Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Advisory Board - Minutes - 01/09/2017FOR REFERENCE: MINUTES of the CITY OF FORT COLLINS PARKING ADVISORY BOARD January 9, 2017 5:30 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80524 Chair: Susan Kirkpatrick Vice Chair: Holly Wright Staff Liaison: Kurt Ravenschlag 221-6386 Administrative Support: Melissa Brooks 224-6161 BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: CITY STAFF PRESENT: Susan Kirkpatrick, Chair Craig Dubin, Parking /Transfort Acting General Manager Holly Wright, Vice Chair Katlyn DeMallie, Transfort, Administrative Clerk II Bob Criswell Seth Lorson, Transit Planner, Transfort Nora Hill Carey Hewitt Kayla Boos Sara Kammlade ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Councilmember Kristen Stephens Paul Sizemore, FC Moves Manager Stephanie Napoleon Michael Short Steve Schroyer 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, Susan Kirkpatrick, called the meeting to order at 5:30 pm. 2. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS Two new Board Members are introduced who will be formerly appointed as of 1/17/17. Sara Kammlade - Data scientist for an agricultural research group. Kayla Boos - Academic advisor in the department of Construction Management at CSU. 3. AGENDA REVIEW N/A DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 2 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hewitt moves to accept October 2016 meeting minutes, Wright seconds. Minutes were approved unanimously. The board acknowledges that the November 2016 minutes were taken but they were not a formal record of the meeting as there was not a quorum. Discussion: 5. COUNCIL LIAISON REPORT None 6. PUBLIC COMMENT A letter was received from Ted Zibell, owner of Perennial Gardener. The letter will be discussed later in the meeting during Down Town plan discussion. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Traffic Code Amendment: Parking in Bike Lanes, Paul Sizemore Sizemore has attended the meeting to discuss a proposed traffic code amendment. He will talk about the context of the amendment, the solutions staff is proposing, and process they are going through, and the true request. Sizemore begins a PowerPoint presentation: The Fort Collins traffic code is modeled on the “Model Traffic Code” that includes a lot of uniformity in the language across the country. Both the Model Code and the Fort Collins Code are very unclear about whether vehicles may be parked in bicycle lanes. The general consensus of staff departments is that it is not the intention to allow the parking of vehicles in bike lanes. The problem is that within the traffic code there is a list of prohibited places to park, a lot of them being very specific, and bike lanes is not on that list. What is on that list are places where there is a sign prohibiting parking and any place that would obstruct the movement of a vehicle within a lane. Those are the two pieces that traffic operations and the police department use to prohibit parking in bike lanes. The problem is among City departments there is not a lot of uniformity within those guidelines. Enforcement is difficult. It causes a lot of confusion and if you are going to court with a citation, you do not want that confusion surrounding the issue. The City attorney’s office is working with Traffic Operation, Police Department and FC Moves to clarify the code language. The first proposed solution is to look at other jurisdictions and see what they have done. A lot of other Cities, including Denver, have included specific language in the code that says you cannot park in bike lanes. The staff proposal is to amend the traffic code, to clarify that parking is not allowed in bike lanes and it does not depend on signage or specific language on the sign. This also allows opportunity to clarify the code section that allows you to cross into a bike lane to turn at an intersection. This is allowed in the code, but there is not a lot of guidance when the movement is appropriate. The process: Because this is a traffic code amendment, the City Attorney’s office does not draft the actual strike through and amendment of the code until it’s on the docket for City Council. In order to accommodate that, we are going around the three boards that are most affected by this issue: the Bicycle Advisory Committee (agreed to move forward with DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 3 amendment), Transportation Board (agreed to move forward with amendment), and Parking Advisory Board. Does the parking advisory board support the concept of amending the traffic code to specifically prohibit the parking of automobiles in bike lanes, and clarifying the regulations regarding crossing bike lanes to turn? Hewitt: Some intersections have a dash line, which I assume means you can cross the bike lane to get in the right turn lane? Others don’t have that dash line, so I assume I need to stay in my lane before turning. Sizemore: Actually, you don’t. The City’s standard is to do the skip striping at all intersections. As streets are being restriped, you will see that more and more. But you do still see the solid striping, and you are able to get into the right turn lane as long as it is clear to make that right hand turn. Hewitt: I just assumed that you couldn’t park in bike lanes, so I support this. Wright: I remember when Tessa came and spoke with us about the Laurel Street bike green- way and protected bike lanes. This issue came up then also. I think it’s nice to define and to make things safer, I think this