Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7388 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 7388 SUP To the Mayor and Members of the City Council June 6, 1989 X Subject: #0 7 STATUS OF TARANTULA TRAIN PROJECT REVIEW PROCESS. In February, 1989, the City Council accepted a recommended procedure for receiving input from citizens regarding the conceptual idea of the Tarantula Train Project. The procedure was recommended by a Council appointed committee that included representatives from the League of Neighborhoods. Park and Recreation Board, Cultural District Committee, and the City Council . The procedure approved by City Council included the following: 1 ) The Tarantula Corporation would sponsor four public forums allowing citizens to discuss the concept, ask questions, and offer suggestions; 2) Tarantula would also host a fifth forum to respond to unanswered questions and suggestions presented at previous meetings; opm, 3) As an outgrowth of these forums, the corporation would draft a Preliminary Proposal to present to the Cultural District Committee and the Park and Recreation Advisory Board in public hearings. Following the hearings. these groups would make recommendations to the City Council. The Tarantula Corporation has conducted the requested forums and made presentations to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board and the Cultural District Committee. Both of these groups have approved a statement regarding the Tarantula Project . Representatives of the Park and Recreation Board and the Cultural District Committee will make presentations to the City Council at the June 6, 1989 workshop regarding their respective action on the Tarantula. Attached are copies of the statements made by these two groups. City staff requests guidance from the City Council regarding what step should be taken next in the review process of the Tarantula Project . owwu Harman arman City Manager vi ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS FORT 1VORTH TEXAS May 30, 1989 The Honorable Bob Bolen Mayor, City of Fort Worth, and City Council Members 1000 Throc kmor ton Fort Worth, TX 76102 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On May 24th the Park and Recreation Advisory Board met and unanimously adopted the attached statement regarding the Tarantula Corporation's proposed excursion train. Bill Meadows drafted the statement and put the motion forward. Bob Adams made the second. Reuben Vallejo was the only member of the board absent. The Board invited public input on April 20th. Many questions were presented, and the Board asked that staff, under the direction of Ramon Guajardo, answer as many of these as possible. A copy of those questions and staffs responses is Included. Tarantula Corporation had the benefit of conducting five public forums to resolve these issues and more clearly define its proposal. Staff's response clearly indicates that these issues remain unresolved and the terms of the proposal unclear. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. You may reach me at 732-6676. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Cordially, M y Roge rs Chairman CC: Ralph Emerson Ramon Guajardo FORT WORTH PARK ANrJ RFf kFAT1nW AnVMfIVV RnARn 7711 WFST Rn.gFI?di F MPT Wf)RT14 TFYAS 71,1111 R171M.7f1fM1 RESOLUTION 1. The Fort Worth Park and Recreation Advisory Board, an advisory board to the City Council of Fort Worth 1. Has, in a series of public meetings, requested and received public input, questions and comments concerning the proposal by the Tarantula Corporation to build, run, and operate a steam train through Trinity and Forest Parks. 3. Has extensively studied the questions and concerns brought forth and has requested and received staff input and assistance with regard to the issues raised concerning this proposal . 4. Has concluded that the construction and subsequent operation of the proposed train through Trinity and Forest Parks will have a negative impact on this park land. 5. The Park and Recreation Board takes no exception to the concept of an excursion train operating on existing trackage that presently crosses Trinity Park. In fact, we would encourage continued development of that concept, as it appears to offer opportunities to the community as an additional entertainment attraction. 