Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 07/16/2003REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD July 16, 2003 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins 215 N. Mason Street Community Room FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Bruce Henderson VICE CHAIR: Heather Trantham STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Dumais Dan Gould Neil Grigg Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Heather Trantham CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Cynthia Cass John Daggett Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Henderson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. 2. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the agenda were requested. 898-4625 206-4255 224-6049 224-6058 ABSENT: Edward Jakubauskas Brad Miller Brent Thordarson GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: R.A. Plummer Gary Thomas Nancy York Melissa Bordewin Shawn Macatee APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 2 of 15 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Gary Thomas announced that he was recently appointed to the Loveland Transportation Board and will now be acting an informational liaison of sorts between the two boards. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES An addendum to the minutes, a paragraph that contained comments by Dumais on the Downtown Strategic Plan, was presented to the board for consideration as part of the original minutes. There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of June 18, 2003 including the addendum. Discussion: Johnson stated that on page 10, there is a misspelled word It should be "semantic". The question was called and the motion carried by a unanimous vote, 8-0. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 6. DISCUSSION a. DOWNTOWN STRATEGIC PLAN Hensley & Daggett Daggett presented an update via Power Point. Highlights of the presentation were: Principle #1: Protect and manage the downtown retail/entertainment district Create a comprehensive parking management plan for the downtown core - Increase transit connections between the Downtown Transit Center and the CSU Transit Center - Develop and implement a comprehensive parking signage system - Create pedestrian linkages across Jefferson Street at College, Lincoln and Linden - Work with Downtown merchants, delivery companies and citizens to manage freight deliveries in the Downtown area Principle #2: Utilize the energy from the core to leverage and attract new development - Develop, manage and operate parking as an essential civic infrastructure and encourage reduced overall parking ratios over time to create a "Park Once" environment. - Enhance the City's parking program and autonomy to effectively deal with the rapidly changing parking environment in the Downtown area. - Increase transit ridership into and around Downtown - Continue to develop the vision for the Mason Transportation Corridor that is supported by the community. - Manage future traffic circulation and minimize traffic delays Downtown APPROVED Regular Meeting Miwtes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 3 of 15 Support the location and development of a future commuter rail station in Downtown Fort Collins - Make bicycle circulation an integral element of the Downtown transportation network Enhance the pedestrian environment downtown Principle #3: Blend the downtown retail/entertainment district with adjacent neighborhoods Create distinguishing characteristics that visibly define downtown and adjacent neighborhood streets Investigate the implementation of neighborhood (residential) parking permit programs Board Ouestions/Comments: Trantham: How does a residential parking permit program work? Hensley: We could do 2 hour parking and issue permits to residents or we could restrict parking altogether. There are different tools for different applications and it depends mostly on what the neighborhood wants and needs are. Grigg: We talked about this once before a long time ago, but maybe we need to figure out some signage and routes so that people wanting to get through but not stop in the downtown can use another route and not clog up the downtown. Daggett: The downtown is "transportation locked" maybe is a good term to use. You have the railroad, you have the University to the southwest of downtown that is another barrier. What you do have is College Avenue which provides the only real automobile through movement through the downtown area. Grigg: I still think it's a good idea to have a strategy to move traffic through and not clog it up. Dumais: Is there a time frame for reverting Mason and Howes? Daggett: Unfortunately, there is no money to do it with, so there is no time frame at this point. Gould: Relative to CSU transit service to downtown, do you envision CSU as just being the CSU transit center there or other university related activity areas like the Holiday Inn and the Federal Center. Daggett: What we talked about was the actual Center and the areas closer to the north side of campus. You're right; there is this whole other bigger market. It's going to cost a lot more money though. APPROVED Regular Meeting