is great. Criswell: I never realized this was a problem. I don’t have anything against saying bike lanes are for bikes. But how are you going to word the issue for crossing the bike lane to turn? Can you only cross at the dashed lines? Is it a moving violation? Does it affect your insurance? If we didn’t do anything how big of a problem exists? Sizemore: The parking in bike lanes is a pretty common issue because of the way it has been a piecemeal interpretation with the signs. If there is not a sign where an issue is occurring, then traffic will go put a sign up and it becomes “chasing the problem”. It goes along with not being able to enforce something that most people think is the rule. Regarding the turning motion, we don’t know the solution at the moment. That is where the traffic engineer will sit down at the attorney’s office and go over the details. It probably wouldn’t be limited to the location of the stripes, but to some reasonable distance to the intersection. A huge issue is people cutting over and using the bike lane as a travel lane to skip in front of traffic. They would like to word it so it gives the police department something to enforce. Criswell: What kind of allowance would be made if snow was pushed to the side of the road covering the turn lane, would we be able to turn from the driving lane? What I am getting at, is that I think that would be more dangerous than if I got into the turn lane that would partially intrude on the bike lane. Sizemore: I don’t know the solution to that especially as it relates to the snow, but I think that is where traffic gets involved. Kirkpatrick: How many parking locations are problematic with this particular issue? Sizemore: I think it’s more of a roving problem. It pops us where people have trouble finding legal parking and that is when they start to park in bike lanes and we begin chasing the DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 4 problem around. My understanding from talking to the police department is that it is a fairly frequent occurrence and they need to issue citations or put up signs. Kammlade: My understanding is that it is important for cars to cross into the bike lane when making a right hand turn so they aren’t blocking bikes from being next to them. The most common cause of bike accidents with vehicles is usually those right hooks. It is important for a car to then pull up into the bike lane when making a right hand turn. When you say you are clarifying the regulations are you just trying to improve the language so that people driving cars can read through the code to see whether it is legal or encouraged? Sizemore: You pointed out a big issue, to avoid right hooks. The issue we are running into is that people are driving in the bike lane 300 or 400 feet from the intersection so they can jump in front of traffic. Right now there is no guidance saying that someone can’t pull into the bike lane 400 feet before the turn to avoid traffic. Boos: I see the intent of it, by clarifying the regulations are we going to quantify the length when you can pull into the bike lane to turn right? Sizemore: I think that is the direction that Joe from traffic would like to go in, it probably is going to be distance based. Wright: I think one of the problems on Laurel was delivery people, like UPS and FedEx trucks just pulling in temporarily blocking the bike lanes to do a delivery. Not to single anybody out but would this be communicated specifically to anyone like that in the business districts? At least so they knew that there was a new ordinance? Sizemore: I think the ability for some of that comes from a section that allows you to temporarily block a bike lane if there is no other viable option. The fact that there is a police presence and they are out having interactions with trucks doing that- that’s one of the number one PR tools. Kirkpatrick: I have a process question. Why couldn’t we look at the language that Denver has developed? Sizemore: Staff has, if the board would like us to bring you that language, we can do that. Kirkpatrick: That’s too much, but from a process standpoint it’s a little lacking that we don’t get to see any language. Sizemore: You are the first board to ask us for that detail. Frankly it didn’t occur to us to bring you the language. We set this up with more of the bullets that highlight the concept. Kirkpatrick: Strictly speaking that is fine with me. It just seems unusual to give approval and then see the language later. Sizemore: It certainly was kind of an unusual process to bring the concept and not have the language but that is the process that the attorney’s office follows. We don’t want to bring you something that won’t end up being the language that goes into the ordinance. DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 5 Wright moves to support the amendment, Hewitt seconds. The motion passes unanimously. B. Downtown Plan: Parking Related Policies, Seth Lorson Lorson: We have been working on the Downtown Plan which is an element of our comprehensive plan for the community. The Downtown Plan is a comprehensive look at down town. We broke it into a number of different topic categories. We’ve had several work sessions with City Council. What I have here is the Parking Policies section. This is the result of twelve meetings since April of 2015. We’ve gone to three City Council work sessions, one being parking specific. A lot of the policies that you see here are direction from City Council. We are looking to adopt the Downtown Plan on February 21 st . Right now it is about 250 