6. Has concluded that City Council should take advantage of the citizen, �► staff and Park Board research and study , and that, in its entirety, our records should be made available to City Council. ir rCITY OF FORT WORTH, TEXAS M—T OWCE OF IK MY MANAGER V00 THRMMCRION STREET K1R7 WORTH TEXAS 76102 870-6M / AREA CCC* 817 DATE: may 19, 1989 TO: Park and Recreation Advisory Board Members FROM: Ramon Guajardo, Assistant City Manager RE: TARANTULA TRAIN In the attached report , an attempt has been made to provide as many precise answers as possible to questions raised at the Park and Recreation board meetings on April 12 and 20 and from other sources, concerning the Tarantula Train. In a number of instances, City staff was unable to provide answers because: 001h 0 more specific information about the proposal is needed, 0 UM7A requirements for projects cannot be determined with the limited information available at this time or , 0 art environmental review of the project is essential in o-oer to address some issues. ,he answe-.-. and questions provided in this re:)ort are not intended trc, give an opinion or to ma.Ke any recommenoations about the Tarant�. a Train project . For the sake of clarity and brevity, related qUestions were combined in this report . If additional assistance is needed, piease contact me at 870-6191 . Sincerely, Ramon Gua -ardo Assistant City Manager Vj Attachments i 0011 QUESTIONVANSWERS REGARDING THE TARANTULA PROJECT May 19, 1989 Prepared by City of Fort Worth Staff 1. QUESTION: Although recipients of Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA) funds are required to comply with certain public accountability provisions , specifically with regard to fare and schedules, etc. , how does the City and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) propose to regulate the operation? 1. ANSWER: The operation of the Tarantula on City owned land could be regulated through the terms of a contract between the City and Tarantula. 2. QUESTION: Are Urban Mass Transit Funds available to private groups? 2. ANSWER: The applicant for UMTA funds must be a public agency. The City of Fort Worth and the Fort Worth Transportation Authority are eligible grantees in Fort Worth. 3. QUESTION: Do Urban Mass Transit funds cover all parts of this project - tracks , trestle, stations , turn tables and clean-up? op, 3. ANSWER: Until an application is prepared, submitted and reviewed by the Urban Mass Transit Administration, it is difficult to determine what might be requested and funded. 4. QUESTION: Does the granting of UMTA rail funds to this project have any negative effect upon FWTA or the City's ability to obtain funds in the future? 4. ANSWER: UMTA has two potential sources of funding - for a project of this type: Section 3 Discretionary Projects: These funds are competitive on a national basis and would compete only against other Section. 3 applications across the country. If Fort Worth had another Section 3 grant under review, the two applications would compete against each other. Factors that affect the evaluation and likelihood of approval include the dollar amount of local participation, particularly if the grantee exceeds the required amount of local match. Section 9 Formula Assistance for Planning, Capital and OperatJmq Assistance: These funds are allocated among eligible recipients in an urbanized area, based upon a combination of population, density, revenue miles , passenger miles and fixed guideway miles. Because the Fort Worth Transportation Authority presently OF utilizes all the funds allocated annually, any funding of an additional project would reduce the funds to FWTA. 5. QUESTION: As it appears that UMTA funds play an important part of the proposal , what contingency plan does the proposer offer if such funding is denied? 5. ANSWER: Tarantula officials have informed the City they will be able to explore alternate financial sources, either public or private. 6. QUESTION: Will the fact that a large part of this route is used for freight have an effect on the acquisition of UMTA funds? 6. ANSWER: Without knowing more details about a potential application to UMTA, it is not possible to answer this question. 7. QUESTION: What is the approximate cost? What is the approximate request for grant money? If urban mass transit funds pay 80%, who will be responsible for the balance? No answers given by Tarantula. 7. ANSWER: Without more details about this project , staff is unable to estimate the cost of the project or the amount of the grant application, if any. The grantee would be responsible for the local match (at least 25% of the project costs) . 8. QUESTION: How many hours per day will Tarantula liability coverage be needed? Is the city liable for accidents/tragedies? Would a family be prevented from damages by City participation? Will larger attendance make an impact on the liability of the zoo and the park? 8. ANSWER: More information Is required before answers can be given to these questions . 