE EXCHANGE 
          [02:00:01]
RATE IS, AND I CAN LOOK, BUT YOU ARE FROM THOSE INVESTMENTS. 
          AND SO YOU CAN SEE THE, THE TOLL FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE IN THE REGION OVER THERE, BUT ONCE YOU GOT OUR TVCS PALACES THERE AT THE BOTTOM IS THAT THERE ARE A TON OF CLOSE TO 800 MILLION AS CLOSE TO A BILLION. 
          UH, NCT HAS AS MANY AS A REDO, ESSENTIALLY WITHIN TECH TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT, UM, HALF BILLION, BUT NATIONWIDE, THERE ARE OVER 35 BILLION TRANSPORTATION DEPENDENT. 
          AND THE REASON I'M BRINGING THAT UP IS AS I GO THROUGH WHAT TDC, THAT PROBABLY IMPACT THEY'RE REALLY KIND OF FINANCIAL TOOL. 
          UM, SO THAT'S, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE INDICATORS AS EVIDENCE OF THAT, IS THAT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SO MANY CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY THAT ARE REALLY JUST SITTING ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO REALLY JUST TO TALK ABOUT THE REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS BRIEFLY. 
          SO WHENEVER WE, SOMEBODY GETS AWAY WITH GIRLFRIEND, THEY INCUR THOSE EXPENSES UPFRONT, AND THEN THEY SUBMIT THOSE INVOICES ON A REGULAR BASIS. 
          AND THEN THERE'S INVOICES REIMBURSED AT 80%, FOR EXAMPLE, PRODUCT THAT WOULDN'T, THE FEDERAL SHARE WOULD BE 800,000 AND THE LOCAL SHERIFF. 
          IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND THIS IS REALLY KIND OF SHOWS YOU THE TVCS IMPACT OF PROJECT, IT EFFECTIVELY REMOVES THAT LOCAL MATCH, BUT THE FEDERAL FUNDING AMOUNT, AND THIS IS KEY TO THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT. 
          SO THE FEDERAL AMOUNTS. 
          SO IN THIS CASE, WHEN YOU SUBMIT THE INVOICE, YOU'LL GET REIMBURSED AT A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          UM, BUT BOTH OF THE PERSON HAS DONE HERE. 
          AND THEN YOU GET REIMBURSED INTO THESE EXHAUST FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          IN THIS CASE, THE FEDERAL FUNDING DOES NOT CHANGE WITH THE APPLICATION TO PDCS. 
          AND SO THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO ADDRESS THAT IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, ONE THING THAT YOU CAN DO IS ONCE YOU PULL OFF THE LOCAL FUNDING AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH ONLY THE FEDERAL DOLLAR, YOU CAN REALLY JUST REDUCE THE SCOPE SO THAT YOU CAN COMPLETE THE PROJECT WITH THE FEDERAL SCHRADER. 
          SO THAT'S ONE IMPORTANT THING. 
          AND THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU ACTIVELY TPCS TO A PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE AWARDED A FEDERAL FUND BEFORE THE APPLICATION OF CDCS, THEY HAVE TO DO A SCOPE REDUCTION TO GET THE PROJECT THROUGH. 
          AND SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, SO ONE OF THE OTHER UNFORTUNATE CONSEQUENCES TDCS, IF YOU DECIDE TO APPLY, AND THIS IS WHAT WE, THAT OUR POLICY IS THAT WHEN YOU APPLY FOR FEDERAL FUNDING, THAT YOU INCREASE YOUR FEDERAL FUNDING REQUEST TO COVER THE ENTIRE PROJECT COST, UM, WITH THE ANTICIPATIONS APPLY FOR, TO BE AWARDED TDCS. 
          AND SO WHAT THIS DOES IS THOSE TWO CRITICAL THINGS THAT DRIVE HOME IS THAT THIS INCREASES THE MATCH AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT. 
          UM, SO IN THIS EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF REQUESTING, THEN YOU WOULD REQUEST THE ENTIRE BUDGET DOLLARS IN FEDERAL FUNDS. 
          BUT THE OTHER CRITICAL, IF YOU'LL GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, IS THAT IT REDUCES FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABILITY ACROSS THE REGION. 
