Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 04/21/2004REGULAR MEETING MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD April 21, 2004 5:45 p.m. City of Fort Collins -Municipal Building Community Room 215 N. Mason Street FOR REFERENCE: CHAIR: Bruce Henderson 898-4625 VICE CHAIR: Heather Trantham 206-4255 STAFF LIAISON: Don Bachman 224-6049 ADMIN SUPPORT: Cynthia Cass 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Eberspacher Dan Gould Tim Johnson Ray Moe Christophe Ricord Gary Thomas Brent Thordarson Heather Trantham CITY STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Don Bachman Cynthia Cass Tom Frazier Mark Jackson John Lang Cam McNair Ron Phillips ABSENT: Joe Dumais Neil Grigg Bruce Henderson GUESTS IN ATTENDANCE: Jeanette Namuth 1. CALL TO ORDER Vice Chair Trantham called the meeting to order at 5:50 p.m. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 15 Transportation Board April 2:1, 2004 2. AGENDA REVIEW No changes were made to the agenda. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT None. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (FEBRUARY 2004) There was a motion and a second to approve the minutes of February 18, 2004 as presented. Discussion: None. The question was called and the motion carried by a unanimous vote, 8-0. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None. 6. ACTION ITEMS a. EAST PROSPECT ROAD PROJECT - Lang Using Power Point, Lang presented information on the project. Highlights of the presentation included: EAST PROSPECT ROAD TODAY Major route into Fort Collins Current Average Daily Traffic = 20,000 vpd Narrow two lane road - Minimal shoulders - Inadequate bicycle lanes - No pedestrian facilities - 100 year flood overtops roadway - Street in need of repair - Master Street Plan — four lane arterial street • 1997 BCC IMPROVEMENTS BALLOT LANGUAGE "This project will widen Prospect Road from the Poudre River to Summitview Drive providing bicycle lanes, two travel lanes, a left turn lane, and a sidewalk to enhance the safety of bicycles, pedestrians, and motorists. Presently, the road is not protected from major floods. Portions of the roadway will be raised and a bridge will be constructed to protect the road from the 100 year flood. Planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and other project costs maybe included." • STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving budget, scope and schedule for the construction of the interim BCC section APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 24, 2004 • PROJECT APPROACH Conceptual and Preliminary Design Prospect Parkway to I-25 o To plan alignment o To minimize impacts 0 1993 Prospect Road Streetscape Program Final Design BCC Limits — Poudre River to Summitview Dr. - BCC Required elements - BCC available funding - Design to not waste interim improvements - Construct an additional four lane bridge Page 3 of 15 • FINAL DESIGN PROJECT ISSUES Roadway section — how do we build the interim BCC section now and not waste these improvements when the future four -lane section is built? • INTERIM IMPROVEMENTS - New four -lane bridge - Two travel lanes - On -street bicycle lanes - Low profile center median with left -turn bays - Combined paved sidewalk/trail - Dry land seeding - Right-of-way purchase for four -lane street section • FOUR -LANE IMPROVEMENTS New four -lane bridge Four travel lanes - On -street bicycle lanes - Landscaped low profile center median with left -turn bays - Roadside sidewalks and off road trail - Native species landscaping - Right-of-way purchase NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES Four Natural Areas border the BCC project ■ Riverbend Ponds ■ Cottonwood Hollow • Running Deer ■ CSU Environmental Learning Center Private property along Prospect Road is in the 100 year flood plain and currently not developed APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 15 Transportation Board April 21, 2004 • PROJECT BUDGET 1997 BCC Funding $5,847,385 Interim BCC Street Section $5,830,000 Four -lane Arterial Street Section $7,300,000 Board Comments/Ouestions: Johnson: So there are 2 travel lanes with bike lanes and the trail will work as a sidewalk for pedestrians. No curb and gutter? Lang: Curb and gutter only on the inside of the median so it doesn't have to be ripped up and the asphalt redone. Johnson: What about the outside? Lang: Outside, there will be no curb and gutter on the interim plan. That way it's not tom out, it's not wasted and if we put it in we have to do a lot more storm water work. Right now we're going to use that last 23' that ultimately will be the final four -lane section to manage the water to move it back and forth through several pipes. Johnson: In the long-term plan, you would not put the sidewalks in? Lang: That's a decision way above me. We designed them so they are there if needed. We designed it so you can add pieces as you go. Johnson: I think this is great. I'm very encouraged by what I'm seeing here. The key thing here