9. QUESTION: Will the fact that the train is operational or :-.on-operational affect the insurance needs? 9. ANSWER: The terms of a contract between the City and Tarantula would determine the level c4- -- rsurance coverage . 10. QUESTION: What will be the financial impact on Park and Recreation? 10. ANSWER: More information F-bout this project is needed before an answer can be given on this question. A contract between the City and Tarantula could define the financial terms of this project. 11 . QUESTION: Is there any feas-Lble financial mechanism to insure the financial obligations of the train operator to the City (or FWTA) including restoration, reclamation or financial liability? (Performance Guarantee) 2 OPOk 11 ANSWER: Performance bonds are sometimes required by the City. A contract between the City and Tarantula could be negotiated to include financial issues . 12. QUESTIONS: Are all the proposed destinations necessary to achieve maximum economic benefit? Is the cost in line with mass transit costs? Who will bear the cost of maintenance of the tracks? Who will bear the costs of trail repair and tree replacement? Will the loss of revenue from Forest Park Rides be replaced? Can we afford not to have this railroad? How much money can the train bring to Fort Worth's parks? Who will pay for the train? Will the train compete for bond funds? Who would remove the railroad if the train fails? 12. ANSWER: Staff does not have sufficient information to answer the above listed questions . 13. QUESTION: Number of trips per day and time? Is this dependent on demand and left solely to Tarantula? City control? What will be the frequency of trips? 13. ANSWER: It is not possible at this time to determine a proposed schedule for the train. A contract could assign authority to regulate the schedule. 14. QUESTION: What impact will this have on zoo attendance and park usage? 14. ANSWER: Although it is difficult to estimate without a firm proposal and estimated usaae from Tarantula, it is reasonable to expect attendance to increase at the zoo. An increase in attendance could cause an additional workload on Zoo personnel and an increase in people using other sections of Forest Park. Likewise, increases in zoo attendance could have resulting revenue increases . 15. QUESTION: Can the zoo and the parks handle the added visitors the train might bring in? 15. ANSWER: The zoo can handle larger crowds with the planned expansion of zoo exhibits . 16. QUESTION: Can the train bring attention to the zoo? 16. ANSWER: Yes. Promotional opportunities might be available. 17. QUESTION: What will be the impact on the Botanic Gardens? 17. ANSWER: The impact by the train to surrounding areas would have to be identified in a detailed environmental review of the Tarantula project . 3 18. QUESTION: what about fire protection? 00"k 18. ANSWER: All construction of facilities and operation of the train would be required to meet all codes pertaining to fire safety. 19. QUESTION: What are the potential fire hazards in the parks? 19. ANSWER: Any description of potential fire hazards would be speculative. However, trains currently operating through the Park on the existing route have caused no known fire problem. 20. QUESTION: What are the potential hazards to people in the parks (such as people going from Trinity Park and the Botanic Gardens)? 20. ANSWER: People going from Trinity Park to the Botanic Gardens would have to cross the train tracks (if the Tarantula project is built) and University Drive. Care would have to be taken crossing both. Train operations through the park now operate at slow speeds and expanded operations could be subjected to regulations specified by the City government . 21• QUESTION: Safety precautions. Little information has been given. Unprotected tracks, especially in the parks where tracks are depicted below ground level . No specific safety precautions have been presented. Impression given is that people will stay off the tracks . Street crossings in some areas are not op", adequately protected at this time. Will these safety concerns necessitate the building of fences along the tracks? What safety measures will be met through the parks? 21. ANSWER: Safety measures will be required to be included in the design of the project , if approved. 22. QUESTION: Where does a similar train operate ( for comparison of provisions for safety and operations)? 