Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150217 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 17, 2015 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Library Ground Breaking Ceremony II. Parks Projects Review III. Castle Creek Bridge/Hallam Street Connectivity Study IV. Health & Human Services Discussion P 1 I I . P 2 I I . P 3 I I . P 4 I I . P5II. P6II. P7II. P8II. P9II. P10II. P11II. P12II. P13II. P14II. P15II. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Tyler A. Christoff, P.E., Senior Project Manager Matt Kuhn, Trails Manager THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Jeff Woods, Director of Parks DATE OF MEMO: February 10, 2015 MEETING DATE: February 17, 2015 RE: Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study: Conceptual Design Review Work session SUMMARY: Staff seeks Council input regarding pedestrian, bicyclist, and traffic safety for this corridor and requests support to continue to final design on the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study. BACKGROUND: Open Space and Trails Board members along with Engineering, Parks, and Transportation staff have identified the Castle Creek Bridge and Hallam Street corridor as deficient link in Aspen’s bicycle and pedestrian network. Due to topographic, property, and geometric constraints safe travel options are limited throughout this area. The Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Study follows the ideals of The City of Aspen Civic Master Plan (CMPAG) adopted by City Council in December 2006. The Plan states “Aspen’s future should be one in which the automobile plays a smaller role in people’s everyday lives. Other modes of travel should be made as safe and convenient as possible to facilitate that goal…the level of investment in…more and better bikeways and walkways should increase.” During the January 7th 2014 work session, staff and Open Space and Trails Board members presented the Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity project as a priority to City Council. Council members directed staff to return to Council with a design contract addressing feasibility options for this corridor. Council approved the staff recommended professional services contract with Loris and Associates during the April 7th 2014 regular Council meeting. During staff’s recent check in at the January 20th City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board Meeting, unanimous support was given for the conceptual design of this project. DISCUSSION: Since this project’s inception staff has worked with the Loris and Associates team to collect data, engage the public, and develop a workable conceptual design. Public outreach has been essential to selecting and refining the conceptual design. To date staff has held: P16 III.  Two public meetings (July 10th and September 10th)  A Council work session (May 20th),  Two Open Space and Trails Board work sessions (September 18th, January 15th) Input from these meetings and outreach shaped the four conceptual combinations (Attachment B). These combinations attempted to illustrate all possible treatments that met the project’s goals. These opportunities as originally stated were:  Improve pedestrian safety through better pedestrian/traffic interactions, including treatments for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic;  Improve Aspen’s East-West pedestrian and bike connectivity;  Update and enhance Castle Creek Bridge connections to adjacent roadway, pedestrian, bicyclist infrastructure;  Improve the existing bus stop location;  Enhance pedestrian safety by examining existing crossings and pedestrian patterns;  Improve the crossing infrastructure including ADA accessibility upgrades;  Engage the Open Space and Trails Board Members and other stakeholders during the design process;  Engage the Colorado Department of Transportation Staff and other stakeholders during the design process;  Engage the community and other stakeholders during the design process;  Re-evaluate past corridor study, planning, bridge analysis and cost estimation  Provide alternatives that don’t exclude any future “Entrance to Aspen” design. Public and stakeholder input ultimately guided staff and the design team to a solution that not only met the projects goals but met the community’s values and vision for this corridor. This refinement and selection process created a preferred concept depicted in Attachment A. This concept addresses all of the original project opportunities outlined in the scoping and respects the major design constraints of the corridor. The conceptual design presented in Attachment A utilizes the existing Right of Way and Castle Creek Bridge Structure from Cemetery Lane to 7th Street. It is important to note that with this level of conceptual design, details such as material choice, landscaping treatments, bus shelter options, and even some trail geometry still requires further refinement. Staff is committed to P17 III. continuing to work with adjacent property owners and other stakeholder groups to refine the final treatments of the corridor. Staff believes the preferred concept (Attachment A) best meets all stakeholder and community needs while taking a lower impact and fiscally conservative approach to enhancements to the corridor. