Session 08-05 a meeting of the Transportation
Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair Marquardt at
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Marquardt, Roberts, Velsko, Zak
ABSENT: Smith
STAFF: Public
Works Director Meyer
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
The agenda was approved by consensus of the
Committee.
There were no public comments.
There were no items for
reconsideration.
There were no visitors
scheduled.
There were no reports.
A. 2008 Future Agenda Items- Review and Prioritize List
The Committee discussed
their priorities on the list.
Mr. Velsko commented
regarding signage on the spit and noted some important signs could be “Maintain
Speed”, “No Stopping in Roadway”, and “Use Pullouts for Viewing”. He pointed
out the delay of five vehicles is
VELSKO/ROBERT MOVED TO
ADOPT
There were brief comments.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS
CONSENT
Motion carried.
There was discussion on the
order of items on the list. They agreed to switch items 3 and 7.
Mr. Velsko commented
regarding calcium chloride. He understands that Public Work is working with a
reduced budget for calcium chloride, when it should be a priority with the new
annexed areas. It is a health issue and leads to less maintenance on the roads.
He would like to see it prioritized. In reviewing past budgets he has seen
where it has been cut 33%.
Public Works Director Meyer
commented that there was a time when they were told to cut their budget 10% and
that is one area that took a cut. He thinks it has come back to where it was
before, but he w
Calcium chloride was moved
up to item 10 and amended to say analysis. It was requested that the priority
list be included in the next City Council Packet as an informational item.
Chair Marquardt said he would try to attend the next council meeting.
B. Road LID Costs Assessment Methodology
Discussion
ensued and the following points were addressed:
·
There hasn’t been a big
rush for road improvement LID’s.
·
It would be beneficial to
educate people on the process and benefits to the City and tax payers of paving
the roads.
·
If there were a way to help
local residents who want an LID and possibly defer on those who don’t want it,
perhaps because they live outside or other reasons.
·
Reassessing the procedure
for the way the votes are counted in a LID could be beneficial.
·
Equalizing the costs for gravel
versus paving might be an incentive for property owners to take the step to go
to paved roads.
·
The state took it upon
themselves to start paving roads, perhaps that is something the City might want
to consider.
·
A lot of people don’t want
road improvements because they believe it w
·
The HART money isn’t just
for LID’s so there needs to be funds available for the other projects allowed
in the program.
Councilmember Roberts said
she would like to know the lineal feet of
The
Committee spent time discussing the current method of cost per front foot
versus an 80/20 split between the City and property owners. Point was raised
that the City would pay 80% and the 20% would be split between property owners
on each side of the road, each side would pay 10% each.
·
This would still be figured
on the notion that the property owner would still be billed based on their
lineal front footage and not total project cost.
·
Going 80/20 will put it out
there at a real reasonable cost and the City can explain they are doing this to
decrease expenditures for maintenance and fuel.
·
The City will find the
costs changing all the time but the property owner will know that what ever the
lineal foot is the City will be picking up 80% of the cost.
Public
Works Director Meyer noted that a benefit of the current process is that the
property owner knows when they sign up what the cost is going to be and it
won’t change. Currently water and sewer LID’s are figured by percentage of cost
for the project and on Kachemak Drive Phase II the cost to property owners went
up from the time it started to the final assessment roll. He noted the increase
was not because of the cost of the project but primarily from people combining
lots on
Concern
was raised regarding the availability of HART funds. There was discussion that
at some point Fairview is going to be tied over to West Hill, which will
include millions of dollars of improvements. One project could drain the HART
funds, then there is no money. Another way to look at this is that it can’t be
allowed for one project to use all the funds. The City will need to look at
each project as there will be an increased draw on the HART funds.
Councilmember
Roberts suggested language that the property owner wouldn’t subsidize more than
20 or 25 percent of the total project cost.
Chair
Marquardt noted that with the fluctuating costs sticking to hard numbers is
probably less effective than having a percentage. Using percentages, if the
cost doubles it is 20% regardless.
Further
discussion ensued. There is civic responsibility to make these improvements,
with all the talk of global warming and conserving energy, then sending graders
up the hill, it is a waste of money. 20 years ago it may have been okay to have
all the gravel roads, but these aren’t small homesteads anymore. People who
live in the City of
ZAK/VELSKO
MOVED TO ADJUST THE FIXED FRONTAGE
Reasons
for the recommendation are
·
Savings to the City
overall.
·
It is good for the
citizenry of Homer.
·
Consideration of health and
safety.
·
Reduced maintenance cost.
Chair
Marquardt commented would like to see this again before it goes to Council. He
would like to have Mr. Smith’s input.
VOTE:
NON OBJECTION: UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion
carried.
A. HART Policy Review
The
Committee agreed to discuss the HART policy at the next meeting.
There were no audience comments.
Question was raised on how
gas prices are affecting Public Works. Public Works Director Meyer commented
that there isn’t any question they will be over budget on fuel costs, but he
doesn’t see it as unmanageable. He think that as we go into the budget cycle if
there is reduced sales tax and changes in property taxes and increased costs of
not only fuel, but also electricity, and trying to cut energy costs, could
change things.
Councilmember Roberts said
she would report at the next council meeting if no one else can make it. She
said she would report on the priority list and they felt the spit issues are
important. She would also comment that they talked extensively about the LID
process and moving forward with a resolution, and the Committee is interested
in some type of education about the LID process and budgeting for it.
The Committee concurred
with her topics.
Chair Marquardt had no
comments.
COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Mr. Velsko commented that
it is great to have Councilmember Roberts on board to share their views with
Council. The Port and Harbor Commission would like to have a Councilmember
representative.
Mr. Zak had no comments.
MELISSA JACOBSEN, DEPUTY
Approved: