Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 09/20/1995C 0� o Draft Minutes to be approved by the Transportation Board at the October 18, 1995 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20,1995 5:55-8:12 P.M. FOR REFERENCE: Chair -- Colin Gerety 546-0460 Vice Chair -- Paul Valentine 493-0100 Council Liaison - Will Smith 223-0425 Staff Liaison Tom Frazier 224-6052 Secretary - Cindy Scott 224-6058 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Alan Beatty, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety, Donn Hopkins, Tim Johnson, Ray Moe, Paul Perlmutter & Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Egeland (called), Dolores Highfield, and Elizabeth Hudetz (called). STAFF/COUNCIL GUESTS PRESENT: Susanne Edminster, Tom Frazier, Ron Phillips, Cindy Scott & Laura Varden - Staff AGENDA: Call to Order Approval of Minutes A. PUBLIC COMMENT B. ACTION ITEMS 1. Election of Officers C. DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Transportation Budget Update 2. Transportation Utility Fee 3. Master Transportation Plan Update 4. Final Report on US 287/SH 14 5. Board Member Reports 6. Staff Reports 7. Summary/Next Agenda 8. Other Business Chair Gerety called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. There was a motion, a second, and a unanimous vote to approve the August 16, 1995 Transportation Board meeting minutes as presented The Board (re)introduced themselves to Alan Beatty and Tim Johnson, the newest members of the Transportation Board. A. PUBLIC COMMENT None B.I. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Hopkins made a motion to continue the current roles - Gerety as Chair and Valentine as Vice Chair. There was a second by Moe and the motion carried by a unanimous vote. C.I. TRANSPORTATION BUDGET UPDATE Phillips asked Edminster to pass out a list showing what is included in the City Manager's recommended budget. He explained that items 1-17 are what staff felt were the top priorities for the Transportation Service Area in a request for new money. The existing programs and service for transportation will continue as before with a slight increase of about 3% over last year. This request is for additional or enhancement of services. All of the needs have been listed in addition to the top 17, because staff felt these needs should come before the Council, administration and this Board for consideration. He explained the list in more detail and then asked for any questions or comments. Chair Gerety reminded the Board that Council wants a response on this list. Hopkins stated that some of the systems that we have in place would serve a broader part of the community, for example items #16 & 17 regarding routes for Transfort (mass routes for transportation) deserve stronger consideration. If they are not in the recommended budget and if there is surplus available, those types of services that serve the larger common good of the community ought to be funded. Valentine agreed and said that the Bicycle Education Coordinator was the number one priority of the Bike Focus Group and that the item should be moved up higher on the list before the Board. If some funds do free up whether it's under the Dial -A -Ride shortfall or the FTA operating fund, then something like that should be funded because it is a very important need. To sum it up, Chair Gerety said that he heard in particular that if surpluses are available, consider keeping them or moving them into the transportation area and that expansion of the mass transportation system or the Bike Coordinator position are good areas for that money. Chair Gerety asked if the Board would like to send such a note to Council. There was a unanimous vote to send a letter stating such to the City Council. With the Board's permission, Susanne Edminster will draft a letter on behalf of this Board and get it to Council by the noon deadline tomorrow. She will also send copies of the letter to the Board as soon as possible. C.2. TRANSPORTATION UTILITY FEE (TUF) Susanne Edminster took the floor and did a flip chart presentation that duplicated the hand- out given to the Board. She explained that the transportation utility is not keeping up with the demand for street maintenance. The transportation utility fee applies strictly for street maintenance currently. The 1/4 cent that is dedicated to this purpose is not enough to meet all the needs and expectations in this particular program. It is anticipated that next year the 1/4 cent will generate about $3.3 million. She said that we actually have a budgeted amount of about $8.5 million for street maintenance, meaning that the 1/4 cent is not paying for everything that is done in street maintenance. Another $2.3 million has also been identified as a need in order to maintain the current level of service. This is in addition to the $8.5 million needed for a total of $11.8 million. In the past money has been transferred from one program to another. She then went over specific items and the money required to maintain the current service level. A new approach is that streets should be looked as a transportation corridor, not just a concept that a street is what a car drives on. It is actually transportation corridor maintenance. The TUF would be a new revenue source. How it is calculated is something that staff is still working on. There are going to be some costs up front to add the fee to the Utility Billing System which is now being negotiated. What's next? Begin dialogue with fee payers, present this to the Council as part of the budget process. Because this is a fee, it does not require voter approval in order to enact. We are projecting that for 1996, we will have a large gap to fill. We will actually be able to collect a lot more revenues and spend a lot more revenues because our growth has been so good. If we are going to implement a new fee and collect new revenues, 1996 would be a good time to do it. The fastest it could be in place, would be mid-1996. She then asked for any questions or comments. There was a question about amendment one and Edminster replied that it is a fee and has been set by the courts, the Council can enact it but it does come under the revenue limitations... also because it is a new fee, it is permissible under amendment one as long as the revenues collected don't exceed the total taxes. Perlmutter commented that this seems to be bypassing the voters and sounds like a replacement for the 1/4 cent Choices `95. He said that he is for it, but his sense is that there is such a strong anti -tax attitude that there will be a lot of back lash. Sara Frazier asked if anything has been done on comparing what people have to pay on the 1/4 cent tax each year to what they will have to pay for this TUF. Edminster said no, but that this is a good comment. Johnson said that one of the key things here is to identify a number of things that he sees missing: What is the total amount of money that we get from the Highway User Tax Fund and how does that fall short? Once you make the case that it does fall short, then you can address what other mechanisms are out there for us to get. Can we attach some