Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout042507 Transportation Coordinating Committee Minutes.doc BOZEMAN AREA TRANSPORTATION COORDINATING COMMITTEE COMMISSION ROOM, CITY HALL 411 EAST MAIN STREETMINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 26OCTOBER 25, 2006APRIL 25, 2007 - 9:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M. AGENDA ITEM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ATTENDANCE Vice Chairrman Andrew EppleRoss GammonAndy Epple called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m. on Wednesday, July 26October 25April 25, 2007, in the Commission Room, Municipal Building, 411 East Main Street, and directed the TCC and audience members to introduce themselves. Members Present: Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Al VanderwWey, Urban Planning, MDT Jon Henderson, Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, MDT Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman David Smith, Citizen Member, City of Bozeman Staff Present: Bob Murray, Project Engineer, City of Bozeman Rick Hixson, City Engineer, City of Bozeman Sara Folger, Grants Administrator, City of Bozeman James Goehrung, Superintendent of Facility Services, City of Bozeman Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director, City of Bozeman Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates Lisa Danzl-Scott, Parking Commission Tamzin Brown Carol Strizich, MDT Steve White, County Commissioner, Gallatin CountyPat Abelin Kerry White Lee Provance Ralph Zimmer Bob Lashaway David Smith Al VanderWey Rob Bukvich Joe Olson Ross Gammon Andy Epple Jeff Ebert Jon Henderson Jeff Krauss Guedst Jeff Key, Peccia Carol Strizich Lisa Danzl Scott Bob Murray Rick Hixson Sara Folger James Goehrung Robin Sullivan Chris Saunders Pamzen Brown Andy Epple, Planning Director, City of Bozeman, Chair Bob Lashaway, Director, Facilities Services, MSU Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board Ralph Zimmer, Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee Jeff Krauss, Mayor, City of Bozeman Christopher Scott, Gallatin County Planning Rick Hixson for Director of Public Service, City of Bozeman Pat Abelin, Citizen Member, Gallatin County Ross Gammon, Maintenance Chief, Bozeman Division, MDT Lee Provance, Road Superintendent, Gallatin County Rob Bukvich, Bozeman Division, MDT Al Vanderwey, Urban Planning, MDT Jon Henderson, Bozeman Bicycle Advisory Board Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition (temporary member) Jeff Madden, Federal Highway Administration Joe Olsen, Engineering Services Supervisor, Butte District, MDT Jeff Ebert, District Engineer, Butte District, MDT Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commissioner Chris Kukulski, City Manager, City of Bozeman Staff Present: George Durkin, Road Office, Gallatin County John VanDelinder, Street Superintendent, City of Bozeman Ron Brey, Assistant City Manager, City of Bozeman Tracy Oulman, Neighborhood Coordinator, City of Bozeman Rich McLane, Bozeman Police Department Robin Sullivan, Recording Secretary Guests Present: David Cobb, Senator Baucus’ Field Office Andy Epple, Director Joe Olson, MDT Engineering Rob Buckvich, Bozeman Jon Henderson Pat A Debbi A All Vanderway, MDT for Lynn’ Christioper Scott Jeff Rupp Lee Provance Ralph ZimmerRich McLane Bob Lashawy JP Pom Ross Gammon, MDT Chris Saunders, Assistant Planning Director Kerry White, Gallatin County Planning Board David Smith, Bozeman Area Chamber of Commerce Bill Murdock, Gallatin County Commission Bob Lashaway, Facilities Services, MSU (arrived late) Maintenace Robin Sullivan, minutes Ted Lange____, Gallatin Valley Land TrustVLT John Vandelinder Rick Hixson George Jurdin Tracy Oulson Oug Madden Steven Johnson, Executive Director, Gallatin Valley Land Trust MSU professor and students in traffic engineering class Sara Folger Jeff Ebert, MDT ITEM 2. PUBLIC COMMENT {Limited to any public matter within the jurisdiction of the Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee not on this agenda. Three-minute time limit per speaker} No comment was received under this agenda item. Ted Lange, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, noted that a temporary appointment to the TCC for the Safe Trails Coalition is one of the items on the agenda. He stressed the Gallatin Valley Land Trust’s interest in participating in the process, indicating that they wish to be a part of the working group and can serve in that capacity without a temporary appointment to the TCC. Chair Andrew Epple responded that at the last TCC meeting, there was consensus that the Safe Trails Coalition should be represented on the TCC for the duration of the update process and that official action should be taken at this meeting. He then noted that the Gallatin Valley Land Trust is always welcome at these meetings and can be represented through the Safe Trails Coalition or the Bozeman Area Bicycle Advisory Board. Doug McSpadden, Safe Trails Coalition, asked if that group should meet with representatives from Gallatin County and the Montana Department of Transportation regarding the final plans for Valley Center Road, to ensure that adequate bicycle facilities are provided, particularly through the interchange. Pat Abelin encouraged Mr. McSpadden and Mr. Lange to attend the next public meeting on the interchange to look at the plans, noting that the date and place for that meeting have not yet been set. Steven Johnson, Executive Director of the Gallatin Valley Land Trust, noted that agency has not been involved with the Transportation Coordinating Committee since the revision of the transportation plan five years ago. He stated that, since the GLVT is dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian initiatives, the agency would like to be of service in the new update, particularly in developing alternative plans. He noted that the Dan Burden event this month has resulted in tremendous energy, and he would like to bring forward some of those suggestions. ITEM 3. MINUTES OF APRIL JULY 26JANUARY 24 AND MARCH 28, 2007, 2006 Jeff Ebert – point out on members present ¾ way, asked that, in the list of members present, the name “Jeff Madden” be changed to “Jeff Patten”. It was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Ross Gammon, that the minutes of the meeting of January 24, 2007, be approved as amended. The motion carried. No corrections were made to the minutes of the special meeting of March 28, 2007; and Chair Andy Epple announced those minutes are approved as submitted March 28. Jeff Ebert made the following revisions to the minutes of July 26: Page 3 – Item B – change to read “Pat Abelin reported that the EIS EA (environmental assessment) is currently on schedule.” Page 8 – the next to the last sentence in the first paragraph states that the two projects total $6 million; the correct number is $9 million. David Smith requested that his name be moved from the list of guests to the list of members. It was moved by Kerry White, seconded by Jeff Ebert, that the minutes of the meeting of July 26, 2006, be approved as amended. The motion carried. The list of attendees was revised to delete Pat Abelin from the list. Also, Rob Bukvich made the following revisions to the minutes of April 26: Page 8 – No. 7.b. second paragraph – change to read “Mr. Bukvich also noted that the Springhill and North 19th Avenue will now have two signals, one for the straight-away and the other a turn signal at the intersection of Springhill and US Highway 10 and the other at the intersection of Springhill and North 19th Avenue.” Page 8 – No. 8 – change to read “Mr. Bukvich stated that public meetings are continuing. HKM Engineering is doing the public outreach and preliminary design work. environmental assessment and environmental document.” Rob Buckvich, Page 8 – two signals, one at two signals in that area. One at springill and US 10 and other at Springhill Road and North 19th. No. 8. North Rouse Avenue – HKM doing environmental assessment and environmental document. Not yet to preliminary design. Say public outreach and environmental assessment. Page 9 – No. 9 – change first sentence to read “Mr. White questioned the members as to whether or not there will be a round-about at the intersection of 191 and Huffine Lane Montana 64 (Big Sky spur road) on the way to Big Sky.” Chair Epple announced the minutes are approved as amended. Ralph Zimmer requested that the pages be numbered on future minutes. Item 9 under discussion. Mr. White questioned if roundabout at 191 and Huffine. Talking 191 and MT 64. instead of Four Corners. (Big Sky spur road) Andy – declare approve as corrected. Ralph – would appreciate having pages numbered. Andy – will make sure done for next go round. ITEM 4. TCC MEMBER REPORTS A. Transit Committee Report No member present. Lee Provance – did we send letter? Andy – communicated verbally but not by letter. No members of the Transit Committee were present. Lee Provance asked if a letter had been sent to the Transit Committee; Chair Epple responded that he had communicated verbally but not in writing. He indicated that he will send a letter, emphasizing the need to move forward and to communicate with this body. Bob Lashaway announced that the County has agreed to cover one-half of the costs of purchasing two bustle back busses, and MSU has extended a formal offer to cover the other half of those costs. Bob Lashaway – $9,000 or $10,000 short on purchase with slope back. County agreed to cover half. MSU extended formal offer to cover other half of that piece. Haven’t heard where going or if will accept it. B ut MSU has extended that. Andy – will get letter out to transit committee and emphasize the need to move ahead and communicate with us. 1. Transit Committee Report - Chris Budeski Bill Murdock reported that the transit system is up and running, but the Committee is awaiting the Montana Department of Transportation’s approval of the purchase of the yellow busses. As a result, it is anticipated those busses will not be on line until next summer. Mr. Murdock reported that a connection between Big Sky and Four Corners is anticipated in the next few months. Ridership has increased from 100 to 110 rides per day when the system was started to over 300 rides per day now. This is beyond the Committee’s expectations and without any promotion or signs posted for the stops. He indicated that, while the busses are generally not full, there are times when the bus from Belgrade is full, and it is possible that a larger bus will be put on that route. Responding to David Smith, Bill Murdock stated that the interim system is being driven by HRDC and ASMSU and, until the bugs are worked out of the transit system, including the stops and schedules, they do not want to print schedules or install signs. Ross Gammon reported that Rob Buckvich has been riding the bus occasionally to identify stop locations and see how the system is working. Chris B not present. Jeff Rupp – recei ved final approval of application. So can now purchase. Have borrowed from Yellowstone Park for fair and sweet pea. Made commitmentment to MSU to keep open for students. Laidlaw is partner and trying to access inventory for lease for a year. Since long time getting monies for bus. Will not be yellow buses retro. Will be two or three square transit and three more like paratransit like see now. Rob B – City and MDT staff in last couple weeks involved in stop locactions and what need to make bus stops work. Handicapped accessibility curbs. Starting to work so will do what cdan to be ready when system is ready. Andy – so system will be up and running with leased buses and stops as best can. Jfefff – will use as many stops as can. Streamline. Rob B – mostly new. Not many existing that we found. Andy – how will this be marketed? Anyone developing marketing and advertising to get word out to maximize ridership. Rob B – waiting for logo to order signs for bus stop. Have a marketing agency on board. Will be marketing it. Some talk that would start running routes two weeks before taking on passengers. Andy – laidlaw employees? Jeff – yes. Debbie – if have any pull with logo, need to make signs. Andy – sounds like good progress being made. Energy to get going. And will be advertising to get going. Good. Feedback from fair? None. Gammon – part of marketing strategy is no cost for riding? Is that for first year? Jeff – don’t know how long. Andy – one of our members is sight impaired and would be good to have you introduce yourselves for Mr. Zimmer. 