Mii,utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 4 of 15 Ricord: I like the maintenance of the distinguishing characteristics between the neighborhoods and the downtown and the little traffic circle you showed I thought was a good example of that. Also for pedestrian amenities, there is the bulb -outs and the raised walk ways that were illustrated. Given that two of the big pedestrian challenges in this area are going to be state highways, can you speak to what sorts of limitations CDOT, for example, is going to impose on that? Daggett: Before I do that, I'd like to make a comment on the two highways. US 287 and SH 14 seem like very different animals. US 287/College Avenue does not seem to be very much of a barrier for pedestrian activity. In fact pedestrians are walking across at intersections and at mid -block wherever the feel like it every day. I would say that CDOT may or may not like that, but that's the case. I think a big part of that is because of the center parking and that traffic is moving relatively slow. On SH 14 however, irregardless of the trucks, you don't have the same kind of facility. You have a facility that's more designed to move vehicles through. Ricord: Things like bulb -outs and raised pedestrian facilities on SH14, Jefferson Street specifically, will we see a sign off on that as part of their agreement with the access management plan? Daggett: I don't know. We're recommending that and that we do some treatments to the roadway and to the ped facilities across the street. But until there is activity that will draw you across, we need that to happen as well. Moe: Just as a side note, in Longmont, they did three ... on 287 .. just have to show CDOT that it won't affect flow. It turned out well and there was good cooperation. Ricord: That's good to know, because I could see that as being a barrier otherwise. Johnson: I've been advocating a circulator for a long time. I like the concept of "park once". Trying to emphasize pedestrian movements where pedestrians are comfortable. I'm wondering if we also might consider a daily pass for visitors that are sold with their parking permit because then they're linked to move that way in that park once concept. Daggett: I think that's a great idea! Johnson: On page 32, under short term strategies, 41i one, when you talk about developing affordable parking alternatives. I want to go on the record as saying that I struggle with the term "affordable" because we have got to get away from using those economic terms. It depends on where you come from as to what's "affordable". Johnson: On page 38, one thing about the Mason Street, focusing development, I like that a lot as most of the infrastructure is there. With regard to bike routes, we've talked about Magnolia and Mason. Sometime in the future we should talk about Mountain serving the east/west and Remington serving north/south. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 5 of 15 Johnson: On page 52, it has to do with the number of priorities in the parking structures. Sometimes we can find other uses these structures have. For instance, in the old structure you can look at access. People can park there and walk out back to the library. Daggett: It is one of the strategies and elements of the plan to enhance alleyways provide better lighting for pedestrian facilities. We haven't forgotten about the way finding concept either. We heard that at the last meeting. Thanks for your time and we'll be back August 20 and will be looking for a recommendation at that time. b. TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN (TMP) UPDATE —Jackson Jackson introduced his project team members: RA Plummer, Melissa Bordewin, Ray Moe and Shawn Macatee. He stated that the emphasis tonight would be on Capital Improvement Projects, the program, how it's being approached and where we're at with it and then the travel forecast model analysis. Jackson went over the schedule for the TMP. Council adoption is supposed to happen on September 16. Therefore, a special meeting of the Transportation Board is requested on September 8. Jackson referred to the spreadsheets and maps that were distributed. He explained that each one of the spreadsheet lists are coded into GIS layers so that visually you can look at each project by mode. You can then electronically layer them on top of one another to cross categorically check and see if there are areas you can collaborate efforts on. You can check against flood areas, storm water projects or major infrastructure projects from other departments so you'll be able to cross categorically see where you can combine efforts. Jackson stated that staff has gotten a lot of help from Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Management, TDM, Bicycle sub -group, Transfort, etc. He explained that they've formed sub -teams and these teams are meeting weekly going over these projects and the lists making sure everything is right. It was even suggested today at one of the meetings that traffic accident data is entered as well. Moving on to the maps, Jackson explained that these are examples of what we're doing with the GIS layers. He described how the maps are set up and went through each category with the board. Chair Henderson