Feb 25, 2022 Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee on 2022-02-25 1:00 PM

Alright, welcome everyone to the Sustainability Framework Advisory Committee. We are meeting in the City Council Work Session Room at City Hall. Today is February 25th and we are getting started at 1 of 2. This is our first recording actually of our meeting and so we will need to speak up into the mic to make sure that everyone can hear us. We will go ahead, we do have a quorum, and we will go ahead and get started with items for individual consideration. A, consider approval of the December 17, 2021 minutes. Did everyone get a chance to read over those, any changes? Yes, Adam? It says here, "Receive report, hold the discussion on the climate hazards and vulnerability assessment tools." We discussed it and it says, "Following discussion, there was no direction provided." Maybe direction is a technical term, but I thought we did say something to the effect of, "Well, let's keep pushing forward with the climate action plan," and that there was in fact direction in that sense. I'm just wondering, am I understanding this not in its technical sense? It kind of makes it sound like we sat there and listened and just dropped it. Right. I feel like that's not what we did. Okay. Catherine, do you want to address that at all? Is direction, is that an actual item for us to move forward on or does that mean there wasn't any discussion or is there a better way to present that in the minutes? I think that there's probably going to be a better way to present that in the minutes. We can talk to Rosa about it, since it wasn't give feedback on climate hazards and not actual direction. I think that's why it's that term, but we can talk about how to better clarify that. We'll just listen to it and say, "Okay." There was a lot of discussion and it's still on the matrix. Okay. We know it's still moving forward. Okay. Should we make an amendment to these minutes to take out no direction and discussion to keep moving forward? I'm okay. Is that a better term? I feel like that's more accurate. Okay. In layman's terms, that's what happened, I feel like. Okay. Whoever wants to make a motion to approve, just approve without change? I'll move to approve without change. Okay. Second. All right. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Those minutes approve without one change. We will move on to item B, stock report, update on SB 241 energy reporting. JT couldn't be with us today, so if you have any questions, I will do my best. What is this on? This is the Senate Bill 241 local government energy reporting update. We're required to report annually about our energy usage. We saw a 3.6% reduction between 2019 and 2021 calendar year, with a 14% reduction in buildings. Catherine, I did see that there was an agreement to reduce it by 5%. The goal that the state sets is 5% annually for, it's usually a five-year term, to try to get that 25%. The reporting for the state is somewhat imperfect in that there's no weatherization normalization included with it, and there's no accounting for new buildings coming online, buildings going off, so 5% is the goal. We've met the 5% some years, we don't some years. Is there any repercussions for not meeting it, or is it just we just try harder next time? No. No repercussions for not meeting it. They did make a big push over the last few years to get everybody reporting, because most people weren't even reporting. We've been doing it since it started way back in the old days, but this is I think the fourth iteration of the Senate bill to do that. Adam, and then Brian. Quick question, it's okay if you don't know it, it says this is a response to being a non-attainment area. I read that to mean air quality. Correct. It's only for jurisdictions that are located within non-attainment areas of the state. Why? It seems like a non sequitur to me to say you're in a non-attainment area and then target the electricity sector when that's not driving our primary non-compliance with air quality, I would say. It would be better if they said you should have a 5% reduction in vehicle traffic, wouldn't it? Or am I misunderstanding the cause and effect of this? That would make sense. This is just how the state decided to tackle building energy usage. It was noted that the 14% decrease in building electricity use, it was kind of noted that that might have been due to COVID. Can you account why the 70% increase in street and traffic lights might have occurred? The street traffic is a very small portion, so the 70% doesn't account for a very many kilowatt hours, but mostly that was new installations of lights and then re-identifying some from the other sector as street or traffic lights. Ed? Yeah, I was just curious as to whether or not the increased number of solar systems in the city, photovoltaic systems, were taken into account in this reduction. No, this is only for municipal consumption, so only municipal facilities are tracked with this report. Okay, well the only way I was making that connection was there seemed to be some sort of relationship with this, with the electricity put back into the grid from residential and commercial installations, and if, how, I don't see how that could have, how that could possibly maybe influence the volume of electricity that's either being consumed or saved. Does that make sense? I understand where you're going with that, it does, this report doesn't take into account that we are 100% renewable either, so it's strictly the usage for our facilities in trying to reduce the usage. So I would think that if the municipal buildings had solar on them, right, then it would account for that if it was direct with the municipal buildings. Right. Yeah. We would see the demand for the kilowatt hour reduction there. So this is strictly municipal operations. Yeah. Yes, sir. Mr. Stevens? Yes. Back to the streetlights. Yes. Is there any way to extrapolate out new lights in comparison to the base period of 2019? Is there any way to determine if the initiatives that were put in place in 2019 to reduce the kilowatt usage, was that effective at all, because looking at it like this with the 71% increase, it could skew the overall bottom numbers if progress has been made. So for example, the 3.6% that we're looking at as the achievement could possibly be higher if we were able to separate the lights from the measured lights that established the 2019 data. Does that make sense? It does. And we do have the total count of streetlights and traffic signals. And as we change out to LED lights, we may be adding more lights, but they aren't using as much energy. So there's some trade-offs there, so we can look at the counts year over year and see what that looks like. We've been using primarily LED traffic signals for many years. So I think a little bit of this could be some of those areas where Coast Guard and THU are coming in with lighting, and we may not have as much direct control over what they're installing, because we also have to account for those that are within our city limits. But we can get the count of the streetlights, and we can look at that. This seems like it'll improve what we're targeting to get to if we had relative data to look at. The usage on the lights, the streetlights and the traffic signals is still low. Most of them are not metered, they're just assigned a value annually, because there's not enough consumption to go out and have the meter and read it every month. So we just get a count and an average. A last question on the lights, because that's a good point, thank you for pointing that. On the streetlights, is that also neighborhood residential or is it just main streets? It's all. All of them. So some of that could account for a lot of the growth that we've seen all through the city. Okay. All right. Thank you. Everybody okay on this item? Good? Okay. All right. So we will move on to, we're going to go ahead and talk about the Matrix. We missed the Matrix last night, so we have a pretty full Matrix here. Got some presentations put that we're going to plan on for March. A couple that we'll take care of today. Parks will be coming back probably in May after the growing season to talk about IPM and then we'll probably bring the Urban Forester back at the same time. I like that kind of view, park centric meeting. Okay. And since we have this here, if there's anything we want to add to the Matrix, we could go ahead and talk about that today at this point. Talk about it right now? Okay. Yeah, we can talk about it right now. Okay. Has everybody had a chance to review the Matrix and Adam? This isn't an addition, but maybe just a contextual point on the update climate action plan I see on here. It would be, I think it would be really good if that could happen in the context of the 2040 plan. I think it's really important to think about how all these plans are integrating, mobility plan and all of this. I don't know, that's not a new item. It's just to say it'd be neat if that conversation could be self-consciously set in that context. I think that might be the most useful for city council. Okay. Ed? Pardon me. Yeah, along the same lines, I would like to see more information about what the committee is doing and what the city is doing in terms of net zero by 2050 on the Simply Sustainable webpage. There's really not much information there about what's going on with climate change. I also think a simple tutorial on that website as to what climate change is and what can be done about it would be advantageous. Seeing as how we discussed earlier how important the educational aspect of this is so that the public understands what the city is doing. I think the debt and sustainable schools, it's either a Facebook page or webpage. The schools should mention their solar installations. They should mention their non-diesel propane fuel bus fleet, and they as well should have an explanation of climate change. I second Adam's idea of coordination and inter-departmental communications regarding what we're doing and plugging that in with current plan drafts such as the 2040, which makes absolutely no mention of net zero by 2050. When the Parks Department was working on the IPM, we used Austin's plan as a template and worked on putting the plan together for Denton. Our philosophy being we're going to make it better than Austin's. And I would suggest perhaps a similar approach with some of these educational initiatives that I was just talking about. Check out the Austin sustainability page, which I'm sure you have. The public outreach is absolutely remarkable. So I'd like to see discussion and action on that very near future. Thank you. So, Katherine, let me simple about what I think I just heard. Maybe on the matrix of presentation on the sustainability and sustainable schools website for us, and then that way we can have a meeting and all of us, we can all give you ideas on public outreach, how we think it should change and maybe be better. So website updates. Website update and public outreach. Is that good, Ed, for that item? Yeah, I mean, I would think that it could probably be something done in a very timely manner because there are certainly models out there that we can learn from. In addition, I'd like to request a review of our current development code as it relates to our parking minimums as well as on-street parking. And then just a point of clarification. I'm not sure how much it matters, but I believe that I had requested the item on here under the tree code update, Ed, if you can remember correctly. I'm not sure how much, so that's a stickler. So the last item? Yes, I believe so, if I'm remembering from December correctly. Okay. Yeah, so I thought at one time we were going to get a full kind of update brought about the sustainability codes or how that can be intertwined. So that would be a good place to put that and make sure we have the parking minimums. I think there's a section here for blood covers and then tree codes. So there's a lot of code discussions that we can have on how that integrates with sustainability. I don't know if you want to do those individually or if we just want to have an overall development. It might be best served if I have an overall discussion with someone from Scott's group. Maybe even get Scott in over. Okay. Anyone else want to add to or see something you want to expand on? Could we potentially add things at the end of our discussion today if other things come up? Let's go ahead, since we have this item open now, we'll go ahead and add things to the matrix. And we could table this and then bring it back if things come up? Through the meeting? Okay. All right. So we will do that. We will table this. And if something comes up through the meeting, we can reopen the item and add to the matrix at the end of the meeting. Sounds good. Thank you for that, Catherine. We'll go ahead and move on to item C, receive an update, hold a discussion about the status of the landfill gas project. Brian, welcome. Thank you very much. For those of you who do not know me or we haven't seen each other in a while, my name is Brian Berner. I am the solid waste director for the city of Hennepin. And I do appreciate the opportunity to come and talk a little bit about our landfill as well as our landfill gas collection system and the exciting project that we're working on right now. So just a little bit of education on the front end before we talk about the project on the back end here. City of Denton has had a landfill at the 1527 South Mayhill site since about 1980. Yes, ma'am? Do you have a presentation? I do not. We're just going to talk a little bit. And part of it has to do with the fact that we're still in negotiation with the company. Okay. And there's some things that we can talk about here, but I don't need to have, you know. Can we click on the agenda sheet so that is online so that individuals who are watching this can see? Just have that on their screen. Thank you. You're welcome. So, okay. As I stated earlier, the landfill that we currently have at 1527 South Mayhill, we're collecting garbage for residents and commercial customers as well as outside waste in about 1980. And we operate as a regional landfill, so we've never been for the exclusive use for the City of Denton. We recognize that while we're there to serve the citizens