Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 03/19/1997• Draft Minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at the April 16, 1997 Meeting TRANSPORTATION BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES March 19, 1997 FOR REFERENCE: Chair Paul Valentine 493-0100 Vice Chair Paul Perlmutter 229-2549 Council Liaison Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison Tom Frazier 224-6893 Secretary Micki White 224-6173 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Stephen Hanna, Tim Johnson, Kathleen Kilkelly, Ray Moe, Paul Perlmutter, and Paul Valentine BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Donn Hopkins STAFF/COUNCIL/GUESTS PRESENT: •Guest: Max Moe, Ray Moe's son Transportation Planning: Ron Phillips, Tom Frazier, Susanne Edminster, John Daggett and Micki White City Council Liaison: Will Smith AGENDA: A. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES B. INTRODUCTIONS C. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS D. PUBLIC COMMENT E. ACTION ITEM 1. Budget Priority Recommendations for City Manager - Susanne Edminster F. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Transit Update - John Daggett 2. Board Member Reports 3. Staff Reports 4. Summary/Next Agenda 5. Other Business 0 Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 2 Paul Valentine called the meeting to order at approximately 6 p.m. It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the last meeting be approved. The motion carried unanimously. Guest Max Moe, son of Ray Moe, was introduced. He attended the meeting to watch the procedures. C. Council Liaison Reports Mr. Valentine thanked the Board members for their part and efforts concerning the Overland Trail Road Extension. He then relinquished the floor to Will Smith, Council Liaison. Mr. Smith reiterated Mr. Valentine's remarks and also praised the members of the Transportation Board for their team effort in attending the City Council meeting the night before. Mr. Smith said their involvement had been well noted. Mr. Smith then commented on the piece referencing Overland Trail. For those who had not been notified of the outcome, he went on to say there were a couple of parts to be updated on. He said the City owns all of the property with the exception of one, half mile segment, that runs immediately north from County Road 38E towards West Horsetooth. The construction of the road running from Drake to Horsetooth, rather than from Drake to County Road 38E, is still 10 - 12 years into the future. Mr. Smith said that as an exception, rather than the rule, this would put Council in the position of fighting for a road, rather than against a road. Mr. Smith also informed the Board that if Southwest Community Park goes in, with the road constructed in reverse, from Harmony Road to the end of County Road 38E, that north road, if built, will take some of the traffic off of West Horsetooth. One of the major concerns was child safety, getting to Olander, which is just north of West Horsetooth. He said more assessment would be made when we are closer to construction. Mr. Smith concluded by saying that there were some members of the Air Quality Advisory Board had expressed interest in a joint meeting to discuss issues related to air quality. Mr. Smith agreed to bring this request before the Transportation Board. In addition, he mentioned that at the Council meeting the night before, City Plan was adopted. Mr. Smith's report was followed by discussion by members on various issues; alternative transportation, the importance of exercise, SmartTrips, etc. Susanne Edminster then asked Mr. Valentine, Board Chair, if this would be an appropriate time to give a staff follow-up on what information, regarding Overland Trail, would be provided to the Council on the April I" meeting. Mr. Valentine asked her to proceed. Paul Perlmutter then asked what was voted on the night before and Mr. Smith informed him that it was a motion directing the City Manager and Staff to bring a resolution to the April 11 meeting. That resolution would specifically eliminate the section of the Overland Trail from the stop at Drake Road to West • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 3 Horsetooth, keep the segment from West Horsetooth to County Road 38E, but create it as a minor arterial. Ron Phillips then asked the Board to hear Ms. Edminster out. Mr. Phillips said her information might help clear up some of the members' confusion. Ms. Edminster began by saying there were actually two resolution. She said the first, also the one the Council needs to adopt, is the resolution where we would adopt or revise Master Street Plan. The revised Master Street Plan would remove the segment of Overland Trail Extension as it was just described, south of Drake to Horsetooth Road, and it would no longer be on the map. She said what would then happen is it would show, because it is a year 2015 map, what impact there will be on neighboring adjacent roadways, based on the Traffic Modeling Report, that was part of the agenda packet the night before, completed by the Traffic Operations group in December. Tom Frazier commented that the other change would be to change the section that Mr. Smith discussed, from Horsetooth to County Road 38E, from a four lane road to a minor