The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOUNCIL - COMPLETE AGENDA - 02/28/2012 - COMPLETE AGENDAFebruary 28, 2012 Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Council Information Center Kelly Ohlson, District 5, Mayor Pro Tem City Hall West Ben Manvel, District 1 300 LaPorte Avenue Lisa Poppaw, District 2 Fort Collins, Colorado Aislinn Kottwitz, District 3 Wade Troxell, District 4 Cablecast on City Cable Channel 14 Gerry Horak, District 6 on the Comcast cable system Darin Atteberry, City Manager Steve Roy, City Attorney Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk The City of Fort Collins will make reasonable accommodations for access to City services, programs, and activities and will make special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities. Please call 221-6515 (TDD 224- 6001) for assistance. WORK SESSION February 28, 2012 6 p.m. 1. Call Meeting to Order. 2. Semi-Annual Transportation Update. (staff: Karen Cumbo, Helen Migchelbrink, Larry Schneider, Kathleen Bracke; 45 minute discussion) Planning, Development and Transportation staff will present several transportation items for consideration and discussion. Part One of the presentation will focus on scheduled 2012 transportation capital projects. Part Two will focus on the preliminary 2012 schedule of Street Maintenance Program projects. Part Three will focus upon key Transportation Planning projects and programs, including a Bike Library update. 3. Update on the Parking Plan Process. (staff: Timothy Wilder, Randy Hensley; 1 hour discussion) The City’s Advance Planning Department is preparing a Parking Plan in close collaboration with the Parking Services Department. City Council approved $80,000 in one-time funding from the Keep Fort Collins Great funding allocation for this project. The Parking Plan team and consultant presented a list of preliminary “key” ideas for Council consideration on November 29, 2011. The feedback was for staff to continue to discuss the key ideas. Staff has revised the key ideas and processed them further with February 28, 2012 significant additional stakeholder input. The main purpose of the February 28 Work Session is to update Council on the status of the Parking Plan. 4. Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study - Project Update. (staff: Kathleen Bracke, Aaron Iverson; 1 hour discussion) The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. This process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012, based upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. The purpose of this work session is to present a project status update, share the draft alternatives and findings from the alternatives analysis process, share feedback received to-date from project partners and the community and to focus on the intersection alternatives. 5. Keep Fort Collins Great Tax 2011 First Annual Report. (staff: Mike Beckstead, Lawrence Pollack; 1 hour discussion) On November 2, 2010, the voters approved a 0.85% increase in the City’s sales and use tax rate which has been identified as the Keep Fort Collins Great tax. The tax increase includes provisions stating: (1) how the dollars will be allocated to specific programs; (2) the tax will sunset after 10 years; and (3) a requirement that the City Manager report annually to City Council on how the revenues are used and the cost saving measures that were undertaken by the City each year. This work session is to fulfill the third requirement by giving a report to City Council providing information on the 2011 Keep Fort Collins Great tax revenue. 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment. DATE: February 28, 2012 STAFF: Karen Cumbo, Helen Migchelbrink, Larry Schneider, Kathleen Bracke Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Semi-Annual Transportation Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Planning, Development and Transportation staff will present several transportation items for consideration and discussion. Part One of the presentation will focus on scheduled 2012 transportation capital projects. Part Two will focus on the preliminary 2012 schedule of Street Maintenance Program projects. Part Three will focus upon key Transportation Planning projects and programs, including a Bike Library update. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED These updates are informational only; staff is not seeking direction but welcomes City Council discussion, questions, and feedback. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION PART ONE: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL PROJECTS 2012 Engineering Capital Projects Engineering capital construction projects address needed safety and capacity improvements to our roads, bridges, sidewalks and intersections. These improvements benefit all users of the system, including: • Motorists (road and intersection improvements, traffic signals, signs and striping) • Pedestrians (intersection safety improvements, new sidewalks, ramps and signals) • Bicyclists (bike lanes, improved road markings) • Transit Users Several Engineering capital projects are scheduled for 2012. These improvements include: Mason Corridor MAX Construction Work is proceeding on the Mason Corridor MAX project this year. Construction activities will include: February 28, 2012 Page 2 • Work will continue on the conversion of Mason Street (in the downtown area) to two-way traffic. The final conversion will occur late in 2012. • Construction of the two grade separated pedestrian structures will begin early in 2012. The Bay Farm/NRRC overpass and Troutman underpass are currently out for bid. • The new South Transit Center, to be located south of Harmony Road at the south trail head of the Mason Trail, will begin construction by late spring. • Utility relocations, tree transplanting and construction associated with building the MAX guideway will continue throughout 2012. North College Improvements—Vine to Conifer • Construction is underway on the section of North College Avenue from Vine Drive north to Conifer Street. This project will make curb, gutter, sidewalk, bike lane and access safety improvements on this important northern Fort Collins gateway. The project will also improve the streetscape and parkway along this portion of North College. • The current project budget allows for improvements from Vine Drive north to Hemlock, with safety improvements to the College and Conifer intersection. Construction will be substantially complete by December 2012. Harmony Road Maintenance • The goals of this project are to rehabilitate the pavement, overlay and restripe this 1.8 mile stretch of Harmony Road from College Avenue to Timberline Road, as well as provide a pedestrian connection at the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) on the north side of Harmony Road, and construct three new dedicated right turn lanes. • College to Boardwalk will be paved and restriped in the existing lane configuration. Boardwalk to Timberline will be restriped to a 6 lane configuration per the Master Street Plan. • Three right turn lanes have been identified through the findings of the Arterial Intersection Priority Study. They will be constructed as part of this project. The locations are as follows: N Eastbound Harmony Road to Southbound Lemay Avenue N Northbound Lemay Avenue to Eastbound Harmony Road N Eastbound Harmony Road to Southbound Timberline Road This $2 million project will begin construction later this summer and be complete by December 2012. Bridges The City’s two highest priority bridge projects will be addressed in 2012: • Laporte and Whitcomb bridge replacement. This is the worst rated bridge in the City, and is currently load (weight) restricted. The project is out for bid; construction will begin this spring. • South Shields bridge just south of Rolland Moore Drive. The project is out for bid; construction will begin this fall. February 28, 2012 Page 3 Turnberry Road Improvements and Pedestrian Underpass This $1.8 million construction project combines funding from the City’s Street Oversizing funds ($1.2 million) with a Parks Department contribution of $600,000 for a pedestrian underpass. The main goal of the project is to upgrade Turnberry Road to a City standard two-lane arterial roadway from Country Club Drive to Brightwater Drive. • Construction will include a pedestrian underpass from the Richard’s Lake Subdivision to the Lind Property, a private frontage road for 19 existing residences on Turnberry Road (Country Club Heights), and a new two lane arterial roadway east of the existing roadway. • A majority of the roadway plans have been designed and approved as part of subdivision developments in the area. These improvements will be funded by Street Oversizing at an estimated amount of $1.2 million. • The pedestrian underpass will be funded through the Parks Department. Construction of this improvement is estimated to be $600,000. This improvement project is slated for summer and fall 2012 construction. Please see Attachment 1 for a map showing the relative location of each project. More detailed descriptions of Engineering Department capital project design and construction can be found online at http://fcgov.com/engineering. PART TWO: 2012 STREET MAINTENANCE PROJECTS (PRELIMINARY) The addition of over $6.1 million per year in Keep Fort Collins Great funds has nearly doubled the resources available to maintain City roads and sidewalks. While this additional funding is a tremendous help, it still does not totally meet and solve all the projected long term needs. It does however allow the City to maintain its roads at a Good Level of Service (LOS) for a longer period of time. As more roads are built and incorporated into the system, and as inflation increases costs, it will eventually become more difficult to maintain the LOS B goal. The Street Maintenance Program (SMP) staff is analyzing road maintenance needs and strategically selecting projects that will maximize the City’s investments and meet the highest priority needs. SMP staff use state of the art pavement analysis tools and software to inventory and study road conditions for all City streets; to use data which projects which streets are slated for maintenance treatments each year; and to determine which type of treatment would be most effective. Citizens will continue to see an increased emphasis this year on routine, preventative maintenance. The goal of the Street Maintenance Program is to keep the City’s good roads in good condition for as long as possible. Roads in very poor condition (beyond routine maintenance help) will be addressed as major maintenance or reconstruction projects. Projects Scheduled for 2012 The Street Maintenance Program is currently scheduling several projects throughout the community for 2012. Some are large projects that will affect busy arterial streets for several weeks. There will also be overlay improvement projects in neighborhoods that may make it hard to move around for February 28, 2012 Page 4 a few days. Citizens will also notice a great deal of routine maintenance activity such as filling potholes and sealing cracks to extend the pavement’s life. Major street maintenance projects preliminarily planned to occur on busy arterial streets this year include: • West Drake Road from Meadowlark Avenue to Dunbar Avenue • South Taft Hill Road from Horsetooth Road to Bronson Street • West Prospect Road from Overland and Taft Hill Road • Trilby Road from Portner Road to east side of Shields • Ziegler from Harmony Road to Kechter Road • Elizabeth Street from College Avenue. to Stover Street • John F. Kennedy Parkway from East Monroe Drive to East Horsetooth Road There are also several neighborhoods that are scheduled for major surface treatments this year. The projects can be seen in the Street Maintenance Program project map included as Attachment 2. Once the schedule has been finalized, project information can also be found online at http://www.fcgov.com/streets/smp.php. Project Coordination and Communication During the development of engineering capital and street maintenance projects, it is necessary to implement an effective approach to communicate and coordinate with private utility agencies and other City departments. This assures that affected parties are kept informed on the status of events, and enable decision making and scheduling to occur with all available information. This regular, frequent communication and coordination continues throughout all phases of the projects as well. Effective, ongoing communications and coordination enables project staff, agencies, and utilities to work together to anticipate, characterize, contain, and mitigate any impact to affected capital projects and street maintenance efforts. As part of its communication and outreach process, the Streets department sends out utility coordination notices prior to beginning of street projects. Notices are sent to private utility agencies, capital projects, and other City departments. The goal is to prevent underground work requiring cutting into a newly surfaced street. Engineering capital projects also develop communication and outreach plans. These communication plans detail strategic, proactive advertising and outreach tools intended to keep people informed before, during, and even after a project. Examples of projects with full multi-media communications plans include MAX and North College Improvements. Communication tools used to inform the public include: • Daily social media (Facebook and Twitter) updates • Website updates (daily during construction season; generally March-November) • Articles in “CityNews” (reaches all Utilities customers) • E-newsletters • Press releases • Feature articles in local newspapers • Radio and Cable 14 spots February 28, 2012 Page 5 • Door hangers • Face-to-face meetings with customers and stakeholders PART THREE: TRANSPORTATION PLANNING UPDATE The Transportation Planning Division, which includes the FC Bikes and Safe Routes to School programs, has a comprehensive work plan for 2012, based upon the actions items from the recently adopted Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The TMP is part of Plan Fort Collins and includes the Pedestrian Plan, Master Street Plan, Capital Improvement Plan as well as the other modal plans such as the Bicycle Plan and Bicycle Safety Education Plan. This work plan encompasses diverse plans, projects, and programs to support all modes of travel throughout the Fort Collins community and is based upon the core values of innovation, sustainability, and customer service. These work plan tasks are designed to achieve the goals of the City Council-adopted TMP as well as City Plan, Air Quality, and Climate Action plans. Transportation Planning staff also coordinates the data collection and reporting for the TMP performance measures and monitors the plan implementation over time. Key projects for Transportation Planning in 2012 include: • Completing the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study. • Developing the Harmony Road Enhanced Travel Corridor Master Plan. • Completion of the Phase I (Downtown) Railroad Quiet Zone Study and begin Phase II (Downtown/CSU south to Trilby) Quiet Zone Study. • Green Street/Street Reshaping Demonstration Project Identification and Planning. • Collaboration with community partners in the preparation of an application to the national “Walk Friendly Communities” sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration. This program is similar to the national “Bike Friendly Communities” designation through the League of American Bicyclists. Program responsibilities include: • Manage FC Bikes Program, including implementation of the Bicycle Safety Education Plan (BSEP) and Bicycle Plan. The FC Bikes program provides safety education and awareness programs for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. Program highlights for 2012 include: N “Bicycle Ambassador Program” similar to the Master Naturalist Program. N Bicycle and pedestrian wayfinding signage and trail etiquette awareness campaign (multi-departmental team). N Law Enforcement Training and coordination of bicycle enforcement programs and safety initiatives with City Police Services and other law enforcement agencies. N Economic Impact of Bicycling Study with CSU. • Manage Safe Routes to School Program N The Safe Routes to School Coordinator conducts bicycle and pedestrian safety education and awareness efforts in all K-8 schools throughout the Fort Collins community as well as manages the “Train the Trainer” program to create a cadre of local Safe Routes to School educators to sustain the program over time. N New project for 2012 includes the installation of bicycle parking racks in ten schools funded by an additional grant from CDOT. February 28, 2012 Page 6 Fort Collins Bicycle Library Update One of the projects in Transportation Planning’s work plan for 2012 is the alternatives analysis study for the future of the Fort Collins Bicycle Library program (“Bike Library”). This study will identify a sustainable program for bicycle sharing in Fort Collins. The purpose of the Bike Library is to provide access to bicycles for Fort Collins residents, commuters, and visitors. The Bike Library is managed by the FC Bikes Program and operated by Bike Fort Collins, a local bicycle non-profit organization. There are currently three “check out stations” – two in the Downtown and one on campus at Colorado State University. To date, over 11,000 patrons have been served by the Bike Library. The Bike Library has been in operation since 2008 and is funded by federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funding as well as in-kind services from the local community and the Downtown Development Authority. The federal funding for the Bike Library program ends in December 2012 and the purpose of the Bike Library alternatives analysis study is to identify and examine potential options for continuing to support the long-term operations of the Bike Library program in a sustainable manner that meets the needs of our local community. The City desires to enhance bicycle mobility as an alternative to motor vehicle trips for the general and visitor population through a program that is: • Available: can get a bike when want/need • Accessible: easy-to-use system • Convenient: good locations • Complementary: supports transit/carpool/vanpool last mile • Inclusive: works for all users, including a wide range of ages and abilities • Sustainable: long-term solution for structure, operations, and funding Staff is currently in the process of exploring national best practices for bike sharing programs and seeking input from the Fort Collins community, Bicycle Advisory Committee, and Transportation Board. Staff recommendations for the short-term and long-range Bike Library program will be presented to boards and City Council in April 2012 and will be included, as appropriate, in the upcoming Budgeting for Outcomes process. Additional information is available regarding the Bike Library, including a citizen survey as part of community outreach for the alternatives analysis process: http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/bikelibrary.php/. For more information regarding Transportation Planning, FC Bikes, and Safe Routes to School programs, please visit: http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning/. ATTACHMENTS 1. 2012 Transportation Capital Projects Location Map 2. 2012 Preliminary Street Maintenance Program Projects Location Map 2012 Transportation Construction & Maintenance Projects ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS MASON CORRIDOR - MAX MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE (Preliminary) HWY 287 TAFT HILL COLLEGE LEMAY TIMBERLINE MULBERRY PROSPECT DRAKE HORSETOOTH HARMONY HWY 392 25 SHIELDS CONIFER LAPORTE TRILBY OVERLAND TRAIL ELIZABETH JFK ZIEGLER MOUNTAIN VISTA TURNBERRY ATTACHMENT 1 S SHIELDS ST S COLLEGE AVE S TAFT HILL RD E VINE DR S TIMBERLINE RD LAPORTE AVE E PROSPECT RD S LEMAY AVE E DOUGLAS RD W DRAKE RD N OVERLAND TRL E DRAKE RD ZIEGLER RD E TRILBY RD E HORSETOOTH RD E MULBERRY ST N SHIELDS ST W MULBERRY ST W PROSPECT RD S OVERLAND TRL W TRILBY RD E COUNTY ROAD 30 S COUNTY ROAD 5 CARPENTER RD E HARMONY RD STATE HIGHWAY 392 COUNTY ROAD 54G E LINCOLN AVE N TAFT HILL RD TURNBERRY RD N COLLEGE AVE W HARMONY RD W HORSETOOTH RD W ELIZABETH ST MAIN ST COUNTRY CLUB RD W COUNTY ROAD 38E N LEMAY AVE TERRY LAKE RD REMINGTON ST RICHARDS LAKE RD S COUNTY ROAD 19 MOUNTAIN VISTA DR W VINE DR N TIMBERLI NE RD N US HIGHWAY 287 S MASON ST N COUNTY ROAD 5 GREGORY RD W WILLOX LN W LAUREL ST GIDDINGS RD KECHTER RD S SUMMIT VIEW DR W DOUGLAS RD BOARDWALK DR S COUNTY ROAD 9 S COUNTY ROAD 13 E COUNTY ROAD 50 1 1 City Council Work Session February 28, 2012 Capital Projects, Street Maintenance & Planning Transportation Update 2 2012 Engineering Capital Projects February 28, 2012 Helen Migchelbrink, City Engineer Transportation Update ATTACHMENT 3 2 3 2012 Major Capital Projects • Mason Corridor MAX construction • North College Vine to Conifer • Harmony Construction, College to Timberline • Bridges: Laporte/Whitcomb & Shields • Turnberry Road improvements 4 Mason Corridor –– MAX Significant construction in 2012: • 2-way conversion of Mason Street • New South Transit Center • Utility relocation • Guideway construction 3 5 NRRC/Whole Foods Overpass • Project Status: Out to Bid • Construction Dates: March – Dec, 2012 • Major construction activity to coincide with railroad track closure 6 Troutman Underpass • Project Status: Out to Bid • Construction Dates: March – Dec, 2012 • Major construction activity to coincide with railroad track closure 4 7 2012 MAX Milestones Project Impacts: • Mason Street Closure late July • New tracks installed on Mason • Installation of railroad signals • Intermittent lane closures 8 North College Improvements 5 9 North College Improvements • Four phases of implementation – Jefferson to Vine (complete 2004) – Vine to Conifer (construction underway) – Conifer to Willox (design and ROW acquisition) – Willox to City limits (complete 2010) 10 North College Construction –– Vine to Conifer • Project Budget: $11,190,000 • Project Status: Under Construction • Substantial Completion: December, 2012 • Traffic Impacts: – Intermittent lane drops – Traffic detours 6 11 North College Design & ROW –– Conifer to WWiillllooxx • Funding Source: Federal grants & KFCG • Current Funds For Design & Partial ROW : $1.7 Million • Project Status: Design & Begin Right of Way Acquisition • Estimated Project Budget : $11.8 Million 12 Harmony Road Maintenance –– College to Timberline • Paving and intersection improvements • Project Budget: $2,000,000 • Project Status: Final Design and PUC Application • Estimated Construction Date: Summer, 2012 • Construction Impacts – Lane closures – Paving operations 7 13 Turnberry Road Improvements and Pedestrian Underpass • Upgrade Turnberry Road to City two-lane arterial from Country Club Drive to Brightwater Drive (Street Oversizing Fund) • Pedestrian underpass funded by Parks Department ($600,000) • Estimated Project Cost: $1.8 million • Summer, 2012 construction 14 Laporte and Whitcomb Bridge Replacement • Funding Source: Federal bridge funds & KFCG • Project Cost: $1.27 M • Project Status: Out to Bid • Estimated Construction Date: Spring 2012 • Construction Impacts: – Closure of Laporte Avenue – Communication outreach 8 15 South Shields Street Bridge Over Larimer Canal No. 2 • Funding Source: Federal bridge funds & KFCG • Project Budget: $1.5 M • Project Status: Out to bid • Estimated Construction Date: Fall 2012 • Single lane closures 16 2012 Transportation Construction & Maintenance Projects ROAD IMPROVEMENTS BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS MASON CORRIDOR - MAX MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE (Preliminary) HWY 287 COLLEGE LEMAY TIMBERLINE MULBERRY PROSPECT DRAKE HORSETOOTH HARMONY HWY 392 25 SHIELDS CONIFER LAPORTE TRILBY OVERLAND TRAIL ELIZABETH JFK ZIEGLER MOUNTAIN VISTA TURNBERRY ATTACHMENT 1 TAFT HILL 9 17 Streets Department Update 2012 Preliminary Street Maintenance Program February 28, 2012 Larry Schneider, Streets Superintendent 18 Overview of Street Maintenance Program • KFCG Funds nearly doubled the program • Maintain streets at a Level of Service B • Manage overall street network asset • Establish and manage construction and maintenance priorities • Increased focus on routine and preventative maintenance • Explore partnerships with other departments and agencies 10 19 • 540 centerline miles maintained • $14.1 million program in 2012 – $6.3 million - KFCG funds • 32 centerline miles to be maintained – 13 arterial miles – 5 collector miles – 14 residential miles Overview of Street Maintenance Program 20 Pavement Preservation •Keep good roads good - good roads cost less to maintain •Seals pavement surface •Refreshes driving surfaces •Reconditions asphalt •Extends life of pavement •Protects $440 million investment 11 21 Pavement Rehabilitation • Restores pavement condition • Increases pavement structure • Reduces patch and frequent maintenance • Provides renewed riding surface 22 Concrete Maintenance • Streets • Sidewalks • Curb and Gutter • Handicapped Ramps • Inlets and drainage structures 12 23 2012 Preliminary Street Maintenance Program Arterial Projects Being Considered: • Drake, Meadowlark to Dunbar • Taft Hill, Horsetooth to Drake • Prospect, Overland to Taft Hill • Trilby, Portner to east side of Shields • Ziegler, Harmony to Kechter • Elizabeth, College to Stover • JFK Parkway, Monroe to Horsetooth 24 2012 Preliminary Streets Maintenance Program 13 25 Outreach Increased emphasis on effective communication and coordination • Coordination – Coordination notifications • Outside agencies • Utility companies • City departments 26 Communication • Social media (Twitter and Facebook) • Website updates • Articles in “City News” (Utilities newsletter) • Press releases • Feature articles in local newspapers • Radio & Cable 14 spots • Door hangers • Face to face meetings with customers 14 27 Transportation Planning Update Key Projects & Programs, including Bike Library Update February 28, 2012 Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director 28 Transportation Planning Multimodal Solutions • What we do: – Roadway Planning – Transit Planning – Bike Planning – Pedestrian Planning – Safe Routes to School – FC Bikes Program – Capital Imp. Planning – Travel Demand Forecasting – Development Review – Develop integrated transportation & land use plans 15 29 Keys to Success: Collaboration & Innovation • Multi-Dept approach to develop standards & practices: •Collaborate w/Traffic, Engineering, Streets, Parking, Transfort, Planning, Utilities, Emergency Responders • Establish Common Vision • Provide for all needs & abilities • Level Of Service standards - all modes • Maintain close working relationships •Other agencies (PSD, CDOT, FTA, North Front Range MPO) plus the private sector & community ELECTRIC DRIVEWAY GAS PHONE STORM SEWER SEWER STORM SEWER SEWER WATER WATER 2 Bike Lanes CABLE 14Drainage Street Vehicles 8 Safety 9 Parkways 5Buses 7 Signals 10 Landscaped Medians IRRIGATION 6 Ut ilit ies IRRIGATION IRRIGATION IRRIGATION CABLE ELECTRICDUCTS BUS St reet System 3Sidewalks 30 What Makes Great Streets & Places? PEOPLE! • All Modes - Autos, Bikes, Peds, Transit, RVs, Trucks, Trains, etc. • Functional - Mobility & Utilities • Attractive & Inviting Streetscapes • Active Land Uses – Day & Night 16 31 Transportation Planning Update • 2012 Workplan Highlights: – Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis – Harmony Road ETC Master Plan – Quiet Zone Studies, Phase I & II – Green Streets/Street Reshaping Demonstration Project – Walk Friendly Communities Application 32 Safe Routes’ 5 E’s: • Education • Encouragement • Enforcement • Engineering • Evaluation Safe Routes to School 17 33 Safe Routes to School – New Safe Routes to School Coordinator: Nancy Nichols – Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Education & Awareness programs (K-8) – Train- the-Trainer program – Bicycle Parking Racks 34 FC Bikes Program: Bicycling as a Way of Life • Promotion of local year-round bike events, incl. annual Bike Week events • Bike Coordinator – City’s liaison to citizens and bicycle groups • Offer support system for bicyclists • Provide public campaigns to enhance safety for cyclists & motorists • Build community relations on bicycle related issues • Bike Library 18 35 FC Bikes Program • New Interim Bicycle Coordinator: Molly North • Bicycle Safety Education Plan Implementation • Bicycle Ambassador Program • Bicycle & Pedestrian Wayfinding Signage & Trail Etiquette Awareness Campaign • Law Enforcement Training & Safety Programs • Economic Impact of Bicycling Study with CSU 36 FC Bike Library Update • Purpose to provide bikes to residents, commuters, & visitors • Check out stations: Downtown & CSU • 11,000 patrons served to-date • Federally funded, plus local in-kind match 19 37 FC Bike Library Update • Bicycle Library Alternatives Analysis Study – identify sustainable bicycle sharing program beyond 2012 • Goals for the Bicycle Library Program include: – Availability – Accessibility – Convenience – Support multimodal connections – Inclusive – Sustainable • National best practices research • Input from Fort Collins community • Timeline: Draft Recommendations - Spring 2012 (April/May) 38 Transportation Planning • Additional Information available: • http://www.fcgov.com/transportationplanning • http://www.fcgov.com/bicycling • http://www.fcgov.com/saferoutes • By phone: (970) 224-6140 20 39 Questions and Feedback? Transportation Update DATE: February 28, 2012 STAFF: Timothy Wilder Randy Hensley Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Update on the Parking Plan Process. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City’s Advance Planning Department is preparing a Parking Plan in close collaboration with the Parking Services Department. City Council approved $80,000 in one-time funding from the Keep Fort Collins Great funding allocation for this project. The Parking Plan team and consultant presented a list of preliminary “key” ideas for Council consideration on November 29, 2011. The feedback was for staff to continue to discuss the key ideas. Staff has revised the key ideas and processed them further with significant additional stakeholder input. The main purpose of the February 28 Work Session is to update Council on the status of the Parking Plan. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Staff has circulated nine parking principles to stimulate public discussion. Some of these principles, particularly the governance issue, have generated a lot of conversation and controversy. Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to process additional alternatives? 2. Does Council wish to provide any direction on the nine parking principles contained in Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Parking Plan will be focused on addressing several critical problems and issues that were raised by stakeholders during the process (see Attachment 1). Some key issues are as follows: 1. Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots. 2. Employees parking on the street. 3. Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage” avoidance. 4. More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have been identified to pay for it. 5. Not prepared for a surge in employment. February 28, 2012 Page 2 6. People don’t know their parking options. 7. Need to prepare for the Mason Corridor - MAX project. 8. Lack of business involvement and accountability in parking management decisions. 9. Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods. Since the November 29, 2011 Council Work Session, staff circulated the Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview (Attachment 1) to help facilitate community feedback on nine parking principles. The nine principles include: 1. Comprehensive Approach 2. Development-related Parking Management 3. Coordinated On-Street and Off-Street Parking Management 4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines 5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking 6. Integrated Access Management Approach 7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience 8. Partnering with Downtown Business and Downtown Management 9. Funding Comments were provided by: • Downtown Development Authority • Downtown Business Association • Planning and Zoning Board • Economic Advisory Commission • Bicycle Advisory Committee • University Connections Transit and Mobility Committee • Chamber of Commerce Legislative Affairs Committee • Transportation Board • A subcommittee of DBA and DDA board members and business people The Air Quality Advisory Board is scheduled to review the Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview on February 27. Comments were also received from the general public at an open house on February 16. Those comments are contained in Attachment 4. Comments have been consistently positive on several of the principle including: 1. Comprehensive Approach 4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines 6. Integrated Access Management Approach 7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience Feedback has been more mixed on the other principles. In particular, there has been contention around the business involvement and the governance issue (item 8A in Attachment 1), on-street parking management (item 3A in Attachment 1), and development of new parking infrastructure (item 2G – 2J in Attachment 1). Based on the feedback, staff feels there is more work that needs to be done on options and additional outreach with the public and Downtown stakeholders. Staff February 28, 2012 Page 3 needs more time to develop additional alternatives so that Council has a better set of options and recommendations to consider. Next Steps In order to provide a better set of alternatives for Council discussion, the original schedule has been extended to allow additional time for discussion and outreach. Staff proposes the following next steps in the Parking Plan process: • March-June Public Outreach • May 1 Draft Parking Plan Available for Public Review • May 10 Downtown Development Authority - review and recommendation • May 16 Transportation Board - review and recommendation • May 17 Planning and Zoning Board - review and recommendation • June 26 City Council Work Session • Summer 2012 City Council Regular Meeting – consideration of adoption of Parking Plan ATTACHMENTS 1. Parking Plan Overview – Proposed Policy and Strategic Direction 2. Work Session Summary, November 29, 2011 3. Downtown Development Authority, City Board and Commission Meeting Minutes 4. Public Comments from February Parking Plan Outreach Meetings 5. Power Point presentation Key Parking Issues (Input From Stakeholders) 1. THE OVERALL PARKING SITUATION Â Good, but room for improvement Â Good, but not ready for the future Â Future parking needs unclear 2. NEW DEVELOPMENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACTS Â Need a parking-related economic development strategy Â Not prepared for surge in employment Â No commercial or residential parking requirements Â Downtown employees and CSU students impact neighborhoods 3. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION MODES Â Need to prepare for Mason Corridor project Â Change in community’s culture has more people seeking alternative transportation Â Need to provide varying types and locations of bicycle parking 4. CUSTOMER SERVICE (MARKETING, EDUCATION, IDENTITY) Â People do not know their parking options Â Wayfinding improvements are needed 5. ON-STREET AND OFF-STREET PARKING MANAGEMENT Â Employees parking on-street Â Very high occupancies of core on-street parking and public surface lots Â Upside-down pricing causes trolling and “garage avoidance” Â Danger of Downtown being perceived as an “enforcement zone” Â Two-hour time limit not meeting customer needs 6. BUSINESS INVOLVEMENT Â Lack of business involvement and accountability in parking management decisions Â Need for more collaboration between the City and Downtown businesses 7. FUNDING Â Public/private partnerships key to future improvements Â More parking infrastructure will be needed in the future, but no revenue streams have been identified to pay for it Â Parking is the “giant unfunded liability” Key elements of the community engagement process included: Â Stakeholder questionnaire (Over 1,000 responses received!) Â Parking Expert Advisory Panel Â Extensive community outreach including: public open houses, City board and commission meetings, a City Council Work Session, and ongoing website updates COMMUNITY ACTION ITEMS 6. Integrated Access Management Approach » Parking management programs will support an integrated, multimodal approach to Downtown access. Parking programs should emphasize good urban design, walkability, and strong support for transportation alternatives. A. Optimize the use of existing parking resources before building new facilities. B. Encourage downtown employers to provide mobility options and programs to reduce parking demand. C. Support bicycling through the provision of quality end of trip facilities such as bicycle racks and other amenities associated with bicycle travel. Support the provision of varying types and designs of bicycle parking for a diversity of users including visitors, customers, and employees. D. Develop criteria for placement and use of electric vehicle charging stations in public facilities, both on- and off-street. E. Encourage the use of carpool and fuel-efficient/low-emission vehicles through preferential parking spaces in public facilities, both on- and off-street. F. Provide large vehicle parking within walking distance of Downtown for visitors arriving by private bus and recreational vehicles. G. Identify and focus on synergistic strategies and programs that can solve multiple parking and transportation needs. H. Create a performance measurement program to evaluate policies and strategies. 7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience » Customer service will be the top-priority focus in the delivery of the Downtown parking experience. A. Develop a clear and identifiable marketing, education, and communication strategy for the parking program. B. Utilize new technologies that enhance the customer experience, such as cell-phone apps that identify available parking spaces. C. Establish fines and enforcement that take a “common sense” approach to creating compliance and safety. Revenue generation is not the primary motivation for the enforcement program. D. Ensure that parking facilities are attractive, clean, safe, easy to use, and inviting. E. Provide ways for customers and visitors to park on-street for longer than two hours without encouraging Downtown employees to use the on-street parking. 8. Partnering with Downtown Business and Downtown Management » Downtown businesses and parking stakeholders will be strong partners in Downtown parking management decision-making. A. Create a new parking organization made up of public and private stakeholders to help guide parking decisions. The details of implementation could be explored by an ad hoc committee appointed by City Council. B. Establish a “parking welcome program” for new businesses. C. Continue direct engagement with business entities and stakeholders through various forms of outreach and active participation in boards, committees and activities. 9. Funding » The City’s parking program should be self-funded. Revenues from parking-related activities should be reinvested in the parking program. Excess revenues should be retained for use ATTACHMENT 2 1 2 3 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE February 13, 2012 6:00 PM Community Room 215 N. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238 Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480 Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140 Staff Support: Molly North 970‐224‐6112 BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes Natural Resources Advisory Board: Joe Piesman Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson Transportation Board: Shane Miller AT LARGE PRESENT At Large: Dan Gould ABSENT At Large: TBD At Large: TBD Colorado State University: Joy Childress Poudre School District: MacKenzie Mushel Senior Advisory Board: TBD UniverCity Connections: TBD City of Fort Collins: Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator Garry Steen, Transportation Board Chairperson Jim Szakmeister, Police Captain Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner 4 Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner Parking Plan Timothy Wilder – Did everyone get a copy of the policies and overview documents? We started this project in May with our first round of public input. This is a multi‐ modal effort – we are considering car and bicycle parking. Issues include bicycle rack design and location. Matt Wempe did counts of bicycle parking this summer. In November we hosted our second round of outreach. We went to City Council and they said we’re headed in the right direction. We’re here today with an overview: a background to the parking plan, a map of vehicular occupancy, list of key issues from stakeholders, and proposed ideas. Number six will be of the most interest to this group. Holistically, we are looking at end‐of‐trip demand, including bicycle parking, low emission vehicles, and parking. Also, number one talks about our holistic approach to the project. Our first choice is reducing demand, not building a new parking structure. In reference to the policy document, staff has come up with this list, but we are looking for feedback. It is a high level look at bike parking in downtown. Maybe we can get a brainstorm going for action items to implement these ideas. We want to have specific ideas about how to complete these action items. Join open house on Thursday: 7‐9am at Opera Galleria and 4‐7pm at Aztlan Community Center. Then we go back to City Council on February 28. Josh Kerson – I wanted to check again. Are the on‐street bike parking racks in jeopardy? Timothy Wilder – There is no plan to remove them. There is a policy that refers to those specifically. The third bullet refers to that. Kathleen Bracke – We developed a policy to deal with the installation and sponsorship for on‐street bike racks. Josh Kerson – I think that is one of the most important programs; they are very well used and there might be need for one in front of Matter Bookstore. I’m glad they will remain. Rick Price – 5 Surely there has been a study on the psychology of motorist parking. It would be interesting to do the same psychological study for bicyclists. Maybe we need more of those on‐street racks – not a downtown bike depot. Cyclists won’t use it. Joe Piesman – Will people want to use a rack at a bus station and come downtown for a drink? Kathleen Bracke – It is important to look at the different kinds of trips; we have to consider an eight‐ hour parking spot for employees versus a quick parking spot for a trip downtown for drinks. Timothy Wilder – This is giving us a way to look at long‐term parking for people who are coming downtown on the MAX. Rick Price – You should work with Police Services to determine where the bike thefts are happening. Then provide secure bike parking in those areas. Kathleen Bracke – On a related note, Aaron is working on parking code to dictate bike parking requirements for new development. Dan Gould – I think it is important to keep bikes dry as well as safe. It would be nice to have an option that is more flexible than the boxes in the parking garages. Josh Kerson – One of the reasons people want to park in front of their destination is to keep an eye on their investment. That is another value when you have racks right on the street in front of hot spots. Rick Price – Secure bike parking to me means fenced and video taped. Did you get what you needed? Timothy Wilder – That was good input. We want to get more specific, so keep your ideas coming. 6 ***DRAFT*** MINUTES of the TRANSPORTATION BOARD February 15, 2012 6:00 p.m. 215 North Mason – Community Room Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Garry Steen 420.7557 Vice Chair: Ed Robert 224.4864 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 Ed Robert, Vice Chair Polly Bennett, PDT Executive Administrative Assistant, 221.6601 Clint Skutchan Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 224.6140 Kevin O’Toole Rick Richter, Capital Projects Manager, 221.6798 Eric Shenk Tim Kemp, Civil Engineer II, 416.2719 Mary Atchison Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director, 221. Sara Frazier Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, 224.6140 Sid Simonson Timothy Wilder, City Planner, Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, 416.2058 ABSENT: OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE Councilmember Ben Manvel Robert Lyle, Nice Car, 970.231.8311 Pat Jordan Ray Burgener, Trucker’s Group, 970.482.2988 Shane Miller Rick Price, Chair, Bicycle Advisory Committee, 970.310.5238 Olga Duvall 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Steen called the meeting to order at 7:00p with a quorum present. 7. DISCUSSION ITEMS A. Parking Plan – Timothy Wilder/Randy Hensley We are looking for feedback on the Parking Plan document you received in your packet. The memo covered everything. This goes to Council for a Work Session on February 28 and for approval on April 17, which is before the April Transportation Board meeting. We are incorporating feedback from Council and from other Boards & Commissions into our documents. Wilder: The project began in early 2011 with public outreach. A number of parking issues, captured on the back of the brochure you received, were examined. Field data was collected including occupancy and turnover counts, and an inventory of parking. A questionnaire was issued and results tabulated. We had an expert advisory panel where five parking experts from around the country came and met with a variety of stakeholders over a three-day period. They came up with recommendations 7 -DRAFT Regular Meeting Minutes Page 2 February 15, 2012 that were captured in the document we are discussing tonight. You can find it at fcgov.com/parking plan. We took preliminary ideas to Council in November 2011. Council directed us to move forward with those ideas. Staff put them together in a proposal for community discussion. Number 1 talks about a comprehensive approach. On-street paid parking is covered in 3a. Multi-modal is item 6. Number 8 is about partnering with businesses. We should have a draft Parking Plan for you to review in March. Hensley: Basic parking philosophy addresses 100% occupancy in the downtown area and an upside down pricing relationship where our convenient parking is less expensive than less convenient parking, causing people to avoid the garages and cruise around the block looking for less expensive and free parking. It leads to air quality issues, pedestrian issues, etc. On-street paid parking is designed to address those issues. We’ve done everything we can with the 2-hour time limit. The other option is an appropriate pricing mechanism. Frazier: Are you making a recommendation that something be done or that something specific be done? Hensley: There isn’t technically a staff recommendation at this point, but best practice leans toward on-street paid parking as a solution. As a result of community discussions, if it ends up in the plan as a recommendation, we will flush it out to see how it would work. O’Toole: It seems that we should question free parking throughout the city. Hensley: We are managing a public parking resource downtown. Front Range Village is private parking. Steen: Boulder and Cherry Creek abandoned the kiosk in favor of metered parking. Why? Hensley: The back and forth trip is eliminated by meters. There was push-back on the Pay & Display version. Wilder: Boulder still has the Pay & Display kiosks. Atchison: How do you meter parking down the middle of the road? Hensley: That is an unanswered detail at this point. Skutchan: Will you be adopting a similar document to the one we have tonight? Wilder: It will look different. The final document will have more detail. The one you see tonight is accessible. Robert: How will we see the results as applied to a strategic plan? Wilder: You will have the policies, guidelines, and specifics laid out in the plan. Simonson: Will garage rates be lowered if on-street parking is implemented? Hensley: There would be a differential. It is a supply and demand question. You want the right occupancy rates on-street, which drives the pricing. The garage needs to be lower than on-street. Wilder: We will be back in March with a formal proposal. Hensley: You will have a packet ahead of time to read so you are prepared. 8 1 Minutes City of Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission Regular Meeting 300 LaPorte Ave City Hall February 15, 2012 11:00 a.m. – 1:30 p.m. For Reference: Bill Timpson, Chair 493-3673 Council Liaison Wade Troxell Josh Birks, Staff Liaison 416-6324 Wendy Bricher, Minutes 221-6506 Commission members present: Commission members absent: Blue Hovatter Jim Clark Christophe Febvre Sam Solt Michael Kulisheck Stu MacMillan Bill Timpson Rick Price Channing Arndt Guests: Ann Hutchison, FC Chamber of Commerce Dale Adamy Eric Sutherland Staff Present: Megan Bolin, City Planner Wendy Bricher, Minutes Lindsay Ex, Environmental Planner Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning Randy Hensely, Parking Services Manager Timothy Wilder, Sr. City Planner Agenda Item 1: Meeting called to order Meeting called to order at 11:02 a.m. Agenda Item 2: Approval of Minutes Unanimous approval of minutes dated 1/18/12 Agenda Item 3: Public Comment Eric Sutherland expressed his continuing concern with the financing of RMI2. He believes the memo released regarding this issue is deficient and does not address his primary concern – that this project was a giveaway. He stated four million dollars was approved for this project when in his opinion, would have been sufficient at one million. Financial Services 300 LaPorte Ave PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com 9 2 Agenda Item 4: Follow-up Discussion Regarding Previous Meetings Rick Price presented his Bike Survey results to the EAC and a ppt presentation was presented for review. He indicated that 536 people completed the survey with the majority coming from current bike riding enthusiasts or participants. Christophe commented that he was surprised by the safety results. Rick reminded him of the survey demographic who responded to the survey. Mike Kulisheck commented that it is often that priorities change when a dollar amount is attached. Rick Price will draft a recommendation motion for EAC to review at the March meeting. Megan Bolin and Lindsay Ex provided an update regarding PDOD. On January 31, Council asked for additional outreach before finalizing the new recommendation. EAC reviewed the original draft in January and will further review the updated draft in April or May after the outreach process is complete and make a formal recommendation at that time. Agenda Item 5: Member Updates/Future Agenda Items Discussion Megan Bolin stated that the Economic Strategic Plan Open House was a success and provided good feedback to the consultants. A revised draft will be available for EAC review in the next few weeks. Rick Price commented that one of the comments at the open house was that Fort Collins is not a “business friendly” city. He stated that this seems to be a “left over” statement from years’ back and that it is no longer the case. The EAC agreed to be attentive to this feedback and work to “debunk” those statements if necessary. Councilmember Ohlson stopped in to observe the EAC meeting. EAC members asked him to comment on a few items including the Economic Health Strategic Plan, BFO public involvement, and EAC recommendations to Council. He commented that he would like to see additional changes to the draft Economic Strategic Plan as he sees the current version more of an “Austin” approach vs. a City of Fort Collins approach. For BFO, he commented that the first four years were “crisis” mode and we focused more on inputs vs. outputs. The 2013/2014 BFO cycle will include more citizen feedback (with a citizen on each Results Team) and will focus more on “outputs” vs. inputs. As far as feedback/recommendations given to Council, he would like to see more ideas/tweeks vs. just approval/disapproval of projects and or ideas coming before Council. Bill Timpson also asked about his concern for Poverty in Fort Collins. Councilmember Ohlson commented that we are moving toward the “triple bottom line” approach, but that many of those types of services are already provided by the State, County, and Federal Government. It was also noted that future revenue streams need to be more diverse. Agenda Item 6: Annual Elections Bill Timpson has been re-elected for the 2012 term as Chair. Blue Hovatter has been re-elected for the 2012 term as Vice-Chair. Agenda Item 7: Economic Health Strategic Plan – Homework Review Postponed until March. Agenda Item 8: Parking Plan Update Timothy Wilder, Sr. City Planner, and Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, presented the Parking Plan Overview including why we need a new parking plan, the proposed policy and strategic direction, and key parking issues. At the current time, the City is operating well, but we are not prepared for future demand. Some items of discussion included public/private partnerships, funding issues, integration, end of trip destination, and pricing. Questions were raised (and answered) regarding current garage occupancy rates, value of downtown parking spaces, and upside down pricing; currently we are incentivizing people to avoid garages and park on street. 10 3 After careful consideration and discussion after the presentation, the EAC made the following recommendation to the Fort Collins City Council. Christophe Febvre moved and Blue Hovatter seconded the following motion: The Fort Collins Economic Advisory Commission feels that parking in downtown Fort Collins has significant and direct impacts on the economic vitality of this important economic district. The Fort Collins Parking Plan has good recommendations, and the EAC generally supports the plan. Nevertheless, the Plan document would be improved if an economic analysis statement were added. The statement should highlight the short and long term economic risks associated with the status quo and the opportunities created by the implementation of a sensible plan. As with all city policies, attention to the impact on the “triple bottom line” of economic, environmental, and social well-being is important. Motion passed 6-0 Agenda Item 9: Jefferson Street Project Update Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation and Special Projects, presented an overview of the Jefferson Street Project, primarily the sections between College Avenue on the west and Lincoln on the East. Several options have been considered and included two lanes with bike lanes and parking, three lanes with bike lanes and parking, and three lanes with a median and parking. The original plan recommended a two-lane, but has since been revised to a three lane with medians following further discussions with CDOT and various other entities. In addition, the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson will be addressed. Current considerations include a roundabout or a signalized option with the costs estimated at 4.3 million and 2.7 million, respectively. The goals of the project are to calm traffic, increase safety, and create better air quality. After discussion, the Economic Advisory Commission generally agreed with the option that includes the median and parking as the safest choice. In addition, after discussing return of investment, gateway considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, the Economic Advisory Commission also supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson. Staff will be seeking various funding sources and will make recommendations for the engineering phase to move forward in 2012/2013 with construction beginning 2015 +. The following email copies are included as an addendum to the minutes as public record: From: Wendy Bricher Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 10:46 AM To: Bill Timpson; Blue Hovatter; Bricher, Wendy; Bruce Hendee; Channing Arndt; Christophe Febvre; Emily Wilson; Jim Clark; Josh Birks; Kane, Sarah; Michael Kulisheck; Rick Price; Sam Solt; Stuart MacMillan; Wade Troxell Subject: FW: Revisiting Jefferson Street Good morning EAC, I will be including the following email in the minutes as an addendum. To date, the EAC has not weighed in as to whether they with to change their original recommendation of the 3-lanes, median, street parking option. Thank you. Wendy 11 ATTACHMENT 4 1 PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON FORT COLLINS PARKING PLAN OVERVIEW PRINCIPLES FEBRUARY 2012 City Boards and Commissions Downtown Development Authority 2/9/12 Summary: Discussion around the concept of a parking organization. The Board supported changing language in the Overview document from “Create” to “Explore” regarding the a parking organization idea. o Concern with idea of new parking organization. Haven’t clearly articulated why this is needed and why the existing structure can’t involve businesses. Concern over creating more bureaucracy. o Committee of DDA/DBA members discussing parking organization concept. Idea of accountability, ownership, authority over parking decisions in the Downtown. Want to be able to continue discussion of this idea. o Think citizen leadership is critical in the Downtown. o Don’t see distinction between parking and other services like Police. o Could DDA recommend “exploration of a parking organization”? o Agree with this approach. o Can’t support organization idea for operations but maybe for funding. o Long term funding for new parking garages should be the primary focus. What is needed is money for building garage. o Are you including the Mason Corridor [parking needs] in the project? o Not against metered parking. o DDA board unanimously approved changing language about parking organization from “create” to “explore”. Planning and Zoning Board Work Session 2/10/12 Summary: Discussion around the Transit Overlay District (TOD) and neighborhood parking permit programs. Members were generally supportive of the overall approach. o Do you have data to relate parking needs to number of Downtown employees? o How are employees parking on the street if there are two hour time limits? o Could the Downtown parking policies be applied to other areas of the City, such as the TOD zone district? o Can you speak to the idea that the residents should “bear a reasonable cost” of a neighborhood parking program? ATTACHMENT 4 2 o Don’t agree with Overview item 6E (providing designated spaces for low emission vehicles). Unclear definition of a low-emission vehicle. Not enforceable. o If you don’t use high profile parking places for charging stations, then I’m OK with it. There should be a charge associated with using them. o Need to have a trigger point for implementing tools like neighborhood parking. o Has the TOD Overlay had an impact on neighborhood parking? Bicycle Advisory Committee 2/13/12 Summary: Discussion about the need for long-term, secured and sheltered bicycle parking in the Downtown and in particular with MAX. o Are you planning to remove the bike racks on the street? I hope not; there are additional areas needed. o Like car parking, bicyclists like to park near the front door of businesses. o Maybe we don’t need a bicycle station because people want to park close to businesses. o On the other hand, a bicycle station would help with bicyclists using MAX. o The bike racks like the one in front of the Rio are heavily used. o Need to look at where the bike thefts are to find out where secure bicycle parking is needed. o The key terms are: Sheltered and Secure bicycle parking. Maybe like boxes. Need to have dedicated space. o Need fenced, enclosed, video-surveillance bicycle parking, perhaps in alleys. Economic Advisory Commission 2/15/12 Summary: Discussion primarily centered on the issue of the economic impacts of parking and how an analysis was needed to quantify those impacts. o What is the occupancy of the parking garages? o Happy Lucky Teahouse: the notion of public-private partnerships to enable public use of private lots through cooperative agreements is a good one. o Parking has a large impact on economics, but not sure pick out one specific idea for recommendation by the EAC is a good idea. o Upside-down parking pricing: what did the expert advisory panel come up with on this issue? o Is there resistance from Downtown store owners to the idea of on-street pay parking? o Have you determined how much revenue on-street pay parking would generate? o Question about students parking overnight or all-day. ATTACHMENT 4 3 o Have you considered including a statement about the economic health goals of the project? o Has there been an economic analysis of the impact of parking? o What was the impact of Otterbox on garage parking? o Need to include data points in the Plan. o We’re not seeing a direct connection to the problems, so need to show us. o Talk about the opportunities with businesses – e.g., vibrancy created by the proposed ideas. o EAC is drafting a statement for Council about the need for an economic analysis and discussion of the economic opportunities in the Plan. Transportation Board 2/15/12 Summary: Discussion centered around on-street pay parking, in particular around the technologies and pricing structure. o What recommendation are you making? o Will you come up with a specific proposal to do these suggestions and recommendations (around metered parking)? o Question the status quo of free parking. o Cherry Creek and Boulder: why did they abandon pay and display meters? o CSU still has pay and display, and pay by stall number in the new garage. o How would you meter the center parking? o What will the ideas in the Overview document look like as part of the Plan? o Will you lower the garage rates if you do on-street pay parking? o The garages are pretty cheap now. o Valet parking – how is this project going? o Can we have covered bike parking in the garages? Air Quality Advisory Board 2/27/12 (notes to be handed out at Council Work Session) Other Meetings UniverCity Connections 2/7/12 Summary: Discussion around neighborhood permit parking program, public/private partnerships, cell phone applications. o Prefer not charging residents for a neighborhood permit parking program. Find a way to charge users coming into the neighborhood. o Support the thinking about charging residents for the program, as the streets are public rights-of-way. ATTACHMENT 4 4 o Support public-private partnerships for new parking. o More outreach to students about parking in neighborhood needed and about reducing the need for cars. o Like what I see here (in overview document). o Like idea of a cell phone app. Downtown Business Association 2/8/12 Summary: Brief discussion about a subcommittee that is working on the idea of a parking organization o Are there parking issues outside of Downtown? o Is the River District included in the Parking Plan? o I will have an upcoming meeting with the City Manager. o The idea behind a new organization is shared authority and shared accountability. Chamber of Commerce 2/10/12 Summary: Discussion and concern over the maximum parking requirements everywhere and not building enough parking. Concern over proposed parking impact fee. Discussion about the relationship between MAX and parking needs, and bicycle racks in garages. o How much parking will be needed with the Mason Corridor? o How would you reduce parking demand (item 6B in the Overview document)? o Discussion about TOD and parking minimums/maximums. o Parking coordinator – don’t like the idea of adding