2026-09-09 - Mobile GR Commission

00:07[music]

00:22[music]

00:29Heat. Heat.

00:34[music]

00:56>> [music]

01:03[music]

01:10[music]

01:17[music]

01:21[music]

01:35[music]

01:42>> Heat. Heat.

01:46[music]

02:21Heat. Heat. [music]

02:34>> [music]

02:47[music]

02:51[music]

03:15[music]

03:22>> Heat.

03:48Heat.

03:50Heat. Heat.

03:55[music]

04:07[music]

04:13Heat. [music]

04:29Heat.

04:36Heat.

04:39[music]

04:56[music] Heat.

05:02>> [music]

05:15[music]

05:30[music]

05:36[music]

05:41[music]

05:48[music]

05:54>> Heat. Heat.

05:57[music]

06:29>> [music]

06:31>> Heat. Heat.

06:38Heat.

06:40[music]

06:51[music]

06:55[music]

06:58Heat.

07:03Heat. Heat.

07:05[music]

07:12[music]

07:49>> [music]

08:04>> I'm I was not a I was

08:10>> [music]

08:20>> All right. Good afternoon, everyone.

08:23We'll get things moving here. So, uh, to

08:26the members of the public present,

08:27welcome to Mobile GR Commission meeting.

08:30The commission provides input on

08:31mobility related activities and programs

08:33to department staff and also makes

08:35recommendations to city commission on

08:37policies related to these activities. As

08:40members of the public, we have an

08:41opportunity where you can provide

08:43comments. We are not able to respond to

08:45your comments directly. We are listening

08:47and using your feedback to inform our

08:48decisions. Thank you for taking the time

08:50to join us today.

08:53Uh can we have roll call, please?

08:56>> Patton

08:57>> here. Cesa

08:59Roarer

09:00>> here.

09:01>> Whistleink

09:02>> here.

09:03>> Parker

09:04>> here.

09:05>> Rye Miguel Sabriano

09:08>> present.

09:09>> Wiler

09:11>> Armbbrustster

09:14Lrand

09:16I think he's here right uh Pawaka

09:20>> here.

09:21>> Wilson

09:22>> here.

09:22>> Perez pleasure.

09:24We have quorum.

09:26>> All right. Um, can I have a motion to

09:29approve the minute or I'm sorry, the

09:31agenda to approve the agenda?

09:36>> Second.

09:36>> All right. Uh, we'll go ahead and take a

09:39vote. All or any any uh discussion on

09:43that.

09:46All right. Seeing none, all in favor say

09:49I.

09:50>> I.

09:51>> All opposed have the same right.

09:53>> And the agenda passes. And do we have an

09:56approval on or a motion to approve the

09:59minutes?

10:01>> So moved.

10:02>> Motion.

10:05>> Second.

10:06>> Thank you. All right. We have a motion.

10:08Any discussion on the minutes? [snorts]

10:13All right. All in favor say I.

10:16>> I. I.

10:17>> All opposed have the same right.

10:19>> And the minutes pass. I'm seeing no

10:22petitions and communications.

10:25All right.

10:26And so we'll move into our action items.

10:28So we'll start with um the mobile GR

10:32commission working groups.

10:34>> Okay. Great. Hi everybody. Nice to see

10:36you here. Um [snorts] Jessica Smith,

10:38mobile GR director. So as requested, we

10:41are hoping that you all can have a

10:43discussion today and potentially take an

10:45action item on your um your created

10:50working groups. So back in and this is

10:53in your packet. It's the first

10:54memorandum you'll see after your your

10:56minutes or after your agenda.

11:00Speaking of which,

11:02am I missing minutes?

11:06>> Yes.

11:07>> Okay. Um, that's nice. You guys passed

11:09your minutes and they weren't in your

11:10packet. We will correct that. So,

11:13[laughter]

11:13so anyway, thank you, Mary. So, what I'd

11:17like to do is I've asked Aaron Even

11:19House and if you all haven't met Aaron,

11:21she's right here. She's one of our

11:22planners at Mobile GR and Aaron has um

11:24quite a bit of experience in

11:26facilitating groups like this and so

11:27I've asked Aaron to put together a U

11:30memo that's in front of you in your

11:31packet so that you all can um talk about

11:35who might be on those working groups. So

11:37um because Aaron has put this all

11:39together, I'm going to turn it over to

11:40Aaron and have her facilitate this

11:42discussion with you all and some of her

11:44ideas about how to move forward. you

11:45might want to use that microphone.

11:51>> Thank you, Director Smith. Uh

11:54uh as Jessica mentioned, um you all had

11:58elected to create three different

12:00working groups um for different topics

12:02covering really a lot of what our

12:04department does. Um the dash pilot,

12:07communications and engagement, and

12:09mobility and safety. um we would like to

12:12have uh each group have a designated

12:14group lead who can really drive and

12:16facilitate um the discussion that I can

12:19work with to support um your agenda as

12:22well as um facilitate logistics and

12:26minutes and everything like that. um but

12:28then really have a group coordinated

12:30effort on what are the goals of the

12:31group, what are some of the intended

12:33outcomes and then at that initial

12:35meeting um we would have a discussion of

12:37um kind of what we want that framework

12:39to look like and final outputs and I'm

12:41happy to speak more to that. Um any

12:45questions?

12:47Can we just have you pull you were so so

12:48soft spoken? There you go. Excellent.

12:51You got it.

12:53Yeah, I guess

12:55>> I would have an initial uh question for

12:59Jessica and the chair which is um well

13:01for the group first if there's support

13:03or interest. Um as I look at this um the

13:06first two are good discreet topics um

13:10and important but I also think that um

13:12the last one is a much bigger basket. So

13:15I wonder about actually making four

13:16working groups. Um, and this is just a

13:19personal testimony. The as I've thought

13:22about mobility a lot recently, I've

13:24thought um focusing on pedestrian safety

13:28is such a big heavy lift. Like that is

13:31just a the question of like how you

13:33actually make things safer in the city

13:35for pedestrians.

13:37Huge huge topic. It's a city-wide thing.

13:39you'd almost be want to look at a map,

13:41start getting ideas of like what

13:43people's behaviors were, prioritizing

13:46where we want to have better crosswalks

13:48and all that kind of stuff. That's just

13:49a big bundle. And I think it's separable

13:52roughly from things that um you know

13:56have really people have been really

13:57excited about in the last 10 years say

13:58which is bike lanes which is great that

14:00people are excited about that. Um but uh

14:04on our city planning document um we

14:08talked about micromobility and new forms

14:10of transit and my joke was and also 5

14:13million old forms of transit like feet

14:16have been around for a long time. Uh

14:18it's the original form of transportation

14:20and we're all pedestrians when we get

14:22out of a car, when we get off a bike. Uh

14:25we're all pedestrians all the time. Um,

14:27and so I I wonder about pulling that off

14:30as a separate group so that people who

14:32want to talk about cycling and and

14:34scooters and all that can do that. But I

14:36think specifically pedestrians, I wonder

14:38about pulling that off and having a

14:40fourth group.

14:43>> I agree.

14:45>> So it would be the recommendation is

14:47pedestrian safety and then cycling.

14:50>> Well, mobility as as one thing and then

14:52pedestrians as another as a as a

14:55specific standalone thing. So you could

14:58we could call it, you know,

14:59nonpedestrian mobility if we wanted. Um,

15:03and safety. I mean, both groups are

15:05going to be concerned about safety, I

15:06think. But I think for me, I think

15:08conceptually, like, wow, there's a lot

15:10to talk about in the in the pedestrian

15:11space. There's a lot to talk about in

15:13the biking space, but like they're they

15:15touch each other, but they're separable,

15:16and it might be productive. I think I

15:19feel like sometimes I don't spend enough

15:21time myself thinking about how to

15:23actually instantiate pedestrian safety

15:25stuff and we've got technology and

15:28there's new stuff out there and um so

15:31just just the scope right like the dash

15:33pilot is a thing and it's a fairly

15:35discreet project and we're not going to

15:37get in when we're talking about the dash

15:39pilot we're probably not getting to get

15:40in the conversation about like robo

15:42taxis or you know uh ebikes but with

15:47mobility and safy safety like safety for

15:49me is like everything, right? Like

15:51everything's about safety. Um, so I' I'd

15:53rather se segment those, but not if the

15:56group doesn't want to. It's just a

15:57thought.

15:59>> Oh, yeah. Sorry. I'm Commissioner Cessa

16:02and then Commissioner Roar.

16:03>> No worries. Thank you. Um, yeah, I mean,

16:06I I agree that the mobility and safety

16:08bucket of like the three is definitely

16:11the the meatiest one. Um I worry about

16:16further segmenting like cars and bikes

16:19and pedestrians and who else because I

16:23mean the like transportation data has

16:26shown that when you improve safety for

16:29like one group in general it follows for

16:31all of them. And so I think, you know,

16:33having these separate buckets sort of

16:36furthers this idea that everyone is in

16:39their own like silo and it's like, well,

16:40I'm a cyclist, so like I have to care

16:42about cycling. And if like you're in a

16:44car, you think, oh, I don't have to care

16:46about these bike lanes. They're in the

16:47way of me getting where I'm going. But

16:50in reality, like when you add things

16:52like separated protected bike lanes, you

16:54know, traffic tends to improve actually.

16:57And um road safety for all users

16:59improves, not just for the cyclists,

17:01also for people in cars, also for

17:03pedestrians. So I I just worry about

17:06getting further siloed where we think

17:08that every group of people who are using

17:11our roads is now like their own tribe,

17:15so to speak. And I would I mean I I

17:17agree that we can probably segment it,

17:19but I wouldn't want to do it along the

17:21lines of like just pedestrians or just

17:23bikes or just cars. Well, if I could if

17:27I could respond, I I guess the reason I

17:28want to do that is I don't think anybody

17:30around this table would disagree with

17:31anything you just said. So, I don't

17:33think if I was on the pedestrian group,

17:35I would stop thinking about bikes,

17:36right? I mean, probably all of you have

17:38heard me talk about how much I loathe uh

17:41the '90s bulbout things the way they're

17:44designed, right? There's a way to do

17:45bulbouts that doesn't involve killing,

17:48that doesn't involve stopping cycling.

17:51Um, and I have yet to see a cycling

17:54friendly bulb out in this city. And I'm

17:56I would love to see a model that

17:58embraced both. Um, but that's why we

18:02have expertise in the group and that's

18:03why that group has expertise, right? I'm

18:05not going to I mean almost all of us I I

18:09I would maybe Ken's not, but I think the

18:12rest of us maybe uh occasionally use

18:14cars. Um, and all of us are pedestrians

18:18and a lot of us are cyclists. So, I

18:20wouldn't be that worried about us, this

18:22group, forgetting about the other stuff

18:25or forgetting the holistic approach. I

18:27just would like to I'm I'm I'm worried

18:29about getting bite-siz manageable stuff.

18:31That's more my my concern. And like we

18:35could spend a year talking about where

18:36to put the best crosswalks in town

18:38easily.

18:40>> So, if if I can just jump in a little

18:43bit, um I would love to hear more from

18:45those who are interested in

18:47participating in these committees. what

18:49your preferred kind of outcome of these

18:52committees would be if you're imagining

18:53it as an ongoing continuing working

18:55group where you're um your lead is

18:58reporting out to the mobile GR

18:59commission the results of that

19:01discussion if it's something that you

19:02want as a uh distinct timebound activity

19:06which is really to some degree what I

19:08can offer you um and and kind of what

19:11your goals for some of those groups

19:13would be because I think that um that

19:15would influence how we have some of

19:16those discussions as Well, um, also note

19:19I am our transportation planning

19:21supervisor for the traffic safety

19:22division um, and also working on all of

19:25that. So, we want to make sure that um,

19:27we're leveraging the department's

19:29resources for um, all of the work and

19:32that we can kind of bring these

19:33conversations together in the most um,

19:36effective way. You know, I think we can

19:38look at this as um, a group that meets

19:40and has a workshop with a reported kind

19:44of set of recommendations. um or you can

19:47have a much more um informal roundt

19:50discussion. Um but what you want to get

19:52out of those working groups I think will

19:54will shape what that um what that format

19:56will look like and they certainly don't

19:57all have to be the same.

19:59>> Thanks Aaron and Commissioner Roar I

20:01haven't forgotten you just to kind of

20:03follow up to your to your question to to

20:05give some background on these working

20:07groups. For me you know my understanding

20:09of the Dash pilot was we we had the

20:10pilot we had to do it we had to move

20:12forward with it. um it wasn't something

20:14that we all could

20:17whether or not we disagreed or agreed

20:18with it. It was moving forward. Um so I

20:21think the reality is in my opinion the

20:24working group can look at hey this is

20:26the dash pilot. Is this working for us?

