MANITOU SPRINGS PARKING AUTHORITY BOARD REGULAR MEETING MINUTES I. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Manitou Springs Parking Authority Board was held on Friday, June 14, 2013 in Council Chambers @ 606 Manitou Avenue. Chairman Yowell called the meeting to order at 8:07 am. The following were in attendance: PRESENT: ABSENT: STAFF: GUESTS: Chairman NEAL YOWELL Board Member CURT HEIMSOTH Board Member SPENCER WREN Board Member BILL KOERNER Board Member MARJORIE WHITE Board Member KARI KILROY (Arrived at 8:10 am) None Michelle Anthony, Planner Dave Gagnon, Standard Parking Roger Miller, Ensign Engineering Val St.Cloud, Ruxton Resident Jeff O Brian, Downtown Business Owner Marian Yacko, Pilot Knob Resident Marcy Morrison, imanitou Council Liaison Coreen Toll II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1) June 14, 2013 Ms. Kilroy arrived during the discussion of the June Minutes and her recommendation by email that they be amended to state why the board recommended the paid parking hours remain as implemented. Ms. Anthony stated she would be glad to amend the minutes; however inserting a summary into them that didn t actually occur wouldn t be an accurate representation of the meeting. She noted the reasons for keeping the hours as is were: 1) the confusion it would cause to try and change everything at this point and 2) the desire to allow the system to operate for a period of time so there would be real data to base any future changes to the operational hours on. Ms. Anthony noted these reasons were now part of the meeting record of the current meeting. MOTION: Mr. Heimsoth moved to approve the June 14 th minutes as presented. SECOND: Ms. Kilroy seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION: There was no discussion regarding the motion. VOTE: Motion passed, 5-0. (Ms. White abstained as she was not present at the June meeting.) III. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING PROPOSAL FOR COMPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PLAN Roger Miller, Ensign Engineering, stated he had scoped the project keeping in mind the $9000 budget and the fact some work had already been done in preparation for the downtown paid parking and Ruxton RPP programs. Mr. Miller noted wayfinding to the downtown and the other major attractions and designations would be included. He would be addressing multi-modal types of transportation and creating consistent and adequate signage. Very detailed design criteria would be created. Ms. Kilroy asked for clarification regarding what would be included. Mr. Heimsoth asked if signs for each of the parking lots would be included. Ms. Anthony stated a plan for signs throughout the main corridors of travel would be included and this would address walking, biking, parking, driving private vehicles and getting people to the shuttle. Bid documents and costs estimates for implementation would be provided. Council Liaison Toll asked if Colorado Springs would make the proposed signs once the plan was in place. Ms. Anthony stated they could be asked to bid the project. Mr. Miller noted the last signs were made by Colorado Canyon Signs and several contractors should be solicited. The board agreed they wanted to see a thorough job and if there was more funding needed to complete a plan they wanted to know this. Mr. Miller noted his proposal did not include implementation and this would take some time as timing and coordination of the installation of signs was critical. However, he would need to know more about what the final plan called for in order to estimate implementation assistance. Council Liaison Toll stated the City had ordered two variable message signs for flood events, public safety and events. She didn t see why these couldn t be used for parking information when they were not needed otherwise. Mr. Miller asked if the board wanted him to investigate other types of electronic signage, such as to let people know when lots are full. He suggested that type of signage system might be able to be funded by a CMAQ grant. Ms. Anthony asked the board if it wanted to see an addendum for this. The board consensus was that it would. Mr. Koerner stated he was concerned with sign efficiency and effectively communicating, but not over or under communicating. He said signs should not be thrown everywhere as this was sign pollution. Mr. Koerner stated the way signs are implemented spoke to what the City wanted the town to look like how big, how many, where, and duplication of signs. 2
Mr. Miller noted Manitou Springs is a tourist destination and signage had to address both transient and permanent populations. He stated signage shouldn t be redundant, but clever and good looking. He felt group input from imanitou, the PAB, and the HPC as had been recommended by Mr. Koerner would be valuable. Mr. Koerner stated Manitou Springs was a Home Rule city and had latitude regarding what rules were followed. Mr. Heimsoth stated the general philosophy should be comprehensive and collaborative and agreed imanitou and the HPC would help with vetting the sign program with the community. He suggested a PAB subcommittee spend the time going through the proposal and working with Mr. Miller, or asked if the board wanted to go through the document page by page. Mr. Miller stated he could include specific numbers of meetings and scope out the project in more detail based on the discussion. Ms. Kilroy suggested, rather than trying to include everyone, the project should focus on input from established groups and not just the general public. She was concerned about creating an unwieldy process. Chairman Yowell suggested