is you don't put any resource into it that you have to tear out later and it looks like you've made a big effort to avoid that and yet serve all the needs of all the modes here. Lang: That's exactly right and what we strived to do. It was a team effort of many people in Transportation Services. Ricord: It says that there are four natural areas that border the BCC project, could you help me see where those are on the map? Lang: Absolutely. (Lang pointed them out on the map.) Ricord: So it looks like Cottonwood Hollow, Running Deer and part of the Environmental Learning Center Natural Areas would all be impacted to some extent by this project because the alignment comes to the south by a given number of feet. Lang: That is right. It basically shifts it south on the order of about 30'. Part of that reasoning is that as you got through this intersection and the homes, these homes were right on the road. These are mostly vacant property going back to the Learning Center. We looked at wetlands. We looked at wetland mitigations. There are 13 regulated wetlands in this corridor. Every one is very costly to push a road into or mitigate. So, we could either deal with a premium wetland or lake and the choice was to move it south, limit the fiscal impacts to the businesses and residents and we would still use existing laneage to build this under traffic. That was a key factor in our design process, to build it under traffic. Ricord: Do you know what the environmental impact assessment is of the movement south? APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April29,2004 Page 5 of 15 Lang: I know which wetlands we will have to mitigate and how we will do it. With Natural Resources on our staff, we have worked through that whole process in a team approach and have gotten a letter from them saying that we do not have to do their formal environmental assessment process. We were enough of a team player and we had the same philosophy to make this work and minimize impacts that they exempted us from that requirement. (Referring to the map -) We will have to fill some of this and build some more shallow wetlands here. We have a lot of remediation in this area. We have a PRPA line come through there. There is a Box Elder Sanitation line coming through there and we have the Anheiser Busch force vein all come through this intersection. That's why the ideal location for this bridge would have been right here. It would have been a huge and costly expense to relocate all those lines, so it's easier to shift the bridge slightly and bring it in. Ricord: So you're saying part of this project, even though some of the natural area is taken, will be mitigation elsewhere as part of this project. Lang: Oh absolutely! If the road has to encroach on this area, we need to mitigate that water ... Ricord: That's all part of the budget? Lang: Yes it is. Because this had been gravel pits, there are lots of piles of top soil and rock, rubble and straight barrow ditches. hi order to mitigate that, we've worked with Natural Resources, asking them where do you want to get rid of some of this barren land and replace it with top soil? This road is to be raised about 3 %: feet as you come down this hill. So we needed lots of fill. We worked things out with them to everyone's benefit. Ricord: Question for Bob Smith. If we raise this road alignment, can you tell us how that changes the floodplain? Smith: What it does is help because currently the whole road is underwater and it floods. Trantham: Did this road flood in 1997? Smith: No it didn't. By the time the flows got down the Poudre River in this area, they were basically within the channel capacity. Trantham: When was the last time that road overtopped? Do you know? Smith: I don't know exactly, but our analysis shows roughly a 10-year event would overtop this area. Trantham: I have a question about the bridge. If the road is ever built out to be four - lanes, will there still be bike capacity on the bridge? Lang: Yes. The bridge is constructed so it has a full arterial section through it. Travel lanes, bike lanes, and vehicle separation. Thordarson: Are you aware of any improvements that will take place with the bike lanes east of Summitview in the near term? Lang: Sorry, but I don't know of anything. I know there are several development possibilities in that section. We haven't been asked for the alignment drawings, so I don't know how far along they are. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21,2004 Page 6 of 15 McNair: I have something to say to that. If you've been out there recently, you've noticed the pavement is in pretty bad shape. In conjunction with this project and also recognizing what CDOT's going to be doing on the other end with moving the rest area, we're going to look at that gap and we'll probably be doing some rehab work. If we have those opportunities, we'll do some incremental widening to try to give some bike lane space. We do that on projects whenever we can. I think there's room to at least do that. Johnson: Is the trail going to be built with BCC money from Transportation and Natural Areas? Lang: Actually it's not. The joint part is in terms of working with their areas and trying to get the soil and make it so it's easy for them to reclaim their area, but the trail is solely constructed and paid for by the Natural Resources Department. So this project will not be paying for that portion of the cost. Johnson: Will the design standard be something like that of the Mason Street standards and not the kind we've seen before on the Spring Creek and Poudre Trails? Phillips: This is a Natural Areas trail, so I assume the standards will be like the ones built in the Cathy Fromme Prairie and others like that. Lang: It's envisioned to be an 8-10' trail, hard concrete, probably even colored. Ricord: I'm looking at this cross-section of the interim proposed cross-section and the thing that's bothering me about this a little bit is I want to make this narrower. I want to try and avoid taking natural areas as much as possible. I want to have a more compact footprint. That's just my line of reasoning here and I'm looking at things like the median which is a 19' median. It looks like in order for the geometries of the modules of this to fit together, that 19' median is essential. Is that true? Lang: Yes, it is very essential. Probably the key components of that 19' median is that in order to have the landscaped medians, the Parks Department really feels 7' is the minimum width they can deal with in a median nose and still have landscape. When you have a 12' turn bay you'll wind up with a 7' median nose in these sections. So this section right here is 19', but this section right here is 7'. Nineteen is the standard and really what we were aiming for was we wanted this to be capable of including all the parts of the standard four -lane arterial cross section with just a few little modifications here and there. Ricord: On the 23' grass shoulder where we have a 4 to 1 slope, does the 23' come from a 4 to I slope requirement? Lang: No. The 23' comes from a need for the ultimate facilities. The 8' bike lane, the 10' bikeway, and 6' sidewalks so when you plan for those future amenities, you get that 23'. Ricord: Has there been an internal discussion about how to squeeze this down? Lang: It's been discussed and there are folks on both sides of that coin. We came up with this interim so we could plan for the ultimate, but construct the interim and still provide the facilities needed to make this corridor safe. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 2.1, 2004 Page 7 of 15 Johnson: If it turns out the trail works adequately, which in my view it would work adequately and you wouldn't need sidewalks in the future, then that would allow some possibility for cutting down the footprint of the ultimate project? As I see it, you don't have any majors here that are driving pedestrianism. Lang: That would be a possibility, yes. Thordarson: Is there room to do a pedestrian underpass on the east side of the Poudre River Bridge? Lang: I don't know. We looked at that and it is outside the ballot language limit, but we did look at that and I can't remember the exact reason why there was no room, but we did connect sidewalk to trail locations just to the west for that exact purpose, but it's not under the bridge, it's on the road. That's in the ultimate, not in this one. Phillips: I'd like to mention that what we're trying to do at this point is acquire ROW. We anticipate that there will be development along Prospect east of Summitview and we don't know just what all the pedestrian requirements will be for this area. I think we can plan now for the possibility of needing sidewalks in the future. We can plan for it now and not impact natural area, we just own the ROW. The decision will be made at some point in time as necessary, but if the bike and ped trail is serving all the needs then the decision can be made to not build sidewalks. We're just trying to leave the option open so that we don't have to go through that process again if it is necessary. But we're not saying it is necessary. Also, I'd like to add that the wider median, the 19' median, once the ultimate is built, will be landscaped in a more natural sense. If you can think about experiencing traveling in an urban area where a median is narrower as opposed to a wider natural grass filled median, I think that adds to the feeling of openness and some separation. Obviously that takes some away from the edges of the natural area, but it puts some of that feeling back into the design of the roadway itself so that the feeling will be more of an open rural type than if we try to put the cars closer together and have more of an urban landscape finish to it. Vice Chair Trantham: I think this looks like a lot of good work between the different departments and I especially like the idea of not having any wasted materials. Do I hear a motion? Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the plan with an emphasis on Ron's comment that you plan for the right-of-ways, but you don't necessarily build them. Plan for the ultimate, but with as minimal a footprint as possible. Johnson seconded the motion. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 2.1, 2004 Page 8 of 15 Discussion: Gould: So is that a change in the motion? Johnson: No, just an emphasis. That this interim system may be the ultimate section if it proves by experience by using it... Gould: Well the section would be different than the footprint because as I understand it, the footprint now is for a full arterial standard four -lane. Bachman: The slope is the same on both plans. Lang: Yes, the actual ROW is 115' on both sections. We're trying to reserve the room for the ultimate, but not necessarily build them with this plan, but you have those options, when and if additional funding is found and this raises to the top of the priority list. We'll look at it carefully to see whether we add travel lanes, bike lanes, whether we add the sidewalks and the parkways. We would be back and that would be a whole new discussion. But if we don't reserve that need now, it will be very difficult to go back and get additional ROW in the future. So, the ROW will be there, it just won't be fully constructed. Johnson: Gary, does that fit your motion? Thomas: Yes it does. Ricord: There are a lot of things about this I like, particularly that you've not impacted more environmentally sensitive areas and that the footprint of the facility there is minimized as much as possible. I also like the modular approach where there's no waste or minimal waste and a great amount of efficiency. But I do want to stress that my one concern here is that we're not completely locked into a given standard. We may be locked into making a recommendation for acquiring ROW, but that we continue to look at possibilities to even minimize further the impact of this kind of a facility and this kind of an area. I'm very pleased though with the work that's been done. It seems like a lot of issues have been circumvented through team work. The motion carried by a unanimous vote, 8-0. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. CARPENTER ROAD— M. Jackson Jackson stated that Kathleen Reavis will be working with him on this project. He said that the Colorado Department of Transportation is proposing a swap of a number of minor roadways in Weld and Larimer counties and the upshot is that more emphasis will be placed on the regionally significant corridors that have been talked about as part of the Master Plan. Of particular interest to the City is the proposal that CDOT assume jurisdiction of Carpenter Road (Larimer County Road 32) from Larimer County and the City of Fort Collins. Under this arrangement, Carpenter Road between I-25 and US287 would become the extension of SH392. Of this corridor, 3.2 miles are currently under the control of Larimer County, while 1.3 miles fall within the City of Fort Collins' limits. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 Page 9 of 15 Staff has talked a lot about Carpenter Road in the last few months, both as part of the Transportation Master Plan and the update to the Regional Transportation Plan for the MPO. Carpenter Road is seen as a key southern transportation gateway both into and out of Fort Collins. As a result of current travel patterns and forecast travel demand, the road was recently changed to a future six lane Major Arterial facility on the City's Master Street Plan. Other big issues are that this corridor is proximate to a lot of key sensitive natural areas land owned by both the City and Larimer County. This is an area of great interest to the environmental community and we want to be sensitive to that. The big questions are, how do we make the environmental sensitivities and our environmental areas of importance co -exist with the mobility needs, not only for the City of Fort Collins, but for the Northern Colorado region. The other big question is - are we going to lose our voice, our sense of control over the future of this area? Jackson went over the potential benefits such as CDOT assuming financial responsibility for the roadway, although there would most likely have to be a cooperative effort between the state, region, and surrounding communities. The fact that it does become part of the State system may well increase the ability to obtain regional, state and federal funds in the future for improvements. As a county or city road it may not have the same "status" if you will as if it were to exist on the regional system. If it did indeed become an extension of SH392, any improvements to this area would be subject to the very rigorous Natural Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates and requirements. NEPA is the mother umbrella of the environment impact statements/environmental assessments. For those who have not gone through a NEPA level analysis, it's hard to make them understand just how rigorous it really is. It