of Denton, the resident or the outside waste sort of acts as a little bit of a seed corn. It provides us with some buffer and some rate reduction in helping us to operate the facility. Originally, the original footprint was about 25 acres. We've expanded the landfill twice. The first time with permit 1590B, which took us from 25 acres to about 154 acres of actual fill space, not including the aerial height. And then here last August, we were awarded a permit through the TCEQ under 1590B, so the second modification permit, for our total lateral space to be about 258 acres. Again, this takes our life of the total disposal capacity right now at our current waste amount that we're taking in about anywhere from about 50 to 60 years at our current volume and current recycling rates and things of that nature. We are probably one of the top five growing areas in the region. The DFW landfill waste management facility was in Louisville shut down fully about eight months ago, and we are seeing a tremendous amount of waste coming into our facility. So again, as part of our comprehensive solid waste management strategy, we're going to be working to put into effect different programs that will help us increase diversion, decrease the amount of material that's going in. And while that's superfluous to what we're talking about, it's directly related to what we're talking about here too. So again, we've got to recognize that we've got a lot of moving parts recognizing what we're doing here at the facility. When we talk about landfill gas, it's not something that we put in the landfill, but it results from the things that we put in the landfill. Basically, the landfill, somebody described to me one time as a big compost pile, for lack of a better term. We put organic materials in there, and through an anaerobic digestion process, we get methane, we get a little bit of CO2, oxygen, nitrogen, what's called balanced gas, and then some other gases along with it. So about 50% of what we get is methane, and 50% is this other stuff. When we talk about the organic material, it's the residential trash that's in our carts at the curb side. So anything that we get that can rot that goes in there, yard waste that may not be diverted, construction demolition debris that may be able to decay. So things like wood, paper backing on sheetrock, just any of that material that goes in there, that can decay, and that is really what contributes to the management and the production of the landfill gas. We are required by federal and state law to manage this gas. We can't just let it vent to the atmosphere. First and foremost, it's not prudent, but secondarily, it actually has a benefit if you manage it correctly. In our permit, volume four, it requires us to create what's called a landfill gas collection and control system. So currently we have about 150 wells in the existing landfill, all connected by laterals. The landfill gas is collected under vacuum, and then currently right now we are flaring the gas to the atmosphere. By flaring the gas, it's the least emission intensive way to manage that gas for the complete destruction of the methane. We're required to monitor. So right now we have 22 probes that surround the existing landfill. As we go into the new permitted area, we're going to add approximately, let's see, 13, 14 more, so that we monitor these on a quarterly basis. We're required to keep the methane levels down below five percent. Most of the time they read zero. Sometimes they peak at one or two, but most of the time they're non-detectable in these areas. Also, as we expand the landfill, some of the existing probes and wells that are in our growth area will be removed and we'll put in additional wells to ensure that we completely encompass and surround the landfills, so we know what's happening upstream, downstream. We know if there's problems and we can respond accordingly. Brian, you just said we're going to add 13 to 14 more. Did you mean more wells or more flaring in your statement just a minute ago? No probes to monitor. Currently we have one flare and it is sized to manage the existing landfill. As we move into the new part that we've permitted, we may or may not be required to source an additional flare, and that has to go back to the project. I hate to bait you that way, but give me just a minute to get to that point. We are required to maintain this gas collection control system throughout the entire life of the site, and actually our permit requires us to maintain it and monitor it 30 years beyond the point that we close it down. Reason being is if you look at the growth curves and the way that natural gas or the landfill gas is produced, it takes about 30 years for it to actually start producing significant amounts of gas due to the anaerobic digestion process. It's without air, so it moves a whole lot slower, and basically we maximize the amount of material we put in at some point, and then as we trail off, we still have to account for that gas that continues to be produced from the material we put in there after we close down. So it may be 30 years, but again we have to have assurances from the state, from the TCEQ, that we've reached a level that we're no longer producing gas so we can shut the system down. See, 30 years plus 50 years, that's at least 80 years. I'm not going to be around at that time. If any of y'all are, y'all can check on the system. I'd appreciate that. I'm not going to be anywhere, I'm not going to be walking face to face the earth in 80 years. Anyway, there's a lot better things that we can do with this landfill gas than just burn it. In 2008, we entered into a partnership with a company called DTE, where we actually set a generation unit out there. A big 12-cylinder cat engine looked up to a gen set, spun it up, and was producing what was called renewable energy, renewable electricity for about 1,500 homes in the city of Dent. When that started, that's when natural gas, if y'all may remember, was about $10, $12 an MCF. It was very expensive and it made a whole lot of sense. As natural gas prices dropped, it actually became the highest price point of electricity in the city of Dent's portfolio. As such, it was costing city of Denton ratepayers in excess of about a million dollars a year just to run that and produce energy from that plant. As a result, in 2002, DNE actually bought the DTE plant and shut it down, which is why we're required to burn all the gas now under a mitigation plan. But recognizing that there are better ways to manage that material. What we've decided to do, we actually had a consultant come in, look at our generation, look at our different options, and we're currently in the process of negotiating with the company to come in and create what's called high BTU gas. As I stated earlier, landfill gas is about 50% methane. When you look at what Atmos has flowing in their line, it's about 99.98% methane. So what we're proposing to do is actually take the landfill gas plus gases generated from our wastewater treatment plant, the concrete facilities, anaerobic digesters, pull that gas off and actually treat it and concentrate it down to pipeline grade, removing the balanced gas, removing the oxygen, removing other things that you don't want in the natural gas, and feeding it to the local Atmos lines and basically providing additional sources of gas for people to use in their homes and businesses here in the City of Dent. Once that molecule gets into the pipeline, it's really no different than any other molecule of gas that's flowing up and down that pipeline. Benefit to the City of Dent, first and foremost, we're not flaring it. Ideally, any time we've got the flare running, it means it's dollars out of our pocket, it's dollars out of our contractor's pocket. So it shuts the flare down immediately, puts all that natural gas into the pipeline, and it's used to create hot water, to cook, and then to do the other things that need to happen. Additionally, there are green energy credits to what's called RINs and RECs that will actually pay us to manage this gas in such a way that it doesn't have to be produced at a natural gas wellhead. So again, it becomes a cleaner and greener option to provide natural gas into the system. As I said earlier, we are currently negotiating with a third-party contractor to come in and construct and operate this plant. We've prepared the RFP, we've talked with the company, we actually had four respondents step up and want to do this for the City of Dent. So we've selected the highest and best value consultant that we feel will bring benefit to the City of Dent. What we're hoping to do is within the next 90 days actually come before the PEB and the Council with a contract to memorialize this contract and the pricing structure. Following the acceptance of the contract, we'll spend the next 12 to 18 months permitting, designing, constructing, getting the pipeline to induct it into the Atmos facility, designing where the most appropriate place is. And then in 18 months have that facility up and running and actually benefit in producing what's called renewable natural gas into the system. So again, it's an exciting process, it's an exciting project that's on the ground. There's considerable economic benefit to the City of Dent. We're looking forward to helping not only support some rate relief for our customers, solid waste customers with it, but also help fund some of the exciting programs we're planning on implementing as a result of our comprehensive solid waste management strategy. So with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have about our natural gas system or the solid waste system in general. Well, I have a few comments. Anybody else want to give up? We'll just start. Do you have one? No. Okay. Adam? Forgive me if I missed this. What percent would you say of material that goes in landfill is organic that decays and produces this gas? That's a really good question. We're currently trying to figure out exactly what that number is. As part of the development of our style comprehensive solid waste management strategy, we did do a couple of waste characterization. So we took basically your garbage bin off and we went through it and weighed things out. Currently about 45% of what's thrown away is considered organic material. So it's food waste, it's yard waste, it's wood, things of that nature. So again, there's significant opportunities in not only the residential but in the commercial sector to divert additional organic material out of the landfill. And it's probably one of our biggest and little hanging fruit from an impact standpoint and diversionary standpoint. Can I follow up on that? That's where I was going with this. Let's say we get operational with this and we're making renewable natural gas, which is a beneficial thing. How do you weigh that benefit against the benefit of diverting this out of the landfill and doing something else with it? In other words, you say to people in Denton, should you put your compostables in the brown bin or just chuck it in the green one because we're making gas out of it? Well, and we win from both sides. But at the end of the day, when you look at best practices that are across the nation, across the world, regardless of what you're doing in the city of Denton, we would only be able to divert probably 73% of that 45% because the rest is things that are adhering or absorbed into other paper or other options. So there will always be an organic sector going in. So we may flatten that curve a little earlier than we thought we would, but we will always have organic material. And again, we've had the landfill here since 1980. So we're really only realizing the gas from the material that we put in there in about 1990, 1995. So we still have 20 years of stuff we've been putting in there before we realized that gas. So we're kind of chasing our tail. We're lagging from the gas production standpoint. So we're well within our contract defined terms, our ability to sell gas and to use this. So by starting to divert that organic material now, it will have minimal impact on what this renewable energy plant, high BTU plant, will produce for the city of Denton. Thank you. Go ahead. From a cost perspective, you mentioned that it has cost benefit to the city. Correct. Which could look like consumer reduction in their energy fields. In their solid waste rates. Solid waste rates. Correct. Okay. That leads into my question even deeper. The amount of the projected amount of gas that will be put into at most as an example. Have you calculated out what that dollar benefit would look like coming back to us? I know I'm probably stretching it somewhat, but with the annual cost of inflation, cost of operations, will there come a point where their net gain will be gone away and we end up with another million dollar cost to operate that system? Does that make sense? That is a very fair question and that was the first question we always asked going through this. At what point in time is the city actually on the hook for paying something versus receiving it? Correct. And I can't share the prospectus with you right now because again we're still in contract negotiations and that's still going back and forth. But based on our calculations, we're still net positive, including inflation and growth and everything else for at least the next 20 years. Thank you. Did you have any questions? Yeah, I'm sort of conflicted about this from a long range point, I guess you could say, rather than short range. Whether methane is fossil, methane, or whether it's renewable, it still has the global warming capacity, I assume. Is that correct? Yes. Okay, so we know that methane leakage is a huge problem. We're underestimated and new reports have come out, I'm sure you're aware of, that show massive methane leakage and how this is really reducing our chances to get climate change under control before it's too late. Well, I don't understand in that respect, and just reading now about the health hazards of combustion of methane, ethanol, gas, whatever, in stoves. And I'm sure you're aware of these reports that are coming out too. And I assume that you're aware of the movement in many cities to revamp their building codes to keep natural gas connections out of new buildings. And there are now grants available