another staff person to do this. o Would parking funds to back into the general fund? o Discussion about paid parking and time limits – has there been a discussion with the DBA? o Not enough parking in office parks (and retail). Boardwalk/JFK, any new offices, Zquila on Harmony Rd. o Like the idea of incentives rather than parking impact fees. o Is the parking occupancy map representative of the Downtown conditions? o Parking map is misleading in that it labels private parking lots as 0 – 50% occupied. They are not available for public use. o Would like to see incentives for transit use. Also, want to see bicycle racks in garages. o Need to be clear on how the tax (fees) would be used. Don’t have a problem with the charges if you can show that they would be used for reducing the garage price, for example. ATTACHMENT 4 5 o Would rather err on the side of too much parking rather than not enough parking. o Discussion about parking meter technologies. Need to test technology in existing locations before putting out on the street. Public Open House 2/16/12 Written or Verbal Comments o Don’t think residents should have to pay for parking permit program. o Interesting that idea is coming back to possibly having meters like we did in the past (not necessarily against them), so it’s not a new idea. o City should require employers to provide parking for their employees. o My business has a policy requiring my employees park off-street, strictly enforced by us, to allow patrons to park in the convenient on-street spaces. o Idea of public – private partnerships makes a lot of sense, versus the City constructing large new parking structures alone (couple people agreed with that approach). o I don’t like the idea of meters (couple people agreed with statement). o Should enable construction and operations of parking through a block-by- block sales tax, like in Front Range Village. This way people don’t notice or mind it as much as paying for parking directly, such as on-street meters or paying in the garages. o Don’t like the streetscape clutter with meters, but not opposed to people paying for on-street parking. New technology like pay-by-cell phone & in street pucks would be better. o Want City to convert all of Mason public lot into permit parking for employees working on or around Oak St. o Why is Meldrum near Myrtle Street not striped for diagonal parking like Meldrum Street near Otterbox? Striping would provide more spaces. o Please change Willow Street to 2 hour time limits. The Saab dealer constantly leaves old wrecked cars for days. It is unsightly and he abuses his rights. o Don’t think residents should pay for residential permit parking. o Put parking back on Mulberry. o Agree that there is a problem with finding parking on the street – my customers complain about lack of on-street parking. But two hour time limit enforcement works for me. Don’t like meters. Concerned that meters would drive away customers. o Can you consider permit parking on Spring Court near Creekside Park – auto repair taking up spaces needed by my residents. o Residents should not have to pay to park in front of their own homes. It’s not their fault that CSU is close to their homes. o Do not want to pay to parking in my neighborhood. o Really need ideas to get people parking in parking structures. o Really bad idea! My visitors should not have to get a parking permit! ATTACHMENT 4 6 o No (reference to options for more than 2 hour parking). parking is already tight and I want my customers to be able to visit/eat/shop with 2 hour parking, not have it be all-day employee parking and thus limited customer parking. o Don’t like the idea of the public paying for electric charging stations. o Please do not consider making Oak St. & Olive St. at Library Park a timed (1 hr. or 2 hr.) parking situation. This parking is important as long term parking for library patrons and employees. o Alternative transportation modes – yes, I very much support this! o I like the two-hour time limit. o Complete the final design of Willow in sections from Linden to Pine; has very high probability to be the next to develop. The City could be in a position to quickly negotiate public-private construction funding. o Consider modifying land use code to allow for smaller infill parking lots with more modest design standards. Also, more modest design standards for larger, temporary parking lots (particularly in the River District). Helps to remove barrier to infill development. o Hooray for bike lanes and bike parking! Thumbs – up/Thumbs – down Responses (Attendees put dots on strategies to indicate whether they were in favor or opposed) • Public-private partnerships with development to leverage new public parking (2G) - 3 thumbs up • Proactively pursue new off-street public parking such as in the River District or Mason Corridor (2E, 2J) - 3 thumbs up • Participation by development in the cost of new parking (2D) – 2 thumbs up • Downtown patrons will be given top priority for use of on- and off-street parking in high demand locations. - 3 thumbs up • Off-street parking in garages or surface lots will be managed primarily as areas for Downtown employee parking. - 4 thumbs up • Paid on-street parking with free up-front time (3A) – two thumbs up, six thumbs down. • Promote parking options for employees, including less expensive off- street parking lots (3C, 3D, 3E, 4A, 4B) – two thumbs up • Construct new parking according to demand and coordinated with on- street parking management (4C) – one thumbs up • Residents in neighborhoods near commercial areas or CSU should have preferential access to the on-street parking on their block face. – three thumbs up, one thumbs down. • Residents to bear a reasonable cost of the program. (5A-5C) – four thumbs down. • Parking management programs will support an integrated, multimodal approach to Downtown access. Parking programs should emphasize good ATTACHMENT 4 7 urban design, walkability, and strong support for transportation alternatives. – one thumbs up • Customer service will be the top-priority focus in the delivery of the Downtown parking experience. – one thumbs up • Information about where parking is available using better signage and new technology (7A, 7B) – two thumbs up • Make the garages and other lots more attractive to encourage their use (7A, 7D) – one thumbs up • Options for parking longer than two hours on the street. (7E) – one thumbs up, two thumbs down • Downtown businesses and parking stakeholders will be strong partners in Downtown parking management decision-making. – one thumbs up • An ad-hoc committee of Downtown stakeholders to explore ways to better involve businesses in parking management decisions (8A) – two thumbs up • The City’s parking program should be self-funded. Revenues from parking-related activities should be reinvested in the parking program. Excess revenues should be retained for use in the geographical area where they are generated, such as Downtown or neighborhoods. – two thumbs up • Parking enterprise fund for operations, maintenance, infrastructure, etc. (9A) – one thumbs up • Dedicated portion of GID/TIF for parking programs (9B) – one thumbs down • Increased GID mil levy or new parking assessment district (9C) – one thumbs down. Bicycle Parking Policies Preferences • The City will support bicycling through the provision of quality end-of-trip facilities such as bicycle racks and other amenities associated with bicycle travel - six thumbs up, two thumbs down • Support the provision of varying types and designs of bicycle parking for a diversity of users including visitors, customers, employees, and employers. – two thumbs up • Should the City take certain actions to incentivize or encourage Downtown employers to promote long-term bike parking options at their expense? – three thumbs up, one thumbs down • Seek and secure public and private partnerships for sustainable long-term funding for capital, operating, and maintenance costs for bicycle parking. – one thumbs up • Biennially re-evaluate bicycle parking allocation within the public right-of- way in response to growing demand. – one thumbs up • Policy question: Should the City construct a Downtown bicycle station in the based on the existing feasibility study? - two thumbs up, two thumbs down. City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 1 1 City Council Work Session February 28, 2012 2 General Direction Sought and Specific Questions to be Addressed • Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to process additional alternatives? • Does Council wish to provide any direction on the nine parking principles contained in Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview? ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 2 3 Background • Purpose of the Parking Plan • Includes Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods • Extensive Public Outreach (May 2011 to February 2012) Parking Plan Study Area 4 Key Input • City Boards and Commissions • Stakeholder Meetings • Expert Advisory Panel • Questionnaire • Field Data Collection • Council Work Session (Nov. 2011) ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 3 5 Key Parking Issues • Very high parking occupancies: Downtown core • Employees parking on-street • Trolling and garage avoidance • Employees/students parking in neighborhoods 6 Key Parking Issues (continued) • No funding for future parking infrastructure • Not prepared for a surge in employment • People don’t know their parking options • Need to prepare for MAX • Lack of business involvement/accountability ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 4 7 Parking Plan Fort Collins Overview • Two key sources: – Expert Advisory Panel – List of Preliminary Parking Plan Ideas • Created to facilitate public feedback •Not a staff recommendation • Some action items need more processing 8 Highlights of February Outreach • Extensive Public Outreach in February 2012 • Areas of agreement and disagreement • Primary topics of discussion – On-street pay parking – Governance & business involvement – Public-private partnerships for new parking – Neighborhood permit parking – Funding ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 5 9 Principles with General Agreement 1. Comprehensive Approach 4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines 6. Integrated Access Management Approach 7. Enhancing the Downtown Experience 10 Principles Needing More Discussion 2. Development-related Parking Management 3. Coordinated On-Street and Off- Street Parking Management 5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking 8. Partnering with Downtown Business and Downtown Management 9. Funding ATTACHMENT 5 City Council Work Session - Parking Plan Update February 28, 2012 6 11 Next Steps Summer 2012 City Council - Request for Final Decision June 26 City Council Work Session (3rd) May 17 Planning and Zoning Board May 16 Transportation Board May 10 Downtown Development Authority Draft Parking Plan Available for Public Review May 1 March-June Public Outreach and Stakeholder Input 12 General Direction Sought and Specific Questions to be Addressed • Is Council amenable to staff taking more time to process additional alternatives? • Does Council wish to provide any direction on the nine parking principles contained in Attachment 1 – Fort Collins Parking Plan Overview? ATTACHMENT 5 DATE: February 28, 2012 STAFF: Kathleen Bracke Aaron Iverson Pre-taped staff presentation: available at fcgov.com/clerk/agendas.php WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study - Project Update. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. This process includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012, based upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. The purpose of this work session is to present a project status update, share the draft alternatives and findings from the alternatives analysis process, share feedback received to-date from project partners and the community and to focus on the intersection alternatives. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED Staff is requesting input from Council regarding the Jefferson Street project, in particular to provide input on the intersection alternatives, as well as next steps for the project process. 1. What input would City Council like to share with the project team regarding the Jefferson Street intersection alternatives? 2. Is there additional information that City Council would like to see regarding the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study, in particular regarding the intersection alternatives, and/or the project process? February 28, 2012 Page 2 BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project began in May 2010. This current project builds upon prior studies along the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor and provides more in-depth, detailed technical analysis and design to address City, DDA, and CDOT requirements. The project seeks to balance the interests of different agencies and organizations, including the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Larimer County, adjacent railroad, local business/property owners, and the general public. Please see Attachment 1 for a map of the project area. The Jefferson Street project budget of $1,750,000 is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The Alternatives Analysis Study has expended approximately $435,000 of the project budget with approximately $1.3 million available for implementation of the improvements as determined by the Study recommendations. The participating project partners, the City, DDA, CDOT and the Colorado Motor Carriers Association, have agreed to the following purpose statement that highlights the key goals for the project: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. The Corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. Corridor Alternatives The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street Corridor project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives. • The Corridor alternatives include “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. One of the “3 lane” options includes raised, landscaped medians and the other includes designated on-street bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor width). The “3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional on-street parking because there is width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The “3 lane” options also allowed for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. • The project team developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue which is very similar to how Jefferson looks today. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is limited February 28, 2012 Page 3 space remaining for other project elements such as on-street parking/buffer areas, medians, and/or streetscape improvements. • The team provided a combination “3 and 4 lane” option that includes three lanes between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then four lanes between Linden and Mountain. • The “3 lane” option with raised, landscaped median is staff’s recommended alternative for the Jefferson Street corridor based upon the technical analysis by the project team as well as input from the community, boards and commissions, and City Council in August 2011. (see Attachment 2). Intersection Alternatives The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study area includes two intersections along the Corridor: (1) the intersection of Jefferson with Linden Street; and (2) the intersection of Jefferson Street with Mountain/Lincoln Avenue. Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the project team evaluated two options, including: (1) leaving the left turn movements on to Linden Street as designated left turn lanes; or (2) removing the turn lanes to narrow the width of the street to improve pedestrian crossings. The team’s preference is to keep the designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These turning movements are important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist with downtown circulation patterns and to avoid left turning vehicles from blocking southeast bound traffic. The project team has also developed two alternatives for the Jefferson/Mountain intersection and staff is seeking input from City Council regarding these alternatives. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include: (see Attachment 3) 1. Improving the existing signalized intersection, or 2. Designing a new roundabout intersection alternative. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside Intersection Options Analysis An evaluation of the two potential intersection treatments has been conducted including cost, safety, level of service, air quality, property impacts, bicycle and pedestrian operations, truck operations, rail road operations and public input (see Attachment 4 for a summary of this analysis). Cost Intersection Improvements: Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million - $5.3 million1 1 Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right-of-way required for improvements and the higher cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site. February 28, 2012 Page 4 Safety Over the past four years there have been eight reported crashes at the Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection, one of which was an injury crash, resulting in an average of two crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year. This is a very low existing crash rate for an urban intersection. The City Traffic Operations department conducted an analysis of the expected crash frequency with a roundabout. The analysis took into account the intersection volumes and crash history and applies a crash modification factor (CMF) for the conversion from a signal to a roundabout. The CMF is based on national data. The results show that we could expect 1.96 crashes per year and 0.25 injury crashes per year with a roundabout installed. This analysis shows there would be no net change in crash frequency or crash severity at that intersection with the installation of a roundabout. This is primarily due to the fact that the intersection already has a very good safety record. Roundabouts include features that are used in some cases to improve intersection safety at locations that have safety issues (which is not the case at this intersection). National data has shown that roundabouts reduce crash severity due to the accident type and speeds involved, which because of the function and design of roundabouts are lower speed, side swipe type accidents. Also, roundabouts have a reduced number of conflict points (points where cars, pedestrians or bicyclists paths cross). Although roundabouts have features that can improve the safety of an intersection, the intersection at Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue has a very low current accident rate and is expected to be continue to be safe whether it is configured as a signalized intersection or a roundabout. Level of Service Traffic analysis conducted for the Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection, for both a signalized and a roundabout configuration resulted in a projected level of service (LOS) of B for both intersection options. The roundabout configuration does show an overall lower delay, 13 seconds versus 16.4 seconds. This lower delay is realized on the east/west legs of the intersection (on Mountain and Lincoln). The northbound and southbound delays are higher with the roundabout configuration. Air Quality As noted above the roundabout configuration is expected to have lower overall delay. This savings in delay results in an air quality improvement due to less idling traffic and less delay. Air quality calculations that take into account this reduction in delay show that a roundabout would achieve both short term and long term air quality benefits in the reduction of carbon emissions, as follows: • Short term air quality benefits = 496 Kilograms/year • Long term air quality benefits = 809 Kilograms/year The air quality benefits increase over the long term as traffic volumes increase. February 28, 2012 Page 5 Property Impacts The current estimates for property impacts assume the need for additional right of way for each intersection option. The current designs also assume that all of the businesses will be able to continue to operate after construction, even with the needed right-of-way. The estimated right-of- way needs for each option include: • Signalized = Approximately 1,900 square feet (0.04 acres) • Roundabout = Approximately 7,600 square feet (0.175 acres) For the signalized configuration, the right-of-way needs are due to the planned landscape medians and landscaping areas at the corners and sidewalks. The additional right-of-way for the roundabout is needed to accommodate the larger footprint of the roundabout layout. The roundabout would require more property from each of the four intersection corners than the signalized intersection alternative. The impact on businesses is most significant for the Nice Car repair shop. The current design allows the gas station to remain and operate much like it currently operates. The Nice Car repair shop will see the most significant impact to its operations, in terms of site circulation, parking, and access to the site from Lincoln and/or Riverside. The level of impact to the Nice Car repair shop will be fully determined with the refinement of the roundabout design and more detailed engineering, and if the impact is significant enough may require the need to purchase the entire Nice Car property. The Diamond Vogel Paint Store currently has a driveway access from both Jefferson Street and Lincoln Avenue. It is important that with either the roundabout or signalized intersection alternatives, the driveways on Jefferson and Lincoln are needed for large truck deliveries, which allows for them to pull through their parking lot and not have to back from or out onto Jefferson Street. Bicycle and Pedestrian Operations Bicyclist and pedestrians are an important consideration in the design treatment of this intersection with the growth in bicycle and pedestrian traffic moving east/west along Mountain and Lincoln in recent years. The signalized configuration would allow for typical bicycle and pedestrian movements. Bicyclists would cross the signalized intersection either with traffic in the far right part of the travel lane (going from bike lane to bike lane) or, if they desire, travel to the sidewalk and cross at the crosswalk. Pedestrians would utilize the crosswalks and cross when the pedestrian signals indicate with the signalized option. Bicycle operations under the roundabout option would allow the bicyclist to either travel through the roundabout with traffic; yielding and moving through as a vehicle or to travel to the crosswalk and cross as a pedestrian. With the roundabout option, pedestrians cross at designated crosswalks, crossing one travel direction at a time utilizing the medians as a pedestrian refuge. Pedestrians must wait for a gap in traffic or for traffic to stop to allow them to cross. For more detailed information, including an interactive user guide that simulates different modes of travel using a roundabout, please visit the Traffic Operations roundabout webpage: http://www.fcgov.com/traffic/eng-roundabout.php. February 28, 2012 Page 6 Truck Operations Both intersection options are designed to accommodate the expected truck traffic and maximum truck size expected along this corridor, as well as trucks turning on and off Lincoln. Jefferson Street is also State Highway 14, which is a designated truck route connecting through Fort Collins north to Wyoming and beyond. The legal dimensions and maximum weight limit is defined by CDOT as follows: “Colorado’s legal height is 13’ except where designated 14'6" by CDOT; maximum width is 8’6” and 80,000 pounds Combined gross vehicle weight on Interstate and 85,000 pounds on Non-Interstate highways. There is no overall length requirement for truck tractor semitrailer combinations as long as the trailer does not exceed 57’4”. A combination of vehicles coupled together cannot exceed four units and is limited to 70 feet in length.” Additionally, oversized loads are allowed on this corridor (with an escort) but cannot exceed 17 feet in width. The local trucking interest has expressed concern with the roundabout option at this location. Their primary concern is safety, with truck overtracking through the roundabout. The roundabout is designed to accommodate large trucks with the understanding that in a multi-lane roundabout (which this is designed as) trucks will overtrack and use both lanes. This is the standard design for trucks in a multi-lane roundabout. Signs warning car drivers to not pass trucks in the roundabout are installed at the approaches. Railroad Operations The Jefferson Street and Lincoln/Mountain Avenue intersection is adjacent a Union Pacific (UP) railroad crossing. The UP rail line parallels the Jefferson Street corridor and crosses the Lincoln Avenue leg of the intersection approximately 110 feet from Jefferson Street. Improvements to the signalized intersection are not expected to change the current operations of the railroad crossing. The crossing currently functions with two railroad crossing arms that blocks east/west traffic along Mountain / Lincoln Avenue when a train is present and is coordinated with the signal operations at the intersection. Widening Lincoln Avenue to accommodate raised landscape median will result in the need to coordinate with UP and the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The roundabout configuration will require some changes to the railroad crossing and approval by the UP and PUC. The roundabout is likely to be closer to the crossing, which may necessitate the need for more crossing arms. The main concern with the roundabout option is the ability to clear traffic off the tracks going westbound on Lincoln Avenue when a train is approaching. One proposed solution would be an additional railroad crossing arm that would activate when a train is approaching to temporarily stop northbound movements and allow the west bound traffic to clear (the typical number of cars waiting at that location is estimated to be one or two cars). Once the queue of traffic clears, the gate arm would raise and the westbound/southbound movement would resume. This gate arm would not be operated by the UP railroad but would be operated and maintained by the City. This would be a new type of traffic control device for the City, and the cost February 28, 2012 Page 7 and level of effort to maintain and operate are unknown at this time. Other potential solutions can also be pursued if needed through coordination with the City, UP and the PUC based on national examples. The PUC will make the final determination of the railroad related improvements that must be made to accommodate the roundabout and all costs will be borne by the project. Public Involvement Development of the intersection alternatives has included an extensive public involvement process. This included public open house events, meetings with individual property and business owners, meetings with the local trucking interest, presentations to the Downtown Development Authority (DDA), the Transportation Board, the Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, the Economic Advisory Commission and the Fort Collins Chamber of Commerce. Opinions on the intersection options have been varied. Some business owners and residents along Jefferson Street have been supportive of the roundabout option. They typically like the traffic calming, urban design, and gateway features offered by the roundabout option. Those opposed to the roundabout are concerned with the operations, in particular there has been consistent concern raised over how the roundabout would operate for bicyclists and pedestrians. Diamond Vogel Paint, which is located on the northeast corner of the intersection, is concerned with the potential loss of its driveway access to Lincoln, which it needs for deliveries to the store. If this driveway is closed, Diamond Vogel Paint does not support the roundabout alternative. Robert Lyle, owner of the Nice Car shop, stated that he felt the roundabout will have a significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he losses one or both of his driveway accesses. Additionally, he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate and park cars. He has also stated that he would be willing to discuss relocating his business with the City and/or Downtown Development Authority. The local trucking interest has consistently been concerned with the roundabout option. Their two main concerns are safety (overtracking through the roundabout) and the amount of truck traffic on the State Highway. The DDA staff supports the roundabout option, in particular, the urban design and gateway features the roundabout would provide for the Downtown. The DDA board voted at its February 9th board meeting to endorse the City staff position supporting the roundabout option. The Transportation Board while supportive of roundabouts in general was not supportive of a roundabout at this location and approved a motion supporting the signalized alternative. The Bicycle Advisory Committee had a number of questions on the corridor alternatives and operations of the proposed roundabout in particular for pedestrians and bicyclists. The Committee did not take a formal position supporting one alternative; however, the discussion was favorable for the roundabout alternative and the 3-lane corridor option. The Planning and Zoning Board voted to support the signalized intersection alternative. February 28, 2012 Page 8 The Economic Advisory Commission, after discussing return of investment, gateway considerations, traffic flow, and traffic calming, supported the roundabout as first choice for the intersection at Mountain and Jefferson and the 3-lane corridor option. Additional EAC electronic discussion included the request to consider a 2-lane corridor option so that both the on-street bikelanes and raised landscaped median could be included along the corridor. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is neutral on the roundabout intersection option and the “3 lane” corridor alternative. CDOT has requested an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the City because Jefferson Street is State Highway 14, and is part of a CDOT designated regional Truck Route. Staff is currently reviewing the elements of the proposed IGA from CDOT and researching if any similar IGAs have been executed by other local jurisdictions and CDOT. If an IGA is necessary, staff will bring forward the recommended agreement as part of the final Jefferson Street plan approval process with City Council in April. City staff also attended an Administrative Matters meeting with the Larimer County Commissioners to provide a brief introductory overview of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study. The Board of County Commissioners requested that City and County staff return for a full work session on this topic and this work session is now scheduled for March 22nd. The primary concerns/questions from the County Commissioners include truck traffic being rerouted to Owl Canyon if any changes are made to State Highway 14. Project Team Recommendations All of the proposed alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection options have advantages and disadvantages and the project team is bringing forward the information regarding all of these potential choices to help the determine the option(s) that best accomplish the project goals. Based on the technical analysis, as well as community outreach efforts, the project team is recommending the “3 lane” corridor option with a raised, landscaped median, which will offer the most benefits related to the project’s diverse goals. Even though it does not include designated bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or traveling through the area on one of the existing, less busy parallel streets such as Walnut or Willow streets, or the recently renovated alleys. In addition, the Jefferson Street report will also include recommendations for future off-street bicycle facilities that could be installed as part of infill/redevelopment activities within the River District. The staff recommendation for the Jefferson/Riverside and Lincoln/Mountain intersection is for the roundabout alternative. The analysis shows that both intersection options operate well, and the roundabout provides more opportunity to transform the entry way into Downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Through high quality urban design and landscaping opportunity, the roundabout option can help transform the corridor to create a more welcoming gateway and sense of place that connects downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. In addition, based on City Council questions at the prior work session, staff has researched potential opportunities to address noise concerns along the corridor. One consideration is to explore the use of rubberized asphalt for the roadway paving along the corridor. This technique is used by other agencies to help reduce roadway noise. The specifics regarding this type of paving material will February 28, 2012 Page 9 need further exploration during the engineering/final design phase of the Jefferson Street project. Other project elements to aid in noise reduction could include features to promote traffic calming, reduce speeding, and minimize vehicles accelerating and decelerating at the intersections and throughout the corridor. The following is a summary of the overall project costs for the Jefferson Street improvements, including the costs for the “3 lane” corridor alternative and both options for the Jefferson/Mountain intersection: Cost Estimates for Jefferson Street Improvements • Corridor Improvements: Jefferson Street, from College to Linden: $2.2 million Jefferson Street, from Linden to Mountain: $2.3 million Total cost of corridor improvements: $4.5 million • Intersection Improvements: Signalized Alternative: $2.7 million Roundabout Alternative: $4.3 million - $5.3 million2 • Total cost for project3: With Signalized option: $7.2 million With Roundabout option: $8.8 – $9.8 million • Total unfunded portion4: With Signalized option: $5.9 million With Roundabout option: $7.5 – $8.5 million Next Steps The project team is in the process of presenting findings and draft recommendations to the community, boards and commissions, and City Council to gather feedback from the project stakeholders. Please see attachment 5 for a summary of the comments received from the City’s Transportation Board, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning and Zoning Board, Economic Advisory Commission, and the Downtown Development Authority. Attachment 6 provides a summary of the public comments received from the project open house events as well as individual meetings with business/property owners and residents, including the Chamber of Commerce Local Legislative Affairs Committee. Once the project team has completed the draft Jefferson Street Study report and incorporated feedback received from project partners and community stakeholders, including City Council and boards and commissions, staff will schedule this item for a regular City Council meeting (anticipated 2 Cost range for roundabout alternative depends upon amount of right-of-way required for improvements and the higher cost is if the project would need to buy the entire property on the NiceCar site. 3 Implementation of Jefferson Street corridor and intersection improvements will be coordinated with major underground utility project. 4 The Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study report will include potential financing strategies for funding the remaining costs for the project. February 28, 2012 Page 10 in April/May 2012) to request approval of the Jefferson Street Study report, including the recommended preferred alternative, implementation/phasing plan, and finance strategy. Public outreach will continue via website, e-newsletters, small group meetings, public open house events, and presentations to City Council, Transportation Board, Planning and Zoning Board, and Downtown Development Authority. Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward based upon approval of a preferred alternative and study recommendations. The next step would be to move into the preliminary engineering, final design and right-of-way acquisition. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street Corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. This project is envisioned as a long-term community improvement and it may be 5-10 years before it is completed, based upon the funding needed for implementation and the coordination efforts between the transportation and utilities infrastructure projects. The ultimate goal is to transform Jefferson Street into high quality, welcoming corridor and integrate it within the overall Downtown context in support of the community’s land use, economic, and environmental vision. For additional information visit the project website: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Jefferson Street project area 2. Recommended Corridor Alternative 3. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside Intersection Options 4. Intersection Analysis Summary 5. Summary of Board/Commission Comments a. Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee b. Planning and Zoning Board c. Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors d. Economic Advisory Commission 6. Summary of Public Comments 7. Work Session Summary, August 9, 2011 8. Union Pacific Railroad letter 9. CDOT letter 10. Frequently Asked Questions 11. Powerpoint presentation Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 1: Map of Jefferson Street Project Jefferson Street Corridor Alternatives 1 Attachment 3: Intersection Alternatives 1 Signalized Alternative Roundabout Alternative Attachment 4: Intersection Analysis Summary Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Project Alternatives Measure Signalized Roundabout Design Considerations  Safety Good safety history as signalized, expected to continue No significant change in accident rate. Roundabouts in general provide lower conflict points and crash severity  Overall Intersection Level of Service * LOS B, 16 – 17 seconds of delay estimated LOS B, 13 – 23 seconds of delay estimated  Truck Operations Would operate similar to current conditions 6 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 13 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB, Median design needs to accommodate truck turning movements Designed to accommodate largest truck type allowed. 12 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 15 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB  Railroad Operations No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Uncertain, potential need for gates to clear roundabout, potential denial by PUC  Bikes and Pedestrians No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Requires additional design considerations, possible PROWAG / ADA compliance  Special Event Management Similar to current conditions Uncertain, may perform poorly when trucks re‐ route from I‐80 Address Project Goals  Air Quality Benefits No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Provides air quality savings, varies on range of delay reduced  Public Support Support from truck industry and those who do not like roundabouts in general Support from some Jefferson Street business, some public support from and DDA. CDOT neutral  Gateway Feature Potential Similar to current conditions, could provide features at corners & medians (estimated 9,800 square feet of landscape space) Provides strong gateway feature (estimated 12,300 square feet of landscape space) Cost Factors  Construction Estimated to cost $2.7 million Estimated to cost $4.3 million Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 5a: Summary of Board Comments Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee February 15th , 2012 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes) A. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke This is a joint project with the City, the DDA, and CDOT. Each entity has funding invested in the project. Jefferson is a throughput for the highway and an important of our downtown area. Right now it is considered a barrier to downtown. We are trying to create linkages for the Lincoln Avenue Corridor, the River District, downtown, and Old Town. This is a gateway area for those districts. We are looking to improve this corridor for all modes of transportation and make it an investment and asset for the future development of the downtown district. This has been an enormous balancing act between the downtown objectives and the state highway objectives. The goal is to transform the area. Alternatives: 4-lane 3-lane with bike lanes 3-lane with medians Parking would be in a buffer area with different colored pavement to mark it off. The traffic volume analysis shows a single southbound lane off of College Avenue for the recommended 3-lane with medians option which maximizes the space. It helps create a more urban experience and visually narrows the corridor, which makes it safer for pedestrians. Bikes would not be prohibited from using Jefferson, but as vehicular cyclists, would use the travel lanes. Those who are not comfortable as vehicular cyclists would be redirected to Willow and the alleyways by wayfinding signage. The intersection at Linden would be designed to accommodate crossing pedestrian traffic. Atchison: Is that the only pedestrian crossing location? Bracke: A pedestrian refuge would also be at Pine and Chestnut, although CDOT is not comfortable with a light at that location. The intersection and Jefferson & Mountain had an enormous comparative evaluation that considered safety, level of service, truck operations, property impacts, operations & maintenance, bikes and pedestrians, CDOT coordination, air quality benefits, special event management, etc. Both a traditional signalized intersection and roundabout were considered. Landscaped medians are included in the signalized intersection design to be used as pedestrian refuges. Median noses would need to be reduced to accommodate truck traffic. Travel lanes would be the same as currently exist. The roundabout option includes more landscaping, two travel lanes, and medians that move traffic in a calm manner. Robert: Why is the crosswalk on Lincoln north of the railroad tracks? Bracke: Because of the vehicle movements at the intersection and the railroad track arms, we need to keep the pedestrian traffic back. Robert: If a pedestrian is headed west on Jefferson, they would end up crossing the tracks twice in order to use that crosswalk. Frazier: Pedestrians have to cross two travel lanes, which can be tricky if they can’t see the cars. Atchison: What are the speed limits? 2 Bracke: 30 and 35mph on Jefferson. CDOT did a speed study on Jefferson and it is in the 40s. They wanted to raise the limit, but we said no. The landscaping and physical design is to calm traffic and lower the speed to 25mph. It is part of why it is important to change the lanes on Jefferson. The traffic volume is actually quite low both today and projected for the future. Simonson: Does the graphic represent the current existing entrances to Nice Car? Bracke: It shows the current entrance off of Jefferson, but not the one in the railroad right-of-way. Frazier: At the Transit Mobility Committee you indicated that vehicles would not be backed up when the train comes, as they will be able to continue around the roundabout. Bracke: Today, no matter where a train comes through, traffic is impacted. With the roundabout, vehicles can clear the roundabout in several ways. Even if cars cue up to cross the tracks, the other lane can handle through traffic. Robert: Is Peterson Street being closed off? Bracke: No, it was redesigned to remain open. Frazier: How are you addressing the concerns of the truckers? Bracke: All through traffic is being designed to accommodate large trucks. Skutchan: We have not registered an official opinion on this option. Bracke: We go to Council for a Work Session on the 28th. This is information sharing at this point. Skutchan: To me, the roundabout exacerbates the problems at this location. It isn’t that you haven’t done great work; I just don’t think it is the right solution. Atchison: I like to think that I am forward thinking and open minded, but the constant flow of traffic would scare me to death as a cyclist or pedestrian. It doesn’t feel like it will accomplish what you want to accomplish. O’Toole: I agree. When you talk about education, and people learning to negotiate them, I’ve had scary encounters at the Ziegler roundabout because education doesn’t seem to happen that quickly. Shenk: This is a thinking person’s roundabout, and frankly, I don’t think the people of Fort Collins think enough. I grew up in Europe with roundabouts, and love them, but this one isn’t easy. Bracke: Jefferson as it appears today is scary. Atchison: A lot of drivers coming to this roundabout from Mulberry won’t be educated in their use at all. This could be their first experience with one. Bracke: Vail had that concern when they installed their first roundabout coming off the interstate. It has since become normal. Robert: You mentioned bicycles having alternative routes along Jefferson. Bracke: Parallel routes existing today are Walnut Street, Willow Street, and the alleyway project on the Old Town side of Jefferson Street. The Bike Plan has an off-street path from Lincoln to Mulberry connecting to the trail system. If properties along Jefferson are redeveloped, sidewalks could be widened to allow for bicycle traffic. O’Toole: When I first heard of this you described it as a “Gateway” which seems odd because this is central. Bracke: Plan Fort Collins and City Plan call out multiple Gateways. We have Gateways for districts as well. This is a district Gateway. Frazier: Instead of the roundabout, perhaps a “barn dance” concept should be used. Bracke: A “barn dance” is used in Downtown Denver. All four directions stop so pedestrians and bikes can cross. We can take that idea to Joe Olson and to CDOT. Simonson: I like the concept and think it fits perfectly into the plan. I am concerned about when the train comes and have concerns for Nice Car’s business. Robert: If you were to use the standard intersection, it could still be made an attractive Gateway with the $2.1 million dollar difference in construction cost. I’m on the cusp. Staff Recommendation: The roundabout provides good traffic circulation, air quality benefits with a strong safety feature. It provides more opportunity to transform the entryway into the Downtown, the River District, and the Lincoln Corridor. 3 Skutchan moved that while the Board is generally in favor of roundabouts, we support a signalized intersection at this location. Atchison seconded the motion. Discussion: Atchison: I am trying to understand why this feels different than Vail or Ziegler, and I think it is because people are trying to get through on a highway to go north on College Avenue. I guess there are ways to bring a downtown feel to this intersection without a roundabout. After discussion the motion was approved with Sara Frazier abstaining. June 15th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes) C. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke Project Boundary: Jefferson Street between College and Mountain. Project Partners: City of Fort Collins (City), Downtown Development Authority (DDA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). Schedule: Spring 2010 – Summer 2011 Funding: $1.75 million (Federal [CMAQ], Local, DDA) History of Project: Downtown River District Plan 2008 – Linden Street is underway now. Alternatives Analysis Process: Design options & evaluation Street & intersection alternatives Urban design Context sensitive solutions Deliverables: Preferred alternative Implementation phasing plan & finance strategies Project Purpose: The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks. Traffic congestion is not a primary issue for the project. Conditions: 12,300 – 13,200 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast: 17,200 – 18,600 vpd. Intersection Level of Service “B” or better (existing & 2035); On-street parking spaces: 53 existing (sub-standard, very narrow due to width of travel lanes); future varies by alternative from 36 – 48, but they will be more usable. There is a speeding problem on Jefferson. Lowering the speed limit is not easy to do without changing the character of the street. Alternatives range from 2-lane to 4-lane options. Fatal flaws include need for on-street parking; do not drop level of service (LOS) more than one level; no major property impacts. Current alternatives include 3-lane options with/without medians & bike lanes; 4-lane option; combination 3/4 lane option. Existing conditions are not good for people crossing and transitioning into and out of downtown. 3-Lane with Full Median – one lane southbound, two northbound. A buffer is built in to allow for easier parallel parking; raised landscaped median creates a pedestrian refuge and visual interest along the corridor as well as access management for increased safety and mobility through the corridor. On-street parking is particularly important on the downtown side of Jefferson. The River District side of Jefferson has off-street parking available. Intersection improvements include enhanced crosswalks. 4 3-Lane with Partial Median – allows access to more driveway entrances than with the full median; features are similar to Full Median option. 3-Lane with Bike Lanes – there is not enough width for both bike lanes and medians. Alternative routes in the area are being considered (Willow, Walnut, alleys, etc.). Some cyclists feel comfortable riding Jefferson and take the travel lane. Others do not. Skutchan: What is the trade-off between bike lanes versus raised medians and the impact on pedestrian traffic? Bracke: The raised medians do more to calm traffic and do more to help the pedestrian environment and improve the visual character along Jefferson. Cyclists do need to cross Jefferson, especially at Linden. Miller: Is there data that supports the increased safety of bike lanes/raised medians? Does it encourage J-walking? Bracke: It comes down to the time a pedestrian is exposed to traffic. A raised island provides a safer refuge. There is data supporting the improved safety of only having to cross one direction of traffic at a time. Miller: Can the light be timed so a left-turning vehicle doesn’t have to stop? Bracke: That is the progression that Traffic Operations considers on all signalized intersections along arterial corridors. Duvall: The demographic of the population (shelters in the area) needs to be considered. 4-Lane – 12-foot travel lanes. There could be inset parking and crosswalks at intersections, but it doesn’t accomplish traffic calming. Basically, same as existing condition. Combination 3 / 4 Lane – The alternative is a combination or hybrid alternative with 3 lanes from College to Linden and 4 lanes from Linden to Mountain. Proposed Roundabout at Jefferson & Mountain – Recommended from 2008 River District Report. Being studied in-depth. Roundabouts achieve air quality and safety objectives and handle traffic capacity well. It also provides a “gateway” entrance to downtown and the River District. Peterson Street is being considered to become a cul de sac – more public outreach needed on that idea. Off-Street Parking Options: Potential increase of off street parking spaces at the City-owned lot near Rodizio Grill and the privately permitted Railroad lot on Linden Street. Urban Design and Gateway Concepts: Signage, street wayfinding. Next steps: Continue individual property/business owner meetings. Transportation Board & Bicycle Advisory Committee – June Planning & Zoning Board Work Session – July City Council Work Session – August Project Team Meetings The goal is to build consensus among agencies for Preferred Alternative Develop Implementation Phasing Plan and Finance Strategies Frazier: I like the roundabouts around the city, but am concerned about pedestrian safety in them. Bracke: The raised landscaped medians break up the crossing length making it easier to cross. Frazier: Trucks going south on College to turn onto Riverside back up past the railroad tracks at times. Bracke: Overall, the intersection works at a Level of Service “B.” College Avenue has more congestion than Jefferson/Riverside. Intersection alternatives for that intersection were considered when the North College Avenue improvements from Riverside to the river were done. Skutchan: With Mountain being bicycle friendly into this area, did the Bicycle Advisory Committee express concern about bikes safely using roundabouts? 5 Miller: They said very little about bike safety in roundabouts. Skutchan: Educating the public is a challenge. Robert: Why do we have two different names for the same street? Bracke: There are historical attachments to the names. Riverside was so named because it is located along the side of the Poudre River. Lincoln was named because of the connection with the old Lincoln Highway. You can sign up for a project newsletter at: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/ July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ (Draft Notes) B. Jefferson Street Project Update – Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Manager; Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner We have a Council Work Session on August 9 and would like to share the Board’s feedback either as a memo or as draft minutes. This is a joint effort between the City, the Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The project is on Jefferson Street from College Avenue to Mountain/Jefferson/Riverside. There have been many alternatives examined. Outcomes will include a preferred alternative and implementation phasing plan. “The purpose of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility for autos and trucks.” Currently 12,000 – 13,000 vehicles per day. 2035 forecast 17,200 – 18,600 per day. Intersection Level of Service “B” or better along Jefferson Street (existing and 2035) Existing parking spaces: 53 (substandard & very narrow). Future: varies by alternative from 36 – 48. Existing conditions: four travel lanes, too narrow, not up to current standards. Public feedback says it is a barrier between Old Town and the River District. Alternatives: 3-lane with full median Reallocating one lane for other uses. Maximizing the on-street parking on the Old Town side of Jefferson Street is a primary goal. The River District side has parking alternatives available. A buffer area between parking and travel lanes is common on all alternatives. Option A: includes raised landscaped medians for a more attractive streetscape, visually enhancing the corridor and providing access management from a traffic flow perspective, and provide a pedestrian refuge. Option B: includes partial medians providing some of the benefits as Option A. Option C: includes on-street bike lanes instead of medians (no room for both). 4-lane alternative Widens travel lanes to 11 feet. Does not include raised landscaped medians or bike lanes. No on-street parking on the River District side. 3 and 4-lane alternative: features of both other alternatives. 6 Jefferson/Mountain Lincoln/Riverside intersection alternatives: signalized and roundabout alternatives are being considered. The roundabout is the recommended alternative from the prior study. It is being reevaluated. The Jefferson/Linden intersection is also being evaluated. There are designated turn lanes off of Jefferson. We considered removing those. It creates a shorter pedestrian crossing distance and increases available on- street parking. The downside is limiting accessibility along both sides of Linden. The project team recommendation leans toward the 3-lane alternative with a raised median. The team is leaning toward keeping the turn lanes on the Jefferson/Linden intersection because of circulation patterns. Jefferson/Mountain intersection roundabout provides a lower traffic delay compared to a signalized intersection. Signalized intersection cost $1.4M; Roundabout $2.6M. Roundabout takes up more room. How the intersection serves the area is a major consideration, as this is a gateway to Old Town. The team has not reached a recommendation yet. Off-Street Parking Options in the lot at Rodizio Grill: The project team is looking at options to add a 3rd row of parking. Option 1 increases by 25 spaces. Option 2 increases by 16 spaces. The Union Pacific Railroad owns a lot at Jefferson/Linden where the park is. They built a surface lot that has 10 permitted spaces. They are investigating ways to partner with the railroad to use that lot. Next steps: Meeting with property/business owners/stakeholders Boards & Commissions City Council in August Jordan: How will this impact existing bus routes? Bracke: Our goal is to improve transit stops and make Jefferson more transit and pedestrian friendly. Long term plans for downtown include a shuttle. Thomas: I agree with the project team that the first alternative is best. It is going to be more difficult to go south. Will trucks opt to go south on Willow? Bracke: It is our goal to design Jefferson to accommodate all vehicle needs. Traffic congestion is not an issue as indicated by a current and projected Level of Service “B.” Residual capacity is being examined in the intersection study. 17,000 cars per day is not high volume. The intersections can accommodate traffic for 40 – 50 more years. We do not want to divert the truck traffic. The roundabout alternative is capable of radius to accommodate the trucks. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association likes the one southbound lane alternative because it prevents trucks from being passed. Frazier: How does the BAC feel about this plan? Bracke: The BAC gave mixed feedback. Some members felt that the bike lanes made it more bike friendly. Others think it is too difficult to ride. Wayfinding and education can publicize alternative routes. Bike issues on this project are more geared to crossing Jefferson to River District destinations rather than bikes traveling on Jefferson. Public comment: Ray Bergner, Bergner Trucking, citizen. I met with Kathleen and Aaron yesterday. If we don’t learn from the past, we will make mistakes in the future. I’m addressing the roundabout. Service and safety are paramount. Roundabouts have their place. The one at Vine Drive and Taft Hill Road works well. Colorado Motor Carriers doesn’t represent all of our interests. We are concerned that you consider the information from 10 years ago when the roundabout on east Mulberry Street was considered. Safety in multi-lane roundabouts needs to be considered. We are fine with the design of the road, but have concerns about off- tracking in the roundabout. Multi-lane creates safety issues for trucks with a 300” wheel base. The high center of gravity on these trucks is also an issue. 7 Bracke: Deflection of cars entering the roundabout is being examined. Most trucks will continue on Riverside. Robert: Have you looked at putting a bike lane on Willow? Bracke: There are on-street bike lanes shown on Willow. No bike lanes are considered in the railroad right- of-way. Frazier: Have you done additional analysis for access to Peterson Street? Bracke: That is part of the roundabout design study. More work is being done. If a roundabout is built there will be a cul-de-sac at Peterson & Mountain Avenue. Thomas made a motion that the Board recommend Option 1 but withhold a recommendation on the roundabout pending additional information. Skutchan seconded. Discussion: Miller: Are sharrows considered on Jefferson under Option A? Bracke: That hasn’t been discussed but we can ask. Miller: Is it a safety issue for truckers to follow bikes in travel lanes? Bergner: It isn’t a big issue from my experience. Miller: Are maintenance costs available? Bracke: O&M costs will be included in the final recommendation. Miller: We are enhancing the parking experience, enhancing the pedestrian experience, but we don’t have infrastructure for bikes. Motor carriers will be there. Enhancing parking while eliminating bike infrastructure seems odd. Bracke: The features we are including with landscaping and other features calm traffic and lower speeds, making it safer for bikes. Simonson: Does the Riverwalk design incorporate parallel bike paths? Big trucks sharing roads with bikes doesn’t seem safe. Bracke: The design for Willow Street includes on-street bike lanes. We are supporting and encouraging alternative routes for cyclists. Simonson: I like the idea of redesigning the City parking lot to gain additional parking. After discussion, the Board voted for the motion with one descending vote (Miller) because of the lack of bike lane infrastructure. 8 July 20th , 2011 Transportation Board ‐ Letter to City Council Regarding Jefferson Street 9 February 13th, 2012, Bicycle Advisory Committee Discussion Items: I. Jefferson Street Project Kathleen Bracke – I appreciate the opportunity to come back to the BAC. We were here a few months ago. Now we are giving this presentation throughout the community, looking for feedback on the project, specifically regarding the intersection at Jefferson and Mountain. It is a unique project we have worked on for many years, even decades. It is complicated because we manage partnerships between several stakeholders. We are searching for a better solution on Jefferson, from College to Mountain. We are looking for a solution that will knit the area together; Jefferson is a barrier right now. We are determining the purpose – it is a downtown corridor, truck route, and entry to an emerging river district. City Council adopted a resolution that we must look at signalized actuation and roundabouts at all intersection improvements. Dan Gould – Do those medians act as pedestrian refuges? Kathleen Bracke – Yes. This is a place where pedestrians can take refuge. Mountain and College is a wide street, but the islands act to make it welcoming and less intimidating. The medians will be 6 feet wide so a bike can fit comfortably and they can be landscaped. See the handout for more information about alternatives. Also, see the website: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php The staff recommendation is the roundabout; it works well for traffic flow and it is a great way to keep Fort Collins innovative. Please encourage your committees to attend the open house on Thursday. Rick Price – When you were considering the width of the lanes, did you consider whether an experienced cyclist would share the lane? Kathleen Bracke – That is good input. We will consider more than or less than 14 feet as an indicator of whether cyclists would share the lane. Kim Sharpe – Once you determine the lane widths, can you add shared lane markings? Rick Price – I think that is a great idea. 10 Tim Anderson – Show of hands, who avoids Jefferson on bike? (majority) And is there any issue finding an alternative route? If not, maybe we can use signage to indicate to cyclists where they can ride. Kathleen Bracke – That’s a good idea. Rick Price – The critical issue is whether we want to encourage riding on Jefferson with shared lane markings or discourage it with re-routing. Dan Gould – I don’t think this is a good place to use shared lane markings. Kathleen Bracke – Just to clarify, shared lane markings are not meant to be an encouragement tool. Josh Kerson – I think the medians are a good idea. It makes crossing Jefferson toward New Belgium safer. At first I wanted the option with bike lanes, now I like this option. Shane Miller – I’m distressed at this option. There is no median at Jefferson and Linden, so it isn’t a safe refuge for pedestrians. It proliferates the status quo on automobiles while there is another option that is more bike friendly. I would like to see the data that shows a median provides more safety than bike lanes. I don’t think it is safer even if it is more attractive. Rick Price – Do you want bicyclists here or not? If not, make them 13’ wide, no more. Experienced cyclists won’t share those lanes. Kathy Cardona – Are the sidewalks on Jefferson dismount zones? Kathleen Bracke – That is another good question. The dismount zone is on the old town side of the street, but not the River District side. We’d like to widen the sidewalks on the River District side to have off-street options for bikes. On North College, we have wider sidewalks with space for cyclists and pedestrians. Those facilities could be developed in the future. This project is about trade offs. We are trying to change the character of Jefferson. I hear what this group is saying about there not being specific bike facilities, but we are looking for options for safe cycling. Kathryn Grimes – Did you consider doing an overpass or underpass at Mountain and Jefferson? Kathleen Bracke – They are hard to do in an urban setting because the ramps are long; people will walk up to roadways. It works well for rivers and railroads. 