          IT REALLY CONCENTRATES FEDERAL FUNDING ON FEWER PRODUCTS. 
          SO IF WE, IF THERE'S ONE THING THAT IS ONE SCENARIO THAT'S OFTEN FLOATED IS WHY DON'T WE PUT TVCS ON EVERY SINGLE PROJECT? THE REASON WE DON'T DO THAT AS IT, BECAUSE THEN FEWER PROJECTS WOULD BE, WE WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO FUND FEWER PRODUCTS. 
          AND THEN, UM, FEWER SPONSORS WOULD, AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE HERE JUST FOR POLITICS, IF YOU DID HAVE PVCS VERSUS IF YOU APPLIED TDCS TO EVERY SINGLE PROJECT AND TO KIND OF REALLY DROVE THAT A POINT IN WHICH WE'LL GET TO THE NEXT SLIDE. 
          UM, THIS IS AN ACTUAL REAL WORLD EXAMPLE. 
          SO DURING THE PROJECT HALL IN 2018, WE ACTUALLY WENT OUT TO APPLY FOR TDCS TO SEND IN AN APPLICATION WITH THEIR FUNDING APPLICATION. 
          AND SO WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP APPLYING 13 CREDITS TO A PROJECT SEPARATE THERE'S ABOUT SEVEN PROJECTS THAT RECEIVE TVCS ALONGSIDE OF IT. 
          BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO AS FAR DOWN THE LIST AS WE COULD. 
          AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FUND TWO ADDITIONAL PRODUCTS AND JUST FOR A HYPOTHETICAL, IF WE HAD APPLIED TVCS TO EVERY SINGLE PROJECT, UM, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO FIND A SLOT IN THE WILLIAM PENN AND WORK STANBRIDGE OR . 
          SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT TO MAKE BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE JUST 
          [02:05:01]
CONCENTRATING ON THAT FEDERAL FUNDING. 
          AND SO THAT MEANS WE JUST SPREAD AS MUCH BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S JUST THE SCENARIO IS CAN WE JUST APPLY THESE TO ALL THE PRODUCTS AND THE REASON WE DON'T DO THAT? ONE OF THE REASONS WE DON'T DO THAT IS BECAUSE OF THIS, UM, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          SO JUST TO KIND OF FUND YOU BRIEFLY THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. 
          SO OUR POLICY BASICALLY HAS A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION JUST PRESENTED IN THERE. 
          UM, IT GIVES YOU THE TDC PROGRAM. 
          IT GIVES THOSE EXAMPLES OF HOW TO FIND THEM, BUT THE PROJECT IN THE REGION. 
          AND THEN IT ALSO HAS THE PROGRAM GOALS FOR THE STATE AND THE REGION, THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL STATE AND LOCAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. 
          I WILL SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DO HAVE LOCAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS THAT WE PUT IN THERE, THEY'RE REALLY NOT NECESSARY BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY LISTED ELIGIBLE FOR FEDERAL FUNDING TO BEGIN WITH. 
          SO, SO WE'VE ADDED ADDITIONAL ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN IT ALSO JUST LAYS OUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. 
          AND THE PROCESS IS REALLY KIND OF CARRIED THROUGH ITS PROCESS. 
          WE ASKED THE SPONSOR TO SHOW US HOW THE POLICY GOALS, ELIGIBILITY REQUESTS DVCS AND WE'RE WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS FOR THE FUNDING IMPACTS FOR THAT LOSS OF LOCAL MATCH ON. 
          WE JUST WANT TO ENSURE THAT IF WE AWARD, WHEN YOU PULL OUT THAT LOCAL FUNDING, THAT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO STILL IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT AND THEN OF COURSE SUPPORT MATERIALS. 
          UM, SO ALL THIS IS REALLY DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE HEARING IT. 
          THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. 
          FINALLY, THIS IS REALLY KIND OF THE CORE TENANT OF THE TVC PROGRAM. 
          IF YOU ACTUALLY GO TO THE FEDERAL LEVEL, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT, THERE THERE'S REALLY ABOUT TWO OR THREE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS AND REALLY KIND OF WHAT DICTATES HOW WE ADMINISTER THIS POLICY IS THE REQUIREMENT TO USC. 
