Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 10/20/1993Draft Minutes to be approved by the Board at the November 17, 1993 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 1993 6:10-8:00 P.M. FOR REFERENCE: Chair -- Colin Gerety Council Liaison -- Gina Janett Staff Liaison -- Rick Ensdorff Staff Support -- Cindy Scott *** Due to the lack of a quorum, the scheduled agenda was not followed. The following notes and information were recorded. *** BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Egeland, Sara Frazier, Colin Gerety and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Hudetz, David Lemesany, Sharone Mekelburg, Michael Poppenwimer, and James Reidhead. STAFF PRESENT: Rick Ensdorff, Greg Byrne, Cindy Scott, Rita Davis - Transportation Department, and Alan Krjmarik - Finance Department. Considering the short time frame in which to work with regarding the LaPorte Lot issue as well as Member's time constraints, it was agreed to go ahead and consider the Lot issue.. The Board also agreed to discuss Administrative Issues (Absences) and Gerety's "State of the Board" letter. 1) Laporte Lot - Ensdorff and Alan Krjmarik 2) Administrative Issues 3) "State of the Board" letter - Colin Gerety DISCUSSION TOPICS: 1. LAPORTE LOT Ensdorff gave a background account of the lot and referred to the information included in the packets. He gave a detailed history of the ownership, lease increases, and negotiations to purchase the lot. He stated that the lease payments currently come from the Transportation Reserves and there was discussion about the details of that. Ensdorff stated that the Transportation Department feels the LaPorte Lot is an important parking resource to the downtown. The lot also has a significant element which is the Transfort Transfer Center and that at some time in the future, part of the lot may be designated for carpool parking. The lot is also significant to the Opera Galleria and there has been a recent proposed agreement with their representatives as far as the number of spaces that can be guaranteed to them. The Transportation Department's goal has been to try and find a balance between providing parking for that agreement as well as for the other downtown businesses. A copy of the proposal is available if anyone is interested in reviewing it. . Ensdorff explained different parking options available for the downtown area - permit lot spaces, timed lot spaces and on -street timed areas. There was a short period of questions and answers, including the issue of the general assumption that the City should be the one to purchase the lot and be responsible for providing parking and what would happen if the City opted not to purchase the lot. In the event that the City did not purchase or continue to lease the lot, there is a letter on file from Trillium Company stating that if there is an encroachment on the property, it will be fenced off. Mr. Krjmarik took the floor and explained the financial details of the purchase of the LaPorte Lot. Chairman Gerety stated that he dislikes the thought of using General funds for the purchase to support parking and subsidize the use of the automobile. It would seem more appropriate to use Transportation Reserves. Board Member Valentine stated that he thinks it is a good buy, it is something the City ought to do in favor of the downtown. The Board agreed that the LaPorte Lot should be purchased by the City, but Chair Gerety stated that he would like to put a caveat on the recommendation to Council. 1) The lot should be self sustaining - no monies should be taken out of the General fund; and 2) He also stated that he would like to see the lot become more than just parking - that alternatives modes programs such as carpooling, transit and bikes would be encouraged and utilized in the lot, i.e. carpool parking spaces, bike lockers and an improved Transit Transfer Center. The other members were in agreement with Chairman Gerety's two suggestions. Ensdorff stated that staff would draft a letter for Chairman Gerety's signature in support of the City's purchase of the LaPorte Lot with the two caveats stated previously. Mr. Krjmarik stated that he would need the letter by early next week to be included in Council packets. 2. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES Absences were discussed, and it was agreed that in the future, the Boards and Commissions Policy on attendance must be enforced. Mr. Poppenwimer indicated to Cindy Scott that he would have to resign from the Board due to conflicts. Ensdorff will contact the other members who have missed several meetings to see if they still have an interest in participating on the Board and Cindy will contact the City Clerk's office to find out what the proper procedure is to fill Mr. Poppenwimer's position at this time. -2- 3. STATE OF THE BOARD - LETTER FROM COLIN GERETY Chairman Gerety stated that he has spoken with both Ensdorff and Council Liaison Janett since the time the letter was sent out. He felt that since he wrote the letter, he should preface it a bit. He stated that what he wrote may have been misinterpreted some which is a sign that it may have been poorly written. He said that he would like to go through it and more clearly express what he was trying to say