to retrofit existing gas heated buildings with electric heat pumps, et cetera, et cetera. So I guess what I'm getting to is, does this really fit in with a net zero 2050 plan, and it just seems like a very limited investment, meaning the time that it's going to have to make money to the city. In that we know that it's a system that needs to change for the benefit of the future. And I have, like I say, conflicting feelings about this because in one way I can see it's a benefit to the city financially. We're not flaring anymore, yet we are prolonging a system that needs to change. There's no question about that. We've got to do whatever we can to stop using methane except for essential purposes. And in an area like this where we have so many options available to us, other things we can explore, which I don't know if you've explored yet, and that's one of my questions. Instead of just jumping into this and making it sound like it's a done deal, I think we need to examine it more. I think we need to look at it at a comprehensive waste management plan. Is that plan finished? We're in the final stages. There is an actual presentation of PUB and Council on Monday and Tuesday regarding our final goals and metrics we'll be using. And then we'll be buttoning it up and then starting the development of the administrative portion and then the implementation plan for the different projects. I assume then that what you're talking about with this methane plan is something that is recommended in the waste management plan? Regardless of whether it's recommended or not, it's required. If you have a type 1 landfill and state attaches, you are producing methane. And your permit from a federal standpoint requires you to manage it. So we're going to have methane and we either burn it, run it in an engine, or we put it in a pipeline. That's really our three options that then we have to manage it. So again, it's not an either/or or we can just turn a key and we're not going to produce methane anymore. We have it and we have to manage it. Long term, I think that I understand and appreciate the fact that we're moving towards electrification. But we still have a large amount of housing stock plus industrial sources in the city of Denton that will be using methane for quite a while. If we can locally provide that methane, we're not looking at transporting at long distances. We're not looking at fresh fossil fuel sources. It's a beneficial piece that helps us get to this point. Until we can get everybody converted over at some point in time that we're not needed anymore, then we can start flaring again. Hopefully we're on the downside of the curve at that point. Through partnerships with local universities and other innovators, we can figure out other alternatives, things to do with methane. But right now, heat and combustion is really the big thing that we can do with methane. Have you thought about expanding the aerobic composting? Not the anaerobic, but the regular composting program? We have. With food waste and methane producing materials. We're looking at that also as part of the whole comprehensive management strategy. Part of our issue with doing just regular composting and windrowing is that we're space restricted. So we're going to maximize that, looking at doing some anaerobic also to help make that process just a little bit quicker. But again, with the anaerobic digesters, you still get methane on the back end. There's also studies out there right now that if you're not maintaining your windrows correctly, you actually have significant methane emissions from a traditional aerobic type of composting facility. There's a lot of moving variables, and we're looking at this from a holistic standpoint. We're trying to keep an open mind and look at these things from a cost benefit standpoint, recognizing sustainability is an important part of that. Okay, I know at some point, I was just looking at here, I had asked for a further report on a plan of composting for the city. I think that's when you were sitting on the PUB that you had asked for something like that, and we were including that in the carbon subliminal strategy. Okay, well those are my feelings about it, and I understand where you're coming from, and I just feel that it's a very short sighted decision. And I have a problem with short term solutions for long term problems. I really don't think that the long term is being looked at here. I'm not saying that what you're doing is wrong or anything, I just feel like there needs to be more looking at this. Thank you. Hi, so I have been taking some notes, so bear with me while I try to go back through them. One, you said there's the three options, and since this is the Sustainability Framework Committee, our concern is environment and emissions. So have we looked at, I know one of the reasons we went from the electricity to flaring is because we were told that it would capture more methane and reduce those greenhouse emissions because of the energy that we were using was that the machine was old and there was leakage and stuff, so we made that choice. It wasn't the methane, we were still having complete methane destruction with the engine and the flare or the flare. The issue is with the flare, we don't have any NOx emissions. With the engine we were running, we were having significant NOx emissions, which again is the, I forget the exact term, but again it directly impacts our non-attainment. So again, by removing the engine offline, we actually improved our air quality suit for lack of a better term. Piggybacking on that, moving to this new gas capture, does it do the same thing as burning? Because what I want to see is the data that this is going to not only be financial, but be better for our environment in a way that it helps our air quality, since we're in non-attainment. Can you, I think that's what this committee would like to see, everything sounds good. I know that I'd much rather not flare if we don't have to, but if moving to this new system is not going to be as good for our air quality or good for our city, then that's the kind of, if it's going to have more leakage, those are the kind of things that I'm looking to see when you come back with this. Well, and again, just quick, in talking molecule for molecule, right now we're burning everything that we're pulling out of the landfill. So again, it destroys the methane, produces water, carbon dioxide, and some other trace chemicals. When we have this plant up and running, the flare goes away, and that methane then goes to your house. Currently you're cooking anyway. You've got a hot water heater running, if you've got natural gas, okay? So what it's doing basically is, it's almost a net zero. We're not increasing any emissions on the users end, but reducing the amount of burning and emissions that are happening at the landfill through the flare. So we're seeing a reduction in what's at the flare because we're not using as much coming through the pipeline. Okay. Well, just general overall, that would be good for us to see in a presentation, that data and those emissions. For me, anyway, I'd like to see that in fracking versus this way, because there's several different ways to get gas, and renewable natural gas is what we're calling this. Correct. Which is great if it works and it is better for our environment than the way that it's currently being received. So are we going to sell it and use it? I know that when we were producing our own electricity in our pie chart, that I think it was 4% or 3% went directly to our residential usage. We were able to capture that. Is there a way when we move to this new utility that we'll be able to capture that direct benefit to the residents? Or is it just going to all go in and we just won't know? No, we'll be able to capture how much methane that we were actually putting in the pipeline, and then we'll be able to, from an economic standpoint, show what the benefit is to the rate payers in the city of Denton at that point, if that makes sense. It does, but for me, I'm an Atmos rate payer, and so I'm just confused about how that's going to translate to my electric bill. It won't. Okay. But what it will transfer to is your solid waste bill. You may pay the exact same, if you're at Atmos and you get your natural gas from Atmos, let's say your bill's $100. $100 makes the math. It's easy. It's $100. I'm just going to throw this out. A million dollars a year net from the sale of this natural gas to the city. We could actually realize potentially a dollar or two rate reduction or cost avoidance to your solid waste bill as a result of this on a monthly basis. So again, that's where you'll see the reduction is at your solid waste bill level, not at your natural gas level, because you will always pay stock spot market price on what that natural gas is that's coming to your home, regardless of whether it's renewable natural gas, regardless of where it comes from in the country. As long as it gets into that pipeline, you're paying what the spot market price is on an average basis. Now, to cure that just a little bit further, we still have a few vehicles on our fleet that run off natural gas. So we could use this gas in our fleet to power some of these natural gas vehicles, but from a value standpoint, we can actually put it in the pipeline and then pull it out 100 foot down the pipeline and buy it at a cheaper rate from a cost savings standpoint than it would be to buy it directly from before we put it into the pipeline. And that goes back to the RINs and the RECs and the green energy credits. We're getting almost 30, in today's market, close to $30 in MMBTU for every molecule that we put in or every amount that we put in. We're losing that money if we take it directly from the plant. But if we buy it in the pipeline, we're paying what the spot market price is, which is $2 or $3. So again, we're making money even though we're pulling it out almost immediately when we put it back in. So that's part of the valuation that we have to consider as we're going through the cost allocation on this. But there will be a way, because I know for us, we go by the greenhouse gas emissions that it's reported. We get that report, and solid waste is pretty high. Yes, they are. But again, as we continue to report back on this, that report is exclusive of any efforts we make to destroy those emissions. So it's just what we've produced, not what we've controlled. Again, if you put that control in there, it drops us way down to the bottom of the list. So all of this is, I just bring that up because I'd like to see how all that translates into the data that we're going to see. I think it would be very beneficial for us and the public, too, as we talk about it, how these greenhouse gases and emissions and what they are, what they were, and what they will be. It will be helpful for us to put that in a perspective. I know you have a question, but just a quick follow-up. So your statement that you just made, speaking of the statement that you just made, that we examined our municipal and community emissions really early at the start of this committee's process. Are you stating that the emission records that were in that were not reflective of what you controlled, but as you said, what you were producing? Yeah, the way that the model works is it looks at the amount of waste that it brings in. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it applies a standard reduction. You've got this much waste, this is how much methane it can or could produce. It does not take into account the controls that we have once we collect it, so the destruction that we do through the flare, through the engine, through this process. So are you stating that we were looking at perhaps not entirely comprehensive data than what you may be able to provide in a future presentation? That is correct. Excuse me, in my opinion, that is correct. Okay, so off of the question she's raised in perhaps a future presentation, could you bring us that data that's a little more reflective of what you say is actually being emitted outside of the production of what you're actually able to control? I think we could probably do that. Go ahead, Adam. I think on Keely's first question, I really appreciated that, and I thought I was going here, but we didn't get there. One of the very first things you said was that about 50% of the gas is methane and 50% is other stuff. Didn't you say that? In landfill gas, correct. Then you talked about pipeline gas being almost pure methane. Correct. What I thought we were driving at, and I think it would be good to see, is what happens to the other 50% of this stuff? Because you said the flare has gone entirely, but they don't want that in the pipeline. Correct. Where does it go? Things like the oxygen, carbon dioxide, things that can be emitted under the permit, because again, this is a permanent process. It's not just somebody coming in and setting up by the state and be allowed to do this. There will be some releases, there are potentials of carbon sequestration of some of the gas, but a lot of what we're seeing, there will be what we call scrubbing media. Again, the ballast gas or the rest of the gas will flow through. It will be absorbed onto different types of beads, and that material will react, will be neutralized, and then that will go for disposal or treatment in some way, shape, or form. There are different ways that we manage that other half of the material. That's a good point, I will say. That's a good question. Can I? Yes, please. Go ahead, Mr. President. In agreement with the -- I need to see a total comprehensive plan to in essence put our blessing on it. If we're going to advise on this, there's a lot more information that we need. And then I really would like to come alongside what Ed is saying is that how does it impact the overall master plan, greenhouse gas reduction and so forth, the 2050 plan. I'd like to see how does it integrate into that, how does it help us achieve that goal, if we can ask that. Yeah, and I think that's things that we tend to bring forward in future greenhouse gas reports to the city. We can show what we're reducing, net result of the reductions here, and just get a much bigger and more comprehensive evaluation on what the total production is. But to clarify, you watched your material before the approval of the facility, right? Yes. Well, again, part of that -- and again, we're asked to advise. The purpose of this committee is to advise the council and put our blessing on our yay or nay. Yes, I have to see that before I can agree or vote or whatever to say yay or nay. And awesome plan, it sounds like, but it sounds like I need to see it documented and presented accordingly. And then just an overall renewable gas percentage, what that would look like for our community. So like what we get now, and then you get this process started, what percent of our community's usage would now be renewable usage versus non. I think that might be something I'm interested in. Yeah, so really how much of the current pipeline gas would be supplanted by the induction of all renewable natural gas into the system. Yeah, and I think that -- are we going to -- do we need to bring this up at the end when we reopen the matrix maybe? Or is this good for now as like a direction to you? I think it's good for now. Okay, it is. I'm not even captured in the picture. Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you all very much for your time. Thank you for your time. We will move on to Item B, Receiver Report, call to discussion on the Department and Capital Project Sidewalk Work Plan with Nathan George, the City Senior Planner, Bicycle, Pedestrian, and ADA Coordinator. I don't believe we've met yet. Welcome. Thank you. Nice to meet you. No, I don't believe we've met yet. So yeah, I'm Nathan George, the City's new Mike Ped and ADA Coordinator. I sit in the Capital Projects Division. I heard you guys wanted to hear a little bit more about where I am and what I do because you've seen several different iterations of the position that I hold over the years. So I'll be happy to entertain any questions you have towards the end. I guess I can give a brief introduction of myself. So I joined the city in July of last year. I come from the Washington, D.C. area, previously working in consulting roles. So I had been doing similar work, bike ped and ADA type work, with a consulting firm based out of Baltimore and doing a lot of designing facilities and supporting communities like the City of Denton with implementing those facilities, either through planning or design phases, helping them get funding for those outside funding opportunities to accelerate programs. So I did a lot of the same kind of work that I'm doing here today. I just happen to now be admitted as a staff member at the City of Denton and looking forward to continuing to do the work that I have been doing the last seven months and delivering projects. And hopefully you'll start to see some of my work in the ground very soon. Are you familiar with our sustainability plan? At a high level. I'm not very familiar with it yet. I have had a lot of other stuff on my plate, but I'm sure we'll take a look at it. And today I'm here to talk with you about the sidewalk work plan. So this is one of, I'll call it one of our capital programs. It's effectively, we have a lot of different capital programs. Some of you on this side of the room refer to the mobility plan. And then once we have those plans, we put together work plans that help us deliver those capital programs, in this case sidewalks. We have a separate program for bicycle lanes or bicycle facilities. Sometimes there's a little overlap between those bike and ped components of facilities that we implement around the city. And then of course we have a lot of other programs that you see like waterline projects down by the gray. There's a lot of other work the capital projects does. So I'm going to walk you through the sidewalk work plan. This is basically, it's a presentation that I've given now. I think this is the fifth time to different various bodies, council, mobility committee, and so forth. So I'll give you the presentation. It'll be a little bit different because we were presenting this more as a guiding sort of framework to help reshape how we're going to deliver sidewalk projects under our work plan. So you'll see a little bit of that background and a little bit of information about how we're going to deliver the projects moving forward. And the next critical step is to take a lot of this information out to the public and start talking about specific projects because this information is helpful background information. But we still have to put a lot of additional application in place to use the information. So I'll walk you through the presentation. Hyperlink was included in AIS or the agenda information sheet. So anybody who wants to can go and take a look at this on. It's actually hosted online. So all the information that I'm presenting today is available for members of the committee or the public to take a look at their lecture. So the sidewalk work plan is a plan that helps us guide where we're going to make sidewalk investments. The most important acknowledgement here is that pedestrians really do enjoy walking on a sidewalk. They tend to not like walking in the street with cars or with big trucks. So it's just an important acknowledgement that people really enjoy walking. It's something we saw a lot of emphasis on as COVID emerged, stay at home orders were in place, people walked out the front doors and found out they were living in unwalkable communities. So it really is a facility that makes your neighborhood an enjoyable place to walk as opposed to, say, a street that doesn't have sidewalks. And I'll get into some caveats on that in a minute. Our future is guided by that mobility plan, or at least I would say it was. Now, I would say this process is helping us get a little bit ahead of that grand vision and it provides more specific detail where we're going to provide complete streets. But the mobility plan that we're putting forward for adoption in a few weeks is really a true multimodal vision for the city. So instead of just looking at cars and the thoroughfare plan, we have a bike plan, we have a PED plan. This sidewalk work plan actually tells us how we're going to implement the PED plan. So that's why I say it's a little bit more advanced, but we do have a true multimodal vision for the city that we're working to deliver. And this is one part of that. One of the acknowledgments that we wanted to make sure everybody recognized is just that we don't own all the streets in the city. There are textile roads or state roads that we have. We don't have control over them. We can encourage the state to make changes. We can go in and make changes with their blessing, but there are streets within the city that are not -- they're not city streets. And so we made this map just to give folks an idea of where we have city streets, where we have county streets, and where the streets are textile. So there are three maps in the present -- or in this story map. I think it's not a true presentation. They're interactive maps. They allow you to turn things on and off and play with the visualization. So just to give you an idea, you can go in and search any address using the little search button on the upper left-hand corner. You can turn layers on and off if you wish to. There's a little interactive legend. So you can actually see what's a city street, what's a textile street, or what is a county roadway. It really gives anybody who's viewing this information the opportunity to look in their neighborhood, look at a specific area of interest in the city. So that's why we're not doing a PowerPoint presentation today. We're facilitating using this medium. So just to highlight a few of those features. Yeah, this thing is a little glitchy sometimes. I gotta make sure it loads up correctly. So to inform development of the sidewalk park plan, when I came on board, we really started with a lot of robust data information that came out of our ADA transition plan. So the ADA transition plan, the core of that plan is really to look at our existing assets and their condition. Fortunately, our consultant also collected data on where we were missing sidewalks. So we were able to use the information from the ADA transition plan not only to see conditions of existing sidewalks, ramps, any conflicts that we had in those facilities, but we can also see where they're missing and then start to analyze all of that information on a citywide basis. A lot of communities I work with don't have that much information, so it's actually really helpful to have all that information. I did all the analysis myself, so to have it all at my disposal to run that analysis was really great. I'll walk you through kind of how all that came together. So to help us identify where to make sidewalk investments, historically the city has used a process that is called a pedestrian potential index. That pedestrian potential index is really looking at, you know, we need a lot of sidewalks. When you look at a citywide basis, where are the sidewalks going to be used if we make those investments? Sometimes it's pretty easy to go out and make an investment where it doesn't pair well with where the users are located. So it's really important for us to leverage data to understand where those dollars are going to translate to payment under people's feet. So this pedestrian potential index is a way that we can assess that potential to meet needs where they are located. So historically that had been a bit more of a focused effort. I see needs. I see a ghost path or a worn path on the side of the road. And it was less data driven and more driven by just a process of visual identification, if you will. The process I'm presenting to you today was more of a data analysis. So it's driven by different metrics. I'll walk you through the metrics that feed into the resulting paths. There are some limitations to that and we'll get into that a little bit later. So basically what we did at a citywide level is analyzed every sidewalk segment that's missing and gave it a point for each of these criteria. To summarize all the points, you get a PPI score or a pedestrian potential index. First is major streets. Major streets are the roads that connect most places most directly. They tend to be the easiest way for a pedestrian to make their trip because local streets might discontinue at the end of a project. They may not connect through. It's called a SACS or something like that. So major streets tend to be a very direct way for a pedestrian to get from point A to point B. So each of those were given a point. There are some ways that we could play with that data to further refine it. But for this level of analysis, we just gave each of what we call our thoroughfare or collector and arterial streets a point. Another category is schools. Schools represent an area where pedestrian activity tends to be very high. Students can't drive themselves until they get to be a certain age. So they're a very good user type to try and support. There are also a lot of funding programs that are driven around supporting that walkability around schools. So that's an important acknowledgement as well. Government facilities. We have a duty from an ADA perspective to make sure that our facilities are accessible. There are also places that our customers as a city need to get to. So each one of those locations is a potential generator or tractor of pedestrian trips. We need to make sure that they're accessible. So we gave a point to each of those. That's like the building we're sitting in right now. But it's also things like libraries and parks and other park trails, buildings like that. So those are all considered government facilities for the sake of this exercise. And then points of interest is all that other stuff that people might walk to. So this is restaurants, shopping, maybe going to the doctor's office or the dentist. So places that people might need to get to by foot. Maybe it's a place that's more based on the need to get from a transit stop to that essential service. So we have a lot of information about where all these sort of central business district areas are located. And that helps us hone in on where there's a lot of activity that's going to drive those pedestrian trips. And then the last point is just safety. So when we see pedestrian crashes, it doesn't mean that there is a missing facility necessarily. That's a good indication that in some proximity of where that crash occurred, something's not working right. And so giving a point to some proximity helps us focus that we have pedestrian activity. We need to take a look at what's not working in that area and try to correct it. So those are the five characteristics that we looked at. Somewhere around a quarter mile of spacing in general had to play with the numbers. So like trails, if you do a quarter mile, it covers the whole city. With very few exceptions, it covers the entire city. So some of it was a little tighter, but the majority, that's a quarter mile spacing of each of those points. And then apply from a geospatial analysis to identify all the segments, add up all the points, and we get a PPI score. So I'm going to show you two maps. The first map is going to be what our existing sidewalk projects are. And these were identified with the old system of more of that manual look at where we need to invest in sidewalks. The second map will display the results of that PPI evaluation. So we wanted to make sure that nobody lost sight of the fact that we do have an existing sidewalk program in the city. It has been informed by staff evaluation of where needs were located. The sidewalks are under construction in a variety of places. Some of the sidewalks that show up on this map have actually been completed. And then we broke them out by year, which is the approximate year that each sidewalk segment would be completed. Just to show, here's where you might see a sidewalk under construction in the city. I can tell you right now that we have some medical parkway or medical center drive. I forget the exact name here, but Med Park Drive. These sidewalks were just completed a week or two ago. So these are projects that are actively ongoing throughout the city. You can take a look and see where they are. There are also projects listed in here that will deliver sidewalks out of our other capital programs. So that's road projects like rebuilding Hickory Street, the main L extension, the new