The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Marquardt on March 23, 2004, at 6:10 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska. 

Members Present: Kurt Marquardt, Steve Smith, Mike Yourkowski

Members Absent:  Lane Chesley (excused)

Staff Present:    Deputy City Clerk Benson, City Planner McKibben, Public Works Director Meyer

 

AGENDA APPROVAL

 

The agenda was approved by consensus.

 

SYNOPSIS APPROVAL

 

A.        Synopsis of March 2, 2004

 

Chair Marquardt asked for one clarification in the synopsis.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

A.         HARP (Homer Accelerated Roads Program) Criteria

 -input to Council by 4/07/04 

 

Chair Marquardt asked Public Works Director Meyer for comments. Mr. Meyer commented on the $30 / $17 assessment split saying these are 20 year old figures([1]) and that the property owners are paying less and less of the project cost.  He suggested that the intent of the HARP may have changed; like the repaving of streets.  To get an idea of what costs should be, the committee discussed the costs of Hazel Avenue in which Mr. Meyer guessed the project cost to be $500/lft which included curb, gutter, a wider width and storm drain; without which it would have cost $300/lft.  He commented that other fees have been adjusted recently and it may be time to look at what a reasonable contribution by the property owner is.  He used the percentage changes made to the Water and Sewer LID program to make the money stretch farther as an analogy as to what might need to be done with the HARP fund.

 

The committee asked for some numbers from a project so they could look at current costs.  Mr. Meyer advised that Poopdeck/Hazel was the latest project; Jenny Way has not been completed due to easement issues; he agreed that Bay Avenue is a good proto-typical project however it’s hard to get a hold of the paperwork.  The percentage of what the owners were paying as a standard set for the assessment was discussed briefly.  Mr. Smith recalled that when he attended meetings when John Calhoun was mayor 25% of the cost was a target number for the HARP assessment; and he acknowledged that HAWSP was 25% property owner share at that time also.

 

Public Works Director Meyer pointed out that over the last 5 years there had been a dozen road LIDs (Local Improvement Districts) petitioned([2]) and none of them had passed.  He didn’t think there were a lot of LIDs in the few years prior to his arrival therefore he questioned the interest of the community in their use of the program.  He speculated that over the last 10 years nobody had used it.  He suggested that the HARP program might need to be changed from what it was originally intended for, which was to pave over dusty streets, lower maintenance costs and upgrade drive-ability.  Chair Marquardt expressed his opinion that there was still a need for paving for reasons just stated.  He added that a way to encourage people to use the program more is for the City to pay more and he didn’t think they could afford to do that.  Steve Smith commented that he guessed that the reason people were not taking advantage of the program was because they weren’t willing to bear the cost, not because they didn’t want their road paved.  Therefore, he added that raising the costs would “drive a stake into its heart”.  He asked if reassessing the entire program would require a vote of the public.

 

Public Works Director Meyer stated that everything suggested so far could be funded under HARP according to the City Attorney.  One thing the HARP doesn’t allow is assistance with maintenance of roads, although paving is a big step in maintenance.  Mr. Meyer explained that the City did not get some equipment talked about during annexation and as more roads are paved with curb and gutter more snow hauling would be required and a paint striper would also be needed, therefore a different set of equipment would be needed driving equipment costs up.  A suggestion was made to contract out the striping.  Mr. Meyer stated that contracting gets expensive and used the street sweeper as an example; it was costing $20,000 a year for the contract and the City purchased a sweeper for $30,000 and does a much better job.  He noted that if the City paves more roads there would be a need for trucks and blowers.  He added that if the committee got into revamping what the HARP program is all about, he asked the committee to talk about this issue.  

 

The committee revisited using HARP funds for the 10% match for DOT projects.  There was clarification that HARP funds can be used for the match if the City takes over maintenance when the project is done.  Bartlett Street, Pioneer Avenue, Main Street and the Spit Trail were commented on as being examples. 

