Mayor & Commission Meetings

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW COMMITTEE Wednesday, August 2, 2023 City Hall Conference Room 301B Committee Members Present: Committee Members Absent: Commissioner Carol Myers, Chair Commissioner John Culpepper1 Commissioner Jesse Houle2 Commissioner Ovita Thornton Commissioner Allison Wright Staff: Niki Jones, Assistant Manager Sherrie Hines, Deputy Chief Attorney Shirelle Hallum, Transportation & Public Works John Hawkins, Deputy Chief Attorney Kristall Barber, Animal Services Stephen Bailey, Transportation & Public Works Sarah George, Manager’s Office Commissioner Myers called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. A. Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Wright made a motion to approve the June 1, 2023 minutes. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. B. Public Input: There was none. Commission Identified Items of Interest: C. Review and update Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Assistant Manager Jones reviewed the Committee of the Mayor’s charge to update the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, provided a summary of what was covered in the last meeting, and prepared the Committee for the framework staff would be sharing in the meeting. He requested the Committee’s input following the presentation. Shirelle Hallum, Vision Zero Safety Specialist for Transportation & Public Works, updated the Committee on what the data-driven model for NTMP would look like, emphasizing that her presentation is just an example and not the final model version. The presentation covered:  Challenges to the current system: popularity of request-driven NTMP overwhelmed staff and did not address equity in NTMP.  Creation of data-driven NTMP prioritizations list, which including identifying street segments that qualified based on the following factors: o Local streets with at least 200 vehicles per day, a speed limit of 25 mph or less and 85th speed percentile greater than or equal to 30; and o Land use data for locations that are zoned Mixed – Density Residential (RM) & Single-Family Residential (RS);  They then prioritized qualified street segments by looking at: 1 Arrived at 1:06 p.m. 2 Arrived at 1:03 p.m.  o Existing sidewalk infrastructure; o Area Disadvantage (percentage minority, percentage receiving public assistance, and percentage under 200% of the property line.); o Vehicle Volume; o Speed; and o Count of crashes.  Using all this data, a formula could be determined to quickly identify what streets needed attention. Shirelle Hallum showed the Committee a map detail of the results she compiled. The next step was to put the information on a different scale: o Using all the data from different scales and normalizing it from zero to 100 so that it could be put into one scale and weighted. The closer an area is to a score of 100, the higher the priority would be. o The following is a table that shares the example weighted priorities. Factor Weight Description Speed Percentile 0.4 The 85th percentile speed that vehicles are traveling. Converted to percentiles. Volume Percentile 0.2 Number of vehicles traveling through the corridor. Converted to percentiles Crash History 0.1 Number of crashes on the corridor between 2017- 2021. Converted to percentiles Infrastructure 0.05 Percent of the corridor without sidewalks on at least one side of the street. % Minority 0.083 Percentage of residents of the block group where the street is located who identified as anything other than non-Hispanic White % Receiving 0.083 Percent of resident receiving public benefits or Benefits SNAP % Below Poverty 0.083 Percent below 200% of the poverty line  Discussion – The Committee inquired about why segments of some streets appeared on the map. Shirelle Hallum explained that these sections were the only parts that met all of the criteria. The Committee was asked to consider how they want the prioritization applied and if they wanted to add more criteria. The Committee discussed the length of the indicated segments in relation to crashes and speeding, as well as the possibility of also considering the quality of sidewalks throughout Athens as additional weighted criteria. It was noted that the length of crash studies may need to be extended. In the past, the Committee discussed moving forward with the 16 or 17 streets (of 26 identified) with current funding. The remaining streets have not been decided upon and will be managed under whatever program the Mayor and Commission approves following the Committee’s recommendation. The Committee also expressed interest in seeing the density and number of crashes in neighborhoods. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 2 060223  Stephen Bailey summarized key questions for the Committee to consider as they move forward with their recommendations. New Policy: What should be included?  Data-driven vs. request-based?  Opt-out vs. opt-in?  Equity in application?  Government-funded vs. neighborhood funded? If we go with big data:  How do we rank projects?  Do we include streets that connect to residences, but don’t have residences? Additionally, Stephen Bailey requested feedback from the Committee on the type of policy that they are seeking (equity responsive, data-driven, or response-driven), as well as if there should be multiple policies. Furthermore, if there are any other criteria that the Committee would like added or removed, that would be helpful as well. He also asked the Committee to review the listed roads, drive them and at the next meeting come prepared to make a determination on this. Assistant Manager Jones summarized the items discussed: length, density, quality of the infrastructure, and the severity of the crash. He asked Director Bailey to come back with a list of pros and cons to both data-driven and response-driven management. He also requested pros and cons list for government funded vs. neighborhood funded. Commissioner Thornton requested information on what a neighborhood-funded program would look like. Commissioner Houle requested more information on how we would transition to a new management process. D. Review of Chapter 4-1 Animal Control Ordinance Assistant Manager Jones reviewed the work already completed for this ordinance. Kristall Barber, Director of Animal Services, provided an overview of the information that has been gathered since the last meeting.  Comparative analysis: staff received extremely limited responses from other counties. Fulton and DeKalb had no data to share. The Committee expressed interest in possibly hearing about findings from jurisdictions in other states (ex. Louisville).  Veterinarians’ input: All the veterinarians Director Barber talked to were familiar with such programs and would be compliant, but they expressed concerns about over burdening their staff. Director Barber reminded the Committee that these veterinarians are doing private practice and do not see the same population as the shelter does.  Public input: Joseph D’Angelo shared a summary of the public input survey results. The survey was available for one week and it was well publicized. The response was the second highest ever recorded.  55% rated it 1 (least likely to support),  1-5 represented about 70%.  55% said they would not change their minds with discounted services.  66% thought it would reduce number of strays.  59% responded strongly negative  24 % semi-negative Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 3 060223   About 25% said they would support a free program and 49% said they would be very unlikely to support a free program Commissioner Myers asked whether it could be a voluntary program. Commissioner Houle expressed concerns about dropping the ordinance. Commissioner Thornton discussed the need to have more diverse input. Commissioner Houle expressed interest in holding it for another month. Commissioner Wright made a motion to pass the item out of Committee with no action. Commissioner Thornton seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-1, with Commissioner Houle opposed. E. Schedule/Agenda Changes The next LRC meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2023 at 1:00 p.m. Commissioner Thornton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m. Legislative Review Committee Meeting Minutes Page 4 060223