Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/05/1996TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES June 5, 1996 City Council Liaison: Will Smith Staff Liaison: Tom Frazier Board Chairman: Colin Gerety The meeting of the Transportation Board began at 5:50 p.m. in the Ben Delatour Meeting Room, 201 Peterson, Fort Collins, Colorado. Board members present included Chairman Colin Gerety, Vice Chair Paul Valentine, Tim Johnson, Paul Perlmutter, Alan Beatty, Mark Egeland, Dolores Highfield, and Donn Hopkins. Staff members present included Tom Frazier, Ron Phillips, and Susanne Edminster. Moved by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Mr. Beatty: To approve the May 15th meeting minutes with the following correction: Page 3, third paragraph, 'obviating" should be changed to "alleviating." Motion passed unanimously. Public comment was solicited. Mr. Evan Manfield stated he was a citizen simply attending the meeting to listen and had no comment. The Board received a draft letter in their packet written by Staff concerning the majority opinion on the Timberline Road extension. Letters will be drafted by Board members who held minority opinions on the project. Mr. Beatty, who was not present at the May 15th Board meeting, stated that he also would like to see the Timberline project continue and favors Option C. Mr. Gerety, who was also not present at the May 15th Board meeting, stated that he does not feel the extension is a particularly good idea. He feels in a very short period of time the extension will not have improved congestion at all, and the end product will be southeast -type developments in the northeast portion of the city. The addition of such developments will remove an impetus for some in -fill developments and higher density developments elsewhere. He noted that if money is utilized in the northeast, it would be better spent on the flood plain downtown. He added that when the Lemay area was developed, somewhat expensive houses were constructed on county land. He expressed concern that the same type of scenario will result with the building of the extension, and the City will be subsidizing growth in the County. Mr. Gerety noted that he believes the issue should be returned to the voters. However, due to the strong community support that was had from the surveys taken at the beginning of the Timberline project, he suspects that the extension will still pass if taken back to the voters. Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 2 Mr. Valentine suggested the following wording changes to the draft letter: First paragraph, second sentence, 'The recommendation is not unanimous, and the minutes are enclosed, and a minority report will be submitted by Transportation Advisory Board members." Second paragraph, first sentence, "The majority of the Board," rather than simply, "The Board." Second paragraph, second sentence, a stronger stand of "Additional development will occur along Mulberry." Where the letter speaks of not waiting five or ten years to built the extension, it should be changed to read, 'The road should be built now because by waiting five or ten years, it will be more expensive to construct, and the traffic level of service will continue to decrease on surrounding roads." Deletion of two commas were requested. Spelling out of "Fort" rather than "Ft." was also requested. Mr. Egeland asked that a change be made to the last paragraph of the draft letter to read, "full pedestrian improvements." Mr. Johnson questioned whether any modeling studies had been performed to determine the effect of using 1-25 for north/south movement. Mr. Frazier replied that he was unaware of any such studies. Mr. Johnson added that that issue should be pursued. Ms. Highfield noted that at the last Board meeting, several issues were addressed that the Board felt should be added if Option C were recommended; such as, truck travel, the trail system, pedestrian improvements, repayment agreements for the developers, annexation of the entire area into the city, and natural area movement. She stated that she would like to see some of those issues addressed in one of the letters sent to Council. It was noted that some of the issues, such as the trail system and pedestrian plan concerns, were mentioned in the majority -opinion draft letter. It was also noted that the other issues were discussed in the minutes which would also be sent to Council. The question was then raised as to whether those issues should also be added in the letter. Mr. Frazier pointed out that the Timberline Road extension will be determined regardless of the truck route development. Therefore, the issue with Timberline is not directly tied into the truck issue, and the letter was written to reflect the particular pieces that center around Timberline. He added that the City has annexation Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 3 requirements, and annexation will occur only when those requirements are met, and therefore, that issue was not included in the letter. He stated that repayment agreements are fairly traditional as to recovering a particular cost on roadways, and so that issue was also not put into the letter. Mr. Frazier added, however, that all of those issues could be addressed in the letter if the Board so desired. Mr. Perlmutter stated that his support of the project has increased since the last meeting due to the fact that he has since had two occasions to bicycle from HP to Lincoln, and feels it is very unpleasant to bicycle in the area because of the need to travel along Prospect, Riverside, and Lemay. He added that if the extension is not