arterial. Ms. Edminster went on by saying that the second piece would involve adopting a resolution, • amending the City Structure Plan, because the Master Street Plan and the City Structure Plan have to operate jointly. Ms. Edminster said there would actually be two resolutions that have be to adopted sequentially. Ms. Edminster then said that one of the things that staff was requested to do as part of the agenda information is, again, to take the information that was supplied in the Traffic Operations Report and reiterate what staff believes the consequences to the adjacent roadways as a result of not putting in the extension. She said it is predicted that by the year 2015, it is likely that vehicular traffic would slow to about 12.2 mph, there would be additional CO measured in grams that would be distributed to the atmosphere and staff believes that in order to maintain the level of service "D", which is the current level of service, the road would have to go to six lanes on that portion of Taft Hill Road, from Prospect to Harmony. She then said that in order to acquire the right-of-way to expand Taft Hill Road in some areas, approximately eight dwelling units would need to be purchased and this would be quite costly. She said this was primarily on the east side of Taft Hill Road. In other areas, on the west side of Taft Hill Road, some landscaping and green belt would be taken up and some homes in that area would end up very close to the roadway, where now they are a comfortable distance away. The other alternative, Ms. Edminster explained, would be to amend the City Code, which currently talks about level of service, for roadways, and change that so that a lower level of service would be accepted. • Will Smith then had some questions. Mr. Smith said that the way resolutions are written, much of Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 4 the text has to be in the "Whereas" clauses. He said he was assuming that staff would also counter balance those negative effects with what are the positive effects of not building the road. Ms. Edminster told Mr. Smith that the text, as it stands, does not iterate all of those negatives, it merely addresses what the actual change to Master Street Plan would be. Ms. Edminster explained to Mr. Smith that the negatives were not addressed in the plan. She told him that the resolution is extremely simple and extremely straight forward. She did note that it was new and that not everyone has had opportunity to review the document, but she did explain that the "Whereas" clauses were very simple and very similar to what happens anytime staff has revised the Master Street Plan and revised the City Structure Plan. Ron Phillips, Director of Transportation, interjected and said the issue is that the effects of this document on traffic is that staff has mechanisms to model by. The value judgements that were used to argue against the road alignment that has been a part of the Master Street Plan for many years, are difficult in that staff does not usually insert in documents, value judgements. Mr. Phillips said that he didn't feel Staff was remiss in not saying, "you don't do this", and "you don't do that". Mr. Phillips felt Staff was exhibiting professional in their statements of what can be modeled and what can be anticipated. Mr. Phillips said he felt value judgements were something else. Tom Frazier, Staff Liaison, said he anticipated what the resolution was saying is that staff would go back and quote the adopted code, which goes into effect March 28`h. He said a level of service "D" is shown and staff has exceeded that in what has been downgraded from a six lane road to a four lane road because of the traffic modeling. Ms. Edminster did conclude her report by saying her mission in bringing this information to the Board was for informing, not debating or getting into the "whys and wherefores". Ms. Edminster said she knew the Board would not be meeting before the next Council meeting. Mark Egeland then asked if there was a chance for citizenry, as a whole, to see this information. Ms. Edminster informed him that when it was assembled in the agenda packet, it would be available. There was additional discussion between Mr. Egeland and Ms. Edminster as to what information is available and where the wording can be found. Tim Johnson brought up the fact that the Air Quality Advisory Board would like to join the Transportation Board meeting by invitation. This Board feels like they are not always getting to hear some of the items and issues. Tom Frazier asked if the Staff could make a strong commitment to him and told him he would pass this request along to the Staff so they can be invited to meetings and be up to date on their issues. Mr. Johnson thanked Mr. Frazier for his response. Mr. Valentine then expressed the intent to move on to the one action item of the evening. He then introduced Ms. Edminster. • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 5 E. Action Item 1. Budget Priority Recommendations for City Manager Ms. Edminster began by pointing out to the Board that, included in their packets for tonight's meeting, was a copy of the memo from last year. She reminded the Board that in the memo to the City Council was Transportation Advisory Board's mission statement and items