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: $150,000.00 has been established by engineering staff in the 2015 asset management plan to cover the development of construction drawings based on the preferred concept. Parks Department will contribute the remaining funds needed to complete the final design through a supplemental budget request. The final design contract will require Council approval in the form of a consent agenda item. A rough order of magnitude estimate using 2014 Aspen-based unit cost data projects construction costs at around $2,700,000. This estimate will be refined as the final design alignment and material choices are finalized. Staff would add a placeholder during the asset management plan process for the 2016. Staff has also begun exploring state funding partnerships with Colorado Department of Transportation thru the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Congestion Mitigation Air Quality program (CMAQ), and the Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery program (FASTER). These funding partnerships require further design development to qualify. Staff will continue to research opportunities for supplemental funding sources as this project develops. Design Expenditures 2014 Project Expenditures Loris and Associates Proposal $54,130.00 Contingency $ 5,870.00 Total $60,000.00 2015 Proposed Project Expenditures Final Design/Construction Drawing Contract Determined during final design scoping Design Funding 2014 Funding Castle Creek Ped and Bike Improvements (acct #000.15.94766) $30,000.00 Castle Creek Bridge Fence Improvements (acct #100.94.94306) $30,000.00 Total $60,000 2015 Funding Castle Creek Ped and Bike Improvements (acct#000.15.94766) $150,000 Supplemental Request Parks Department Determined after final design scoping P18 III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Creating connectivity for bikes and pedestrians encourages the use of those transportation modes and makes it easy for Aspen’s citizens and visitors to choose the modes with the smallest carbon footprint instead of choosing the automobile. Reducing vehicular traffic affects a number of City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard measures such as: levels of small particulate air pollution, Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts, and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. This project also has a net gain in green space and permeable surfaces due to the overall slight reduction of asphalt surface in the right of way. Staff further coordinated with the City Forester in order to accommodate existing trees and reduce impacts to the urban forest PROPOSED ACTION: Staff proposes to complete the design of the preferred concept illustrated in Attachment A and develop full construction plans. Staff would return to Council for approval of a contract to complete final design documents in April 2015. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachment A - Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Preferred Conceptual Design Attachment B - Castle Creek/Hallam Street Connectivity Public Outreach Alternatives   P19 III. HALLAM STREET \ CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE CONNECTIVITY STUDY CONCEPTUAL DESIGN February 17, 2015 P 2 0 I I I . CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ~ FEBRUARY 17, 2015 P 2 1 I I I . P22III. N 0 30 60 120 Scale - 1” = 60’ 180 City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014 LEGEND S S Grade separated underpass crossing Path to meet back up with existing mulit-use path Multi-use path roundabout Continue path from roundabout to underpass Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and elbow railings Mixing zone with cautionary striping North side cycle track North side cycle track Pedestrian sidewalk Hi-visibility cycle track crossing Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop Eliminate on-street parking Maintain existing bus stop but rotate 90 degrees Eliminate left turn from SH 82 onto 7th Smooth curve at SH 82 Close 7th southbound maneuvers onto Hallam Reconstruct curb at 7th Street W. HALLAM ST C E M E T E R Y L A N E B A R N A R D P A R K C T P O W E R P L A N T R D H A R B O U R L A N E N . 8 T H S T N . 7 T H S T W. FRANCIS ST N . 