built, it will be a deterrent to bicyclists. Moved by Mr. Hopkins, seconded by Ms. Highfield: To approved the majority - opinion letter with the above changes to be sent to Council. Motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson read to the Board a rough draft of the minority -opinion letter he had prepared to send to Council. The decision was made to allow the Board members who have a minority opinion to give input into the letter, and perhaps a preliminary reading of the completed letter could be done for the majority -opinion members before sending the letter to Council. Mr. Frazier distributed copies of the Preferred Alternative Structure Plan map to the Board members. The idea for the Structure Plan was to set out a map of what the Fort Collins' community should look like for the year 2015. The preferred plan creates more in -fill and creates a higher level of density. One of the benefits of higher density is to enable a transit system to become an overall alternative mode to the automobile. Mr. Frazier noted the concept of the activity centers in the plan, where one can work, shop, live, play, et cetera, and remain close to the centers. These centers will also help support the services for individuals in each particular region of the community where the centers are located. Mr. Frazier pointed out the major transportation corridors being planned. He stated that significant increased use of transit along those corridors is being planned which will set up, and the roadways will include significant improvements for pedestrian and bikeways. The Board received maps of roadway systems in their packets. He Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 4 stated that it is important to note when talking about the Master Street Plan, movement of all modes of transportation is being implemented. Mr. Frazier noted that the finalized preferred plan will go to Council for vote on July 2nd. He added that it will be very important to develop a transportation system that will serve the final Structure Plan. Mr. Hopkins commented that he had previously heard a presentation on the Structure Plan when it was presented to the University Planning Board. He noted that the discussion and comments at that board meeting were that this concept is a major paradigm shift from the Land Use Guidance System with its focus on increasing density. He added that further discussion was had that if this plan is adopted, development of in -fill projects would probably face less resistance by some of the minority voices and neighborhoods that have disrupted or stopped in -fill development in the past. Mr. Phillips stated that part of the intent behind the plan is to at least project where use of more density will occur so that citizens will have a better idea of where higher density development is going to occur and will not fear a threat to their neighborhood each time a development proposal arises. Mr. Johnson noted that in some of the County discussions that he has been a part of, discussion has taken place of transfer of development rights into receiving areas. He asked if some of the areas in the urban growth area were thought of in that way. Mr. Phillips replied that the receiving areas that are being discussed are mainly in the County in urban development area. He stated that there is a lot of work that would have to be done to get the receiving areas in the urban growth area. Mr. Johnson questioned whether or not the City Planners and County Planners are working together. Mr. Phillips stated that the two entities are working together but not necessarily meshing. He added that some of the County Commissioners are very favorable of transferable development rights, and the City's position from both the Council and Staff point of view, is the TDRs are very difficult to implement properly. Mr. Gerety questioned why some areas outside of the urban area are colored and some are not. For example, Laporte is white and the southern area is green. Mr. Phillips replied that part of the reason is the southern and western areas have been involved in a corridor plan, and therefore, proposed development of those areas has Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 5 been determined. The Laporte areas has not had that type of area plan performed, and therefore, no policy exists for the area. Mr. Gerety noted that the area between the Fort Collins and Loveland growth area, the light -green area, does, in fact, contain housing developments. He added that streets are shown in most other areas, and it might be important to add the streets in that areas as well so people know that is existing development. Mr. Phillips noted that several such areas exist, such as the area north of Longs Pond. Mr. Frazier stated that that issue was noted previously, and Peter Calthorpe was going to make those changes. He added that Staff will follow up on the issue. Mr. Gerety stated that notation of such scattered development gives citizens a clue as to where leeway exists for development. Mr. Phillips stated that that topic had been discussed as to using dark green for areas that are proposed natural areas and some other color for lightly developed or transitionally developed areas. Mr. Johnson noted that he had received information from John Clark that there are no impact fees with regard to transportation in the County. Mr. Phillips confirmed this information but stated that the County has agreed to explore ways to achieve more level ground as far as impact fees. Ms. Edminster discussed the Capital Improvement Plan with the Board. She noted that the list received by the Board in their