          UM, SO THE CREDIT, BASICALLY THE CREDIT FROM THE NON-FIDUCIARY, UM, YOU CAN'T REPLACE OR REDUCE OR REPLACE THE STATE FUNDS TO MATCH GROWTH FUNDING. 
          SO ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE CANNOT ALLOW, EVEN IF WE APPLY TO CESAR PROJECTS, WE CAN'T REDUCE THE LOCAL FUNDING INVESTMENT IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. 
          AND WE DO THAT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. 
          I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WE DON'T DO THIS BLANKET POLICY WHERE WE USE PVC NECESSARILY. 
          IT IS NECESSARY TO DOCUMENT WHAT THAT SECONDARY PROJECT, WHERE THAT INVESTMENT IS GOING TO GO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IN ORDER TO GET THE TVCS APPROVED ALSO CASE BY CASE BASIS. 
          AND JUST ALLOWS US TO UNDERSTAND THESE IMPACTS OF APPLYING TDCS TO THAT PROJECT. 
          SO I FEEL GOOD THE NEXT TIME. 
          AND SO THERE'S ENOUGH TO TAKE THE PATIENTS. 
          REALLY OUR POLICY RECOMMENDATION IS, YOU KNOW, AFTER WE'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT WHAT OUR POLICY AND WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGES. 
          AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY LITTLE SPONSORS OR PROJECTS FOR APPLY FOR TVCS. 
          LIKE I MENTIONED, WE DON'T NEED ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS. 
          THIS IS ESSENTIALLY IF YOU MEET THOSE FEDERAL AND STATE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS, THEN FOR THAT PATIENT, THEN YEAH. 
          THE POLICY PROCESS ENSURES THAT THE FEDERAL STATE LEVELS SPECIFICALLY, INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. 
          SO THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FROM TIM SOGGY ALSO HAD A CHANCE TO DO A LEGAL REVIEW OF THIS. 
          AND SO I'M GOING TO PASS IT OVER TO HIM TO SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE HE WANTS TO MENTION ABOUT THIS. 
          BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I THINK THIS WAS A WORTHWHILE EXERCISE. 
          AND IF THERE ARE SCENARIOS, WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK INTO THIS AND TO SEE HOW OTHER PEOPLE ADMINISTERED THEIR TDCS OR OTHER NPOS, OTHER AGENCIES AND OTHER STATES DON'T REALLY THINK THERE'S A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO ADMINISTER THIS PROGRAM, BUT WE WILL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THIS WITH FRESH EYES, STOP TALKING AND HAND THIS OVER TO 10 30. 
          UM, JUST BRIEFLY I CONDUCTED A REVIEW OF OUR CURRENT POLICIES THAT WERE ADOPTED IN 2017 AGAINST FEDERAL LAW AND STATE LAW. 
          UH, AS RYAN MENTIONED, THEIR SPECIFIC STATUTORY 
          [02:10:02]
AUTHORITY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND THERE'S ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIREMENTS AT THE STATE LEVEL, ALL OF WHICH, UH, WE COMPLY WITH, UH, IN OUR, UH, IN OUR POLICY AS IT EXISTS TODAY. 
          SO THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO ADD. 
          OKAY. 
          THANKS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY HAS? I THINK I SEE ONE FROM COMMISSIONER SHAKE. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          YEAH. 
          I HAD, UH, ASKED FOR SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS, BUT IT HAS, IT HAS COME UP AS A REQUEST FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE POLICY BOARD IN THE PAST. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS WE HAD ASKED STAFF TO DEVELOP A POLICY SO THAT WE WOULDN'T BE DOING THIS SORT OF CASE BY CASE, UH, EVALUATION AND THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME CRITERIA FOR, UM, APPLYING TO VCS, LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE, UM, HOW THEY WOULD ADVANCE, UM, REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION GOALS OR, UH, OTHER PRIORITIES THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED. 
          BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IF IT'S JUST CASE BY CASE, WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE A SIMILAR DISCUSSION LIKE THIS EACH TIME THESE COME UP. 
          I MEAN, I THOUGHT THE WHOLE POINT OF IT WAS TO HAVE A POLICY THAT GAVE US SOME CRITERIA TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT A TDC SHOULD BE RECOMMENDED TO THE POLICY BOARD. 