makes what Fort Collins or the county does pale in comparison. It requires a careful and early analysis of the needs and what all the alternatives are including "no action." It also requires that you identify and mitigate impacts to the environment and the key affected stakeholders. They take "environment" to mean the complete global environment of the area meaning not only the natural areas but the affected populations, income groups and things of that nature so it's very comprehensive. Probably the biggest thing and what probably answers the question of whether we lose our voice or the sense of giving our input, is that NEPA is probably the most intense required mandated public outreach process that exists in our business. In a lot of ways, we feel that it raises the bar for what's going to be expected of this corridor. Currently staff is doing outreach to all the advisory boards. There is a City Council Study Session scheduled for May 25. Reavis has started working on public outreach and she is the best in that area. We're scheduled for a regular council meeting on June 15 at which time we'd like to take a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for their approval. Staff recommends the consideration of an MOU that transfers the jurisdiction. We do feel that there are benefits. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 Page 10 of 15 Regardless of who maintains jurisdiction over this corridor, a feasibility alternatives analysis is necessary for this corridor and this became clear as we were moving toward completion of the Transportation Master Plan. With all the interest and all the different agendas and all the people who feel very strongly about this corridor, we need to get a better handle around the corridor to get a sense of what the scope and scale is of the issues from both an environmental standpoint and a mobility standpoint. What are some of the preliminary alternatives? Are there different alignments we could look at? Board Comments/Questions: Gould: What's CDOT's perspective on this? Are they inviting this? Jackson: They're the ones who initiated it. What's driving them is they are trying to consolidate their state system to where they can put very scarce sources toward these regionally significant corridors; the corridors that need it the most. Gould: Are they trading something else? Jackson: Yes. The road in Larimer County is the Campion Road, SH 60, west into Campion off of I-25 and there are also a handful of roadways in Weld counties they are looking at trading. Gould: Is it on a mile for mile basis? Jackson: They're trying very hard to make it a mile for mile basis. Moe: So from the perspective of Weld County, they would be giving up State highway and taking ownership of that as a local county road and that sounds like a positive for Fort Collins, Loveland and Latimer County, but a negative for Weld County. Jackson: There are a lot of people who have concerns that CDOT doesn't have a good handle on environmental concerns and issues so I want to read to you a copy of a memo that went from CDOT's Environmental Planning Center to Rick Gabel who is CDOT's Region 4 Resident Engineer. (Jackson read from the memo.) This shows that everybody at the table, including CDOT, realizes that this is a sensitive area. If we could get to a point where we know that it's going to be examined and improved under the guise of NEPA, I think that's the best case scenario in a lot of ways. Trantham: Will they look at our roadway standards? Jackson: Reavis talked to Mr. Gable this afternoon and she was saying that they are likely to look at what the long range and the Master Street Plans are for the community whose growth management area it falls under. Reavis: That's what Rick said today and that has been their practice on Harmony Road and S. College and other state highway systems where it has fallen without our GMA. Trantham: So we're talking about including bike lanes and all the other standards we have? Reavis: Yes. They are very in tune to the local needs. Thomas: Is there a possibility we would want to build it before CDOT does? APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 Page 11 of 15 Jackson: As a regionally significant corridor that doesn't preclude us. We could enter into co-sponsorship with CDOT to try and secure federal or regional Rinds. The fact that it's designated as a regionally significant corridor is a real key important step in the whole funding chain from the MPO and the state perspective. Phillips: CDOT's policy is that they would absolutely not allow state or federal funds to go on anything that's not on the state highway system. Jackson: As part of the NEPA analysis, they basically need to look at all types of design alternatives. As to how excited CDOT is about roundabouts, it all depends on who you talk to. There are some people that are excited about the possibility and even headquarters is warming a bit to the possibility. Trantham: Has there been any discussion with people who