Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bollards Ppp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mobility committee reviews bollards evaluation, staff recommends PPP pilots for high‑priority locations
Summary
Staff presented an evaluation of bollard use and public‑private partnership (PPP) models used by comparable college towns. The presentation recommended testing bollard installations through PPPs or inclusion in larger infrastructure scopes; committee asked staff to add pilot locations to the future meeting matrix.
Transportation staff presented a report on bollard evaluations and public‑private partnership options for bollard installation, drawing comparisons with college cities in Texas and elsewhere.
Farhan summarized comparable jurisdictions with college populations — noting Denton—s current estimated population above 165,000 and examples such as College Station (about 128,000 residents) and San Marcos (about 74,000). Staff said some cities pair bollard installation with larger PPPs or include bollards as components of broader design‑build projects; other cities offer grants, abatements or tax‑increment financing to fund public‑facing street safety measures.
Staff described PPP models that could apply to bollards: private design‑build agreements, shared‑cost agreements where developers co‑fund installations, incentives for private installation (for example, at hospitals or large commercial properties), and larger innovative financing agreements through federal or state programs. Farhan noted that bollard‑only PPPs are less common and often arise in response to a specific safety event; he cited a City of Austin example where a hospital partnership followed a fatal incident.
Committee members asked clarifying questions. Councilmember Gay asked whether current economic and tax‑increment programs allow staff to pursue these partnerships; staff said eligibility typically exists within current criteria manuals and that staff can recommend council action when appropriate. Committee members also asked whether bollards can be used as interim measures pending longer‑term engineering (for example, until a signal is warranted); staff said decisions would be case‑by‑case after audits and holistic evaluation of the location.
During discussion of next steps, a motion to postpone the bollard item (MC25‑044) was made earlier in the meeting but the motion failed and the committee proceeded to discuss the evaluation. Later in the meeting, a committee member asked staff to add identification of priority pilot locations and potential PPP approaches for bollards to the meeting matrix for a future agenda; staff agreed to add the item for a future meeting.
Ending: Staff said it will include bollard options in planning projects where safety treatments are appropriate and will update the active‑transportation plan to consider bollards as a context‑sensitive design treatment. Staff also recommended including bollards as components of larger projects or pursuing targeted PPP agreements for high‑priority sites.