22. ANSWER: The train at Six Flags has been identified by came as ar, example. 23. QUESTION: What will buffer the train from other rel--- eational centers? 23. ANSWER: Space, distance, and landscaping are effective buffers which would not intrude on the aesthetics of the parks . The use of these methods would be determined at the time the project is designed. 24. QUESTION : Does the train eliminate or preclude unplanned, unorganized park use? (family outings , unorganized softball , etc. ) 24. ANSWER: Recreation activities could take place near to the train tracks, but not on them. 4 pk25. QUESTION: Are there possibilities for additional green space outside of Trinity and Forest Parks to come back to the City? Will green space be returned to the parks? What will be the net change in acreage of green space? 25. ANSWER: Without detail plans of the project , it is not possible to answer these questions . However, it is obvious that the current train route opens up to visitors of city open space which have not been traditionally experienced 26. QUESTION: What will be the impact on visual and noise concerns? 26. ANSWER: This information would be obtained in an environmental review of the project . 27. QUESTION: How many parking spaces will be needed? Will the train increase the parking demand at the zoo? Does the train provide the opportunity to eliminate the need for additional paved parking? 27. ANSWER: Tarantula officials have indicated they would be willing to agree not to sell boarding tickets in Forest Park which could keep people from parking there to board the train. Visitors coming to the zoo on the train would park elsewhere. Tarantula officials need to identify their operational plan including parking provisions . r28. QUESTION: Will people use remote parking and ride the train? 28. ANSWER: It is difficult to answer this question with the information we have. 29. QUESTION: What will be the impact on the existing roadway systems and bike trails? 29. ANSWER: The design of the project would be needed before we could answer this question. 30, QUESTION: What is the peak use of the hike and hike trails? 30. ANSWER: Peak periods are weekends during good weather . 31. QUESTION: What will be the capacity of the train? 31. ANSWER: It has been estimated by Tarantula officials that the train could handle from 80 - 500 people per trip. 32. QUESTION: The train depicted in slides is small - 100 tons . Tarantula has stated it is to be used here unless a larger engine is needed. Is this determination of the need, size of engine , and length of train to be left to Tarantula? Does the City have any control? 5 32. ANSWER: The City has not received a specific plan and, therefore detailed terms regarding control have not been discussed. 33. QUESTION: What about the double tracks? 33. ANSWER: Tarantula officials have informed the City that double tracks (600 ft . long) would be required as a passing track at each depot site. 34. QUESTION: What about the air pollution concerns? Who will address air pollution? Have the engines on the train been modified to burn cleaner? What damage can result from use of fuel oil? 34. ANSWER: The answers to these questions could be obtained with an environmental review of the project . There is a great deal of train activity which already takes place throughout central Fort Worth., 35. QUESTION: What are the proposed fare and schedule structures? 35. ANSWER: The fares to be charged have not been identified by the Tarantula officials. 36. QUESTION: Is the park spur, or spurs , the added miles of track, necessary to receive urban mass transit funds? Tarantula has changed position on whether they will pursue this project if opol parks are not included - from yes to no. 36. ANSWER: Without the preliminary preparation of an application and having some discussion with UY.TA, it is not possible to answer this question at this time. We do not know if Tarantula will pursue the project without UMTA funds. 37. QUESTION: F.ow will Tarantula train affect the little train? (Extra question: The contract has been available for weeks . Why was Council not provided, or, why did Councilmembers not request copy prior to meeting 3/21? This action has led to suspicion and rumor - something this Public Forum process was to help overcome. With the curreint conflict of interest probes now in progress, the motion by Councilman Steve Murrin mentioning the other train in the area has also led to negative comment . ) It has been suggested at the Forums that the 'tittle train transport people from Tarantula to the Zoo. Tarantula has not pursued this suggestion. 