Operations and Performance Roundtable
 
Meeting Summary, Friday, January 9, 2004
 
 
Attendees:
 
Glen Veal, Chairman
Carl Cady
Marilee Fosbre
Steve Orsini
Trisha Logue
Kate Koals
Holly Green
Rick Kiesser
Steve Flude
Steve Cox
Karen Cade
 
 
Steve Flude began the meeting at 2:10 p.m. with Steve Cox giving the elections update. Steve Cox contacted Staff from the Elections and Prosecuting Attorney’s office to discuss the process of having elections of the Guemes Island Ferry Committee. Information received is that the County Elections Board would not mind overseeing this project but there does have to be some kind of special election district established, whether it is in conjunction with a fire district etc. in order to accomplish this task. Steve isn’t sure what the cost would be of doing this. Glen asked if the Ferry Committee would have to initiate this process and Steve stated “yes” they would need to contact the Prosecuting Attorney and/or Elections Board to get instructions on how this is to be handled.
 
Steve Cox stated he talked to Don Measmer – City of Anacortes who spoke to Ian Munce about parking on the Anacortes side during construction of the Parking Lot. Steve is in the process of writing a letter to the City Council requesting the parking rules be relaxed at the new park during the parking lot construction. City of Anacortes will present this letter to the City Council. The City will notify the effected neighbors about this parking situation, if approved. This would possibly also be for during any future haulouts. Discussion was held about what areas this would cover. It was decided to ask for the area to be 6th, 7th, H, and I streets.
 
Steve Flude handed out the draft Resolutions. Steve pointed out that these have been marked up by both Michael and himself then they were forwarded to Chal for his comments. Steve pointed out one of the changes on the Resolution regarding the Establishment of a Policy for Setting the Fare Revenue Requirement of the Guemes Island Ferry is the changing of the 3-year average to a 5-year average per the Task Force request. On the Resolution establishing the Guemes Island Ferry Operations and Performance Roundtable there is a change on how many times there will be meetings. It was figured there would be monthly meetings but Chal has modified that to bi-monthly meetings with a minimum of four times annually. Steve asked the opinion of the group, it was agreed that at the beginning of putting this new policy into effect this might create a problem but after that meeting bi-monthly should be okay. Steve said he would like the Ferry Committee to review these draft Resolutions and submit any comments back to him within 1-2 weeks.
 
Steve stated that he pulled the Guemes Island Ferry Committee Charter off the web page and discussed with Chal and comments are listed on the handout. It was a good idea to review this Charter since we will be adopting it as part of a Resolution. Chal has concerns with the election issue, policy versus day-to-day operational issues and how they will be addressed. Chal wants a final solution at some point in the election issue process. Discussion was held about how to go about proceeding with the election process. It was decided that the Ferry Committee will work on this task.
 
Steve F. moved onto the draft working guidelines for the Roundtable, the intent was to have something that could be discussed at today’s meeting but will have to be delayed until it can be discussed with Michael and not waiting until the next meeting to disburse the guidelines if it can be completed before than. These can be sent out by e-mail. One item to be discussed is how to handle public attendance and comments.
 
Steve F. updated the Ferry Committee on the facility improvements. We have taken in overall concepts of some of the major things on both sides, whether it is the building relocation on the Guemes side and the parking lot stuff that has already been talked about as well as the holding lane along with the Anacortes side and the reconfiguration of the existing building and some of the other things. Steve Cox is working with our Development & Review Engineer since this project is basically at this time a big development we are talking about. We are trying to figure out what needs to go through State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) and what does not, this is an administration hurdle that you go through and you put out on the table explaining this is what you plan on doing and then answer some questions and then you give everyone and their brother about four months to make their comments about well did you consider this or did you think about that, and oh by the way you have to have a permit for this.  Right now out of all the little things we are doing out at both sides, we are confident that moving the building from one side to the other on the Guemes side will need to have a SEPA, we think but aren’t certain that the remodeling of the building on the Anacortes side will also need to have a SEPA. The proper way to do this would be to fill out one SEPA checklist then submit to the City of Anacortes and Skagit County and have discussions with them to decide who the lead agency will be, there needs to be a lead agency. We are exactly certain what requirements the City or the County will have when we tell them we want to install message boards. The County does not have a sign ordinance and we do not know what the requirements will be from the City. Steve F. told our Development & Review Engineer Dave Sheridan that we can’t do our schedule changes without the reader board so we want to keep this out of SEPA if we all can. April 1 is still the deadline for everything; some items will get removed due to having to go through SEPA. The plan is to have the parking lot on the Guemes side be paved this summer.
 
We expect to receive paperwork next week for the appraisals on the homes and once we have those and have an executive session with the Board then we will know if they are interested in making an offer. Holly asked which homes these were? Steve F. stated that these homes are the first two, one is for sale and the other one is yellow that is the Monahan’s, but if we are going to tear those buildings down then this should be part of the SEPA since this will effect people’s homes.
 
Steve Cox presented information on the variable message boards. Steve contacted Meyer Sign, which is a local agency here in Skagit County and they have been very helpful and Steve still has more information to come but the initial is basically what we are talking about is 36-inches wide X 72-inches high, 2 single faces about 4-feet long and it will be a 3 lines with a 4th line that will give a countdown clock and also have a set of contacts, a chime for the purser on the Anacortes side so when they are selling tickets they will know when to stop selling and get to the boat to load the people on. Carl asked where would this be located? Steve C. stated that they have looked into two different places, the bridge both on the Anacortes and Guemes side, concerns being the maintenance issue getting to it to maintain it and the interference with the neighbors on the Anacortes side. Even if we go with amber they will still complain that they have this bright sign sitting up at night staring at them in the face. We are going to try and put it on top of the building facing it towards the traffic so this will keep it lower and less intrusive and easier for it to be maintained. Carl asked what the distance is that you can see the letters from? Steve C. responded that the letters are 6-inches high and you should be able to see at a minimum of 200-feet. Steve F. stated that with the way the signs are configured with the four lines of graphic you can combine all the lines to make bigger letters if you need to do so. Steve C. stated you can make the letters/numbers any size you want and then scroll it. Steve F. stated it also has the capability of having the upper half have a clock and the bottom half read a message, we are not sure if you can scroll it through or if it has to be word by word. Steve C. stated they are asking the company for one to have the option to scroll because we want to be able to repeat a message and be able to shut it off at the end of the day, it will probably come with software and a modem of some type. Steve C. stated that the system is all XP compatible, which is the operating system we use and have been assured that when we go on the Intranet that it will not be problem and would not interfere with anything and it would be compatible both with Internet and Intranet. Steve C. stated he would have more information this next week, the guy was putting together a packet and he received only one response and gave a cost estimate together for our budgeting purposes for the signs and the system. The estimated cost of this system is $16,000. Marilee asked when viewing the web cam would it also display the message the reader board has? Not sure.  Holly asked is there a battery backup in case of power failure? Steve C. stated no battery backup so if you lose power the power is gone if you lose the computer the message that is up there will stay there. Holly suggested looking into a possible backup for the system and the lights. Steve F. stated that we would need to get three phone quotes and proceed through our signature process would take 2-3 weeks, would we want our road crew to install? Probably not it would be better to have the company install the reader board that way it stays under warranty, if time is an issue – we can have the road crew install it.
 
Steve F. stated that Public Works is not in control of the facilities so for any improvements to be made we have to go through our Facilities Department and run the contract through them. Steve C. is working with Roger Howard to get an architect and Roger stated this would be about two months.
 
Steve C. stated the estimate to flip the boat would be $10,000 - $14,000. The boat basically at both ends is a 15-feet radius and that is what the turn is except for #1N, #1N has a bump out because what happened on Guemes is the wing wall was installed incorrectly so in order to overcome that with the boat so we didn’t go in too far and shear off the gates and do all kinds of damage to the boat originally, so what they did was installed a water bar, put in a bottom plate and filled it with concrete so that you transmit the load through the cement, into the structure so what needs to be done is whack the bump out off and put on other side of the boat and then you can flip the boat. Two – three days to do this in a shipyard and this wouldn’t be that hard to do.
 
Glen Veal asked what time frame are we looking at to wanting to do this? Steve F. asked what would be the Ferry Committee’s preference? We could start the process now of getting paperwork and contract ready and have the boat out of service for maximum of three days worse case, which means passenger only service for three days, recognizing that we won’t have the building on the Guemes side switched over to the other side. Carl stated that we could change the walkway at the same time you are doing work on the boat. Steve F. stated that if it is the same to everybody we can go ahead and have Steve C. crank out the paperwork and get the process going asap recognizing the shelter will be on the wrong side.
 
Discussion was held on whether or not we should begin process of flipping the boat. Comments received included if the bridge was wide enough to provide two walkways, Steve C. stated he didn’t think it would be wide enough to accommodate two walkways, and if the passengers would be held during the unloading and loading process of vehicles and when they would be loaded. Steve F. stated the passengers would have to be held to prevent any crossing with traffic. Steve Orsini stated that the shelter is not utilized that much on Guemes and you could gain a lot by turning the boat around and having the same type of passenger walk and if you could get a double lane for passengers that would be great but if it is going to be a major deal, thinks that a very simple bar being installed could control the passengers to prevent them from loading and waiting until crewmember opens the bar for loading. Holly stated that in her experience a lot of people do use the shelter and has a concern especially at night passengers crossing traffic to get to the walkway. It was agreed that there will have to be some kind of signage explaining loading/unloading process. Holly also pointed out that with this kind of holding of passengers that this will probably effect the time on runs, walk-ons are usually what takes the most time and causes the ferry to be late. There needs to be a controllable way to keep the loading/unloading passengers separate and also away from the traffic loading/unloading.
 
Steve O. suggested on the sign issue why not use a “yellow light”, like it was discussed in previous meetings that will go on when your within the two minute limit. Can see where installing a big message board would possibly be a permitting issue due to being installed in a neighborhood whereas a “yellow light” maybe on a stand, top of the ferry building, and maybe one at the top at the corner. Don’t want to take away ultimately the reader board but I can see it a year delay because of the neighborhood and the concept of this thing all the time and changing the messages. Discussion continued on this issue. Would like to keep low-tech if possible. Glen V. pointed out that he thought it was discussed to have a system that would let people know waiting for the ferry if it is on an emergency run, running late, on time, etc. and that is why the more expensive system was looked into, would like to also keep the cost down.  Holly asked Steve O. if he was thinking about installation on both Anacortes and Guemes side? Steve replied he thought mainly the Anacortes side, Holly stated the reason she asked is she is wondering if there isn’t a compromise position because she has always felt that a reader board was needed on Guemes, it is not really fair for the store to be the information center and if there is way to consider putting one on Guemes and looking into a lower tech short term solution in Anacortes while you go through the process for the one in Anacortes because it is hard not having that information for the folks over there.  Marilee asked where would this be installed on Guemes? Steve F. replied after his conversation with Carl, the request was to put it on top of the bridge so when you drive down the hill you can see it. Holly suggested why not off of the building? Discussion began on the pros/cons of having it on the building, them being can’t see it and if we are moving the building you wouldn’t be able to see it because it would be on an angle, there was also discussion on pros/cons of having the reader board on the bridge, if you were driving down the hill you wouldn’t be able to see the sign until you were almost on the bridge, also there were comments that this would be for passengers informational purposes. Holly asked would the Ferry Committee consider doing an experiment while they are in line on Guemes see how far back you have to be to read the board, concern about drivers paying more attention to reading the board then watching for crewmembers/people/cars in front of them, definitely a safety issue.
 
Rick Kiesser suggested going to the Anacortes Ferry Terminal and look at their reader boards they have installed they have three of them a large one about 16-foot height elevation so you can see at as you are in line, one on their terminal building, and one on the path so you can go there and observe how the drivers handle this situation. The 16-foot sign is located by the staging area there are no signs located on the bridge. Steve O. suggested on trying lower tech solutions and see how they work. Carl C. stated there should be a back up system in case this gets caught up in permitting. Steve F. stated all we can is ask and give them different proposals and ask them what they would say.
 
Discussion continued on what possible messages would be on this reader board and the accessibility to making changes to the messages and could their be something on the ferry in the crew’s quarters to access to change the messages. Steve C. stated this would be a possibility to have something in the crew’s quarters but not in the navigator quarters. There was a lot of discussion on the possibility of installing different kinds of lights to let people know the status of the ferry and possible locations of putting the lights to test a lower tech system before getting the more expensive reader boards.
 
