Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 08/15/2001REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD August 15, 2001 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins - Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Christophe Ricord 472.8769 VICE CHAIR: Dan Gould 482.1074 STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224.6049 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Scott 224.6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Dan Gould Bruce Henderson Tim Johnson Tom Kramer Brad Miller Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham Mary Warring Steve Yeldell CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Gary Diede Randy Hensley Mark Jackson Cam McNair Ron Phillips Ken Waido GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Sally Craig Kurt Kastein ABSENT: Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 2 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Ricord called the meeting to order at approximately 5:50 p.m. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hard copies of the minutes were not included in the packets this month, but were e-mailed instead. Because several members did not pick up their e-mail this week, this item was deferred until next month. 4. RECOGNITION OF SUSANNE DURKIN-SCHINDLER Chair Ricord welcomed Susanne Durkin -Schindler who was recognized for her contribution to the Mason Street Transportation Corridor project that earned the Institute of Transportation Engineers Award. The award will be presented at their annual meeting next week. Chair Ricord read the following: The planning process encompassed 22 months of sustained and often grueling effort from December 1998 — September 2000. Ms. Durkin -Schindler led the Technical Advisory Committee as well as the MSC team. She guided this planning effort to its successfiil conclusion, which required a high degree of creativity and leadership ability. Added studies were necessary and newly arriving lead team members presented special challenges and required special responses, but Susanne handled each of these needs as they came up. The quantity and quality of the outreach effort was a major reason for the community wide acceptance and success. We hope this will serve as a model for future planning. Chair Ricord thanked Ms. Durkin -Schindler for her outstanding job on the Mason Street Corridor. Ms. Durkin -Schindler stated that this was truly a team effort, including everyone in the room tonight. She said that it is to the board's credit as well that the project received an award. She then thanked everyone. Hensley distributed the new Executive Summary of the Mason Street Transportation Corridor. Johnson made a motion to send the same letter of commendation that was read aloud tonight to City Council and have it read by Chair Ricord if he is able. There was a second and the motion carried unanimously. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT Page 3 Each board member introduced themselves to council liaison Kastein. Kastein stated that there was a recent study session where the council evaluated five boards and commissions and one of the comments heard was that they hadn't seen or heard from their liaison enough. He asked if anyone had feedback for him. Miller asked what Kastein's impression is of the communication between this board and Council. Kastein stated that this board does a good job, especially on issues that are coming up for Council consideration. Council gets correspondence in a timely manner and it is clear. The minutes are well written and that helps tremendously. 6. DISCUSSION ITEMS: a. STREET OVERSIZING FUNDING INFO —DIEDE, MCNAIR, BAKER Engineering staff did a short presentation on how Street Oversizing works. There were numerous questions from the T-Board. Primarily the questions were targeted at how to identify responsibility for improving older intersections. Also, how do we fund gaps in the system for the local street portion adjacent to properties developed in the county, CSU property, state owned land, federal land and natural areas land that are not required to pay for the street improvements. BOARD QUESTIONS/COMMENTS: Thordarson: Do you have the chart that shows the Master Street Plan (MSP) and how Street Oversizing (SO) covers the existing MSP? Baker: Yes, we still have it, but it is outdated because the MSP has changed so significantly. I haven't updated it yet. Roughly what percentage would you say of the MSP would be addressed by Street Oversizing currently? Baker: My rough calculations are that it would be about 50/50. If you wanted to extend the City of FC street network out to the UGA boundary at functional capacity, it would be about half Street Oversizing and half Capital. Johnson: With regard to natural areas and Street Oversizing, when you do SO, you *JLW4 base it on the number of trips that are generated. Neurally you don't aims generate very many trips. Baker: That's true. Johnson: Perhaps we could say that those developments that surround a natural area often have greatly enhanced value so there might be a way to look at how those developments might pay for that based on the enhanced value that they have. That is just an example. I believe that there are different ways to look at how one might recover those costs. The main point I would like to get at is that in looking at the impact of a new development on existing infrastructure, right now with regard to the SO fund, we pay from the General fund in part because we benefit on these pass -through trips. We do business out there, we work out there, we Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 4 visit friends out there in the new developments and because of that benefit, we then contribute from the General