The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWORK SESSION SUMMARY-09/18/2012-Work SessionFinancial Services 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2259 fcgov.com/business M E M O R A N D U M Date: September 27, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Re: September 18, 2012 Work Session Follow-up Items for the 2013-14 Budget The focus of the work session was to review the Transportation Outcome of the City Manager's Recommended Budget for 2013-14. This was the fourth of the seven BFO Outcomes to be reviewed over three work sessions. Council members raised various questions about the specific offers in those the Transportation Outcome. The following pages contain staff responses for many of those questions, as well as some from the prior budget work session. Some of the questions asked may require additional time to adequately research and respond. September 18th Council Member Requests re: Budget Outcome: Transportation 1) Question from Kelly Ohlson Why wasn’t the Offer 107.4 Green Streets/Reshaping Streets Implementation Project Funded? Response from Mark Jackson and Karen Cumbo PDT/Transportation Planning staff crafted and submitted this offer knowing it was an action item in the Transportation Master Plan as well as important to Council. It was not rated highly by the Transportation Results Team or Budget Lead Team. We will continue to find ways to fund this project through grants and partnership opportunities that may arise. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2) Question from Wade Troxell Please explain the implications of funding Offer 118.2 FLEX Regional Service if funding does not come from our other partners? Response from Kurt Ravenschlag Offer 118.2 is an appropriation of anticipated funds from grants and external funding partners. If the anticipated funds are not received the appropriation would be frozen and FLEX service would be reduced or eliminated. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 3) Question from Aislinn Kottwitz Please provide information on approximately how much it would cost to add Dial-a-ride to District 3, where the money could come from and what are the policy changes required to allow that happen without also adding fixed route service. Response from Kurt Ravenschlag The following table is an estimated cost to provide Dial-A-Ride service to areas in each Council District that are currently beyond the existing Dial-A-Ride service boundary. Staff assumed a $2.50 one-way fare which is consistent with current Dial-A-Ride service, but fares could be higher since this would not be ADA mandated service. Area Beyond Current Dial-A-Ride Boundary Net Cost to Provide District 1 $ 105,058 District 2 $ 9,647 District 3 $ 119,349 District 4 $ 713,440 District 5 $ 1,557 District 6 $ ‐ Total $ 949,053 Funding for the service options above could come from either General Fund or KFCG sources. The change in policy to provide service above and beyond the current ADA minimum service levels could be made by City Council through their funding and direction to staff to provide the service. S only one violation ~~~~~~~ 4) Quest What are operation Respons New and TSOP ide The Tran higher rid The TSO is built ar Transit m populatio illustrate Staff would n Council Dis ns. ~~~~~~~~~~ ion from Kar e the principl ns? se from Kurt existing tran entifies a serv nsfort service dership poten OP also ident round Enhan markets are id ons, zero veh some of the not recomm strict as this ~~~~~~~~~~ ren Weitkun les and polic Ravenschla nsit service is vice type, net type focuses ntial, as oppo tified a grid n nced Travel dentified by hicle househ e analysis use end providin would creat ~~~~~~~~~~ at and Kelly cies behind t ag s guided by th twork type, a s on producti osed to disper network as t ~~~~~~~ 5) Quest What rol service) b Respons Title 40, Commiss operators public ut vehicle s The PUC fitness; u the incum Under th of Colora letters of Fort Coll ~~~~~~~~~~ ion from Wa e could the C beyond our c se from Kurt Article 10.1 sion’s (PUC s) within Lar ilities under afety, driver C grants taxi unmet public mbent carrier e 6200 serie ado Regulati f support ind lins was supp ~~~~~~~~~~ ade Troxell City play in current priva Ravenschla of the Colo ) role in the rimer County this regulati r safety and r authority up c need for tra r. es (Common ions, an appl dicating a pub portive of th ~~~~~~~~~~ fostering ad ate sector bu ag orado Revise regulation o y. All comm ion and are s record keepi meeting the needs of the service area, then the City could offer its support for the applicant by means of a letter of support. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 6) Question from Karen Weitkunat How are we going to address pedestrian access to the mall based on our investment in MAX? Response from Mark Jackson and Karen Cumbo City staff, including Transfort, Transportation Planning, CDNS, and Engineering, has been carefully reviewing the re-development proposals for the mall. Pedestrian access for MAX to the Mall has focused on the MAX stops at Swallow, which are the closest stops to the mall. Staff is suggesting (some of these are being presented as part of the development review process) the following to improve pedestrian access:  Pedestrian crossing improvements at Swallow and College, Foothills Parkway and College and at Monroe and College. This may include improved crosswalks, improved pedestrian refuges and improved pedestrian signals.  The City’s Capital Improvement Plan identifies a grade separated pedestrian crossing (overpass or underpass) for College somewhere between Swallow and Horsetooth. Staff is working with the Mall developer to locate a future underpass just south of Foothills parkway along an existing ditch. This underpass would provide direct access to the Mall with a connecting walkway west of College, along the ditch to McClelland Dr., for a connection to the MAX stops at Swallow. At this time staff is asking the Mall developer to provide an easement for the future location of the underpass.  