20:29Is it meeting the expectations that we

20:31believe the community has of the dash or

20:33is it something that we say we we need

20:36we need to envision something different

20:38right of of how we're utilizing these

20:40precious resources um when it comes to

20:42funding communications and engagement I

20:44think the focus of that was how are we

20:47communicating and engaging with the

20:48community in a way that gets effective

20:51feedback and then how are we utilizing

20:53and responding to that feedback and I

20:55will give a plug that that we just had a

20:58great my understanding, three great

20:59transit uh discussions um recently. So

21:03um I I know that this is something

21:05that's of interest to um to the

21:07department. And personally, I'm I'm open

21:11to the idea of having one mobility and

21:13safety or or you know, if the if this

21:16commission is interested in separating

21:17out into mobility and then pedestrian

21:20safety, you know, I could go either way.

21:22Um, but let me let me hear from

21:25Commissioner Roar if you still have

21:26something and then maybe see if anyone

21:28is interested and and then uh

21:31Commissioner Miguel Criano and then

21:32potentially see if anyone is interested

21:34in anything specifically so we can start

21:36moving toward building out at least some

21:38of these working groups.

21:41>> So I don't want to sound like I'm

21:43pushing back on the mayor but I'm push

21:45back a little bit. There is, you know, I

21:46think when we there's a tension when we

21:49talk about setting up working groups.

21:50you either don't have enough, which

21:52means then you have the problem that the

21:53mayor's describing where the working

21:55groups are scoped too broad to really be

21:58effective. Um, but you can go the other

22:00direction and have too many working

22:01groups to where you've you've got it

22:03down to such granular detail that then

22:05we get to what Commissioner Cesa pointed

22:07out, which is that we might start

22:08creating tribes and silos that that

22:10don't actually talk to each other. Um,

22:12so that's one my initial thought on, you

22:15know, breaking this out further. Um,

22:17when I look at the mobility and safety

22:18though, I think of, you know, there's a

22:20there's a term that's gained traction uh

22:22in this kind of space and in people that

22:24are concerned with these issues. It's

22:26called vulnerable roadway users. And in

22:27fact, Michigan, we have draft

22:29legislation

22:30um that's working its way through the

22:32House. It probably will not get through

22:33this session. I'm not very hopeful at

22:35this point. So, which means it's going

22:37to get reintroduced in January. Uh but

22:39ultimately it creates a response

22:42framework for prosecutors to um to

22:45appropriately charge when people are

22:47driving in in a fashion which is not

22:49necessarily criminal, but it carelessly

22:51or recklessly leads to the death of of

22:53people not uh cocooned in motor

22:56vehicles. And I would almost say that

22:58the mobility and safety uh working group

23:01should probably be focused on vulnerable

23:02roadway users because I think as a city

23:04we have a responsibility to focus on

23:07that entire class of people whether

23:08they're on scooters, they're on foot,

23:10they're on bicycles, and look at how are

23:12we holistically

23:13um making it safer for people that are

23:15not driving in the city to coexist on

23:18the roadways with cars, trucks, etc. Um,

23:21and it's it's a I think it's a it's a it

23:24ends up with better outcomes if we're

23:26focused on the safety before the

23:29incident occurs rather than depending on

23:31the law then to hold people responsible

23:32for reckless behavior. There's and we

23:35know that engineering, you know, to the

23:36point that that that um bike lanes will

23:40actually improve traffic outcomes for

23:42people, reduce con congestion because it

23:44creates an opportunity for people to

23:46safely and comfortably use the bike

23:48lane. I think if we also look at other

23:50engineering solutions that slow down

23:51traffic, make it safer for all of the

23:53road users, ultimately I think we're we

23:56probably get to a better location or to

23:58a better place. And so my recommendation

24:00would be just to change the name to

24:02something that focuses on VRUs. Um

24:05[clears throat] and then I you know to

24:07to your question um I'm not really sure

24:10what the outcomes can be because this is

24:12an advisory body and and we can out of

24:15this out of this commission we can make

24:17a lot of recommendations but they don't

24:19have to be taken ultimately. Um but I

24:22think one of them would be moving the

24:23city towards a towards a framework of

24:26engineering where we're actually looking

24:28at the street in a complete fashion. And

24:29I know we say we do it, but I think

24:31really getting there is how we get to

24:34addressing at least that issue of of

24:36mobility and safety as it's wrapped up

24:37in the VRUs.

24:39>> Yeah. And and I think there's different

24:41models for that. Um in terms of how um

24:45it influences our work broadly. One

24:47model that we could look at is having uh

24:49say workshop two meetings that are um

24:52specifically tied to um the deliverables

24:55that we have for the mobility blueprint.

24:57Um, so this would be um not everyone can

24:59participate in the working group about

25:01the mobility blueprint, but maybe we're

25:02having a discussion about the items that

25:04are that are going to go into that that

25:06precedes the discussion at the working

25:09group. Um, so that that can help shape

25:11the agenda. Um, that would be my

25:13recommendation for something that's sort

25:14of um taking a specific discussion and

25:17moving it towards recommendations. Um,

25:20but it's certainly not the only model

25:22and maybe that works for for one thing.

25:23Um, you can also have something that's

25:26more of a regular coffee clutch

25:29discussion and, you know, we can have

25:31our subject matter experts there on

25:32occasion and you can weigh in and and

25:35share findings and things like that. So,

25:36I I think either one works and either

25:38one can be can be supportive to our

25:41work. Um, and I would also add just as

25:44as an aside, I don't know if that this

25:46really gets towards the goals of the

25:47group, but another way that you could

25:49think about um, mobility and safety is

25:52mobility being how we move

25:56people with devices and vehicles. Um, so

25:58when I worked at the shared mobility

26:00center, it was very much like mobility

26:02is not the infrastructure, it's the

26:04movement of the people. So, um if it

26:06made sense to do, um sort of mobility

26:10overlapping with the dash pilot as sort

26:12of a subject and then um safety uh

26:15focusing more on infrastructure and

26:17vulnerable road users. That might be a

26:18way to kind of maintain the three groups

26:20but still kind of get at those different

26:22categories.

26:24>> Uh Commissioner Miguel Criano and then

26:26I'll I'm going to ask the question of

26:27who who's interested. Yeah.

26:30>> Uh thank you. Uh [laughter] I'm

26:31interested in uh the Dash pilot. um and

26:34uh ability and safety particularly with

26:36the dash pilot. I know we've got the

26:38communications and engagement uh

26:41separate group, but I have engagement

26:44and messaging in in both of those groups

26:48um that I'm interested in. So

26:51maybe I need to think a little bit more

26:53uh about whether I need to hear a little

26:57bit more about communications and

26:58engagement and what the breath and depth

27:00is of that. Uh and when you asked us

27:04your initial question, I thought um like

27:06well what what is the breadth and depth

27:08of what we can do? I think it would want

27:10to know that before selecting this. And

27:13so I I think a couple of meetings ago

27:16here we we got to experience like one of

27:19the extents of like the what we do here

27:23on this commission uh by helping the

27:25residents uh move forward in in

27:28something like oh this is what we're

27:29here to do. this is one way we can act

27:31instead of just coming here and then

27:33reviewing things and saying yes,

27:35everyone saying yes, we got to push

27:37something forward. And so I' I'd want to

27:39know uh maybe some examples of that for

27:43for each of these. Uh but for for Dash,

27:46I would really be interested in in

27:48diving into uh the funding uh route

27:51planning uh design uh for mobility and

27:54safety. I'd be really interested in um

27:57again I was thinking about engagement uh

28:00with folks and the messaging uh cuz so

28:02often I hear uh residents say something

28:05and I have to like correct them or be

28:08really particular. Even with this I

28:11uh dash pilot makes it seem like the

28:14dash is a pilot program that hasn't

28:17fully become a program at the city of

28:19Grand Rapids. like no this it's already

28:21a program it is a the route that is

28:24being piloted um and so that's what I

28:27mean about messaging sometimes those

28:29little things can make a big difference

28:31because they snowball into something

28:33very quickly um and for mobility and

28:37safety also prototyping initiatives and

28:38then also bus transit uh whether that's

28:41design but for both of them really

28:44emphasis on like work what work can we

28:47actually do what work can are we allowed

28:49to be given uh to do. Thank you.

28:55>> Okay. I I think my recommendation too is

28:58going to be let's start and I'm you know

29:01we can call it vulnerable roadway users

29:03as well. I'm all right with that. Let's

29:04maybe just start with these three and

29:06then I'd focus on whether we call it

29:08mobility and safety or vulnerable

29:10roadway users and give them the charge

29:12of does it do can you decide if this

29:15would be something you break up into two

29:17um and and kind of put that ball in your

29:19court. So let's start with the dash uh

29:22we'll call it the the dash working group

29:24because yeah you're right

29:25[clears throat] commission Miguel Criano

29:27it is it's the route that's a pilot. um

29:30who who is interested in being a part of

29:32that working group.

29:35Okay.

29:40All right.

29:42I saw three hands. I have Commissioner

29:45Whistleink, Commissioner Miguel

29:46Cypriano, and Commissioner Pelka. Did I

29:48miss anyone?

29:51Okay.

29:55Between the three of you, would anyone

29:56be interested in leading that?

30:00>> Paper scissors.

30:01>> I can take it.

30:01>> All right. There we go.

30:07All right. We'll move to communications

30:09and engagement.

30:11Any interest in that working group?

30:15If no one's interested, then we will end

30:17up mo uh separating mobility and safety.

30:22I I will ask if then let me ask this

30:25question. Is there

30:28is there still interest from this body

30:30to have this as a working group?

30:34>> What are some examples of what we would

30:36be doing?

30:37>> I I have my thoughts and then I'll pass

30:39it to this team. I I think from my point

30:41of view and even kind of listening to

30:43what Commissioner Miguel Cyprianos uh

30:46was talking about, I think there's an

30:47element of what a potential theory of

30:49change could look like for this

30:51commission of how we effectively

30:55interact and and partner with the

30:57department. Um what it looks like for us

30:59to work directly with uh the city

31:01commission and and how we also

31:05understand the needs of the community.

31:06Uh so then potentially working and

31:09understanding, you know, Max's

31:11department and how what community

31:12engagement looks like and what that

31:14means for us to consider that community

31:16engagement when it comes to us. That's

31:19my highlevel thought of what this uh

31:21group could do. Um but it could also be

31:25a a conversation we have at this at this

31:28commission level. Right. So I'll I'll

31:30start with that preamble. Erin, if you

31:32want to add anything or Jessica.

31:34No, I

31:36I really like that that way of thinking

31:39about it is it's it's not just how we're

31:41doing engagement, but how are you

31:42engaging with us? How are you engaging

31:44with community? And how are we working

31:45together on that? Um, so I love that

31:48idea as a working group. Um, I think

31:50that also could be a topic that we focus

31:52on within other working groups because

31:55the working group by definition is a new

31:57way that we're engaging with one another

31:58and engaging you with the department.

32:00So, it might just be something where,

32:02you know, the the proof is in not the

32:04proof is in the pudding, the

32:07we make the path by walking. I'm I'm

32:09missing the analogy that I want, but

32:11what we're um you know, what we're doing

32:13is achieving the the outcome and the

32:15result of what we want through talking

32:17about communications and engagement by

32:19actually the communications and

32:20engagement that we do with one another

32:21and how we follow up on that.

32:23>> So, I will just say I would just say why

32:26I'm not interested in being in that

32:27group. Um, one, I think that Jessica and

32:30Max are doing great job and I think

32:32they're like phenomenally good at this

32:33stuff and so like I think if I had

32:35concerns I would tell them and you know

32:38I could have concerns tomorrow about X Y

32:39or Z but I would tell them right um so I

32:43think they're rock stars on this. Uh the

32:46other part of it is um I have a pretty

32:50clear theory on how I want this group to

32:53engage with city commission already. Uh,

32:56and just to lay it out there, what I

32:58want is a lot like what we had last

33:00meeting. In my dreams, this this uh body

33:05very very frequently comes up with

33:08specific targeted recommendations

33:10uh for things that the city commission

33:12should spend uh resources on. Um, so,

33:16you know, saying, "Oh my gosh, Fulton

33:20Street's going too fast. We clocked it.

33:22It's a it's a it's a dangerous street.

33:24we need to invest some money there or

33:27you know uh we did a survey and there

33:29are we need 18 more crosswalks around

33:32within one block of every GRPS facility

33:36or you know we need to paint our uh bike

33:40lane paths green we need the stripe to

33:43be green not white because nobody pays

33:44attention to the white line whatever

33:45there's a million particular things um

33:48and we don't have to get to all of them

33:49but like the more this group can and

33:52that's why I think the working group is

33:53a great idea But with communications and

33:56engagement, I don't have any immediate

33:57basket items like, "Oh, I think we

33:58should spend 200 grand on banner buses

34:00on the back uh bus, you know, buses, bus

34:03ads or something." So, I get excited

34:05about the other two groups cuz I'm like,

34:06"Wow, I can see recommendations coming

34:08out of that. I can see a really good

34:10function for taking a hard look at the

34:12dash and I can see a really uh exciting

34:16work in all of the streetscape, street

34:18design stuff because that's like where

34:20million exciting ideas are." So the one

34:22in the middle I kind of feel like

34:24>> kind of doing that and I also know what

34:26I want this group to do personally.