the PAB appoint a subcommittee who could do the general legwork and then present information to the Board. Ms. Anthony stated the board did not want to exclude the general public, but the process could not be designed to accommodate input from 5,000 people. There would be opportunities for members of the public to comment and have input. Mr. Heimsoth stated he thought the subcommittee should go through the proposal and help Mr. Miller refine it. Mr. Wren stated he thought the subcommittee idea was a good one and it was beneficial to get input from other groups. Council Liaison Toll stated she was interested in sign efficiency and about policies addressing such things as the number of signs on a pole. Mr. Koerner stated that the Sign Ordinance might need to be looked at. Mr. Miller indicated once adopted, the sign plan could be implemented and the intention was to leave the City with a document that would help with the design and placement of future signs as well. Mr. Miller noted the project would evaluate: What signs the City currently had (both regulatory and informational) What signs are required (regulatory) What signs are missing (regulatory) What signs are desired (informational) What signs should look like (both regulatory and informational) 3
Val St.Cloud, 602 Ruxton Avenue, stated he was dismayed with the lack of the City logo on official signs, noting the new signs on Ruxton did not have the logo, which is the City s brand. He addressed the issue of electronic sign boards and private providers who weren t full objecting to signage telling the public upper Ruxton parking was full. Mr. Miller noted the private parking providers would have to be part of the system if it was to work. Mr. Heimsoth again asked the board if it wanted to go through the proposal, or appoint a subcommittee. Mr. Yowell asked for the board s approval regarding appointing a Sign Subcommittee, which would be led by Mr. Heimsoth and include Mr. Koerner, Ms. Anthony and Mr. Gagnon who would work with Mr. Miller and report back at the next meeting. The board consensus supported this action. Ms. Morrison, from imanitou, suggested the subcommittee include a representative from the Chamber. The board agreed and Chairman Yowell asked Mr. Heimsoth to coordinate this. It was agreed the PAB Sign Subcommittee would meet at 9 am on Friday, July 19 th at City Hall to discussion amendments to Mr. Miller s proposal. IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING SEPTEMBER BOARD RETREAT Ms. Anthony proposed that the board hold a daylong retreat in September in order to discuss how the first Summer of downtown paid parking had gone and look at what was needed for and if there were going to be changes proposed for the off-season operations. Ms. Anthony also suggested the board needed to discuss and make recommendations on programs and projects on which parking revenues could be expended both in the latter months of 2013 and in preparation for 2014 budgeting. The board agreed a daylong session was a good idea and decided to hold this on the regular meeting date in September. Ms. Anthony noted she would find a location other than City Hall and would make arrangements for lunch to be served. Mr. Heimsoth suggested at a review of the PAB work program and where the various goals stand would be a good exercise for the retreat. V. DISCUSSION REGARDING CONSTRUCTION PASSES FOR WORKERS DOING JOBS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA Mr. Gagnon suggested day passes for contractors and maintenance workers in the downtown were needed. Ms. Anthony suggested moving activities downtown were also something that needed to be provided for. The board agreed passes/permits for the use of the public parking for both activities should be addressed. Discussion regarding possible rates ensued. Jeff O Brian, Canon Avenue Business Owner, stated flooding and needed repairs were bringing more contractors into the downtown and this did need to be addressed. He suggested making it free to people/contractors addressing emergency issues. 4
Emergency Situations: MOTION: Mr. Koerner moved that free permits for parking in the paid parking areas downtown be provided for contractors addressing emergency situations as defined by the City. SECOND: Mr. Heimsoth seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion regarding the motion. VOTE: Motion passed, 6-0. Regular Situations: The board consensus was to keep the expense for the permits or passes for the non-emergency situations minimal. It was noted these types of permits did not require action, such as designating parking, on the part of the parking personnel. MOTION: Mr. Heimsoth moved that permits for parking in the paid parking areas downtown be provided for contractors working on adjacent properties in the amount of $5 a day or $55 a year. SECOND: Ms. Kilroy seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion regarding the motion. VOTE: Motion passed, 6-0. Moving Activities: Staff noted it was likely that these types of permits would require that parking personnel cone off parking spaces and frequently more than one space was needed for moving activities. MOTION: Mr. Koerner moved that permits for moving activities in the paid parking areas downtown be provided for tenants and/or moving companies in the amount of $5 a day per space occupied. SECOND: Mr. Heimsoth seconded the motion. DISCUSSION: There was no discussion regarding the motion. 5