7 T H S T E. BLEEKER ST H A R B O U R L A N E P 2 3 I I I . N 0 30 60 120 Scale - 1” = 60’ 180 City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014 LEGEND S S Grade separated underpass crossing Path to meet back up with existing mulit-use path Multi-use path roundabout Continue path from roundabout to underpass New 14’ wide mulit-use bridge North side-multi-use path North side multi-use path Close 8th street access Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop Eliminate on-street parking Move bus stop close to 8th street and turn 90 degrees Maintain existing curb-line Retaining wall C E M E T E R Y L A N E B A R N A R D P A R K C T P O W E R P L A N T R D H A R B O U R L A N E N . 8 T H S T N . 7 T H S T W. FRANCIS ST N . 7 T H S T E. BLEEKER ST H A R B O U R L A N E P 2 4 I I I . N 0 30 60 120 Scale - 1” = 60’ 180 City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014 LEGEND S S Grade separated underpass crossing Path to meet back up with existing mulit-use path Multi-use path roundabout Continue path from roundabout to underpass Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and elbow railings North side multi-use path Pedestrian sidewalk Route bikes via sharrow to Francis Street Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop Eliminate on-street parking Maintain existing bus stop but rotate 90 degrees Eliminate left turn from SH 82 onto 7th Close 7th southbound maneuvers onto Hallam Reconstruct curb at 7th Street P 2 5 I I I . N 0 30 60 120 Scale - 1” = 60’ 180 City of Aspen: Hallam Street - Castle Creek Bridge Connectivity Study September 2014 LEGEND S S Grade separated underpass crossing Path to meet back up with existing mulit-use path Multi-use path roundabout Continue path from roundabout to underpass Utilize existing bridge with 8’ trail and elbow railings North side multi-use path Eliminate Cemetery Lane bus stop Eliminate on-street parking New 14’ wide mulit-use bridge North side multi-use path Close 8th street access Move bus stop close to 8th street and turn 90 degrees Maintain existing curb-line P 2 6 I I I .        As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y    Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2  – Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4   Su m m a r y  Do c u m e n t      Ci t y  of  As p e n   Lo r i s  an d  As s o c i a t e s   Al t a  Pl a n n i n g    Sh a n k l a n d  an d  As s o c i a t e s     P27III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  1      Ta b l e  of  Co n t e n t s                                Pa g e   In t r o d u c t i o n                   2   Mo d i f i c a t i o n s :  Qu e s t i o n s  an d  co m m e n t s  fr o m  th e  co m m u n i t y :        3  – 4   De s i g n  Co m b i n a t i o n s :  Qu e s t i o n s  an d  co m m e n t s  fr o m  th e  co m m u n i t y :      5   De s i g n  Co m b i n a t i o n s :  Gr a p h i c s               6  – 9   Sm a l l  Gr o u p  Di s c u s s i o n s  an d  Po l l i n g  of  co m m u n i t y  vi e w s      10  – 11   Ta l l y  of  Co m m u n i t y  Po l l i n g               12   Pr e f e r r e d  Co m b i n a t i o n  – Gr a p h i c             13   Ne x t  St e p s                     14   Ap p e n d i x :  Li s t  of  Pa r t i c i p a n t s               15            P28III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  2   As p e n  – Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Me e t i n g  ‐   In t r o d u c t i o n   On  We d n e s d a y ,  Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4 ,  co m m u n i t y  me m b e r s  jo i n e d  wi t h  of f i c i a l s  fr o m  th e  Ci t y  of  As p e n ,  As p e n  Parks  and   Re c r e a t i o n ,  Al t a  pl a n n i n g  al o n g  wi t h  Lo r i s  an d  As s o c i a t e s  an d  Sh a n k l a n d  an d  As s o c i a t e s ,  in  th e  Si s t e r  Ci t i e s  ro o m  of  the   As p e n  Ci t y  Ha l l  fo r  a  se c o n d  me e t i n g  to  gi v e  in p u t  an d  vo i c e  pr e f e r e n c e s  fo r  th e  Ha l l a m  Co r r i d o r  Bi k e  an d  Pe d e s t r i a n   mo d i f i c a t i o n s .    Th e  at t e n d e e s  we r e  in v i t e d  to  th i s  ev e n t  vi a  mu l t i p l e  av e n u e s  in c l u d i n g ,  5  ne w s p a p e r  ad v e r t i s e m e n t ,  the   ci t y  we b s i t e ,  ci t y  me e t i n g  ca l e n d a r ,  ma i l e r s  se n t  to  ad j a c e n t  pr o p e r t y  ow n e r s ,  an d  th e  ci t y ’ s  so c i a l  me d i a  re s o u r c e s .  The   go a l  of  th e s e  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  is  to  in c r e a s e  sa f e t y  fo r  th e  bi k e  an d  pe d e s t r i a n  tr a f f i c  in  th e  ar e a  as  we l l  as  im p r o v e  overall   fu n c t i o n  of  th e  co r r i d o r .      Th e  ob j e c t i v e s  fo r  th e  me e t i n g  we r e  to  cl a r i f y  po t e n t i a l  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  to  th e  ro u t e  an d  to  po l l  th e  co m m u n i t y  as  to   pr e f e r r e d  mo d i f i c a t i o n s .    