11 Sylvia Cranmer – Whether or not we are encouraging or discouraging cyclists, we must provide a safe route. We need signage that indicates this as well as designating it a certain way on the bike map. I feel strongly that we should do a field trip because I think it’s important for us to feel that facility. Joe Piesman – When I come out of the roundabout, how do I travel southbound? Kathleen Bracke – You must go to Matthews. Peterson will only be available for right turns in and right turns out. This is an improvement requested by the Fire Station 1 for emergency access. If you are not comfortable riding the roundabout, you can navigate it as a pedestrian. Rick Price – I’m interested what the DDA thinks. Kathy Cardona – We love it! We love it. Unanimously. Rick Price – Cyclists can be taught to navigate a roundabout. Others can use it as a pedestrian would. Shane Miller – Is there any safety data about roundabouts for cyclists? Kathleen Bracke – Data shows that roundabouts set up vehicles for slower crashes. Also, users can’t run a traffic light and have broadside accident; side angle crashes are less severe. Tim Anderson – Will this be the highest traffic roundabout in Fort Collins? Kathleen Bracke – Good question. I will check traffic volume data at Horsetooth and Zeigler. Tim Anderson – I have ridden through the Jefferson and Mountain intersection hundreds to thousands of times. It will change that intersection for people who ride there. Kathleen Bracke – Compared to College, there is half as much traffic on Jefferson and thousands of people cross College every day. There is a perceived safety for pedestrians on College because of the streetscape. Josh Kerson – I am concerned about the train coming through. How will this work? Kathleen Bracke – 12 That is the number one question we hear. First, we have to consider how to clear traffic off Lincoln so the railroad arms can come down. Right now that is done with the traffic signal. There could be a gate that closes at Lincoln. No doubt, there will be an impact on traffic flow, but traffic won’t be stuck. Rick Price – Any more thoughts? Kathleen, did you get what you needed? Kathleen Bracke – This was great input. You can find more information on our website. Rick Price – If you feel strongly, please come to the public open house on Thursday. June 13th , 2011 Bicycle Advisory Committee ‐ (see attached meeting notes) - Had a question about the traffic volumes and if they were broken down by axel type and vehicle weight - Without parking would there be room for a bicycle track - If there were bicycle lanes the transition onto College is important - Stated that marked bicycle lanes reduce accidents - Noted that trucks traveling south can be dangerous to bicyclist - Number of bicyclist crossing Jefferson is growing at Linden and at Lincoln - Jefferson doesn’t necessarily feel safe to ride on but it is more direct than other routes - The environment of Jefferson doesn’t feel safe to some, in particular some of the activity at the Jefferson Street Park - Important to make sure it’s clear that bikes belong with or without bike lanes - Discussed the need for improved pedestrian amenities - Pedestrian refuge zones are a high priority - Questioned if we are trying to accommodate too much on Jefferson - Wanted to know if anyone on the project team had first hand experience with a roundabout located near a rail line 13 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES of the BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE June 13, 2010 6:00 PM Community Room 215 N. Mason Fort Collins, CO 80521 FOR REFERENCE: Chair: Rick Price 970‐310‐5238 Vice Chair: Josh Kerson 970‐217‐9480 Staff Liaison: Kathleen Bracke 970‐224‐6140 Staff Support: Dave “DK” Kemp 970‐416‐2411 BOARD/CITY ORGANIZATION MEMBERS PRESENT Air Quality Board: Michael Lynn Bicycle Pedestrian Education Coalition: Kim Sharpe Bike Fort Collins: Sylvia Cranmer Downtown Development Authority: Kathy Cardona Fort Collins Bicycle CoOp: Tim Anderson Fort Collins Bicycle Retailers Alliance: Josh Kerson Natural Resources Advisory Board: Glen Colton Transportation Board: Shane Miller AT LARGE MEMBERS PRESENT At Large: Dan Gould ABSENT At Large: TBD At Large: TBD Colorado State University: Ben Miller Economic Advisory Commission: Rick Price Land Conservation & Stewardship Board: Kathryn Grimes Parks and Recreation Board: Bruce Henderson Poudre School District: Chris West Senior Advisory Board: TBD UniverCity Connections: TBD City of Fort Collins: Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner Craig Foreman, Director of Park Planning and Development David Kemp, Bicycle Coordinator Kathleen Bracke, Director of Transportation Planning Molly North, Assistant Bicycle Coordinator Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager Timothy Wilder, Senior City Planner 14 Call to order Meeting called to order at 6:07 PM. II. Jefferson Street Project Update See attached PowerPoint Michael – Your audience is families and people who will come downtown to shop and eat, right? So it makes sense to separate this track with a curb or something more obvious. Kathleen – We are trying to make it useable for everyone, but we recognize that there are alternate routes for people who won’t use this route. Dan – It seems like it would be hard to mesh the northbound flow onto N College. Kathleen – That is a good point. Shane – My concern is the alternative without bike lanes. Kathleen – The purpose is to calm the traffic that is out there, so ideally we can slow traffic to 25/30mph so more users will take the lane. We will also work to improve way finding so people can choose their route. Shane – All I have ever read is that shared lane markings on roads reduce crashes. Has anyone read any different? Kathleen – It is important to think about the Jefferson corridor. Compared to N College where we can widen the roadway and include all of the pieces we want, on Jefferson we need to work within the space we have. Josh – I work at N. College and Jefferson and I walk that area often. The biggest issue is that truck drivers are turning left onto Jefferson from College and speeding up so they can get through the intersection at Linden without hitting the red light. Sylvia – 15 You asked if we would ride there, I don’t know if I would. You asked if I would feel safe, no. I don’t like the idea that it would encourage cyclists to ride there and increase the amount of cyclist/truck interface. I also don’t feel safe with the transient community down there. Kathleen – Those are legitimate issues and we are addressing these concerns. Kim – I think the more “bikes belong” signs we have, the better. It sends a good message – like Josh said – that it is downtown. Dan – I am concerned about the intersections and having refuges for pedestrians. Kathleen – We tried to include as many facilities as possible, but we were limited by curbs, traffic volume, left turn lanes, etc. We did all we could to reduce pedestrian exposure. We will imitate the pedestrian crossings that we have currently along the in other areas downtown to raise awareness for drivers of pedestrian crossings. Glen – I’m not sure it is necessary to keep on street parking for the local businesses because I don’t even know any of the shops on Jefferson. Kathleen – There is revitalization of this area and a lot of new businesses and residential development is coming in. What do you think of the roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain? Shane – Do we have an example of a roundabout adjacent to a railroad in Fort Collins? Kathleen – Not in FC, but they are used all around the world and there are a lot of examples of how it works. Shane – Is there a human being who has seen one? It would be worth the plane ticket to research the actual implementations. Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 5b: Summary of Board Comments Planning & Zoning Board February 16th , 2012 Planning and Zoning Board Project: Jefferson Street Project Project Description: The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor. The corridor begins at College Avenue and extends along Jefferson Street and includes the Mountain Avenue/Riverside Avenue/Lincoln Street, and Linden Street intersections. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. Staff is requesting input from the Planning and Zoning Board regarding the Jefferson Street project, in particular to provide input on the intersection alternatives as well as next steps for the project process. 1. What input would the Planning and Zoning Board like to share with the project team regarding the Jefferson intersection alternatives? 2. Is there additional information the Planning and Zoning Board would like to see regarding the Jefferson Street project? Hearing Testimony, Written Comments and Other Evidence Transportation Planning Director Kathleen Bracke and Senior Transportation Planner Aaron Iverson were in attendance. Bracke reported the Jefferson Street Project process has included the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional roadway and intersection designs, roundabouts and other innovative, context-sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. Bracke said a full presentation on the project was made at the Board’s work session. Tonight, if it is the pleasure of the board, she will present the highlights and they are available for questions. She said when they refer to the Jefferson Street Project they are referring to a series of alternatives for the Jefferson Corridor as well as for the intersection of Jefferson, Mountain, Riverside and Lincoln. The two intersection types they are considering include improvements to the existing signalized intersection and another alternative which would be a roundabout alternative for that location. There is a variety of criteria they used to evaluate the intersections—it includes safety, traffic analysis, how the intersections will operate for all modes of transportation and how the improvements will help 2 serve the area for the long term economic vitality and fit the land use character of the downtown, the river district, and the Lincoln Avenue Corridor over time. Bracke said many people when they think about the Jefferson Street Corridor today think about it in terms of being a barrier or the “edge” of downtown. A fundamental principle of this project and their goal is to transform Jefferson over time so it’s no longer a barrier but becomes a linkage between those important parts of downtown. . Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid 2012 based upon approval of the preferred alternative by City Council, Downtown Development Authority, and CDOT. The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. Bracke said they are seeking feedback on the alternatives for the project, in particular the corridor and the intersection alternative. Public Input Robert Lyle, 100 Riverside Avenue, said he owns Nice Car, Incorporated at the corner of Riverside and Mountain. He said he had a list of questions titled 26 Questions which he would like to share with the Board. He said Kathleen Bracke has had an opportunity to review. Her responses are in light gray. His biggest fear is eminent domain and going out of business. He said he can see the writing on the wall—the thinks he’s not going to survive either a standardize intersection or a round-about. If he had his “ruthers” he’d prefer a standard intersection but when the outcome is the same, he would probably go for the round-about. He asked the Board the questions he’s submitted in their deliberation. Ray Bergener of Bergener Trucking/Transpro said they are the largest aggregate drive-ball commodity carrier based in Fort Collins and the State of Colorado. They’ve done business for 66 years and he is a third generation operator. He said he represents a majority of the trucking industry. They oppose this proposal for three distinct reasons: safety, safety, safety. He said Highway 14 is a designated transportation network. He said thousands of tons of freight move through daily for both intra and interstate commerce. He said there is no comparison to the roundabouts at Horsetooth/Ziegler, Ziegler/Carpenter, and Taft and Vine to the proposed roundabout. This is a state highway. He believes accidents will happen there. Bergener said he’s also concerned about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists in a round-about as opposed to a signalized intersection. Truck rollovers are more than fender benders. He said trucks will need both lanes (truck in one lane and trailer in the other) based on the size of the roundabout. He believes severe damage will occur to vehicles and property not to mention bodily injury due to cars trying to pass trucks in the round-about. Bergener referred to the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis document distributed to the Board at their work session. He believes each of those columns (except the air quality column) support a signalized intersection. He said before staff go to Council, the industry wants to talk about air quality. Bergener said the cost of the round-about is estimated at between $4.3 to 5.3 million. A signalized intersection would cost $2.7 million. Per the intergovernmental agreement if the proposed round- about is built and fails (trucking thinks it will), the deconstruction cost and the installation of a traditional intersection will become an issue. Bergener said city policy states all types of intersection controls, including round-abouts must be considered and evaluated. The preferred intersection control is based on providing a safe and efficient transportation network to serve surrounding development and traffic volumes. A round-about 3 would be designed to accommodate all types of traffic including trucks; however, the slower speeds and traffic movements associated with a round-about would help discourage through truck traffic. Now, staff is recommending a round-about to serve truck transportation. He said there’s a huge conflict there. He distributed a letter to the Board from Hersch Trucking . Bergener said their paramount consideration is safety. He thinks the best alternative is a truck bypass and a different route for hazardous materials. He plans to make his case before City Council when it comes before them. Chair Smith asked staff to comment on the issues raised in public input. Bracke said from a project team perspective, safety is very important to them as well. They’ve taken that into consideration when evaluating the two intersection alternatives on safety of all modes (trucks, cars, pedestrians, and bicyclist). She said one of the attribute of round-abouts is safety. When vehicles approach a round-about, a slowing /yield condition occurs. She said design of the Jefferson Street Project elements considered the largest truck type (CDOT specs) that uses State Highway 14. Bracke said they want to make sure it can work safely for both through and local trucks. Bracke said in terms of air quality, that is another attribute of the round-about. With the round-about alternative, there is less delay and that translates into the air quality benefit. Bracke said in terms of cost, the round-about is more expensive. They have looked at that very seriously but they’re looking at this as a long term investment in the downtown--creating a gateway entrance into the downtown and the river district. They’re looking at a 50 plus year return on investment in terms of how they can transform this important area of our community. Member Schmidt asked why Peterson Street does not change with a signalized intersection but does change with the round-about…it says it would require closing or changing to right in/right out. Bracke said in an earlier version of the design, they showed Peterson Street closed with a cu-de-sc and a bicycle and pedestrian connection to Mountain. In working with PFA (Poudre Fire Authority), they felt that access from Mountain to Peterson was very important due to the location of Station 1 and how they use Peterson to access Jefferson and North College. Staff worked with the design team to revise the design to a right in/right out access point. Bracke said with the way the round–about is designed, it also facilitates the movement from Peterson to westbound Mountain. Once you make a right turn out of Peterson, you can "make a u-turn" (complete the circle) and head west on Mountain. They consider that an improvement over the current Peterson/Mountain intersection. Member Schmidt said funding hasn’t really been decided for this round-about. When she studied the analysis document, there were more “pluses” except for air quality for a signalized intersection. Schmidt provided a summary of differences including level of service B time, railroad impacts, uncertain PUC denial, property impacts, and special events management. She said based on the analysis, there isn’t really a good reason for recommending a round- about especially when considering the difference in costs. Schmidt said we are so desperately looking for funding the gap for North College improvements. How can we justify spending double on a round-about here when the analysis said the signalized intersection would work just as well. Bracke said Schmidt raises some good points. When they developed that matrix, they wanted to be as straight-forward in the analysis of the criteria involved but what we need to look at is not each of those independently but the overall picture. What holistically is going to balance out for the overall needs of the area? She said staff is considering mobility, transportation, land use, supporting the economic vitality, and the visual entrance into this part of the downtown. Bracke said this project brings together three distinct districts with Jefferson being the barrier between them. Bracke said a 4 signalized intersection will function just fine in that location but they are trying to do more than that with this project. Bracke thinks it’s important when we talk about this project we don’t isolate just the intersection component. Bracke said traffic that is traveling through there today is traveling very fast—above the posted speed limit. To create a downtown urban/walkabout urban environment, we need to create a different kind of place. Bracke said the issues are not insurmountable. There are questions that can be addressed as we move forward through the engineering process. We’re at the conceptual planning stage and based on where we are in the process, some of those things do remain undefined at this point. She thinks that holistically (for the overall impact and benefit they are trying to create to transform Jefferson); on balance, the round-about is the better alternative. It provides a much greater area to do that type of landscaping and the entry way features for which they are looking. Board Discussion Chair Smith suggested they make two recommendations—one on the cross section of the street (three lane corridor option with raised landscape median) and the other being whether the Board would support staff’s recommendation for a round-about or a signalized intersection. Member Campana made a motion that they support staff’s recommendation with regard to a three lane corridor option with the raised landscape median for that section of Jefferson. Member Kirkpatrick seconded the motion. Motion was approved 5:1 with Stockover dissenting. Chair Smith said the staff report was very good. He appreciates the analysis that was put together. He said before he did a weighted scoring analysis of the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis, he was very open to the idea of a round-about simply because of what it would do to create a gateway feature. As we went through the staff generated comparison, he lost his enthusiasm. Smith said by his calculations, the signalized intersection outweighed the round-about option by 10-4. He believes traffic calming will be accomplished by the 3 lane with median option. He thinks with all things considered, he’s going to support a signalized intersection at this time. Member Kirkpatrick thanked staff for the late night/early morning attendance after what she knows was a busy day that started at 7 a.m. As a transportation planner herself, she definitely respects staff recommendation.. Kirkpatrick said when you consider the community health component, she’s heard community members who say that round-abouts pose a barrier for them. For that reason she has some significant reservations about the round-about in this area. When she looks through the alternatives analysis; she has a hard time justifying spending so much more for a facility that to her does not seem to promote a “stronger sense of place”. She agrees with Chair Smith that other design elements may accomplish the gateways and traffic calming objectives. She said for the reasons she’s listed, she would be inclined to support the more traditional intersection. Member Stockover said it just boils down to it’s a pretty long stretch and if you’re looking at speed they are going to speed up right after the round-about. He also with the landscaping being proposed, there will be too much going on for the cars, truck, people and bikes. It is a truck route. He doesn’t think we can justify spending that kind of money on a gateway when we already have a thriving community. Stockover also thinks the parking gain along there isn’t as big as we think it is, He’d recommend a parking structure. The money saved from that design element could be redirected to a parking structure and would keep four-lanes so you have nice movement both ways. He thinks it’ll be restricted too much especially after a train passes or when they close roads to Laramie or Cheyenne and all the trucks that have been stopped will come all at once. He does not think we need what’s proposed to accomplish the goals set out for this project. 5 Member Campana made a motion to recommend a signalized intersection in lieu of the traffic circle (aka round-about). Member Stockover seconded the motion. Chair Smith said he’s definitely a fan of round-abouts and he’d like to a proliferation of them throughout town in the appropriate places. He loves the gateway feature but we’ll see the train tracks there. Had it been pretty close on the analysis he did, he would have probably said yes to the round- about. But it was pretty overwhelming in favor of a standardized intersection. Member Campana said he likes the round-about idea as well. He just doesn’t like the idea of a truck route and a round-about in the same place. Motion was approved 6:0. Other Business: None Meeting adjourned at 12:15 a.m. July 15th , 2011 Planning and Zoning (Work Session) - There was a concern/question as to whether or not the buffer lane would become a "drive" lane - Concern over how pedestrian crossing would be handled - How to control lane encroachment in the bike lane alternative? - Questioned if it was good idea to mix the truck traffic with bicycles? - Questioned if Jefferson was required to have bike lanes? - Questioned traffic volumes might go down once traffic calming features are added? - Observed that alternatives were trading off various elements due to space constraints - Questions about Peterson Street, asked if it would be closed, noted that there may be businesses concerns - Asked about CDOTs position on the project - The board generally agreed that they like the 3 lane option with the full center median o Supports effort to make area more attractive o Supports making a stronger connection to the River District o Supports improving the pedestrian environment o Support maintaining on‐street parking o Supports the roundabout, as a defining entry feature to indicate the entrance into Downtown Fort Collins Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation 1 Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 5c: Summary of Board Comments Downtown Development Authority Board of Directors February 9, 2012 Downtown Development Authority ‐ The DDA voted to support the DDA staffs position in support of the roundabout alternative for the Jefferson/Lincoln intersection. (DDA letter is included in the Council materials) June 9, 2011 Downtown Development Authority - Asked if the cost includes implementation - Asked about the condition of the sidewalks, and wanted to know if the project would include sidewalk improvements - Discussed the need for left turns at Pine and Chestnut, determined that there would not be a large number of turns expected at these locations - Concerned over the comfort level for riding bikes on Jefferson - A gateway featured was highly encouraged From the Minutes of June 9, 2011 Board of Directors Regular Session Meeting: "Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the Jefferson Street corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three‐ lane alternative for the project. The motion passed unanimously." DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES JUNE 9, 2011 JEFFERSON STREET/ HWY 14 ANALYSIS Matt Robenalt introduced the background to the Jefferson Street/Highway 14 analysis project. He has served on the executive oversight committee for the project. This has been an eighteen month process for achieving consensus on urban design and highway design on the Jefferson Street corridor. A watershed moment was reached last week when all parties reached consensus on the basic components of the project. The process has been to find the most suitable alternative to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, transit and maintaining the mobility of autos and trucks. The project seeks to balance interests of different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, local business/property owners and the general public. The DDA committed $500,000 in 2008 to fund future capital improvements related to the alternatives analysis. DDA staff has advanced downtown interests throughout the analysis. The preferred alternative should feature on-street parking; accommodate the continued use of the Jefferson Street corridor for trucks; provide access to individual businesses to the greatest extent possible while striving to maintain the goals of the project; and, recognize that bike lanes, while providing an important element of a multi-modal transportation system, are a lesser priority in this area than the elements of pedestrian mobility, truck/traffic mobility, and on-street parking. 2 Kathleen Bracke of City Transportation Planning provided the status report, answered questions and received feedback on the project from board members. Ms. Bracke reported that the process involved a huge team effort and there was a wide divergence of views at the start. The current list of options includes 3-lane alternatives, a four-lane alternative and a combination 3/4 lane alternative. Both on-street and off-street parking was also evaluated. Ms. Bracke reviewed drawings of each of the options and discussed features of each. Board members George Brelig and Bill Sears met recently with the City and consultant staff to review the alternatives and expressed a preference for the three-lane scenarios as the alternatives that best reflect the interests of the DDA and downtown. In response to wide-ranging questions, Ms. Bracke noted that the plan assumes the current level of truck traffic, which is about 7.4% of total. The project does include sidewalk improvements. Some of the advantages of the three lane options are to encourage slower traffic. A full median serves many purposes including raised landscaping; pedestrian refuges; and increased safety. Off-street parking options are also being explored. These general concepts have achieved consensus from the partners. The roundabout at Jefferson and Mountain is considered important to the project. It helps capacity, improves air quality and provides the opportunity to create a gateway into downtown. City staff is working closely with CDOT, PUC and the railroad on this aspect of the project and additional analysis will occur through the summer. Next steps will include working towards selecting the preferred alternative for the corridor this summer. This will be followed by the development of an implementation plan and finance strategy. As the project develops there will be individual outreach to property owners as well as public open houses. Moved by Bill Sears, seconded by Jenny Bramhall: To support the stated downtown interests in the Jefferson Street corridor discussions and to further support the recommendation to adopt a three-lane alternative for the project. The motion passed unanimously. Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 6: Summary of Public Comment Jefferson Business Owners Focus Meeting February 15th, 2012 3-5 pm City of Fort Collins Traffic Operation, 626 Linden Street In attendance: Ross Harbo, Brendan Arnault, Jon Gentel, Mitch Busteed, Carl Glaser, Ray Burgener, Ken Morrison, Robert Lyle, CC Jackson Results of the comments are summarized below; - Has there been any consideration for using the Jefferson Park for parking? - If needed could Jefferson be widened into Jefferson Park? - What is CDOT's position on bike lanes? - There were concerns from about the proposed median on Jefferson restricting left turns into and out of Pine Street. The concern is that circulation in the alleys and on Pine street for those businesses is challenging already and the more restrict movements to and from Jefferson onto Pine Street are a concern - Why is there not a formal crosswalk proposed at Pine Street? - One of the goals of the project is to slow down traffic which was generally supported by those in attendance - How will the median slow down traffic, they were concerned with loss of access - Representatives from the Vogel Paint store commented that they would not support the roundabout option if it cut off their driveway access to Lincoln Ave - Robert Lyle owner of the Nice Car shop stated that he felt the roundabout will have a significant negative impact to his business, particularly if he losses one or both of his driveway access, additionally he is concerned with the loss of property that he currently uses to circulate and park cars. He is in support of keeping the intersection as is or if improved to keep it signalized. - There were a number of questions and concerns about how pedestrians will use the roundabout. Public Open House February 16th, 2012 7-9 am at the Opera Galleria and 4-7 pm at the Northside Aztlan Community Center See attached comment sheets See also attached letter from Hersh Trucking See also attached email from Ross Harbo representing the Diamond Vogel paint store June 2nd: Public Open House The open house was held on Thursday June 2 from 4 to 7 pm at the City Streets facility. There were approximately 14 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well as residents from the project area. 2 Results of the comment sheets are summarized below; - The primary interest of attendees was business / property owner followed by area resident. - The most selected priority for Jefferson Street was "pedestrian mobility" followed by "improving safety and security" and installing "streetscape/landscaping amenities". Installing "gateway features" was the next most selected priority. - The majority of respondents preferred the 3-lane alternative. - The majority of respondents which liked the 3-lane alternative preferred the "full-median" option. - For the intersection of Jefferson Street and Linden all the respondents supported keeping left turns from Jefferson to Linden. - For the intersection of Jefferson Street with Mountain/Lincoln the respondents were split between a roundabout or a signalized intersection Comments provided on comment sheets at the public open house included: - "The full median option appeal to me most, because I feel that it would provide the most attractive alternative" - "As a business located at the intersection of Linden and Jefferson [Café Ardour] I feel strongly that left turns should be maintained. I also like the idea of the roundabout to be used as a gateway to Old Town / River District. I also like that it would help to improve air quality." - "Very dangerous road, need to slow traffic to safeguard kids going to O'Dell's, and New Belgium". - "I think that roundabouts are confusing" - "If we want to encourage people to head to the river we need to make if friendly and safe to cross Jefferson!" - "Suggest you start from the perspective that through-traffic on Jefferson should be re-routed to Willow and merged with Mulberry at Timberline. This through route should be designed by using pedestrian and traffic over/under passes." - "Integrate Jefferson into the Linden area for local low-speed travel with lots of parking / walking / biking opportunities." - "Rather than accommodating anticipated increased flow on Jefferson, design an outcome focused on enhanced quality of life." - "Want 2-Lane alternative that slows traffic increases parking and is more pedestrian friendly." - "Do not limit access to Linden from either direction of Jefferson." - "Jefferson from College to Lincoln has been a barrier for decades to the northeast towards the river, my priorites are: o Reduce speeds on Jefferson in both directions o Increase parking!!! o Increase ease of pedestrian/bicyclist to go both directions on Linden across Jefferson o Do not think of Jefferson or Riversides as bicycle/transit corridor!! o No roundabouts - horrible when semi's, pedestrians and or bikes are present o Promote access towards River District 3 As someone who lives/works here 24/7 you're looking for the wrong solutions (suggest looking closer at Carl's (Carl Glaser) ideas!!!" - "No bike lane" - "No roundabout" - "I like full median if the buffer zone was a bike lane, and the street parking is elevated. I think it will slow the speeds, and create a better atmosphere along Jefferson." - "I like the gateway notion of the roundabout. I think it's mostly a cost factor for me if there are alternate funds outside of limited DDA funds, then I'm up for it!" - "Add more on-street spaces on Old Town side of Jefferson, north of Linden." - "The traffic on Jefferson is significantly reduced from what is use to be. The truck count after 5:00 PM and weekends is negligible. Use the third lane for alternative parking during these times." Jefferson Street – Individual Outreach Meetings May-June 2011 May 25th Encompass Technologies - Concerned about dirt, dust and mud from trucks driving too close to the front of their building - Does not use on-street parking due to the proximity of passing trucks - Has parking lot for employees, also contract with businesses across the street for employee parking as well - Would like to see better pedestrian environment - Interested in making improvements to the façade of their building - Would like to make improvements to the back of the building, perhaps building a concrete walkway along the back of the buildings between the track and the buildings - Supportive of the three lane option, questioned why the 2 lanes were on their side of Jefferson - Supportive of a median and landscape/streetscape improvements May 27th Nice Car - Subaru Repair Shop - Concerned over which side of Jefferson has 2 lanes versus 1 lane in the 3 lane options - Questioned the need for on-street parking on Jefferson, would like to see it eliminated all together - Opposed to the roundabout o Concerned it would kill his business o Concerned with train activity o Concerned with cost of right-of-way o Questioned the need as the intersection seems to flow fine currently 4 - Very concerned with too many unknowns surrounding the project which has the property owners very worried - Agrees that the aesthetics of Jefferson need to be fixed May 27th Pine Street Lofts Residents - Concerns with truck traffic - Safety concerns over the Jefferson Street Park o Would like to see it turned into a plaza - Is favorable to the roundabout, thinks it works well and would look nice - Concerned about an empty lot across from the Pine Street Lofts, needs to be cleaned up - Supports a full median - Suggests bike lanes may not be appropriate on Jefferson - Would like to see the on-street parking in front of the Pine Street Lofts retained which is use by residents guests at times June 17th Vogel Paint - They need both existing driveways to get delivery trucks in and out - They were ok with the roundabout - Concerned over the safety of bicyclists on Jefferson - They like the 3 lane option with the full median - Very supportive of improving the corridor - They do not use or support the use of the on-street parking in front of their business, dangerous with the proximity to trucks June 16th Local Trucking Interest: Burgener Trucking, Hersh Trucking, O’Leary’s Trucking - Supportive of the full median to restrict left turns - Very supportive of the 3 lane concept - Cautious of the height of the median, needs to be a normal curb height in case they do run into it - Limited access is important, which minimizes conflicts with the trucks moving through the corridor - They didn’t like the idea of mixing bicycles with trucks on Jefferson - They suggested a 2 lane configuration would be better, as it would eliminate passing, which is a primary safety concern, and their contention is that this section of Jefferson essentially functions as a 2 lane roadway currently, especially when larger loads are using the corridor - Not supportive of the roundabout at this location - They have a particular issue with multi-lane roundabouts, because cars try and pass the trucks within the roundabout (signed or not) which is a significant safety issue with the truck taking both lanes to maneuver through the roundabout. One lane roundabouts are safer in this respect - They questioned if there was enough space to build the roundabout - What size truck was used for the design? - They are concerned as they have no other options within the City as this is the designated truck route. 5 - If a roundabout is considered it needs to be specifically designed for through trucks, and make consideration for the longer lengths now being used (average of 75’ to 80’, with oversize of 125’ long) - They have concern of rollovers in roundabouts - The mountable truck apron can be damaging to tires (which are expensive) if not designed correctly, also if they are too high they can cause loads to shift leading to potential rollovers - They want to continue to be involved in the process for this project June 16th Rodizio Grill - Major issue with the trucks on Jefferson including: o Speed of trucks o Vibration from the trucks o Dirt and dust caused by the trucks and debris falling from trucks o Clipping of cars parked in front of the restaurant causes lost side mirrors o Dangerous situation with people walking across Jefferson at or near Pine Street - Would like to see trucks eliminated or reduced on Jefferson - Supportive of the 3 lane option with full medians - Supportive of improved pedestrian safety particularly at the Pine Street intersection - Does not consider the corridor to be bike friendly, would rather see pedestrian improvements - Not supportive of the roundabout, unless the intent is to discourage through trucks - Wants to slow down traffic, improve the pedestrian environment, improving the safety of pedestrians crossing Jefferson and the idea of landscaping in the median - Likes the idea of the inset parking in front of the restaurant - Concerned about Jefferson Park, and the perception of safety and security, and how the current situation discourage the connection (walking) to Linden and the River District - They desire to be highly involved in the project moving forward 6 October 17th, 2011: Public Open House The open house was held on Thursday October 17, 2011 from 4 to 7 pm at the Bas Bleu Theater. There were approximately 15 to 20 people in attendance representing business and property owners as well as residents from the project area. Results of the comment sheets are summarized below; - [In support of the 3-lane option] Lanes should be reduced for safety - [In support of the roundabout] Slow traffic down ,currently trucks and cares race to beat light or trucks run through lights - [In support of the 3-lane option] The third lane is needed for conditions when traffic backs up due to the train however it should be made into parking on weekends and evenings when truck traffic decreases dramatically. - [ In support of the signalized intersection] Pedestrian access is simplified. Alternatives need to be developed that have the gateway amenities of the roundabout with a conventional intersection. - Parking in the park east of Rodizio is listed but needs to be shown and implemented as part of the cost of the project to mitigate the loss of parking on Jefferson and to facilitate pedestrian access across Jefferson. - [In support of the 3 lane option] Makes strong improvements. - [In support of the signalized intersection option] Signalized intersections are far superior in pedestrian intensive areas. Roundabouts should be reserved for rural or primarily automobile environments. - Please provide striping for pedestrians at Pine and Chestnut to help slow traffic and provide pedestrian activity. - [In support of the 3-lane option] Less intrusion to existing businesses. - [In support of the roundabout option] Traffic calming. - Take into consideration pedestrians of all ages and disabilities. - [In support of the 3-lane option] As much as the City has done to improve roads and circulation, Jefferson has been woefully neglected for vehicular, pedestrian and bike safety, now is the time to renovate this very busy and unsafe street. - [In support of the roundabout] It makes sense - plain and simple!! Delays are shorter, movement is easier, it's environmentally better!! Other comments (recorded by staff): - Manager of Rodizio Grill expressed concern over the loss of left turns into his parking lot. - Representative from local trucking interest was present. He is supportive of the 3-lane option but not the roundabout, primarily due to safety concerns. Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation Planning, Development & Transportation Attachment 7: Copy of City Council Work Session Summary MEMORANDUM DATE: August 11, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers THROUGH: Darin Atteberry, City Manager Diane Jones, Deputy City Manager/Policy, Planning, and Transportation Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Joe Frank, Advance Planning Director FROM: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning Director Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner RE: AUGUST 9, 2011 WORK SESSION SUMMARY – JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE This memorandum provides a summary of the City Council Work Session discussion from August 9, 2011 regarding the Jefferson Street Project Update. Attendees: City Council: Mayor Karen Weitkunat, Mayor Pro-Tem Kelly Ohlson, Councilmember Ben Manvel, Councilmember Aislinn Kottwitz, Councilmember Gerry Horak City Staff: Darin Atteberry, Diane Jones, Bruce Hendee, Karen Cumbo, Joe Frank, Kathleen Bracke, Aaron Iverson, Mark Jackson, Matt Robenalt (Downtown Development Authority), and Carrie Wallis (Atkins consultants). Discussion Summary  City Council provided comments and suggestions to staff regarding the proposed Jefferson Street corridor and intersection alternatives.  Jefferson Street project is important community project for this major transportation corridor as well as the opportunities to provide connectivity between Downtown/Old Town and the River District and change the character of the area.  Discussed multimodal transportation improvements needed as well as the importance of Jefferson Street to serve as a community gateway into Downtown, Old Town, River District, and Lincoln corridor.  Currently, Jefferson Street acts as a barrier to people trying to move between Downtown/Old Town and the River District.  General agreement among Council regarding the proposed three lane alternative with raised, landscaped medians.  Important to support high quality, pedestrian environment.  Discussed how bicyclists would be served by the proposed alternatives, including wayfinding and system improvements to support cyclists using alternative routes such as Willow and Walnut streets  Discussed characteristics of roundabouts in general as well as the proposed roundabout alternative for the intersection of Jefferson Street/Mountain Avenue. Follow-up Items:  Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and potential business impacts.  Council requested additional data regarding roundabout performance, including projections for these locations as well as data from other local roundabouts (before and after data).  Additional data requested by Council regarding comparative safety analysis of intersection alternatives, in particular for the roundabout option, as well as costs for improvements for both capital and operations/maintenance, parking impacts, and potential business impacts.  Intersection analysis of both alternatives needs to consider cost/benefit and factor in safety, air quality, delay, urban design opportunities, etc.  Project team needs to research possible design solutions for addressing truck noise along corridor.  Consider potential for shared off-street path for pedestrians and cyclists. Staff appreciates the opportunity to discuss the Jefferson Street project with the City Council and received valuable feedback and direction for the project. The project team will be working to address Council’s feedback and suggestions as part of the next steps of the Jefferson Street project. For more information regarding the project, please visit: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php 1 Attachment 8: Union Pacific Railroad Letter 2 1 Attachment 9: Colorado Department of Transportation Letter 2 Transportation Planning & Special Projects 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522.0580 970.224.6058 970.221.6239 - fax fcgov.com/transportation Planning, Development & Transportation Jefferson Street “Frequently Asked Questions” Revised 2-22-12 Why Improve Jefferson Street? Jefferson Street is an important corridor for our community – it serves an important local and regional transportation function as well as is a central linkage between the existing Downtown & Old Town area and the emerging River District. In particular, the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue is a main gateway into Downtown from the regional highway system (SH14) as well as to the Lincoln Avenue corridor serving existing neighborhoods and emerging businesses and craft breweries. Improving Jefferson Street is important to address the existing and planned land use and multimodal transportation needs for our community as well as to support the continued economic vitality of Downtown and surrounding areas – creating an environment that is welcoming, safe, attractive, and enjoyable. The purpose of the Jefferson Street project is to improve the air quality, livability, and urban character of the Jefferson Street Corridor while enhancing the experience for pedestrians, bikes, and transit and maintaining mobility of autos and trucks. What is included in the Jefferson Street Alternatives Analysis Study and who is involved? The Jefferson Street/SH14 Alternatives Analysis Study is a joint effort of the City of Fort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The project team is supported by Atkins consultants. This Alternatives Analysis Study includes the development and evaluation of a thorough set of design options for the Jefferson Street/SH14 corridor, including the intersection of Jefferson and Mountain/Lincoln Avenue, and the intersection of Jefferson and Linden streets. What is an Alternatives Analysis Study? This “Alternatives Analysis Study” includes the development and evaluation of many options such as traditional street and intersection designs, roundabouts, and other innovative, context- sensitive design solutions based upon local, state, and national best-practices. These various alternatives are evaluated and compared to determine which option(s) best accomplish the purpose of the project. Examples of the types of factors that the project team considers in evaluating the alternatives include:  Existing and future traffic conditions ATTACHMENT 10  Safety, mobility & accessibility for all modes of travel (cars, trucks, pedestrian, bicyclists)  Impact to local businesses and properties  Parking  Railroad operations  Other factors based upon input from the project team, stakeholders and public. The goal of the study is to determine a “preferred alternative” for the Jefferson Street corridor from College to Mountain avenues as well as for the intersection of Jefferson Street and Mountain Avenue. What are the different alternatives considered for the Jefferson Street study? Corridor Alternatives The project team has developed a set of conceptual alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor project to address the project purpose, goals, and objectives.  The corridor alternatives include “3 lane” options for Jefferson Street between North College Avenue and Mountain Avenue. One of the “3 lane” options includes raised, landscaped medians and the other includes designated on-street bicycle lanes instead of the medians (both the medians and bikelanes do not fit within the available corridor width). The “3 lane” options include two auto travel lanes in the northwest bound direction and one travel lane in the southeast bound direction. The determination for which direction has the two lanes versus the one lane was made based on traffic analysis as well as the need to maximize on-street parking opportunities along the “Old Town” side of Jefferson Street. The “3 lane” options include streetscape, urban design, and gateway improvements along the corridor and at the intersections. In addition, the 3 lane options allow for more functional on-street parking because there is enough width to provide a safety buffer area between the parked cars and the vehicle travel lanes. The 3 lane options also allow for opportunities to improve the transit stops along Jefferson. See Figure 1.  The project team has developed a “4 lane” option which shows two lanes in each direction on Jefferson Street between North College and Mountain Avenue which is very similar to how Jefferson looks today. Due to the width required for standard travel lanes, there is limited space remaining for other project elements such as on-street parking/buffer areas, medians, and/or streetscape improvements.  The team has also provided a combination “3 & 4 lane” option that includes 3 lanes between North College Avenue and Linden Street and then shows the 4 lane option between Linden and Mountain. Figure 1: 3-Lane Option with Median Intersection Alternatives The project team has also developed two alternatives for both the Jefferson/Linden intersection and the Jefferson/Mountain intersection. Jefferson/Linden intersection options include: 1) keeping the existing designated left turn lanes for vehicles to turn left off of Jefferson Street to Linden Street, or 2) removing the left turn lanes to create more opportunities for on-street parking and provide raised medians to serve as pedestrian refuge islands at the intersection. Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside intersection options include: 1) improving the existing signalized intersection, or 2) designing a new roundabout intersection alternative. Figure2: Intersection Options at Jefferson/Mountain/Lincoln/Riverside In addition to being designed to work for autos, bicyclists, and pedestrians, all of the corridor and intersection alternatives are designed to accommodate the largest trucks allowed to use Jefferson Street/State Highway 14 as well as to turn on and off of Jefferson Street to/from Lincoln Avenue and Mountain Avenue. This is very important because Jefferson Street/SH14 is a state- designated truck route as well as the local businesses and industrial uses within the River District and along Lincoln Avenue rely on this route for their local truck access. Signalized Roundabout The project team has also developed the intersection alternatives in relationship to the existing Union Pacific railroad tracks. Based on historic data, there are approximately six trains per day that cross Lincoln Avenue. The trains block the street for an average of approximately three minutes and train activity varies by time of day, with most trains occurring between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.. With the signalized option, traffic would function like it does today when the train is approaching and when it is present. With the roundabout option, it is a newer type of configuration and the City and CDOT will need to work with the Union Pacific railroad and the Colorado Public Utilities Commission to determine the specific improvements that will be needed to manage traffic when a train is approaching and present. These types of improvements could include different types of railroad gates, signs, and/or signals. The details for the train crossing improvements will need to be determined during the more –detailed engineering phase of the project. What are the Project Team’s Recommendations To-Date? The project team is now in the evaluation phase of the project which includes analyzing and screening the various alternatives for the Jefferson Street corridor as well as the intersections. Based on the technical analysis as well as community outreach efforts to-date, the project team is recommending the 3 lane corridor option with a raised, landscaped median. The team feels that the 3 lane option will offer the most benefits related to the project’s diverse goals. Even though it does not include designated bicycle lanes, cyclists can still ride the corridor by taking the lane or traveling through the area on one of the less busy streets such as Walnut or Willow streets. Regarding the Jefferson/Linden intersection alternatives, the team’s preference is to keep the designated left turn lanes open for drivers to turn off of Jefferson on to Linden Street. These turning movements are important to support the local businesses along Linden Street and assist with Downtown circulation patterns and to avoid left turning vehicles from blocking southeast bound traffic. Regarding the Jefferson/Mountain intersection alternatives, both the roundabout and the signalized intersection options offer advantages and disadvantages in achieving the project goals. This intersection provides an opportunity for multimodal transportation improvements as well as urban design and gateway features to welcome people traveling by all of modes of transportation into the Downtown and River District areas. The staff recommendation for the Jefferson/Riverside and Lincoln/Mountain intersection is for the roundabout alternative. The analysis shows that both intersection options operate well, and the roundabout provides more opportunity to transform the entry way into Downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Through high quality urban design and landscaping opportunity, the roundabout option can help transform the corridor to create a more welcoming gateway and sense of place that connects Downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Avenue corridor. Community feedback on all of these alternatives is very important, particularly given the general interests and concerns about roundabouts as well as the specific challenges for this location given the proximity to the Union Pacific (UP) rail tracks. How is the preferred alternative determined and when? Final decision will come through technical analysis, community input, and direction from Boards such as the Transportation Board/Bicycle Advisory Committee, Planning & Zoning Board, and Downtown Development Authority (DDA) Board of Directors as well as the City Council. The City Council will make the final decision about the preferred alternative for the Jefferson Street corridor and intersections. The Jefferson Street project seeks to balance interests from different agencies and organizations including the City, CDOT, DDA, Colorado Motor Carriers Association, Union Pacific Railroad, local business/property owners, regional considerations, and the general public. This challenging project must overcome differences to find a solution that benefits each stakeholder to the greatest degree possible, and find mutually beneficial outcomes or agreed upon compromises to achieve the project objectives. The goal of the project is to reach consensus among the project partners – City, DDA, and CDOT – on the selection of the preferred corridor and intersection alternative(s) by March/April 2012. Is the City going to install a roundabout at the intersection of Jefferson and Mountain? The City, DDA, and CDOT are currently in the process of evaluating two potential alternatives for this intersection – the roundabout option or an option that includes improvements to the existing signalized intersection. Factors being considered include how each alternative performs from a transportation perspective – taking into account the many cars, trucks, bicyclists, and pedestrians that use this intersection – as well as the urban design elements (landscaping, lighting, streetscape improvements), costs, proximity to the railroad tracks, and potential business/property impacts. These are all very important factors and the project team is taking all of these concerns into consideration when evaluating the potential corridor and intersection improvements along Jefferson Street. The urban design elements are very important to ensure that the physical infrastructure investments made along this corridor and at this important gateway are attractive, safe, and welcoming to people and serve to support the economic vitality and lifestyle of our Downtown and surrounding areas. The project team has presented another round of public updates regarding the Jefferson Street project to the community, Boards (Transportation Board, Planning & Zoning Board, Downtown Development Authority Board, etc.), and City Council in February 2012 and welcome the feedback from citizens and business/property owners throughout this process. We want to listen to community concerns and questions about the various alternatives being considered for the Jefferson Street corridor and intersection at Mountain Avenue. This community feedback will also be shared with the Boards and City Council as part of the decision making process for this project. When will we see changes happening along Jefferson Street? The Jefferson Street study also includes the development of a proposed implementation phasing plan. The implementation plan will suggest timelines for construction to be funded by the existing project budget, and it will identify potential financing strategies for any additional funds needed to complete the preferred corridor alternative. The phasing and implementation plan, along with the proposed funding strategies, will be developed by the project team and presented to the community and agency partners as part of project outreach efforts in Spring 2012. Implementation of the Jefferson Street improvements can move forward beginning in mid-2012 based upon approval of the corridor plan and study recommendations. This work will include the engineering, final design, and Right of Way acquisition based upon the selected preferred alternative. It is important to have this engineering work completed as soon as possible to help the project be competitive for future construction funding sources (local, state, & federal). The schedule for construction of the Jefferson Street corridor improvements will be based upon the approved preferred alternative and implementation/phasing plan as well as the available funding. It could be 5-10+ years before the Jefferson Street improvements are completed due to the amount of funding required for the corridor and intersection improvements. In addition, the timing of the transportation improvements will need to be coordinated with a major City Utilities project. How much funding is there for the Jefferson Street project at this time? The Jefferson Street project budget is comprised of a combination of City ($250,000), DDA ($500,000), and federal Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality (CMAQ) funding ($1 million). The majority of the project budget (approximately $1.3 million) will be used toward implementation of planned improvements as determined by the study recommendation(s). How do I find out more information? The project includes an extensive public involvement effort comprised of individual and small group meetings with business/property owners, public open house events, meetings with City Boards, City Council and the DDA. If you have questions or comments about the Jefferson Street project, please contact: Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director, office (970) 224-6140 or via e-mail: kbracke@fcgov.com or Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner, office (970) 416-2643 or via e-mail: aiverson@fcgov.com Information about the Jefferson Street Alternatives can also be found on the City’s web site at fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson. Here you will find project history, updates, public meeting details, an e-newsletter sign up, and information about Jefferson Street as part of the River District Area. 1 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE February 2012 2 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE • Purpose of the City Council Worksession is: – Present project update – Share draft alternatives & findings – Share feedback received to-date from project partners & community ATTACHMENT 11 2 3 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE • Questions for City Council: – What input would City Council like to share regarding the intersection alternatives? – Is there additional information that City Council would like to see regarding the Alternatives Analysis Study and/or the project process? 