Fund to that portion. There is also some unrecoverable ones such as out of town trips and so on. The impact of the new development on existing infrastructure, when it comes to having to increase the capacity of an intersection such as Lemay and Prospect at $3M, we have no reciprocal coverage from the new development to the old infrastructure. Are there communities that address this issue and if so, how do they do that? Baker: They use a capacity based model of calculating development impacts. That has been the preferred method for cities that have a totally constructed street infrastructure because additional developments then add impacts to their existing street ... Johnson: So with the current model, that's just a hole that we have and we have to cover that by way of capital taxes. Baker: It is a different methodology, it's auto related so yes, you can calculate the auto impacts to the street network from outside developments but that is not going to totally fund the improvements on the existing deficiencies. It will give you another piece of it, but it still will not bring the funding up to the point where you can ... those improvements to the street and you lose the improvements on the outlying areas because those old two-lane roads functionally make capacity so you end up with a lot more existing deficiencies. Johnson: So there is no way of doing a hybrid operation where you can somehow calculate what the impact is of the new development on the existing infrastructure and work something in that range. Does anybody do that that you know of? Diede: I thought we did that when we talked about the 1979 deficiencies in some of the intersections and we tried to calculate how much new development contributed to certain intersections to try to get new development to pay a portion of that. (Baker explained that in the newer areas there is a way to deal with improvements methodology/capacity issues, but in the older areas, this is an issue that is before us and we have to deal with it somehow, someway in the future.) Johnson: the third issue that I wanted you to deal with, which is in many ways outside of what we typically think about, particularly interchanges that are not State or Federal related, such as Prospect and Mountain Vista, those become something that the local communities have to deal with. Those are pretty much our money. So if there is a commercial development, say on an interchange with Prospect, do we have a way of assigning this massive charge to the public or do we assign it to the developer or is that a "limbo land" where we're not really dealing with this kind of infrastructure cost. Baker: It's kind of a "limbo land." Johnson: I think it's time that we as a board ask Council to have staff address this seriously because it may already be too late in some cases. We have these massive capital problems that are right there and we need Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 5 to deal with them and there isn't a policy to really effectively do it. I think it's time we that write a letter to Council to ask that. Moe: Do developments in the City of FC contribute also to fees in the county? Baker: Yes they do. There is a Latimer County Regional Transportation Fee which is a small impact fee that we collect fro er-Ge E ,aad rb4 cwlins a+ki then give them the money, they collect that also in their county jurisdiction. The money is used for regional roadways that really don't benefit Larimer County. For instance, Taft Hill and Shields between here and Loveland. That stretch is traveled 95% by residents in Fort Collins and Loveland so they collect a fee for regional type roadways like that. Moe: Is there a reciprocal where Larimer County residents pay to the City of Fort Collins? Baker: No. Gould: Just a comment. As indicated by the Congestion Management Plan of 1997, there are parts of the present roadway system that are con ested and , there is no chance for capacity to be because of the physical t hCl AUJ conditions of the roadways, yet there still is development in core areas of the city. It doesn't seem like there is a measurement now to capture that additional burden for mobility. You have a congested infrastructure and you still have mobility needs. We really need a way to capture that burden for transit operations. Trantham: One question I have in trying to understand the differences between the two different models — VMT and Capital Expansion Models (CEM) — is that you cited one benefit of using CEM is that it helps us complete the street network in that the VMT model is used by cities where the network is complete. I guess I don't understand the distinction because if you're developing, you're continuing to expand your street network and so when is it ever complete? Baker: When you look at new development on the fringes of the city and there are traffic patterns all going into employment areas or into the shopping areas, that is where you need the capacity improvements. For the areas around the development, two-lane roadways are adequate for the development. They wouldn't have to improve the street out in front of their development because they already have the traffic capacity necessary to drive on it — in the fringes. Warring: Could you talk a little bit more about credit for taxes — what does that mean, what percentage it is, how long it lasts, is it State or Federally mandated, etc. Baker: It is a requirement of the State enabling legislation that allows cities to collect impact fees. Warring: Technically we have to call it a fee if it qualifies on the State side as a tax. Baker: No, we have to give them a credit for future taxes they would pay because the theory of impact fees is that you charge them for the improvement, and you can't