packets and.work done on the plan thus far was done before the City Plan process had begun. Staff realizes that what should be taking place is identifying capital projects that need to be developed in accordance with the adopted City Structure Plan. Ms. Edminster noted that an immovable date of the April election exists for the Capital Improvement Plan, at which time the plan will be presented to the voters for funding. The public process has to be essentially completed before the end of the year. The Board received in their packets an unprioritized list of what Staff has developed for transportation in terms of what is believed to be the highest priority projects for implementation over the next six years of the program. Staff chose six years overall to be the focus because it was believed that it would be unlikely that voters would give any additional dedicated dollars beyond a six -year window. Staff is, however, identifying needs that will extend for 20 years. Ms. Edminster stated that the completed packet of requested funds has been submitted by Transportation Services, and the total is approximately $252 million for capital improvement over the next 20 years. The entire city-wide amount that Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 6 has result to this point over the next 20 years, for capital improvements only, is $932 million, $47 million per year. Ms. Edminster added that it will be extremely difficult to get that amount of funding from voters, and obviously, significant work will need to be undertaken before ballot time. Mr. Phillips noted that the present amount spent on capital improvements on an annual basis is approximately $3.5 million resulting from Choices '95 funding. Mr. Perlmutter questioned whether or not any money is contributed toward capital projects from the general fund. Ms. Edminster replied that some money is contributed for various projects. Ms. Edminster stated that a survey had been conducted to attempt to determine the feelings of the community with regard to renewing the quarter -cent tax, extending more monies, and if they would allow the City to retain some of the Amendment One revenues. The final results of that survey will not be out until next week. However, Mr. Phillips noted that the results were encouraging for renewing and were not encouraging for adding. Ms. Edminster stated that she now needs some intense work and commitment from the four volunteers that wanted to serve on the subcommittee for the plan. She asked the individuals to meet on the weeks between the regularly scheduled Board meetings to work on the issue. Those four volunteers were Mr. Beatty, Mr. Perlmutter, Mr. Gerety, and Ms. Valentine. Mr. Gerety stated he would still be willing to volunteer his time until his official resignation takes place. Mr. Perlmutter questioned how the volunteers should prepare for the meetings. Mr. Edminster replied that she would send additional information and also attempt to put together a time line. The information she plans to send will be a narrative description of the projects, the dollar amounts of the projects, and a year-to-year chart. Mr. Perlmutter also requested an estimate of how much is spent on transportation capital improvements. Ms. Edminster stated she would attempt to develop a five-year history of spending. The determination was made to hold the first Capital Improvement Plan subcommittee meeting on June 12th at 5:30 in Mr. Frazier's conference room at Olive and Matthews, and dinner will be provided. Mr. Phillips gave the Board an update on the Council meeting that was held on June 4th in which the transportation budget was examined. At that meeting the Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 7 transportation maintenance budget was examined without including the costs that were part of the expenditure budget. An estimate was determined of what could realistically be spent for the remainder of 1996 starting in July if the appropriation passes. That estimate was $920,000. The Board received a handout out in their packets of how that money could be obtained. Ms. Edminster stated that the point Staff would like to stress is, of the $920,000, that is primarily ongoing needs, all of the money except $130,000 is one-time money. Therefore, the issue will still have to be addressed in 1997. She noted that on the Service Area Needs list in the information received by the Board, the first eight items are items that are currently funded in 1996 but need either additional monies or Staff is still identifying them as ongoing needs because the funding was only available for 1996. Therefore, Staff believes the first group of projects listed has a fairly good change of being renewed in terms of funding. Ms. Edminster noted that the total amount being requested in 1997 is approximately $9 million, $5 million in ongoing and approximately $4 million in one-time projects. That list is what Staff submitted as the priority items for 1997. Ms. Edminster stated that she believes momentum exists, and there is a fairly good chance that additional funding on an ongoing basis will be granted. She added that a lot of the needs identified are from adopted plans, such as the Bikeway Plan and the Transit Development Plan. Ms. Edminster stated that the plan will be presented to the Council in bits and pieces starting fairly soon. However, first, the City Manager will make the decision as to what supplemental needs are recommended to the Council for funding of everyone's proposals. Ms. Edminster stated that the Board can make strong recommendations in addition to the letter that has already been written. Further