2. Transit Partnership B. I-90/East Belgrade Interchange Report – Pat Abelin Pat Abelin reported on Monday’s meeting, noting a number of people were in attendance. She stated they are in the process of trying to get a Memorandum of Understanding between Gallatin County, the City of Belgrade and the airport signed. She noted that they are looking at removing some of the road pieces that were to be part of the project, including Alaska Road to Valley Center Road, which will lower the costs of the interchange project and .will eliminate the requirement to construct those connecting roads to federal aid standards. She identified timing as a critical issue, and the elimination of those connecting roads will allow the interchange project to continue moving forward as quickly as possible. Responding to Kerry White, Rob Bukvich stated that when an agency accepts federal aid funds and moves forward with a project, there is an expectation that it will be done. He noted that if funds are expended and the project is not finished for some reason other than that the “no build” option was picked during preliminary assessment in the environmental document or for some other good reason, then those federal funds expended must be repaid. He stated there is a provision in the draft MOU that says the local entities will repay that portion of the $8 million in federal funds expended if the project does not move forward; and that has been a sticking point. As a result, the Montana Department of Transportation has stepped forward and committed monies from its state funds to repay those federal funds if the project is abandoned. – very good meeting on Monday. Number of people there. In process of trying to get MOU signed with County/B elgrade/airport. Moving past what giving heartburn. Relook at some of the road pieces that will be part of project. Al do additional modeling. What will try to do is take some of the raod pieces out of the federal id project. Alaska Frontage road to Valley Center and est Belgrde process. Don’t have to build to federal aid standards and look like more what can do and timing is critical. County and airport funds. If have to have before interchange, puts back. Looking at taking a couple sectors out and actually looks like everyone on same page and moving forward. Responding to questions from Lee Provance, Jeff Ebert assured the Committee that the MDT’s use of state special revenue monies to pay back federal funds would not impact Gallatin County’s matching funds for other projects; rather, it would impact the Department’s ability to fund projects on a statewide basis. He stated that the $8 million in federal monies earmarked for the airport interchange cannot be used for anything else and, if those monies are not used, they will revert back to the federal government to be used for some other project, probably not even in Montana. He indicated that the monies will remain available until expended or the no build option is selected.Rob – good summary. Kerry – think read in paper about funding could revert back to County if not completed? Rob – when accept federal aid funds and move toward project, expectation will be done if funds expended and project not finished for a rason other than no build option picked during preliminary assessment in environmental document or some other good reason we have to pay back federal funds expended. Provision in draft MOU with locals that said if for some reason project didn’t forward, that would repay federal funds expended. For the $8 million. Was sticking point and understand we have committed to repay if that happens. MDT. State funds. Ralph Zimmer emphasized that, from a pedestrian standpoint, it is very important that facilities be provided when the connector roads are constructed. Jon Henderson voiced his agreement, noting that I-90 is a major barrier for pedestrian and bicycle crossings, with few opportunities to cross from north to south. He stated the new interchange will provide a wonderful opportunity to move across the interstate.Lee – would assume that I was at that meeting and was caught off guard that state pick up tab if project not completed. Would affect county’s ability to fund projects in county wouldn’t it? Dip into our funds? Jeff – would not. We couldn’t use federal funds to pay back federal funds. Would be out of state special revenue which is monies would have to match other types of projects. Major hit to us should it happen. Kerry – wouldn’t affect any other matching funds to go to another project in Gallagin County? Rob – would affect everyting because hav e to put state frunds to match federal. If short, would affect ability to expend federal funds. Not necessarily Gallatin County but statewide. Jeff Ebert stated the interchange itself will have the requested pedestrian and bicycle amenities. He noted the Alaska Road connection is also to be designed with pedestrian facilities; the issue is that its inclusion in the project puts the State on the hook for building a county road. He further noted the roadway will probably not be constructed to its full design as a five-lane facility but will include the desired amenities to ensure safe travel for pedestrians and bicyclists.Jeff – money earmkared $8 million can only be used for the interchange. Monies would revert back to federal govt and can do whatever they want. Available until expended but if go no build, somebody else gets that money. Proba bly not even in Montana. So big loss. Ralph – comment to not meet federal aid dedsign requirements, would likie to emphasize that from pedestrian standpoint, very important ade quate provision be made for that. Route people will go and need to make provision for them. Jon – exactly right. Identified I-90 as major barfrier for any pedestrians cfrossing north to south. Few opportunities. Interchange wonderful opportunity to move across interstate with facility. Jeff E – interchange itself will have pedestrian amenities asked for. Connection south to Valley Center on Alaska Road believe intent to design to pedestrian facilities. Issue is b y bing in environmental document, required state on hook for building a county road. That is the issue. Ensure connections not required at full build out when completed. Not necessarily five lane but should be three with pedestrian and bicycle amenities. the committee had an interesting meeting with the Belgrade City Council on Monday night. She noted that the funding sources for the interchange must be identified, particularly since it is estimated to cost $29 to $30 million with the connector roads. She stated that Gallatin County has been considering this issue for a long time, and the City of Belgrade is looking at its sources. She suggested that, with the commercial development made available through the construction of the interchange, seeking private sector assistance seems appropriate. She indicated that, until the funding sources have been identified, the environmental assessment is not moving forward. Kerry White noted it is his understanding that some of the arterials may be included in the County’s capital improvement program and could be eligible for impact fees. Lee Provance reported that the findings of fact for Ryan Glen Subdivision require that development to construct the east bypass in addition to the monetary contribution that was required. Pat Abelin stated the committee is trying to look to the future and ensure that those who may benefit from the development made feasible with the interchange help to pay for it rather than requiring the general public to bear those costs. the EIS is currently on schedule. She noted that cooperation among agencies has been amazing, and she anticipates the final public hearing will be held within the next couple months. She stated the next issue to be addressed is links to the interchange, their locations, funding options, and who will be responsible for building them. She indicated that efforts are being made to have developers participate in the construction of these roads to the greatest extent possible. Lee Provance stated the County anticipates that it will do the lion’s share of the construction. Pat Abelin confirmed that constructing the roads to county standards would be cheaper than building to state standards. Pat – EIS moving right along. Doing ery well on original schedule. Should have final public hearing in nex Responding to questions from JP Pomnichowski, Jeff Ebert stated that Airport Manager Ted Mathis is on the committee and is supportive of the Belgrade interchange and bypass, and is helping to shepherd it through the process. Rob Bukvich indicated that the bypass study is estimated to cost $300,000, and consists of a route through the airport to Dry Creek Road to relieve pressure on Highway 10. Jon Henderson voiced a desire for adequate bicycle/pedestrian facilities through the interchange. Ted Lange reported that he and Doug McSpadden met with County Grants Administrator Larry Watson on a safe trail from Bozeman to Belgrade, and noted that Valley Center Road to Alaska Road seems to be the best alternative. As a result, the airport interchange is an extremely important link. He cited the tunnel for the linear trail along the interstate in Butte as an example of a safe trail component. Rob Bukvich stated that a separate 8-foot-wide path has been proposed for the Valley Center Road project. Responding to Lee Provance, he acknowledged that it is not the 10-foot-wide path generally required by MDT but, in this instance, the Commissioners have convinced MDT that a narrower path would be acceptable given the width of the right-of-way. He noted that, as currently proposed, the MDT would construct the project and the County would accept responsibility for its maintenance. Ralph Zimmer voiced his support for Jon Henderson’s comments, noting that the Pedestrian/ Traffic Safety Committee strongly supports adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities in conjunction with new construction. He cited a recent opportunity to walk through interchanges in Billings, where there was no provision for pedestrians; and he does not wish to have that occur in this area. C. TSM’s Report Rick Hixson announced that the TSMs currently underway are the remaining ones from the 2001 transportation plan. He noted that, hopefully, the new transportation plan will include a list of new priorities on which to work. – ones underway are te remaining few from 2001 plan and hopefully new plan will have a list of new priorities for us. Andy Epple noted that good progress has been made on the TSMs in the current plan, and those not completed will be re-evaluated with this update– community made good progress on addressing the TSMs identified and thoses not done will be reeavaluated in this update.stated there is nothing to report under this agenda item D. Bozeman Area Bicycleike Advisory Board Jon Henderson reported that the Board is gearing up for Bike to School/Work Week on May 11 through 18. Flyers are to be posted next week; and arrangements have been made to have various businesses donate coffee and bagels for commuters during that week. Activities include a couple of evening workshops on bicycle repair and maintenance, and free helmets will be given to children who participate in the Bozeman Deaconess safety rodeo on Saturday. Jon reported that the Board is in the process of inventorying all existing bike lanes in town, including missing markings, missing signs, and gravel on the lanes. He indicated that efforts are being made to have the lanes swept before May 15, and painting is to be completed by the end of the fiscal year. He concluded by stating the Board is excited about participating in the transportation plan update and is coordinating with the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee and the Safe Trails Coalition in that process. – gearing up for bike to school work wee. May 11-18. flyers posted next week. Breakrfast at various coffee shops around town for commuters. Successful in getting five businesses to donate services, coffee and bagesl. Another opportunity to be visible in community. Usually beautifuyl weather. Also couple of workshops planned in evenings for bicycle repair and maintnenace and deaconess safety rodeo on Saturday. Dondate free helmets t children and demonstrate safety. Also in process of inventorying all of existing bike lanes in town. Lot of reports over years of markings fading or signs missing or gravel on lanes. Working with street dept to make sure bike lanes are swept before May 15 and will be conducting on the ground survey to analyze how well bike lanes holding up. Get painting done by end of fiscal year. Excited about participating in trans plan update. Coordinating with PTSC and Safe Trails. Anxious to get going. stais anxious to get started on the transportation plan update process. He served on the selection committee and is enthused and encouraged that the consultants forwarded multi-modal approaches. The board is working with the Pedestrian/ Traffic Safety Committee and the Gallatin Valley Land Trust to ensure that everything is addressed and anticipates that recommendations from the larger group will carry more weight. The Board also recommends that the bike lane in the North 7th Avenue connectivity plan be extended beyond the project boundary to Springhill Road. The board is willing to help on negotiations and research as the update progresses. Jon Henderson concluded by noting that a couple of the members have become involved in safe routes to school, which will be funded with CTEP monies. E. Other TCC Member Reports PTSC. Ralph Zimmer reported that the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee spent time discussing City sidewalks at its regular meeting earlier this month. County Impact Fee. – PTSC at regular monthly meeting earkler this month spent time discussiong City sidewalks and where we are and might go from here. Topic of interst to us that hope to pursue. Andy – will add PTSC to regular agenda reports Rick – will you be coming to committee with desires of what want to see? Ralph – don’t know. Will be main topic in two weeks. Can answer after that. Kerry White reported that the County’s impact fee study is not yet done, and he will update this Committee as that work proceeds. – still working on county impact fee. Jeff’s involved in that, too. Not done yet. Will just let