Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 08/15/2012MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD August 15, 2012 6:00 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557 Vice Chair: Mary Atchison 217.9213 Staff Liaison: Mark Jackson 416.2029 Administrative Support: Polly Bennett 221.6601 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Garry Steen, Chair Mark Jackson, Policy, Budget, and Communications Director, 416.2029 Mary Atchison, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601 Eric Shenk Amy Lewin, Transportation Planner, Transportation Planning, 416.2040 Olga Duvall Clint Skutchan Kevin O’Toole Sid Simonson Sara Frazier ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Ed Robert Dale Adamy, citizen, 970.206.1875 Shane Miller Pat Jordan Councilmember Ben Manvel 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 6:05p without a quorum present. A quorum was reached at 6:18p with the arrival of Olga Duvall and Kevin O’Toole. 2. AGENDA REVIEW The Agenda was approved as written. 3. PUBLIC COMMENT Dale Adamy, Air Quality Advisory Board Member 2005 – 2010. He is fascinated by City process and the outcomes and products. I am speaking to the Parking Plan tonight and extend kudos on excellent work and an excellent document. There may be unintended wording in the plan where it says “parking.” As a cyclist, I read it with those eyes and there may be unintended bias. The paragraph on page 85 “The purpose of the questionnaire was to understand characteristics…” may create such an unintended bias where the word car is not used. Please review the document to see if any of the wording keeps you from being nimble in that regard. When I went to the New West Fest this past weekend, I had to walk around a great number of bikes, which, as a cycling enthusiast was exciting. It did seem that the Plan might miss opportunities, regarding event parking however. Perhaps a monitored bike corral Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 August 15, 2012 Another item apart from the Parking Plan refers to issues that the Board becomes aware of that might create traffic issues, i.e. an on-campus stadium. Express concerns to Council and let them know that someone noticed. The process of Boards and Commissions is one that should be embraced. There are issues about how government works. It is a beautiful thing when it works well. Thank you for hearing me. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Shenk moved to accept the July 2012 Board minutes. Atchison seconded. The July minutes were approved unanimously. 5. COUNCIL LIAISON Councilmember Manvel was unable to attend. 6. BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE – Garry Steen Steen: The BAC met on Monday night with Sylvia Cranmer as the new Chair. There was public comment concerning the section of the Mason Trail at Troutman that is closed. It was stated that six months to have it closed seems excessive. Amy Lewin passed out a flyer about the Trails survey being conducted. They are looking for volunteers for counts and surveys. Sign up at the website. The Midtown Urban Corridor Design was also discussed. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) – Amy Lewin This is an update to the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Plan Fort Collins is the comprehensive Planning effort for the City. Transportation gets its own special document in the form of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). With the TMP comes the Master Street Plan (MSP), which defines what we want the roadway network to look like in the future. The CIP comes out of that. Once the Plans are done, we review them on a regular basis and make adjustments for continuous improvement. The CIP is a tracking list of all Capital Projects that must be addressed to achieve the vision of the TMP. The detail table has more information about projects listed in the summary table. Projects on the list come from the TMP, MSP, and other Plans. Once studies are done (i.e. Jefferson) the project is added to the list. The public and City Council also give recommendations as to what gets added. This document gives a general sense of what projects will cost…a best guess so we can plan for the future. A few potential funding sources include state and federal grants, BOB sales and use tax, Keep Fort Collins Great (2B), and Street Oversizing Fees. TMP Vision areas/categories include integrated land use and transportation, mobility options, traffic flow, quality travel infrastructure, and increase awareness. The CIP process organized all of the desired/needed projects and prioritized them according to long- term, medium-term, and immediate need. This year’s update is to refine the list to make sure it is accurate, up-to-date, and user-friendly. Highlights: Updated intersections list based on recommendations from Arterial Intersection Prioritization Study. Coordinated projects from pedestrian list with roadway/complete street projects. Combined off-street bike and pedestrian projects into the new trails category. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 3 August 15, 2012 Projects are not built in order of appearance. They are built when funds become available or leverage permits. Skutchan: Where does Prospect, adjacent to CSU, fit in the prioritization? I don’t see it on the Top Roadway/Complete Streets map. Lewin: I will look into that. Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects: Bike lanes Shared lane markings Bicycle detection at traffic signals Bike parking Bike boxes Sidewalks (new and upgrades) Multi-use trails ADA ramps, pushbuttons Crossing improvements The Engineering department is conducting a pedestrian needs assessment right now. Those results will be fed into this Plan. Skutchan: How does context of pedestrian issues get considered? Lewin: We look at the situational context and feed that into the prioritization. Next Steps: Continue public outreach Submit the updated CIP to Council for adoption in fall 2012 Incorporate transportation project data into citywide CIP Update every two years, coordinating with the City’s budgeting process Updates are posted online at fcgov.com/CIP 9. ACTION ITEMS A. Parking Plan: Downtown and Surrounding Neighborhoods – Timothy Wilder, Randy Hensley This is our fourth appearance with the Transportation Board. Background: The T-Board is the Go-To Board for Parking Services. Existing parking policies contained in the Downtown Strategic Plan. Will become an element of the Transportation Master Plan. Seeking a recommendation to Council for their consideration on October 2. This is a wholesale new project for the City. The public involvement process incorporated feedback from outreach since May 2011. Final open house is on August 23. Held small group meeting with the Council. Councilmembers were comfortable with most items in the Plan. Plan Purpose: Address key parking issues Provide direction for Downtown parking decisions Align parking management with community goals Integrate sustainability into parking practices Identify actions for improving the parking system Critical Parking Issues: On-street parking management (high occupancy in the core area; employee parking) Regular Meeting Minutes Page 4 August 15, 2012 Downtown stakeholder involvement Parking in neighborhoods Future public parking infrastructure needs New development and parking impacts Funding for parking Plan Overview: Executive Summary pg 9 Vision pg 19 Preferred alternative pg 34 Principles and policies pg 35 - 50 Action plan pg 41 - 61 Appendices: separate section Key Recommendations: On-street pay parking could address multiple issues but no agreement by stakeholders. Recommendation: No pay parking now, evaluate need and support in future (Principle 2, Policies 2.1, 2.2, pg 35). Add pay-by-cell phone for extended parking beyond 2-hour time limit (Policy 4.7, page 37; action item 9, pg 43). This option would be more expensive for an employee to choose than parking in the parking structure. Need for more downtown business involvement in parking decisions. New organization: not recommending. Recommendation: Increase engagement with businesses (Policy 1.2, pg 35). Employee Parking: 20% of downtown parkers are employees. Recommendation: engagement with downtown business owners to identify appropriate tools. Neighborhoods: Spillover parking from downtown businesses, CSU students/staff. Recommendation: residential permit parking program; residents pay a reasonable portion of the costs. (Policy 5.1, 5.2) Electric Vehicle Charging Stations: Recommendation: Stations in appropriate public facilities. Supports City’s sustainability goals (Policies 7.8/7.9, pg 39). Public Parking Infrastructure Needs Prepare for future public parking demand increases. Recommendation: Public-private partnerships and smaller, distributed facilities (Policy 6.3 pg 38, Action item 15 pg 43) Financing of Parking Infrastructure and Programs: No funding for programs and infrastructure beyond existing. Recommendation: Parking Enterprise Fund and Parking Infrastructure Fund. Policies 8.3 – 8.7 (pg 39 -40) Action item 13 (pg 43). Parking for New Development: Generating new demand, but no City mechanism to respond to impacts. Recommendation: Parking Impact Fee; Transportation Impact Study revisions to include parking. Policies 6.2, 6.4 (pg 37 – 38) 8.6 (pg 40) Action items 2, 8, 15 (pg 42 – 43). Skutchan: How do you calculate an impact fee? Wilder: There are industry standards that are based on use. It is also tied into the Transportation Impact Study. Skutchan: Would this be implemented city-wide? Wilder: Downtown is unique. Midtown has a lot of surface parking and lots of opportunity to provide parking in developments. Simonson: How much would the Parking Impact Fee be? Regular Meeting Minutes Page 5 August 15, 2012 Wilder: We have not answered that question. Legally, we can charge up to the cost of providing a space. We don’t want to charge $25,000 per space. It is a balancing act and we just don’t know right