34:29>> Yeah. And I'm personally fine with

34:31having each working group consider as a

34:33part of the working group what

34:34communication and engagement could look

34:36like rather than having that as a

34:37separate thing. So yeah, Commissioner

34:39Cessa.

34:40>> Yeah, I think I agree with what the

34:42mayor said. Um and that kind of echoes

34:44why like that wasn't one that I was

34:46interested in. I think also, you know,

34:48as the mayor's mentioning, as we start,

34:51you know, making hopefully more

34:52recommendations to city commission on

34:54like things that we think are valuable,

34:58you know, um perhaps then that this

35:01discussion about the communications and

35:03engagement becomes more relevant. If you

35:05know we're starting that oh we have a

35:07lot of recommendations that we'd like to

35:09make then maybe you know having a clear

35:11strategy for what we're doing and how

35:13we're engaging with community with city

35:15staff with commission um that might be

35:18more relevant then

35:22>> I would this is such a great discussion

35:25I think what what I want to add is

35:26something that Erin was pointing to

35:28earlier is um what Erin H after you all

35:31decide who wants to sit on what group

35:33the first thing you'll do is is work

35:36with Aaron to establish basically a

35:38little charter that says what that group

35:40will be doing. So I think it's really

35:42important that you're having this

35:43conversation about how you envision

35:45these groups, but as that that group

35:47gets together, even if it's this

35:50communication and engagement group,

35:51let's say some of you decide to sit on

35:53that, you may get together, talk through

35:54it, and come back here and be like, we

35:56talked about it and we decided it really

35:58needs to be X. So I think the point when

36:00I'm thinking back about the discussion

36:02in May that established these three

36:04groups is that um you all wanted to take

36:07these three topics get in a smaller

36:10group and have a greater discussion

36:11about really what it meant and kind of

36:13you know sort of the things that you're

36:14all pointing out what they could mean

36:16how they could be helpful and then to

36:18echo what Erin was saying earlier is

36:20this is a new way for you all to engage

36:22with us as well as staff to help us

36:25understand and spend a little bit more

36:26time getting down in those weeds of the

36:28dash like um Miguel Srianiano

36:31commissioner was talking about and then

36:32some of the things Laura was bringing up

36:34and and and the mayor you know there's

36:37all different ways to discuss any of

36:40these but I think that what I'm most

36:41excited about and where Aaron is going

36:43to be super helpful with you all is

36:44having this point of contact to help

36:46facilitate these more in-depth

36:48conversations in the working groups and

36:50then Aaron will be this liaison that can

36:52go back and forth gather that

36:54information put it in front of you let

36:56you all absorb that talk about it come

36:57up with recommendations ations and then

36:59come back to this body and say, "Boy, I

37:01learned a whole bunch of stuff and

37:02here's where I think that we should

37:04spend our time and and spend our efforts

37:07um making recommendations and and some

37:09of these working groups I think that you

37:11may even come back and be like, you know

37:12what, we learned a lot and we also

37:14learned that maybe this is not something

37:17that we want to spend a whole lot of

37:18time on because it's either going well

37:20or it's just not a priority um for the

37:22time." I really do appreciate um your

37:25chair spending time for the three

37:27groups. Um when I asked Aaron to do

37:30this, I I always ask staff um do you

37:33have the capacity for this? And so Aaron

37:35has developed um a work plan for each of

37:38these groups. Um not not specifically

37:40what you're going to do, but how she

37:42will facilitate these groups and how

37:43she'll spend time with you and how to

37:45help you do the work. And um she's based

37:48that on the three working groups. happy

37:50to add maybe a fourth, but I would love

37:52to start with three and see how that

37:54goes with Erin's workload and then um

37:58because I do think this is really

38:00important. So, I'll stop there, but

38:02that's just kind of what I wanted to

38:03add.

38:03>> Well, yeah, here's maybe here's my next

38:05step and then I'll I'll come back to

38:07communications. Is anyone and I'm going

38:09to keep calling it mobility and safety

38:10and then put it on the workg group to

38:12say, "Hey, we want to change our name."

38:13So, let's maybe do that. Um any what who

38:16is interested in being a part of the

38:17mobility and safety work group?

38:20Okay,

38:29Anthony. Okay, good.

38:31>> So it does appear that there are more

38:33commissioners than um would be permitted

38:35to remain below quorum,

38:37>> right? Yes. Um,

38:40so then and now here hearing everyone's

38:44everyone's I guess I'm going to ask

38:46this. Would any be would anyone be

38:48opposed to saying

38:50the appetite it sounds to me like the

38:52appetite for this communications and

38:54engagement um uh working group has

38:58changed.

39:00Is anyone opposed to us saying maybe we

39:03table it and we determine we don't need

39:06to do this unless we feel we need to. So

39:10>> I think we just implicitly voted like

39:12nobody wanted to be on that group and

39:13twice as many people want to be on the

39:14third group as could be on it. So

39:16>> no we don't need a motion. I No, we'll

39:18we'll table it.

39:19>> If you if you split that third group

39:20into two groups, then you've solved your

39:22problem, right? Then you still only have

39:23three groups.

39:24>> I mean I'd be open to to having the

39:26split of mobility and safety. Is any I I

39:28know Commissioner Cessa, you do you feel

39:30better about about after kind of the

39:32mayor giving his piece on splitting

39:35that?

39:37>> Yeah, I mean I I think if we can

39:40delineate them, then that's that's fine.

39:42I I really like the um Commissioner

39:44Roar's suggestion of having one at least

39:47focus on the vulnerable road user side.

39:49Um that would be the one I'm interested

39:51in. Um, in terms of outcomes, because I

39:53know this was a discussion as well, I

39:56think that for me, I would like to

39:59start, and I'll I'll talk about this too

40:02in the update from the Vital Streets

40:04Oversight Commission, but I'd like to

40:06start having like more I think

40:10um collaboration there and um

40:16because we're kind of at a crossroads

40:17with that um program, the Vital Streets

40:21program and that it like the the funding

40:23will be up for renewal fairly soon in

40:26the next couple of years. And so we're

40:28kind of, you know, thinking about how

40:30like the vital streets as a program will

40:33be adapting. And I think safety as the

40:35oversight commission decided last month

40:38is going to be a huge part of that. Um

40:40so I would love to start seeing, you

40:43know, maybe some collaboration there. I

40:45don't know what it looks like. I'm not a

40:46staff member. I'm not going to give you

40:48work, but um just you know

40:52how we can think about safety as like a

40:54holistic approach to how we look at our

40:57road network and that includes sidewalks

40:59and all the other things.

41:01>> Yeah.

41:02>> So back to uh trust in uh three things

41:05back to trust in the holistic ability of

41:07people to keep things in mind. Second of

41:10all, um you know, I appointed a lot of

41:13you and um there's a there's a a a

41:17ideological bent to this group which

41:19didn't happen by accident, but I want to

41:21at least acknowledge that um it's still

41:25true that the vast majority of the

41:27people in our city do the vast majority

41:29of their trips by cars. And so as

41:31excited as we all are about some about

41:34alternatives, um it's also true that I

41:38once joked that the mobile GR should

41:40really be called immobile GR because

41:42mostly it's about parking and that's

41:44where most of the funds go. Um [snorts]

41:46but this used to be the parking

41:48commission and so like it is still part

41:50of our mandate to be thinking about like

41:53okay parking is a thing. It is a and the

41:56median voter cares a lot about parking

41:59as we know. Uh and the median voter

42:02cares a lot about how do they get around

42:04town in a car and so and that's not

42:07going to go away, right? Like if we

42:09double the number of people on bikes,

42:11they're still going to be 6% of the of

42:13the traffic users maybe. Um so I wonder

42:16about shifting to splitting it into

42:19mobility and safety. uh because mobility

42:24then necessarily incorporates questions

42:26around cars which I think are still

42:28worth asking that touch on safety and

42:30that's where you get the the holistic

42:32thing but for example the question of

42:34like could you get more cars through the

42:37intersection of uh Cherry and College

42:41Street if that was a four-way flasher

42:44and not a timed light. Well, that's a

42:46traffic signal question which is

42:47absolutely under under Jessica's

42:49purview. But like the question of

42:50traffic flow in town uh matters and it

42:54it's going to touch safety because like

42:55the question is how fast do people do

42:57that if you change that. But I think

42:58that traffic flow isn't something we

43:00just want to it's it's it's the baby we

43:02don't want to throw out with the

43:03bathwater if that makes any sense. So I

43:05just want to throw that out like the

43:07median voter cares a lot about their

43:10ability to get around town in a car and

43:12what they're going to do with their car

43:13when they get there. Um, so I don't know

43:15that we and I think that as these as we

43:18continue to do our work, we can't stop

43:20thinking about that. We can't be like,

43:21"Oh, wow. Bikes are interesting, but

43:23spend all our time in bikes or I really

43:25care about public public transit, so to

43:27heck with cars." I mean, that that's

43:29just not a viable long-term way to plan

43:33a city in the United States of America.

43:35We are not the mobile GR commission of

43:38Amsterdam where 80% of people take bikes

43:40to go around.

43:42>> I very much appreciate that level set. I

43:44mean, it it it is very true that

43:47as much as we may not like it or or

43:49disagree or whatever, um yeah, the

43:52average Grand Rapidian does use their

43:54car to get around. Um that being said, I

43:58believe that they don't really need much

44:00help to do that. Like, it's still going

44:03to happen. We have staff uh at Mobile GR

44:07that is that is trying to optimize these

44:09things for the average Grand Rapidian

44:11driving around. Um, how does mode shift

44:14happen? We give more attention to

44:16alternative modes. We rebalance how we

44:18get around the city. Um, and yeah,

44:20unfortunately, it's not going to happen

44:22overnight. Um, but, uh, I guess I just

44:27want to push back on on giving more

44:30attention to the automobile than is

44:32already given to it.

44:35All right. So, here's what I'm going to

44:36do. Uh, everyone who raised their hand

44:39for mobility and safety, I'm interested.

44:41Now we we've we're I'm going to move

44:43with we have a mobility working group

44:45and now I want to see if that changes

44:47interest. So who would be interested in

44:48a mobility focused working group?

44:52I swear if I wasn't going to see hands

44:54[laughter]

45:01and I think that keeps us at five.

45:07>> And I'm willing to do the other one,

45:08too.

45:09>> Okay. So I have I have the mayor, I have

45:12uh Commissioner Parker, Commissioner

45:13Poelka, Commissioner Rora, and

45:15Commissioner Miguel Cyprianiano. Does

45:17that capture it? Any anyone interested

45:19in leading that?

45:26>> You mean just managing the the meeting?

45:29>> Yeah. Yeah.

45:29>> Yeah, I'll do that.

45:30>> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Miguel

45:32Cyprano.

45:34And just to clarify for folks um

45:37volunteering to be group leads, Erin

45:39will help you. She will help you with

45:41anything administrative or coordinating

45:43in there. It's it's just more of yeah

45:46identifying someone who will come back

45:47and maybe be your point of contact or

45:49your, you know, here's what we discussed

45:50in that meeting. That doesn't mean the

45:51rest of you can't weigh in at the

45:53greater meeting, but the idea is that

45:55you have a lead who can come back and

45:56say, here's what we talked about.

45:58>> That is correct.

45:58>> Does that sound good? Okay,

45:59>> good. And then who would specifically be

46:02interested in the pedestrian safety?

46:06>> So you can take me off the other one.

46:08>> Okay. Um I saw Commissioner Cessa the

46:12mayor.

46:13Okay.

46:15Vice Chair, do you have any interest in

46:17any

46:18>> time commitment?

46:20>> What are we looking at for time

46:21commitment? Nobody asked that until now.

46:24[laughter]

46:26>> Uh that's something that the the group

46:28can can discuss. What I had in mind was

46:33um so for a traditional working group

46:36you might have an hourlong kickoff

46:37meeting and then say every month every

46:40other month you have an hourong meeting

46:42and you can do that for a fixed period

46:44of time. Um if you want to do something

46:46that's more sort of specific topic

46:49based. So this might be a better fit for

46:50something like the dash pilot. Um you

46:52could have two longer working sessions

46:54or one kind of longer workshop if we can

46:57make everyone's schedules work together.

46:59um and then then more of a report out or

47:01deciding if you want to go somewhere

47:03from there. So, it's really up to the to

47:05the group. Um I can discuss a different

47:07couple different models when we go over

47:09the group charter, but those can

47:10certainly be adjusted as well.

47:12>> Also, since this is subcorum, it can

47:14almost certainly have a zoom a zoom

47:15option without having open meetings

47:17problems.