          SO IF I'M AN, I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN STAFF'S MOUTH, BUT I THINK THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT TO CHANGE. 
          I MEAN, WE, YOU KNOW, THEY WENT AND LOOKED AND, AND THEIR RECOMMENDATION BACK WAS NOT TO CHANGE IT IF THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO US AS A POLICY BOARD, BUT WE CAN LOOK AT THAT, BUT, UM, BASED UPON THEIR REVIEW, UM, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING ASHBY. 
          DO YOU WANT TO WHITE IN AT ALL? OR, UM, THANK YOU CHAIR. 
          SO, UM, COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DID GO BACK AND, AND, AND TAKE A LOOK AND, UM, WE DO HAVE A SET OF POLICY GOALS, UH, THAT WERE, UH, DEVELOPED AND APPROVED BY THE POLICY BOARDS AND IN PARTICULAR TOWARDS TDCS. 
          AND WE STILL FEEL LIKE THE CURRENT, UM, UM, PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE MEETS THOSE, UM, POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          UH, THE BEST I KNOW THERE ARE OTHER MPOS IN THE STATE, UM, THAT DO, UM, THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY AND THEY HAVE, UM, UM, GOALS, I WOULD SAY THAT ARE BEYOND, UM, SOME OF THEM WHAT THIS, THIS POLICY BOARD HAS ADOPTED. 
          AND, UM, RIGHT NOW, W BASED ON, UM, BASED ON THE, UM, ADHERENCE TO THE LAW THAT THAT TXDOT DOES WITH US, WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WE COULD, WE COULD RECOMMEND SOMETHING DIFFERENT. 
          SO WHAT I'M GETTING TO A COMMISSIONER IS EVERY TIME WE APPLY TDC TO SOMETHING, WE GET AN EMAIL FROM TEXTILE ASKING US TO IDENTIFY THE MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT PROJECT. 
          WE'RE NOT SURE THAT'S HAPPENING EVERYWHERE. 
          AND, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING THE PIECES AS IT'S BEING APPLIED, AND AS IT SAYS IT IN THE LAW, BUT AM I MISSING SOMETHING COMMISSIONER, CAN I ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK, ASHBY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT, UM, THAT ASPECTS BEING APPLIED ARBITRARY AND APPRECIABLY, I'M NOT SAYING ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. 
          HE SAID THAT THEY'RE APPLYING STUFF TO US THAT THEY AREN'T DOING TO OTHER FOLKS OVER HERE, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE IT CLEAR TO US THAT IT'S BEING APPLIED. 
          I DIDN'T SAY IT WASN'T, I DIDN'T SAY OPPORTUNITY CAPRICIOUS. 
          WELL, I I'M, I I'M JUST RECALLING SOME OF THE PAST DISCUSSION WHERE, UM, PEOPLE HAVE ASKED SORT OF WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE USING AND DOES MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT MEAN GENERALLY ACHIEVING POLICY GOALS OF CAMPO? IS THAT, WHAT, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? IT CAN, IT CAN MEAN THAT IN PART, UM, BUT IT ALSO MEANS MORE SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO IF, IF, UM, LESS THAN A PROJECT, UM, WHAT'S A HUNDRED DOLLARS AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET 80% OR $80 BACK FROM THE FEDERAL PORTION, UM, THAT OTHER $20 THAT YOU WOULD HAVE SPENT FOR THE WHOLE PROJECT, BECAUSE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REQUIRES US TO DEMONSTRATE THAT YOU AREN'T TAKING THAT $20 AND PUT IT ON SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S NOT TRANSPORTATION RELATED. 
          AND SO THAT'S 
          [02:15:01]
WHY THEY CALL IT A MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT. 
          THEY DON'T WANT THE PROGRAM TO BE REDUCED AS A RESULT. 
          I DIDN'T THINK, I DIDN'T THINK WE COULD SPEND MONEY ON THINGS OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION RELATED ON YOUR LOCAL MONEY. 
          MR. SHEA, AT ANY RATE, I HAVE RECALLED THE DISCUSSION THAT, UH, SOUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE SOME SENSE OF EVALUATING THESE, THESE, UH, THESE PROJECTS, RATHER THAN JUST DOING IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. 