Th e  or g a n i z i n g  te a m  Pe t e r  Lo r i s ,  Jo s h  Me h l e m ,  Ty l e r  Ch r i s t o f f ,  wi t h  th e  fa c i l i t a t o r s  Sh e r w o o d   Sh a n k l a n d  an d  Ro b e r t  Sh a n k l a n d ,  cr a f t e d  a  fo c u s e d  pr e s e n t a t i o n  wh i c h  wa s  op e n  to  th e  pu b l i c  fo r  al l  in p u t  fr o m  the   co m m u n i t y  of  As p e n  as  we l l  as  th e  ke y  or g a n i z a t i o n s  in  th e  ci t y .    Po t e n t i a l  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  to  th e  ro u t e  we r e  di s c u s s e d  and   qu e s t i o n s  we r e  po s e d  di r e c t l y  to  th e  de s i g n e r s  ab o u t  ea c h .    Th e  gr o u p  wa s  th e n  as k e d  to  we i g h  ea c h  po t e n t i a l   mo d i f i c a t i o n  on  it s  me r i t s ,  as  we l l  as  it s  al i g n m e n t  to  th e  “s p i r i t ”  of  th e  co m m u n i t y  fo r  fe e d b a c k  to  th e  ci t y  an d  designers   fo r  co n s i d e r a t i o n .         P29III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  3    Ea c h  mo d i f i c a t i o n  wa s  ex p l a i n e d  an d  qu e s t i o n s  of  cl a r i t y  we r e  an s w e r e d  by  Lo r i s  an d  As s o c i a t e s .     Qu e s t i o n s  an d  co m m e n t s  fr o m  th e  co m m u n i t y :    o Ar e  th e r e  wi d t h  di f f e r e n c e s  in  op t i o n s  1. 1  an d  1. 2 ?   A:  Op t i o n  1. 1  ha s  a  10 ’  wi d e  cy c l e  tr a c k  an d  a  6’   wi d e  si d e w a l k ,  an d  Op t i o n  1. 2  ha s  a  10 ’  wi d e  pa t h .    o St o p  ba r  lo c a t i o n  of  op t i o n  3. 1 ?     A:  Th e  st o p  ba r  wo u l d  be  lo c a t e d  be h i n d  th e             cr o s s w a l k .   o An y  ex a m i n a t i o n  of  th e  so u t h  si d e  si d e w a l k  to  “r e c l a i m ”   la n e  sp a c e ?   A:  Du e  to  th e  co n f i g u r a t i o n  of  th e  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k   Br i d g e ,  wi t h  th e  sm a l l  gi r d e r  on  th e  ou t s i d e  th a t   wa s  de s i g n e d  to  ca r r y  pe d e s t r i a n  lo a d i n g  on l y ,   re c l a i m i n g  sp a c e  by  in f r i n g i n g  on  th e  so u t h   si d e w a l k  is  no t  po s s i b l e .    Th e  ba s i c  re ‐ co n f i g u r a t i o n  of  th e  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  in c l u d e s   re d u c i n g  la n e  an d  sh o u l d e r  wi d t h s  by  1’  ea c h  (4 ’   to t a l  re d u c t i o n  of  sp a c e  fo r  mo t o r  ve h i c l e s ) .    Th i s   wo u l d  al l o w  fo r  wi d e n i n g  th e  sidewalk  by  3’ and   in s t a l l i n g  a  1’  wi d e  ba r r i e r  between  traffic  and  the   si d e w a l k .      A  ne w  “e l b o w ”  pedestrian  railing,  si m i l a r  to  th a t  on  th e  Ca s t l e  Creek  Underpass   (u n d e r  th e  ve h i c u l a r  br i d g e )  could  be  constructed   to  pr o v i d e  ad d i t i o n a l  ro o m  on  the  sidewalk.  o Do  th e s e  op t i o n s  el i m i n a t e  th e  So u t h s i d e  sidewalk  (on  the   br i d g e ) ?   A:  Th e  so u t h  si d e  si d e w a l k  remains  “as  is” in  all  of   th e  Co m b i n a t i o n s  pr e s e n t e d .   A  meeting   pa r t i c i p a n t  su g g e s t e d  co n s t r u c t i o n  a  south  side   ra i l i n g  si m i l a r  to  th e  re q u i r e d  railing  on  the  north   si d e  al s o .      P30III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  4   o Cu r r e n t  fe n c e  is  ac t u a l l y  “p u s h i n g ”  pe o p l e  in t o  th e  tr a f f i c   la n e s  as  it  is  da n g e r o u s .   A:  Th e  fe n c e  re q u i r e s  pe d e s t r i a n s  an d  bi k e s  to  ke e p   a  “s h y  di s t a n c e ”  aw a y  fr o m  it ,  wh i c h  me a n s  th a t   pe d s  an d  bi k e s  mu s t  tr a v e l  cl o s e r  to  th e  cu r b  th a n   wh a t  wo u l d  fe e l  sa f e .      o Us a g e  of  th e s e  “p o i n t s ”  of  mo d i f i c a t i o n ?    Ha s  th e r e  be e n   a  fu l l  st u d y ?   A:  Se v e r a l  pr e v i o u s  st u d i e s  ar e  av a i l a b l e ;  ho w e v e r ,   ne w  st u d i e s  to  an a l y z e  th e  im p a c t s  of  pr o p o s e d   mo d i f i c a t i o n s  ha v e  no t  be e n  ma d e .      o Wi d t h  of  th e  “n e w  pa t h  br i d g e ”  (m a k e  it  bi k e  on l y ? )   A:  Th e  ne w  br i d g e  co u l d  be  bi k e  on l y ,  bu t  th e n   pe d s  wo u l d  be  re q u i r e d  to  us e  th e  na r r o w   si d e w a l k s  on  th e  ve h i c u l a r  br i d g e .      o Wh a t  do  we  do  ab o u t  th e  ba n d i t  la n e s  ar o u n d  th e   Ce m e t e r y  La n e  bu s  st o p ?   