currently live close to the road and does there need to be? Jackson: Yes, there needs to be. We're going to have more public outreach which Reavis is putting together for these folks. Ricord: Can we go back and look at some of the NEPA requirements? In addition to environmental issues, there are also mobility issues there and there was something about in -kind groups? Jackson: I was talking about what they consider the mitigatable impacts of a facility; you're not only looking at the impact to the physical environment, but also to the social environment. Ricord: But it has to do with more than just the physical environment, so we can talk about NEPA, but remember we are talking about more than just environment. This makes me a little nervous because the way we talk about mitigation and can not address a lot of the citizens of Fort Collins' concerns, which in this instance are not social, but are specifically ... so I would hate to see that issue become diluted. Jackson: Like I said, I don't think, knowing the corridor the way that I do I don't think environmental justice is going to be a preeminent issue here. The whole purpose of any corridor level study, NEPA, or whatever, is to make sure you have a co -existence of needs on the corridor. Ricord: To what extent to do you think that this kind of a regiment is going to be maintained for the foreseeable future? In other words, the NEPA regiment being watered down or distilled. Jackson: I'm not getting any indication out of the Feds ... Ricord: This is clearly a political process and if.. Jackson: I'm not certain NEPA is a political process at all. Ricord: I think that to the extent that NEPA regulations can be changed or limiting, it certainly is a political process and I just wonder to what extent there is any possibility of that. Jackson: There is no indication from the Federal govemment that NEPA is doing anything except getting stronger. Ricord: Congress, right now, is in the mood to lessen the presence of a Federal government generally. During the time that we're talking about which is in the next five years, that may be one thing. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 Page 12 of 15 Bachman: NEPA came into being circa 1972. If anything, it has become more complex and stricter over time. Some of the things you're reading about are not necessarily NEPA type of issues. I've had projects that have gone through sensitive areas, an interchange that bordered a wetland that took 12 years in the environmental process. There was a tremendous amount of mitigation effort. NEPA is a very strong, very intensive review of these types of areas. Ricord: One of the possibilities of the NEPA recommendations could be a no build scenario. How would that impact the corridor? You say it's a regionally significant corridor and that you've got to have four lanes if not six. Jackson: No build means just that. No build. It means that if you're not going to make Carpenter a regionally significant corridor, it's got to be somewhere, the traffic isn't going to disappear. It has to go somewhere. It will take congested Harmony to failure and will probably push off not only interchanges, but overpasses, back country roads, Prospect, Mulberry. Ricord: So as far as you're concerned, that's probably not a very strong possibility? Jackson: In my mind, I think it's very hard to guess. It's so thorough and so prescribed as far as the steps that I think it's difficult to try and guess them. Ricord: My point is that one of the possibilities is that if CDOT takes over the purview of this facility and they are thorough and they do recommend a no build and they enforce that recommendation, then that's going to put the City into a difficult situation. So one of the things potentially could backfire. Depending on how you read NEPA it may not work to the City's advantage. The potential is there, the likelihood is questionable. Thordarson: Wouldn't that be the right thing to do though? If that's what the study shows, that's what we should do. Ricord: Yes, but from the City's point of view of it being a regionally significant corridor Jackson: Not just the City, but the region and the State. Ricord: Right, but my point is simply that it could work out to be quite difficult. Bachman: If it becomes a State route, it remains a regionally significant corridor whether it's a two-lane or four -lane or whatever. That means that if there were a study and "no alternative" were the alternative that was adopted, it would still be eligible for such things as intersection improvements and those kinds of things. It would still be a regionally significant corridor. The things that are going to go into the equation are the size of socio- economic factors which probably won't come into play much at this location, all the environmental wetland, all the traffic needs, air quality; all of these things are taken into account. EPA gets involved, US Fish and Wildlife, hordes of engineers. If there are any impacts to any of these areas that are severe, they have to be mitigated. So if you end up with a "no alternative" then Brent is right, what that meant was all the study showed was that you didn't need it. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April21, 2004 Page 13 of 15 Ricord: But then you say that facilities like Harmony and Prospect will fail. Jackson: If it's not improved, even to a four -lane facility yes. Gould: What are the different ways that the City would participate financially in building — at the MPO level or what? Are we obligated? Jackson: I don't think we're obligated to because it's not our jurisdiction, but certainly if it's in our benefit from a capital perspective we could offer to go into a cooperative agreement with CDOT and any Federal or regional funds that are garnered to make those improvements. Trantham: Thank you Mark. Will you be coming back with this? Jackson: There is time to come back once more. May 25 is the Council Study Session date, so I'd like to come back next month to this board. The board thanked Jackson for the update and this item will definitely be on next month's agenda, most likely as an action item. b. RTA UPDATE— D. Bachman Bachman stated that a couple of board members have asked to have an update about the City's position on the formation of an RTA. A chart was distributed that showed the Council's position on certain issues related to the RTA as of August 2003. Bachman reported that there was a meeting with Loveland City Council in February 2004 to discuss how they felt about it. Weld and Larimer County officials have also discussed it. Presently there is not a proposal on the table. In March the Fort Collins City Council discussed it again and Kastein, who represents Fort Collins on the MPO Council, was looking for some direction. However, most of the discussion was about whether there should even be an RTA, how an RTA %4 or %2 -cent sales tax might sit in comparison to the City's own needs and desires. They basically see the RTA as somewhat of a competition. There is a lot of concern. The feeling is that the City should take care of its own problems first before buying into an RTA and tax regionally. In conclusion, a full RTA effort on the MPO level has pretty much been put on hold because of these differences of opinion. There will probably be more joint meetings in the future however. My feeling is that the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland are so far apart in their philosophies that I just don't see it getting anywhere soon. 9. REPORTS a. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Thordarson: Gas Prices. I noticed on the way up that premium gas prices are now $1.99 and just recently I noticed the new SUVs from Nissan and it's called an "Armada". I had to look several times to make sure that's what I was really seeing on the back of that vehicle. It was pretty big. It seems there's an alternative reality out there. Vehicles just keep getting bigger anyway. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 Page 14 of 15 Alaska to Get Funding. I don't know if anyone noticed in the latest House Transportation Appropriations Bill that Alaska is due to get $200M to build a couple of bridges from Ketchikan to an island that's like a town of 5,000 to the island where the airport is where nobody lives! And it's a 5-minute ferry ride! Johnson: Economic Vitalitv and Sustainabilitv Committee. I'm on this committee so if folks have input with regard to transportation, let me know. Part of the discussion revolves around infrastructure and how we're going to be providing it and is that a major role as opposed to lots of other things such as incentives. It's getting into some interesting discussion right now. We're really fleshing out what the City wants to do or can do and what is the City's role. So again, if any of you have feedback, I offer myself to pass it on and see where it goes. This is a short term committee that will be making recommendations to Council I believe. We meet every Thursday morning at 7. Thomas: Dial -A -Ride Committee. I serve on this committee and we've had feedback on the move towards outsourcing DAR to Shamrock and it's just beginning to go, but the early reports back are favorable and we're not picking up any service quality complaints. That committee is undergoing a process to decide if it wants to change its mission. We'll come back with a recommendation for you. Loveland Transportation Board. They're about two -years behind. They are just starting their review of the City Master Plan and the Transportation Plan. I told them it wasn't going to be simple thing. b. STAFF REPORTS Bachman: Next Agenda: • Pavement Management Report ■ Air Quality Plan ■ 2030 RTP Update ■ Carpenter Road Swap 10. OTHER BUSINESS None. APPROVED Regular Meeting Minutes Transportation Board April 21, 2004 11. ADJOURN the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cynthia Cass Executive Administrative Assistant City of Fort Collins — Transportation Services Page 15 of 15