37. ANSWER: The contract for the little train has been received by and approved by the City Council . Without a detailed plan for the Tarantula, the staff is not able to determine how both trains would operate in Trinity and Forest parks. 38. QUESTION: What will happen to the mini train? 6 38. ANSWER: The City Council recently approved a seven year contract for the little train to operate in Forest and Trinity parks . 39. QUESTION: . What will be the dollar loss to the city if the rides/miniature train don' t operate in 1989? 39. ANSWER: In 1988 , the payment to the City from the concessions agreement for the rides and train was approximately $134 ,000 . 40. QUESTION: What dollar impact will the excursion train link have on the rides/miniature train payments in future? 40. ANSWER: Staff is unable to answer this question because we do not know where or if the rides and the little train will operate if the Tarantula project is approved in Forest Park. 41. QUESTION: Very little has been said about the spur into the Cultural District . 1 ) Has Tarantula conferred with EDAW? 2) A year, funds and public participation has been spent on the EDAW plan. It would seem that the Tarantula addition to the Cultural District plan should undergo the same process . 41. ANSWER: Tarantula officials have made a presentation to the Cultural District Committee . It is this committee that has contracted with EDAW to develop the plan for the Cultural District . The Cultural District Committee adopted a resolution regarding the Tarantula project . 42. QUESTION: It has been suggested that a tourist train from the West End in Dallas to Fort Worth with spurs near the Cultural District and into the Nort-hside Historical District would greatly benefit Fort Worth. Tarantula has not responded to this suggestion. 42. ANSWER: Tarantula offiCials have expressed an interest in running a train between Fc.-16 Worth and Dallas at a later date. 43. QUESTION: What is the impact on tree removal? How many trees will be cut down, and where are they? What will be the impact o.-. the large, old, historic tree:? 43. ANSWER: Some tree removal may be required for the tracks , station, and turntables , but without specific plans staff is unable to determine how many or which ones. 44. QUESTION: What effect c: '_ I the train's vibrations have on the surrounding trees and other vegetation? 44. ANSWER: An environmental review of the project could provide an answer to this question. However, the train now operates through OW Trinity Park and there has been no reported environment deterioration reported due to vibration cn vegetation. 7 45. QUESTION: How will litter from the train and near the train be addressed? 45. ANSWER: The responsibility of cleaning along the tracks could be addressed in a contract between the City and Tarantula. 46. QUESTION: Tarantula says it will provide a greenbelt through the city. They have also said they will improve only their right-of-way. The view of Fort Worth from this train is less than flattering to the City and, in fact , the code violations should be pursued whether we have the train or not. Will the City be responsible for the clean-up? Will Tarantula share in this expense? 46. ANSWER: The City is responsible for cleaning City owned land. In cases where code violations exist on private property and the City abates the problem, a lien is placed on the property. A contract with Tarantula could address liter pickup. 47. QUESTION: Is this a mass transit or an excursion train? 47. ANSWER: At this time City staff does not have sufficient information to provide such a definition. 48. QUESTION: Can the times of train operation be coordinated with peak park use? 48. ANSWER: City staff has not had any discussions with Tarantula 001" regarding schedules , bvt it would seem logical to consider peak park use. 49. QUESTION: What plans are in progress regarding expansion - a second track on this rc-.;te';' An extension to Cranbury? 49. ANSWER: City staff Ms not received any specific det-ails-s regarding an extension tc Granh)i:ry . We are aware -that the 041 Cranbury and the Granh-.--ry C_',_1a7.ber of Commerce has expresses,' a._1 interest in such an 50. QUESTION: Does TarantL.-* z Nave --f eminent domain? Tarantula plan to eye_­__­ se the c-Ant to eminent domain, so, where? 50. ANSWER: City staff dcnes- not hs%-e specific information whe`%-'_-.er the Tarantula has power cf enninent domizin and if it does : : : 1 they use it and where. 51. QUESTION: Is there a -:A.an to address/comply with chapter 26 . 0,' 1 ? 51. ANSWER: It is the indicated intent of the City of Fort Wor--Z*-. -.' o comply with Chapter 26. 001 as required and as interpreted by ;.* .--e City Attorney. 52. QUESTION: Do we (Fort Worth Citizens) actually need the train in the park? Why should the city relocate people and wildlife in the parks for private enterprise? Is there a prudent alternative to a train in the park? Is it the proper function of Forest and Lrinity parks , as major inner-city parks, to provide "free" open recreational space to city residents? 52. ANSWER: These questions deal more with policy issues . Staff may be able to give a recommendation on these issues , but only after more information is available. 53. QUESTION: What will be left to plan in Trinity and Forest Parks if the train goes through? 53. ANSWER: A considerable amount of -Trinity and Forest Park will still require some development in the future, even if the Tarantula project is approved. 54. QUESTION: How does this proposal relate to other planning efforts? 54. ANSWER: The Tarantula project , if approved by Council , will be included in any future plans of Trinity and Forest Parks. 55. QUESTION: What other park land will be affected? How many net acres of park land will be lost to the train? Will a train station/terminal be located in the parIA-11 55. RNSWER: City staff does not have sufficient information to adequately answer these questions . A more detailed proposal for the Tarantula project would have to be reviewed to determine how such park :and would be needed. 56. QUESTION : What kind of promctlon can Tarantula offer for Fort Worth and the park areas , zoo, etc.? - !though there are no specific pla-.-s for promotional 56. ANSWER: r.!though L. - activities , the Tarantula project does seem, to offer the potential f.C_- special; activities . 57. QUESTION, :f Old University Drive is closed, what wi.11 be the impact on the access to Trinity. park? 57. I.N.-SWER: L traffic study of the current use cf Old University Drive would have to be conducted to determine the impact of I closing this drive. 58. 0"11:STION: is Old University Drive a park road? Can it be eliminated? 58. ANSWER: 0-1d University Drive is a park road. Yes , it can be eliminated, but the impact of closing the road should be determined first . 9 59. QUESTION: How safe are the joggers/bikers in the tunnels? 59. ANSWER: Not knowing the design or locations of these tunnels , staff is unable to answer this question. 60. QUESTION: Has the Six Flags train operated safely for 25 years? 60. ANSWER: The City staff is not aware of the safety record of the Six Flags train. 61. QUESTION: Who will own the park improvements/trackage/rolling stock? 62. ANSWER: The ownership of improvements , tracks, and rolling stock would depend on the terms of a UMTA grantee (if one is approved) and the requirements of a contract between the City and Tarantula. 63. QUESTION: The visual impact of the Tarantula train in the parks , a trestle across the river, destruction of the bike path and the calm and serenity of the park are concerns of the public along with increased parking and traffic problems . If this train should fail , who is responsible for removing the trestle and the tracks? Tarantula has not been specific . 63. ANSWER: The responsibility to remove the tracks should the project fail would depend on the terms of a UMTLA grant (if approved) and/or terms of a contract with the Ci4-1 and Tarantula. 64. QUESTION: What balance does the Park Board recommend between the parks/zoo as a resource for area residents, and the parks/zoo as tourist destinations? 64. ANSWER: This question is asked specifically fc-- the Park and Recreation Board. 65. QUESTION: Are the visitors to the stockyards different from the visitors to the zoo? Will an excursion train z,-c link detract from marketing plans to attract increased sper,--*-- --,g at the zoo? Do the possible tourist benefits offset the risks ar-d changes that are necessary fLcr the one !ink? Will there be a tourism policy recar(i.-Lng Forest- Park-, Wi"I I demo:;---zpMcs reflect different behavioral pa terns? 65. ANSWER: A detailed proposal of the Tarantula prc:•ect would have to be carefu' ly reviewed and analyzed before the above listed questions can be answered. 66. QUESTION: Who owns the little train? 66. ANSWER: The little train is privately owned by Forest Park Rides, Inc. and Eames Amusement, Inc. 67. QUESTION: If it is privately owned, how is the city compensated? 10 p. 67. ANSWER: The City received 25% of gross revenue from the rides and the train and 15% of the revenue from the food and beverage sales . Currently the City only has a contract for the train. 