4 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Recommendations? When and how much $? Who, What, Why? Corridor Alternatives? Intersection Alternatives? Overview 3 5 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE City of Fort Collins Downtown Development Authority Colorado Department of Transportation Many other stakeholders and participants Who? 6 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE What? 4 7 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Goal 1 - safe and efficient travel Goal 2 - urban character and vitality Goal 3 - environmental Why? 8 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Corridor Alternatives 4-Lane 3-Lane: Bike Lanes 3-Lane: Medians 5 9 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Recommendation Corridor 3-Lane: Medians 8’ 6’ 12’ 8’ 12’ 12’ 10 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Intersection Alternatives Signalized or Roundabout Keep left turn lanes or Remove left turn lanes Pine St. Linden St. Chestnut St. Lincoln Ave. Mountain Ave. College Ave. 6 11 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Intersection Alternatives Recommendation: Keep left turn lanes at Linden Recommendation: Keep left turn lanes at Linden 12 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Safety Level of Service Truck Operations Railroad Operations Bikes and Pedestrians Special Event Management Air Quality Benefits Public Support Gateway Feature Potential Construction Property Impacts Operations & Maintenance CDOT Coordination Perception Peterson Street Corridor Alternative Compatibility Comparative Evaluation Jefferson & Mountain Intersection 7 13 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Signalized Alternative Jefferson Lincoln Riverside Mountain = Landscape Area = Pavers or Colored Concrete Jefferson & Mountain Intersection 14 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Artist Rendering signalized 8 15 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Roundabout Alternative Jefferson Lincoln Riverside Mountain = Landscape Area = Pavers or Colored Concrete Jefferson & Mountain Intersection 16 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Artist Rendering roundabout 9 17 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln Comparative Evaluation Measure Signalized Roundabout  Safety Good safety history as signalized, expected to continue No significant change in accident rate. Roundabouts in general provide lower conflict points and crash severity  Overall Intersection Level of Service * LOS B, 16 – 17 seconds of delay estimated LOS B, 13 – 23 seconds of delay estimated  Truck Operations Would operate similar to current conditions 6 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 13 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB, Median design needs to accommodate truck turning movements Designed to accommodate largest truck type allowed. 12 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle SEB, 15 – 21 sec. of delay/vehicle NWB  Railroad Operations No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Uncertain, potential need for gates to clear roundabout, potential denial by PUC  Bikes and Pedestrians No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Requires additional design considerations, possible PROWAG / ADA compliance  Special Event Management Similar to current conditions Uncertain, may perform poorly when trucks re-route from I-80 18 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln Comparative Evaluation Measure Signalized Roundabout  Air Quality Benefits No expected impacts, would operate similar to current conditions Provides air quality savings, varies on range of delay reduced  Public Support Support from truck industry and those who do not like roundabouts in general Support from some Jefferson Street business, some public support from and DDA. CDOT neutral  Gateway Feature Potential Similar to current conditions, could provide features at corners & medians (estimated 9,800 square feet of landscape space) Provides strong gateway feature (estimated 12,300 square feet of landscape space)  Construction Estimated to cost $2.7 million Estimated to cost $4.3 million to $5.3 million, depending on extent of property impacts  Property Impacts Minimal Moderate to major impacts, with the potential 10 19 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Jefferson/Riverside & Mountain/Lincoln Comparative Evaluation Measure Signalized Roundabout  CDOT No issues Requires IGA  Perception No issues ‐ If operation issues arise, fear impact to future roundabout projects in other areas ‐ Public learning curve for new intersection type  Peterson Street No issues May require closing or changing to right in right out at Peterson Street access to Mountain Ave, depending on final design. Poudre Fire Authority strongly prefers Peterson Street not be closed.  Compatibility with Corridor Alternative Requires allowing u-turns, additional intersection width may be needed to allow u- turns Facilitates u-turns 20 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Staff Recommendation Jefferson & Mountain Intersection Provides good traffic circulation Provides air quality benefits Roundabouts have strong safety features Provides more opportunity to transform the entry way into Downtown, the River District and the Lincoln Corridor. 11 21 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Pine St. Linden St. Chestnut St. Mountain Ave. How Much $? $ 2.2 million $ 2.3 million $ 2.7 million: signalized $4.3 to 5.3 million: roundabout College Ave. Total corridor (without Jefferson/Mtn intersection) = $4.5 million Total project with signalized at Jefferson / Mtn = $7.2 million Total project with roundabout at Jefferson / Mtn. = $8.8 to 9.8 million 22 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE When? 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015+ Study Start Alternatives Development Study Complete Engineering for Preferred Alternative Construction* *Depends on funding and coordination with utilities project 12 23 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Public Outreach Board of County Commissioners February 21st, 9:00 am Jefferson Business Owners February 15th, 3-5 pm Public Open House February 16th, 4-7 pm City Council Work Session February 28th, 6:00 pm Planning & Zoning Board February 16th, 7-9 pm Transportation Board February 15th, 7:00 pm Economic Advisory Commission February 15th, 11:00 am Bicycle Advisory Committee February 13th, 6:00 pm Planning & Zoning Board February 10th, 12:00 pm Downtown Development Authority February 9th, 7:30 am UniverCity Connections February 7th, 7:30 am Meetings Date 24 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE • Next Steps – Prepare Draft Jefferson Alternatives Analysis Study Report based on input (March) – Present Draft Report to Community, Boards & Commissions (April) – Present Report to City Council (April/May) – Based on selected preferred alternative, implementation next steps can proceed: • Engineering/Design/ROW (2012-2013/14) • Construction (2014/15 +, depends upon funding & coordination with major underground utilities project) 13 25 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE • Questions for City Council: – What input would City Council like to share regarding the intersection alternatives? – Is there additional information that City Council would like to see regarding the Alternatives Analysis Study and/or the project process? 26 JEFFERSON STREET PROJECT UPDATE Kathleen Bracke, Transportation Planning & Special Projects Director kbracke@fcgov.com or ph: 224.6140 Aaron Iverson, Senior Transportation Planner aiverson@fcgov.com or ph: 416.2643 Project website: http://www.fcgov.com/riverdistrict/jefferson.php Information DATE: February 28, 2012 STAFF: Mike Beckstead Lawrence Pollack Pre-taped staff presentation: none WORK SESSION ITEM FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Keep Fort Collins Great Tax 2011 First Annual Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On November 2, 2010, the voters approved a 0.85% increase in the City’s sales and use tax rate which has been identified as the Keep Fort Collins Great tax. The tax increase includes provisions stating: (1) how the dollars will be allocated to specific programs; (2) the tax will sunset after 10 years; and (3) a requirement that the City Manager report annually to City Council on how the revenues are used and the cost saving measures that were undertaken by the City each year. This work session is to fulfill the third requirement by giving a report to City Council providing information on the 2011 Keep Fort Collins Great tax revenue. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED The purpose of this work session is to present the Keep Fort Collins Great Tax 2011 first Annual Report as required by the voter approved ballot initiative. BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION On July 27, 2010, City Council approved Resolution 2010-047 submitting a proposed 0.85% increase in the City’s sales and use tax rate to the voters. This was considered on the November 2, 2010 General Election Ballot and was subsequently approved by the voters. The tax increase includes the following provisions: • An increase of .85% (or 8.5 cents on a $10 purchase) • The additional revenue will be allocated in the following manner: N 33% for street maintenance and repair N 17% for other street and transportation needs N 17% for police services N 11% for fire services N 11% for parks maintenance and recreation services N 11% for other community priorities as determined by City Council. February 28, 2012 Page 2 • The increase will commence January 1, 2011 and sunset after 10 years, ending at midnight on December 31, 2020. • The increase will yield an estimated $18.7 million in the first full year of collection Additionally, the ballot language requires the City Manager to report annually to City Council on how the revenues are used and the cost saving measures that were undertaken by the City each year. Accordingly, the Keep Fort Collins Great fund was created to record all revenue and expenditures of this increased tax rate and thus facilitate the reporting requirements. City Council has received periodic updates throughout 2011 which have reported on the status of the Keep Fort Collins Great offers included in the budget. This work session is intended to fulfill the requirement for an annual report to City Council on how the revenues are used and the cost saving measures that were undertaken by the City. ATTACHMENTS 1. Keep Fort Collins Great 2011 Offer Recap memo 2. Powerpoint presentation City Manager’s Office City Hall 300 LaPorte Ave. PO Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522 970.221.6505 970.224.6107 - fax fcgov.com M E M O R A N D U M DATE: February 23, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Darin Atteberry, City Manager CC: Executive Lead Team RE: Keep Fort Collins Great 2011 Offer Recap Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG) tax revenue was originally forecasted to generate $18.7 million of Governmental Fund revenue in 2011. Taxable sales came in greater than budgeted and generated total 2011 KFCG revenue of $19.9 million. As of December 31, 2011 $13.5 million had been spent or encumbered (purchase order commitment). KFCG revenue in excess of expenses and encumbrances determines the KFCG year end fund balance within each of the ballot language categories. That fund balance is available for future budget requests. Thanks to revenue from KFCG, the City is able to improve street maintenance, invest in public safety, maintain our high quality parks and recreation facilities and programs, and address other community priorities. KFCG has also allowed the City to preserve many services eliminated in the original 2011- 2012 Budget recommendation or in past budgets. Attachment 1 provides details regarding all KFCG offers including 2011 expenditures and/or encumbrances through December. Notable highlights include: Street Maintenance (33% of revenue)  Resurfacing of Conifer from College to Lemay  Resurfacing of East Horsetooth from College to Timberline  Resurfacing of West Drake Road from Meadowlark to the railroad tracks  Resurfacing of Riverside Drive from Prospect to Lemay  Resurfacing of Linden from Jefferson to Vine  Resurfacing of Boardwalk from Harmony to Landings  Hot Applied Chip Overlay of Vine Drive from Lemay to Interstate 25  Patching and slurry seal application in Meadowlark area  Concrete patching for 2012 slurry seal application in Parkwood East  Concrete patching in preparation of resurfacing in Hampshire Square area in 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 2 of 16 Other Transportation (17% of revenue)  Design of the South Shields Street bridge near Rolland Moore is complete and construction is slated for Fall 2012  Construction of the Laporte-Whitcomb Bridge will begin in Spring, 2012  Because of federal grant support of the two projects above, KFCG dollars were used to fund the design of two other high priority bridge projects, Prospect and West Mulberry bridges  Through December 2011, 1,433 evening trips were provided with KFCG funds Police (17% of revenue)  All authorized KFCG police officer positions have been hired  6 police officers have graduated from training; 13 remain in training  3 Investigative Aide positions were filled  A Police Services Technician position has been filled, allowing for increased service at the downtown substation  A detective sergeant and two detectives have been added  A patrol lieutenant and a patrol sergeant position have been added to focus on community policing and downtown issues Fire (11% of revenue)  A new South Battalion was implemented on July 11, 2011 to improve response time on the south end of Fort Collins  One 4-person company and one Incident Safety Officer per shift (3) will be added in 2012 to increase efficiency and safety Parks and Recreation (11% of revenue)  Leveraging KFCG funding allowed the City to construct a new section of trail, including an underpass at CR 38E, connecting the Spring Creek and Fossil Creek Trails  All teen, youth and after-school programs at the Northside Aztlan Community Center are supported by KFCG  Phase I of the Veteran’s Plaza is complete Other Community Priorities (11% of revenue)  Increased solid waste/recycling outreach and data reporting  $140,000 investment in Poudre River capital restoration  Sustainability improvements, including 10 solar bins installed in Downtown core locations and 24 solar thermal panels added to EPIC  The Mediation Program is 100% funded by KFCG and has provided conflict resolution and/or referrals to 439 cases and conducted 36 mediations There is a second part of the annual KFCG reporting requirements on the major cost saving and efficiencies that were realized during the year. That information will be included in Tuesday's read- before packet. Page 3 of 16 Attachment 1 Keep Fort Collins Great Offer Detail The specific details of each offer appear below and are grouped by the ballot initiative categories: Street Maintenance, Other Transportation, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, and Other Community Priorities. Within each designation the offers are sorted by Outcome. Each offer also includes the offer number so that you can reference them in the budget document. Please note that the expense amounts include purchase orders that have been opened, although the associated work may not yet have been completed. Street Maintenance (33%) Transportation Street Maintenance and Repair (Offer 127.22) 2011 Original Budget: $6,171,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $6,171,000 2012 Original Budget: $6,349,959  The expense shown is money encumbered for contractors for street maintenance work to be done this year.  Please refer to the list of completed projects above. Other Transportation (17%) Economic Health Downtown Parking / Parking Structure Study (Offer 8.6) 2011 Original Budget: $80,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $78,424 2012 Original Budget: $0  Encumbered funds support consultant services, modeling, and data collection.  The study will address key Downtown parking issues dealing with parking management and the need for new parking infrastructure.  City Council is scheduled to be updated on February 28, 2012. Old Town Parking Garage Maintenance (Offer 111.8) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $87,065 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  The lighting fixtures that were at the end of their useful life were replaced with energy- efficient fixtures throughout the garage. Landscaping, stairway repairs, and other minor maintenance items were completed in 2011. The canopy work scheduled for 2011 will be completed in 2012. We are currently prioritizing the list of maintenance projects for 2012. Safe Community Downtown Handicap Parking Spaces (Offer 112.2) 2011 Original Budget: $15,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $15,000 2012 Original Budget: $15,000  Six new spaces on College Avenue were installed and/or refurbished. Repairs to handicap spaces in the two Downtown parking structures were completed. Work on additional spaces and needed refurbishments will begin in the spring of 2012. Page 4 of 16 Bicycle Safety and Education Plan Implementation (Offer 116.2) 2011 Original Budget: $50,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $48,876 2012 Original Budget: $50,000  Bicycle Safety and Education Plan (BSEP) approved by City Council in March 2011 and an implementation work plan developed in May.  Funding has covered bike safety materials (helmets, lights, banners), Bike Safety Town planning, and bicycle safety education classes in partnership with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Education Coalition. New part-time Safe Routes to School Coordinator hired in December 2011 per BSEP. Transportation Median Maintenance – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 104.3) 2011 Original Budget: $39,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $39,000 2012 Original Budget: $39,000  The median maintenance contract was extended one month and repairs and renovations have been completed. Harmony Road - Enhanced Travel Corridor Plan (Offer 113.4) 2011 Original Budget: $75,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $75,000 2012 Original Budget: $75,000  This study will analyze transportation alternatives to address access and mobility, and recommend improvements to support the City’s goals of integrating land use and transportation with economic development and environmental stewardship along the Harmony Corridor. – Consultant selected in December 2011 – Project overview memo sent to City Council in February 2012. – Project begins third quarter 2011 through the end of 2012. – First public meeting to be held in April/May 2012. City Bicycle Coordinator/FC Bikes/Bike Library (Offer 113.6) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $80,613  In 2011 the City Bicycle Coordinator, FC Bikes and the Bike Library are funded by the General Fund, as well as by state/federal grants. KFCG funds will be used to support these programs in 2012. Transportation Capital and Master Plan Implementation (Offer 114.3) 2011 Original Budget: $345,031 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $77,006 2012 Original Budget: $350,000  Projects include (some not completed): – Skyway Transit Stop & Adjoining Sidewalk Improvements – Drake-Redwing Pedestrian Traffic Signal Improvements – Transfort South Transfer Center Bus Pad Concrete Improvements – TIGER III Grant Application (Drake – BNSF RR Grade Separation) – North College Improvements, Phase III (Conifer to Willow Design) – Mason Trail – Troutman Bike-Pedestrian Underpass Supplemental – Miscellaneous Pedestrian Sidewalk and Ramp Repairs Page 5 of 16 Reinstatement of Traffic Signal Technician (Offer 117.5) 2011 Original Budget: $65,689 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $22,948 2012 Original Budget: $67,634  Position was hired and worked on signal maintenance projects. Significant projects include: – Upgraded conduit at multiple locations – Replaced pole at Loomis and Mulberry – Installed Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon at Sherwood and Laurel Traffic Sign Replacement Program (Offer 117.7) 2011 Original Budget: $10,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $10,000 2012 Original Budget: $30,000  This offer supports a portion of the City’s ongoing traffic sign replacement program; signs are installed throughout the year. Streets & Traffic Ops Capital Equip Replacement –Prior Year Reductions (Offer 117.19) 2011 Original Budget: $336,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $336,000 2012 Original Budget: $564,000  Equipment purchased includes pothole patcher, saw trailer, two-way radio upgrade, snow plow and sander for utility truck.  Funding also supported new electrical conduit and rewired traffic signals for video detection at College & Mountain, College & Olive, and College & Mulberry; new pedestrian buttons were also installed at those intersections. Transfort / Dial-A-Ride Night Service (Offer 131.12) 2011 Original Budget: $44,150 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $36,649 2012 Original Budget: $45,476  Through December 2011, 1,433 evening trips were provided with KFCG funds. Transfort Operations-Restore Saturday Service (Offer 131.25) 2011 Original Budget: $150,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $150,000 2012 Original Budget: $150,000  Through December 2011, KFCG funding has paid for 3,977 bus operator hours, $34,500 in vehicle preventive maintenance charges, and $21,000 in fuel charges. Transfort Operations: Marketing – Restored (Offer 131.28) 2011 Original Budget: $55,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $21,134 2012 Original Budget: $55,000  Completed design, printing, and distribution of newly formatted 2011 bus schedules.  Planned marketing activities with remaining funds from 2011 include print and media advertising, design and printing of promotional materials, education and outreach activities, additional bus schedules, and specific route promotion events. Street Oversizing Capital Expansion Fee Program (Offer 146.5) 2011 Original Budget: $300,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $152,690 2012 Original Budget: $400,000  These funds are designated to cover the City’s portion of the arterial and collector roadways built as part of developments.  Approximately $150,000 was spent in 2011 on replacing traffic signals on arterial streets.  The balance will be used in 2012 for construction of Turnberry Road, done in conjunction with the developer’s contribution. Page 6 of 16 City Bridge Program (Offer 146.13) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $564,931 South Shields Street Bridge Over Larimer Canal No. 2 (Offer 146.14) 2011 Original Budget: $1,500,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $201,584 2012 Original Budget: $0  Expenditures to date have been for the design of the Shields bridge; construction is slated for Fall 2012.  In December 2010, the City was awarded federal grant funding to cover 80% of the cost of replacing two bridges, one being the Shields bridge near Rolland Moore. Receiving the federal grant presented an opportunity to re-appropriate the 2011 KFCG allocation and use those funds for the design of two other high priority bridge projects (Prospect and West Mulberry bridges), and to accelerate construction of the Laporte Bridge project to 2012. Laporte-Whitcomb Bridge Replacement (Offer 146.15) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $670,000  The City was awarded federal grant funding to cover 80% of the cost of replacing two bridges, the Shields bridge mentioned above and the Laporte-Whitcomb bridge. Due to this grant, the Laporte-Whitcomb bridge construction will start in 2012. As referenced earlier, the $670,000 of KFCG funds originally intended for the Laporte-Whitcomb bridge will be redirected to fund one of the high priority bridge projects being designed in 2012. Surveying – Restored (Offer 146.25) 2011 Original Budget: $14,130 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $13,679 2012 Original Budget: $14,537  Expenditures to date cover 20% of the cost of the Engineering technician position that was restored after a proposed budget cut.  The 2011-2012 budget reflects the restoration of this position to a full time equivalent (FTE), rather than .8 FTE  This has allowed the Engineering customer service counter to be staffed five days a week Police (17%) Safe Community Five Information Services Dispatchers and Police Report Specialist (Offer 17.5) 2011 Original Budget: $457,677 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $31,257 2012 Original Budget: $445,182  1 Police Services Technician position has been filled and is working. This allowed an increase in service to the public at the downtown substation.  The hiring process is underway to select five dispatch call takers. Page 7 of 16 Seven Detectives, Three Investigative Aides & .75 Victim Services Advocate (Offer 18.7) 2011 Original Budget: $1,219,717 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $320,045 2012 Original Budget: $1,102,511  3 Investigative Aide positions are working in investigative units.  Two detectives have been added to the Criminal Impact Unit.  A detective sergeant has been promoted to the newly created Crime Scene Team. Two detectives will be selected to staff that unit in the near future.  The .75 FTE Victim Services Advocate position was funded during the 2011-2012 BFO process. We have upgraded that position to an additional Investigative Aide to be assigned to the Crime Scene Team. Twelve Patrol Officers (Offer 19.6) 2011 Original Budget: $1,501,606 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $900,280 2012 Original Budget: $1,631,307  All of the KFCG officers have been hired.  We are moving forward with the creation of a Neighborhood Enforcement Team to provide better service to neighborhoods.  We have added staffing to the District One team to work on downtown issues.  We have added a lieutenant and a sergeant to manage community policing and special events. Fire (11%) Safe Community Contribution to PFA ongoing (Offer 132.7) 2011 Original Budget: $1,563,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $833,590 2012 Original Budget: $1,622,653  One 4-person company (Three firefighters are currently in the recruit academy for these positions)  One Incident Safety Officer per shift (Three firefighters are currently in the recruit academy for these positions)  Maintenance for Stations 1-4  Replacement of two positions vacated through attrition  Equipment for newly hired firefighters PFA South Battalion (Offer 132.8) 2011 Original Budget: $494,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $523,214 2012 Original Budget: $494,000  The South Battalion was implemented on July 11, 2011 including: – Firefighters for South Battalion and coverage – Captains and Battalion Chiefs promoted – Other expenditures, including motor vehicles and professional services – Battalion Chief response time south of Drake has improved from 18% arrival in 8 minutes prior to implementation of the south battalion to 74% arrival in 8 minutes following implementation. – Expenses and/or encumbrances greater than budget are still within the total KFCG appropriation for PFA. Page 8 of 16 Parks and Recreation (11%) Culture, Parks and Recreation Reinstate Clerical Position at the Senior Center (Offer 60.3) 2011 Original Budget: $55,847 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $30,348 2012 Original Budget: $57,588  Position hired April 11. Adult Programs/Senior Center – Restored (Offer 60.8) 2011 Original Budget: $250,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $207,315 2012 Original Budget: $250,000  Classified position hired July 11.  Expenses allow for continued service levels, programs and hours of operation.  Allowed replacement of worn and broken equipment. Farm at Lee Martinez Park – Restored (Offer 60.10) 2011 Original Budget: $30,858 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $28,971 2012 Original Budget: $31,659  Funds are being used to maintain service levels, animal care and facility maintenance. Northside Aztlan Community Center – Restored (Offer 61.6) 2011 Original Budget: $141,091 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $129,711 2012 Original Budget: $340,759  Maintained 2010 service levels, program offerings and hours of operation. Restore Northside Aztlan Community Center Customer Service Position (Offer 61.9) 2011 Original Budget: $45,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $26,026 2012 Original Budget: $45,000  Position hired April 4. Recreational Scholarship Funding (Offer 62.2) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $100,000 2012 Original Budget: $120,000  Recreational scholarships are granted throughout the year but funds are distributed at year-end based on facility usage over the year. Recreation Director Position (Offer 62.5) 2011 Original Budget: $117,605 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $51,205 2012 Original Budget: $120,581  Position hired July 25. Other Recreation Operating Expenses (Offer 62.8) 2011 Original Budget: $236,099 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $224,276 2012 Original Budget: $0  Funding provides programs and maintains service levels throughout Recreation. Page 9 of 16 Memorial Parks – Restored (Offer 92.3) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $99,366 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  Full-time position associated with this offer is filled with an employee that would have been laid off if the Keep Fort Collins Great tax initiative had not passed.  Seasonal work force is hired. Huidekoper Park (Offer 106.4) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $37,000  Discussion has taken place with Poudre School District for City to assume responsibilities for park in 2012. Staley Park (Offer 106.5) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $52,000  Park design is in process. Community Parks - Restored (including 2 water features) (Offer 106.7) 2011 Original Budget: $68,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $68,000 2012 Original Budget: $68,000  Expenditures to date have been spent on playground structures and tennis court crack filling is complete.  Water Features at Fossil Creek Community Park and Spring Canyon Community Park operated throughout the summer and have been winterized this fall. Reopen Restroom at Community Parks in the Winter (Offer 106.8) 2011 Original Budget: $20,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $20,000 2012 Original Budget: $20,000  Community park restrooms were opened in January and February and November through December of 2011. Lifecycle Funding for Parks Infrastructure – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 106.9) 2011 Original Budget: $232,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $232,000 2012 Original Budget: $232,000  Examples of lifecycle projects include: – Playground structure, safety surface, restroom fixture, fencing and roof replacements – Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades – Irrigation pumping system renovations and repairs – Parking lot slurry and crack fill – Tennis court overlays Weed Control – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 106.10) 2011 Original Budget: $30,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $29,057 2012 Original Budget: $30,000  Spring weed mitigation and fall mitigation are complete  Section 5.2 of the Parks and Recreation Environmental Best Management Practices were followed Page 10 of 16 Fertilizer Program – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 106.11) 2011 Original Budget: $30,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $29,394 2012 Original Budget: $30,000  Instituted organic fertilizer process at Spring Canyon Park.  Section 5.6 of the Parks and Recreation Environmental Best Management Practices were followed Parks Seasonal Positions – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 106.12) 2011 Original Budget: $50,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $50,000 2012 Original Budget: $50,000  Seasonal employees have been hired. Maintenance of Four Neighborhood Parks (Sidehill, Maple Hill, Richards Lake, Lind) & 3.5 Miles of Trail (Offer 106.13) 2011 Original Budget: $163,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $163,000 2012 Original Budget: $163,000  Funds being used to build out trail system until new parks and trails are completed.  