A:  lo c a t i o n  wi l l  be  re v i e w e d  wi t h  th e  tr a i l s  an d          op e n  sp a c e  bo a r d  fo r  fu r t h e r  st u d y   o Is  th e r e  a  st r o n g  in c e n t i v e  fo r  bi k e s  to  tu r n  on t o  8 th  ra t h e r   th a n  co n t i n u e  on  Ha l l a m  to  7 th ? (o p t i o n  7. 2 )   A:  It  is  li k e l y  th a t  bi k e s  wo u l d  co n t i n u e  to  7 th  un l e s s   th e r e  wa s  a  ba r r i e r  re q u i r i n g  th e m  to  tu r n  on t o  8 th ,  or  if  th e  ma i n  ro u t e  in t o  to w n  wa s  on  Fr a n c i s .          o Fe d e r a l  la n d  is s u e s  wo u l d  ne e d  to  be  ad d r e s s e d  ab o u t  th e   fo r e s t r y  ea s e m e n t .   A:  Th i s  wi l l  be  ad d r e s s e d  wh e n  co o r d i n a t i n g  wi t h   th e  fo r e s t  Se r v i c e .      o Wo u l d  th e  bu s  st o p  mo v e  cl o s e r  in t o  the  street? (8.2)  A:  Th e  bu s  st o p  sh e l t e r  wo u l d  be  rotated  90   de g r e e s  an d  be  po s i t i o n e d  between  the  path  and   bu s  pu l l ‐ou t  ac c o r d i n g  to  RF T A  standards.    o Wh a t  do e s  th e  fo r e s t  se r v i c e  th i n k  of  access  to  their   bu i l d i n g ?  (r o u t e  @  7 th )  A:  Th e  Fo r e s t  Se r v i c e  wi l l  be  in c l u d e d  in  all  conversations   re g a r d i n g  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  at  7 th .   o Ra i s e d  Pe d  cr o s s i n g  (i s  th a t  an  op t i o n ? )  (option  9)  A:  A  ra i s e d  pe d  cr o s s i n g  is  an  option  at  7 th .     o Ho w  do  yo u  mi s s ‐us e  a  br i d g e ?  (v e r y  good  discussion   he r e )   A:  Bi k e s  ha v e  be e n  ob s e r v e d  travelling  up  valley  in   th e  do w n  va l l e y  la n e .    Th e r e  are  also  conflicts  if   bi k e s  an d  pe d s  ar e  on  th e  si d e w a l k  at  the  same   ti m e .    Co m m e n t s   o Bu s  tr a f f i c  ut i l i z e s  th e  Ce m e t e r y  La n e  stop  currently.  o El i m i n a t i n g  th e  pa r k i n g  (p r e c l u d e s  closing  8 th  street,  be c a u s e  pe o p l e  wi l l  pa r k  th e r e )    o Ch u r c h  do w n  7 th  ha s  hi g h  Su n d a y  traffic.  o Tu r n i n g  le f t  at  7 th  is  so  im p o s s i b l e  already.   o Pe d  / Ca r  in t e r f a c e  (o p t i o n  9)  se e m s  as  if  south  and  west   is  un n e c e s s a r y .            P31III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  5   Co m b i n a t i o n s  we r e  th e n  pr e s e n t e d  to  gi v e  a  fe e l  of  th e  po s s i b l e  la y o u t  of  th e  ro u t e  wi t h  se l e c t e d  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  to g e t h e r .        Qu e s t i o n s  an d  st a t e m e n t s  fr o m  th e  co m m u n i t y :    o Ha s  it  be e n  co n s i d e r e d  to  us e  th e  ex t r a  1’  on  th e  sh o u l d e r  to  de s i g n a t e  it  as  a  bi k e  pa t h ?  (w i t h  sm a l l e r  tr a f f i c  la n e s )   A:  Th a t  wo u l d  ma k e  th e  sh o u l d e r s  4’  wi d e  ad j a c e n t  to  a  1’  hi g h  cu r b .    Si n c e  on e  go a l  of  th e  pr o j e c t  is  to  capture  more  bike  riders  than   th e  cu r r e n t  10 %  of  th e  po p u l a t i o n  wh o  mi g h t  be  co m f o r t a b l e  ri d i n g  on  a  4’  sh o u l d e r ,  a  bi k e / p e d  fa c i l i t y  that  is  separated  from  traffic   is  de s i r e d .    o Ri g h t  ha n d  tu r n e r s  on  8 th  se e m  to  be  ob l i v i o u s  to  Pe d  an d  Cy c l i s t s .  (a d d  a  st o p  ba r )  (i t ’ s  a  bl i n d  sp o t  as  we l l )   A:  Th i s  wi l l  be  co n s i d e r e d  in  a  fi n a l  de s i g n .        o Do e s  it  he l p  to  mo v e  th e  “i n b o u n d ”  bu s  st o p  to  th e  Ea s t ?  (n o t  do i n g  th a t  ma y  in c r e a s e  ja y ‐wa l k i n g )   A:  Th e  ea s t b o u n d  bu s  st o p  lo c a t i o n  wi l l  de p e n d  on  th e  se l e c t e d  pr e f e r r e d  co m b i n a t i o n  an d  wi l l  be  co o r d i n a t e d  with  RFTA.    o Ou t b o u n d  bu s  st o p  (c a n  yo u  mo v e  it  wi t h o u t  cl o s i n g  8 th  St . ) ?   A:  It  ca n  be  mo v e d  to  th e  we s t  wi t h o u t  cl o s i n g  8 th ; ho w e v e r ,  bu s e s  mi g h t  bl o c k  li n e s  of  si g h t  fr o m  ve h i c l e s  turning  off  of  8 th .     o Bi k e  ro u n d ‐a ‐bo u t s ?   A:  Bi k e  ro u n d ‐a ‐bo u t s ,  if  de s i g n e d  an d  si g n e d  pr o p e r l y ,  ar e  an  ef f e c t i v e  wa y  of  ha n d l i n g  tr a f f i c  wh e r e  multiple  trail  routes  intersect.     o Is  th e r e  an  op t i o n  to  se n d  bi c y c l e s  to  Ma r o l t ?   A:  A  go a l  of  th i s  pr o j e c t  is  to  pr o v i d e  be t t e r  co n n e c t i v i t y  to  th e  We s t  En d .      Ot h e r  th a n  th e  ex i s t i n g  tr a i l s ,  the  Combinations  presented   in  th e  st u d y  do  no t  se n d  bi c y c l e s  to  Ma r o l t .      