know how coming along – don’t need on agenda. Ralph Zimmer reported that the Pedestrian/Traffic Safety Committee is working through the summer this year, and is in the process of establishing better working relationships with other groups. David Smith reported that last Friday, the Chamber talked about legislative issues and identified the need for a laundry list of other items, such as potential bond issues. He noted that the unanimous support of the group for a local option gas tax reflects the recognition of transportation infrastructure needs. He concluded the expressing the Chamber’s interest in playing a big role in the transportation plan update. Chair Andrew Epple noted that when the local option gas tax issue surfaced about a year ago, one of the County Commissioners was surprised that the option was available. David Smith characterized the local option gas tax as a user tax and, with the amount of tourism in the area, the result could be to effectively double the monies available for transportation projects. Rob Bukvich noted that the local option gas tax has not yet been utilized in Montana, suggesting that Gallatin County could be the first to do so. No other reports were given ITEM 5. OLD BUSINESS There were no items under this agenda item. A. Downtown Parking Garage Update James Goehrung, Superintendent of Facility Services, announced that the Bozeman Intermodal Facility is to be constructed between East Mendenhall Street and the alley, between North Tracy Avenue and North Black Avenue, and is be funded through two major sources, the downtown tax increment financing district and federal monies. He indicated that a pedestrian island and transfer station for Streamline are to be provided along the Mendenhall Street frontage. Also, the facility is to include 10,000 square feet of retail space and parking to be divided into two phases, with the first phase including 350 spaces and the second phase including 100 parking spaces. He reported that the City has received approval of the finding of no significant impact report; a pre-bid meeting was held on April 18; and the bid opening is scheduled for May 2. If those bids are successful, it is anticipated construction will begin this summer. At this time, the biggest issue is coordinating the relocation of utility poles. – two main sourceds of funding – TIF from downtown area and federal transit admin. Because of that Title is intermodal facility. Along Mendenhall frontage, will have pededstrian island and transfer station for Streamline. Between Mendenhall and alley and Tracy/Black. 10,000 sf retail space and bidding two phases for first 350 spaceds and two will be another 100 spaces. Where in procedss – have received approval of finding no significant impact from federal admin. Bids went out earlier this month. Prebid meeting on 18th. Scheduled to open May 2. provided successful, as soon as get contracts in place and started, summer construction. Biggest issue is coordinating with NW Entergy, Quest and Bresnan. At mercy of schedule to relocate poles.James Goehrung reported that Marvin and Associates is putting together a traffic closure plan for the project, noting that North Tracy Avenue will have one southbound lane and North Black Avenue will have one northbound lane. Also, Mendenhall Street will be narrowed to one lane with no parking on the north side, which will require relocation of the Streamline transfer site to either the east or the west during the construction. Rob Bukvich stated that, since Mendenhall Street is on the urban system, it will be necessary to take this plan to the Transportation Commission. He cautioned that he is uncertain about the timeline for their review. Marvin & Assoc put together the traffic closure plan for the project. Biggest thing is that Tracy and Black will be down to one lane of travel with northbound on Black and southbound on Tracy. Mendenhall narrowed to one lane with no parking on north isde. Initiated conversation with Streamline because transfer site is in front of Kenyon Noble. Will look at possibility of relocating to east or west during construction. Responding to Bob Lashaway, James Goehrung stated the meeting tomorrow afternoon is with downtown business owners that may be directly impacted by the project. He noted the first meeting addressed the issues of garbage collection and parking during the construction period; tomorrow’s meeting will be on utility relocation, since there are 42 utility services on the alley. He indicated that OSHA requires a 1/1 slope for excavation, so the project will encroach on the alley; and a fence will be erected that allows a 6-foot-wide pedestrian path through the alley during the first four months of construction. He also noted that nine property owners have parking at the backs of their buildings. Responding to Jeff Krauss, Joe Olsen stated that the Main Street overlay project is scheduled to be let at tomorrow’s Transportation Commission meeting, so construction may start after the first of June. He recognized that once the contract is awarded, it will be important to coordinate that overlay with the street closures for the parking garage to minimize impacts on the traveling public. Rob – since Mendenhall on urban system, will want to take to MDT Commission. Trying to get look at proposed island now. Got out of the environmental document. We’ve got Marvin’s traffic impact study from environmental document. Should do us for now. In process of looking atg that and take any changes to MDT because on federal system. Don’t know timeline for review. Jeff Ebert noted that the milling and overlay should take just a week, while the concrete sidewalk crossings will take more time. Also, he stated the major part of that project is the signal upgrade. He recognized that that work must be coordinated with the parking garage, particularly since there are traffic signals at both North Tracy Avenue and North Black Avenue. Responding to Rick Hixson, James Goehrung stated that Martel Construction has been selected as the contractor at risk on the project, and there were four contractors at the prebid meeting. He noted that sixteen components of construction are being bid.James – if need additional info, let me know. Bob L – at TIF meeting, announced meeting tomorrow at 3:30 p.m. what is that? James – second meeting with downtown business owners that may be directly impacted. On Main/Black to tRacy. First was on garbae and parking during construction. Worked out concerns. Tomorrow, Chuck Busta will talk about utility relocation. 42 utility services on that one stretch of alley. A ouple issues, because of construction technique, will go below grae. OSHA requires 1/1 slope to excapvate so will encroach on alley. Fence with 6 feet of pedestrian travel through alley during first four months of constgruction. Also nine property owners with parking in back of building. And update on project. Jeff K – how getting coordinated with Main Street overlay? James – not sure of overlay schedule. Will impact waterline work more. Will add to confusion and congestion and way looking now, at mercey of NW Energy, late July before get started. Not sure how fits with State schedule for mill and overlay. Joe Olson – Main Street projecgt scheduled to be let tomorrow so construction may start first ofr June. Once get contractgor, need to coordinate with garage to minimize impacts. Don’t want contractor to shut down one week and other shut down the next week. Chair Epple thanked James Goehrung for the update, noting that the new facility will change the face of the downtown dramatically. He then requested that another update be given at the July meeting.Jeff E – major part of that project is signal upgrade. Mill and overlay will be just a week. Concrete sidewalk crossings will take some time. Jeff K – everything heard about concrfete crosswalks is that have to cure for ten days and dug much deeper than overlay. And then putting in signals intersection by intersection will take a lot of time. Jeff E – will need to be coordinated bedcause traffic signals at both Tracy and Black. Rick H – how many attended prebid? James four ina dditiona to contruction manager. Martel already selected as contractor at risk. Bidding other sixteen components of construction. James – default date for bid opening will be May 9 if May 2 doesn’t work. Andy – parkiong garage will change downtown face dramatically. Thanks for update. Like to invite to make update at July meeting. B. Other Old Business No issues were raised under this agenda item.ne A. Status of Bozeman Area Transportation Plan 2006 Update B. Establish Temporary Appointment to TCC to represent the Safe Trails Coalition during the 2006 Transportation Update Process C. Other Old Business ITEM 6. NEW BUSINESS A. Transportation Plan Update Status 1. Consultant Selection Process and Results Ross Gammon stated that Robert Peccia and Associates was awarded the contract. Debbie Arkell reported that Project Engineer Bob Murray will be the lead person for the City and Chris Scott will be the lead person for the County. 2. Draft Scope of Services Debbie Arkell distributed copies of the draft scope of services and recommended that the TCC appoint a sub-committee to look at the draft scope and provide comments to Bob Murray. She suggested that this committee could be the same as the selection committee. She noted the contract will probably be ready in January and then the TCC will be asked to meet monthly or every other month rather than quarterly. Responding to Ross Gammon, Debbie Arkell suggested that there be no more than eight on the committee, and asked that there be at least one County representative. It was moved by Debbie Arkell, seconded by Kerry White, that the selection committee also serve as the scope of services committee and be comprised of Rick Hixson, Andy Epple, Jon Henderson, Chris Saunders, Al Vanderwey, JP Pomnichowski, Doug McSpadden and Lee Provance. The motion carried. Debbie Arkell asked that the committee members have their comments to Bob Murray by November 3 and be prepared to meet on November 8. It was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Lee Provance, that the TCC approve the selection sub-committee’s recommendation to retain Robert Peccia and Associates to update the transportation plan. The motion carried. Jeff Key, Robert Peccia and Associates, distributed copies of a press release and copies of the preliminary website for the transportation plan update. He noted the firm has been under contract for a little less than four weeks and, during that time, has been getting ramped up for the update. He indicated that after this meeting, he will go to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle and visit with the reporter about getting the press release into the newspaper. The website is up and running, and the address is included in the press release. Also, he will be sending an e-mail to the Montana Department of Transportation, Gallatin County and the City of Bozeman so that everyone knows the link to this project. Mr. Key stated that when a press release, a technical memo or graphics are released, they will be posted on the website. He stressed that the technical memos and graphics will be listed as working drafts, subject to change; and anyone from the public will be able to print them out and review them. He indicated that the new transportation plan will be heavier on graphics, and drew attention to some of the graphics included in the handouts. He noted that the study area is slightly larger than the last one; the model area is much larger and is complementary to the demand area. Mr. Key noted every community has a major street network, and the classifications in the transportation plan are sometimes different from those in the federally approved classification. He indicated that issue must be resolved since the first step is identifying the major street network for both existing roadways and future corridors. Mr. Key turned his attention to the intersections to be analyzed in this update, noting that 80 are to be analyzed but only 74 have been identified to date. He concluded by noting the last item is a technical memo on the boundary of the project. Mr. Jeff Key stated that an initial public outreach meeting has been scheduled for the second week of May. Also, a kick-off meeting with ALTA, the sub-contractor doing the pedestrian/bicycle analysis, is planned for this Friday. That meeting will include both consultants as well as the City and the advisory groups that are actively involved in those components; and the County and the Montana Department of Transportation are invited to attend that meeting as well. On May 8, a presentation will be made to the InterNeighborhood Council (INC), with the first public meeting to be scheduled at the end of June or possibly the second week of July. On June 15, a presentation is scheduled for the Chamber of Commerce Eggs and Issues breakfast. Mr. Key stated that the consultants will begin data collection during the first week of May. That data collection will include several people doing counts, and they will be sensitive to issues like holidays and school being out. – initially thought 15 minute progress report. Also some issues starting to crop up and will let you know what they are now. Progress – under contract a little less than four weeks. Have to get ramped up for it. Talked at last meeting what intended to do. So what up to. On these