pages, not including our addendums. Revisions and Updates: There are changes since November- we removed this idea of a two hour district. We thought we would have the concept of a two hour district instead of a two hour block face which would prevent “gaming the system”. We were going to change that to create greater flexibility in our two hour time system, which would allow you to extend your two hour stay by paying using an application on your cell phone. This would be the first concept that we would have here in Fort Collins of paid parking. What it does is create flexibility, it doesn’t limit you. That specific concept was already adopted in our 2013 Parking plan, so we feel that this is very consistent language with an already adopted policy. There are some text edits in this version, I will bring up anything that is of substance so we can discuss it if we need to. I have some slides on the implementation process that we can discuss too. The Downtown plan is broken out into different areas of topic sections that is built up of principles, policies, and action items. The principle that really addresses parking is that we would like to manage on street and structured parking facilities for all users. This was directly requested from the economic health team. We want to consider the business community and the economic health when we are talking about down town and parking. The adequate balance of supply and demand of parking to support future growth- this is very general, and then we start getting into the more refined policies. The first one is about bike parking, how we would like to manage and create convenient bike parking that accommodates existing and future demand. We are right now in the process of looking at a data collection technology, it would be a sensor to go in every parking space. This would tell us when a car arrives, when it leaves, turnover, occupancy data. It would tell us what the demand is. This was supported by City Council, we need to get the funding to carry it out, but this was highly supported. At this point, not everyone is sure we need a paid parking system. The third one is to make some adjustments to parking enforcement. We hear that there is a real whitching hour in the evenings when enforcement stops. Some evening employees come and utilize the most attractive parking spots in the evening that should be reserved mostly for patrons. We are talking about extending the enforcement. Hewitt: The extension of the two hour limit-is that by cell phone like we had talked about? DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 6 Lorson: Yes, in the action items we will take it one level lower. It specifies in the language that we would explore a paid by cell phone option to allow customers to extend their parking beyond the two hour limit. Kammlade: How do you know that it is employees utilizing the really nice parking spaces in the evenings? Lorson: We are hearing it from the business owners. We’ve heard it pretty consistently for years. The next one is parking demand reduction-this concept of a transportation demand management program that is really customized to work with down town business owners to help them see if they need parking passes, help in scheduling to get employees down town, transportation, etc. Research creative options that reduce parking demand. This is something that many communities have that are very directed towards working with businesses so they can reduce the parking demand or transportation demand. What is the best way that the city can help the business community to utilize transit services better? Partnerships- we’ve heard we want to engage in public private partnerships to better utilize both our surface parking and our parking structures. We are already seeing that happening privately. Seth spoke with some business owners who already were working with other private lots, and seeing partnerships created. On street paid parking-this concept is in here. We have to continually evaluate what is happening here. On street paid parking can manage parking, it is a proven truth. We have seen a greater demand but there is this concept that we don’t have any money to invest in future infrastructure. One thing we did add-to generate revenue to invest in future parking, transportation, infrastructure, and programs that reduce parking demand. We don’t want to think that if we do have a revenue source from parking it solely goes to creating more parking. The 2013 parking plan identifies several locations for parking structures-one of our policies is to continue to develop those and evaluate location as we move on. Parking fee in lieu- working very closely with our urban design team, they did a pro-forma analysis that basically told us that all of these things that we want out of our down town development (high quality materials, not too large of buildings) combined with the requirement to put in parking makes it so expensive. This concept says that when we do have a sustainable funding source, companies can pay into a larger funding source to create more parking rather than build their own parking. Parking management- creating policies that guide off street and structured parking leasing. This is discussing when a company comes in and wants to lease parking spaces in our structure in order to fulfill their minimum parking requirement per our development code. We don’t really have any policies that dictate that, so we will be working with PAB on this. Safety- we want to implement safety measures to ensure on street and offsite parking is