County Road 38E trail project is complete and open to the public. Conservation Trust Trail Construction Program (Offer 106.14) 2011 Original Budget: $161,558 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $142,974 2012 Original Budget: $161,558  Offer allowed Conservation Trust funding designated for park maintenance to remain in the Conservation Trust Fund and be used for trail construction. The KFCG dollars will be used to replace a Rolland Moore Park restroom and other miscellaneous minor capital improvements. Remaining unspent funds of $18,584 will be reappropriated in 2012 for projects. Veterans Plaza (Offer 106.15) 2011 Original Budget: $25,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $25,000 2012 Original Budget: $0  Phase I of the project is complete. The Gardens on Spring Creek – Restored (Offer 118.5) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $99,866 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  Fulltime position associated with this offer is filled with an employee that would have been laid off if the Keep Fort Collins Great tax initiative had not passed.  The Gardens continues to be open seven days a week and staffed with hourly employees.  Colorado State University intern was hired. Urban Forest Management – Restored (Offer 119.3) 2011 Original Budget: $25,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $23,608 2012 Original Budget: $25,000  Purchased and planted 16 trees to replace removed trees.  Seasonal Forestry field worker hired. Page 11 of 16 Contract Tree Work – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 119.4) 2011 Original Budget: $60,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $60,000 2012 Original Budget: $60,000  Tree pruning and removal in parks and on City property.  Street tree pruning and removal on City right-of-way as requested by adjacent property owner(s). Economic Health Water Feature and Flowers at Oak Street Plaza (Offer 105.8) 2011 Original Budget: $15,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $15,000 2012 Original Budget: $15,000  Flower plantings were completed and maintained throughout the summer season  Water feature operated throughout the summer season and is now winterized Other Community Priorities (11%) Economic Health Administrative Services (Offer 7.10) 2011 Original Budget: $15,229 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $13,868 2012 Original Budget: $15,690  .25 FTE Executive Administrative Assistant was restored to assist the Economic Health Department. Expenses year-to-date are for salary/benefits. Support Industry Clusters - Restored Original (Offer 7.16) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $30,000 Economic Action Plan Update / Economic Competitiveness Study (Offer 7.18) 2011 Original Budget: $150,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $150,000 2012 Original Budget: $0  Request for Proposal (RFP) applications and interviews occurred in April; TIP Strategies from Austin, TX was selected as our consultant.  Phase 1 Assessment has been completed; Phase 2 Planning is underway.  A draft plan is scheduled for Council discussion at a December Work Session. Enhanced Support for Cluster Development (Offer 7.19) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $57,000 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  Targeted clusters include water, clean energy, chip design, and others.  Contributions have been made to Spokes Buzz and committed to RMI2 Fast Trac.  Additional contributions are being determined by the Economic Health Department. UniverCity Connections (Offer 7.20) 2011 Original Budget: $11,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $11,000 2012 Original Budget: $11,000  Activities started in January and are billed quarterly. Page 12 of 16 Repair of the Trolley (Offer 7.22) 2011 Original Budget: $10,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $10,000 2012 Original Budget: $0  Payment was made to Fort Collins Municipal Railroad Society for wheels, axle and compressor repairs for the Downtown Trolley. 4th of July Activities (Offer 105.3) 2011 Original Budget: $22,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $22,000 2012 Original Budget: $47,000  4th of July celebration for 2011 is complete. Downtown Landscaping and Maintenance – Restored (Offer 105.7) 2011 Original Budget: $185,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $183,961 2012 Original Budget: $185,000  Vacant position in this offer that would have been eliminated if the Keep Fort Collins Great tax initiative had not passed has been hired.  Flower plantings were completed and maintained throughout the summer season  Cleaning and trash pick-up between blocks is continuing.  Tree trimming in Downtown is complete. 4th of July – Restore Prior Year Reductions (Offer 105.9) 2011 Original Budget: $5,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $5,000 2012 Original Budget: $5,000  4th of July celebration for 2011 is complete. Railroad Quiet Zone Phase II Study (Offer 115.3) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  The study will begin in January 2012. Consulting services will be used to perform detailed technical analysis and coordination with railroad and federal agencies.  The study will include the ten Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad crossings between Mulberry Street and Trilby Road. Historic Preservation Matching Grant Funds – Restore (Offer 174.6) 2011 Original Budget: $25,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $25,000 2012 Original Budget: $25,000  The monies authorized under this offer are matching funds used for soliciting grants for historic preservation projects. The two primary sources of these grants are the State Historic Fund and Certified Local Government grants, both of which have application deadlines in the late fall, with grants awarded in spring of 2012. Carry-over of these monies will be requested as part of the 2012 re-appropriation process due to this timing. Environmental Health Parks Environmental Improvements - Urban Forestry (Offer 124.5) 2011 Original Budget: $15,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $8,895 2012 Original Budget: $15,000  25 new tree plantings are complete. Page 13 of 16 Downtown Environmental Improvements – Solar Recycling Bins and Earth Tub Composting Units (Offer 124.6) 2011 Original Budget: $42,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $38,459 2012 Original Budget: $2,000  Solar bins have been purchased and installed in Downtown locations  A new in-vessel composting unit, known as the “Earth Tub” was purchased and installed  With the extra composting capacity, the food scraps from two more City buildings (700 Wood Street, Lincoln Center) are now being collected and used to make compost. Volunteers for Sustainable Homes Initiative (Offer 179.5) 2011 Original Budget: $50,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $43,917 2012 Original Budget: $50,000  The Volunteer Coordinator to develop and implement the program has been hired.  Recruitment of trainers, volunteers and homes to assess is underway. Recycling and Sustainability Coordinator/Environmental Planner (Offer 179.7) 2011 Original Budget: $120,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $79,224 2012 Original Budget: $120,000  On May 9 the Environmental planner was hired to enhance outreach/education, data reporting and to develop new programs to increase participation from the business/commercial sector and multi-family residents. Enhanced business and multifamily programs underway  The Sustainability Coordinator was increased to full time to focus on internal outreach and communication. Stream and River Rehabilitation and Restoration (Offer 179.8) 2011 Original Budget: $250,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $192,300 2012 Original Budget: $250,000  $140,000 spent on Poudre River capital restoration.  KFCG funds matched with Natural Areas funding to fully fund (and enable) the project.  Balance of 2011 funds anticipated to help fund additional stream restoration planning and additional restoration construction. Eco Industrial Center Feasibility Study (Offer 179.9) 2011 Original Budget: $75,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $58,482 2012 Original Budget: $0  A contract was signed on August 10 hiring the consulting firm Sloan-Vazquez to complete the study.  The study was completed. Green Building Program– Implementation and Enforcement (Offer 179.11) 2011 Original Budget: $105,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $68,687 2012 Original Budget: $105,000  The FTE Building Inspector position authorized by this offer was filled July 1, 2011. All staff, inspectors and plan reviewers were trained on Green Building Codes during the fourth quarter of 2011.  The additional .5 FTE Plans Analyst position will not be filled until further research is done on the amount of time that will be required to review the new Green Building components on construction drawings. This position will be evaluated for need during the first quarter of 2012 when we will have a better understanding of the impact on plan review staff. Page 14 of 16 Climate Wise Program Enhancement (Offer 193.3) 2011 Original Budget: $75,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $66,007 2012 Original Budget: $75,000  Hired hourly assistance to help with administrative support to businesses, assessment tracking and scheduling, research, case studies, and more.  Events: Held project reporting workshops for businesses focusing on data quality with real-time entry. Held recognition/recruitment event with 450 attendees.  Facilitated assistance with the Climate Wise Advisory Committee for program planning. Staff also worked with Brendle Group for on-going assessment and assistance to complex projects with businesses.  Redeveloped the myClimateWise database with contractor to centralize all partner information tracking and improved communication efficiency across program offerings. Redevelopment included the creation of a data platform allowing both historical tracking and future projections of data. It is accessible by City staff and program partners and is projected to save many staff hours (currently being tracked). Unified Carbon Accounting System (Offer 195.1) 2011 Original Budget: $30,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $21,132 2012 Original Budget: $30,000  Unified carbon accounting database enhancements completed and more underway. Database is largely populated, available to staff and will be used for 2011 carbon reporting. Environmental Performance Data Manager (Offer 195.2) 2011 Original Budget: $90,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $46,173 2012 Original Budget: $90,000  Environmental Data Analyst, hired in late May.  City carbon data entry and quality assurance nearly completed. Data collection for 2011 reporting year underway. .  Two Quality Management Plans completed to document current carbon accounting processes in detail. Innovation Fund (Offer 197.1) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $80,053 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  24 solar thermal panels added to EPIC.  Collindale Pro Shop and dining light upgrades completed; insulation and other efficiency upgrades completed.  Senior Center parking lot upgrade lights being tested. Green Purchasing Study (Offer 197.2) 2011 Original Budget: $75,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $20,500 2012 Original Budget: $0  Request for Proposal (RFP) applications and interviews have been completed; Green Purchasing Institute was selected as our consultant and the on-site evaluation has been completed.  The preliminary report was received. The final report is due in late February 2012.  Funding not used for consulting expenses may be requested for reappropriation in 2012 to implement recommendations. Page 15 of 16 Community Spill Response – additional resources (Offer 214.3) 2011 Original Budget: $35,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $21,632 2012 Original Budget: $5,000  A storage structure for materials and supplies has been purchased along with supplies, such as absorbents, to handle spills.  Provided 4-hr/8-hr OSHA training to water and L&P crews who may respond to community spills. High Performing Government Management Internship Program (Offer 3.7 KFCG) 2011 Original Budget: $43,718 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $27,859 2012 Original Budget: $43,718  Candidate interviews were completed in April and an intern was hired in June.  Expenses are for salary/benefits and operating expenses as well as travel reimbursements for candidates during the interview process. Energy Efficiency Initiatives for City Buildings (Offer 46.2) 2011 Original Budget: $0 2012 Original Budget: $355,000 Recruitment Specialist Restored .5 FTE (Offer 120.4) 2011 Original Budget: $43,762 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $40,407 2012 Original Budget: $45,005  Recruitment Specialist is working full time and expenses incurred are personnel services. Human Resources Core Services – Restored (Leadership Development) (Offer 120.6) 2011 Original Budget: $109,950 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $21,698 2012 Original Budget: $30,000  Two individual consulting firms were retained and funds encumbered; Peak Leadership Consulting - $75,800 and Zenger-Folkman Company - $25,980  Leadership 360 Assessment and Coaching began in October and workshops will begin in second quarter 2012. Neighborhood Livability Restoration of the Human Services Program (Offer 85.3) 2011 Original Budget: $50,733 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $50,733 2012 Original Budget: $50,733  The 2011 funds were put into the spring cycle of the competitive process for allocating City financial assistance to human services non-profit agencies.  The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission met on May 12 and formulated recommendations to City Council as to which agencies should receive an allocation of funding, and how much funding they should receive.  Council made the final decision on the allocation of funding on June 21.  Contracts were signed and distributed in August and September 2011 for agencies to begin spending the funds October 1, 2011, the federal fiscal year. All funds from 2011 will be spent by September 30, 2012.  One agency, Homelessness Prevention Initiative (HPI) has expended all funds granted to them ($45,000). Page 16 of 16  2012 funds have been put into the 2012 spring cycle of the competitive process to allocate to human service non-profit agencies. The CDBG Commission will meet on April 12 to formulate recommendations to City Council.  Council will make the final funding decision on May 15.  Contracts will be completed and delivered to grant recipients prior to October 1, 2012 which is the beginning of the federal fiscal year. All funds will be spent by September 30, 2012. Additional $100K for Affordable Housing/Human Services (Offer 85.5) 2011 Original Budget: $100,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $100,000 2012 Original Budget: $100,000  Like the funds for Offer 85.3 (above), these funds were also put into the spring cycle of the competitive process and went through the same decision making process and contract provisions as stated above.  Due to the very high demand for help from human service agencies (requesting almost $1 million), the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Commission allocated the entire $100,000 to those types of agencies, and not affordable housing projects.  Agencies receiving funds were Crossroads Safehouse, Homelessness Prevention Initiative (Rental Assistance Program), Neighbor-to-Neighbor (for their Housing Counseling and Rent Assistance Programs), and Project Self-Sufficiency.  In 2012 funds once again will be used entirely for the human service agencies as the highest demand for funds is in that category. We received only one application in the Spring Competitive Process for affordable housing projects.  Funds will be allocated in the same manner as in Offer 85.3 (above). Community Mediation Program – Restored (Offer 126.4) 2011 Original Budget: $78,339 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $51,922 2012 Original Budget: $80,530  The FTE Mediation Coordinator position authorized by this offer has been filled and started April 1, 2011.  Responded to 494 conflict cases.  Provided conflict resolution assistance and/or referrals to 439 cases.  Conducted 36 mediations.  Conducted outreach to increase referrals and establish collaborative relationships with local agencies.  Recruited eight new volunteer mediators.  Hired and trained new Municipal Court Mediation Program Coordinator.  Implemented the use of two electronic databases for case management and evaluation data. Design Assistance Program (Offer 126.5) 2011 Original Budget: $40,000 Expenses and/or Encumbrances: $19,152 2012 Original Budget: $40,000  At its September 14, 2011 meeting, the Landmark Preservation Commission distributed the first allocation of funds from this program.  This initial distribution will reimburse the owners of 9 commercial projects.  An additional five residential properties have applied for the funds, and upon completion of their plans, will also be eligible for reimbursement.  We will be requesting the balance of $20,848 as part of the 2012 re-appropriation process. 1 1 Keep Fort Collins Great (KFCG)  The 0.85% sales and use tax ballot initiative was approved by voters on November 2, 2010  Provisions: – How the dollars will be allocated – Tax will sunset after 10 years – Annual reporting requirement • How the funds were spent • Cost savings and efficiency programs 2 KFCG Revenue Allocation  Additional revenue allocated in the following ballot language designations – 33% for street maintenance and repair – 17% for other street and transportation needs – 17% for police services – 11% for fire services – 11% for parks maintenance and recreation – 11% for other community priorities as determined by City Council ATTACHMENT 2 2 3 KFCG Revenue  Budgeted 2011 KFCG sales and use tax revenue = $18.7M  Actual 2011 KFCG sales and use tax revenue = $19.9M – $6.5M for street maintenance and repair – 3.4M for other transportation – 3.4M for police services – 2.2M for fire services – 2.2M for parks maintenance and recreation – 2.2M for other community priorities 4 KFCG Actual Revenue & Expenses  Actual 2011 expenses (includes purchase order commitments) All values in $M Actual 2011 Revenue Actual 2011 Expenses 2011 Ending Fund Balance Street maintenance & repair $6.56 $6.17 $0.39 Other transportation 3.38 1.37 2.01 Police services 3.38 1.25 2.13 Fire services 2.19 2.06 0.13 Parks and recreation 2.19 1.86 0.33 Other community priorities 2.19 1.50 0.69 $19.86 $14.21 $5.65 Notes: - 2011 actuals are preliminary until year end accounting is finalized - The 2011 KFCG budget of $2.06M for PFA has been transferred to PFA, but of that amount only $1.36M was spent in 2011 3 5 KFCG Administration  Unspent expense budget and collections in excess of budgeted revenue added to fund balance of the Keep Fort Collins Great fund  Fund balance is tracked independently for each of the six ballot language designations  Fund balance is available for future appropriation by City Council 6 KFCG-Street Maintenance and Repair  Resurfacing of the following streets – Conifer from College to Lemay – East Horsetooth from College to Timberline – W. Drake from Meadowlark to RR tracks – Riverside from Prospect to Lemay – Linden from Jefferson to Vine – Boardwalk from Harmony to Landings – Vine from Lemay to Interstate 25 4 7 KFCG - Other Transportation  Bridge design for South Shields Street near Rolland Moore and Laporte-Whitcomb  New/refurbished handicap parking spaces  Bicycle safety/education plan implemented  Mason Trail – Troutman bike-pedestrian underpass  1,433 Transfort / Dial-A-Ride night service trips and nearly 4,000 Saturday hours 8 KFCG – Police Services  All authorized KFCG positions hired – 6 officers graduated training; 13 in training – 3 Investigative Aide positions filled – A Police Services Technician hired for increased service at the downtown substation – A detective sergeant and 2 detectives have been added – A patrol lieutenant and sergeant hired; focus on community policing and downtown issues 5 9 KFCG – Fire Service  The South Battalion was implemented in July 2011 at south end of Fort Collins – Response time south of Drake has improved from 18% arrival within 8 minutes to 74% arrival within 8 minutes  One 4-person company and one Incident Safety Officer per shift (3) are in the recruitment academy; will be added in 2012 to increase efficiency and safety 10 KFCG – Parks and Recreation  Park improvements such as playground structures, safety surfaces, and Americans with Disabilities Act upgrades  Constructed new trail that connects the Spring Creek and Fossil Creek Trails; includes an underpass at CR 38E  Water features at community parks and Oak Street Plaza were funded  Completed Phase I of Veteran’s Plaza 6 11 KFCG – Parks and Recreation  The Gardens at Spring Creek remained open seven days a week and avoided layoffs impacting customer service  All teen, youth and after-school programs at the Northside Aztlan Center are supported by KFCG  Provided $100K in recreational scholarships 12 KFCG-Other Community Priorities  Poudre River and stream restorations  Recycling and sustainability programs  Climate Wise program enhancements  Solar recycling bins and Earth Tub composting units installed downtown  Enabled the 4th of July celebration  Community Mediation Program resolved 439 cases and conducted 36 mediations 7 13 KFCG – Online Reporting  Online reporting for KFCG can be found at: www.fcgov.com/kfcg 14 Cost Savings & Efficiency Programs  Examples of technology enhancements – Automation of Development Review projects – Durable pavement markings & video detection – CSU Ram Card recognized as a bus pass – Police mobile citation program – Online police job applicant tool – Improved Lincoln Center ticketing system – Electrical improvements in Natural Areas – Implemented Automated Clearing House (ACH) for vendor payments – Continued IT server virtualization 8 15 Cost Savings & Efficiency Programs  Examples of customer service changes – Community Development and Neighborhood Services customer service improvements – Natural Areas volunteer project improvements – Utilities customer service reorganization  Examples of processes and programs – Transfort bus scheduling redesign – Natural Areas adopt a trail program – Implemented Innovation Fund to implement physical and operational improvements full take of one property/business  Operations & Maintenance Similar to current conditions Uncertain, depends on railroad issues and PROWAG / ADA issues to $5.3 million, depending on extent of property impacts  Property Impacts Minimal Moderate to major impacts, with the potential full take of one property/business  Operations & Maintenance Similar to current conditions Uncertain, depends on railroad issues and PROWAG / ADA issues Implementation  CDOT No issues Requires IGA  Perception No issues ‐ If operation issues arise, fear impact to future roundabout projects in other areas ‐ Public learning curve for new intersection type  Peterson Street No issues May require closing or changing to right in right out at Peterson Street access to Mountain Ave, depending on final design. Poudre Fire Authority strongly prefers Peterson Street not be closed.  Compatibility with Corridor Alternative Requires allowing u‐turns, additional intersection width may be needed to allow u‐ turns Facilitates u‐turns * LOS analysis was conducted using multiple methods, as such a range of delays are predicted in the geographical area where they are generated, such as Downtown or neighborhoods. A. Create a parking enterprise fund made up of new and existing funding sources. The fund will be used to pay for all aspects of the parking program including, but not limited to, daily operations, maintenance, new parking infrastructure, neighborhood programs, and parking demand reduction initiatives. B. Use existing funding sources including revenue from fees and fines, General Improvement District (GID) #1 funding, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funding. For the GID and TIF revenue, policies should be discussed and adopted to determine how much of these existing funding sources should be dedicated to parking programs. C. Explore new funding options including creation of a Downtown parking assessment district and/or increasing the existing GID mil levy. PROPOSED POLICY AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION Parking Vision Statement The City of Fort Collins will develop and manage parking as a critical component of public infrastructure, and as a tool to promote and sustain economic health. Parking system management and investment decisions will be guided by three primary concepts: 1) Develop and manage parking to support business and economic vitality 2) Create a balanced and sustainable parking and access management strategy for Downtown 3) Make Downtown Fort Collins a preferred, visitor-friendly regional destination 1. Comprehensive Approach » The Parking Plan principles, policies, and actions work together to provide a comprehensive approach to parking management, rather than a set of separate elements. A. Parking management strategies have an inter-related nature. B. Individual recommendations in this plan should not be considered in isolation. C. Policies that address urban planning, mobility management, economic development, neighborhood quality and long-term funding must be integrated with parking management to increase the probability of achieving desired results. 2. Development-related Parking Management » The City’s development-related parking management strategies will support and be consistent with the economic health and urban design principles in City Plan and other adopted plans. In general, that means parking strategies must be sustainable while being fully integrated as an element of community and economic development strategies. A. Coordinate and consolidate parking into shared locations. B. Integrate parking planning into the larger “Downtown Business Strategy” context. Define development project value—direct and indirect economic benefits. C. Designate a central point of contact to coordinate all new parking proposals and promote public-private partnerships for new parking infrastructure. D. Implement development parking impact fees for the construction of new parking. E. Support the development-related goals of the Mason Corridor and the Downtown River District. F. Review and, if necessary, revise City codes to ensure parking supports City goals for the Downtown. » Use strategic public parking investments to leverage prioritized private development. Public parking investment can be a powerful economic development incentive to help spur private development of projects that align with adopted community strategic goals. G. Use public/private partnerships to leverage public parking as part of new development. H. Create new public parking capacity to promote smaller adaptive reuse and in-fill projects distributed throughout the Downtown. I. Develop guidelines to establish appropriate return on public sector parking investments. J. Proactively identify and acquire off-street public parking assets before opportunities are lost. 3. Coordinated On-Street and Off-Street Parking Management » Downtown patrons will be given top priority for use of on- and off-street parking in high demand locations. A. Implement paid on-street parking, including new multi-space or single-space credit card enabled meters that offer some amount of free “up front” time. B. Explore new parking availability websites, accessible on mobile devices, incorporating a “pay-by-cell phone” option. C. Establish cooperative efforts between the City and employers to reduce on-street parking by employees in high demand areas. D. Promote off-street parking options for longer-term parking including the management of off-street garages for the general public as a less expensive option to on-street parking and enhancements to pedestrian connections and amenities. E. Re-evaluate parking allocation within public lots/structures in response to growing demand for off-street parking. 4. Employee Parking and Garage Usage Guidelines » Off-street parking in garages or surface lots will be managed primarily as areas for Downtown employee parking. A. Provide incentives and disincentives to shift employees away from parking in high-demand locations. B. Promote better utilization of parking garages and other off-street spaces through innovative permit programs and the involvement/cooperation of Downtown businesses. C. Develop a strategy for construction of new parking infrastructure when existing infrastructure and programs are insufficient to meet parking demand, but only in a manner that is coordinated with the on-street parking management program. 5. Residential/Neighborhood Parking » Residents in neighborhoods near commercial areas or CSU should have preferential access to the on-street parking on their block face. A. Ensure residents benefiting from a parking permit program bear a reasonable amount of the costs of providing and administering the preferential access. B. Develop criteria to determine when a residential permit program will be implemented, such as what percentage of residents must agree to the program before it is put in place. C. Develop other residential permit program criteria, such as how to verify residency, pricing of permits, and number of permits per residence. ACTION ITEMS ACTIONITEMS ITEMS ACTIONITEMS ACTION ACTION ITEMS ACTIONITEMS ITEMS ACTION ACTION ITEMS ACTION ITEMS For Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods ENGAGEMENT PROCESS We Want Your Feedback! Your comments are very important to us! This document is a high-level overview of the Parking Plan as of January 2012, and is intended to generate additional discussion and comment. Any feedback we receive from this overview will be used to craft a draft plan. A draft plan, when ready, will be available on fcgov.com/parkingplan. Ways to get involved: O V E R V I E W JANUARY 2012 V3 Why a Parking Plan for Downtown and Nearby Neighborhoods? The 2004 Downtown Strategic Plan led to improvements in Downtown parking, but there are a number of issues yet to be resolved, and changes in conditions since 2004 need to be addressed. The new Parking Plan will focus on unsolved problems and high-priority concerns identified by stakeholders. The following list provides some examples of these issues and concerns: Â As housing, jobs, and commercial activity grows in Downtown, what are the best ways to manage the supply and demand for parking? Â Do we need more parking infrastructure? If so, how do we pay for it? Â How can the management of parking also support the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus riders? Â Are the City’s parking policies regarding new development adequate to achieve the City’s higher-level goals for sustainability, urban design, and overall mobility management? Â How can customer service regarding parking options be improved? Â What new policies are needed to address the impacts of parking in neighborhoods near Downtown and Colorado State University (CSU)? Timothy Wilder Parking Plan Project Manager  twilder@fcgov.com  (970) 221-6756 Randy Hensley Parking Services Manager  rhensley@fcgov.com  (970) 416-2058 Â Submit any comments about this overview by February 22, 2012 (use contact info below) Â Get project updates at fcgov.com/parkingplan Â Attend a meeting in February (more info on fcgov.com/parkingplan) Â Watch City Council Work Session on February 28, 2012 Â Attend City Council Hearing on April 17, 2012 S US HIGHWAY 287 9TH ST E COUNTY ROAD 54 E COUNTY ROAD 52 N HOWES ST E COUNTY ROAD 36 S COUNTY ROAD 5 KECHTER RD S TIMBERLINE RD W VINE DR ZIEGLER RD S LEMAY AVE © Revised: February 17, 2012 Attachment 2 2012 Preliminary Street Maintenance Program (SMP) (Subject to Change) STREET CLASSIFICATIONS ARTERIAL COLLECTOR RESIDENTIAL CITY LIMITS