asked when feedback is due and Jackson said that the sooner the better. Written comments would be fine. This is a work in progress and changes weekly. If you see disconnects or have questions, see things that don't make sense, jot your notes down and email them, fax them, mail them, drop them off to my office. Whatever is most convenient for you. If you want to give them to us individually or as a board, that's up to you. We feel the project list is pretty much as it should be, so we're ready for your comments. APPROVED Regular Meeting Mi..dtes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 6 of 15 Board Comments/Ouestions: Chair Henderson: The streets portion of this map, the roadways, does not reflect any expansion of today's Master Street Plan. It is purely build out of the existing MSP? Jackson: The map that you just saw, that one does not have any additional projects on there. However, as a result of the meeting today, we've come up with a list of suggested MSP amendments that we'll talk to the board about next month. Grigg: What is the time horizon on the CIP? Jackson: 20 years. Jackson then went over the Model Analysis with the board. He broke it out into: - existing conditions - E + C (Existing plus committed) - Vision Plan/MSP Board Comments/questions: Chair Henderson: I have a land use question. You're going to work on this fiscally constrained plan and I assume one of the things you're going to do is get some kind of guidance on what fiscal constraints to look at between now and 2025 also in terms of tax rate growth and whatever. So, with the different land use options that you looked at here, will there be constrained land use plans coming into this to also match the constrained fiscal opportunities that you have or will not have? Jackson: We can talk about it. The City Plan effort really hasn't gone in that direction. They've talked about characteristics that emphasize infill and redevelopment. Chair Henderson: The only reason I mention it is it seems like with a tax base going south with a lot of assumptions maybe that were made in land use might not be valid in the next decade or so. Jackson: These assumptions actually take into consideration — these are brand new. Given the sources and the way they were arrived at, for a long-term document, people are pretty comfortable with those projections. Ricord: I have to play the devils advocate here with #1 because we've often used this as an example when we talk about the MTC. When we talk about adding lanes to roadways such as College Avenue the question may come up how do you do that? Jackson: What a wonderful segway! That's perfect for what we want to show you. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minwtes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 7 of 15 Plummer: We took a look at an unconstrained model, essentially not putting any constraints on the facilities to look at what kind of required lanes would be out there, I think this is a level of service E out there (referring to a map with roadways that contained as many as 10 lanes). We wanted to give some context to it and this is what we came up with. Jackson: There are still people out there who believe that you can build your way out of this situation. Macatee: If we were to widen College that might not necessarily mean we still have to widen Shields because this is looking at the people who want to take Shields that have no desire to take College, this isn't looking at the people who are saying, "Well, College is too congested and I want to take Shields." Jackson: Good point. This is an unconstrained model run meaning that there are no impediments to where people want to go. But still, it does to get at that question of what would it take? Phillips: When talking about widening I-25, something else to keep in mind is that this isn't just city residents, but includes travel shed impact. Jackson: That's absolutely true. For those who think that widening I-25 would be the "be all to end all" to everything, again, you might gain some short term improvements to mobility and safety, but it's not going to be long-term fix. It would also be at an incredibly expensive price. Jackson said the next steps will be: - Air Quality Analysis Results - Draft Prioritized CIP Lists - Recommended MSP Revisions - Existing Funding Analysis - Draft Report Sections Johnson: So Mark if we look over some of these maps and have some comments, we just forward them to you? Jackson: Yes, please do. Johnson: One idea that I'd like you to take back is the sidewalk at Albertsons near the hospital. It needs to be improved for pedestrians. And by the way, this is real impressive stuff. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 6 of 15 c. 2004 GENERAL FUND BUDGET STATUS — Bachman Bachman referred to two items in the packets that went to Council. The first one is an informational item. In a nutshell, we're looking at a shortfall in the 2003 budget of about $3.6M. There is a list of potential expense reductions that the City Manager is considering. There is a table attached to the Agenda Item Summary that lists six areas being considered in Transportation. These are items that are being supported by General Fund contributions. Bachman briefly went over each of the six items on the list: - Reduce Harmony Transfer Center maintenance - Reduce some street maintenance (pavement management) service - Privatize ambulatory service for Dial -A -Ride - Reduce dust control and grading in alleys and unpaved roads - Reduce street sweeping to monthly service - Reduce allowance for traffic calming facilities Chair Henderson: Is there a specific deadline that Council has to take action on this? Bachman: Yes, the final budget has to be approved in November. Chair Henderson: So we'll get a chance later to comment on a more mature version of the proposal once they see more of the monthly receipts and trends? Bachman: I believe that's the plan. Dumais: It seems important that rather in some places where they say "reduce" street maintenance, they might say "defer" instead. d. NOVEMBER BALLOT MEASURE — Bachman Bachman stated that this item is a little more positive. The topic is the potential for going to the voters in November with a measure to free up some monies from one of the Building Community Choices (BCC) packages; from lesser priority projects to instead fund the Timberline/Prospect project and do Harmony improvements. The two projects proposed for the funding to be taken from are the Route 14 Relocation project, which required the assistance of Larimer County and CDOT and both of those agencies have responded that they will not be helping. That means there will be $1.2M remaining in the project after deducting some allowance for the non -route based strategies. Bachman said that the other project is the Prospect widening project from Summitview to the Poudre River. At the time that the BCC election happened, the notion was that Prospect would be an important corridor from I-25 and funds were included to widen it in that stretch. However, the funding isn't sufficient to really accomplish it. So, that money is sitting there and we'd like to free it up as well. The thought is to go to the voters, package together these reductions, and depending upon what surfaces in the way of potential private funding for Timberline improvements, there are a couple of scenarios as to the level of improvement that we'll go for. If you go back to the tables attached to the Study Session materials in your packets and turn to the Summary sheet, there is a table that shows the different levels and the cost. APPROVED Regular Meeting Miwtes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 9 of 15 Bachman reported that Council discussed all this and agreed that there seems to be some merit on doing something with the BCC funds that are not being used and are earmarked for lower priority projects. They have elected to begin the process to have an election in November and adopted an ordinance last night stating their intention to do so. The ballot language isn't due until later, perhaps September. Bachman speculated that the next step will be get the transportation capital committee together again, Kastein and Bertschy, to develop a proposal to give to Council before that. Board Comments/Ouestions: Chair Henderson: Quick question on the fall back option, would that interim plan for Timberline remove that area from the APF rule it's under right now? Bachman: Yes. Moe: When BCC got passed there were projects sprinkled around the city and a lot of effort went into trying to get something for everybody. I can see the Prospect option, you're trying to include that corridor those that would use it I would probably agree with you that improvement to the intersection would have a bigger, positive effect on mobility and travel, but if I look at the truck route study and the removal of those dollars and putting it to a project at the south end of town, which if you are parochial and living in the north end of town, how is that going to sit? I think I would look at other projects that are options such as Vine, Lemay improvements. There's been a lot of opinions that nothings been down for the N. College corridor. I'm just throwing that out that there's some potential concerns for those who live in the north area. Bachman: Some of those concerns were brought up at the Study Session. One council member specifically asked, "How's taking this money out of route 14 relocation, considering that was a citizen's initiative, how is that going to fly?" Ricord: And to tag on to what Ray is saying although it's a little different, have we exhausted the discussion of whether or not we still want to spend that $1.2M to continue with the relocation efforts? Maybe we should continue with our non -route based strategies because you talk about the effects of what's happening to the intersections at Lemay and Vine and one of the huge impacts there is pass -through truck traffic and I think that it may be appropriate to look at keeping that money focused on what the voter's focused it on and that is the truck route issue. So out of that $1.2M you still have $1 M that really ought to be utilized for that non -route based... Bachman: No, the $1.2M is the remainder after using the budgeted amount for non -route based strategies. Ricord: I thought the whole total was $1.2M. APPROVED Regular Meeting Mi.,utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 