bridge that will go over the DCETA line. So sidewalk projects may be delivered standalone independent of other projects. So they may be a component of a larger project as well. That's an important acknowledgement. So here's the PPI score map. It might take a minute to load. I'm trying to pre-seat it before we start talking. The main point of going through a PPI analysis, from my perspective especially, is that it's really important to see where those hot spots are. And I'll show you in a minute how all the data parsed out. But what's really helpful is when you can see the needs based on where we have the highest density of users and where we have the greatest potential for users, it's also good to see some dispersion. So we don't want to see all of our highest scores being just in downtown, just around a certain place. We want to see it spread out because that helps us recognize that the evaluation didn't point us to a preconceived idea. I want to make sure that downtown is the highest ranked. So I made sure that all of my factors that I put into that evaluation favor downtown and that I get that result. We saw a pretty good spread of where those highest ranks are because it's based on all those factors that I said, like government facilities and things. The parks and the schools and things like that really did spread the results around the city. So that's really good from my perspective. A few acknowledgments here. The PPI of one is every missing sidewalk at one point. So in addition to those factors that I said, we also apply the point. So no sidewalk in our ranking receives a PPI of zero. The zero is existing. If it doesn't have a point, it's an existing sidewalk. Otherwise, we have these reds and purples that are our higher scores. And then you get into the yellows and oranges, and as you get down lower and lower, those scores start to look more like a radar map. They're not as significant. And then our existing sidewalk projects are shown in the green solid line. So how this information will be used is we have to look at where those highest ranks are and start to identify potential projects, take that information to the public, because it's really important as we, as cabinet projects, are delivering projects, going through the planning, design, and then actual construction process that we're communicating at a tent. That's a necessary step to make sure that we go, just like we have to go through and clear all our design, we have to make sure that the public is aware that we're about to show up and do work. So the next step with this information that you see is that we'll have to identify the next round of projects, go through a public process to indicate where we intend to do that work, identify any constraints, make sure that we have put together a fiscal plan that's responsible and that we can deliver within the available budget. And that's how we use this information. All right, so walk through what's next and then let you guys ask any questions that you might have. So like I said, the first step is just project selection. So we have to identify what makes the most sense, and we're looking at that from a network connectivity perspective. We might see that our highest PPI scores are important, but we see a few 2s and 3s that would make a connection to an existing sidewalk. So we have to look at that very practically to make appropriate recommendations at a network basis. People want to walk, they don't want to find the sidewalk stops 100 feet from the intersection. So we have to think about the recommendations that we're making from a project basis. Once we've identified those segments that we want to build, we still have to go through that feasibility process. We need to look at what are the opportunities and constraints along that proposed sidewalk section. There might be utilities, could be trees. Trees is a very important conversation. I've had several times this week actually about tree removals, so we're looking very carefully at when we put in a sidewalk, what would the impacts be, what alternatives might we need to assume in that design to make sure that we limit impacts to adjacent property owners, utilities, trees, whatever the potential impacts may be. This picture is on Carroll Boulevard. I can think of a few streets that are more important to have sidewalk projects on than Carroll, but none of them. So that's just an important acknowledgement. Another part of that process is stakeholder engagement. So like I said, we've taken this presentation to a handful of our committees. We're going to see you guys today. Making sure that we're receiving that input, making sure that this approach is comprehensive and that it's informed by the majority of the city. And a big part of that was making sure that we have spoken with the committee on persons with disabilities because ensuring equal access and that these improvements are designed appropriately is an important part of that process. So we're going to make that acknowledgement as well. Once we've gone through all of that background to identify the projects and tee them up and make sure we understand a feasible design, we still have to do the design before we get into construction. So that was just a quick acknowledgement of what that would look like. Quick summary. So like I said, so if I isolate that, the result of the PPI evaluation, what I wanted to see in this data was that as you go from that highest rank to the lowest rank, you see some graduation in the results. So you wouldn't want to see equal distribution where your PPI 1 and your PPI 6 are equal numbers. You want to see that number gradually get bigger until you get to the lowest rank and that was the outcome of this evaluation. So our PPI 6 is only a half mile of missing sidewalk and then PPI 5 goes to about five miles. So as those numbers get bigger, the rank gets lower. That means we've got manageable amounts of high PPI to low PPI. So as we start to make those improvements and then rerun this evaluation, hopefully those numbers will stay sort of distributed like this. So it's manageable and we're making those investments where they're needed the most. So that was a good outcome. I was afraid it wouldn't turn out that way, but it actually did. That was great. And then the last step before I turn it over to you all for discussion and questions is just community engagement. So it's not uncontentious to make recommendations where to put sidewalks and how we're going to build those sidewalks. So it's really important that out of any process, sidewalks, bike lanes, building a new road, that we engage with the community, engage with our stakeholders. And we have a discussed end page that's linked here. And on that discussed end page, folks can ask questions, they can make recommendations, they can seek any clarity that they need. But like I mentioned, a part of this process is that we have to identify the next round of projects and then get them out front of the public so they can see where we plan to work next. Our projects are outlined from 2021 to 2024, give or take. So we're talking the next round of projects will be 2025 and later. So that'll be an upcoming process that we'll go through as we identify that next round of projects. And anybody who wants more information, they can go to Discuss Denton and communicate with us there or they can see this presentation. And with that, I will stop talking and let you guys ask questions. Do you have questions? Go ahead. Yeah, so I noticed my road is in there and we're at PP level one. And I know that there's been a bunch of people in my neighborhood who have talked about issues on my road and the need for sidewalks. And so I just wonder how you weigh if there's like a neighborhood that's asking for sidewalks versus your rankings and how you make those determinations. Yeah, because there's some subjectivity in this point of interest is how you're defining a point of interest. But neighbors might define something else as a point of interest that you're not capturing. Right. Exactly. And I would say that this is one way of taking data, evaluating it, and making recommendations. It's not project recommendations. So there's, like you said, subjectivity to how we would apply the results of that evaluation. I'd say we were not preparing this evaluation with the intent of deprioritizing anywhere. We prepared it with the intent of identifying where the highest priorities are, because, you know, if I have a community requesting a sidewalk in an area with a low potential for pedestrian activity and I've got people walking in a worn grass path on the side of a major roadway, this data suggests that I need to make the investment where I've got a lot of people in a worn grass path on the side of a busy roadway before I make the investment in a neighborhood. The folks who would make the decision whether we need to invest in that neighborhood above somewhere else are department heads or my bosses or politically elected or appointed folks who would identify a different priority. So we're going to make decisions based on that data-driven process and working with the public. But we may not say we're going to go and we're not going to necessarily recommend a sidewalk improvement in a neighborhood where there's not a park or a school or some other asset that would drive that need, if that answers your question. Sort of, but it's still, I mean, like, we live near a school, but it's a university. We live near a park, but it's part of the university. So to me, I could see where you're not capturing certain things based on the route that you might be using. The thing in the school maybe has something else. We live in an street that doesn't have actually an area where you can walk on and tread a trail. So you have to walk on the street. So you wouldn't be able to see that. Yeah, that was a limitation. I expressed this to other staff as I was working on the evaluation, that we can't evaluate worn paths because I'd have to run some kind of, take the aerials and run a raster analysis to identify what a worn path is. So that is a factor that was considered previously that we can't do from a data-driven perspective to identify where there's that kind of demand or evidence of demand, if you will. But yeah, there are other metrics that could be used. I mentioned I would acknowledge one that I forgot to circle back to, but transit is one that is not included in this evaluation. Key reason with that being DCTA last year was still in the process of making their recommendations of how they would address transit. So we didn't have an understanding of what transit looked like in the city at that time. We do now, but it's still unclear what DCTA's plan is. So that's another limitation of this evaluation is we don't have a full understanding of what that's going to be. To me it's a little dissatisfying to hear that we'll run this whole plan, but if a neighborhood has an issue, they shouldn't come talk to us, they should go talk to their councilman. Oh no, you can absolutely talk to us. I can tell you the response from a staff perspective is going to be that we're going to first look at this data to see what it suggests. We're not ignoring the universities because as the bike, pet, and ADA coordinator for the city, my primary focus, and I've been very clear about this from taking time that I took the job, my primary focus is UNT, TWAU, and Downtown, and it branches out from there. There are other big destinations outside of that that could potentially drive a lot of bike and pet activity, but those are the three biggest areas. If I heat map, that's my three hottest spots in the city, so I won't ever ignore those three areas. That's not to say that there aren't barriers around those three areas that might limit the opportunity for somebody to travel. We have to fix the barrier, like a major street crossing or something like that, or I-35. We might have to figure out how to cross a major barrier with a very costly project before we look on the other side of the barrier. That's another way we have to look at things. The purpose of this Discuss Denton page is to have those conversations, to understand where there is demand. There's also our broader capital projects. There are streets that are not what we would call complete streets. They're missing sidewalks, or they're missing bike lanes, or they're not up to the functional classes called for in our mobility plan. Then those become separate projects where we have a handful of them that are still planned. I'll just refer to Ryan Road, because that's one that we have, a capital project that's going through at least some level of design. That's not a sidewalk project. We're going to rebuild the road, and then the sidewalk will be part of that. Teasley's Tech Stots Road, so I can use that as an example. They're putting sidewalks in, maybe not the facility we'd like. It's not what we're going to call for in the new mobility plan. That project, they would never have come in and built a sidewalk. They widened the road to six lanes and put sidewalks in. This is a discussion. It's kind of like to stimulate discussions. It's because the projects are in place, so there's going to be no new sidewalks until after 2024 in terms of what this plan might do. For those projects, yes. I'll say one of the other ways we found this information really useful is when we're looking at our projects that are still in a planning or early in design. We've been able to check, especially with ADA data. We've been able to look at our projects and see if there are high rated, high ranking sidewalks that need to be replaced or maybe poor condition sidewalks and ramps that need to be repaired. The data's actually been really helpful on the capital project side of helping identify ... I'm going to go off on a tangent for just a second. Federal government only requires us, when we do a roadway project, to repair the ramps or put in ramps that are missing. This data has helped to justify closing sidewalk gaps that are not required in a project, unless we institute a policy and we will construct those sidewalks. It's a self-imposed requirement, but we're not mandated that we have to put in the sidewalk when we widen the roadway. We only have to, or I shouldn't say widen, when we repair a roadway, when we go in and repave