now. It also depends on the project. Atchison: Are new businesses coming in without new building? For example, the Lyric is highly desirable for downtown. We don’t want to discourage the types of businesses we want downtown. Hensley: That is the theory behind the smaller garages/structures, which might be more applicable in an area like the one the Lyric is in. Money to pay for parking can come from multiple sources including user fees, parking impact fees, GID money, etc. Next Steps: Boards & Commissions Public open houses October 2 – Council review and decision We are asking the Transportation Board to send a recommendation for approval to Council by the first or second week in September. Atchison: I understand the concept of a parking impact fee and the mix of needed revenues. While it is a privilege to have a business downtown, it is important to have a thriving downtown. The residential parking pass doesn’t feel right. Businesses whose employees park in the neighborhood should pay to park in the neighborhoods. It is critical to get a mechanism for input from the downtown businesses. I support parking funds to go back into the parking system to fund the business. There are too many pros and cons to make a clear decision. Shenk: I like the enterprise funding system so funds can’t be pulled out willy-nilly. In terms of parking used by employees, I think they should be hit hard, escalating the fines more quickly. I’m also wrapping my head around the fee for new businesses. It sounds good in theory, but is contingent on new development. I need to give the document a good read. I think it is good, but it is the most challenging document I’ve seen in my brief time on the Board. Skutchan: I’m supportive of the document but not there on the fee issue for new development in particular, and the impact on existing businesses. I’m torn on the residential parking permits as to whether or not additional protections come with a cost. Paying to park in front of your own house is disturbing. Parking for new development to provide information on demand and impacts should be regulated by Parking Services, not the development. I would remove trigger mechanisms that have an emotional element and base decisions only on data. O’Toole: I like the overall document but would like to write in a trigger that we will hit. I don’t like the idea of making surrounding neighborhoods pay. A number of free spots should be allowed. Impact fees need to be well defined. I would hate to see businesses not move into downtown due to impacts. Duvall: I feel comfortable voting for approval of t his Plan. I do not agree with the neighborhood parking permits and don’t think our vocal community will approve that. Frazier: There is such an uproar surrounding paid parking in downtown. I don’t think it is as big an issue now that downtown is so vibrant. I would like to see a shared responsibility for all of the elements of the businesses and think new businesses should provide parking spaces as part of their business development. We need to equalize responsibility for parking. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 6 August 15, 2012 Simonson: There are many great things in the Plan. I don’t like charging neighborhoods to park in front of their own homes. I don’t like impact fees that might be detrimental to businesses locating in the downtown areas. Ala carte there are awesome elements. Those two elements are detriments. Steen: I support the Plan generally and appreciate the comprehensiveness you include. The employee spill-over is very difficult to deal with and I defer to your expertise. I don’t care for the neighborhood parking permit plan, but don’t have a good solution. Skutchan: I move that the Transportation Board recommend approval of the overall Parking Plan with the exception of the neighborhood and development fees. Simonson seconded. The motion was approved 4:2 with one abstention. Vote: Shenk: For Skutchan: For O’Toole: Against Duvall: For Frazier: Abstain Simonson: For Steen: Against Atchison had to leave before the vote. B. BFO Recommendation to Council – Mark Jackson In terms of tonight, I will give you the most recent information I have, although I can’t share the drilling platforms. I am still fixing some budget problems. The City Manager’s recommended budget is to be ready at noon tomorrow. Dates are now attached to Work Sessions and Public Hearings. You can go as a Board or as individuals to address Council or you can do nothing. If you want to put something in writing, the City Manager’s Recommended Budget will be handed to Council by the end of the month. At that time it becomes a public document. As far as timing I think anything you want to send to Council should go by the first of September. You don’t have to take any action. September 11: Work Session for Economic Health, Environmental Health, Safer Communities September 18: Public Budget Hearing September 25: Work Session for Community & Neighborhood Livability, Culture & Recreation, High Performing Government, Transportation October 2: Second Public Budget Hearing October 9: Work Session October 16: First Reading November 20: Second Reading Steen: Historically, the Board has sent more of a philosophical comment to Council. Thematically: Overall, Transportation is doing very, very well. No core programs were cut. The addition of KFCG funds is significant, with over $10 million coming in, $6 million to Street Maintenance. That is the biggest change from previous cycles. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 7 August 15, 2012 Other KFCG items: the City made a significant commitment to the MAX service to get it rolling the way we want it to roll. They are also beefing up offers that contribute to the east/west connectivity. Transfort received a significant infusion related to MAX. Other Transit enhancements aren’t faring as well. The southeast service won’t be funded, nor will additional service on Route 11. Remaining “other” Transportation funds will go to hard infrastructure including the bridge program. There is additional money going to Capital Equipment Replacement. Non-hard infrastructure had funding added to ensure FC Bikes can move forward and be enhanced. The Bike Library and Safe Routes 2 School in their basic configuration are included for funding. Their grants expire at the end of 2012 and the grant pool has shrunk while eligibility has expanded (more people are eligible to apply for fewer funds). A small amount of funding went to parking structure maintenance and handicapped parking spaces. Enhancements to programmatic things (ex: FC Walks) weren’t funded. Large critical projects (ex: Lincoln Triangle near Lincoln Greens; Midtown Mason Study) should be funded. Parking requests were approved because they are using their own revenues and reserves. Demonstration projects using green technology are cool but there is no funding available after funding core services. I’m sorry that there isn’t enough to do everything we want to do. Revenues could come in higher. Remember, none of this is final until Council takes action. Skutchan: I am pleased with all of this, as it lines up with my interests. Duvall: Would it be advisable for us to encourage investment in Transit? Jackson: The MAX investments are somewhere around $1.0 - $1.5 million additional. Steen: I think the Board should consider mentioning long-range, consistent funding for Transportation. Jackson: BOB expires in 2015. Street Maintenance will lose +/- $5 million. Simonson: Take care of the basics and be responsible with the other things. Skutchan: I think well placed phone calls to key Councilmembers is more effective than a letter. I also believe Mark is empowered to speak on our behalf. Steen: I will draft something and email it to the Board for review. Steen: We can craft a letter to send to Council by the first week in September. 10. REPORTS A. BOARD REPORTS Shenk: I’m sure it is in the budget to maintain the striping on the biking trails, but some of them need attention in high use areas. I rode by the pedestrian underpass on Troutman and realized how gynormous it is and how pathetically small the one is on the Spring Creek Trail by Dairy Queen now. It should be addressed now rather than after MAX comes online. Regular Meeting Minutes Page 8 August 15, 2012 Skutchan: Please give us an update on the bridge bidding for Spring Creek when you can. I’d like to have Prospect around CSU pushed as a higher priority. I’d encourage you to be sure CSU is communicating with the City on that. Frazier: Is the City included in the stadium debate? Jackson: Our Deputy City Manager sat on the feasibility committee. Simonson: I leave for Peru in the next few days, but will be back for the September meeting. Steen: Be sure to take the Trails survey, and if you are up to it, volunteer for the counts or survey. B. STAFF LIAISON REPORT – Mark Jackson The new Community Survey results are out. I brought copies for everyone. Mason construction is underway and experiencing a few delays due to equipment delays on the part of the railroad. By and large, the community has handled it well. We’ve only had about 25 phone calls. The shuttle we provided was a huge success, although we had to run it an additional 7 days. I could visualize what a full-time commuter shuttle could be. We are conducting interviews for the City Manager next week and the Transfort General Manager the week after that. Aaron Iverson is serving as the Interim Transportation Planning Manager position. I am giving him structure and guidance. The decision was made not to offer the Bike Program Manager position to any of the three candidates. We will revisit the job requirements and qualifications and hopefully fill it by years’ end. September Transportation Board Agenda: Trail Survey – Amy Lewin 11. OTHER BUSINESS • None 12. ADJOURN The meeting concluded at 9:18p. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ Polly Bennett Executive Administrative Assistant Planning, Development, & Transportation Service Unit