          I WILL SAY WHEN WE DO BRING FUTURE TVC PROJECTS, I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR US TO SEE ALONG WITH IT, A LIST OF ALL THE PREVIOUS TDC PROJECTS AND THE AMOUNTS, JUST SO WE HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY USED THESE ON. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE, WE HAVE A GAZILLION TDC, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GOING TO RUN OUT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME LIKE WE, I DON'T HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE CRITERIA WE USE TO EVALUATE THEM AND DECIDE WHICH ONES WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND. 
          I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. 
          COMMISSIONER. 
          WE'RE GIVING YOU EVERY TIME WE BRING A TDC APPLICATION FORWARD, WE'RE GIVING YOU, UH, THE BALANCES, UM, BEFORE AND AFTER, IF YOU DECIDE TO AWARD THE DDC, BUT GIVING YOU THE LIST OF WHAT'S GOING TO GREAT IDEA, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          AND THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL TO LOOK AT OTHER MTOS AND SEE IF THEY REQUIRE A SECONDARY PROJECT. 
          MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS, POGBA'S NOT, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER NPOS, BUT WOULD JUST BE USEFUL TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY KIND OF, UH, STANDARD, UM, WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF HIS, WITH OTHER ATTRIBUTES. 
          YES. 
          MA'AM. 
          I SEE A QUESTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER ALTAR, AND, UM, THEN IF WE CAN, SO WE DON'T START LOSING PEOPLE. 
          UM, IF WE COULD, UH, START TO WRAP UP, GO AHEAD, COUNCIL MEMBER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'LL BE, I THINK I'LL BE QUICK. 
          SO AM I RIGHT? AM I RIGHT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT CURRENTLY WE ARE USING THESE ONLY IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT IS REDUCED, SO IT'S NOT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABLE TO OTHERS BY AGREEING TO YES. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, SO WE CURRENTLY RECOMMEND THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE APPLYING FOR FEDERAL FUNDING TO APPLY FOR, AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TWO UCS AT THIS TIME, UM, SO WE CAN SAY THEY ARE REQUESTING A HIGHER, UM, FEDERAL AMOUNT TO COVER THE ENTIRE PROJECT COST, UM, A REDUCTION IN SCOPE. 
          AND IT'S USUALLY ONLY REQUIRED IF SOMEBODY ALREADY HAS FEDERAL FUNDING, LOCAL MATCH ON OUR PROJECTS, BUT THEN THEY WANT TO GO BACK AND, UM, REDUCE THE, TAKE THE LOCAL MATCH OFF. 
          SO IF THEY HAVEN'T ACCOUNTED FOR TDCS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FEDERAL REQUEST, AND THEY WOULD NEED TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT. 
          SO BECAUSE ONCE YOU APPLY TO CAESAR PROJECT, ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH IS THE FEDERAL DOLLAR THAT YOU ORIGINALLY WERE AWARDED. 
          UM, AND SO THAT'S, IT'S NOT OFTEN, I THINK ACTUALLY, UM, MOST OF THE TCS THAT WE'VE DONE, AT LEAST IN THE PROTOCOL THAT WAS, EVERYTHING WAS DONE CONCURRENTLY. 
          SO NOBODY HAD TO REDUCE THE SCOPE. 
          UM, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE I THINK PREVIOUS TO THAT AND PREVIOUS TO MOST EVERYONE HERE, AND I THINK WHERE THEY'VE HAD TO REDUCE THE SCOPE A LITTLE BIT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE REDUCING THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF FEDERAL FUNDING AVAILABLE TO THE BROADER GROUP WITHOUT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BEING, DOING THEIR SHARE OF THE 20% THEY'RE USING THE TDCS INSTEAD. 
          YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO I GUESS, UM, I APPRECIATE THE OVERVIEW. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE POSSIBLE WHAT OTHER MPOS ARE, ARE DOING. 
          UM, AND, AND TO BETTER UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE ARE LIKE WHAT OUR POLICY IS FOR ALLOWING FOLKS TO USE, THE TDC IS STILL A LITTLE VAGUE TO ME. 