handouts, agree to do press release. After meeting today, will go to Chronicle and visit with reporter to see how can get into newspaper. Now officially website up and running. Address on release. Send e-mail to MDT, County and City to make sure everyone knows need link to project. Chair Epple noted that a good outreach program has been outlined, with key groups already being identified and scheduled. He then indicated that all TCC members are invited to attend the outreach meetings. Second handout is preliminary website development. When issue press releases and technical memos and graphics, put on website. Especially the technical memos. Anyone from public can print out. List them as working drafts, subject to change. Real purpose of memos is when get to end of project, don’t want people to see for first time. If see something want to comment on, let me know. Will be cleaning up website and making look better. So far started graphics creation. Trans plan heaveier on graphics than used to be. First one is study area boundary. Slightly larger than last one. Model very vast. Further out, the more potential for errors in model area. Lends to being complementary to demand area. Mr. Jeff Key stated he has identified a number of issues to be discussed. The first issue is the capacities assigned to certain roadways, particularly since that can affect the calculation of impact fees. He noted that if roads are managed in a certain way, the result is more capacity. He cautioned that the capacities contained in the tables in a transportation plan don’t always agree with the travel demand model. He further identified the disparities in the capacities that may be assigned to various types of roadways, noting that the assigned capacity for a two-lane facility might be 11,000 or 12,000 while the assigned capacity for a three-lane facility might be 15,000 or 18,000 vehicles per day. He further noted that, rather than an assigned capacity, some transportation plans contain a range of capacities. He suggested that, since the City’s street impact fee study is underway, it would be beneficial to determine how the capacities are to be reflected in the plan.Existing major street network. Every community has major street network. Wher ehave discrepancies is a couple. Federally approved classification network. More often than not, doesn’t match locals on major network. Likewise for Gallatin County. Issue because try to pinpoint major street network that will use as first step. Have to make sure looking at collectors and above for existing roadways. Look at future corridors as well. This map came from last trans plan. Assuming that’s the major street network in place now. Asg et going, will cfreate similar graphic for federally approved one. Steve White also in attendance. Jeff – eventually, will be level of service graphic. Coulnt cars and analyze intersections and put on graphic. Right now, created graphic to show what intersections under scope to count and anlyze. 80 intersections t look at. On graphic only 74. six yet to be determined. Left cushion for construction. Need to know what they are. Have initial public outreach scheduled in second week of May. Last graphic lets you know what counting. Other item handed out was technical memo on boundary. Like to do to tell people this boundary is diffeent and why. Both memos on website now. Other progress uitems, kick-off meeting this Friday with sub-contractor doing pedestrian/bicycle analysis. ALTA in Bozeman this week. Initially was to be between RPA and ALTA to get kicked off on our scope of work. deciced to bring in City and all the players with interest in this piece of this project. Internal kick-off but invited others as well. Doug, Ralph, Jon and ___. Work with people like MSU and transit. Excited and ALTA. Glad to get involved early. And invited County and MDT as well. On May 10, presentation to INC. very interested in getting in on project. Our scope said will contact and venue with them two months before firsdt public meeting. Looking at end of Juen or second week of July. Want to know what trans planning is and what value has and how public will be involved. Two questions rep framed to me. On Juen 15, opportunity with Chamber at Eggs & Issues breakfast. Will get word out. And from RPAs point, starting data collection first week of May. Have about three staff members down here doing counts but need more. Can’t get MSU civil engineering students to count cars. Sensitive to things like Memorial Day, school out, holidays. Andy – when INC? Jeff – May 8. Tuesday evening. Doug McSpadden arrived at 10:25. Andy – good outreach. Touching bases that need to be. Jeff – takes time to build momentum. Already building it. Chris Scott arrived. Jef K – Friday morning meeting is when and where? Jeff Key – downstairs in Stiff Bldg. and not advertised. Geared to contracting folks and group. Anyone can show up. Andy – all TCC members invited. But core group is good. Suggest Kathy Gastakes. Overarching interst in bike/pedestrian re child obesity issues. Jeff Key – graphics person is Griz and gave in maroon and gray. Bob Lashaway voiced his preference for a range since it more accurately reflects reality, provided it doesn’t make engineering of those roadways too cumbersome.Bob Muray – who’s taking over Tracy’s position and work? Since she’s leaving. Andy – don’t know. Know on some projects, CMC will step in and manage projects but don’t think this falls into that. Will figure out and let Jeff know. Today is Tracy’s last day. Jeff – for this initial meeting, asked me to coordinate with lead INC person. Jeff Key – talk about issues. Jeff Key noted that a range makes good planning sense. He cautioned, however, that the threshold is the criteria that tells a developer whether two-lane or three-lane facility is needed. He cautioned that if this plan is used as the trigger, there is a gray area if the range option is used.Jeff – 1. first issue has to do with impact fees. Talk about capacity. In every trans plan and in most communities for conceptual plans assign capacities t certain roadways. Tables in current plan. If manage in certain way, can get more capacity. Every trans plan has those tables and generally pretty close. Issue because in impact fee calculations for City, think fundmental key is capacity that community adopts. What finding in other communities in trans plans is that those capacities not always in agreement with travel demand model. Assign capacities of 11,000 for 2 lane and 15,000 for 3 lane. In Kalispell, starting t take hit about capacities. Since table shows 12,000 for 2 lane. And 18000 instad of 15,000. issue have to decide as a group if go forward. Some trans plans give range of capacity. Why elevated recently is City having impact fee study underway and variable is capacity. See if concern or let that develop or not. Andy – need strong effort to link the two. Bob L – seems odd that we would want to try to tie down to an absolute something that will be a range. Really no way to guarantee a number. So aren’t we talking about a range and should be represented that way? Always know that will leverage the range to top when most of our street networks before able to do upgrading. Think should consider rante method of desn’t make engineering too cumbersome/ Jeff Key – makes good planning sense and like idea. Only issue is thtose that use on daily basis. Threshld is really the criteria that tells developer have to build 2 or 3 lane. If use as trigger, then gray area if have range. Like range. California plans generally same. If don’t do range, some more specific criteria to abide by.Chair Andy Epple noted that, while the table in the current plan contains a specific number, that number is preceded by the words “up to”. Bob Lashaway suggested that, if a marginal capacity is remaining, the difference between the current level of use and the top of the range could be calculated and a value assigned to it. He noted this mechanism would allow the community to require each development to contribute to the upgrading of the roadway rather than one development triggering the need for upgrade. Lee Provance responded that an absolute trigger is needed, not a gray area. He expressed his interest in seeing lower capacities assigned to each type of roadway. Andy – the plan does say up to. Andy Epple noted that the City addresses the level of service, noting that once it reaches a certain level, development is not allowed until the situation is addressed. He noted that approach often results in developer coordination to resolve the issue. Rob Bukvich cautioned that the roadway is not the limiting factor; rather, it is the intersections and speeds. Bob L. – difference between current level of use and top of range could be marginal capacity remaining and if development uses amount of that capacity, assign value to that and may allow community to require each development to contribute to that capacity rather than one triggering the upgrade. Lee – need absolute trigger for developer required improvemenrs rather than gray area. Numbers people can work with. Gray areas create opportunity for challenge or lawsuit. See lower numbers installed. Andy – policy of City view, never tell that developer you have created problem and need to solve it but say that have LOS issue or capacity issue that can’t be made worse so until addressed and upgraded, no final approval. Often results in coordination with other developers to resolve. Rob B – does City require capacity addition based on ADT numbers? Seems have outline of street sections for arterials, collectors and what developers required to build to rather than off hard numbers. Bob M – beyond that, go back to map that says what improvements are needed. Rob B – when did last time, similar situation because Dan Burden had just come to town to say can put 50,000 on two lane facility. Limiting factor isn’t lanes but intersectionsAl VanderWwey noted that capacity is actually based on the level of service, which is an issue of driver comfort. He stressed that Bozeman’s driver comfort is different from California’s, noting that 12,000 may be high for Bozeman but considered a local street in San Francisco. He then indicated there seems to be a tie between the traffic model and the table in the plan; and he would prefer not to see the traffic model capacity, which is a computer-generated calculation, converted into a capacity in the table. Jeff Key noted that their scope of service includes guidance on the traffic impact studies and how to do the capacity analysis. He indicated that he will help the staff review this issue. Responding to David Smith, Lee Provance stated that rural road standards are different from urban road standards; and some parts of the county are more urbanized than others. As a result, he suggested there should be two standards in the transportation plan. Al V – not capacity as number but as LOS. And that’s grade and issue of driver comfort. Our driver comfort different from California. 12,000 might be high for Bozeman but local street in San Fran. Rob B – lot of other factors come into play. Not just numer of cars, but intersections and speeds. Put down rough number with caveats that said not hard number. Al V – seems a tie between traffic model and table in plan. Would rather not see traffic model capacity which is computer version being translated into hard and fast number to follow. Responding to Jeff Key – our scope of work, City especially wanted guidance on traffic impact studies and how should do capacity analysis for traffic studies. Could get to pint in time where corridor has congestion and give guidance for capacity analysis. Function of approaches, speed and geometry and gets pushed by wayside. Will help the staff review. David Smith – City and county standards for some of these roads. County just adopted 2001 plan a year ago. Are they on board with modeling? Lee – rural standards versus urban standards and some parts of county more urbanized. Should be two standards in plan.Kerry White, Jeff Key stated that calculating the impact fee based on a range of capacity rather than a hard number is dependent on how the calculation is completed. In the County, he is not sure the capacity will make a difference; but in the City it does have a direct bearing on that calculation. Kerry White – where intersections create capacity standards, two lane road could be different capacity standards and county vesus city. If don’t have hard line of capacity on a particular road and developer comes in for subdivision, and how does that affect impact fee collection if no hard capacity if realm of numbers? Jeff Key – depends on how impact fee calculation is being completed. County vesion, not so sure capacity makes difference. What began whole conversation is City’s process. Has direct correlation to capacity assuming for roadway. And with County’s not using that methodology. Has bearing on the mpact fee calculation.Further responding to Kerry White, Jeff Key stated a transportation plan does not measure every road in the major network; rather, it takes a broad brush approach. He then noted that some plans contain both rural and urban tables. Kerry – are you considering different capacities on two lane roads like 11th versus Mendenhall versus Rouse? Jeff Key – typically in regional trans plan, don’t measure every road in the major network. Leave to specific studies or developer plans. Try to look at broad brush on