47:19>> Yes. Yeah. Virtual um can certainly be

47:22arranged. And what I will do is help

47:25Aaron with um any timelines that would

47:28make a lot of sense for having your

47:29feedback ready and those recommendations

47:31ready. So for example, um Max is leading

47:34the mobility blueprint. If there certain

47:37there there's certainly going to be

47:38times along the schedule of the mobility

47:40blueprint that some of these topics

47:41might be of interest and we might have

47:43things that specifically we we bring to

47:45you and say, "Hey, what do you think

47:46about this?" If that if you're open to

47:48it. Um, and that can be something that

47:50you discuss in that first kickoff that

47:52Erin was talking about. The other thing

47:54is I will um make sure to get Erin some

47:57kind of key dates on when I will need

47:59some feedback uh that has to do with

48:02like for example um budget preparation.

48:07Um your dash pilot specifically is going

48:10to have some tight timelines on it. So,

48:11I really liked um Erin pointed out, you

48:13know, you might have some like couple of

48:15long meetings uh workshopping things and

48:17then you're kind of you're done um for

48:20for now, right, to meet some some

48:22deadlines because the city commission is

48:23going to want to hear from you all on

48:25the dash pilot in conjunction with the

48:28work that um Max's team has been doing

48:30on some of those transit engagements.

48:32So, just just a little bit of context

48:34there. So, I think that that kickoff

48:36meeting is going to be really important

48:37and then and then Janelle, you'll know a

48:39little bit more about time commitment.

48:40So, great. But maybe shortlived. Maybe

48:43short maybe long to begin with, but

48:45shortlived.

48:46>> Okay, I think I can fit that in. So,

48:48I'll volunteer for that.

48:49>> Okay. Which one?

48:51>> A safety one.

48:52>> Great.

48:57All right. And then I'll ask, does would

48:59anyone like to lead the safety one?

49:02Commissioner Sasa. All right.

49:05>> And Commissioner Patton, would you mind

49:07uh switching me from mobility to safety

49:09if possible? I I don't mind at all.

49:11>> Thank you.

49:12>> Here you go.

49:17>> Uh I'm I'm happy to fill in wherever.

49:20And then what I also want to think

49:22through um anyone who is not here if we

49:27can give the option and kind of say,

49:28hey, how many spots do we have

49:30available? So, um I I would like to do

49:32that via email or something.

49:34>> Sure.

49:34>> Okay.

49:35>> Thanks.

49:36>> I don't Yeah. Um, I'm going to read

49:38through what I have written down just to

49:40make sure you also have the same.

49:42>> Yep.

49:42>> So, for the dash pilot group, the leader

49:45is Pawaka and then we have Miguel

49:47Sabriano and Whistle Link.

49:50>> And [clears throat] then for pedestrian

49:51safety, the group lead is Cessa. And

49:54then we have Mayor Lrand, Ry Pawaka.

49:59>> And then for mobility and safety, the

50:01group lead is Miguel Cypriano. And we

50:04have Commissioner Parker and Roar.

50:08Yes, that is who I have. Yep.

50:10>> Great.

50:12>> And then, yeah, it looks like if you

50:14want to add me to the mobility one, I'd

50:16be happy to be a part of that then cuz

50:20then at least we'd all

50:23No, we're close to having four across

50:25all. Yeah,

50:27I don't I don't believe we need to vote

50:29on this. I think it's just we have

50:30consensus just through the discussion,

50:32but let me know if we do need to vote on

50:35this.

50:41>> I was just checking with Max. Votes

50:43always good.

50:43>> All right. Uh then I'll I'll ask if we

50:47can have a motion to approve the members

50:51as read for the uh working groups as as

50:55read.

50:56>> So moved.

50:58>> Second. Second.

51:00>> Okay. Um All right. Any any discussion?

51:04I think we had a good amount. [laughter]

51:06All right. All in favor say I.

51:08>> I.

51:09>> I.

51:09>> Any opposed?

51:11>> All right. It passes.

51:13>> Thank you. I'm very appreciative of

51:15Aaron taking this on. It's a It's pretty

51:16big lift, but we're really excited to

51:18engage with you all in this way. So,

51:19thank you, Aaron. Next steps on that is

51:21Aaron will reach out and now that she's

51:23got a list, uh she can take care of

51:25starting to coordinate you all and um

51:28and we'll go from there. So, appreciate

51:30you all so much volunteering. Okay,

51:32>> we have our next action item, the uh

51:35commission meeting dates.

51:36>> Okay, it's that time of year, y'all. And

51:38um I think last year we started this in

51:40October. We just keep backing it up

51:41because we want to make sure that we

51:42have space to have these conversations.

51:45And I just wanted to um ask you all

51:48these are the dates that we have this

51:50particular setup available um in

51:52commission chambers with this round

51:55table style. Um if if you want to do

51:59something different,

52:00>> we have more options um on dates, but

52:03these are the dates that this setup is

52:05available next year. Someone uh someone

52:08some group um sort of took our spot that

52:10we had in that second Wednesday of the

52:12month. So, if you'll take a look at

52:13this, let me know. I think a couple of

52:15the dates might be a little bit um

52:17tough. July the 7th is probably the week

52:19of a July 4th. Um and then the other one

52:23that's um a little bit interesting is

52:26June the 2nd is probably that week of

52:28about Memorial Day holiday. So, other

52:31than that,

52:34>> is the April date the spring break date?

52:37I know that's a big not a big deal for a

52:39lot of folks, but

52:40>> Well, it's a it's actually a big deal

52:42for a lot of folks. I just forget about

52:44the children.

52:44>> Yeah, I'm so sorry about that. Um, does

52:47anybody know if that's spring break for

52:50GRPS?

52:51>> I believe it is

53:01September 4th is also a Saturday

53:04of Labor Day weekend. You guys don't

53:06want to meet on a Saturday. Okay.

53:09>> Um I will confirm that April April uh

53:12the week of April 4th is uh spring break

53:15for GRPS.

53:18>> All right. Um so knowing that

53:22is anyone want to shift any of these

53:24dates that you see in your packet

53:27>> aside from September 4th?

53:30>> Yes. Since you don't want to meet on a

53:31Saturday. That's supposed to be

53:33September 1st.

53:35uh that tracks.

53:41>> Um I mean I guess in the interest of you

53:43know looking at the holidays in the the

53:45spring break I would be interested in

53:48shifting the um the April, June and July

53:53so we can get away from holidays that

53:55people might be having and also um folks

53:58with kids in school.

54:00>> All right. Is that all right with the

54:03the group here? So, what we can do is

54:06Mary can go back, take a look, make sure

54:08that we can find a venue large enough

54:09for for us if it can't be here for some

54:12reason. It might be a different day of

54:13the week. Um, but we will search around

54:16and look for it and then we can come

54:17back and bring this to you next month to

54:19take an action on if that works. Any

54:21other feedback? Oh, just maybe I'm an

54:23outlier, but like I don't take a week

54:25for the 4th of July and the 7th if if

54:27that's a Wednesday, that means the 4th

54:29is actually on a Sunday. Like I get that

54:32people do long weekends, but like

54:36would that I I don't know. I I'm I'm

54:38just not sure that the 4th of July is is

54:40is close enough to the 7th to make a

54:42difference. But I hear the concern and I

54:44don't really care whether it gets moved.

54:45I just wanted to point that out.

54:49>> [clears throat]

54:52>> Kevin,

54:53>> that's right. It looks to me like um is

54:55the June 2nd I think that's a Friday as

54:57it's shown here if unless I'm wrong here

54:59which

55:00>> um

55:00>> so we'll go back and check all the dates

55:02but we're we're trying to do the first

55:04Wednesday of every month. Sorry about

55:05that.

55:06>> June 2nd is the first Wednesday I'm

55:08Yeah.

55:09>> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at July. Yes.

55:12[laughter]

55:13>> Um yeah, I I could go either way on July

55:177th personally. Um, I don't have an

55:19issue with June 2nd and then I will

55:21probably be gone on April 7th. That's

55:23that's what I can say now. Uh, for what

55:25it's worth, but let's go ahead bring

55:28something new back next meeting and then

55:30we take a vote on it. I like that plan.

55:32>> All right.

55:32>> Thank you for your feedback, everybody.

55:34That's really helpful.

55:36>> All right. So, we'll we'll table that.

55:41>> All right. So, I um

55:45I did originally had an action item

55:48prepared for you all with the EV car

55:50share program next step with a memo and

55:52then I I pulled it because I just had

55:54some questions on the draft memo that I

55:56I didn't quite get a chance to um to

56:00look at. I I went home to see my dad for

56:03his birthday and it ruined everything.

56:05Right. So, um but anyway, what So, so I

56:08apologize. I don't have a memo for you

56:10to react to today, but what I did want

56:12to bring back up is that back in

56:16I believe in January, February, and then

56:18again in May, we were talking about the

56:21um EV car share program, the DART

56:23program, and we were talking about um

56:25you all's thoughts around continuing the

56:28program, taking it out of a pilot status

56:30and moving it into a full operational

56:32program here at the city. We're about to

56:34be at the end as a little overview,

56:35especially since we've got some new

56:36folks at the table. Um, we started

56:39looking at this in fiscal year 2023. We

56:42moved forward and we're went through a

56:44three-year pilot and we're on year three

56:47of the program pilot. Program has been

56:49wildly successful and we're basically

56:52looking at to maintain the 12 car fleet

56:54that we'll finish rolling out sometime

56:57this fiscal year. I don't have that

56:59schedule right in my head. Um, and that

57:01will that will conclude what the pilot

57:04was uh scoped to do was get a 12car

57:06fleet. um out in the city for the dark

57:09carshare program. Now, for that program

57:12to continue, we're looking at wait, let

57:15me back up. So, for those three years,

57:17it cost about $530,000

57:20to do the pilot, and that concluded some

57:22um planning. We did some uh a bunch of

57:25different things. So, the idea is the

57:28moving forward to continue with

57:31investment in this program. We're

57:33looking at about $200,000

57:35from the parking fund to invest in this

57:38program annually to make it

57:40operationally um sustainable. [snorts]

57:43So that's the number you're thinking

57:44about. The cost of the program is a

57:46little bit more than that. The uh the

57:49the 200,000 is just the investment that

57:52we would be looking at committing to as

57:56mobile GR department from our budget. So

57:58the question here is about should we

58:01continue to um continue with the program

58:04and make it fully operational instead of

58:06a pilot now it's a a permanent amenity

58:08or you know an amenity pending funding

58:11um that you want to recommend to the

58:13city commission um and then what I would

58:16like to know is we we you had some

58:18questions way back when we answered some

58:20of those in a memo in May but you may

58:22have been thinking about this and have

58:24some other questions that have popped up

58:25that maybe I can answer and make sure I

58:27get those to you. And then what I would

58:29like to suggest is I can bring any other

58:30information you might need next month.

58:32And I would love to create like a what I

58:35have is like a memo like what we put

58:38together for you all with the Kalamazoo

58:40recommendation. Um and I'd love for you

58:42all to take that, chew on it, and then

58:45take that recommendation and we would

58:47again submit it to the city commission

58:49and I would um move forward based on

58:52your recommendation with suggestions in

58:55the budget.

58:56Okay.

58:58>> So, if if I'm understanding, then the

59:00question is, do we do we want to move

59:01out of pilot into a full-fledged program

59:03for the EV car share?

59:05>> Okay. Thoughts on that? Mayor?

59:08>> Uh, yeah. So, I'll be as fast as I can,

59:09but uh yes, I think it's a great

59:11program. I'd love to continue it. My

59:13central concern is really that I think

59:15we all have to be honest and think about

59:17uh a a qu a policy question, and that is

59:22this is 12 cars. We got 200,000 people

59:24in Grand Rapids. So, is this a nifty

59:27little thing we do that we virtue signal

59:30with or is this something that we hope

59:32we can grow up to something that is

59:34accessible for a decent percentage of

59:35our population? And that question we can

59:40we run into a a little bit of a dilemma

59:42on and and specifically it runs around

59:44cost. So, um, if we say we really want

59:48to help people who can't possibly afford

59:50to own a car, who are living really

59:52really in poverty or or below well well

59:56below the poverty line, then we want to

59:58cost it in a way that lets people who,

1:00:01you know, may not even be employed to be

1:00:03able to use the program. But if you

1:00:05don't have an income adjusted basis for

1:00:08access, which we're doing for our our uh

1:00:10scooters, right? We're like, look, if

1:00:12you're below the poverty line, we'll

1:00:13give you a different deal. I really

1:00:15think that we should be looking at

1:00:16having a an incomebased

1:00:19uh model for pricing here. So that

1:00:21otherwise, right now, what we get is,

1:00:23let's call it a middle class free rider

1:00:25problem. Uh it is it's this program

1:00:28right now is is priced at a point where

1:00:31is basically subsidizing David Lrand

1:00:33using these things. Um the the full cost

1:00:37is not rolled into the cost of use. Uh,

1:00:39and I'd be a fool to take my own car to

1:00:42Lancing rather than take this thing

1:00:44tomorrow, uh, and burning the 150 mi of

1:00:48use, putting a whole lot of wear on

1:00:50somebody else's tires, and, uh, spending

1:00:5330 bucks for a round trip to Lancing.