safe. We’ve heard that people have been dissuaded from parking in the structures if they know DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 7 they have to leave late at night, so we want to make sure the structures are safe. Develop a Citywide parking plan- continue to look at all of the parking spaces in Fort Collins, not just down town. The more we grow the more we will have a demand on our parking system. Review of Action Item Table (Handout) Implementation Strategy: We are going to create a coordinating team which includes staff members of the City, DDA, and DBA to create the steps moving forward. The Planning department will have a dedicated staff member to make sure we are moving forward with these action items. With that there will be annual progress reports created and metrics will be created. One of the action items you will see is that staff needs to work with PAB so we can determine what those occupancy thresholds are and what they mean. I’d like to address Ted Zibell’s letter from 12/22 referring to the one from 7/22. Ted is very against on street paid parking- that is the main point in the letter. It is a very big decision and needs to be considered thoroughly. His sense is that it would be a big change to downtown and make it unfriendly and create an unfair competition with the mall. These are themes that we have heard the whole time. Mr. Zibell says that we have plenty of capacity during the day, its lunch time and the evenings that we don’t have capacity. There is some room to create efficiencies, there are some areas that are all day parking that could be turned into two hour parking (ex: Jefferson Parking lot, 100 block of Maple) Hewitt: His point was that maybe you could pick up maybe 2 or 3 percent additional turnover parking by changing these areas. The board has taken the stance of, do everything you can first before you implement paid parking. Criswell: I would like to see any less expensive or less drastic step to be taken first and see what that does. Could we find something that works for five years, and then we move to something more drastic? I’m stuck on these spots in the parking structures that aren’t being used. It seems like that should be the focus. Lorson: A notable difference that you mentioned, some people think “oh, I don’t want to pay to park,” and that is why the parking structures aren’t being utilized. All of the most convenient spaces are free, and the least convenient you need to pay for. Kirkpatrick: Let’s focus on the Down Town plan Parking recommendations Lorson: Let me just close out Ted’s letter. He states that if City Council moves forward with paid parking they will have a fight on their hand-a possible referendum for a vote, the Coloradoan will explore it, or a possible a tabor lawsuit. Kirkpatrick: One thing I’d like to mention is that maybe Ted has read a previous version of the down town plan. I feel more comfortable with the language in the most recent draft and maybe he would feel the same. Hewitt: Seth has been very sensitive to the different feelings that people have. To make a decision like this require lots of education. DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 8 Kirkpatrick: Are there other questions or comments for Seth? Wright: I appreciate all of the additions and modifications and the things that were included about the possibility of the use of cell phones to extend time. I look forward to all of the monitoring systems, and the new garage. I think it will really be telling and it’s a long time coming. Being on the corner of Walnut and Linden, it has not been easy in our area. My perception is completely different that those on College. Our parking has been a constant complaint and I’m a big fan of technology. I am very much in favor of moving forward with this. I think it’s great that you have included this language and it’s referencing old parking plans that were recommended four years ago. Thank you for going through all this. Criswell: On the cell phone to pay plan- would that be above and beyond the two hours paid or in addition? Lorson: No, the two hours will still be free, and if you’d like to stay longer you have the option. Kirkpatrick: This particular idea was one of the few ideas that I think the entire board could get behind. It was the use of technology for some outcomes that we were all interested in- extending stay and flexibility. I’ve always had a problem with on street meters that they are so ugly and hard to figure out. I know the cell phone technology may be a little confusing too, but it wouldn’t junk up downtown. It’s the option that seems to be something that we can all agree on. Kirkpatrick: It is a step in the direction of the use of technology to encourage turnover. Hill: It will also give us data. Kirkpatrick: I have a question, I couldn’t see any reference in the Downtown Plan to accommodate electric vehicles or ride share. Lorson: It definitely is in there, I’m sorry I can’t reference it right now. But it’s in there in several areas. Kirkpatrick: I didn’t see too many things in the plan that looked towards trends in the future. Especially if we have self-driving cars in the next 20 years, people would get dropped off and not need to park. Lorson: That is talked about in the introduction of the Transportation section. This technological trend was really big on City Councils plan too. Nobody really knows how that will affect anything yet. Our policies are a little bit like, “let’s continually be ready for it when it happens.” Of course over the next two years we are updating the City Plan, Transportation plan, and Transit master plan. We are asking for consultant help with that and including extensive language about new technology and how we are going to address that as we move forward. Kirkpatrick: I was also worrying about triggers for structured parking. It looks like the primary trigger that would make the structure parking next would be financial. Are there DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 9 other occupancy or behavioral triggers beyond financial for structures? Lorson: We haven’t identified that, and it wasn’t specifically identified in the Parking plan. Kirkpatrick: I wasn’t please to not see it. It looked to me that the primary trigger for building new structures is financial. I don’t think that’s adequate. Wright: I think the public/private venture that was discussed encourages being able to provide public parking as well as parking for the employees as determined by the parking code, I think that was emphasized a lot in what I read. When the convention center comes online, I think that will be really telling to see how much the new structure is utilized. That will be a really good test of that concept. Lorson: Because we are so policy oriented, and we didn’t identify specific triggers for even the paid parking. We are talking about triggers for investment. The action items says that we need to identify the conditions that warrant the development for new structures. Not necessarily that when we have the money for them they will be built, but that we need to identify the conditions that warrant it. Kirkpatrick: Seth is asking for a recommendation by the PAB for the draft. Hewitt moves. Criswell seconds The motion carries 8. ACTION ITEMS Vote on traffic Code Amendment- The motion carried earlier in the meeting Review and Approve 2017 PAB Work Plan Draft- Kirkpatrick: This was discussed in November when there was no quorum, does this reflect your discussion? Wright: Yes, there was one change for #5, the education and outreach piece. We did not see that we would be able to accomplish this in 2017 as we did not accomplish it in 2016. We discussed striking it from our work plan. Everything else looks fine. Hewitt: Yes, in theory it’s great. But it’s a matter of education 150k people, how do you do that? Dubin: Without speaking for Kurt, what I would assume from reading this, is this a work plan item that the board would want for Parking Services to endeavor? Would you like us to work on outreach? Kirkpatrick: this has been on our workplan before, the question is always, what does this look like and is it appropriate for us? Or is it really staff’s job, and should not appear on the work plan of a board. This seems like more of a staff responsibility. Wright: I agree with that, the only time we did education outreach was with the DBA when we had a membership meeting and chatted with the DBA members. Since then, the City has done tremendous outreach and given a lot of feedback and compiled it for us to review. With the other DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 10 work plan items, these are all things that seem in motion and we would love to weigh in and see how they go. Kirkpatrick: Consensus to take #5 off? The board agrees. Kirkpatrick: I think it would be interesting if we could plan at least one meeting where we jointly talk with the Transportation Board and Bicycle Board about the City master plan, where we could be productive in discussions. It seems like our work is highly integrated. A fourth could be Planning and Zoning Board. Wright: It’s nice that we are going to look at the entire City rather than just down town. Especially regarding the Max and parking along the Max. There’s a lot of work to do. Dubin: I think we had previously discussed having a board liaison attending another board meeting, but you are discussing a large meeting with all members? Kirkpatrick: Yes, is there some opportunity for us to meet jointly to consider topics at the level of implementation? Hewitt: On changing to enforcement, where is that? Dubin: I think changes to enforcement require public outreach and education. We certainly can change shifts and shift lengths into the evening hours, but if we did that unilaterally without reaching out the public it would probably not be appropriate. Yes we are working on it, we are going to propose several models of enforcement to this board and ask for your recommendations. The first step was to start utilizing the vehicles rather than walking routes to gain coverage. Part of the reorganization for Transfort/Parking Services is to take two of the parking booth attendants and bringing them into the PEO title. That will get us to seven officers. We are taking steps. I think the last part of this is presenting the plan to you and getting recommendations for changes. Once we get those recommendations we would do the public outreach. Kirkpatrick: Are there any other questions? Hewitt moves Wright seconds Motion carries to move forward with the Work Plan without item #5 Wright: I have a question regarding #1- are those yet to be revised, modified, and updated? Is that something that is in process right now? Is it a place for us to start? Or are those items yet to be updated? Dubin: It’s my understanding that this exercise is being conducted right now by various planning departments on developing a scope of work for consultants, it’s in process but I don’t know where the recommendation comes in. This is Seth’s area of expertise. Kirkpatrick: I’m thinking in February we maybe have a presentation from