charge them again. So, there is a credit provision for any transportation taxes that they might have paid. Warring: So while you and I continue to Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 6 pay taxes, they are getting refunds through the State. Baker: No. They get a credit to their one-time Street Oversizing Fee. Pay now instead of pay later. It seems to me that the fee program that we have in place seems to be ...we are fixing parts and we are addressing new development. But, as a whole system, every bit of new development impacts existing infrastructure. We're collecting these fees, but what you're saying is that it's really not helping us in any way in addressing our existing deficiencies even though they are impacting them. That's where we have a gap. The need is there and it's clear that new development is impacting our existing system, but you're saying your hands are tied. My input is that we are never going to get out of this hole. The new development is not contributing to solving our problems. Diede: Unless you consider the sales tax they pay when they purchase property. They pay for capital expansions. That is one way that they are contributing. If you're saying the fee itself isn't contributing to improving the deficiencies, that is true. Warring: With respect to your capital costs, for example, the interchange at SH 14 and the interchange at US 34, they are both the same interchanges. There may be some slight radius differences between them, but they are the same and they both need to be fixed. SH 14 is a $20M fix and because of the development at US 34, it is a $47M fix. Both are considered capital improvement costs. Is that how we also evaluate our capital improvement costs here in the city? It's not based on how it is going to be impacted in the future; it is just a given public ROW? Baker: We base our Cl cost on the ultimate build -out of the roadway in the MSP, trying to take into account varying factors such as bridges, proximity, etc. There can be differences in costs of a street from one place to another. We try to capture all those costs and roll that into the mix on the improvements ... Diede: There must be something significantly different on the US 34 interchange. Warring: There is. They are using a single - point interchange, which is a more expensive design, but then also, capacity needs to be taken to a level where it is quite a bit larger than what the capacity is going to be for SH 14. So it is not exclusively $27M to capacity, but a lot of it is. Miller: When you determine the fees, whether they are for the capital part or the SOP, I'm assuming that we do that with the current street model at hand — the current MSP and the current requirements for streets in terms of width, etc. Baker: Yes. There was a very brief discussion and then Chair Ricord thanked staff for their informative presentation. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 7 7. ACTION ITEMS: a. FORT COLLINS I-25 SUB -AREA PLAN UPDATE—JACKSON & WAIDO Bachman requested that this item be tabled until the September 19 Transportation Board meeting because: 1) Staff member Ken Waido is ill again; and 2) There has been a change in the schedule on the project. It is now not likely to go to Council until October at the soonest. There has been a desire by Council members to hold additional community input. Jackson added that he learned just this afternoon that the Regional I-25 Corridor Plan will not be heard next week by Council. It will be heard in October or November. b. SHORT TERM CAPITAL SALES TAX MEASURE — BACHMAN Bachman stated that the Board needs to consider the potential sales tax measures for transportation and environmental improvements, and make recommendations to Council. Last night the CC held a Study Session in which there were two items, one of which was the sales tax item. The Board received the same materials that Council did. Last month, the schedule for the sales tax measure was discussed. At that time it was hoped that they would make a decision by September 4 as to whether or not to go to the voters with a sales tax this fall. At the session last night, the consensus of the Council was that they would take two alternatives — one transportation alternative and one environmental alternative — back to the full Council on August 28. The alternatives will be packaged separately. At that time they will deal with the Study Session agenda items first and then adjourn the meeting. Then they will reconvene and discuss the sales tax issue. There are two transportation packages that were under consideration at the meeting last night. Option "A" included three roadway projects and the Mason Street Transportation Corridor local match for a total of $46.8M. This option proposes a % -cent sales tax for an estimated nine years. Option "B" is the same as "A" except that it eliminates the Lemay project from the proposed ballot measure. The effect on the tax would be to reduce the cost of the projects to $19.6M and the term of the tax from nine years to four years. At the time that the agenda went to print on August 8, staff was in the process of completing a citizen survey to help provide council with additional information regarding the proposed tax issues. Since that time, results have been tabulated and Bachman shared them with the Board. The board and staff discussed details of the Timberline Road (bridge) project and the Harmony Road project. Johnson asked Bachman to address what the maintenance issues look like in the coming years and in the out years in terms of seeing a deficit showing up. McNair distributed materials related to the question and Bachman stated that through the year 2005, the matter is funded until the existing sales tax measure is up for reconsideration. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 8 Hensley gave the board an update on the funding for the Mason Street Corridor project. Warring stated that she is disappointed to see the MSTC included in the proposals. It needs to be stand-alone. Personally, she travels Timberline Road all the time and sees the need as peak hour. She also sees the tremendous amount of development going out there. There has been a "For Sale" sign at the comer of Timberline and Prospect for a long time, which probably means that people have looked at it, but they don't want to pay the costs associated with it, so it sits. It appears that we're proposing that the taxpayers pay for it, so then the developer can go forward. I can't support that, but with respect to MSTC, I would vote for the $5M, but not as part of a larger package. I think it could be really hurtful if you lump it with projects that may not pass. I think it's a risk we take in that it could appear that the public does not support the project. Yeldell agreed that they (the projects/measures) don't fit together at all. There was more discussion about whether or not the community would support the other projects in the proposals. Johnson stated that we all know we have a long list of capital things that are needed in the community, the green/purple map that Baker had tonight began to show that. The trouble is that we're cobbling this together at a very late date and in response to what might happen with the library and the arts issue. That issue will have to be fought out by itself. It's not a slam-dunk as it shows here. My own view is that they do have some deficits that will come to light and the public will discuss it and decide on that. We have a lot of transportation issues. We might pick a few that we know we need, but a year from now we might be sorry that we didn't include something else in the package or extend this for a couple more years to cover this because the need might be so glaring. Since we're trying to cobble this together at a late date, we're going to have things like that left out. However, if we have a more deliberative process leading up it, say in a year from now, I think we can cover our bases better and be much happier and feel stronger about what we have put forward to the public. McNair stated that it may seem that this has been cobbled together at the last moment, but staff has been working on this for a year. They've looked at 10-year needs, were told to break it down to a 4-year list with the highest priorities. There were about 50 transportation projects, which was still too much. Staff was asked for a short list and they came back with 10. They then got it down to four and now it's down to two. Staff has considered the big picture and narrowed it down to the list of the most immediate needs and now I hear you're asking us to go back to the big picture. Yeldell clarified that the question is, is the big picture going to come upon us 1-2 years from now. McNair replied that yes, it does have to be addressed. Funding strategy for capital needs in the city has not been addressed. There are three sources of funds that we know of. the MPO system, Street Oversizing system, and City Capital funds. He stated that he doesn't know of any other way to bring money to transportation. All three of those put together don't even come close to funding the needs of the city. We're trying to get to that, but we're not there yet. Certainly we will have to turn around immediately after this and look at the big picture. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 9 Bachman stated that the board needs to decide whether to go forward and what form to go forward in. The Council will be looking at Option "B" on transportation side, The two ways that they have looked at "B" that was discussed last night was basically "B" with Mason and without. Henderson asked if Mason would be dropped totally from the ballot or considered by itself. Bachman said that there would only be one transportation measure that would either include Mason or not include Mason or they could elect to add/subtract another project that would change the rate and the duration as well. For discussion purposes, what's going to be in front of Council, is option `B". Right now there is not uniform consensus among council members whether to move forward or if it should include Mason. The board talked about the pros and cons of including Mason. Chair Ricord suggested someone make a motion. Miller moved that the Transportation Board recommend to City Council that they support option "B" as presented and that it should be placed on the ballot. There was a second by Kramer. Discussion: Henderson: I like the motion because it does have Mason Street in it and I think there is an opportunity on the ballot of getting a piece of the pie so to speak. It's not going to get easier. It will be tougher each time to go the voters. Miller: I agree with Bruce. Warring. I will not support the motion. Yeldell: I think it's a follow-up of the Mason Street issue and there are two very significant and severe road issues that need to be addressed so I support the motion. Trantham: I really don't like the two road projects that are on here and I'm not saying that they're not needed and I don't like the whole option of loaning to developers so they can develop their land. I would like to see a package that is more balanced. I wish I could give more direction as to what that might include, but I can't. I think if it didn't go through with Mason Street that a separate ballot issue regarding Mason should be considered. I will not be supporting the motion. Gould: I think this is more important thanjust isolating a few. It's ambiguous emergency kinds of problems. We and the City need to be more careful about how this is packaged together and make sure that it is fair and balanced and not just short-term issues, but rather long-term issues get addressed. Moe: I will support it, but would like to do a friendly amendment — to try to extend the bike lanes. Adding this would make it more of a roads/alternative modes balance to the project. I don't know if it is even possible, but I would like to add that to the motion. "To pursue if possible" might be a good way to word it. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 10 Johnson: I won't be supporting the motion. I think we have had a good process and we may get to a good product, but now I think we're kind of playing the childhood birthday game of Pin the Tail on the Donkey and I'm not sure where the donkey is right now. Thordarson: I echo Moe's comment that I would like to see an amendment to the motion to at least see if the addition of bike lanes to that last segment on Harmony is possible. I favor the motion maybe somewhat reluctantly, but I think the projects are definitely needed. I would like to see momentum continue with the Mason Street Corridor and I think we might as well keep going strong at it while we can. I also think that as well as the traffic needs of the road projects, there are some really glaring multi - modal deficiencies that are being addressed particularly in the case of the Harmony project, even without that last segment. Roll Call: Henderson: Yes Miller: Yes Warring: No Kramer: Yes Yeldell: Yes Trantham: No Gould: No Moe: Yes Johnson: No Thordarson: Yes Ricord: No The motion carried by a majority vote, 6 — S. Council Liaison Kastein stated that the first thing we need to do regardless of whether this tax passes or not, we have to hit the ground running and try to capture more sales tax revenue for capital projects. Figure out how to save some money. 8. REPORTS a) BOARD MEMBERS: Thordarson: Transit. I had the opportunity to ride Fox Trot a couple times this past month and the ridership looked quite good. I was impressed. Peak ridership both times I was on was 14 on the bus and there were people getting on and off. I would guess that it was about 80% full. The bike racks in both cases were full. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 11 Travel Report— Western U.S. I was in Montana and read the paper while there. The governor is floating a proposal to widen state highways to four lanes to attract development. Then, in Spokane, Washington, they are all up in arms about not having money for the streets, which are falling apart. There were letters to the editor and editorials and they are trying to figure out what to do. In Portland, Oregon, the City Council just passed a transportation maintenance fee to be added to the water/utility bill just like the one that was considered here in the past. Johnson: Youth Fares on Transit Memo. The information that was included in our packets has me real concerned about the loss of 300,000 ridership, but it means more to us in terms of congestion than that because everybody knows that when these kids are riding it saves two parent trips. When you look at that sum/multiplication factor, maybe it isn't a full 2.0 but it might be a 1.5 or a 1.7. That is a significant impact on our streets. It is also a good time to get kids using this system as they move in their period of independence. They need to know how to use the system and be comfortable with it. I think we should make a recommendation to Council. Maybe we can add this to the agenda for next month and make a recommendation for it at that time. Moe: Conference Report. One of the topics was innovative bicycle treatments for cities. I could do a side presentation to the board on what's being done in other parts of the country. There are some pretty interesting ideas on how things are being done, such as bike boxes and other things I hadn't heard of before. If there is an interest, we could take 15-20 minutes of the next meeting. Gould: Transit as Primary Service. For at least the last two sessions we have not had time or not been organized enough to talk about the notion of Transfort being designated as a primary service. I drafted a letter to Council (distributed to board) and would like the board to review it. Bachman relayed the council schedule as it relates to this topic. Chair Ricord stated that the board should go ahead and make a formal recommendation to council on the transit issue. There was a motion by Thordarson to support Gould's letter to Council on Transfort as a primary service with one proposed change to the last sentence. Have it read. "We appreciate your careful deliberation on this important issue. " There was a second by Johnson. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Yeldell: Better Jacksonville Plan. Delaying a project can be very costly later. Transportation Board DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes August 15, 2001 Page 12 Ricord: Bring Materials. I just want to remind everyone to bring the July 18 minutes as well as the ones you get in your next packets so we can approve them both in September. b. STAFF REPORTS Bachman: There is an open house in this building tomorrow and everyone is welcome to attend. ITEMS for NEXT AGENDA: • I-25 Sub -Area Plan —Action • I-25 Corridor Plan — Update • Youth Fares for Transfort — Action FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: • Mason Street Update on Schedules and Plans (in next three months or so) ATMS Update • Front Range Bike Trail Presentation • Update on RTA OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at approximately 9:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, 1�SL��d Cynthia Scott Executive Administrative Assistant