1:00:55Um, that's great if that's what we want

1:00:57to do is subsidize David Lrand's use of

1:01:00um, EVs, but I'd way way rather and and

1:01:04Commissioner Weslink knows like our our

1:01:06transit system, the fairs we collect are

1:01:09like 10% of the cost of running the

1:01:11system. And that's great if what you're

1:01:13trying to do is get really low income

1:01:15people an alternative to a car. But if

1:01:17you're trying to have a system you can

1:01:19really scale up, that starts meeting all

1:01:21kinds of barriers. So, um, you know,

1:01:25when everybody wants more buses, well,

1:01:27you can't do that by, you know, we can't

1:01:30with the fair system we've got. You you

1:01:32run into barriers. Um, so I really would

1:01:35like to come up with a model or a see

1:01:37maybe a choice, Jessica, between like

1:01:40you could do this fair structure or you

1:01:41could do this. Um, and I don't even need

1:01:44us to get to full cost recovery because

1:01:45I think properly the government can

1:01:47subsidize things to some level. But I

1:01:50but I would love to see a fair a fair

1:01:52model vision that that I could believe

1:01:55that this thing could grow into a couple

1:01:57hundred cars 10 years from now or 500

1:02:00cars 10 years from now and not be

1:02:03something that um is stuck in the five

1:02:07or 10 12 cars especially since even if

1:02:09we're talking about people in poverty

1:02:10like there are more than 12 people in

1:02:12poverty in Grand Rapids. Um, so I think

1:02:15that a program that's necessarily small

1:02:18because there's a limit to how much we

1:02:19can subsidize it um doesn't really get

1:02:22the all of the things that really make

1:02:24me excited about the potential of this

1:02:26program. Long speech, sorry, but like I

1:02:29would love to see some choices on that

1:02:30because our the model we've got now was

1:02:33proof of concept and it works and

1:02:35everybody gets it. There's huge demand.

1:02:37It is awesome and it ticks so many great

1:02:40boxes. But I for me the concern is

1:02:42scale.

1:02:43Yeah, great great speech. I uh want to

1:02:45give some context around the cost and

1:02:48the investment, right? So 50% is is

1:02:51revenue from from the user and then uh

1:02:5415 to 20% is other grants. The the folks

1:02:57that we've been working with, they

1:02:59actively pursue grants to do this kind

1:03:01of work. And then the other 30 to 35% is

1:03:04it would be a municipality like us. U so

1:03:09so the subsidy you're looking at with

1:03:10with some of those numbers I quoted you

1:03:12are about 30 30 to 35%. Um and I I hear

1:03:18I hear the point that you're making,

1:03:20Mayor. I think one of the things that I

1:03:21would think about um as a group here is

1:03:26the program was initially set up to do

1:03:30what it's doing today right now.

1:03:33Programs that um maybe have higher costs

1:03:36and and you have a smaller subsidy,

1:03:39that's a different model entirely and

1:03:41and not that we would have to start

1:03:42over, but we would have to think about

1:03:44that differently. And so I don't think

1:03:46that we I I think that we can do that. I

1:03:49think that that would be a great working

1:03:50group conversation. This could I could

1:03:52see that in the future and something

1:03:55that we could pursue when we have um you

1:03:59know when we put aside resources to

1:04:01further think through that for for this

1:04:03particular program. It it is doing what

1:04:06it was designed to do. um and it's

1:04:08falling right in those if I could say

1:04:11industry standards for um investment

1:04:15plus plus grant support plus member

1:04:17support around that 50% member support

1:04:20invest uh to to operationalize the

1:04:22program. So, I think that there are

1:04:23opportunities to to expand and try

1:04:26different models, but for this

1:04:28particular program, um, that what we're

1:04:32look the way it's operating is is the

1:04:33way that was designed. And I do think

1:04:35that it would be a a different model to

1:04:38to kind of lean more into some of these

1:04:40other um

1:04:43other target customers, if you will, if

1:04:45that makes sense.

1:04:47>> Has this moved from a discussion from an

1:04:49action item to a discussion item?

1:04:52Um, I should have done that during

1:04:54agenda approval. Shouldn't I have? Um,

1:04:57yes, if that's okay with the team here.

1:04:59Is that all right? Okay.

1:05:03>> Yeah. Um, I I very much agree with a lot

1:05:06of what the mayor had to say. Um,

1:05:10$200,000 a year for 12 vehicles comes

1:05:12about 16.6,000 a year um from the from

1:05:16the parking fund or that's or 35% of

1:05:19that is Okay. So, this is from the

1:05:21parking fund, 200,000. Okay. So, that's,

1:05:26you know, I I don't want to take away

1:05:27something that we've we've

1:05:30ideally had people begin to to use and

1:05:33and it sounds like they have. Um, but

1:05:36then, you know, you think also about

1:05:38where could this $200,000 get us as

1:05:41well. Um, so that's something I'm going

1:05:45to continue to think about. Um because

1:05:49off the top of my head, do we have a

1:05:51really good spot to put that other put

1:05:52that money um that would make more of an

1:05:54impact for more more people? Who knows?

1:05:58Maybe. Um go ahead, Ken. You have

1:06:01something?

1:06:02>> Yeah, I was going to add uh this makes

1:06:04me just think of of like um

1:06:07this number of money like how much can

1:06:10we increase parking rates to cover this

1:06:14just to start talking about it. Uh if we

1:06:16could run those numbers, um so much of

1:06:19this is going back to we we don't have

1:06:21the money. We don't have the money. That

1:06:23that's understandable. Um but I would

1:06:26just for like a thought exercise, I

1:06:28would love to see those scenarios played

1:06:30out of of what would it take increase in

1:06:34parking revenue to cover these things?

1:06:37Um because we haven't raised parking

1:06:40rates in how many years?

1:06:44We actually raise certain parking rates

1:06:46annually and then um the last time there

1:06:49was a market adjustment on street rates

1:06:51was two year two fiscal years ago fiscal

1:06:54year 2025.

1:06:56So

1:06:57>> great.

1:06:58>> Yeah. Um yeah, sure. We can look at

1:07:01numbers like those. I I think that to

1:07:03put it in this um the context of the uh

1:07:08revenue, right? This is this is less

1:07:10than 1% of parking revenue would the

1:07:14investment suggestion. Now, when you

1:07:16talk about scaling though, you know,

1:07:17there's an opportunity to go up. But I

1:07:19do think you make a good point like in

1:07:21the portfolio of mobility

1:07:24um or let's just say amenities that are

1:07:27being um funded through parking revenue.

1:07:32You think about this the dash um EV uh

1:07:35charging infrastructure which is which

1:07:37pretty intimately connected with this

1:07:39program um your microobility program in

1:07:44the uh the little boxes the little um

1:07:48designated parking zones the DPZs for

1:07:50the microobility shared program that is

1:07:52also coming out of your your parking

1:07:54revenue. So, there's kind of a

1:07:56collection, a little portfolio of

1:07:57amenities that are um that we use

1:08:01parking funds to do. And to date, I

1:08:04believe, and I I worked this up at some

1:08:07point, it's less than it's less than 15%

1:08:10of parking revenue. So, I think that

1:08:12that is um that number would be might be

1:08:16helpful for you all. I can get that back

1:08:18to you. I believe I brought it to you

1:08:19maybe last year, but I I need to do my

1:08:22my annual look back for you all and show

1:08:24you just about how much. And one of the

1:08:27things to consider is when I brought the

1:08:29budget to the city commission last year,

1:08:30I put a a cap on those amenities or what

1:08:35I call kind of mobility amenities to on

1:08:38the percentage of parking revenues to

1:08:41help um create uh financial

1:08:43sustainability with the fund and also so

1:08:46that you all would have something to

1:08:49work with. Right? So, if we say if we

1:08:51say we're we are looking at a guideline

1:08:54of 15% of parking revenues are going to

1:08:56mobility programs and that's X dollars,

1:08:59here's where we'd like to spend it. And

1:09:00that's why I was trying to make that

1:09:01clear for you all. So, maybe I can bring

1:09:03that back and remind us what that that

1:09:04threshold number was. It's not something

1:09:06that's written in stone. It was a

1:09:08recommendation that I made because, you

1:09:10know, my job is to make sure that our

1:09:11our parking fund doesn't go bankrupt,

1:09:13right? So, that is why I sort of picked

1:09:15that number and I believe it was 15%.

1:09:17So, I want to make sure I bring that

1:09:18back to you all so that you can think

1:09:19about, like you all are pointing out,

1:09:22how much of our, you know, kind of, if

1:09:24you will, dedicated number, percentage

1:09:27of parking revenue is feels good. You

1:09:30know, is a good, safe, sustainable

1:09:32number to commit to these types of

1:09:34programs while still making sure that

1:09:36we're meeting policy levels of the um

1:09:38the parking fund. Did I just use a bunch

1:09:41of jargon or you guys are y'all are

1:09:44helping me out here? Okay, great. It

1:09:46makes sense

1:09:46>> for the funding of this. Um, how long

1:09:48are the grants lasting? Is it just like

1:09:52a yearly renewal?

1:09:55>> Oh, you mean? Yep. So, good good

1:09:57question. They're they're different

1:09:59timelines. The um the operator

1:10:02is that's one of the things that they

1:10:06commit to, right? They'll they'll say we

1:10:08will continue to pursue funds. Now, I

1:10:10think that you ask a good question

1:10:12because right now federal funding and

1:10:15state funding around these types of

1:10:17programs has been a little bit unknown,

1:10:20right, with the with the current

1:10:22administration, but that's just because

1:10:23we're still kind of finding our way

1:10:25through some changes in different grant

1:10:28programs. I can't remember the timeline

1:10:31on this specific grant that they're

1:10:33referring to here, but I believe this

1:10:34one was one um that had a five-year

1:10:38timeline. I believe it was five years,

1:10:40but it started this past year.

1:10:42>> So, they they've got some good time.

1:10:43[clears throat] And and to follow up on

1:10:45that timeline thought, what we typically

1:10:47do is a three-year contract and um on

1:10:51any sort of vendor services at the city,

1:10:54unless it's unless it's real estate,

1:10:56just that's the one um exception that I

1:10:58can remember. And so, what we would do

1:11:00is we would look three years in the

1:11:01future with operations on this. That's

1:11:04that's the other reason this is kind of

1:11:05time is of the essence to start having

1:11:07this conversation because we're coming

1:11:08up on that threeyear deadline.

1:11:11>> All right. I know Commissioner Cessa has

1:11:13been waiting patiently. Uh then I have

1:11:15Maril Grand and then Commissioner Roar.

1:11:18>> Yeah. Thank you. Um

1:11:21I'm going to be very blunt. [laughter]

1:11:23Um first of all, I think this is a

1:11:25fantastic program. We absolutely should

1:11:27continue it, make it fully operational.

1:11:29I remember um at even our meeting about

1:11:32this in the spring, you know, I think

1:11:34there was a fairly strong appetite for

1:11:36even expanding to more cars um in the

1:11:39future. So, I fully support this program

1:11:44continuing. Um

1:11:48I continue to be frustrated by

1:11:53what I'm going to call an artificial cap

1:11:55on how much we can spend on these

1:11:56amenities. I understand you know you

1:11:58want to keep it at a fixed percentage of

1:12:00the revenue you know it it makes sense

1:12:03however

1:12:05at the end of the day one there is a

1:12:09sort of cognitive dissonance between

1:12:12using parking revenue to fund let's call

1:12:16it alternative mobility because you know

1:12:19the city I don't I shouldn't say that if

1:12:21if we have mode shift goals

1:12:26if we are successful,

1:12:29the idea would be that fewer people

1:12:31would then be parking in city lots and

1:12:34garages. And so then your parking

1:12:36revenue is going to decrease and then

1:12:38you have less money to fund the things

1:12:40that people are using. And so it kind of

1:12:42seems like the more we get into this,

1:12:45the more it starts being kind of a

1:12:47snowball effect where we don't have

1:12:49money to do all of these things anymore.

1:12:52And that's not even taking into account

1:12:54that, you know, we can't pretend that

1:12:58costs year-over-year are static.

1:13:02I mean, certainly not anymore when it

1:13:05comes to things like, you know, fuel for

1:13:09one. Um, operation costs for the rapid

1:13:12is pretty much the reason why the dash

1:13:15um route had to be cut to what it is.