theoretical cpacities. When say 12,000 vehicles per day, assumption is some day a rural road will be an urban road. Had typical desired sections but expected urban. In some plans have b oth rural and urban tables. Bob Lashaway suggested that the TCC ask Jeff Key to come back with recommendations on street designs, standards and capacities at the May meeting. He also asked for information on how the recommended direction might affect impact fee calculations. Jeff Krauss expressed his interest in having the impact fee consultant also present for that discussion, stating that could provide the information needed for this Committee to make a decision. Bob L – seem to have identified street designations and the standards and street capacities. Maybe this group would want Jeff Key to come back in May with recommendadtions on these and maybe sreet capacity be adopted by the TCC. And relate to scope. If prosing chose range or not but changes scope, would want to know for decision and how recommended direction might affect the impact fee calculations and we could be ready to address and provide direction in May. Jeff Krauss – want impact fee consultant there if talk about that. Believe something if going to have discussion. Want to hear from them during that discussion. Need to know. Andy – will reconcile between now and May. Rick Hixson stated one big policy issue is the acceptable level of service, noting that capacity is tied to that. The current unified development ordinance (UDO) says a level of service “C” is desirable and that under no circumstance will the City accept lower than a level of service “D”. He cautioned that accepting a lower level will result in lower costs but increased pollution unless work hours are flexed for both the public and private sectors. He stressed that the Department of Environmental Quality is carefully monitoring pollution issues and, while it will help to fix the problem, the local community is the one that experiences the problem. Andy Epple suggested that accepting a level of service “D” might have the general effect of promoting alternatives modes of transportation. Rick H – one big policy issue and that is the acceptable LOS. Capacity tied to that. Our UDO now says LOS C is ddesirable and in no circumstance will we accept lower than D. Chris K arrived at 10:50. Rick H – the amount of monies would go down on roaways and pollution start to go up unless can convince private or public sector to flex hours. So spiderweb. And complicated issue. Lot is policy issue. Responding to Andy Epple, Project Engineer Bob Murray voiced his preference for a range, noting that two different roads may not have the same capacities. He acknowledged that tying impact fees to this plan might affect staff’s preference. Jeff Krauss – could ask public if willing to accept lower level of service but think they already fee they have accepted lower. Andy – way more expensivde to community over time to accept only C and accepting LOS D would have general effect of promintg alternative mode of trans. Jeff Krauss – that’s unproven theory to me. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated a precise number is needed for calculating impact fees, and a defensible number is essential for that process. He recognized, however, that functionally there is a range for any type of roadway, depending on a number of factors. Rob Bukvich questioned whether the impact fee discussion has to be part of the transportation plan or whether the impact fee consultant should bring forward those fees. He also asked if it is important to tie down a specific capacity number or if it would be possible to include some type of soft language in the transportation plan. Rik H – but nodes where lOS issues raise issues. DEQ lining up to help local govt fix te problem. But local community has the problem. With LOS D will deal with air pollution issue sooner rather than later. Lee Provance stated that, while he likes flexibility, he wants a document that is defensible and appropriately interacts with other documents, like subdivision regulations and impact fees. Responding to Rob Bukvich, Chris Saunders stated he is looking for identification of what roadway links will likely need improvements, which is where the issue of capacity comes in. He noted this is the basis on which the project list is developed and what is growth related is identified. Andy Epple noted it seems a lot more attention needs to be given to level of service analysis rather than theoretical volumes. Bob L – sounds like maybe some consensus among group that focus on capacity level rather than range so can include within that several statements on compromises that might cause at the end. Andy – would you rather see absolute with caveats? More deciding factor we look at in review is LOS. Bob M – like the range. Those doesn’t come up as often as when plans and improvements are done. Two different roads may not have same capacities. And intersections 99% of the time. Andy – agree. Bob M – tying to impact fees may affect. Kerry White cautioned it is critical for the County to have the needed information on which to base its road impact fees. He stated if that information is not in this plan, the County will need to spend additional tax dollars to get it. He concluded by stating some sort of capacity trigger point is needed within this report. Chris S – have range in there now where existing and ideal conditions. Individualized circumstances. Need for precise number is calculating impact fees. Assumptions on roadways need in future. Can see desire to recognize functionally there is a range but at least for looking at how finance, need logical basis to tie to specific number for spreadsheet. May take middle but need defensible number. Lee Provance voiced his agreement that level of service is the critical issue, and noted that a range accommodates specific circumstances that may allow more volumes. He acknowledged that the lack of zoning in the County creates a quandary and that the City has a better grasp on the issue. Jeff Key – desire expressed to me that the trans plan go to higher level of documentation on what is development driven and what isn’t. in Kalispell have major street recommendations and sescribe problem and why necessary and paragraphs about project and going one step further than B/C ratios are this. And so specifically can address in whether impact fees t be charged. Counter argument is if roadway already over capacity, not eligib le for impact frees. So desire expressed that maybe in TSM and MSN chapter increase level of detail for updating impact ees. Andy – valid one. Rob B – is it that important from trans plan standpoint to tie down hard and fast number t use in impact fee discussion? LOS number or weasel word statement fine for trans plan. Does impact fee discussion have to be in plan or should it be with impact fee consultant to bring forward impact fees. Chair Andy Epple stated there needs to be more discussion on this issue and noted the options have now been laid out for policy decisions at the May meeting.Lee P – need consistency so don’t get challenged. If anything gray or may be flexible, will be drug into court about it. Want to be defensib le and link everything. Sub regs to trans plan and impact fee andmake sure interact. Like flexib ility but if leave too many holes, will find way to drag into court. Rob B – have rough language in trans plan. How do you use with impact fees? Chris S – looking for identifification of what roadway links likely will need improvements and what kind. Where capacity comes up again. If assume carry 15,000 difeent expectation for improvements than 12,000 per day. Where pick project list from. And what is growth related. Jeff Krauss – that’s trigger point. And if having study and establishing benchmarks, no harm to have benchmark detailed that provides benchmark for another study. Should have consistency internally with what county and city want. Unless costs a lot more. Andy – if talk in terms of a range, can have situations where major upgrades to two lane road carrying 10,000 are recognized because of the friction points or width of roadway so can be at low end and need capital improvements. Or at high end but no problems. Lot more attention needs to be not on theoretical volumes but LOS analysis. Pat Abelin stated it is important to develop a transportation plan that the County will accept immediately, not six years later. Kerry White suggested that the study area boundary be revised to include a north side bypass around the airport. Lee Provance responded that Belgrade is getting ready to update its transportation plan, and it would be more appropriate to include that road connection in their plan. He cautioned that expanding the boundary of this plan will result in less focus on the roads in the Bozeman area.Kerry White – critical for impat going through on County to have info we need. If not in this plan, will be additional tax dollars spent to do. If can do here, will benefit county. A lawsuit will cost county or city and if can’t get justified for impact fee, we won’t get it. Critical that info be specific enough to support impacgt fee. Need some sort of capacity trigger point in there. Lee – Andy’s right. LOS issue. Why range is there is to accommodate roadway for specific circumstances that may allow more volume. Without knowing what will happen on connectin roads and lack of zoning, its quandary. More grasp n city than in county. Have to compromise some place. Chair Epple noted that inputs into the study area can be addressed through external points, but those inputs do not need to be studied in detail. Andy – need to have more communication on this issue. And have options laid out for policy decisions at May meeting. Bob Lashaway suggested that Jeff Key work with Chair Epple in identifying other issues as they emerge. Chair Epple concluded this agenda item, noting that the issues to be discussed at the May meeting can be listed on the agenda with support information provided so all TCC members can review them prior to the meeting.Pat A – also want to write something that doesn’t take County six years to sign off on. Obviously using plan but last time did it, long time for County to step on board. Want plan they are ready to sign when done. Kerry W – look at study area boundary on Figure 1-1. is that a hard and fast study area boundary? Interchange and requirement on federal standards and will do away with federal standards on east side bypass. On this study boundary area looks like comes within 1 mile from Dry Creek Road. What gotten from community is lot of interest out there in north side bypass from Dry Creek to either Old 10 or airport. Don’t want to go into Belgrade so taking off on side roads. And air quality in morning and evening is getting bad. Just extend boundary a little and look at possibly north side bypass around airport to get toward Bozeman. May take pressure off some of those roads. Lee P – Belgrade’s ready to redo their plan and will go through same process in condensed version. Proper and appropriate to take on at that time. If get too spread out, will be less focused on roads that should be for Bozeman trans. Andy – deal with those inputs into study area through external points but don’t study in detail what’s out there rather than expand boundary. But Belgrade’s TCC coordinating plan is appropriate. Bob L – suggest Jeff get with chair in case other issues emerging even if not introduced. Andy – can get listed on agenda and things for people to review ahead of time. Break – 11:15 to 11:25 By-Laws Discussion JP Pomnichowski requested that this discussion be continued to the next meeting. Following a brief discussion, Ross Gammon asked that this item be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. C. B. Other New Business No items were raised under this agenda item. none 1. South 19th Avenue and South 19th Avenue/West College Street intersection projects Jeff Ebert noted that during the transportation construction program update last week, the Montana Department of Transportation discussed urban priorities and projects, specifically the South 19th Avenue reconstruction and the South 19th Avenue/West College Street intersection improvements. He stated that during the last legislative session, $5 million was earmarked for these projects, less takedowns; and it is his understanding that Bozeman wishes to utilize urban funds to make up any shortfall in the costs of these projects. He stated that a review of the files did not reflect any documentation that that was the TCC’s desire. Debbie Arkell noted it is her recollection that the TCC passed lists of project priorities for urban funds and for CMAQ funds, but she recognizes the importance of making the City’s priority projects very clear. She then stated she is confident that the costs will exceed the monies available. It was moved by Jeff Ebert, seconded by Debbie Arkell, that the TCC reconfirm its urban priorities for the South 19th Avenue reconstruction and South 19th Avenue/West College Street intersection improvements. The motion carried. 