Working with the Mall developer to create a strong internal pedestrian system that connects College Avenue to the main Mall site, so that pedestrians do not have to walk through parking aisles.  Develop a strong way finding, signage system from the MAX stations to the Mall.  Improve the sidewalk conditions as needed on McClelland, Swallow and Foothills Parkway. To address pedestrian issues throughout the College Avenue Corridor the City is conducting two studies. The first study, which is currently on-going, is the “Midtown Urban Design Plan”. This study is looking at big picture issues for midtown Fort Collins, including existing character, development patterns, redevelopment potential and urban design. Included in this study is a review of pedestrian issues both along and crossing College Avenue. The result of this plan will be identification of issues and high level recommendations for improvements. The second study is the “College Avenue Boulevard Transportation Study”, which is in the proposed City budget for 2013. This study will take the high level recommendations from the urban design study and refine them into specific projects, with preliminary conceptual engineering and cost estimates. This second study will focus in on College Avenue including needed pedestrian improvements along and crossing College. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7) Question from Ben Manvel Please update the LOS graph based on the new street evaluation recently completed. Response from Larry Schneider The updated street system LOS data is still being processed and analyzed. Staff will provide City Management and Council updated LOS Condition information, including the graph referenced when the data analysis is complete later this year. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 8) Question from Wade Troxell Please provide a cost analysis of funding residential alley improvements vs. the savings we would get over time from those investments. Response from Larry Schneider There are many treatments that are longer lasting than routine alley blading. We believe that a chip seal treatment of the alleys would best suit the city’s need. Offer 38.16 is an enhancement offer in the Street Department proposed budget that would provide a chip seal surface that will typically last 10 years, at a cost of $150,000 a year. This would pay to chip seal 25 alleys per year of the 240 alleys that Streets maintains. In 2009, the routine alley maintenance program was eliminated as a budget cut. At this time the Streets Department only performs critical repairs on a citizen request basis. Offer 38.18 restores the program to pre-2009 levels, which included annual blading and general maintenance. The top graph below represents costs of funding, either chipseal or blading and maintenance. The lower graph shows the total expense for performing both operations. It also illustrates the declining costs of blading and maintenance. Although neither of these graphs show a cost savings of doing chip seal over blading and maintenance, chip seal does provide a more desirable outcome. The chip seal will eventually eliminate the need for the city’s routine blading maintenance and improve the alley surfaces. Improved air quality and aesthetics are also two major benefits of this process. Financial Services 300 Laporte Avenue PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.416.2259 fcgov.com/business M E M O R A N D U M Date: September 19, 2012 To: Mayor and City Council Through: Darin Atteberry, City Manager From: Mike Beckstead, Chief Financial Officer Re: September 18, 2012 Work Session Summary – 2013-2014 Budget The focus of the work session was to review the Transportation Outcome of the City Manager's Recommended Budget for 2013-14. This was the fourth of the seven BFO Outcomes to be reviewed over a three work sessions. Council members raised various questions about the specific offers in the Transportation Outcome. Many questions raised by Council were answered during the work session, but for those that were not, the answers to the majority of them will be included in the Thursday September 27 Council packet. Some questions may require additional time to adequately research and respond. pon an applic ansportation; Carrier & C licant seekin blic need for he applicant ~~~~~~~~~~ dditional 3rd usiness? ed Statutes, g of common a mon carriers subject to go ing. cant showing ; and that the Contract Carr ng common c r the propose and the incu ~~~~~~~~~ party entity governs the C and contract and contrac overnance ov g operationa e proposed s rier Rules) o carrier autho ed service. P umbent comm ~~~~~~~~~ y transportati Colorado Pu carriers (inc ct carriers are ver rates, qu al, manageria service is no of Associated ority shall as Presumably, mon carrier w ~~~~~~~~~~ ion (like taxi ublic Utility cl. taxi-cab e declared to ality of serv al and financ t destructive d Rules, 4 C ssign signed , if the City o was deficien ~~~~ i o be ice, cial e to Code of nt in Corridors th population holds, age an ed in prioriti ng Dial-A-R te service equ ~~~~~~~~~~ y Ohlson the existing T he Transfort and service e ivity, meanin rsed coverage the most effi hat are served and employm nd land use p izing service Ride service t quity issues a ~~~~~~~~~ Transfort /D Strategic Op expansion in ng that bus ro e as seen in t icient model d by neighbo ment densiti patterns. The es on four se to and possible ~~~~~~~~~ Dial-a-Ride sy perating Plan identified tra outes focus on the graphic b l to serve our orhood feede ies, minority e following ta eparate corrid Title VI ~~~~~~~~~~ ystem and n (TSOP). Th ansit markets n areas with below. r community er routes. y and low inc able and figu dors. ~~~~ he s. y that come ures