that should be included in their vision of the community. Also included in the memo were funding need recommendations for the 1997 budget. While members were referencing their copy from their packets, Paul Valentine asked for comments from the Board. Steve Hanna asked for further explanation regarding last year's vision for a bus system with "commuter computers". He asked for some clarification of that terminology. John Daggett, Transportation Planner from Transportation Services responded by saying he thought it was a matching service that allows people to call in to a centralized number and get matched up relatively easy. There was some further comment from Mr. Hanna, questioning the grid system. He didn't feel • people live on grids. Mr. Frazier responded to this comment, explaining that that particular piece was based upon the adopted Structure Plan and all the bus systems were set up on a grid, so this was a part of the development of the City Structure Plan. Mr. Frazier also informed Mr. Hanna that the major consensus of the people in the group was that the general efficiency of the grid system is superior to the current system. Paul Perlmutter mentioned that in his overview of this memo, he was concerned about the statement that the vision of the Board "should include" and in the visions below, he said there was no actual mention of automobiles, and while all the alternative modes are very important, the automobile is still the primary means of transportation and is the essential mode of transportation. He wondered if, perhaps, words to that effect should be included. Will Smith addressed Mr. Perlmutter's concerns by saying that in the Visions Goal statement in the City Plan, it basically does do that. Mr. Smith felt that the City Plan recognizes the fact that the automobile is essential, but does promote alternative transportation as a means of moving around the City. Ms. Edminster stated that there are a number of transportation policies that are outlined in the Principles and Policies and staff could attempt to match those with what was before the Board. Mr. Valentine asked if it was necessary to set them out again if they are in the City Plan and Ms. • Edminster said that was another option, to reiterate the Board's support of all of those principles. Tim Johnson felt that made more sense. Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 6 Mark Egeland didn't feel it would hurt to call attention, by bullets, what the Transportation Board feels are the more important. He didn't want to suggest that word for word be reiterated, but highlight the more important points. Paul Perlmutter suggested listing, as an example of a project in terms of the automobile, car pooling. Paul Valentine suggested mentioning services such as SmartTrips, Van Go, etc., and encourage the the use of these. Mr. Valentine also made note that in the 1997 Budget funding, the request for the hiring of a Bicycle Education/Pedestrian Coordinator had been honored and that position has been filled. Ron Phillips felt it might be appropriate to begin the letter to Council by expressing gratitude for their support in filling that position. Ms. Edminster asked if she should start the letter by thanking Council for their support in the budget process last year. The consensus of the group was, yes. Mr. Valentine said it should also be mentioned that the railroad trail, Harmony Road to Cherry, was included in the CIP. Ms. Edminster asked for suggestions from the Board for items that haven't been included, which should be. She mentioned that there had been a lot of discussion about deficiencies in the entire system and she felt one of the things that was disappointing was the lack of funding for Transit. Tim Johnson said that point had been made very strongly, with regard to the CIP, that it was deleted from the list. Tim said he felt a request should be made for Transit and the pedestrian part, as well. Mr. Valentine reminded Mr. Johnson that the pedestrian part has been included in the CIP. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Valentine did agree with Mr. Johnson on the Transit issue. Mr. Valentine said maybe the Board should mention, specifically, the type of improvements they would like to see in Transfort; longer hours, more routes. Mark Egeland felt the Board should be specific as possible about what they think is most important. He didn't feel like the Board needed to go into detail, such as particular routes. It was also suggested that a statement be included, such as, the Board sees it as transitory or it is the City's job to create an environment in which the market can survive these needs. There were additional comments regarding Transit in relation to the streets, fares, CSU contract, revenues, etc. Mr. Phillips informed the Board that more current data would be furnished in a few months, pertaining to paratransit. • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Perlmutter then said that one of the most important things that Council has to do in the near future is discuss the TMF. Mr. Phillips responded by saying that a statement by the Transportation Board, in looking at solutions, would be to fully fund Transit and Street Maintenance. He felt this would be appropriate. Mr. Perlmutter then corrected himself by