2. North 7th Avenue connectivity plan Debbie Arkell reported that on Monday night, the Bozeman City Commission finally adopted the connectivity plan for North 7th Avenue, which is part of the tax increment financing district recently created. She recognized that this plan has not been submitted to the TCC for review, even though it does include transportation improvements along the North 7th Avenue corridor from West Main Street northward beyond the viaduct. She indicated one of the key components of the plan is three different street designs, one from West Main Street to West Beall Street, one from West Beall Street to West Oak Street, and one from West Oak Street to the north end of the project. The adopted design includes 10-foot-wide driving lanes, which does not comply with the existing transportation plan, the growth policy or the unified development ordinance standards. She then requested that this issue be discussed at the next TCC meeting. Chris Saunders noted that, not only does the plan section not follow current specifications; the street itself does not follow current specifications because the right-of-way is narrow and is subject to physical constraints. He characterized this as part of the balance between current standards and existing conditions. Debbie Arkell noted the City’s engineering staff has come concern with the 10-foot-wide driving lanes since North 7th Avenue is heavily commercialized and several of the businesses are served by semi trucks. Responding to Kerry White, Jon Henderson noted that there is a bike lane along the entire length of the project, although some parking may be restricted and the planned median may need to be removed. Responding to Rich McLane, Chris Saunders stated the travel lane is normally 11 or 12 feet wide on primary arterials. He then indicated the key issue is sharing of lanes, which is possible on lower volume streets. Chris Kukulski noted the narrower lanes are accompanied by a bike lane, which provides additional space for turning radii. He then acknowledged that in the connectivity plan, the roadway is rated as a 20-mile-per-hour road, which is based on the length of time it actually takes to get from West Main Street to the interstate. David Smith voiced his discomfort with the 10-foot-wide lanes in this major commercial corridor. He then questioned how a plan that does not meet City standards can be approved. He also expressed his disapproval of bringing the buildings to the sidewalk. Responding to questions from David Smith, Chris Kukulski acknowledged that the proposed plan does not have the unanimous support of the business community; however, the business core was heavily involved in development of the plan. He asked that the TCC look at this plan holistically rather than at individual controversial components and further asked that a battle not be created between the transportation side and the economic side of the corridor. JP Pomnichowski stated the plan does a good job of promoting good traffic flow. Lee Provance stated that a 12-foot-wide driving lane has been the national standard for a long time and is viewed as safe. He noted that people are not used to driving in narrow lanes, and he is concerned that the result will be safety problems. Further, he stressed that many plans do not work in snow country and voiced his concern that the problems will be compounded with the plowing of snow. He concluded by stating he does not find that this is a good plan for public safety. Kerry White voiced his agreement with Mr. Provance’s comments, characterizing the plan as a safety issue. Sara Folger stated she lives in the neighborhood, which has a large number of low-income people and people with disabilities, so much of the travel is by foot or wheelchair. From a pedestrian or bicyclist point of view, North 7th Avenue is a dangerous street. She stated forcing neighborhood people to accept a plan that favors 18 wheelers will not sit well and asked that the area residents be given consideration as this plan is reviewed. Chris Saunders noted that North 7th Avenue is primarily designed as a highway, and the question is whether the business people want slower lanes with more visibility, like Main Street, or the ability for motorists to fly through the corridor. He stated the narrower lane will cause traffic calming, but acknowledged that maintenance will be an issue. Chris Kukulski asked that the TCC be careful about its assumptions and that it not become overly emotional in its decisions. He stressed that both five-lane main streets and pedestrian malls utterly fail, and noted that a careful balance is critical to the success of the corridor. Jeff Ebert stated that from the State’s standpoint, the only project for North 7th Avenue is the seismic inadequacy of the North 7th Avenue interchange. That project is in the preliminary design phases and will include adequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities. He indicated the MDT will review this plan and try to incorporate those concepts into the design of its project. He concluded by noting that urban funds are the only monies available for the North 7th Avenue corridor, and the blessing of federal highways will be required for the expenditure of those monies. He then thanked Debbie Arkell for bringing this issue forward and voiced his interest in discussing it further. Ross Gammon asked that further discussion of the North 7th Avenue corridor plan be placed on the agenda for the next TCC meeting. ITEM 7. PROJECT UPDATES - Discussion only as needed MSU Projects Update Bob Lashaway reported they are beginning to plan for South 8th Avenue from West College Street to West Cleveland Street and West Cleveland Street from South 8th Avenue to South 6th Avenue, with those improvements to hopefully be completed during next year’s construction season. Responding to Andy Epple, Bob Lashaway stated he anticipates the projects will result in only intermittent interruptions. – beginning to look at planning for 8th from College to Cleveland and Cleveland 8th to 6th hopefully for next year’s construction. Andy – any projecgts to affect traffic ptattersn? Bob – under construction and only intermittent interruptions. Legislature will wrap up and so will e projects out of that for next year. Chris Saunders stated that he attended one of the planning sessions for the campus-wide master plan He encouraged TCC members to look at the website for this project and to provide input. Belgrade Projects Update – Jeff Ebert stated that right-of-way acquisition for Valley Center Road continues. – nothing new. Continuing on Valley Center acquiring ROW. Things going smoothly as they go. Kerry W – let’s throw entry onto interstate eastbound off Amsterdam. Won’t be interchange out there. Three lights out getting onto Jackrabbit. Metion that. Whether three or four years out. Off Thorp or something. Majority of where traffic wants to go is east. Responding to Bob Lashaway, Jeff Ebert stated that the eastern portion of the Valley Center Road project is scheduled for letting in February 2009 and the western portion is not yet scheduled. He noted, however, the MDT continues to purchase right-of-way and to relocate utilities in anticipation of those road improvements. He then noted that the developers of new subdivisions along that roadway have been directed to coordinate with the MDT on improvements to the road. Christopher Scott noted that many of those new subdivisions are within the Belgrade planning jurisdiction rather than the Gallatin County planning jurisdiction. Jeff E – bring money and we’ll build it? Bob L – timeline for Valley Center? Jeff E – February 2009 for eastd part. West part not currently scheduled but still trying to buy ROW and move utilites. Couple subdivisions out there and their direction is work with us on MOU to make that reconstruction of roadway and need to coordinate to see how can occur. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Rob Bukvich stated the final plan for Valley Center Road has been done, based on previous traffic studies. He noted that developers are being required to do spot studies in conjunction with their projects.Lee P – should have four or five on board before long and hopefully we can finance that protion so maybe can flow the two halves. Jeff E – worthwhile to work for that. Chris S – since planner out tere, have some say in that. But also Belgrade planning jurisdiction for majority of them. Doug – is traffic study still ongoing for that project? Thought would be traffic study on east section of the road. Thought wanted update because info so old. Rob B – have final plan done based on traffic study. Developers doing spot studies for their projects. Chris K left at 11:30 Andy Epple suggested that the information in the previous traffic studies could be updated with the information from the studies for the individual projects. Andy – and that’s part of the process for each development. Sounds like with those impact studies done, could update the info.Kerry White proposed an eastbound entry onto I-90 from Amsterdam Road, noting that could alleviate some of the traffic congestion at the Jackrabbit Road intersection. Jeff Ebert stated the Main Street/Jackrabbit Lane project is completed. Jeff Ebert turned his attention to the Valley Center project, noting that acquisition of right-of-way is underway for both projects. An update of construction plans for the next five years was given at last week’s Transportation Commission meeting, and improvements from the interstate to Love Lane are included. The issues are the 30 to 40-percent increase in costs and the legislative directive to maximize recouping of overhead costs, which is 11 percent. In light of those changes, the project has been moved from 2007 to 2009, based on the monies available for secondary roads. He indicated that acquiring right-of-way and relocating facilities will continue as originally planned in anticipation that grab bag monies may become available. Lee Provance noted that the entire project was initially estimated at $3 million; the estimate for the first half is now estimated at $5.4 million. Jeff Ebert stated that Bozeman is in the lowest allocation of the five districts in the state, and indicated that this project will be readied for any potential additional funding. CTEP Projects Grants Administrator Sara Folger reported that she is now seeking the second – out for second round of bids for the East Willson Roof replacement. She then reported that she has an acceptable bid for the Milwaukee Trail and library site, but is awaiting award of the contract until the budget is in place. She concluded by stating that she received confirmation yesterday that the City’s 2007 allocation is $127,000. And hopefully will get interest from community. And have an acceptable bid and would like to ward for Milwaukkee Trail and Library site. Want to make sure money in place. MDT and City hesitate to award contract. Budget in place and everything clear before make award. The two projects consuming my time. Have our 2007 allocation of funds yesterday $127,000 in CTEP funds. Will be available for projects. is about to wrap up the Soroptimist Park project; bids for the Library site rail/trail project are to be opened on Monday; work will be undertaken this winter to get a consultant for the West College Street/Huffine Lane pathway project; and steps are being taken to move the East Willson School reproofing project forward. South 19th Avenue – Main Street to Kagy Boulevard Rob Bukvich indicated that this project is scheduled for February 2008. Jeff Ebert stated that he met with City staff on February 8, at which time amenities to be added to the project were identified; and the consultant is now ready to report back to the City on those issues. He concluded by stating he anticipates right-of-way acquisition will begin next week. – nothing to add from last time. Planned for February 2008. Jeff E – met with City staff Feb 8 and asked to explore amenities to add to the project. Came away with dirction didn’t want to reopen environmental document. Letter from consultant to go to City and will double check on that. Review done and need to report back to City on that. ROW activities probably start next week on actual acquisition and that’s all that is new. suggested the possibility of breaking the South 19th Avenue/West College Street intersection improvements from the roadway improvements because of the right-of-way negotiations with one of the landowners near the project. He noted that the landowner is causing the MDT to look at redesigning the intersection improvements and moving West College Street to the south. Letting of the bid for the project was originally anticipated in June 2007; however, it appears that project will not be ready until August or September. The plan now is to continue acquiring right-of-way and finishing the design work with the contract to be let in January or February 2008 and construction to begin in the spring and be completed in one construction season. Kerry White asked about a bypass for traffic for this project. Jeff Ebert stated the intent is to accommodate one or two-way use during construction but recognized there may be times when the road must be closed and alternative routes provided. cautioned that inability to successfully resolve the issues with the Dr. Rogers property could potentially be a show stopper. He noted Dr. Rogers feels the street should be realigned and that the right-of-way should be acquired from MSU. He cautioned that shifting the alignment of West College Street affects the City’s options for that street in the future. He also noted that shifting the alignment to the south will affect MSU property both east and west of South 19th Avenue. Responding to Chair