P32III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  6    Co m m e n t s         o Mo r e  of  a  se a s o n a l  is s u e  (4 ‐5)  mo n t h s  ou t  of  th e  ye a r  – is  it  re a l l y  ne c e s s a r y  to  ma k e  su c h  dr a s t i c / e x p e n s i v e  ch a n g e s  for  something  that  isn’t   a  pr o b l e m  al l  ye a r ?        o ST R O N G L Y  di s l i k e  ro u n d a b o u t  at  ce m e t e r y  la n e     Co m b i n a t i o n  op t i o n s :   Co m b i n a t i o n  A          P33III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  7   Co m b i n a t i o n  B:            P34III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  8   Co m b i n a t i o n  C:            P35III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  9   Co m b i n a t i o n  D:            P36III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  10   Sm a l l  Gr o u p s  we r e  th e n  as k e d  to  sh a r e  th e i r  un d e r s t a n d i n g  of  th e  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  as  we l l  as  th e i r  pe r s o n a l  ex p e r i e n c e s  in  th e s e  areas.     Th e  sm a l l  gr o u p  wo r k  wa s  th e  fo c u s e d  in t o  a  po l l i n g  of  pr e f e r r e d  mo d i f i c a t i o n s  ba s e d  on  th e  da t a  pr e s e n t e d  as  we l l  as  th e  pe r s o n a l  experience  and  stories  from   th e  me m b e r s  of  th e  co m m u n i t y  wh o  li v e  an d  us e  th e  Ha l l a m  co r r i d o r  re g u l a r l y .    Ea c h  in d i v i d u a l  wa s  th e n  as k e d  to  ra n k  ea c h  po t e n t i a l  mo d i f i c a t i o n  fr o m  5  (S t r o n g l y  pr e f e r r e d )  to  1  (S t r o n g l y  di s l i k e ) .    Th e  re s u l t s  of  the  data  were  then  plotted   an d  po i n t s  of  co n s e n s u s  be g a n  to  em e r g e .    P37III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  11   Th e  en t i r e  gr o u p  wa s  th e n  en g a g e d  in  a  di s c u s s i o n  of  th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  po l l .     Co m m e n t s  fr o m  th e  co m m u n i t y :   o Se a m l e s s n e s s  of  th e  Mu l t i ‐us e  is  mo s t  at t r a c t i v e   o “A s p e n  vo t e ”  (w h o  li v e s  th e r e  vo t e d ,  th e  re s t  di d n ’ t  re a l l y  ca r e … 2 . 1 )   o Sa f e t y  tr u m p s  co s t  on  Mo d i f i c a t i o n  3  op t i o n   o Ro t a t e  th e  bu s  st o p … d o n ’ t  ca r e  if  it  mo v e s   o Ma k i n g  7 th  an d  8 th  st r e e t  ea c h  on e  wa y  (o n e  co m i n g  in ,  on e  co m i n g  ou t )  if  yo u  ar e  le a v i n g  bo t h  op e n   o Lo t s  of  op t i o n s  an d  ve r y  we l l  pu t  to g e t h e r ,  wa s n ’ t  he a v i l y  fo c u s e d  on  fi n a n c e s *   o 7 th  to  8 th  st r e e t  pr o v i d e d  a  lo t  of  ne g a t i v e ,  co n f l i c t i n g  fa c t o r s .      P38III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  12     Lo c a t i o n  wi t h  Mo d i f i c a t i o n   5  ‐   St r o n g l y   Ag r e e   4  ‐   Ag r e e   3  ‐   No    Pr e f e r e n c e   2  ‐ Disagree  1  ‐ Strongly  Disagree     De s c r i p t i o n s   1. 0  Ge n e r a l  Bi k e  & Pe d     1. 1      no r t h  si d e  cy c l e  tr a c k  pl u s  si d e w a l k   3   0   5   8  5   1. 2      no r t h  si d e  mu l t i ‐us e  pa t h   11   8   2   0  1   2. 0  Bu s  St o p  at  Ce m e t e r y  La n e   2. 1      el i m i n a t e   0   5   8   3  5   3. 0  Ce m e t e r y  La n e   3. 1  po r k  ch o p  is l a n d  cr o s s i n g   1   2   4   7  7   3. 2      un d e r p a s s  cr o s s i n g  of  Ce m e t e r y  La n e   8   6   0   3  7   3. 3      ro u n d ‐a ‐bo u t  wi t h  a  mu l t i ‐us e  un d e r p a s s   1   0   4   7  8   3. 4      us e  ex i s t i n g  tr a i l  cr o s s i n g ,  im p r o v e  si g n a g e   9   0   2   6  3   4. 0  Ce m e t e r y  La n e  to  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e   4. 1      at t a c h e d  tr a i l   3   1   7   2  6   4. 2      de t a c h e d  tr a i l   10   3   4   2  1   5. 0  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e   5. 1      us e  ex i s t i n g  ve h i c l e  br i d g e  (8 '  tr a i l  & el b o w  ra i l i n g s )   14   5   0   0  1   5. 2      ne w  pa t h  br i d g e   1   2   1   7  10   6. 0  Br i d g e  to  8t h  St r e e t   6. 1      el i m i n a t e  on ‐st r e e t  pa r k i n g   11   6   3   1  1   7. 0  8t h  St r e e t   7. 1      cl o s e  8 th    5   2   1   4  11   7. 2      ro u t e  bi k e s  on t o  8 th  to  Fr a n c i s   6   1   5   3  6   7. 3  ke e p  8 th  op e n ,  im p r o v e  bi k e  an d  pe d  cr o s s i n g s   10   5   2   4  1   8. 0  Bu s  st o p s  at  8t h  St r e e t    8. 1      mo v e  cl o s e r  to  8 th  an d  tu r n  90 ⁰  6   5   7   3  1   8. 2      ke e p  no r t h  si d e  bu s  st o p  in  sa m e  lo c a t i o n  bu t  tu r n  90 ⁰  4   5   7   1  5   9. 