it. This data has helped us to close some sidewalk gaps or to make repairs based on the assessment and the conditions. That's been another really useful way that we've been able to use the data as staff. It doesn't address the concerns you're raising about where we need to install sidewalks that are missing in the neighborhood. We have a lot of those neighborhoods that are built without sidewalks anywhere. The approach there has to be looking at it from a network perspective. Where can we make the A to B connection through the neighborhood along the street that's going to capture the most pedestrian traffic? Maybe on one side of the street instead of both. That becomes a very qualitative assessment to identify where to make that sidewalk investment if we're not coming in and doing another project like a road or utility. We have a number of projects like that where it's moving. Let's go up here to one of them. One of our streets that we're putting in a sidewalk on one side of Renard Street which is down in the Demian neighborhood. If I could, say, go out and put sidewalks on both sides of the street because that's our preference, that's what we would build. Sorry, it's just taking a second to load. It would be ideal if every time we did a sidewalk project we were going to that gold standard. That was one of the issues that many old persons with disabilities were really focused on. Why can't we eliminate all the barriers, get rid of telephone poles and mailboxes that are in the sidewalk? We can't always deliver the ideal project. It all depends on the scope of the project. If it's a sidewalk only project and we can only build it on one side of the street, maybe that's the best facility we can get in. But at least we've got something there. That's not the ideal answer, and I wish it was, but at least we're making a connection, if this thing was, between two points where there is a sidewalk. I can tell you right now the sidewalk along the north side of Parvin is a very poor condition sidewalk. It's probably about two or three feet wide. So we put in to trip fund construction of a sidewalk on the south side that would make a link. There's an elementary school over here, I forget the name of the school. But there's an opportunity there to make an improvement on the other side of the street that makes a true ADA compliant facility that are connected with the Bernard sidewalk that we're constructing. So then we'll start having more network connectivity in that part of the neighborhood. One more question. We do have other questions about other topics. So how often will you update these PPI rankings? Because even looking at this map, it's outdated because in that gray area to the left, that's a huge new development that I'm expecting is not being taken into consideration about. Traffic and major roadways running through this neighborhood. So the data is 2020. Early 2020 was when it was all collected. And I've been going through to clean up some of the, you know, where a new sidewalk has been constructed, that sort of thing. The goal of staff is to have this map, which is GIS based, tied to our asset management software, which is how our streets department uses the data. So then this doesn't answer the PPI score question, but just so we have a real time understanding of where we have sidewalks. That's a process that we're building out, I would call a protocol. So as sidewalks are constructed and accepted by the city, they'll populate into this map and into that software. So then we'll have a real understanding of where we have sidewalks and when they were constructed. A little better understanding so we can make sure that repairs can be tracked over time and we can assess need. And that helps us from a fiscal impact analysis perspective understanding of where we might need to make improvements based on the age of the infrastructure. How often we'll reevaluate the PPI scores, I don't have an answer for right now. I would expect we'd do it each time we're looking at that capital program to make a new assessment. So it might be, it could be annually because it only takes a couple of minutes to run the evaluation. But it could also be semi-annually every three years, just really depends on how often we see the need to update those rankings. There's no qualitative observations that go into the PPI score at all. I mean it's basically you're just, everything is within GIS. Yes, it's not a qualitative evaluation. It's really to give us just a, it's going to be a one-to-one. I put in data, I get an output, and we can then tweak the factors. So like I mentioned earlier, there are ways that we could tweak for speed limits, for width of a roadway, for number of lanes. There are a lot of different ways that we could play with the data. The goal wasn't to get too into that approach, but more so to focus on what are the outputs, do they make sense, start identifying projects out of that. Because I'm always of the opinion data is great, but I want to do something. So I don't think we need to have the perfect data. I think we need to have a good enough data source to make strong decisions from. And we're making recommendations that are out of line with elected appointed bodies or the public. We'll hear that through the process. Adam? Yeah, thank you for this. It's a really cool tool. We've spent 70 years building a city for cars, not people, and I see you trying your best to rectify where you can. All of that, and that's zoning and design, and it's a built environment that's a mess. I'm really interested in going forward, how do we do better, and are we doing better? Are we really now thinking about complete streets? Are we really thinking about genuine walkability? You know, sidewalk is an interesting term. It means it's on the side of something that's at the center. Can we, and if so how, can we think about center walks? In other words, how do we think about walking as the best way, not just to enjoy yourself, for a stroll, which is super important. Like to actually go shopping, to actually get to school, to actually displace car trips. Are we able to do that in the new developments? Can we do better? And if so, how does your position weigh in on that? Yeah, unfortunately a lot of that is out of my control because I'm in capital projects, not planning. And you're asking questions that are very, very great questions because that's how we need to look at it. So let me answer first how we're making improvements in how the city is delivering transportation projects and that complete streets aspect of things. So earlier this year we adopted new transportation standards and that was a process that was done semi-infrequently. And the process has been put in place to make those updates on an annual basis. Part of that was as we were working on the mobility plan update and having those sort of what I'll call guiding principles, what our vision is for what streets look like, we were able to make changes in the transportation standards that say when you build this type of road, collector or arterial, whatever the road type is, this is the facility that goes along with it. So if you build a Teasley Road today, the road that's currently under construction with sidewalks, instead of having sidewalks it would have a side path. So our standards have been updated to provide more robust facilities, greater separation from traffic. So that term sidewalk that you referred to and how we get it more to the center, we're actually not focusing on how to get it more to the center but how to make it more comfortable, how to provide a better quality environment for anybody who wants to take those kinds of trips, walk or bike or whatever it may be, transit, transits of what is really important. So that's part of it. But then the other part is the land use aspect which is that falls under planning and other planning and zoning board, other folks who have the oversight because we can make a really great environment for somebody to walk on but if the trip is too long, if you're trying to make a trip from outside the loop to downtown, you're not going to make that trip in one foot, not likely. There are some folks I've heard that walk that far but in general we have to acknowledge that trips have a certain distance and outside of that distance most users are going to go get their car. There are certainly limitations to that. Somebody who doesn't have a car may choose to ride their bike. Somebody who doesn't have a car or bike might walk and those trip distances would be outside the norms but in general people are going to walk a half mile or less. People might ride their bike two miles. So part of that is really us as a city working to make sure that we want to have this walking and biking activity, we're pairing that land use with it to make sure that those trips are within a reasonable distance. And I'm looking at it, I'll scroll out of this thing because it didn't load up, I'm looking at that same sort of principle as we look around the city for do we have a neighborhood shopping center, there's a certain distance away from a neighborhood shopping center, we can create the opportunity to take those trips by foot or by bike. So that's not something that I've really been able to, I've only been here seven months, I haven't had time to get that far into my approach yet. But that is something that we'll look at is what a reasonable trip distance is and how to make those trips accessible, walking or biking. So that's part of our approach for the bike and bed program, I would say, is to look at that attraction generation and start making investments that way. Adam, did you have another follow-up, or Brian? I just want to echo one more time what Matt was saying. Make sure you do this every time. Sorry. What Matt was saying I feel like may be the most important component of this data. If we really are using this to inform future projects, I would sincerely hope we see a lot more community-driven and participatory functions down the line. I know this just lives right now in your office and the avenue for people to engage with it is a discussion platform. I just hope that if that's where this data is going, you really want to see a lot more open contribution where people can make real place-based inputs for what you're driving these capital investments to be. And then two, to my opinion, a sidewalk is pretty much useless if the road I need to cross is a big barrier for me. So we mentioned the loop, we mentioned 35, and I see on your data here that crosswalks really aren't a factor. So how does that build into the connectivity argument of incorporating all these different dislocated links? Okay. I would say crosswalks, the reason you don't see crosswalks as a factor here is because we're really looking at that node to node, like what's the piece that needs to be built. And to me the crosswalk is the natural outcrop of building that link. I'm also, I bring a lot of background from industry best practices and I'm like in the focus, so I'm typically fighting with the traffic engineers about what's the appropriate crossing treatment type, not just the crosswalk but what should be at the crosswalk to help people safely get across the street. I think that's more where we're going to make standards into, you know, we'll incorporate or refer or by inference provide guidance that points to industry best practices. And the transportation criteria manual is sort of our guiding document and our standard details, investigations. So all that stuff that we say, this is what we expect to be provided based on certain parameters. We couldn't get that into the documents this year. I got here late enough that we couldn't go through that process. So like I said, that's an annual update that we'll be doing and we've made notes of all of those things that I want to include. So it'll be references to MACTO, references to ITE, walkable urban thoroughfares, all these different standards and best practices that we can refer to will help us then have that resolution that this is what we expect and what we're going to not only expect of developers but of ourselves. We deliver projects and I'm informing our capital projects as we're going through those to say, here are the facilities that I expect to be included in the projects that I at least have influence on. So you'll see things that are being constructed right now. I have no influence on anything that I take a look at, the design, providing that input as of six months ago. Do you have a thought on that? Yeah, I mean, I respect the weight of your experience and that's why I'm so happy that you're in the room arguing for the pedestrian qualities that we are really lacking in the city. I suppose just a counterpoint, because it's not represented as a need and to your point, you were able to influence discussions about what could be built in the future, not necessarily looking at what gaps exist right now but what had been built. So I'm just curious if there's a way to incorporate similar data sets of what you've done with the PPI maps that also contributes to real areas of need where there might not be the same connectivity even within block to block. Yeah, that's a really important point because, like I said, this is really focused on how do we close gaps and we have a tandem process, our ADA transition plan, which is also adopted in January. So our ADA transition plan is all those existing assets and making improvements to those. We have to look at the two programs together. So it's not like we're saying one's a gap project and one's a repair project and we don't see any overlap between the two. But we have to go through a similar evaluation of our ADA needs and there's a ton more subjectivity in what do we do about our existing infrastructure because the federal government gets a lot of latitude how we are going to prioritize improvements. Do we prioritize missing ramps and non-compliant ramps? Do we prioritize removing point conflicts like utility goals? So we have a lot of flexibility, which is good. It just makes it a little bit of a challenge to say where we need to make the improvements. What's the timeline and prioritization of that? My at least initial focus had been to use PPI, the same sort of PPI ranking that gives us sort of our hot spots of pedestrian activity around the city and