someone in staff about three big plan efforts in 2017, giving us the scope, the timeline, what piece of the effort will be parking. I think it’s also possible for us to have an update on the CSU stadium parking. DRAFT Page | 11 Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Dubin: Staff has been working with quite a few different departments on a memo to Council for an update. We can certainly provide that next month. Wright: Especially because the Coloradoan has been reporting that they are considering having bowl games in the stadium. There must be some sort of proposal in place. Dubin: The shuttles is on the Transfort side, we entered into an IGA with CSU. For parking management there has been a lot of work done on that as well. We can discuss more next month. Hewitt: In the Olive street lot we started the “permit to hunt” and we were talking about doing that in the garages as well. What are staffs thoughts on that? Dubin: Shortly after Transfort took over Parking Services, we had a situation where we have quite a few people on a waitlist for the garages and the permit lots. Then people go in and see that there are empty spaces. The waitlist was developed to try to ensure that anybody who has a permit could get a space. We would oversell 140% of the available space, the problem with that is that people would go in and see spaces available and not get a permit. We looked at the Olive lot as a good pilot to say, “okay, we are not going to put any limits on the sale”. You are never guaranteed the space, but you can get a permit. I have heard a couple of customer’s feedback, but they weren’t complaints it was more just confusion. Overtime, I’m sure we will get more feedback. Hewitt: I have a permit in that lot and it never seems to be full, so I would say its working. Is this something we can implement for the Parking structure permits? Dubin: We did make a change to the waitlists on the parking garages as well. Right now it’s at 165% sales, but that will fluctuate based on the trends that we are seeing. Eventually we may change it to “permit to hunt” if we find that it is not necessary to manage that waitlist. Criswell: Has any consideration been made to corporate permits? (A permit that works at any lot or structure) Dubin: That is definitely something to explore, but we haven’t done anything with that. Criswell: I don’t think the Civic Center will ever be full. Dubin: It gets pretty full mid- mornings; I find that around 10:00 the first four floors are full at Civic Center. The garages are not intended to be full; they are intended to be at 85% for capacity so there is always availability. Criswell: The new structure on Jefferson, that will be private/public right? Dubin: Right, the first floor is valet only for the hotel and the 2 nd and 3 rd floor is public parking. Review and Approve 2016 PAB Annual Report Draft- Kirkpatrick: Are there comments on the annual report? Kirkpatrick: Is there a motion to approve? DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 12 Hill moves. Wright seconds. The motion carries 9. REPORTS A. BOARD REPORT Wright: I am going to a meeting on Wednesday for all of the businesses that are on Walnut about the closure. I did make a suggestion that we should promote the parking garages. That did not go over very well. A lot of the members think that the City should give the businesses free parking passes to the garages to be sympathetic. The meeting is for Walnut Street Business at Coopersmiths on Wednesday from 3:00-4:00pm. A lot of merchants will be there. People are concerned that there businesses will be hurt by the street closure. I thought it would be a perfect opportunity to rally the promotion of parking in the structures. The closure starts mid-March through the end of April. Kirkpatrick: I’m considering going to the council meeting to talk about the Down Town plan, not to discuss parking or that I am any part of this board, but as a private citizen. I just wanted to disclose that. B. STAFF LIAISON REPORT Dubin: We would like to let the board know when there are new RP3 recommendations made. We had four in the last several months. We are working on this one right now (references handout). In February we will have a better idea of what direction we are going with. Another item is that we mentioned was the 300 E Mountain area and changing that from all day to two hour parking. I have questions out to several staff in different departments talking about the Jefferson lot. I’m trying to look at each of the places that Ted’s letter had suggested to see if there are changes that we can make. We will be looking at the all day parking that is currently there to see if there can be changes. We are also looking at the 300 South College center parking, right now that is all day parking as well. We aren’t making any changes right now, but just doing an analysis. We talked about the parking technology, just an update in process-we did receive five proposals from the RFP we put out last year. We do have a short list of two vendors. Staff is scheduled to look at the oral proposals on February 2nd, and we have a hard deadline to contract by mid-February. This is a multi-phase project, the seed being the hotel. We have to get that launched by August so the technology is available when the parking garage is there. We also have some money for retrofits of the other structures. 10. OTHER BUSINESS None 11. ADJOURN The meeting was concluded at 7:29 pm. Respectfully submitted, DRAFT Meeting Minutes January, 2017 Page | 13 Katlyn DeMallie Administrative Clerk II Transfort