0  7t h  St r e e t    9. 1      el i m i n a t e  le f t  tu r n  fr o m  SH  82  on t o  7 th   5   3   4   3  7   9. 2      ma k e  SH  82  cu r v e  sm o o t h e r   8   1   6   4  2   9. 3      cl o s e  7t h  ri g h t  tu r n  or  st r a i g h t  mo v e m e n t s   3   8   2   7  2                  9. 4      en h a n c e  bi k e  an d  pe d  co n n e c t i o n  to  Ha l l a m   12   6   3   0  2  P39III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  13     Pr e f e r r e d  co m b i n a t i o n :   Ba s e d  on  th e  re s u l t s  of  th e  tw o  co m m u n i t y  me e t i n g s ,  an d  th e  de s i g n  te a m s  in p u t ,  he r e  is  th e  “p r e f e r r e d  co m b i n a t i o n ”  fo r  th e   Ha l l a m  ‐   Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  mo d i f i c a t i o n s .           P40III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  14      P41III. `  As p e n  ‐   Ha l l a m  Ca s t l e  Cr e e k  Br i d g e  Co n n e c t i v i t y  St u d y          Co m m u n i t y  Me e t i n g  #2    Se p t e m b e r  10 ,  20 1 4         Page  15   Ap p e n d i x :   HA L L A M  – CA S T L E  CR E E K  BR I D G E  CO N N E C T I V I T Y  ME E T I N G  AT T E N D E E S – Pa r t i c i p a n t  Li s t *          Pe t e r  Lo r i s    pl o r i s @ l o r i s a n d a s s o c i a t e s . c o m   Jo s h  Me h l e m    jo s h m e h l e m @ a l t a p l a n n i n g . c o m    Ty l e r  Ch r i s t o f f    Ty l e r . C h r i s t o f f @ c i t y o f a s p e n . c o m   Sh e r w o o d  Sh a n k l a n d   30 3 ‐99 3 ‐89 3 5   sh e r w o o d s h a n k l a n d @ c o m c a s t . n e t   Ro b e r t  Sh a n k l a n d   30 3 ‐88 2 ‐12 9 0   ro b s h a n k l a n d @ g m a i l . c o m    *1 1  ad d i t i o n a l  re s i d e n t s  di d  no t  si g n  in  bu t  we r e  in v o l v e d  in  th e  me e t i n g .   N A M E N U M B E R E M A I L S c o t t   H o f f m a n 9 7 0 ‐3 7 9 ‐ 0 2 9 2 s c o t t @ c r e s t o n e b u i l d i n g . c o m D a n   Pe r l 9 7 3 ‐9 8 6 ‐ 4 4 8 7 d a n @ w e ‐ c y c l e . o r g Ja c k   A p p l e 7 1 3 ‐4 4 9 ‐ 1 4 2 4 ja c k a p p @ g m a i l . c o m Jo e   We l l s 9 7 0 ‐ 9 2 5 ‐ 8 0 8 0 jo e w e l l s @ m e . c o m B e t s y   Ma n g o n e 3 0 3 ‐5 7 0 ‐ 2 7 8 2 b e s t y m a n g o n e @ g m a i l . c o m Ph i l i p   Je f f r e y s ph i l i p j e f f r e y s @ g m a i l . c o m Ph i l i p   G o l d e n 9 7 0 ‐9 2 5 ‐ 1 6 3 3 p g o l d e n @ p i p e l i n e . c o m E l y s e   E l l i o t t 9 7 0 ‐ 9 2 5 ‐ 3 5 2 7 e l y s e e l l i o t t @ a o l . c o m Y a s m i n e   J e p a g t a 9 7 0 ‐ 9 2 0 ‐ 6 8 0 8 h o l l a n d h @ r o f . n e t S u s a n   Ap p l e 7 1 3 ‐ 4 4 9 ‐ 1 4 2 4 su z y m a g n a n i @ y a h o o . c o m M a r g i e   Mu s g r a v e 9 7 0 ‐ 9 2 5 ‐ 1 1 6 9 fs p e t e r s @ r o f . n e t M a x   Ta a m 9 7 0 ‐3 6 6 ‐ 6 0 3 8 m a x . t a a m @ g m a i l . c o m Je s s i e   Y o u n g 9 7 0 ‐ 9 4 8 ‐ 4 5 3 4 j b v y o u n g @ g m a i l . c o m A n n   Mu l l i n s 9 7 0 ‐ 9 2 5 ‐ 7 5 5 9 mu l l i n s . a n n @ g m a i l . c o m W i l l   Sc h a f f e r w h s c h a f f e r @ m i n d s p r i n g . c o m P42III. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 13, 2015 MEETING DATE: February 17, 2015 RE: Council Goal: Review of HHS funding REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council requested some additional time in a worksession to discuss their thoughts relative to the Council goal to review HHS funding. Today’s meeting is intended to: (1) allow Councilmember Romero to participate in the conversation, (2) to let other councilmembers to elaborate on their thoughts around future HHS funding, and (3) get a briefing on the concept of “collective impact” as requested by Council. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted as one of their 2013-14 Top Ten Goals review of HHS funding. On December 2nd at a joint meeting with the BOCC, you heard from provider groups about trends and needs. On Feb. 2 at a worksession relative to the Council goal to review HHS funding, staff asked a series of questions to guide the Council’s dialogue about the use of and the amount of city funding for HHS purposes. 1. Who do you want to serve? a. focus on an issue/issue area? b. focus on a geographic area? c. focus on a population segment? d. a mix of the above? 2. In selecting whom to serve, what factors are most important to you? (fill a gap in funding/services; supplement existing funding across the board; focus on the biggest existing problem area; address/mitigate emerging issues; support direct services; supporting research/planning for the future, etc.) 3. What outcomes are you trying to achieve in that focused area/those focused areas? 