fee to a license plate? We have to lay out the options, but the whole story is, where does the Highway User Tax Fund fit in, how much does that supply to our system and how much short does that project for us to operate and the way we need to operate for the next 10 years. Edminster said that staff has started preliminary work looking at all these funds. Perlmutter said that the best way to pay for the services needed to maintain and improve our streets is by gasoline tax. Why can't we go to the State to encourage them to consider this? Phillips responded that this could be part of the strategy, however, the Coalition for Mobility & Air Quality (CMAQ) has been going through a process for the last year an a half of identifying the best revenue sources for transportation in the state. They have made a presentation to the legislative committee dealing with transportation issues last week and we think that there is a number of transportation related revenues that need to be considered and one of them was a 6% increase in gas tax. To get the legislature on board will probably be difficult. There will most likely have to be a statewide petition drive to get it on the ballot as an issue. The City of Fort Collins could certainly be supportive and have been in telling the legislature to listen to these people. The initial goal we have is to make sure that streets are defined in the broad sense of a transportation corridor so that street maintenance funds can be used for any part of that related to transportation such as signals, bike lanes, sidewalks and we don't get caught in the legal switch of saying that you can only use it for travel lanes for vehicles. This is a philosophical change in how we define our street system to be transportation oriented rather than automobile oriented. Chair Gerety said that he agrees that this doesn't stand a chance if this is a fee over and above what people are paying now without voter approval.. He said that he thinks there is a chance that something like this would work is there were no change in what people were paying now. There are currently utilities in the city such as electric and storm water, and it is clear what it pays for, but this is different. There is no clear "box" clarifying what your money is paying for like there is with the storm water fees, etc. on the utility bill. There needs to be a "box" which accounts for where your money goes. Edminster said this is a valid concern and then thanked everyone for their comments. ld C, A Ll C.3. MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN UPDATE - Frazier/Varden Mr. Frazier stated that the plan really started about two years ago. The biggest thing going on currently is taking a look at all the tasks that need to be done as well as the time frames and overlaying those to be sure that we don't end up duplicating. The City has already completed the bikeway plan and will be going to Council approval in November. The Pedestrian Plan needs to go out for proposals and the parking plan is out for proposals now. Varden took the floor and stated that the Master Transportation Plan started about two weeks ago in terms of setting up a scope of work. Basically this is a complicated plan in that there are seven mini plans that make up the MTP. They are the Congestion Management Plan; Pedestrian Plan; Parking Plan; Bikeway Plan; Design Standards; Street System and the Transit Development Plan. The first task is to re -do the design standards where Phillips mentioned the new street definition where it fits into revising our development of guidelines. Environmental relationships to transportation will be addressed as another task. Public process for transportation functions which will be integrated into other plans going on in the city. We will look at Level of service criteria and the financial picture as well. All the above will feed into the City Plan as well as the Pedestrian Plan, the Parking Plan the Transit Development Plan and will all be integrated for consistency. The time line will be eight months in duration. She then opened the floor for questions and comments. She added that there is not a hand-out tonight, but there will be something for the next meeting if possible. Chair Gerety asked what the role of this Board is in relation to the MTP. Mr. Frazier responded that this Board is the primary advisory board and this will therefore be a regular agenda item for quite awhile. CA. US 287/SH 14 FINAL REPORT Mr. Frazier said that the final report is due this Friday and that as soon as it arrives, he will forward a copy to the board. He shared background information on the Roundtable group. The Roundtable meetings were represented by agencies from Colorado, Wyoming, the county, the cities of Cheyenne, Laramie and Fort Collins, the Western Highway Institute and individuals from the trucking industry. This committee decided to form a marketing committee which will go out and develop different strategies such as talking with Rand McNally about redoing their route maps. Another strategy that was discussed are ways to get truckers to voluntarily use different routes. This is going to Council on October 3 for their approval to form a steering committee that would follow through with the strategies. The Mayor will be asked to send out invitations to other agencies to put the steering committee together and it would probably meet for the first time in November or December. In the meantime, our staff will go back and talk to Rand McNally to see about changing the map. E Mr. Frazier mentioned the Smart Port concept on I-25 -- a way of doing an electronic non- stop exchange of information that will save truckers time. Currently they have to stop for an average of 20 minutes at the ports. Hopefully this will be an incentive to use the I-25/I-80 route. C.S. BOARD MEMBER REPORTS Valentine, on Sara Frazier's behalf, suggested another board retreat to work on visions. Gerety agreed and suggested that everyone bring their calendars to the next meeting to schedule one. Perlmutter said that he attended a Harmony Road improvement committee meeting. They are staring on some improvements. Hopkins asked if anyone would like to be on the mailing list for CSU items. It was agreed that Hopkins will send information to Cindy and she will then forward it on to the Board in their packets. Perlmutter asked how far we can go with E-Mail in communicating information back and forth such as this. This will be further explored next time. C.6. STAFF REPORTS Frazier distributed a Dial -A -Ride hand-out Frazier asked Valentine and Egeland (absent) if they are still interested in being on the Civic Center committee. Valentine said that he would depending on when the committee will be meeting. Gerety asked if the results from the survey that Bracke did on stopping traffic is available yet. Mr. Frazier said that he received it late today and inadvertently left it at the office. He'll get copies out to the Board soon. C.7. NEXT MEETING Board Work Plan Usual Reports There being no other business, the meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. ubze,jatr Cindy L. SVott, Secretary Cl