and perhaps just as importantly, what he was NOT trying to say. One thing that he did not intend to do was to attack the staff or the Transportation Services Department as individuals. He knows that staff is hard working and more over, City staff has always been uniformly open and communicative. He stated that secondly, he did not mean it as an attack on the actions that the Transportation Department is doing in terms of the projects they have proposed to the City or what's been accepted. In fact he thinks those projects have been in support of the Transportation Plan Policies and Objectives that have been adopted by Council. What the Board has seen from the federal and state funding is that the projects that are being proposed are basically for alternative transportation, so that wasn't his intention either. The intent of the letter was to talk about the stack of paper that he thought the Board was largely formed to promote - tentatively titled the Transportation Policies Plan. That's independent in a sense from what goes on the street and its independent from the projects that go on day to day. Chairman Gerety also stated that the note about the State of the Board was saying that last year the Board said that at the end of the year they were going to have an Action Plan that could actually be taken before the Council and the Board has not made substantial progress on that. He expressed his frustration and stated that in order to make progress on that the Board will have to have staff support on that particular effort. That is the intent of what he tried to state in the letter. Board Member Egeland stated that he shared the frustration of not making progress on the action plan. He suggested that perhaps the Board set a criteria for what items the Board will review, to be selective and perhaps have more time to work on the plans. Board Member Valentine reminded the Board that at one time they broke up into subcommittees specifically to handle the.plans and that when the Regional Transportation Plan came up, the subcommittees ceased to meet. Board member Egeland stated that he felt the subcommittee meetings stopped due to everyone's busy schedules. Chairman Gerety said that he thinks the Board can organize themselves to make progress on two fronts - to review things and to make progress on the long term plan. He stated that Board Members don't have time to sit down and write the Transportation Policies. Board Member Valentine agreed and stated it would almost have to come from staff with recommendations and comments. Ensdorff stated that some of the words in Chairman Gerety's letter did strike him uncomfortably and that he appreciated Gerety's comments and explanation tonight. -3- He agreed that the Regional Plan is taking up a lot of the Board Members' time as well as staffs and reminded the Board that they made that conscious decision to pursue it. He said that staff has gotten smarter about the process of developing a Policy Plan. We now realize that there are many parts that must fit together to have a successful plan i.e., Land Use and Density issues must be resolved before a Transportation Policy Plan can be effective. He stated that staff also feels frustration at the lack of progress. He also stated that he totally supports the premise that was brought up that staff needs to do the work and get it to the Board. It is not an expectation that the Board should do the work, but rather for the Board to review it and pass their comments on to staff. Council Liaison Janett also suggested that for the Board's 1994 Work Plan, certain criteria should be established for the review of issues and to set some goals. She stated that she appreciated what Ensdorff said about getting smarter about the necessity of integration to have a successful Policy Plan. Ensdorff briefed the Board on the Land Use, Transportation and Air Quality (LUTRAQ) team that has recently been formed to work together on those respective issues. Gerety stated that he wrote the letter after going over last years' Work Plan and that he is a "products type" person. He admitted that it was a harsh note and he felt harsh when he wrote it because of the frustration over the lack of progress. Ensdorff asked that the Board spend more time discussing concerns in order to vent them and give everyone an opportunity to define what progress is. He agreed with Council Liaison's suggestion to set some goals in the 1994 Work Plan. He feels that the Board has made progress. At the next meeting, the Board needs to define the focus and goals they want to achieve for 1994. Council Liaison Janett suggested that perhaps the Board might consider going to a retreat to assist them in defining what they want for 1994. There was a brief discussion about re- organization in the Transportation Department and Council Member Janett asked for a note from CPES to Council about this issue. Board Member Frazier stated that it was extremely helpful to hear how much the Board helps the Council by making recommendations and that she feels better about defining expectations and goals at the next meeting. 