4. Or do you want to more broadly participate in funding efforts as you currently do? 5. What additional information do you need to make your decisions? BACKGROUND: One of Council’s Top Ten Goals for 2014-15 was to: “Complete a review of HHS funding that identifies the purpose of the city’s involvement in funding of HHS services, how we will participate in that funding effort, and the amount and source of the city contribution.” P43 IV. Page 2 At the joint worksession in December, providers identified six trend areas that concerned them: 1. Access to general health care services 2. Affordable housing in a reasonable distance from jobs 3. Mental health services – regarding the increasing volume and complexity of care, bilingual providers and adequate case management 4. Substance abuse – particularly in the 10 – 18 age range 5. Affordable, appropriate and accessible child care 6. Senior services and our aging population. What is Collective Impact? Collective impact is the commitment of a group of actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a complex social problem. In order to create lasting solutions to social problems on a large-scale, organizations — including those in government, civil society, and the business sector — need to coordinate their efforts and work together around a clearly defined goal. Collective impact is a significant shift from the social sector’s current paradigm of "isolated impact," because the underlying premise of collective impact is that no single organization can create large-scale, lasting social change alone. There is no "silver bullet" solution to systemic social problems, and these problems cannot be solved by simply scaling or replicating one organization or program. Strong organizations are necessary but not sufficient for large-scale social change. Not all social problems are suited for collective impact solutions. Collective impact is best employed for problems that are complex and systemic rather than technical in nature. Collective impact initiatives are currently being employed to address a wide variety of issues around the world, including education, healthcare, homelessness, the environment, and community development. Many of these initiatives are already showing concrete results, reinforcing the promise of collective impact in solving complex social problems. The Five Conditions of Collective Impact Success Collective impact is more rigorous and specific than collaboration among organizations. There are five conditions that, together, lead to meaningful results from collective impact: 1. Common Agenda: All participants share a vision for change that includes a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving the problem through agreed- upon actions. 2. Shared Measurement: All participating organizations agree on the ways success will be measured and reported, with a short list of common indicators identified and used for learning and improvement. 3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: A diverse set of stakeholders, typically across sectors, coordinate a set of differentiated activities through a mutually reinforcing plan of action. P44 IV. Page 3 4. Continuous Communication: All players engage in frequent and structured open communication to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and create common motivation. 5. Backbone Support: An independent, funded staff dedicated to the initiative provides ongoing support by guiding the initiative’s vision and strategy, supporting aligned activities, establishing shared measurement practices, building public will, advancing policy, and mobilizing resources. DISCUSSION: Staff is here to record your conversations about the values you have preference for in your determination about how you want to allocate funding – both current funding and any additional funding.  What role do you want to play?  What gap do you want to fill or area do you want to strengthen?  Who do you want to serve?  Do you want to focus your efforts/funding or continue to allocate funds to a broad area of concerns?  How much additional funds are you interested in devoting to this area?  What additional information do you want in order to facilitate your decision- making? FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: You have previously indicated an interest in increasing your contributions to the health and human service funding in the community. This increase has been discussed as coming from a reallocation of existing Wheeler Real Estate Transfer Taxes and you have a separate Council Top Ten Goal to review that funding stream to determine if you might reallocate some of that for other worthwhile community purposes. Absent additional sources of funding, the General Fund would bear the responsibility for providing additional funding and those needs would need to be weighed against other competing demands for General Fund uses. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P45 IV.