then look at some of the greatest needs. So like missing ramps is the biggest because people can't get across a curb. So putting those in is certainly one of our highest priorities. But there are other factors that we have to look at to identify what we're going to fix first. And I've done a lot of work on that ADA side of like what is a true barrier versus what is something that's a pretty tough barrier that most people can get through. So very few people can get their wheelchair over a curb. I've seen a few people do it, but that is one of the biggest barriers that there is out there. But as a non-compliant sidewalk that's got a cross slip of 2.5%, there are a lot of them too. Is that a true barrier and should you focus your attention on making it fully compliant? My answer is always going to be if it's passable, if it means all the general geometry and it's just slightly out of compliance, I'm not going to focus on it. I need to put that attention somewhere else. So hopefully that answers your question. We have to do more work to get to that point. Our streets department does most of those repairs, so we're working with them to make those improvements. Some of that has been very driven by citizen input. We've put in at least one crosswalk in the city since I got here that was missing. We're looking at another one right now that's right next to UNT. So some of those are just an outcome of hearing from the community of where we have some challenges in getting out and making the corrections. But hopefully we'll have a more data-driven process for that this spring. One final question, Ken. So I know obviously a PPI is one method to evaluate our sidewalk qualities. I just wonder, is this available somewhere? You said we've been using it for quite some time. Yeah, all the information that you see on the screen is on a web-based platform. So everything that you see here. Finding the protocols for what's your PPI. It was difficult to read in the fields. If you open it up within your embedded maps, what the field actually meant and how you collected that. I'm just interested if you had a protocol breakdown of what you did to give these scores. Yeah, it's basically this portion of the presentation if I go back here. So there are major streets. And you're saying you want to look at the attribute table and see what all the points are. So each of these has an attribute in a table that gets a point. The only one that's broken out separately, because I wasn't sure if I applied points differently to six-lane versus four-lane versus two-lane streets, is the major streets. So we ran a geospatial analysis that basically just says I can capture anything within a certain distance of whatever the factor is. So the factors were streets, schools. Schools, I think, were based on the center line, like a point at the school location. Same for government facilities. Points of interest was we have like 4,000 points of interest in the city. So that's everything from home-based businesses, which was a little bit of a challenge, home-based businesses to everything that's inside the mall. And then running that same sort of distance-based analysis. And then crashes, this was all of our pedestrian crashes around the city. And then each one of those, I ran the analysis and it picked up the line. It would then, once it selected at a point, accumulate all the points, gives you the PPI score. And each of them, the names are a little bit wonky because you can't have spaces in the attribute table or in GIS. So they might say something like MJR_RD_2_LN, something like that. So there's a little bit of, you kind of have to figure those fields out, but they sort of make sense if you pair the name with these fields right here. Thank you so much. Mr. Saban? Yeah, just a suggestion. Yes, sir. The quality of the information that's going into the PPI index, it is imperative that we hear and consider the needs of the taxpaying community. You know, being a taxpayer in the city and the projection of tax rates to continue to increase on our homes, we need a sidewalk and I'm paying towards sidewalks and I can't get a sidewalk. The PPI needs to include, it needs to factor in that consumer concern such as that. And then forward thinking, with the aging of the community, walking is a very important part of our future health. So I would just want to suggest that that become part of the factor, you know, the aging of the community and the accessibility to take a good walk in your immediate community. I like to talk to Parks about beautifying it and so forth, but the point I want to make here is, yeah, we want to make this information more qualitative in terms of what is the taxpayer desire and need. And I think it's been spoken to well so far. So my part is just I highly recommend, however we can fit that into the PPI index, the calculator would help us from a sustainability perspective. And I'll say thank you for the comment because it does remind me that there were another limitation of when we ran this evaluation and I think it's still true today. I don't think the data is going to come out until at least next month. But one of the ways that I did hope to look at this data was through the new census because that will provide some really good information about aging in place or, you know, there are a lot of metrics that get put into the census data and then we can run an evaluation against that. And if that data hasn't published yet, to my knowledge at least, it should be out soon. So as that data becomes available, I think that will be really helpful. We'll be able to start running an evaluation against some of those metrics that, you know, socioeconomic based evaluation will give us some really interesting ways to reevaluate PPI and make it a more robust evaluation. Like I said, this is a good starting point. But we by no means consider this PPI score to be the final result or the final evaluation approach. I appreciate your comments because I agree that those are very important variables. And just a follow-up. Go ahead. I heard you say TWU, UNT, and downtown drives your prioritizing repairs, replacements, and so forth. And yet I don't know how much those institutions were not downtown businessmen. I understand they pay taxes and so forth. But that community or the lifeline to the revenue stream to the city and the community needs to be factored in there. When I think about the UNTs and the TWUs, you're catering to a lot of people, absolutely necessary. You're catering to a lot of transient people. They come and go. They walk on great sidewalks while they were at the university. But the everyday citizen, kind of getting the short end of the stick. I'm done. That's my situation. Yeah, I by no means mean we're only focused in those areas. Perfect. But from where we have the highest potential to change trips from cars to other modes, those are the areas where we have the highest potential. And I'm looking at other, like I mentioned a little while ago at least, I'm trying to find ways to look at those other areas outside of those three places. The big challenge that I would suggest outside of those three key areas within the city is just the barriers that we've got, mostly 35, which is an area we've focused on a lot as part of our bike program work and working with Gary and Parks on trails connectivity because 35 is a major barrier. We've had a lot of conversations and texts out about that as well. But I don't want to misinterpret the work that we're doing. We're not just focused in those three areas. Those just happen to be the areas from a pedestrian perspective that are going to drive the most trips. Thank you. I have some questions and comments, but I think Ed? Yeah, just a very short observation. This sidewalk was put in on Nauticam Drive. That's an area where I live. And I was pleasantly amazed at how that one strip is unified in that neighborhood and increased socialization amongst people because we walk on that, people walk on their dogs, whatever. I mean, it's amazing how many people are coming out now and walking. And you meet new people, you meet neighbors you didn't know you had. So I mean, the social aspect of sidewalks is absolutely incredible in that respect. And I think that should be taken into consideration as well, if it isn't already. Yeah, I tried to refer to that a little bit in how the projects will have to be delivered. But basically, we can't just look at a project and say we're going to build all the BPI 6 and 5s. We have to look at every investment we make from a network perspective. So the project you're Nauticam sidewalk that you're referring to makes the connection that goes north of university, it goes up. So having those connections fill in gaps in the sidewalk network and not stop short so somebody can't get to where they want to go to. I mentioned a lot of people there using the trail once they get on the sidewalk. So it is important to acknowledge that these projects have to deliver a complete link from one sidewalk to the next. They can't just be we extended the sidewalk a few hundred feet because they're probably not going to drive that sort of engaging socialization. It won't have that benefit if we don't create those complete networks. So Paul, piggybacking on that, because that's my neighborhood too. And we worked on there was originally supposed to be two sidewalks on a north. And then we had a community member who lives there, Brian Beck, who's now a council member, suggest, well, why don't we divide those up, do one on Old North and one on Nottingham because we have the money for it. But Nottingham still didn't go all the way to Windsor. Although it was supposed to, it stopped a block short. So there's not that connectivity to the bike lane that's on Windsor. It just is another sidewalk we have in our community that just stops. But that's that's another topic. So I wanted to thank you for being here. We were given a budget, this sustainability. And part of that is since our transportation is the highest polluter, some of that funding we were looking to to go into marketing to get people off, you know, out of cars and into the community on bikes and walking. And we wanted to make sure that before we recommended that that we had a safe place to recommend that they go. And so we wanted to come here to see I wanted you to come here to present. So we know what's in store. I know this is just the sidewalk part of it and not necessarily the bike lane part of it. But that's all included and it's all important for us as we look to reduce those emissions and, you know, make sure that people are safe and healthy as they're getting out of cars and mobility. And part of that is, like you said, code and planning. And I know that we have a developmental code committee that is that is meeting and they make recommendations. Have you presented to them some of your ideas as far as what you have to to help to help with these going forward? Like for the built community? Yeah, I would say I haven't met with code. Now, the city's code refers to the transportation criteria manual and transportation standards in our specs. So Capital Projects has the we lead the charge on what are the standards and how how would they do the work. Development just refers over to what we say and then requires that of the developer or anybody who's doing some kind of improvement on the street. So like DCTA is an example, but not developers working on our streets or our utility companies. Well, there's a city council code, development code committee that needs to talk about ways to improve our code. And so maybe, you know, if you had some ideas for our built community. Yeah, I've not met with them. I was not even aware that was. Well, that's that might be something because for us, as we talk about existing codes and, you know, our goal is to get people out of cars and into the community safely. That might be just a suggestion, something that you to make me with. So is there on for the for the data? Is there data out there for every sidewalk or every section of sidewalk built that there's a reduced emission correlated to it? Is that possible? Probably the best data to look at in that regard is like mode share. So, you know, how many people are walking or biking and then cities or states look at that data over time. Brad advisor actually is one of the leading researchers in bike mode share and looking at that data over time. I can't point to anything that says you build a sidewalk and it will reduce carbon emissions or increase that mode share by a significant variable. That's usually I would say anecdotally the communities that invest in making biking and walking improvements that truly make safety enhancements. So the crosswalks example that say we're going to prioritize walking and biking and make it safe and comfortable. Tend to increase their mode shares the most because they're they're making those significant investments and they're changing behavior. Come from Washington, D.C. They had a huge investment in biking and they now have a huge bike mode share. It continues to increase every year and they make more investments every year. So I just see that as an outcome of the work, but it has to be sustained. It needs to be driven by all of those goals and making sure that we're not investing. The reason I was talking about the loop a little bit and you know some of this needing to look at demand is that if we're saying we're going to be a bike friendly community and we're going to focus on doing all these things that improve biking and walking, but we only look outside the loop in new developed areas and we're not looking inside our core is those places might be walkable, but they may not have a lot of demand to walk or bike. So we have to make very intentional change in the character of our city in the core or we're not going to really sort of it's not a genuine investment. It's not a genuine goal. So we have to be very intentional if we're going to make those changes. And on on those so I saw that in your PBI one of the main thing or the first thing that came up is major streets and one thing you probably notice of being new or not all of the streets here in Denton are Denton streets. We have a lot of textile streets and then there's some, you know, the universities who have streets, but they're still, they're