4. OTHER BUSINESS Items for the November agenda will include: Approval of Minutes - September 1993; 1994 Work Plan - defining products the Board wants to achieve. The m et'9 concluded at 1:00 p.m. P� Cindy L. ott Board Secretary -4- r Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation Fort Collins Colorado State of the Board Colin Gerety October 11, 1993 The Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation has been in existence for somewhat over a year. At the October 1993 meeting, new officers will be elected and a work plan for the next year will be discussed. As current chairman it seems appropriate to give a "state of the board" report. This is a statement of my views. It has not been endorsed by the other board members and is not a statement by the board itself. Plan for 1993 The transportation board is a consultative board established by the City Council to oversee development of the Transportation Policy Plan and to provide feedback on city proposals which impact the transportation system. In addition, the transportation board is to coordinate with all other boards and commissions on transportation issues. The board was formed after Council adopted a mission statement and objectives for transportation. These are to provide the basis for the Transportation Policy Plan. If the city is to meet its objectives, the actions of the city must support the objectives. For 1993, the board work plan said we would prepare an initial draft of the Transportation Policy Plan for review by council. What Happened Ic. 1993, the board gave input on many transportation issues before the city. These included: Transfort c: npliance with the Americans with Disabilities act, Shields Street improvements, and the restriping of `l.;untain and Remington for bike lanes. We also reviewed the Transportation Improvement Program which covers projects that receive state or federal funding. Board members are on all of the citizen input groups for the regional transportation plan sponsored by the North Front Range Council. While we have been busy, we have failed to make any progress on our main objective, the Transportation Policy Plan. It is my understanding that the Council expects staff to prepare work and present it to the board for review before it heads to the general public for input or the council for review and adoption. For example, Brian Woodruff and Susie Gordon, the staff liaisons to the Air Quality Task Force, have worked with that group to establish a process and have shepherded the group through it. They also make sure that the rest of the city staff participates. For example, they invited staff members from various departments to brainstorm possible actions, their effects on air quality and the likelihood of adoption. Board members volunteer their time. All of us are busy with other activities and none have the time necessary to develop the Transportation Policy Plan. In the past year, the transportation staff has not presented even a skeleton Transportation Policy Plan. It has not proposed any action items to be put in the plan, nor has a plan to generate actions been suggested. I think it is fair to say that the Air Quality Task Force has made more progress on transportation action plans than the Transportation Board. Transportation funding for the city is a complex matter involving street oversizing funds, sales tax money, and funds from the state and federal government. Transportation spending is done by half a dozen city organizations with separate accounts for 'ransfort, street maintenance, capital improvements, and transportation services. The board has never seen a complete picture of transportation funding and spending. As a matter of course we review projects that receive state or federal funding. The board finds out about other projects only when a specific request to address the board is made by another city agency or when a board member requests the review. The Shields street improvements are a case in point. The board requested a review because members realized the issue was going before council without our having seen it. A congestion management plan was commissioned as part of the North Front Range Council's regional transportation plan. City staff is working hard on the plan. Members of the Transportation board are participating in this, but it is not clear that the work will find its way into a comprehensive Transportation Policy Plan for the city. Recommendation The Transportation Policy Plan is critical to the city. The Council as well as other boards and commissions regularly express frustration that they are being asked to make decisions without the support of a detailed transportation plan. In my opinion, city actions are often in conflict with the goals of clean air and reduced use of the single occupant vehicle. These actions have long lasting, deleterious effects on the quality of life in Fort Collins. Without a comprehensive plan, this will continue. If the city is to get a Transportation Policy Plan, the bulk of the work must be done by city staff. If the Transportation Board is to meaningfully comment on transportation proposals, the complete funding and spending picture must be presented to the board. The city must find the staff to support the Transportation Policy Plan and the Transportation Board. If the Transportation Services department doesn't have the resources, another department should be assigned.