Steve F. gave an update on the Anacortes/Guemes Parking Lot. A contract has been signed for the archeology work to be done by Northwest Archeological Association. The Notice to Proceed will go out either today or Monday that will start the time clock for the photo documentation of the building, once that has occurred and they are satisfied that they no longer need the building standing, we will issue a Notice to Proceed for the demolition of the building and will hold a pre-construction meeting. Possibly in mid-February we will start tearing that building down. Internally we are finishing up our structural drawings of the retaining wall at the parking lot. Internal deadline for completing the specs and plans is January 16th. Supposed to have these on my desk ready for submittal to WSDOT by a week from today.
 
Glen had a question about the ADA Accessibility parking lot on 6th versus the parking lot on the dock, are you mitigated that and if you haven’t doesn’t your lower level access then have to be ADA Accessible since the hill is too steep?  Steve F. stated that the hill is not too steep. Chal and Steve F. had reviewed this 2-years ago and the hill is not too steep. Carl C. asked if the final revisions on the plans would be made available? Steve F. stated yes they would.
 
Steve F. moved onto the Frequent User Media and stating that Trisha Logue is in attendance from our Accounting Department to answer auditing issues. 
Steve O. began the discussion with his suggestion of having a machine that will accept credit cards on the Anacortes side and at Anderson’s Store that dispenses books of tickets, either car/driver or passenger with a set price and frequent users would have the ability to buy these from a machine and not have to have a punchcard. Marilee asked about if the passenger or the purser would tear the ticket out? Glen V. stated that the purser would tear it out. Steve O. stated that he knows there are two problems with that and they are: 1. Are these going to be numbered? Holly stated they wouldn’t be selling them so that wouldn’t matter. 2. Who qualifies for frequent user? Carl & Marilee stated that anyone who bought the ticket booklets would be a frequent user and that the transferability is the issue. Discussion continued on whether each ticket or booklet needs to have an expiration date, it was decided that just the booklet would need it since the passenger hands the whole booklet to purser so at that time they can see the expiration date and the machine could handle dating these at the time of purchase.
Discussion moved onto what type of media we should offer and how big an issue is transferability. After further discussion it was suggested not to have the ticket machines yet, let’s start with the ticket booklets and have them color-coded for the different types of tickets. Also what happens if someone shows up at the ferry and doesn’t have monies for a ticket how will this be handled? Carl C. stated that this had been discussed and thought that they would write an I.O.U. and still get to ride; Glen thought why couldn’t it be set up like the Dept. of Licensing (Auditor) where you can e-mail your request and charge it by using a credit card. Other options were possibly having ticket booklets available for purchase at Anderson’s Store, Ace Hardware, or other possible locations. Steve C. stated he could ask Win about this issue. Kate Koals asked about the liability issue with having another company selling for the County, Rick K. stated that it is okay as long as you have a signed contract between the County and the company selling the tickets. There was concern about these tickets not having a date on them. Rick stated this would be part of the contract making sure the ticket booklets are date stamped on the front cover along with “Not valid if ticket book cover and ticket are not in tacked” or something like that so you could see the date. Another suggestion would be to have people mail a check to our Accounting Department to request ticket booklets but there would probably be a time constraint due to the mail time of receiving monies and then sending the ticket booklets to the customer. Rick K. asked if the County accepted credit cards, Trisha stated at this time Public Works does not.
 
There were concerns about having to carry the full ticket booklet and not being able to carry a few at a time and the importance of having the date stamped on the front cover. Trisha explained how the date stamping would work since there was a misunderstanding in the group, this date would be hole punched on the month and year for expiration and be punched through the whole book of tickets. It was decided that walk-ons could that their tickets separated from the booklet but car/driver passengers can’t be separated.
 
Discussion was held concerning the form to fill out if you do not have your punchcard/monies to ride the ferry and maybe add processing fee in addition to ticket price, Holly stated that this as far as her knowledge didn’t happen too often but to ask the night shift their opinion. Holly stated there are other simpler ways to get the point across that you need monies/ticket to ride the ferry. Steve O. pointed out that he couldn’t go into a bakery to get some bread and leave them an I.O.U. so these people need to grow up and figure it out that they either have to have a ticket, monies etc. for riding the ferry. It was decided that this discussion couldn’t be finished at this meeting and will be further discussed at the next meeting to come up with a possible solution.
 
Next meeting Friday, February 13th.
 
Meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.