Epple, Mr. Ebert stated that, whether the roadway is shifted or not, it will be necessary to acquire some right-of-way from Dr. Rogers. Responding to Debbie Arkell, Rob Bukvich stated the West College Street legs of the intersection are to include four lanes: a right turn lane, a straight through lane, a left turn lane, and a straight through lane in the opposite direction. He cautioned that these improvements are essential before South 19th Avenue can be improved between West Main Street and Kagy Boulevard. Further responding to Debbie Arkell, Jeff Ebert noted that both the West College Street and South 19th Avenue improvement projects must be designed at the same time and then constructed at essentially the same time. He indicated that the $5 million earmarked for this project is available until it is expended. He cautioned that, while Congress has earmarked those monies, it is important to remember the federal highway administration has “takedowns” that amount to approximately 12 percent, which are deducted from the amount appropriated for a specific project. Further, legislation adopted during the last legislative session provides that the State utilize the maximum amount of overhead for the processing and use of FAU monies. He cautioned that these deducts from the appropriation will result in the necessity to use more urban funds for projects. Mr. Ebert noted that the department is working hard on the improvements to the intersection of West College Street and South 19th Avenue since it has been identified as one suffering from congestion and air quality issues. The design and construction costs for this intersection have been estimated at $3 million, and he will request that additional CMAQ funds be earmarked for this project. He then estimated that the two projects will total $6 million. Sara Folger stated discussions with the head of the CTEP Bureau have revealed that after 2008, approximately 15 percent of the allocation will be taken for administration. E5. North 19th Avenue/Valley Center Project Debbie Arkell reported that this project is substantially complete and can now be removed from the list. She indicated that once all of the construction is complete, the speed limit will be set at 40 miles per hour, based on the results of a recent speed study. David Smith announced that the ribbon cutting for this project is set for August 17 at the rest area. Chair Andrew Epple noted this project has opened the doors for businesses to construct and has allowed traffic to move better. 6. Signal Projects a. Willson Avenue/ College Streetnoted that Andy Epple has written a letter to the City Commission stating that a roundabout was determined to be not feasible because it would have adverse effects on three of the four quadrants of the intersection and the fact that those property owners were not receptive to allowing the purchase of additional right-of-way to accommodate the improvements. Based on previous Commission action in December 2005, the next step was to be installation of a traffic signal. At this time, the MDT is awaiting an answer from the Commission to Mr. Epple’s August 28 letter; however, their plan is to install the signal unless told to do otherwise. Debbie Arkell reported that she and Rick Hixson have finished reviewing the report and should be prepared to discuss it with the Commission within the next couple weeks. b. Other Willson/College. Jeff Ebert reported that in January it was determined a traffic signal would require additional right-of-way, and a comparison of that option and the roundabout were provided to the City staff. He indicated that additional survey work must now be done and the final impacts identified. He anticipates the environmental document will then need to be opened and revised in light of that new information. Jeff Krauss expressed his appreciation for the work that the Montana Department of Transportation has done and its willingness to work with the City of Bozeman to find the best and most acceptable alternative for this intersection. – WillsonCollege intersection. Got a little more. At last meeting talked about comparison between roundabout and signal. Determined in Jan that signal require additional ROW. Comparison to roundabout and presented info to City staff. Ironic thing is that roundabout has less ROW impacts to Four F property which would be consideration. Talking 25 to 40 sf between the two. So what doing now is lot of design done because was originally to be signal, need to get additional survey done and look at what those final impacts wil be and probably issue with lookint at opening environmental document again. Under signal felt no ROW impacts. Back to square 1 now. But looks like can do. Jeff Krauss – you’ve worked with us the whole time and suffered through a lot of iterations and appreciate that at City. Thank you for all done. Main Street project. Joe Olsen noted that a city-wide signal project is tied to the Main Street project, and includes two new traffic signals at the intersections of East Main Street with Church Avenue and Wallace Avenue, extending the downtown pattern. Responding to Jon Henderson, Jeff Ebert stated the actuators are to be driven by video since that is a better option than loops. Joe Olson – tied to Main Street project is city wide signal project. Main and Wallace and Chirch and Main two new signals. Extending downtown pattern. Jon Henderson – has it been decided if actuators will be driven by video? Jeff E – yes because loops used in past wear out and benefit cost shows even though video more expensive, it in big scheme of things cost less. Will not be for ticketing purposes at this time. Ralph – on the 19th Main to Kagy, have ROW problems been solved? Jeff E – we’re still working through process. Several concerns and trying to best appease those concerns. Right now nothing official that ROW is of concern, just working through process. Think will be in good shape. Responding to Christopher Scott, Jon Henderson stated that video works better than the loop for bicyclists. Chris Scott – video detectors. Is there advantage for bicycle traffice? Jon H – have had reports that bicycles don’t trigger the detectors. And concerns that during late night, wouldn’t trigger. More supportive of video solution. Work better than loop. Lee Provance cautioned that concrete requires a 14 to 21-day cure time before trucks can travel on it. Jeff Ebert stated that the milling and overlay can be done fairly quickly; the concrete crosswalks, ADA ramps, and signal replacements are the components that will take the time. Rich McLane asked if the traffic signal at East Main Street and Church Avenue is to be part of the project; Joe Olsen responded that it is. Rich McLane noted that bicycles on the sidewalk are a current problem and asked if anything can be done about that issue; Debbie Arkell indicated she will see if signage can be done. noted that Lowes is being required to install a left turn arrow on the traffic signal at the intersection of North 19th Avenue and Baxter Lane. She asked if the Montana Department of Transportation would be willing to determine whether that left turn arrow can wait or if it needs to be installed before that business opens; Jeff Ebert indicated a willingness to do so. (OVER) 7F. North Rouse Avenue Jeff Ebert stated the consultant is working through the – working through environmental process, and there is nothing new to report at this time. Consultant had meetings b ut nothing new. Tracy Oulman stated that HKM Engineering held a meeting with the NorthEast Neighborhood Association last night. She noted that they are working hard to continue communications with the neighborhood while moving forward with the project; and construction is scheduled to begin in 2010. She indicated that a survey conducted by NENA in conjunction with MSU revealed a statistically positive response on the North Rouse Avenue improvements. Jeff Ebert cautioned that the project is probably further out than currently estimated. He then stated work on the environmental assessment is currently underway, and that will drive the design. He indicated that accommodating bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, parking, snow removal and Bozeman Creek within the corridor will be extremely difficult. Tracy Oulman noted it is anticipated that three or four parcels will be subject to takings for this project; and efforts are being made to find out what the EPA will require for Bozeman Creek. Jeff Ebert noted that the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is not excited about the concept of piping the creek but acknowledged that is an issue to be addressed. Rob Bukvich reported that meetings have been held with the school district, and some of the concerns regarding bicycle and pedestrian facilities are being addressed. He noted that the department is currently working through the environmental assessment process, and he anticipates another public meeting will be scheduled during the winter. Jeff Ebert noted that staff and the consultant also met with residents along North Rouse Avenue to discuss the processes and the amount of right-of-way to be acquired for the project. He noted several of the homes are located on fairly small lots, and acquisition of the right-of-way will probably result in a total taking of those sites. He indicated that almost all of the residents have voiced appreciation for their efforts to involve them in the process early. He noted that, while the five-lane option might be considered for the north end of the project, it has been dismissed as an option for the southern end. G8. Durston Road Street Improvements Rick Hixson stated work on Durston Road between North 7th Avenue and North 19th Avenue is continuing, and that work is to be completed by this fall. He noted that once asphalt is available, the second lift will be laid west of North 19th Avenue and the striping completed. – working 7th to 19th and once asphalt available, second lift down west of 19th and striping down. All that’s left. 7th to 19th to be done this fall. Second lift not more than a few weeks to do. Chris Scott – assuming that with the western side is there any need to do anything west? Rick – may need to cut out some pieces and redo where not acceptable. 9H. I-90 Improvements Jeff Ebert stated that chip and seal and a couple bridge approaches still remain to be done, and he anticipates that will soon be scheduled since it is now closer to spring. He then indicated several projects involving replacement of structures are upcoming. Those include the North 7th Avenue structure, the crossing over North Rouse Avenue and the MRL rail lines, and the structure to the east that involves the old spur line. He proposed the possibility of a smaller structure to cross over the old spur line to continue the pedestrian trail system to the north. He cautioned that if the abandonment process is not completed for that old rail line, there is a potential the railroad could later require the installation of a larger structure. He identified issues that need further discussion, including acquisition of the right-of-way and an emergency response plan during construction. – reported last time only thing is chip seal and a couple bridge approaches. Stil same. Closer t spring now so should be scheduled. Shifting gears, have several projects involving replacement of various structures. North 7th and crossing over Rouse and MRL and structure to east involving spur line. Info from City that that area to northeast of interstate has been rezoned to be residential rather than commercial. Potential could put in smaller structure to cross over that old spur line turned into trail. one of the issues need to have discussion about is MRL leases lin from BNSF which owns property and if thee’sw a push to go through abandonment, takes a year and obviously trail under our structure we would want to look at buying. Remaining part of that, might want to have discussion. If don’t go through abandonment, RR could come back at later date and if do small structure, would be on hook for larger structure. Frees up money for other projects. At same time, amenable t possibly looking at participating in that purchasing of remaining ROW with City or other entity so that could happen. Plant seeds and we’ll follow up in future. Also issues with emergency reponse plan when goes to construction. Topic for another discussion. 