updates will be brought to the Board as they develop. Mr. Johnson questioned if other items had been cut from the list that was given to the Board. Ms. Edminster replied that all the projects were put in to demonstrate a full perspective of the funding needs for transportation. Mr. Gerety noted that Item 21 has an ongoing expense of $50,000. Therefore, it would be helpful to annotate the long-term outcome of the project. On Item 29 he suggested annotating the benefits or savings that are going to occur over a span of time and when the project will end. Mr. Gerety added that he finds charts more Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 6 beneficial than a narrative of the projects, and Ms. Edminster suggested perhaps adding footnotes for those issues. Ms. Edminster noted that Item No. 30 was placed further down on the priority list because Staff is waiting for the Parking Plan itself to be completed to identify the priority projects. In addition, other revenue sources may be identified to offset the costs. Ms. Edminster stated that additional updates will be given to the Board on the Capital Improvement Plan as they develop. Mr. Johnson questioned the possibility of allowing cities and counties to put a sales tax on gasoline in the future. Mr. Phillips stated that he believed that idea came out of the Blue Ribbon Panel's report. The Panel suggested that that issue be examined as a possibility. He stated that he did not believe that any serious discussions had taken place on the matter, and legislative action would need to occur before the tax would be a possibility. He added that he would get copies of the Blue Ribbon Panel report to the Board for their review. T-note updates: Mr. Frazier discussed the Dial -a -Ride project with the Board. Included in the Board's packet was a letter from Kay Rios, Senior Advisory Board member, statistics for the first four months of the program, and a brief report. Mr. Frazier stated that Staff met with three members of a concerned citizen's group as to the operation of Dial -a -Ride. The citizens decided they would like to have further discussion as to how the program is currently operating and some of the issues that they see need to be corrected. Mr. Gerety questioned if a subcommittee had been identified for transit in particular. Ms. Highfield stated she did not believe one had. Mr. Phillips noted that consideration had been given to the possibility of pulling together perhaps two members from the Transportation Board, two members from the Commission on Disabilities, and two members from the Senior Advisory Board to compile a task force to study the issue for a period of time. Staff will examine some of those possibilities and will then share some suggestion or alternatives with the Board. Mr. Beatty expressed his frustration with asking the Senior Advisory Board and COD to bring forward concerns so the Board can address the concerns, and they Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 9 have brought forward nothing. He added that he has even tried to encourage some of the members to invite him to their meetings, and that has also never happened. Mr. Phillips noted that less than 2 percent of the clientele has been coming forward with concerns on the Dial -a -Ride program. However, Staff needs to determine a way to deal effectively with the concerns. He is unsure whether setting up a separate board or commission for the long term is necessarily the answer. Mr. Valentine noted that the dispatch costs from January through April have nearly doubled. Mr. Frazier stated that the reason for the increase is two -fold. One reason is because an additional person has been hired. The other reason is in January and February, part of the dispatch costs were attributed to Transfort, and the error was caught and placed back in the March and April calculations. He added that the largest reason for the increase was the hiring of another individual. Mr. Valentine questioned what some of the reasons for denial were. Mr. Frazier gave the following examples: under 60 years of age, calling for trips based on low income and not being disabled, requested trips to Greeley and Denver. In response to questioning, Mr. Frazier stated that in excess of 80 percent of no- shows are individuals who have changed their mind and decided they no longer want a trip. He added that a regular group of no-shows exists, and when dealing with the elderly population, part of the reasoning has to do with memory issues. He said that for those individuals who miss a trip frequently, a call is given to them before dispatching a driver. Another attempt to decrease no-shows is made by confirming trips for individuals who have a large number of trips. Mr. Beatty questioned the policy on reprimanding no-shows. Mr. Frazier stated that after three no-shows, a letter is sent saying, if you have any more no-shows, then your service may be cancelled unless you pay for your past no-shows. He said that that policy has never been enforced, but many letters are sent out. Mr. Beatty suggested perhaps enforcement should be implemented. Mr. Phillips replied that conversations have been had that the program was not sensitive enough, and a careful balancing act must exist. Mr. Beatty stated that he felt too much leniency was being given. Board member reports: Mr. Beatty stated that it now takes one hour and 30 to 45 minutes to get from Fort Collins to Denver on the bus. No wheelchair access route exists to get to Denver. The Airport shuttle bus costs approximately $20 one-way Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 10 to get to Denver but is faster