1:13:18Um, and I will quote the city manager

1:13:21when he at this meeting, at the city

1:13:25commission meeting where he mentioned

1:13:26talked about um the new dash route, he

1:13:29said specifically that it allowed them

1:13:31to keep on street parking rates the

1:13:33same. And so

1:13:37that is saying to members of the public

1:13:40that their ability to rely on certain

1:13:46infrastructure programs, etc. that their

1:13:49need for those is less important than

1:13:51the need of people to park on the street

1:13:55for the same price they've been paying

1:13:56for two years or whatever it is. And you

1:14:00know it

1:14:02I understand that these like the world

1:14:05we live in now you know like the

1:14:08operational costs are not the only thing

1:14:10like families are struggling to afford

1:14:11anything. You know, I think we're going

1:14:13to see things like car ownership,

1:14:15frankly, is is going to be a or at least

1:14:19usage of cars is going to be something

1:14:21that is potentially at a um inflection

1:14:25point here if fuel prices continue to

1:14:27rise. Um

1:14:30and I just think it's really important

1:14:33that we understand that capping

1:14:38funding at a level

1:14:41for several years like you know saying

1:14:43even for the dash the new dash pilot you

1:14:46know we think that that can be

1:14:48sustainable for 5 years well but I

1:14:52guarantee you operation costs for that

1:14:54are going to continue to go up. It just

1:14:56is what is happening right now. And I to

1:15:00me that's not sustainable. It's

1:15:02sustainable from the from the amount of

1:15:04money that you put into it, but it is

1:15:06not sustainable in keeping the services

1:15:09that we have today at the level that

1:15:10they are. And so, I mean, I know this is

1:15:13now getting beyond just the EV car

1:15:15share, but it it it eats at me a lot.

1:15:18And um I think that this is something

1:15:21that quite frankly the city is going to

1:15:23have to reckon with at some point that

1:15:27it is not sustainable to continue having

1:15:30these types of mobility amen amenities

1:15:34at a static rate where we also assume

1:15:36that we cannot ever increase parking

1:15:39rates or we cannot even dedicate funding

1:15:44outside of the parking fund toward these

1:15:46programs.

1:15:48Great. Uh, Mayor Grand.

1:15:51>> Yeah. Just uh

1:15:52>> just briefly, I guess Jessica, maybe

1:15:54maybe a little um uh thought or uh on

1:15:57direction. So, um yes, I think the

1:16:00program is great. Yes, for the purposes

1:16:02of discussion, yes, let's let's go to 12

1:16:04cars. Um yes, let's keep doing it. Um

1:16:07the reason I cracked open the question

1:16:09of what percentage of it comes from the

1:16:11users. Um maybe uh another way to look

1:16:15at that would be, you know, when we do

1:16:16city budgeting, we always do five year

1:16:18fiveyear projections and the further out

1:16:20you get, the less real things get,

1:16:22right? Um but um I I I I would at least

1:16:26have some interest in a here's what we

1:16:28want to do next, but like our a vision

1:16:31for how we might go in the next 5 years

1:16:33on this program might look like X. Um

1:16:36because then we've sort of primed the

1:16:38discussion about like do we shift like

1:16:40all of the the current cost sharing I I

1:16:43can totally live with it for a for a 12

1:16:45car program and there are other things

1:16:47that are going to have to fall in place

1:16:48for us to have 200 cars like maybe a

1:16:51fast charger in Grand Rapids. Um, so

1:16:53there, you know, it's it's a moving

1:16:55target, but maybe some vi some dreaming,

1:16:57envisioning, and suggesting on the end

1:17:00of the short-term decision, um, would

1:17:03help us continue to have productive

1:17:04future planning conversations. So, I

1:17:06guess that's a way of saying don't think

1:17:08my earlier long conversation was saying

1:17:10no or maybe or anything like that. Like,

1:17:12yes, absolutely. And doing the model

1:17:14we're doing right now is the cleanest

1:17:15and easiest way to keep doing with what

1:17:18what's completely succeeding right now

1:17:20and what it's trying to do. So, do not

1:17:23want to break a a successful, exciting

1:17:26prototype, but I still see it. Even

1:17:28we're not going to call it a pilot. It's

1:17:30still a prototype of something. I'd love

1:17:32to live in a city where 10% of the

1:17:33people in the city were using car

1:17:35shares. Um, but you know, we're not

1:17:37going to get there in two weeks.

1:17:39>> All right, we're going to wrap up with

1:17:41Commissioner Roar and then move on to

1:17:42the next item. I just would say first

1:17:45off mostly overtaken by the mayor's

1:17:48second set of comments, but I generally

1:17:50agree with the idea that it's a good

1:17:51program. We obviously know it's getting

1:17:53used. There's interest in there's people

1:17:55have an interest in using it. They want

1:17:56to use this. Um, continuing at its

1:17:59current size though, I mean, you know,

1:18:02it my my fellow commissioner Pulka

1:18:04brings up the point that at 12 cars at

1:18:07the $200,000, it's costing us about 16

1:18:09almost $17,000 per car. But some of that

1:18:13cost is going to go away as you scale it

1:18:14larger. If you doubled the fleet, some

1:18:16of those costs would go down. And I

1:18:18think it'd be interesting for us to at

1:18:19least see what it looks like if the if

1:18:22it the fleet is grown to 24 or 36. And

1:18:25you know, I appreciate 200 or 500 as a

1:18:28goal. That's probably a long ways in the

1:18:30future, but inside of that three-year

1:18:31time horizon, we could absolutely I

1:18:33think we could make better decisions on

1:18:35this because if we're just going to

1:18:36continue it at 12 going forward, at some

1:18:38point it's it's just a it's just a neat

1:18:41thing we do. It's not it it's not really

1:18:43moving the needle on anything that we're

1:18:45trying to accomplish. And so it'd be

1:18:47helpful for me at least to make informed

1:18:49decisions if we could see what it looks

1:18:51like if we if we actually make a

1:18:52commitment to start to scale this larger

1:18:54because the level of interest we have at

1:18:5612 I'm certain would be able to support

1:18:58more Congress.

1:19:01>> One note is we thank you so much for all

1:19:03of that. So, I think I have some good

1:19:04ideas about what I need to put in your

1:19:06memo, but I also will resend out some of

1:19:08that more detailed financial information

1:19:10because we did we did bring this I think

1:19:13it was in February and there was some

1:19:14notes because you you asked some good

1:19:15questions and there's some um there are

1:19:18some you know scale and then it bumps up

1:19:21again, right? So, just like anything so

1:19:22the the cost kind of you have some costs

1:19:26um

1:19:27not really savings but there's there's a

1:19:29certain point where then your cost goes

1:19:31up again and goes up again for

1:19:32operation. So, I'll resend that out. I

1:19:34think that was in a a a time we've all

1:19:36forgotten when it was snow on the

1:19:37ground. So, I I'll send that back out so

1:19:39you all can take a look at that. I think

1:19:41that I understand um there's there's

1:19:43some support here for the program. We'd

1:19:45like to dream a little bit. And um the

1:19:48other thing that I forgot to mention,

1:19:50I'm surprised the mayor didn't bring it

1:19:51up, is in the climate action plan. This

1:19:53was one of, I believe, the 20 priorities

1:19:56that the city commission um identified

1:19:58as something that they wanted to

1:19:59continue to see. And so in that plan,

1:20:02part of the implementation um the the

1:20:04whole implementation is put on different

1:20:06departments and that's the one that's um

1:20:08that's one of a couple that lives with

1:20:10mobile GR. So, um, following with the

1:20:13policy that's been set at the commission

1:20:15level, you know, here, um, is, I think

1:20:19the question of the detail like how much

1:20:21and what does it look like and dreaming

1:20:23a little bit more and I will go back to

1:20:25that climate action plan and double

1:20:26check, triple check what the um, what

1:20:30they had said unless the mayor can

1:20:31remember, but I think there was a

1:20:33scaling component to it that the

1:20:35commission was interested in. Do you

1:20:36remember

1:20:37>> strategy six, action four of the C8?

1:20:39[laughter] Look at that. Short answer is

1:20:42yes. I mean this and and there's a

1:20:43there's a broader question of like how

1:20:45do we reduce vehicle miles in general

1:20:46and that's part of the cap um and

1:20:49particularly how do we reduce internal

1:20:51combustion engine miles. So

1:20:53>> okay great

1:20:54>> with just just one quick thing

1:20:56>> we're going to wrap it up. Um so yeah I

1:20:59I think to to put a cap on it um one is

1:21:02it sounds like there's appetite. I would

1:21:04also be interested to see if there's any

1:21:06impact of the I remember this body

1:21:08talking about the potential for a scale

1:21:10or dynamic or flexible pricing for

1:21:13chargers. Um so I'd be interested to see

1:21:15how that goes. All right, I'm going to

1:21:17wrap it up, move to board rules. And

1:21:19just to preface this as well, um the

1:21:23this is not there's nothing that has

1:21:25incited this, right? This is just

1:21:27something that uh the mobile GR

1:21:29department and and the com overall

1:21:30commission wants to bring up every

1:21:32single year. So, um, so yeah, without

1:21:36further ado, I'll pass it over for the

1:21:38board of rules.

1:21:39>> All right. So, yes, annually, I I have

1:21:42gotten into the habit. Now, this is my

1:21:44um this is my third year on the job and

1:21:47or, you know, I'm in my third year on

1:21:49the job. And so, I wanted to make sure

1:21:50that you all take a a time to look at

1:21:54your commission rules and think through

1:21:56it. These were written um years past.

1:22:00Last year, I believe we did some edits

1:22:02just to update a few little things. We

1:22:05talked a lot about conflicts of interest

1:22:08and we also spoke to some um some

1:22:12housekeeping items such as we took away

1:22:15the thing in here that says what day of

1:22:17the week you meet. It just seemed a

1:22:19little too prescriptive. So there's been

1:22:21a lot of cleaning up of the I would say

1:22:24the the latter half of this where I

1:22:27think you might take a little gander and

1:22:30and start start to think is under the

1:22:32article 2 membership. So this membership

1:22:36is what was put together in in the past,

1:22:41right? It's a it's a 13 member board um

1:22:45which makes it easy for us to get quorum

1:22:47but is not always easy to fill all those

1:22:49seats. And then there's these 10

1:22:51different areas that we look for

1:22:54membership from. So this is where and

1:22:56and I bring this up because in the the

1:22:59code uh in the municipal code, this is

1:23:02not something that is um that is

1:23:05dictated. This is in your board rules.

1:23:07And so I think this might be a good

1:23:11discussion to talk about and see if as

1:23:13you as you have this um look at what

1:23:16mobile GR commission is doing and how it

1:23:19shifted and also thinking about the city

1:23:22commission focus areas and their

1:23:24priorities and how they have been

1:23:27continually asking um when I bring

1:23:30something to them they say well what did

1:23:31the mobile GR commission say? So they

1:23:32are asking for your thoughts and your

1:23:35recommendation and your conversations

1:23:36and I often report back this is how the

1:23:38conversation went. That's why I like to

1:23:40bring a memo from y'all so that I have

1:23:41it written down what you said. So that

1:23:44may be something that you think about.

1:23:46Um and and in in my opinion it's just

1:23:49it's always worth having a conversation

1:23:51and making sure that the membership

1:23:55makeup still makes sense for this body.

1:23:58The other thing to note is that even

1:24:00though this is in here this way, your

1:24:03membership is not currently made up this

1:24:05way. You are missing um a representative

1:24:07from the downtown development authority.

1:24:09Um and and a a couple of other things um

1:24:14that that you're missing. We do have all

1:24:16wards represented and I I I you know

1:24:19that that is something that is generally

1:24:21a good idea to have a mix of wards. Um,

1:24:25and then there's you always have some at

1:24:28large seats at the bottom. And then

1:24:29you'll notice um number nine is that

1:24:32representative from city commission

1:24:34appointed by the mayor. We have the

1:24:35actual mayor here, which is really nice.

1:24:36So that's your city commission um

1:24:39representation. So that's what I was

1:24:42thinking about when I pulled these out

1:24:43this year and reviewed them myself, but

1:24:45I'm happy to have a discussion or

1:24:48anything that you all might have thought

1:24:49about when you took a look at these.

1:24:52>> Uh, a couple quick points. Uh first of

1:24:54all, yes, I I I consider, you know, this

1:24:57this a a guiding document for who I put

1:25:00on this um and so the fact that we have

1:25:03don't have somebody from the DDA right

1:25:05now um is is a whole but you know people

1:25:08roll in on and off and and terms come up

1:25:11um just so that you know everybody knows

1:25:13I am paying attention to this. Um now

1:25:16I'm a lawyer and uh one of the things

1:25:18that lawyers are very sensitive to is

1:25:20the difference between the words shall

1:25:21and should. Um so this shall have 13

1:25:24members which means that's not optional.