10 of 15 Johnson: I'm not sure what your budget encompasses, but I notice that in the minutes on page 2, with regard to the N. College project, we're working with CDOT and WYDOT to use the variable message boards. Is that part of the budget that you have? Jackson: Yes. Johnson: And is that something that we would consider a long-term strategy to get the trucks... Jackson: Absolutely. I'm looking at the N. College Project and a lot of the things that they're doing as kind of a laboratory. We also talked with Chief Harrison about a year and a half ago about mapping through town a truck route and using some money for enforcement of that route. Is that part of the strategy that you have in your funding? Jackson: I can't remember where we left it. Johnson: I think those are some of the things that before we go back, you see these are all the questions that come up in an election process, there are people who raise these and I would raise them myself. I think we ought to be looking at these before we target that money somewhere else. That truck problem is a major problem. People have identified it for decades. We need to do everything we can to lessen the impact. Dumais: This is a discussion item, right? Bachman: Yes, we're not asking for, nor are we suggesting a recommendation. Johnson: What really concerns me a lot is on page 2 of the hand out, the 2nd to last paragraph. The sense I'm getting from that paragraph is that this was brought about by the meeting with developers with regard to Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and it seemed to me that a ballot measure ought to have a broader kind of input than that. This is too limited and I think when looking at capital for the city, the transportation we should be looking at and from our last two rejections, a very thorough review of street Oversizing and the kinds of things that we are not now including that maybe could be and should be included. If we have a long term thing in place I think that's something we should be pursuing first. Another thing I see is that a lot of this project for Prospect was for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and so I'm not quite sure how we would reallocate onto the Timberline project, but if it was seen by a number of folks in the community that we are transferring money from alternative modes like that to these kinds of things, without considering other alternative modes first, such as putting it into Mason Street, were we to do a reallocation, I think it's the kind of effort that I made over the last year to bring a lot of folks on board and could be eroded very badly. I am very queasy about going forward with this given that paragraph that it's at the behest of the developers to move with regard to APF as one area. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 11 of 15 Bachman: The meetings with the developers helped us focus on the scope of this, particularly with contributing... the actual impetus for considering the reallocation of Prospect money to the Prospect/Timberline intersection actually was something being talked about during the preparation for the ... election, it's something that Kurt and Bill actively considered and then decided that it's another $5M that can go into the overall pot in terms of some of these important projects, but at the time we had Mason and some of the others and they decided that it was just getting too complicated to put that measure on the ballot as well. So the notion of reallocating these funds is not something that was started with this meeting with the developers. It was started with Kurt and Bill. Johnson: But you see the point though, that there is a sense that we are taking money that would be dedicated to largely alternative modes facilities and turn them into adequate public facilities to be used for development. This is very tough for me to deal with another transportation category. Bachman: A lot of these things have been considered. However, on the other hand, the reason that we took it to council is that there is no other source of funds for improving the worst intersections in the city. We recognize that it's robbing one to pay another, but it's a matter a perceived priority and if council decides that's what the priority is after receiving all the information, then we'll go through with the election. Dumais: If someone uses the intersection, I wouldn't exactly couch it in terms of providing APF because it's already a problem, you know, with or without the developers coming in there it's a bad problem right now. Bachman: Yes, it's a Level of Service F. Dumais: Yeah, so it's a relief for the people who would be using it. Ricord: The voter's have already paid for the Prospect/Timberline improvements as far as I'm concerned during Project Recap from back in the 80's. It bears repeating that this is a glaring example of growth not paying it's way because we're coming back once again to improve the intersection even though we already did. Johnson: We've struggled a lot with this issue over the last couple of years and I think that we are going to be going back with a couple of/4-cent renewals in 2005 and I think that I want to stay on board with being able to work