68. QUESTION: If the City is compensated based on cash receipts , how are those receipts audited? 68. ANSWER: The City receives monthly sworn financial statements and an annual audit report . 69. QUESTION: Who owns the engines, passenger cars , track, buildings and bridges? 69• ANSWER: All improvements related t-o the little train including rolling stock is owned by Forest Park Rides and Hames Amusement , Inc . 70. QUESTION: Who paid for the construction o` the bridges , railway and buildings? 70. ANNSWER: Forest Park Fides and Hames Amusement , Inc . paid for all improvements . 71 . QUESTION: Who pays for maintaining the road bed and bridges? 71. ANSWER: The owners are responsible for maintaining the road bed and bridges . 72. QUESTION: What are liability considerations fcr the little trz.:n? (Who mai tE-' s the liability coverage, and what is the amc .<nt of that Cove--z -,-e?) 72. F*'Sr,--M The City _tares the operator to mainta_= a $1 ,000 , 000 1 _ a�ility cove:a e . 73. =`^ ION: Does =arl: Board reau: at engineer t� a_r�ing for '*-e s-z.E.. train? 73. 1_I':="7-R: No. 74. r-77:._ 'ION: At ea c.; ^- oint where the little trai=. crosses the -_ :•:%' jogging tra_1 - and pedestrian walks, are these crossing a:: -s properly -,ar::e: with automatic electric signals'. 74. A'': 76. QUESTION: Who will be responsible for moving or taking up the track and gravel/rock road bed should the little train not continue to run by decision of the owner? 76. ANSWER: The operator will be responsible to remove the track. 77. QUESTION: Does the owner/operator not desire to run the train until all concession rides are moved, or was this decision of the Park Board? 77. ANSWER: The City Council has approved the contract to allow the little train to operate for the next seven years . 78. QUESTION: What safety measures are taken by the Park Board or the operator of the small train to assure that small children do not get on the track or do not fall from one of the passenger cars of the train? 78. ANSWER: The operator operates the train at a slow speed as a safety measure. 79. QUESTION: What are the environmental (air) effects caused by the gasoline exhaust emissions from the little train? 79. ANSWER: A study has not been conducted to determine the environmental effects of the little train. 80. QUESTION: What regulatory entity provides safety rules for the small train? Are safety guidelines established by the Federal Government , State government., City government , Park Board or other regulatory entity? 80. ANSWER: T*.P-,e State Board of Insurance provides guidelines through Hames ' insurance carrier regarding the safety standards for the little train. City staff- also periodically inspects the condition of the train and tracks . 000, 12 FORT WORTH CULTURAL DISTRICT COMMITTEE RESOLUTION REGARDING THE TARANTULA CORPORATION TOUR TRAIN Passed Unanimously by the Cultural District Committee , April 28 , 1989 The Cultural District Committee supports the concept of a tour train as an entertainment attraction for tourists and citizens as a potential connector for some of the city's other attractions. The opportunities presented to the city by the Tarantula Corporation are exciting, and we applaud the efforts being made by the city staff and Tarantula to integrate the train with the needs of the city. Currently, Tarantula corporation's existing trackage runs through portions of the Cultural District. At this time, we are unable to recommend any use of public land for additional routes within the Cultural District until we have better information, such as comparisons of the benefits and costs for the various proposed extensions within the District, ridership patterns , schedules , parking demands and patterns , and public obligations and funding participation, As this information on the tour train becomes available, it will be incorporated into the Master Planning analysis of circulation system options both within the District and for connection to the city's other attractions. The Cultural District Committee suggests that the Tarantula Corporation begin operations utilizing existing trackage, with each addition examined as appropriate. 