than the Greyhound bus line. The only good express bus to Denver goes through Fort Collins at about 2:30 a.m. and takes an hour and 20 minutes to reach Denver. Mr. Beatty feels a very bad public transportation system exists between cities. Mr. Hopkins noted that the Shamrock Taxi is now competing with the airport shuttle bus to DIA. Pickups at home can be arranged, and he believes special drop-off points can be arranged as well. He added that he thought the cost was $16 to DIA. Mr. Egeland stated that he was picked up at HP to take the shuttle, and it cost $5 for the special pick-up point. Mr. Hopkins stated that a meeting had taken place at CSU in an attempt to create another pedestrian zone on campus. Discussions are underway on the possibility of closing Pitkin so it will not run through campus. The conceptual design stages are still underway, but the goal is, by next fall, some sort of new route will exist around the areas of Pitkin and Center, and no cars will be allowed through the area. Mr. Gerety commented on the Highway 14 improvements he had been reading about in the newsletters he receives. He noted that a survey was done asking people what they wanted from the intersection on Highway 14, and one item identified by the survey was concern of pedestrian and bicycle traffic on Highway 14. He noted that he has yet to see a pedestrian in the area but does know that the Frontage Road and East Mulberry are reasonably heavily used for bike traffic. Mr. Gerety added that as he understands the plans, access from the Frontage Road just going north through Mulberry will no longer exist because it funnels into two turn lanes. He suggested the issue might be worth examining to determine if something can be done to allow bikes to get through on the Frontage Road. Mr. Phillips stated he would look into the issue further. Mr. Beatty noted that one of the excuses for not improving the existing Fort Collins Library in its present facility is due to parking. He believes an ordinance is being used that says something to the effect that for so many people in the building, a certain number of parking spots must exist. He noted that two buses serve the library during normal library hours, and perhaps that ordinance should be changed to try to create a disincentive to drive to the library since good bus service exists at the present facility. Mr. Phillips stated that if an ordinance exists to that effect, it should be addressed. He was unsure, however, if it is an ordinance or a national guideline that is being used. Mr. Phillips noted that a year ago, the library director asked who she should work with on parking issues, and she was directed to work with the transportation Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 11 planner. Many of the items recommended as far as how to mitigate parking issues with alternate modes of transportation and so on, Mr. Phillips did not believe became a high priority. Therefore, that may be an issue that the Board may want to address. Mr. Valentine gave the Board some background on the original library development in its present location. He stated that the funding mechanism for the library included a provision that the building could only cover a certain square footage of the block and that no additional space could be taken out of the block for parking vehicles. As a result, the second floor of the library today is larger than the first floor because footprint square footage of the building could not be increased. In response to questioning, Mr. Phillips stated that the driving force behind building a new library is space rather than the parking issue. The Council Liaison was not present. Therefore, no liaison reports were given. Staff reports: Mr. Phillips stated that a proposal is underway between Amtrak and a private firm to bring some of the new diesel -powered passenger rail cars from where they are built in Sweden to the United States for demonstration purposes. The demonstration will be going to California earlier this summer and then on to Canada in the fall. Amtrak is proposing to stop in Colorado in August. A presentation was given to CDOT and others, and a proposal has been made that if four or five identified state corridors can raise $75,000 each, both static and running demonstrations can be performed. Money access is being examined. Mr. Phillips has suggested attempting to raise half of the funds through public monies and seeking contributions from the larger companies in the area. The County has said they will supply $5,000. Loveland is examining ways of funding some monies. Discussion are being held with Weld County and Greeley. Denver may be willing to contribute some monies of this area's corridor. Mr. Phillips added that he has had discussions with John Fishbach but no specific figures have been determined. Mr. Beatty questioned if all of the money must be given up front. Mr. Phillips replied that CDOT may be willing to front part of it if repayment is certain. Mr. Gerety stated that it was important to not lose money for actual planning in the future. Transportation Board Minutes June 5, 1996 Page 12 Ms. Highfield questioned if the $75,000 figure was negotiable. Mr. Phillips stated that the reason the amount is so high is because $100,000 is for insurance alone. A planning calendar was included in the Board's packet. Discussion was held that perhaps too many items had been planned for the Board next meeting. Mr. Gerety suggested prioritizing the agenda in case the Board is unable to discuss each item. Mr. Beatty moved adjournment. With no objections, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.