not private streets. They're Denton streets. Have you when we talk about sidewalks on those, is that a like a special relationship where you have communication with textile or is it so like when I'm thinking right now thinking of University East. So as you're heading out, there's, you know, we talked about the people walking all the time on there. There's not sidewalks on either side. So going back in, if we were to build sidewalks there, that would be a text that issue, right? Not a, not a city, not a city build. Is that correct? Correct. Yeah. So we've had ongoing conversations with text. They've changed their standards. Like I mentioned today they would build a side path. 15 years ago they wouldn't even build a sidewalk. We're having those conversations with them on roads that they're turning over for city maintenance. So, yeah, there, there are a lot of mixed conditions of those facilities throughout the city and text. There's a lot on a lot of the roadways. Loop 288 is a big one that we're actually looking to make some sidewalk investments because of the junction relocating, relocating downtown the, our daily bread, I think it is. So, we are looking at some sidewalk investments like that, but the need is still a lot greater than, you know, what we're looking at right now. And there are people who are walking on those major roads. That's why I made that the first point in the presentation that, you know, somebody who needs to get along university, they're not going to find a connected network that parallels university. You can parallel portions of McKinney, but certainly those major roads are a way that people have to get around and we have to make them accessible. Would that be like a cost sharing situation, maybe? Right now, no. If we want to make those connectivity improvements, we can pay for them. If TxDOT has funding, then they will pay for them and we could look to do cost sharing, but I haven't seen any emphasis from TxDOT on those existing roads. When they would come back to do something else, they would make the investment. And then another one of your PPI calculations was safety. And I noticed that you had pedestrian crashes, but I didn't notice any bicycle crashes. Was that separate or is that still kind of included in that? It's not included because we were specifically looking at pedestrian. I would say we didn't have a lot of bicycle crashes as opposed to there's more pedestrian crash data than there is bicycle crash data. That's a trend that's typical. We look at bicycle crash data and I'll be looking at that as part of our bike program work. But even then, I would point out that outcome-based data, so where the crashes occurred, is just one indication of safety. There are a lot of other ways that we can look at safety and that gets somewhat to the questions about those crosswalks. Looking at the potential threat for somebody to have a crash or even, like I said, where the crash occurs may not be where the safety challenge is. So sometimes you have to acknowledge that somebody took a risk away from where they perceived a threat and they got hit. So there's a lot of different ways we have to look at safety, not just the crashes. And again, for this committee, if we're recommending people walk and bike, we want to make sure that those areas are addressed with the safety issues. I have just a couple more. So when we, the citizens voted in a bond, there was a section of sidewalks, like a list of sidewalks. Is that what you're going off of still or have you changed any of those with the new information that you have come up with? I can't speak robustly to the bond program and the sidewalk segments. I know a lot of the projects that you see in that project list or the map that's here has listed or discussed it. A fair amount of those were out of the bond program list. I don't know how many, so I'd be speculating to say anything beyond that. And on the, seeing the PPI calculation, when I saw it, it kind of reminds me of the OCI when you're talking about streets, but you're talking about sidewalks. And I know for us as a community, we invest a lot in our streets. We look at repair and maintenance and there's a budget for that. And I know at one time there wasn't a specific budget for sidewalks, but there needs to be one for repair and maintenance. Is that something that you have now or you're looking into? I would say the bonds previously, the theme that I heard entering capital projects is the bonds were street bonds that didn't consider bike or pedestrian connectivity. If those elements could be addressed, they might have been like a resurfacing project might have been a bike lane. But in general, those funds did not address other modes. That is something that needs to be reevaluated when future bonds are issued. I've also been sure to pass along that we have a requirement, a federal requirement that as we do road improvements, we at least address that missing or non-compliant ramp issue. So that's something that I was sure to pass along as well. We can't go in and fix the street and leave out the ramps. If we've got sidewalks, at least the ramps need to be compliant, even if what's behind it is not. That doesn't mean we build ramps to nowhere. It just means if there's a sidewalk and the ramp is missing or not compliant, it needs to be repaired. Last two, last two. So in there, I know that for the community and for me personally, equity is a big thing in the community and sometimes it doesn't seem like it's applied in every aspect. And so I heard you mention it just in the conversation, but I didn't see it addressed anywhere in here. So how do you make sure that when you look at these three main areas that you talked about, that we look at providing equal equality among the neighborhoods that need it rather than the university area? Where you may have heard me somewhat refer to equity was when I was talking about the census data, because that's where I think we'll probably see the best data to look from an equity perspective and also from a health perspective. And the data has just not been released yet. Census hasn't published. So some census data has been published, but like overall population and those other factors that will be really beneficial in those areas have not been put out yet. We've still been looking at equity in other aspects of our work, so you don't see it in the sidewalk plan, but it's certainly we're looking at it from other project bases, if you will. So it's not something that's being ignored. We did hear that in some of the earlier presentations as well. It's not a point that's lost. We're not going to make project selections based on the overall data, and there will be an equity aspect that's applied, especially as we get our hands on that data to take a look at it as well. And one of the challenges that I, when you mentioned the universities, one of the challenges I think we'll see in the data is that university students trigger some of the metrics like low income that could potentially skew the data as well and point us towards student housing areas where folks don't have higher incomes because they're students and they don't have a job. So I would be interested to see if the data has any of those correlations to make sure that we're not, by default, biasing our recommendations into those areas based on household incomes. We'll be looking at factors that help to avoid that sort of potential. I'm really glad to hear that. That's really important for us here on this committee, too. Last question. I heard you talk about ADA compliance and the federal, the regulations are kind of free, but I've also heard once you start work on, say you want to fix this ramp, then it triggers something and you have to completely upgrade that whole intersection to compliance. And so that is why, you know, you'll see more intersections not completed ADA wise. Is that a fair statement? Like, the funding has to be completely there to completely upgrade it if you're going to say, you know, if there's a hole in the ramp or something, you can't just go in and fill that hole without making everything else in compliance. Yeah, so the Justice Department defines compliance from an ADA perspective based on the ramps. So that's why the focus on intersections and not on anything around the intersections. So when we have a project that touches a ramp at an intersection, it triggers a requirement to make the intersection fully compliant. So like, we're working on a Sycamore Side Path project that goes from the A train station over to UNT, and that project goes through several intersections where because we touched one part of the intersection to put a trail through, we have to make the entire intersection compliant. That's just to make sure that we're not ignoring the needs of people passing through an intersection just because our project only touched one part and not the other. So that's where that criteria lies, and that's why we go in and resurface a road. Anything along the road at each intersection, the ramps have to be compliant. That's really the only criteria that the federal government has been very specific about. Then they give us the leeway of those other issues. If those crossroads or point conflict or things like that are in the sidewalk, we have more flexibility to determine what are our priorities and what we need to fix along a corridor first. So we have a lot more flexibility in that regard, but the intersection is sort of the main thing that needs to be fixed from a federal standard. And just last, I'd like your opinion because for us, this committee, as we go and we look at the funds, we want to make sure that we reduce pollution and we get cars off the road and we want to make sure that our community is safe and walkable and sustainable. Are we, how far away do you think we are? Are we at a good point right now where we can start spending those dollars to advertise to our community and market to our community to make those trips out of your vehicle and walking and biking when we're in regards to safety? Yeah, I'd say we have a lot of work to do in the sidewalk department. Especially, there were a lot of sidewalk deficiencies in downtown even, and that's one of our more walkable places outside of the campus, like on-campus areas. So, and I feel like we've heard a theme that a lot of our neighborhoods don't have sidewalks in them, or there are not a lot of sidewalks in the neighborhoods. There's still a lot of work to be done to make our city more walkable, more bikeable, and that's what our team and others around the city are working on every day. And I've heard it consistently as a priority of our current council and across the city, it's a big priority. Well, thank you, I think. Is everybody good? I have to add to the matrix, so not necessarily. Yeah, we're going to open that back up right after this. So I just want to thank you for coming to present to us, and I appreciate all the work you're doing. We know that there's a lot. There's a lot. Well, thank you for listening and sharing your comments. We'll go back and take a look at them and take them to heart. Rest assured, everything you said will be re-reviewed and we'll consider how we can improve this plan. We appreciate your comments. Thanks for having us here. You're welcome back anytime. Thank you. Alright, so we will go ahead and reopen our item for the matrix because of the things that we heard today. Go ahead. Yeah, so I was the one that asked for the transportation overview, and I really appreciate the overview of the sidewalks plan. The transportation is the kind of gorilla in the room for emissions and other things. So Nathan mentioned the new transportation standards. I'd love to hear about that. I'd love to hear about the broader mobility plan as well. I'd like to hear more about bike lanes and the bike program because we didn't hear about that today. I'd also like to hear more about vehicle idling standards because that's a low-hanging fruit that we could actually target for reducing emissions from the transportation sector. I'd also like to know what the plans are for slow streets. So fitting in with this presentation on sidewalks, those places where we can't put sidewalks, how do we enforce slower traffic where people have to walk on the road? And then I had a side thought that we know that there is this new infrastructure bill that's coming out. Does the city get some of that money? I mean, do we know what the plan is for that? So that's more just kind of a question about the infrastructure bill and what we might be in store for debt and what the plan is to do with that money. So I would like to hear more on transportation on a couple of those points because I think, as we all recognize in the climate, that is the biggest emitter and the biggest issue I think for a truly sustainable city. So I would like to hear a lot more. So we'll just add that to the matrix of presentation, more engineering probably, just transportation overall, biking streets. And then just I think on the transportation, the question on funding may be an update. We may want to pull somebody from development services in to talk about standards in new development. Okay. Anyone else? Matrix? We talked a little bit earlier, Ed? Yeah, I had a thing on the TUV matrix that's been on for over a year and I'd like to put it on our matrix in hopes of bringing it to fruition. And what that request was was to know the amount of electricity generated in both residential and commercial PV installations over a designated amount of time and the amount of that electricity that was returned to the grid. Thank you. I just want to reiterate, I think what I've heard different members say about all the different plans in the city. If we can have just an update on those and pull the sustainability parts out of each of those plans and make sure that they're all correlated or that they're working together and not against each other and that there is specific sustainability parts in each of the plans going forward. I think that was mentioned earlier, I just want to make sure that that's as an item. And I think we will move on to concluding items, but we pretty much did that I think under the matrix. If anybody has anything at this point that they want to say, if not, we will close the meeting. 319. Thank you everyone.