saying by TMF, he had actually meant was when Council discussed this with them last year, it was suggested to include Transit. This would be a combined type of fee. Mr. Smith reminded the Board that this would be a letter of what this Board wants to see in the budget, not just what the Board feels are priority items. Mr. Smith said to consider if the project is fully funded. If the project is not adequately funded in terms of the research work and Staff work to create it, then that is an issue. Ms. Edminster suggested to Paul Perlmutter that what he was trying to relay was to bring up the issue of maintenance. She said maintenance is part of the transportation budget and whether or not we have adequate funding for that, and she did say, no, that funding is not adequate. Mr. Perlmutter said perhaps the Board needs some formal numbers. He said it was imperative that additional funds be raised for both streets maintenance and Transit. is maintenance. Perlmutter stated that the Board understands that there is a budgetary shortfall on street maintenance. He stated that additional funding was necessary to enhance our transit system. Mr. Smith felt he needed to comment on the fact that Council is looking at going to two year budgets. He said that would be coming up in the next two year cycle. Mr. Phillips stated that Paul Valentine had a good approach in treating this philosophically in his opening statement. He also said there was some substantial money put into maintenance in the 1997 budget. He said there was $550,000 in general funds put into pavement management program and traffic calming. Mr. Phillips also said to then say, "We appreciate what has been done here. That kind of activity should be repeated over the next two or three years, or we need to come up with an additional funding source to meet this need. Ms. Edminster told the Board that the City Manager needs the information from the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Johnson mentioned that perhaps at the April 16`h meeting, the Board review what they would like to have handed to Council, to be included in their retreat packages. Ms. Edminster felt this would be enough of a time frame. Mr. Valentine asked Susanne Edminster if she had opportunity to review the City Bicycle Plan or • any of the other plans to see what the next highest priority items that were set forth? She said, yes, she had. She had been to a number of meetings and felt the best approach for the Board is, rather Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 8 than going into specific detail, it might be adequate to talk about the overall philosophy and then refer to those documents and remind the Council that they are adopted plans and that part of the concern the Council has had through the years is adopting plans and then not finding the mechanisms to fund them. She pointed out that they, as a Board, reviewed $320 million of projects that conform to all of these plans, and she said she felt, rather than list all of those things, the Board might just remind Council that they have made a little stab at it, but overall, transportation system needs are still very large, in both terns of capital and maintenance and operations and it is very difficult to say that we have these plans on the books and we still have the deficits, that we don't have the funds. Ms. Edminster said City Plan also drew attention to the fact that we want a transportation system that is a complete system and we have deficits that are still not funded, so the Council was reminded of that as part of the City Plan process, so it is sounds like a repetition, but she didn't feel there was any other way other than to keep reminding the Council. Paul Valentine agreed that the Board needs to remind the Council and he also felt the Board should set forth a few of their top priority items and say, these are in the plans and these are the things out of those plans that we think ought to be funded. Tim Johnson said he would not object to that. Mr. Johnson also thought a discussion about warranties on streets that should be included. Mr. Valentine asked if the Street Standards include warranties. Ms. Edminster didn't think there was anything in the code that specifically requires a warranty. It just reads, here is the standard, this is what the City will accept. She reiterated that, no, there is no warranty. Mr. Phillips said that Street Construction Standards have changed and the Engineering Department is looking at changing the warranty length of time from one year to two years. He said this is in process, now. Mr. Johnson said he would strongly encourage them to look at increasing the length of time of warranties and perhaps to look at how that mechanism works and how it might, potentially, be made better. Ms. Edminster told the Board that there were two new terms that are now being used in transportation that have not been used before in the budget discussions and they are enhanced transportation corridors and transportation transfer centers. She explained that the enhanced transportation corridors are part of the City Plan and transportation transfer centers are two things Staff is looking at. CSU has a transfer center and Staff is looking at one at I-25 and Harmony in conjunction with CDOT and they are looking