VOTE: Motion passed, 6-0. Mr. Heimsoth asked how vehicles pulling trailers that take up more than a single vehicle space were being addressed. Mr. Gagnon stated that technically they had two license plates, so should pay for two parking spaces. However parking enforcement was not ticketing these types of situations currently. Ms. Anthony noted that an ordinance would be needed to create these permits and this would be brought back to the board for consideration and recommendation to the City Council. VI. UPDATES: Paid Parking Implementation Mr. Gagnon reported the paid parking implementation had been going well. He noted Parking Enforcement was getting feedback that locals didn t like to pay and downtown employees weren t able to park on the streets downtown. Mr. Wren asked if the western end of Manitou was seeing more parking. Ms. Kilroy asked specifically about the Smischny Lot. Staff responded there was more usage, but the lot in particular was still not being used to maximum benefit. Mr. Wren stated he had been taking the Osage cut-off for years, but had been trying to drive on Manitou Avenue and had seen a huge improvement in traffic and parking congestion in the downtown. He noted more Cog customers were going downtown and finding a place to park in order to shop and eat, rather than just leaving after their train ride. RPP Implementation Mr. Koerner noted Ruxton was still jammed with traffic on the weekends all the way to the Catholic Church. Ms. White stated there had been a big improvement on Ruxton, it was taking until 5 pm during the week to get nonresident parkers out of the area. Ms. White noted there were lots of illegal parkers on Saturdays. She wondered if there were tickets being issued. Mr. Gagnon stated the nonresident parkers were not paying attention to the restrictions on the weekends and they were doing a lot of enforcement. He remarked there had been a vast improvement during the week, but not on the weekends yet. Council Liaison Toll suggested this might be a possible use for the variable message signs and she would ask the City Administrator about this. Mr. St.Cloud stated he had been told by neighbors weekends are getting better. Parking Enforcement Report Information was presented regarding a recommendation by former board member Jay Rohrer for different signage on Ruxton. Mr. Gagnon stated the kiosks used universal messages and he had not been able to determine how the Ruxton machines might be able to be customized. 6
Discussion regarding both the signage and stickers submitted by Mr. Rohrer by email ensued. The board agreed the signage would be clearer in Mr. Rohrer s plan, but acknowledged there had been a significant investment in the current signs. They asked Mr. Gagnon to implement the stickers as soon as possible and then report on whether these seem to help the issues. The board also asked Mr. Gagnon to present a cost estimate for changing the signs. Manitou Shuttle Ridership Counts It was noted downtown employees were not riding the shuttle. Ms. Anthony stated this could be operational as much as education about the availability of the shuttle. It was agreed more education was needed. Mr. Koerner remarked one way to get the desired usage would be to price other options to encourage the use of the shuttle. Mr. Heimsoth stated there needed to be two shuttle vehicles running on 15 minute intervals. The consultants had been right about other aspects of the parking program and the City won t meet its objectives in regard to the shuttle until it can do as recommended. Mr. Miller remarked that the capacity of Ruxton should be about 3,000 vehicle trips a day. So doing the math the shuttles have a 25 person capacity and there are about 18 trips a day. So extrapolating out for some people getting counted twice (up and down trips), this still meant that about 200 trips a day were being kept off Ruxton. He noted this might not be were the City wanted to be, but it was having an effect. Mr. Yowell noted he received comments the shuttle was driving slowly up Ruxton and holding up traffic. Mr. Wren stated the shuttle was a total bust. 99% of the riders were incline users and they brought nothing to the town in regard to revenue. He felt Colorado Springs residents should find their own way up to the Incline. Ms. Kilroy asked if the shuttle needed to run later in order to get usage by employees. Mr. Koerner stated the shuttle was recommended in the Incline Management Plan, however the headways were too long and he felt the vehicles were too big and the hours were not right. Mr. Gagnon asked if the board would be interested in a proposal from Standard for shuttle operation. The board agreed this would be valuable to have by the board retreat. Ms. Anthony suggested the board not say the shuttle doesn t work this is a pilot program intended to figure out what the demand is and operation schedule should be. She noted Mountain Metro was very impressed by the numbers and the City could work on changes for the off-season and service in 2014. Mr. Heimsoth suggested this be discussed at the board retreat for 2014 and going forward. Mr. Koerner wondered why the shuttle couldn t be coordinated with the Cog s operating schedule. June Financial Report Ms. Anthony noted she had not been able to get a financial report for the previous month and would obtain this and email it to the board. 7
Metro District May and June Minutes Ms. Anthony reported she had not been able to get the May meeting minutes and there was no June Metro Meeting. She stated she would email this information to the board. VII. DISCUSSION REGARDING NONAGENDA ITEMS There was no discussion regarding nonagenda items. XI. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, Chairman Yowell adjourned the meeting at 10:05 am. Minutes prepared and submitted by Michelle Anthony, AICP Planner 8