          UM, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING FOR THE WHOLE POLICY BOARD OR NOT, IT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE DOING ANYWAY, AND I'D LIKE TO BE, UH, INFORMED ABOUT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AND NOW, CERTAINLY IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS FOR THE 2017 DEVELOPMENT, WE DID, WE DID A BLANKET SURVEY OF ALL THE MBAS IN THE STATE TO GET, AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THERE IS A CHART THAT BREAKS DOWN THE DIFFERENCES. 
          BUT AGAIN, FOR THIS EXERCISE THAT WE DID, UH, YOU KNOW, RECENTLY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE DID GO BACK AND LOOK, UM, BECAUSE THOSE ARE CONSTANTLY UPDATING. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEBODY IS THINKING OF SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT AND SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT APPLY TO THIS REGION. 
          SO THAT'S, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO KIND OF REVISITING THAT, BUT AFTER LOOKING AT WHAT WAS THIS MUCH RECENT SURVEY, AND LOOKING BACK AT THE POLICY WE DID IN 2017, DIDN'T REALLY SEE THAT THERE WAS ANY WIGGLE ROOM. 
          UM, AND THAT'S KIND 
          [02:20:01]
OF WHY WE STUCK ON, UH, ESPECIALLY THE DOCUMENTATION EFFORTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WHILE WE'RE RECOMMENDING THE CASE BY CASE, AND ESPECIALLY HOW THAT IMPACTS, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S YOUR JURISDICTION THAT IS GETTING TDCS, IT IMPACTS THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS AND VICE VERSA. 
          SO WE CAN COME ON THAT FROM A POLICY PERSPECTIVE TO TAKE THAT HOLISTIC VIEW OF HOW EACH TDC APPLICATION IMPACTS THE REGION. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, RYAN. 
          UM, WE'RE GONNA 
          [13. Executive Director’s Report on Transportation Planning Activities]
MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 13, WHICH IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT. 
          UM, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          SO JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS FROM ME. 
          UM, THIS IS GOING BACK TO TWO PREVIOUS ITEMS THAT, UM, THE POLICY BOARD HAS DISCUSSED TODAY. 
          UM, THIS IS RELATED TO FUNDING PROJECTS AS WAS REFERENCED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS. 
          WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT AS PART OF THE COVID RELIEF ACT THAT WAS PASSED RECENTLY, UM, THERE WAS, UH, $10 BILLION, UM, APPROVED FOR TRANSPORTATION. 
          AND THAT WAS ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, NOT JUST TEXAS AND, UM, THAT MONEY'S BEING SPLIT UP. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT FUNDING, WHICH IS CATEGORY SEVEN IN TECHSTOP, UH, LINGO. 
          AND, UM, WE'VE ALSO BEEN TOLD THAT THAT MONEY WILL GO TO THOSE, UH, IN OUR CASE IT WILL GO TO TEXTILES, BUT, UM, THEN IT WILL BE SUB ALLOCATED DIRECTLY TO, UM, ORGANIZATIONS LIKE OURS THAT ARE OVER 200,000 IN POPULATION. 
          SO IT WILL BE TREATED JUST LIKE CATEGORIES AS THIS POINT. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          CAUSE NORMALLY WHEN WE GET A NEW FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION BILL, THE SAME DISTRIBUTION FORMULAS ARE APPLIED AND SINCE WE KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL IS, AND THEN THEY GO TO THIS PROCESS OF DOING A TAKE DOWN AND THEN IT'S A TAKE DOWN ON SOMETHING ELSE OF ANOTHER PROGRAM. 
          AND THEN THEY SEND US OUT ON A CHART WITH EVERY MPO IN THE COUNTRY IN IT, AND IT'S GOT THE AMOUNTS IN IT. 
          THAT CHART HAS NOT COME OUT YET. 
          SO, UM, I AM TRYING EVERY AVENUE I KNOW IN DC, UH, TO GET AN ADVANCED VERSION OF THE CHART SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE TOWN MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          AND WE CAN START PLANNING, UM, COMMISSIONER SHOW, YOU WERE SAYING, UM, EARLIER IT, MIGHT'VE ALSO BEEN COUNCILMEMBER KITCHEN AS WELL, THAT WE MAY BE SEEING MONEY MUCH FASTER THAN WE THOUGHT IN SOME CASES. 
          AND YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE A YEAR BEFORE WE SEE THAT MONEY. 