3545 WEST LANCASTER - POST OFFICE BOX 4227 - FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76147-2227 • 817-763-5355 E CITY OF FORT WORTM, TEXAS CRT COUNCIL Cr" MUADD0 THROCKIAMUM STREET FORT WCWTH. TEXAS 76102 DATE: February 7 , 1989 870.6143/AREA CODE 8V TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: MAYOR BOB BOLEN RE: COUNCIL APPOINTED COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP REVIEW PROCESS: TARANTULA TRAIN PROJECT At the January 17 , 1989 Pre-Council meeting , informal Report No. 7345 was presented to Council drafting recommendations for outlining a review process of Tarantula Corporation's conceptual plans . This I .R. would then be considered in an M&C for adoption by City Council . Based on a positive response from Council , M&C G-7900 was placed on the January 24, 1980. agenda. In response to comments from Councilman Estil Vance opposing the recommended process, Councilman Garey Gilley moved that a committee be appointed to develop an acceptable approach. As a result of this decision by a majority of the council , a committee was appointed to develop an alternate process for reviewing the conceptual plans of the Tarantula Corporation for an excursion railroad. A four-member committee would include Mayor Bob Bolen, and a representative from the Cultural District Committee , Park and Recreation board, and The League of Neighborhoods . The above named committee met on Monday , January 30 , and Wednesday, February 11 1989. The following process was recommended for receiving input from citizens regarding the conceptual idea of the Tarantula Corporation's Rail Excursion Project.: 1) Tarantula Corporation will sponsor four forums to allow citizens to discuss the concept , ask questions , and offer suggestions. These meetings will be held every other week for a total period of 60 days . Pace 2 Tarantula {cant . } February 7 , 1989 2) Tarantula will also host a fifth forum to respond to unanswered questions and suggestions presented at previous meetings. 3) As an outgrowth of these meetings , the Corporation will draft a preliminary proposal to present to the Cultural District Committee and the Park and Recreation Board in a Public Hearing . From the hearing, these groups will make recommendations to the City Council . BB:"r:L:vj f `hX5rER Flig.l !!ACOUNTING•2 CZtY of Fort Worth., Texas TR ANSPOITATIONIPUSuNc a or and Council Communication N *&P16A0►X1 Mt8TR47it1N ✓ .MAMA I rr�i REFERENCE SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR RECEIVING PAGE NUMBER AND ANALYZING COMMUNITY INPUT REGARDING 1-24-89 6-7900 CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE TARANTULA TRAD PROJECT RECONKENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council establish the following review process for the Tarantula Train Project: 1 . Invite written comments from interested groups regarding their reaction_ to the conceptual idea of the Tarantula Corporation's Rail Excursion Project. These comments should indicate whether the group is for or against the concept, and whether they believe specific rail extensions should be given consideration. 2. Set a time frame of 60 days from today's date for receiving responses from these groups and set a public hearing on this topic approximately two weeks after receipt of comments (April �3. Request that City staff prepare an analysis of the train _proje-at- and make appropriate recommendations regarding the concep'tltial approval and the possible individual line extensions. DISCUSSION: At the January 10, 1984 Pre-Council meeting, the Tarantula Corporation presented its conceptual plans for a Railroad Excursion project in the City of Fort Worth. Their plans involve making four entertainment and cultural areas of the City, the Stockyards, Cultural District, Fort Worth too, and the Central Business District, accessible by rail . On January 17, 1989, I.R. No. 7346 (attached) was presented to Council listing recommendations from staff of a process for receiving input from interested groups and other citizens, and the identification of related issues Council should consider. The purpose of this MSC is for City Council to refer the Tarantula Train Project's conceptual plans to community groups, other citizens, and City staff for comments and recommendations to be given to the City Council at a subsequent date. ApPV CITY_ COUNCIL JAN 24 1888 SUBMITTED FOR 1"L CITY MANAGER`S DISPOSITION SY COUNCIL PROCESSED SY OFFICE BY: HAME 0 AP"OVED ORIGINATING ("j OTHER MUCRIBE) DEPARTMENT HEAD: Lister- Y SECRETARY_0*gagnods, FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION di pa" 4w,�,7"M CONTACT: W. Lister 6111 1 DATE Referred to a Committee composed of the Mayor, Chairman of the Cultural District Committee, Chairman of the Park and Recreation Board and the President or designee of the League of Neighborhoods. The Committee is to report back to City Council on February 7. 1989.