1:25:26Uh should uh means something different

1:25:29especially when it says whenever

1:25:30possible. So um I I consider that I a

1:25:35guideline and a goal not a not a

1:25:37mandate. Um and I think that's how the

1:25:40line

1:25:40>> can I make one note. I'm glad you said

1:25:42that. So the the the the should and the

1:25:44shall are important even in the board

1:25:46rules. in your in the code um it says

1:25:49the mobile GR commission shall consist

1:25:51of 13 members. So unless unless we're

1:25:54going to go back and change the code

1:25:56that so good point there and then the

1:25:57should comes into um the total

1:26:01membership should reflect diverse user

1:26:04interest including retail building

1:26:06ownership convention housing consumer

1:26:08public transportation educational

1:26:10institutions seniors and people with

1:26:12disabilities bicycling and pedestrian

1:26:14community and neighborhood groups. So

1:26:16there's your shoods and your shells. So

1:26:18thank you for bringing that up and

1:26:19that's why those words are used in your

1:26:21in your board rules. Yep. Um, and I

1:26:24actually like the current mix and as I

1:26:26look at it, I think like there's nothing

1:26:28that strikes me there that like my gosh,

1:26:30we don't want anybody on who represents

1:26:32businesses. Um, like so I I I think the

1:26:35the balance is pretty good. Myself, I'm

1:26:38always I would always be open to um

1:26:41ongoing conversation, but there's

1:26:42nothing there that strikes me as it

1:26:45looks like a pretty good balance to me

1:26:47for what it's worth.

1:26:48>> Thank you. The the one other um note on

1:26:52the should is one thing that's

1:26:54interesting to me is there's a little

1:26:55bit of difference in the in what's how

1:26:57the code writes it and what it is here.

1:26:59So here it says should consist of and it

1:27:00and it notes the the 10 things. Um in

1:27:04the code it it was all the things I just

1:27:06said but then there's the city

1:27:08commission representative and it says um

1:27:11membership may also include a member of

1:27:14the city commission. Um but but in this

1:27:16document we have said we think that's

1:27:18really really important and we had a

1:27:20conversation about that uh I think it

1:27:24was about this time last year and and

1:27:26the body at the time said we really

1:27:28think that's still very important. So

1:27:30that's I think I've covered it all now

1:27:32but thanks for the shoulds and shs.

1:27:33That's important. Anything else?

1:27:47I don't know if it benefits anyone else,

1:27:49but I always was confused um with

1:27:52conflict of interest. Um and so I

1:27:55understand it now that you can have uh a

1:27:59conflict of interest. You just have to

1:28:02uh speak to it. Um and then not and then

1:28:05follow the rules that it's saying here.

1:28:07I don't know if this is helpful for

1:28:08anyone else. I just thought like, oh, I

1:28:09can't be a part of any any of this work

1:28:12at all. Uh, or a board like the board if

1:28:15I had a potential conflict of interest.

1:28:17And I've seen that to not be the case.

1:28:19You just have to state this is a

1:28:21conflict of interest. I'm not being a

1:28:23part of this. Um, so I'm just stating

1:28:25this now in case it's helpful for anyone

1:28:27else because I never asked and I just

1:28:28like, oh, I'm not going to do that and I

1:28:30just misunderstood what the conflict of

1:28:32interest is.

1:28:33>> So, if I can speak to that a little bit,

1:28:35um, I spent a lot of my life worrying

1:28:37about this. Um uh again as a lawyer but

1:28:40also because I have a lot of business

1:28:42interest that means I always have ever

1:28:44since I've been involved in public

1:28:46service I've had potential conflicts of

1:28:48interest. So just for the just so the

1:28:50board knows what I do and you can adopt

1:28:52my uh methodology or not there's a hard

1:28:55conflict of interest and those are

1:28:57actually fairly rare. Um and that's for

1:29:00example if let's say this board was

1:29:02determining the state income tax in the

1:29:04state of Michigan. We don't have an

1:29:05individual particularized interest in

1:29:07that. So, we wouldn't be conflicted out

1:29:09because like if we eliminated the income

1:29:11tax in the state of Michigan, everyone

1:29:12in the state of Michigan would equally

1:29:14benefit. Uh it's if you have a specific

1:29:16particularized

1:29:18uh interest that would cause you cause

1:29:20your vote to change. And so, um there's

1:29:23that, but then what I always like to

1:29:25point out to people is that judges live

1:29:28with not just a question of whether you

1:29:30have a conflict, but whether you have an

1:29:32appearance of impropriy. And that's the

1:29:35standard I try to hold myself to. So any

1:29:37of us can recuse ourselves from any

1:29:39votes if we want. Um and so my triage

1:29:43roughly works like this. I say if

1:29:46there's even any colorable uh reason why

1:29:49anyone might be concerned, I disclose

1:29:51it. So for example, my I had a kid in

1:29:54Christian schools when the Christian

1:29:55schools were trying to buy a public

1:29:57school building. Well, I stated that on

1:29:59the record while we before we even

1:30:00started the discussion. The second is

1:30:04you can decide even if you don't have a

1:30:06conflict of interest, you might say,

1:30:08"I'm going to discuss this, but I'm not

1:30:10going to vote on it." Uh, which is a

1:30:12good ethical middle ground. So, if you

1:30:14got a hard conflict, you got to observe

1:30:15it. But you can you can also pull

1:30:18yourself further away from looking like

1:30:21you have a conflict um even if you

1:30:23don't. So, for example, if we were going

1:30:26to vote on um you know uh approving a

1:30:30helmet ordinance and uh Commissioner

1:30:33Cypriano was like, "Well, I really think

1:30:35helmets are awesome and I've, you know,

1:30:36say this on my Facebook post all the

1:30:38time and I, you know, just invested in a

1:30:41helmet company and I don't want somebody

1:30:43thinking that I'm making money off

1:30:44this." Even though there's no there

1:30:46wouldn't actually be a conflict. You

1:30:47might say, "Well, you know, I'm starting

1:30:49my own bicycle helmet company, so I'm

1:30:50going to step out of this one." Um, so I

1:30:53think in general we build public trust

1:30:55if we can identify things that are even

1:30:57get close to conflicts and a articulate

1:31:00them, b pull oursel out of votes first,

1:31:03pull ourselves out of discussion second,

1:31:05but I think that's just a good

1:31:06methodology for anybody who's trying to

1:31:09do public service. Um, there's an old

1:31:12Supreme Court uh decision about the

1:31:14first amendment which analogizes it to a

1:31:16barbwire fence and a fog. like you want

1:31:19to stay a long way away from the barbw

1:31:20bar fence if it's a if it's foggy

1:31:22because you don't want to hit the

1:31:23barbwire fence. So the last thing any of

1:31:26us want is the public to think that we

1:31:27are doing this for self-enrichment and

1:31:30that's really what the heart of conflict

1:31:32is.

1:31:36>> That's good. I will mention we've we've

1:31:37had um two commissioners who who have

1:31:40brought up the potential for conflict of

1:31:42interest and I thought they handled it

1:31:44very well and and put it out there for

1:31:46the record. So, um, but they still had

1:31:49an opinion and we appreciated it or at

1:31:51least I did. I shouldn't speak for all

1:31:53of us.

1:31:57Anything else on Oh, yeah. Commissioner

1:31:59Aurora.

1:32:01Uh, under article three. Yeah, article

1:32:043, paragraph E.

1:32:06Sorry, Jessica. [laughter]

1:32:09Uh, it says the mobile GR director or

1:32:11designate of their choosing shall

1:32:13crossed out will attend the meetings of

1:32:15the commission. I'm not sure why we're

1:32:17going to change that from shall to will.

1:32:18I mean,

1:32:20you or your design are always here.

1:32:22>> Honestly, I think that that's a typo

1:32:24that that we we took care of that last

1:32:26time. Instead of shall, it was will.

1:32:29>> It so it it should be will.

1:32:31>> It's currently will. Yeah, that was a

1:32:34change made last year.

1:32:35>> I think I'd prefer personally I'd prefer

1:32:37to have it back at Shall if my fellow

1:32:39commissioners agree because I think it's

1:32:40pretty important for you or your design

1:32:42to be here.

1:32:44It's kind of critical.

1:32:46>> Thank you. [laughter]

1:32:49>> Yeah, I I I don't disagree with it. I

1:32:52think I guess the question has to be

1:32:53asked, right? If if you or a design

1:32:56weren't here,

1:32:59>> would we have productivity with the

1:33:00meeting?

1:33:01>> Well, I tell you what's funny is that

1:33:02I'm I'm the appointed liaison by the by

1:33:06the city manager for the state. So, I

1:33:07mean, I have to be here. It's in my job

1:33:09description, but um I I don't I'm I'm

1:33:12not sure what the convers I cannot

1:33:14remember that conversation. I have slept

1:33:15since then. So,

1:33:17>> I can pretend I'm the city attorney and

1:33:19say that I'm not sure that this board

1:33:20has the power to uh make staff do

1:33:23anything. And so, that may be the

1:33:24problem. Um you know, like what if Mark

1:33:28Washington said, "No, Jessica, you don't

1:33:30have to be at the next meeting." Right?

1:33:32Will is Will is this group saying, "Yep,

1:33:34we really think it's important." I mean,

1:33:36we don't want to spend too much time on

1:33:37this. It's not like Jessica's going to

1:33:39stop coming, but

1:33:40>> sometimes I don't come and I send Max

1:33:42and you guys get the understudy and

1:33:44>> he loves it.

1:33:44>> It's not like nobody's

1:33:45>> your designate. Yeah.

1:33:46>> Yeah.

1:33:47>> But at that point then you sent your

1:33:48design. So I mean good.

1:33:50>> Yeah.

1:33:51>> Functionally speaking, at least every

1:33:53meeting I've been to in the last year or

1:33:55nearly a year, it's you or your design

1:33:58are always here. It's never uncovered.

1:34:00So

1:34:00>> it's because it's in the rules. Um I'll

1:34:02have Mary take a look and see which one

1:34:03it is since since we've had this note

1:34:05here. Thank you for bringing that up.

1:34:07Any other typos we want to talk about?

1:34:10This is why I need y'all.

1:34:15So, um my question here for you all is

1:34:19there anything besides that note. Um and

1:34:22and please Mary if you'll make a note to

1:34:24look at that. Is there anything about

1:34:26these board rules that you all want to

1:34:28bring back for action um or discussion?

1:34:32and and and you you don't have to tell

1:34:34me now, but I would appreciate if over

1:34:38um over the next couple of weeks, take a

1:34:39look at this, think through it, and um

1:34:44and why don't you send Mary a note

1:34:47>> or me or both and say, "Here's something

1:34:50I would like to bring up and discuss for

1:34:51an action." And then we can bring it

1:34:53back and you all can make make some

1:34:55decisions. If I don't hear from anyone,

1:34:57I will I always check up with Chad and

1:34:59Janelle um a couple a week or so before

1:35:02the meeting and I will check up with

1:35:03them and if there's anything they want

1:35:04to bring, we will also put it back on it

1:35:06for an action item. But um other than

1:35:08that, if it's all good, we'll go back,

1:35:11make sure there's not any typos, I will

1:35:12get an answer on that shell or will um

1:35:15for me to be showing up. And other than

1:35:17that though, does that sound like a I

1:35:20just want to hear if there's consensus

1:35:22around that next step.

1:35:27I think it's agreeable.

1:35:29>> Okay.

1:35:29>> All right. Sounds good.

1:35:32All right, then we will move forward.

1:35:34Thank you for sharing those uh board

1:35:36rules with us. Always good to get a

1:35:38refresher.

1:35:39>> All right. Uh Commissioner Cessa, do you

1:35:41I believe you do have a Vital Streets

1:35:43update.

1:35:44>> I do. Yes. Um so, uh at our last meeting

1:35:49in August, um we got pretty close.

1:35:52didn't quite finalize the drafting, but

1:35:55um will be a memo to city commission

1:35:58regarding um

1:36:01basically I'll look at is like how we

1:36:03think about um

1:36:06how vital streets money is spent. Um and

1:36:10so there were several recommendations

1:36:12that we landed on for how to prioritize

1:36:16continued investment in our

1:36:18infrastructure. Um so in the past it has

1:36:22largely been driven by the condition of

1:36:26the road surface and so that has really

1:36:29driven like what projects get happen

1:36:33every year. Um so but as we think about

1:36:37you know

1:36:39obviously this group has now convened a

1:36:41working group on safety and so safety

1:36:43was one of the um the biggest

1:36:46recommendations that we had was to now

1:36:49um enable

1:36:52um like engineering and vital streets as

1:36:55a whole to look at um how investment

1:36:59would prioritize safety. And so they

1:37:02would do that. Um basically they have um

1:37:07a high risk network rating from GVMC

1:37:11that looks at you know the safety of

1:37:13different places around the city in the

1:37:16region. Um and there was also like a

1:37:18high I can't remember fully.

1:37:22>> Yeah, high injury high risk. Thank you.