          I THINK IT WILL BE MONTHS, NOT A YEAR. 
          SO, UM, UM, TWO OTHER BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS ABOUT PROJECTS AND MAKING SURE THAT FOLKS ARE GETTING THINGS READY. 
          UH, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH THAT AND BOTH THE TXDOT AUSTIN DISTRICT AND CAMPO STAFF HAVE BEEN WORKING TOWARDS THAT GOAL. 
          AS A REMINDER, WE DO A QUARTERLY PROJECT PROGRESS REPORT. 
          AND SO WE'RE TALKING TO THE SPONSORS ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS AND, UM, ASKING THEM THE STATUS OF THE PROJECTS. 
          I'M ALSO ASKING THEM IF THEY NEED ANY HELP WITH ADVANCING SOMETHING AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS DON'T GET STUCK. 
          UM, AS A REGION, WE WANT TO BE IN A POSITION OF, UM, UTILIZING OUR FUNDING AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN AND AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS WE CAN, UH, SO THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE MONEY SITTING AROUND ON THE TABLE. 
          UM, SO I AM, AS I SAY, IT'S STILL TRYING TO GET THAT CHART AS SOON AS I CAN GET MY HANDS ON IT. 
          I WILL SEND THAT OUT, UH, TO THE BOARD AND THEN WE WOULD PROCEED FROM THERE. 
          UH, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WE'LL DO AND WE'LL SEND IT OUT AS PART OF THE FEBRUARY BOARD AGENDA IS, UM, WE STAFF HAVE TAKEN A LOOK AT THE CALENDAR FOR THIS YEAR AND WE KNOW THOSE THINGS THAT COME UP THAT WE NORMALLY HAVE TO PROCESS, UH, FOR STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE THE FALL AND THE SPRING TIP AMENDMENT CYCLES, WE'VE LAID THOSE THINGS OUT ON THE CALENDAR, INCLUDING THE PUBLIC OUTREACH THAT WILL BE REQUIRED. 
          AND WE'RE GOING TO LAY THAT OUT FOR YOU, THAT, AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE KNOW WILL HAPPEN. 
          SO YOU HAVE SOME SENSE OF, UM, WHAT THINGS MAY HAPPEN IN WHAT MONTHS THIS YEAR, OF COURSE, THAT WON'T BE EXHAUSTED BECAUSE AT THIS POINT WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AND A LOT OF THINGS ARE UP IN THE AIR, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FUNDING THAT WE MIGHT GET FROM FEDERAL SOURCES OUTSIDE OF OUR NORMAL FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION BILL. 
          UM, THEN, UM, I KNOW WE ALSO HAVE NEW BOARD MEMBERS ON TODAY. 
          UH, WELCOME. 
          AND, UM, WE NORMALLY PROVIDE A, UM, A BRIEFING FOR NEW MEMBERS. 
          WE WOULD PROVIDE THAT AS WELL. 
          SO YOU WILL BE HEARING FROM US, UH, OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS TO SET UP A MEETING FOR US TO COME OUT. 
          WELL, I GUESS WE CAN'T COME OUT AND BE MARKING, FORGET THIS COVID THING. 
          I'M READY FOR IT TO GO. 
          [02:25:01]
UM, SO WE WILL BE CONTACTING YOU ABOUT SETTING UP A VIDEO CONFERENCE TO BRIEF YOU ON, UM, WHAT WE CALL CAMP ONE. 
          UM, SO I THINK THAT'S ALL FOR RIGHT NOW, MINSTER. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU, ASHBY. 
          THIS IS COMMISSIONER SHAY. 
          I THINK I HAVE A QUESTION FOR, GO AHEAD. 
          I MEAN, I PUT THIS GENERALLY UNDER A REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ACTIVITIES. 
          UM, AND I, I TRIED TO RAISE IT EARLIER, BUT, UM, THERE WAS AN EMAIL SENT OUT BY MATT GETSKY, WHO'S THE AUSTIN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, UM, TRANSPORTATION PERSON, NUMBER NINTH, WHERE HE REPORTED AND I'M JUST GOING TO QUOTE TO IT. 