at one for the downtown area, perhaps at the old freight depot. She said this will all be "brewing" in the next couple of years in terms of construction, ongoing maintenance, and how these things are accomplished. Mr. Valentine then mentioned that in the thank you portion of the letter, the Board might thank Council for the funds for the bus to Loveland called Foxtrot and to urge them to continue. Alan Beatty said when the terminology Transit Center is mentioned, he would like to see it include Greyhound, Trailways, Airport Express, the Shamrock, DIA run. Ms. Edminster said they will all • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 9 be there and she said they would even expand it to include shuttle buses to Cheyenne or the ski areas, all of the commercial vendors are being envisioned in terms of the city limits. She said the CDOT one, at this point, isn't that expansive. Susanne elected to write the actual letter and would ask various people to review it for her. She then said she would fax, or distribute the letter electronically, to the members. F. Discussion Items i. Transit Update - John Daggett Mr. Daggett began his presentation by saying he had tried to include the most salient items that are happening presently and have been planned for some time. Mr. Daggett said there were many different kinds of things going on in Transit in terms of operations and planning. Mr. Daggett said that on April 15, there will be a resolution presented to City Council for adopting changes to/updating the Transit Development Plan from 1996 through 2002. He said there were a couple of significant areas where changes are taking place in that particular plan. • Mr. Daggett continued by saying the document that the Transportation Board had reviewed and Council had adopted last year includes two particular chapters; one is the Vision Plan, the other is the Implementation Plan. These are the two pieces Mr. Daggett said he would be reviewing before the Board because these are the two pieces that will be changed in the TDP. Mr. Daggett said that in the Vision Plan, the basic opportunity is that City Plan had an expanded vision of how Transit would serve this community. The TDP, itself, and all of the activities associated with that actually came prior to the City Plan adoption and the work that was done on Transit. Mr. Daggett said Staff is proposing to include a number of references to City Plan, those Principles & Policies, goals and objectives. A part of the Structure Plan in City Plan, Transit plays a big role in terms of providing services around the community. Mr. Daggett then went on by talking about what the 2015 Transit Plan will look like based on the City Plan foundation. He said the most exciting things to him are the enhanced travel corridors. He said they are designed to promote bicycling, pedestrian, transit and automobile usage in certain instances. Included in Mr. Daggett's presentation were overviews of: ► Fort Collins Transit Vision Plan • Excerpts From City Plan ► City Plan Structure Plan Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 10 ► Community Vision and Goals 2015 ► Principles and Policies ► Transit System ► Loveland Transit Vision ► Rural Latimer County Transit Vision Plan ► Joint Transit Vision Plan ► Transit Vision Statement and Goals ► Implementation Plan ► 1997 Transfort Objectives and how these plans will fit in with the plans and goals of the Transit Development Plan and other transit items. Further explanation of the plans and goals of the Transit Development Plan were included in a handout John Daggett had supplied for the Board members' packets. He presented this same information in the form of overhead projections. Mr. Daggett then said that first and foremost in importance was his belief that there were members on the Transportation Board that had expressed an interest in being involved in Transit, whether it be on a subcommittee or as experts to be trained in that area. He said the basic concept behind the decision making process is to train several people on this Board to be the Board's Transit experts, to be able to understand Transit better than the rest of the members of the Board, to understand operations and funding problems. While Mr. Daggett was passing out additional information, Will Smith requested that Mr. Daggett answer some questions. Regarding the 2015 plan, Mr. Smith asked if it was possible to show what staff believes the demographics need to be in the year 2015. Mr. Daggett replied that he felt that had already been accomplished in the City Plan. Mr. Smith then asked for further clarification such as safety related issues. Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Daggett's information showed a U-shaped curve for accidents based on age. He then asked if Mr. Daggett could show how the trade off works between greater coverage with fixed routes and reduced costs in service. Mr. Smith wondered if those two curves ever cross at some point or just how close the curves would get. Mr. Daggett then referred to the information he had just handed out. He said that he did want to point out where staff was in terms of implementing the TDP. Mr. Daggett then went on to say that the handouts indicated the implementation plans by year 1996 through 2002. Mr. Daggett said what he wanted to point out, with his informational sheets, was: (1) in 1997, staff has implemented the Fort Collins - Loveland Service; (2) in the 1998 -1999 budget years, the next service planned is Shields and Lemay. Alan Beatty then asked why the Fox Trot transportation was not taking regular or yearly bus passes since this newly implemented program is a part of Transfort operation. Mr. Daggett said he had not been involved in developing the fares, but the Fox Trot bus is a multi jurisdictional agreement and • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page I l it was his understanding that to traverse the City is different than, for instance, riding from Cherry Street or Highway 1 on the north end of town and to the Safeway Store in Loveland. Mr. Beatty then asked if young people and CSU students would be able to ride free after the Fox Trot system is well into place and the answer was "no". Mr. Phillips said it was not the Transfort system, it is the Fox Trot system and stands alone. Mr. Beatty's concern was that the system has been "hyped" as a Transfort, and it really isn't and he felt this was a confusing message. Mr. Phillips did not feel that it had been "hyped" as Transfort. There was some additional amiable discussion regarding the Fox Trot system versus the Transfort system with various Board members. Mr. Daggett then said he wanted to report that at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), the Regional Transit Development Plan was adopted with a unanimous vote and he said staff now has two sets of plans; (1) Regional Transit Development Plan, which will monitor and guide the implementation of Regional Transit Services and (2) Local Transit Development plans, which will guide and determine the implementation of local transit services. Mr. Daggett, in further discussing the Fox Trot route, informed the Board that their goal for this route between the two communities is 100 passengers per day. Mr. Daggett said that is the • agreement between the parties. Mr. Daggett's information sheets demonstrated the first 18 days of the new route. He did say Spring Break was the high point with a lot of youth riding the bus. He said marketing has not been strong with the University, so staff is anticipating the numbers to rise dramatically as the University comes on board, ie; students, faculty, and staff. Mr. Daggett continued by saying there is also a number of City of Fort Collins employees, Larimer County employees, that could also take advantage of this service. Mr. Daggett then suggested to the Board that 12 service trips be implemented per day, one per hour. Mr. Daggett said what the TDP calls for is 22 trips per day, a trip per''/z hour. Mr. Daggett said that even though some of the service has been implemented, this is still just a portion. He went on to say that if the rider -ship continues to rise, and staff projects that it will, with good marketing, the regional service may do two things; (1) carry a lot of people, (2) when fares are imposed, capture 50-70% of the operating costs of the route. Mark Egeland asked if, when the routes go to 22 trips per day, what the average per bus trip would be. John responded by saying the prediction is, after 18 months in service, 1200 riders per day. Kathleen Kilkelly asked about changes in the frequency of trips and John Daggett replied that it was a budgetary matter. Tom Frazier then stated that it wouldn't necessarily be Transfort making the budgetary recommendations. He said it would be a recommendation of the triangle of Loveland, Latimer County and Fort Collins. 40 John Daggett, as a note of interest to the Board, informed them that Loveland will be implementing Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 12 the second phase of their Transit Development Plan. He said the hard part about regional service is that once you get off the bus in Loveland, if there is no service, then there is a problem. John said that the second phase of their services will be an east/west route, probably to the Outlet Mall. Tom Frazier elaborated on John's concern about getting off the bus in Loveland and having no further transportation. Mr. Frazier said that if someone has a disability or is elderly, there is two potentials, one with SAINT and the other with Extra Special Persons (ESP), but prior arrangements must be made to have someone meet you there. Addressing another concern, Mr. Daggett said staff is currently trying to find a way to Out more bicycles on buses, but currently there are only two spaces for bicycles. Both Mr. Daggett and Mr. Frazier said that staff was aware of the various concerns from the public and are working to address those concerns. Mr. Daggett then concluded his presentation by reiterating when the TDP would go before Council and he urged the Board to forward their concerns, if any. Mr. Frazier addressed a question in reference to buses coordinating with school start and end times. Mr. Frazier said it was a problem that was difficult but staff was aware of it. Mr. Frazier also brought up additional concerns regarding buses. One was Dial - A - Ride operations and Mr. Frazier said it would be on the Board's next agenda, in order make the necessary time frame. The other piece Mr. Frazier brought up was youths on buses. He said that when this was originally started, it was a pilot program. Mr. Frazier told the Board a lot of feedback had been received from the University. The University feels it is unfair to charge the public and not the youths. Mr. Frazier said a lot of the feedback is that the youths should pay "something", whether it is a dime, quarter, or other. Mr. Frazier said this issue will be coming back and probably in the form of a budget issue for the Board to look at. Paul Valentine asked to go forward with the meeting, at this point. It was brought up that a short letter to the Council in support of the TDP updated plan would be appropriate. It was moved and seconded that the Transportation Board would write a letter of support. 