1:37:24And we were looking at the high risk

1:37:25because it didn't just take into account

1:37:27where injury happened. that took into

1:37:29account things like near misses and

1:37:31stuff like that. So yeah, we'll we'll be

1:37:34taking into account the high-risisk

1:37:35network when when making um decisions

1:37:38and also um another big one that would

1:37:41be new is sort of the network

1:37:43connectivity aspect of it where you know

1:37:47we have road projects that are

1:37:49prioritized based on you know the

1:37:51surface condition and then that means

1:37:53you have if you're adding a bike lane in

1:37:55a certain spot but only in that place

1:37:57where the road condition was merited the

1:38:00the reconstruction then you get a

1:38:04disconnected network. And so um also in

1:38:07the recommendation was um a

1:38:11uh idea to also look at how um temporary

1:38:18infrastructure can be used to facilitate

1:38:21network connectivity even if like a full

1:38:23road reconstruction isn't planned. So

1:38:26those are the the basis basics of that

1:38:29recommendation that we're making. Um

1:38:32probably it will be finalized. I believe

1:38:33our meeting is in December. So look for

1:38:35it to be finalized then.

1:38:38Thanks.

1:38:40>> Yeah, thank you for that update.

1:38:43>> All right. Uh director's updates and I

1:38:45know I would be remiss if I did not

1:38:48mention to we have a if people were not

1:38:51at the meeting with uh the planning

1:38:55commission. Um well, we didn't have a

1:38:57formal chance to to meet our newest

1:38:59commissioner. So, I don't know if that's

1:39:01something we want to include in the

1:39:03director's updates or just take a moment

1:39:04to see if uh Commissioner Parker would

1:39:06like to uh introduce himself.

1:39:09>> Thank you. I appreciate that. Uh Anthony

1:39:11Parker. Um first of all, thank you for

1:39:14allowing me to be part of this. This is

1:39:16great. Um but I come from AHC

1:39:19Hospitality. Um been there with the

1:39:21company for about 20 years and uh have

1:39:23assumed the director of uh guest

1:39:26services/parking role um with them for

1:39:28the last 12 years. So oversee quite a

1:39:30few parking spaces and logistics

1:39:32operations through the the hotels

1:39:34downtown. Um but happy to be here and

1:39:36listen in and be a part of this.

1:39:39>> Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner.

1:39:41>> All right, director's updates.

1:39:43>> You bet. Okay, just a couple of

1:39:44highlights. Um yes, so the last meeting

1:39:48that we had on August the 27th was a

1:39:51joint meeting with mobile GR commission

1:39:53and the planning commission. It was it

1:39:55was just so great to see both bodies

1:39:57there together. And um what happened is

1:40:00we had a update on the mobility

1:40:02blueprint. We also had the project

1:40:04manager from our selected consulting

1:40:07team who's going to augment the city

1:40:09staff and help Max keep everything

1:40:12straight on that project. And his name

1:40:14is Eric and he is based in He's based in

1:40:17Detroit. Yes, Eric is based in Detroit

1:40:19and he's with a company called Ty

1:40:21Linton. Um very excited. They're very uh

1:40:24wellrespected company in transportation

1:40:26planning. I used to do a lot of work

1:40:27with them um down in Florida actually

1:40:29when I was there. So happy to happy to

1:40:32have them on board and also to just

1:40:35thank all of you that helped out in the

1:40:37selection processes of the RFPs that

1:40:39we've had come through um for the

1:40:41mobility blueprint for our micromobility

1:40:44program and so on and so forth. And we

1:40:46continue to want to have you all um come

1:40:48along with us and and help us make those

1:40:50selections. It's really great to have a

1:40:52member of this board come in and help us

1:40:54make those selections. So, that

1:40:56blueprint update, there's a little bit

1:40:57of update here. We have officially

1:40:59kicked off. We are officially in the

1:41:01project and we'll be coming back soon to

1:41:05talk about the role of the mobile GR

1:41:06commission and um and how that that

1:41:09engagement will be um happening not only

1:41:12with this body but also with the

1:41:13planning commission and with um with the

1:41:16public the public engagement that we'll

1:41:17do. So, Max is working on that and we'll

1:41:19be coming back to you soon to give you

1:41:21an update that a little bit more

1:41:23details. Microommobility, you'll

1:41:25probably see VO is our new microobility

1:41:29um uh vendor and they have launched as

1:41:32of September 1st. Um really excited to

1:41:35have them on board. And there's just

1:41:37some notes in here from um the team that

1:41:40manages that uh program. And since the

1:41:44launch, we've already had 3,000 users

1:41:47take a over 7,000 trips. So 270 users

1:41:50have already enrolled in VO plus or VO

1:41:53access, taking more than 800 trips.

1:41:55That's part of our affordability

1:41:56program. And then we're actively

1:41:59promoting these discount passes and

1:42:00programs on our social media just to

1:42:02spread awareness and increase

1:42:03enrollment. So tell your friends, tell

1:42:04your neighbors. We're really excited to

1:42:06have them on board. Um we will be

1:42:08phasing out the Lime Fleet. they um are

1:42:12phasing out the end of the month.

1:42:13Correct. Okay. Is there anything you

1:42:15wanted to talk about with some of the

1:42:16pricing conversations that have been

1:42:18happening?

1:42:19>> Yeah.

1:42:21>> Thank you. Uh yeah, so as Jessica

1:42:23mentioned, really excited to get folks

1:42:25um on enrolled in in VO plus and VO

1:42:27access. Um we had uh when we um

1:42:32presented to uh this body as well as

1:42:34city commission um and and um gone

1:42:36through our press conference and and

1:42:38folks who were part of the um selection

1:42:40um process. There was a lot of uh I

1:42:43think confusion and we we and myself

1:42:46especially could have done a better job

1:42:47on clarifying um the difference between

1:42:50standard rate and some of the discounted

1:42:51rates that come uh with Lime and um VO.

1:42:55uh both VO and Lime throughout their

1:42:57fleets um and throughout their services

1:42:59across the country at times will

1:43:01discount certain services based on usage

1:43:04over the years that lime ad here they

1:43:06had seen a lot less usage with their

1:43:07bicycles. Um so they had been doing

1:43:10discounted rates to try to get people to

1:43:12use that more frequently. Um that's

1:43:13something that VO could explore and use

1:43:15as well. Um so their standard rate for

1:43:19lime was uh higher than VO's. Um but

1:43:22with that discount it was lower. Um,

1:43:24however, um, anybody who uses any of the

1:43:28programs VIO provides will still be at a

1:43:30lower rate than any of the discounted

1:43:31rates that we saw with Lime. So, the

1:43:33only real time that that would be of

1:43:35consideration if someone is taking um

1:43:37one or two trips a month and then we're

1:43:39talking about, you know, and I don't

1:43:41mean to dismiss this, but we're talking

1:43:42about a very small amount of of

1:43:44difference in price between the two of

1:43:45them. So um again I and our team could

1:43:48have definitely done a better job of

1:43:50communicating these possibilities when

1:43:51we were overall uh drawing a lot of

1:43:53attention to these people who use the

1:43:55service frequently and the people who

1:43:57are low income the significant savings

1:43:59that we have there. That's one of the

1:44:00primary reasons for this decision. Um

1:44:02but we should have highlighted the rare

1:44:04cases um that will be occurring at least

1:44:07initially with the VO service in which

1:44:09if you're taking a bike um for one time

1:44:12a month um for for an hour or two um

1:44:15there there is uh I think with uh Lime's

1:44:17current service there's about a 20%

1:44:19discount that you would not be getting

1:44:20with VO. Um I will just say one of the

1:44:23difficulties here are and and community

1:44:25has acknowledged this or has expressed

1:44:27this and I will acknowledge it. There's

1:44:29a lot of complexity that comes to these

1:44:31pricing models. There's probably four

1:44:33different plans that VO has. Um, like I

1:44:35said, across the country, these

1:44:37services, they eb and flow that standard

1:44:39rate discount based on time of year,

1:44:41time of month, and we're trying to work

1:44:43with VO to be a little bit more

1:44:44consistent and clear with our community.

1:44:46So, uh, that's something we're we're

1:44:47continuing to work on. I also want to

1:44:49say this is something that I will, uh,

1:44:52ask for help on from this commit, this

1:44:54body, this commission, um, as we go

1:44:55through these growing pains. Please let

1:44:57me know. Um, Commul and I talked

1:44:59beforehand about some things that that

1:45:01it's really helpful for our team. Um,

1:45:03you know, we're we're dealing with a

1:45:04program that uh was or sorry, we're

1:45:06we're losing a provider that was here

1:45:08for three years and we're able to iron

1:45:10out a lot of kinks. We're having a new

1:45:12group come on and I think community and

1:45:13other folks are expecting very little

1:45:15transition. That's our goal, but there

1:45:17are going to be some things that don't

1:45:18quite work um perfectly, but VO is

1:45:20committed. We're committed to making

1:45:22sure that happens as quickly as we can.

1:45:23So, please just help with the

1:45:25communication and let us know and we can

1:45:26solve the problems. Thanks, Max.

1:45:29>> Okay. Thanks, Max. Okay. The um other

1:45:32thing I'm really excited to know, I was

1:45:34just mentioning this is my third year in

1:45:36the job. So, 27 months in, at the end of

1:45:39this month, and um on Monday, for the

1:45:42first time since I took this position, I

1:45:44will have a full leadership team at

1:45:46Mobile GR. We are welcoming Scott

1:45:48Vandera, who um accepted our offer and

1:45:52starts on Monday as an administrative

1:45:54services officer, too. It's the same um

1:45:58uh title that Max has. It's it's kind of

1:46:00an all-encompassing

1:46:02higher level manager position here at

1:46:04the city. Um but but Scott's position

1:46:06will be focused on customer service, our

1:46:09um finances and um the front office

1:46:12operations. And what we call our front

1:46:14office is the folks that you get your

1:46:15monthly parking card from you. They pick

1:46:17up the phone when you call those folks.

1:46:19And so we're really excited to have um

1:46:22Scott come on and join us and I will

1:46:23have him come and introduce himself at

1:46:24our next meeting. The final thing is

1:46:27Mobile GR is a registered venue for uh

1:46:31art prize this year. If you didn't know,

1:46:33the city and art prize have a fabulous

1:46:36partnership and mobile GR has for uh

1:46:39many years given both in kind and cash

1:46:43um contributions to art prize as part of

1:46:46partnership and working together with

1:46:48art prize. this year as brand new

1:46:51executive director at Art Prize and um

1:46:54he and his team have been so great to

1:46:56work with and we have done things with

1:46:59that in kind donations such as created

1:47:01walking maps for the event helping with

1:47:04wayfinding tools and so anything you see

1:47:06out there with these walking and these

1:47:07pedestrian maps that was um that was the

1:47:10team at mobile GR and really proud of

1:47:11their work and they did that in really

1:47:13short order. We are also um so some of

1:47:16our our artists are going to be showing

1:47:18their installations at the Louis Campow

1:47:20ramp and then also at 89 Monroe Center

1:47:23which is um the little retail space

1:47:25that's attached to that public walkway

1:47:27from the Monroe Center ramp onto Monroe

1:47:29Center. If you've ever used that

1:47:31walkway, there's a little retail space

1:47:33right there that there's a front door

1:47:35right onto Monroe Center. Please come by

1:47:37and see us. It will be September 12th

1:47:39through October 3rd. Monday through

1:47:41Thursday 4 to 8:00 PM. Fridays and

1:47:43Saturdays 12 to 8:00 PM. And then

1:47:45Sundays from 12:00 to 6 PM is when our

1:47:47our venue will be open. There's some

1:47:49fabulous pieces of art in there. I

1:47:51encourage you all to come by and see

1:47:53that um as we continue to support such a

1:47:56such a great um program here in Grand

1:48:00Rapids that we're really proud of. So

1:48:02>> great.

1:48:02>> And that is all from me.

1:48:04>> Yeah. All right. With that, we'll move

1:48:07to public comment. I will now open the

1:48:10floor to general public comment. The

1:48:11board would appreciate having the

1:48:13members of the public attending the

1:48:14meeting today identify themselves before

1:48:16providing comment. However, it is not

1:48:18required to give your name.

1:48:21Is there any public comment?

1:48:27We'll just stare at you until you're

1:48:28ready. All right. Seeing none, I'll go

1:48:31ahead and close public comment. Um, and

1:48:34then we'll move into commissioner

1:48:36comments. I am always um I I would like

1:48:39to give Commissioner Pelka uh if he

1:48:42would like um priority since I did cut

1:48:44him off or um so All right.

1:48:48Any commissioner comments? [snorts]

1:48:54All right. I don't know. I don't know.

1:48:56>> My comment is thanks for letting this

1:48:58meeting go longer than an hour.

1:49:02>> All right. Seeing no com well no other

1:49:04commissioner comment uh we'll go ahead

1:49:07and adjurnn. Thank you everybody.

```*