          CAUSE I, I SENT THIS, UM, OUT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT GOT TO THE WHOLE BOARD, UM, QUOTE, AS I MENTIONED DURING OUR MOBILITY COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, CAMPO CHAIR, CYNTHIA LONG, BROUGHT TO THE BOARD EDITS TO THE TRANSPORTATION POLICY BOARD BYLAWS AT THEIR MONDAY MEETING WITHIN THAT, SHE HAS ASKED AERO EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SANDY GUZMAN, AND MYSELF TO BEGIN WORKING ON THE STRUCTURE AND OBJECTIVES OF A BUSINESS ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR CAMPO. 
          OUR NEXT STEPS INVOLVED MEETING WITH OUR RESPECTIVE COMMITTEE CHAIRS THIS WEEK AND MAKING CALLS FOR OUR REGIONAL PARTNERS TO DEVELOP A LIST OF POTENTIAL BUSINESS LEADERS TO SERVE. 
          I DON'T RECALL US DISCUSSING THIS AT ALL AND IT CONCERNS ME IF THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN TAKEN UP BY THE POLICY BOARD, UM, COMMISSIONER UNDER MY CHAIR 
          [14. Announcements]
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT I DEFERRED TO THE END OF THE MEETING. 
          UM, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT UP FIRST. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS I, UH, ASKED, UM, THE, UH, ARROW IS TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF WE HAD A BUSINESS ADVISORY GROUP THAT KIND OF WEIGHED IN, UM, FROM THE JUST PURELY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, UH, TO, TO CAMPO AND IT SORT OF THE, WHICH COMES FIRST, THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG. 
          SO I TALKED TO THEM TO SAY, WHAT WOULD THAT PROPOSAL LOOK LIKE? AND SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON. 
          AND AS SOON AS THEY GET THAT FINISHED, MY PLAN WAS TO BRING THAT TO THE BOARD AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS A CONCEPT. 
          AND I, AND I THINK IT WOULD FALL UNDER EX-OFFICIO, UM, EITHER BOARD MEMBERS OR, UM, OTHER SUB-COMMITTEES, UM, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. 
          AND, UM, SO, UH, AS SOON AS THEY FLUSH THAT OUT, MY PLAN WAS TO BRING THAT TO THE BOARD AND TO KIND OF HEAR FROM THEM AS TO WHAT THEY THINK THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE. 
          UM, SO THAT WAS UNDER CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          SO ARE YOU GETTING THAT TO THE, UH, DIRECTION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT YOU SET UP FOR THEM TO DISCUSS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE BOARD? UH, NO COMMISSIONER, IT'S NOT REALLY A BYLAW ISSUE. 
          IT JUST, IT WAS A CYNTHIA IDEA ON HOW WE CAN IMPROVE COMMUNICATION WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. 
          SO ONCE THAT'S FLESHED OUT AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD AND ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO THE BOARD AS TO WHETHER WE, UM, DO ANYTHING WITH THAT OR NOT. 
          UM, I JUST, UH, WAS ASKING FOR INPUT FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY ON THAT. 
          AND WE'LL ONCE IT'S FLUSHED OUT, WE'LL BE HAPPY. 
          I MEAN, WE'LL BE IT BACK TO THE BOARD AS A, AS AN ITEM TO LOOK AT. 
          I WOULD LIKE THEM TO PUT BEFORE THE BOARD THAT WE ALSO CONSIDER THE CREATION OF A CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE SO THAT WE HEAR FROM OTHER PERSPECTIVES OTHER THAN JUST THE BUSINESS AND ALSO AN ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THAT HAS A HUGE IMPACT ON MUCH OF WHAT WE DO AND IS A HUGE PART OF OUR ECONOMIC WELLBEING IN THIS COMMUNITY. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, LET'S SEE, UH, NOW, UH, ASHLEY, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, UM, ON THE ANNOUNCEMENTS, WE'VE GOT ATTACK MEETING ON JANUARY 25TH AND A POLICY BOARD MEETING ON FEBRUARY EIGHT AND AGAIN, TO OUR NEW MEMBERS. 
          UM, WELCOME. 
          I TOO WILL BE REACHING OUT TO YOU THOUGH TO WELCOME YOU. 
          UM, AND, UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TODAY. 
          I APPRECIATE IT. 
          AND WITH THAT, WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.