910. Huffine Lane Access Control StudyJeff Ebert stated a consultant has been hired, and work is being done on the final access plan. A public meeting is to be scheduled over the winter, with the final plan to be submitted in June 2007. I9110. Jackrabbit Lane, Access Management Plan Rob Bukvich indicated that a public information meeting is tentatively scheduled for the end of next month. – scheduled public info meeting for the end of next month. Joe – not awere of one J10. Huffine Lane, Access Management PlanJeff Ebert indicated this project has been divided into two parts, reconstruction from Four Corners north to Hulbert Road and reconstruction from Hulbert Road to Frank Road Work is currently being done on the design, with construction for both parts now scheduled for beyond 2011. Chris Saunders noted there is a lot of development occurring along that corridor, and suggested that developers might help to fund these road improvements so they can be completed earlier. He stated the alternative might be that the County Commissioners won’t approve any further development because the road has not been improved. Jeff Ebert acknowledged that the need for road improvements is being driven by development and noted that two new subdivisions are being required to provide some of those improvements. He then stated that Butte gets the least amount of funding statewide, and Jackrabbit Lane is designated as a national highway. Responding to Lee Provance, Jeff Ebert identified the boundaries of the Butte district, which includes Garrison, Dillon, Springdale, Gardner, West Yellowstone, White Sulphur Springs, and nearly to Helena. He indicated that the Transportation Commission allocates the monies based on what is needed to preserve existing infrastructure after which congestion needs are addressed. Rob B – want to schedule public info meeting. Jeff Ebert noted that the comments from the last Transportation Coordinating Committee have been used to revise the graphics and make the connector road links less specific. He stated that, if the schedule coincides, it is his intent to give the TCC a preview of the public presentation at the May special meeting and then schedule the public meeting for that afternoon or evening. --- at last meeting, made presentation and took lot of TCC comments and revised graphics and making links less specific. Tie public meeting in with May TCC meeting that evening or afternoon and maybe give TCC a preview of that meeting will get info and public meeting set and if coincides, so be it. Will be about a month from now. K121. Other Highland Boulevard. Responding to Jeff Krauss, Jeff Ebert stated some of the MDT staff members have been in attendance at some of the hospital meetings regarding needed road improvements. He stated that the Department needs traffic studies and plans before it can react. Jeff Krauss – Highland? Nothing. Andy – significant project that hospital is doing. Jeff E – think some of our staff members have bene in attendance at some of the meetings. Need traffic studies and plans for what’s to be done so we can react. Impact Fees. Assistant Planning Director Chris Saunders stated that, if the TCC wants the impact fee consultant to be present for the May meeting, he needs to know. Chair Epple suggested that a telephone conference may be adequate and asked that arrangements be left to staff. The TCC members agreed. Highway 191/Big Sky. Responding to Kerry White, Jeff Ebert stated several projects are currently underway. He noted that centerline rumble strips are being installed in the no passing zones from the mouth of the canyon to Big Sky, and the fog seal and final pavement markings are yet to be done. The signal at Big Sky is scheduled for completion by November 22, and is the subject of a $200,000 contract. The safety project from the mouth of the canyon to south of Big Sky includes identifying locations for turn lanes, slope flattening, and installation of guard rails. Turn lanes are to be provided at Big Sky and the Forest Service campgrounds located at Greek Creek, Moose Creek, Red Cliff, and Swan Creek. He indicated that passing lanes had been proposed originally, but were not well received by the public. Ross Gammon stated he met with representatives from the Forest Service and, in addition to the turn lanes for the campgrounds, they are considering safe pull-offs for fishing, including building a trail under the 35-mile-per-hour bridge so people can cross the highway without incurring the current visibility problems. Jeff Ebert stated that pavement preservation from Yellowstone Park to Big Sky, including overlay and seal coat, is scheduled for next construction season. He indicated that the MDT is also looking at engineering studies regarding the speed limit in that corridor, along with variable message signs at Big Sky and north of West Yellowstone for the migration of wildlife on the road. Ross Gammon stated two speed trailers and sign boards were installed along the road; however, someone unbolted the electronics and took the radar. Turn arrow on North 19th Avenue/Baxter Lane signal. Responding to questions from and concerns voiced by David Smith, Debbie Arkell stated that improvements are being made to Baxter Lane in conjunction with the Lowes project, and the road is to be open soon. Chris Kukulski stated that he talked to the crew this morning. He noted they were doing work on the manhole covers and would be working on paving except for the snow. He indicated that the underground work is complete and, as soon as the weather permits, they will pave. Ross Gammon addressed the hazards of working along roadways, noting that there are 4,000 workers killed every year in work zones. David Smith stated that utilities seem to be a problem, noting there should be better coordination and more effort made on correct utility locates. Debbie Arkell responded that one call locates are required for construction projects, however, no one knows here the fiber optics are located. She also noted it is difficult to get the utility companies out to assist in locating their services, and the City has no control over them. Chris Kukulski stated Montana is unique in how it handles utilities in the public right-of-way, which makes construction projects even more difficult. Ross Gammon stated the MDT requires plans for utilities; however, it is not uncommon for companies to move the line a few feet but not indicate the change on the plans. Main Street resurfacing. Bob Lashaway asked if the US191/Main Street resurfacing is still on schedule; the response was that the downtown street is to be resurfaced next summer with the remainder scheduled for 2010 or beyond. David Smith voiced concern about the negative impacts that the chip seal and overlay project had on businesses along North 7th Avenue earlier this summer. He suggested that the contractor be encouraged to do evening work and to keep impacts on businesses to a minimum when the downtown project is undertaken. Rob Bukvich responded that when Main Street was last improved, the work was done at night. He then indicated that input will be sought from the downtown business owners before the project is undertaken. Jeff Rupp noted the various downtown boards are well aware of the impending street project. Jeff Ebert suggested that a contractor website and weekly meetings could help to keep everyone informed on the progress of the project. He then cautioned that it is not possible to avoid the June to August time period for undertaking the work due to the area’s weather conditions. Rob Bukvich noted this is anticipated to be a week-long project, and one lane will remain open each way during the work. He then indicated that countdown timers are to be installed in the downtown core, and detector loops are to be added on the side streets with emphasis to be placed on the Main Street traffic. Responding to Jon Henderson, Rob Bukvich stated that today’s actuators are not sensitive enough to respond to a bicyclist; rather, a cyclist must use the pedestrian button. He indicated another option that could be pursued is a video actuator. Responding to Debbie Arkell, Joe Olsen stated the crosswalk treatment has not yet been determined, and assured her that the City will be involved in that process. Debbie Arkell then expressed an interest in possibly using the same crosswalk treatment on the side streets as on Main Street. Responding to Ralph Zimmer, Rob Bukvich stated the traffic signals are to be interconnected in an effort to maintain progression; however, they will be also semi-actuated through the core. Sara Folger stated the Downtown Bozeman Partnership has let the request for proposals to expand the downtown core to include the side streets between Mendenhall Street and Babcock Street. With that expansion, she suggested that CTEP monies could possibly be used to fund a portion of the costs of decorative crossings on the side streets. Detours. George Durkin asked that detours for city projects that impact county roads be better noticed. He also proposed that the contractors be required to provide dust abatement on unpaved county roads when they are used for detours, noting it is difficult enough to maintain them without the additional traffic. Valley Center Road. At Debbie Arkell’s request, Jeff Ebert provided an update on the Valley Center Road project, noting it is scheduled for 2008. He indicated the department is currently in the process of acquiring right-of-way. Responding to Doug McSpadden, Rob Bukvich stated the speed study on Valley Center Road was done by the City, but that study did not apply to the entire length of the roadway. He then indicated that the reconstruction project is divided into two pieces, with the east section to be done first and the west section to be done at a later date. ITEM 8. DISCUSSION ITEMS 19th Avenue Overpass. Kerry White proposed an overpass on 19th Avenue at West Main Street. He noted that from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on any given day, traffic is backed up because both streets are very busy and there is no way to handle the current volume of traffic with a traffic signal. Chris Saunders stated some of the current Main Street congestion problems result from the closure of Durston Road. He also suggested that if Stucky Road were extended to Kagy Boulevard, many of those accessing the southwest quadrant would take that route. He stated there is a plan in place to provide the needed transportation links, but they are costly. Debbie Arkell stated that, as development is occurring, the grid system is coming into place. She cited the improvements to Flanders Mill Road and Harper Puckett Road as examples and noted that two new signals are anticipated along South 19th Avenue south of Kagy Boulevard. Gas tax/miscellaneous updates. Chris Kukulski stated that the issue of a two-cent gas tax was discussed at the last City/County meeting; the County Commission is interested, and the City Commission is definitely interested. He then indicated that, during his Wednesday morning radio talk, one of the issues raised was left turn arrows, and he attempted to explain the challenges of planning when no left turn arrow was considered in the initially installation. City Manager Kukulski noted that opening of the Fowler Lane/West Garfield Street connection will be a huge reliever for the West College Street/South 19th Avenue corridor. Setting of speed limits. Chris Kukulski suggested that steps need to be taken in becoming more proactive in setting speed limits, particularly since rural roads are significantly different from urban streets. He suggested that the designing of streets and roads should include discussion of the speeds rather than setting the speeds at the 85th percentile from speed studies done after the improvements have been made. He noted that the Durston Road improvements will solve a lot of problems; however, he anticipates the neighborhoods will be unhappy when the speed limits are set at 35 or 40 miles per hour. Lee Provance stated the same issues revolve around setting speed limits in the County. He characterized it as a hugely political issue, noting that setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile will reduce accidents and improve safety; however, that often does not match with political pressures. ITEM 9. 2006 & 2007 MEETING DATES AND AADJOURNMENT – 11:55 47p.m. Andy – listing of meetings through end of year. Will start next years schedule after this meeting. May roll Huffine access into the agenda. Wednesday, October 25, 2006 - Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, January 24, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. Chris S – if want impact fee consultant to be here for the May meeting, need to know now. Andy – tend to think phone conference might be worthwhile. If extra trip, not sure cost effective. We heard concernsa bout liking impact fee with trans plan. If leave to staff and if conclude improtantt to be here, will do what need to set that up. If think can be effectively through other forms of communication, willing to leave to us? TCC membes – yes. There being no further business to come before the Committee at this time, it was moved by Jeff Krauss, seconded by moved and Lee Provance, that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried. secondedIJP Pomnichowski adjourned the meeting. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, May 23, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. Standard Meeting: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 – 10 a.m.-12 p.m. Standard Meeting: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 – Regular meeting at 9:30 a.m. * Special Meeting: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 – 10 a.m. – 12 p.m. * Special Meeting: December date to be determined due to holiday schedules. ____________________________________________ Andrew C. Epple, Chairperson Bozeman Area Transportation Coordinating Committee Andy – hope can make the in bewe3en meetings. Reminder of upcoming meetings.Andy – listing of meetings through end of year. Will start next years schedule after this meeting. roll Huffine access into the agenda. Andy – will add PTSC to regular agenda reports (Item No. 4) Wednesday, October 25, 2006 – Regular meeting 9:30 a.m. *Transportation Coordinating Committee meetings are open to all members of the public. If you have a special need or disability, please contact our ADA Coordinator, Ron Brey, at 582-2306 (voice) or 582-2301 (TDD).