hard for transportation capital, but I don't want to have to do it starting from ground zero or below. My recommendation would be to get moving on Street Oversizing and look at everything you need to do and get that done as fast as we can and then start putting together the package for 2005 which really isn't too far behind what will happen with Street Oversizing changes. We would have a package we could come to the community with and we may have to just live with issues like Timberline for another year or so; the voters basically told us to do that and then ....inaudible .... For people to support transportation in 2005 rather than now. APPROVED Regular Meeting Mi.,utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 12 of 15 Dumais: On #2, first bullet item, last diamond it says that some will be tom out. Is there an estimate on how much the capital improvement ... will be used for that? Bachman: I don't think we have a figure yet. We're talking about conceptual at this point. Johnson: What is the schedule for Council to be looking at this? I would imagine at the next few study sessions, they would have to come up with the language. Bachman: Last night's action did not come with a schedule. What will probably happen is that staff will meet with Kurt and Bill and go through the possibilities and some of the concerns they heard from other council members and probably come back to council. Chair Henderson: So I would anticipate that if council is going to want to do anything for the ballot before their September 2 deadline and if we're going to get a chance to comment on it, it would have to be on next month's agenda, which is August 20. Ricord: So if we want to provide advice to them, we need to send it now. Johnson: I move that we forward our concerns voiced here tonight to Council. There was a second by Ricord. Discussion: Ricord could we do a bulleted summation, for instance that one of our concerns has to do with not reallocating the BCC monies from the truck route relocation and then ... Johnson: Well the second part of the truck recommendation is that there are a number of options that we could follow through on perhaps and we can't dissipate those monies without knowing what some of those options are too soon. Can't let those go. Dumais: We have to caution reallocating those funds and that any reallocation should only occur after we have considered the total cost and such. There was also the issue of getting the appropriate amount of contributions from Street Oversizing funds so we have a fair contribution from development. McNair: With regard to the SOF, there is no way it could be to council before November 11. Johnson: I understand that's a problem, but sometimes a rush like this can lead us into a lot more trouble. Grigg: I wonder if we're firing our gun too soon here. Ricord: I don't think so. Look at the history and the timing. The sooner we have advice to council the better. Dumais: One of my concerns too would be there are two transportation measures on the ballot. If we do something that's not really well conceived and it fails again and we're coming back with BCC ... again, we just start stumbling forward and never catch ourselves. APPROVED Regular Meeting Me„utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 13 of 15 Chair Henderson: We need to pull back in a bit. Tim made a motion that we forward the information to Council for their Study Session on the 12a' and just use our minutes from these meeting for that information. So we just added to that in this discussion here. The question now is do we want to make any modifications or another motion to that to do more? Johnson: I think a short letter and attach the minutes of this section of the meeting to it will suffice. Chair Henderson: So, would you please restate that so we can make sure we have this captured for the cover letter. Dumais: We caution against reallocating the money from the SH 14 Relocation Study with respect to the fact that we'd like to have a good estimate of what can be done and its cost before it gets reallocated. Additionally, there were concerns here about the fact that there were some alternative transportation aspects in Prospect widening and to lose that into a simple intersection development may appear to the public to be ... (inaudible) ... and then additionally we wanted to be sure that the effort to assess the fairness of the Street Oversizing Program is really being pushed along as being done currently (?). And if you want to add that some of the concern is with regard to the fact that ... (inaudible).... Chair Henderson: well, you can make this as complex as you want, but fewer points might be better initially. So Tim, do you want to restate your motion, because it's really two things now? It's forwarding the minutes from this discussion to the council accompanied by this cover letter. Johnson: The paragraph that Joe just dictated along with the minutes. Chair Henderson: So the motion is this subset of the minutes, plus the cover letter with the three points that Joe just raised about the SH 14 reallocation of funds, the alternative modes impact of not following through with the full Prospect improvement and then concern about concurrent efforts on the street oversizing plan connected with the removal of this Timberline piece from the APF category. Does that capture it? Any more discussion or do we want to vote? I call the question. The motion carried unanimously, 8-0. e. ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER - Henderson Chair Henderson stated that he initiated this agenda item after last month's meeting. It is important to have a common set of expectations around motions and specifically around rescinding of motions. A summary of Restorative Motions from Chair Henderson was distributed and he explained it in detail. In the case if the I-25 Sub -Area Plan, we hadn't followed through, so Don and I exchanged a little bit of email about what to do and I didn't follow through with making sure that happened before the last meeting. The staff decided to bring that back, put that on the agenda and we didn't really follow according to Robert's Rules the technically correct process in this case. It should have been brought on the agenda as a motion to --, APPROVED Regular Meeting Mi.utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 14 of 15 rescind the original motion. The result doesn't matter. The conclusion that you folks reached was the same that was reached at the May meeting, so that was fine. Board Comments/Ouestions: Trantham: So we should have voted at the beginning of the meeting and if we had at least two-thirds then we ... Chair Henderson: It should have actually been on as an action item to rescind the original motion and because there wasn't prior formal notice of this it would have been a motion that required a two-thirds majority vote in order to rescind it. Don and I talked about this and we'll make sure that in the future that these things get more tightly connected. That any motions like the one we just finished with regard to the funding, get carried out prior to the next meeting or if there is some reason, if something comes up and it's not going to get done, I'll make sure that gets communicated to everyone on the board. The other thing I've talked about with some of you is directly sending the results of the resolution to Council myself. That's fine, I don't want to do it without working with staff, because frankly there is a lot of benefit to working with staff and being able to get access to the minutes and Cynthia's help in formulating this and going back and forth with Don on the wording of it, but when we get to the final form of whatever the resolution is I don't have any issues with sending it myself to council with copies to the appropriate folks. Johnson: Yeah, I think that makes sense and I appreciate you bringing forward the clarification. 7. REPORTS a. BOARD MEMBER Trantham: Cars in Bike Lanes. We had a meeting and it was brought up that it's legal for a car to use the bike lane to go on the right side of another car stopped in front of them to get around them. I just couldn't believe that it's legal. I emailed Don to get a little more information. Bachman: I received more than one answer. I tried to narrow it down to one answer, but before I say anything definitive, I'd like to research this more. Trantham: That would be great. If we find out that it is legal, then I'd like to know what steps can be taken to turn that around. Dumais: Mountain/Colleee. I noticed that at Mountain and College there is a diagonal green with I guess is for the left -turn lanes. There's a green light that faces diagonally. I was a pedestrian at the time and I looked up and saw a green light and was momentarily tempted to walk diagonally like you can in Estes Park. I just thought that it could be a point of confusion. It's by Beau Jo's Pizza and the Drugstore corners. Just seems like an odd configuration. Midpoint. Is Midpoint due for resurfacing? McNair: Yes. Johnson: Citizen's Initiative. I passed around a sheet that I picked up from the City Manager's Office last month that has a schedule of John Knesovich's ideas for a citizen's initiative he was proposing for November of this year. I wanted folks to be able to see what was circulating. APPROVED Regular Meeting M.„utes Transportation Board July 16, 2003 Page 15 of 15 Grigg: S. Korea Trip. I missed the last couple meetings as I was traveling. One of the places I was in was S. Korea. I was really impressed by the progress that they've made in transportation since I was there in 1997. Their information technology initiative is really working. The thing that impressed me the most was their subway system. b. STAFF Jackson: Kudos to Kathleen Reavis. Kathleen recently passed her exam for professional certification and is now a member of AICP. It's a pretty rigorous exam. She studied for it at the same time she was managing the MTC when it was in high gear and she's a single mom, so we're just real proud of her. McNair: Construction Project Information. McNair gave an update on various construction projects. All this information can also be found on the web. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURN Chair Henderson adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 66 Z#45L� &,� Cynthia Cass Executive Administrative Assistant City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services