2. Board Member Reports Paul Valentine began by asking the Board if they would like to take an official position in supporting the Building Community Choices ballot issue. Paul Perlmutter made a motion that the Board take a stand in supporting these three issues. Tim Johnson seconded the motion. After further discussion between Board members, a unanimous decision could not be made. For the most part, the Board was in favor of supporting the ballot issue, but a few members did not feel comfortable in supporting the ballot issue as a whole. It was decided that if the Board could not unanimously support the entire Choices ballot issue, then they would not publicly make a stand. Paul Perlmutter • Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 13 withdrew his motion and Mr. Johnson withdrew his second. Kathleen Kilkelly passed out a survey conducted by the west Troutman neighborhood. She felt it was very interesting in that they had done this West Troutman Neighborhood Traffic Study on their own, had spreadsheets, statistics, and documentation. She said this group had invested a lot of time and energy in this project because of their belief in it. Kathleen said this group had a meeting and found it very good to meet their neighbors, both those opposed and those for the project. Those citizens supporting the project are the ones that would like have Troutman extended across the railroad tracks. Those living just behind the shopping area there must drive back out of the neighborhood to access the shopping area. Others are concerned that it would increase traffic on Troutman. Will Smith reported that staff believes the road will go in. Mr. Valentine said it is really difficult to get a pedestrian or even a bicycle across that area, but it would be very costly to build the road. Paul Valentine felt that an underpass under the railroad tracks should be included on a future agenda. He said he has received input from people that want one built. He also mentioned that he has had requests from certain citizens that would like to drive their golf carts on City streets. • Mr. Valentine also said he had been a very active participant in the Building Community Choices ballot issue. He has joined and will be joining with others in passing out brochures, addressing different group, going door to door. He invited others interested to meet the following Saturday and help with the distribution of information to the public. Mr. Perlmutter mentioned that when he was traveling along Centennial, he noticed that a round about was being installed and he thought it was an exciting concept. Ron Phillips said it was temporary, to get feedback from the public. 3. Staff Reports Ron Phillips distributed information regarding HB97-1312, which is about vested property rights. Mr. Phillips said it was not a transportation issue except that it is as far as developers being vested in their plans at various stages earlier in the process than they are now. Mr. Phillips encouraged people to use their telephone tree and call and leave messages with Peggy Reeves. Ron said that the Home Builders Assn. is pushing this bill and they have been lobbying Ms. Reeves very hard. Ron Phillips passed out a draft of member/staff updates regarding e-mail addresses, phone numbers, faxes, etc. Micki White will make corrections and updates as they occur. The latest version with corrections will be included in the next packet. Tom Frazier also thought it would be nice to put other staff members and the projects each is primarily responsible for on this list. • Kathleen Kilkelly regretfully told the Board that the April 16 meeting would probably be her last Transportation Board Meeting Minutes March 19, 1997 Page 14 meeting. She will be joining her husband in Bali, Indonesia. Susanne Edminster said Kathleen Reavis and Kelley Roberts were looking for volunteers for a bike rodeo for Monday or Tuesday and other days in the future. Ron Phillips said the Council is in the process of advertising member positions on the Transportation Board. Tim Johnson brought up a concern about the crossing at Lesher Junior High and the location of their crossing. Susanne Edminster directed him to Kathleen Reavis or Kelley Roberts. 4. Summary/Next Agenda/Future Agendas ♦ MPO Presentation ♦ Dial -A -Ride ♦ At some point..... Warranty Issue ♦ Retreat ♦ Signal Upgrading Issue ♦ Fossil Creek Presentation ♦ Commission on Disability Presentation ♦ Street Maintenance 5. Other Business There being no other business to discuss, Paul Valentine closed the meeting at 8:55 p.m. Micki White, Secretary