 

Mr. Smith spoke in support of making amendments and using HARP funds to match 10% of State funds without having to take over maintenance.  His logic was that if the City were not rebuilding local roads with the money and projects were going away because the City couldn’t match 10%, why would the City throw away 90% of the project?   He added that he is a strong believer in finding a way to match with the 10%- hook or crook.  Mr. Smith stated that he was supportive of the 9:1 return if it guaranteed a road being built.  He pointed out that Homer might be the only one in this position and be high on the list for receiving funds.  He used the ISTEA(3) funds used for the Spit Trail as an example explaining that when the funds became available Homer was the only one to have a trail named as a priority and ended up with an over $2 million beautiful trail. 

 

Public Works Director Meyer stated and reiterated that DOT doesn’t have any money for projects and further stated that he didn’t expect much from DOT on the Main Street project.

 

There was a question as to whether or not amending the HARP program to include projects that the City does not maintain had to go to the voters.

 

Chair Marquardt expressed his support for using HARP funds for the 10%, however he did not want to see that become the priority and end up with no money left for local roads.

 

The committee discussed the fund balance of the HARP and projecting out the projects over five year increments.  There was a brief discussion on whether or not to set aside percentages of the fund for certain things and there was discussion on how much road construction/repaving could be done each year using HARP monies.  The committee did not support dividing the fund up in to percentages set aside for specific uses.(4) They were more supportive of leaving the fund open to  current needs.  There was speculation that 1000 lf of roadway could be paved every year.

 

After a brief discussion regarding a need to make changes to the HARP criteria, the committee decided to tell the Council that they were considering support of the 10% local match as a viable use of the funds for State maintained roads.  They would like to take a look at the costs and reevaluate the dollar per front foot taking inflation into account.  They would need staff support for retrieving the information on the actual costs.  They would further like to address the issue of new road construction - not including easements - and look at how that fits into the HARP.

 

There was some discussion and a question as to whether or not trails were included in the HARP.  There was some support voiced for using the HARP for trails.

 

The committee looked at the 2004 City of Homer Budget and ascertained that Homer sales tax for 2004 was estimated at $2.6 million.  The HARP fund would receive $968,000 with a deduction of debt service of $470,000.  That would leave annual growth at approximately one-half million dollars.  

Public Works Director Meyer offered to bring to the next meeting the figures for the HARP fund and information on costs for constructing a road to City standards and paving a gravel road - not to include curb and gutter. 

 

The committee agreed that they needed some specific wording for the HARP criteria and would try to come up with some wording for the next meeting.

           

At the committee’s request, Mr. Meyer agreed look into requesting an extension of approximately  six weeks to draw up some recommendations.

 

B.        Discuss the Goals and Objectives in the Transportation Plan

 

The committee agreed that the members of the public were welcome to enter into the discussion.  Members of the public at that time were Kevin Walker and Bill Smith.

 

City Planner McKibben reviewed the changes made to the Issues, Goals and Objectives by the committee to date.  She commented that:

-         she didn’t get into researching the population and forecast figures. 

-         she wanted to check on some numbers but stated that the numbers in the transportation plan may be reasonable as it is; that the models did a pretty good job. 

-         it would be interesting to track Homer’s historical growth and see if it is the same as the rest of the borough.

-         Issue 3, the only comments on seasonal traffic was that it doubled in the summer.

-         Issue 9 didn’t have notes on comments regarding air transportation; that there’s not much recognition in the transportation plan; that we have an airport and there is no discussion about it.

-         Goal 10 was thrown in per the synopsis; that lots of curb cuts doesn’t make a pedestrian friendly environment because of the need to dodge traffic.  Mr. Walker noted that on-street parking also makes a buffer for pedestrians.

-         she took out “criterion” and “sub-criterion” language as discussed.

-         she took the portion of Objective 7 regarding maintaining a Level of Service of C or better and moved it to the Goal section because it fit better as a goal.

-         the plan was not consistent about recommendations

-         she would be taking out the part that recommended purchasing a snow storage site before March 2003.

 

Chair Marquardt commented that the revised Goals, Issues and Objectives looked good.  Mr. Smith liked the term “minimize” versus “discouraging”.

 

Mr. Smith reiterated his prior recommendation that the Fairview-High School to West Homer Elementary extension be top priority. 

 

Chair Marquardt stated that he had issues with statements made in this document, that he questioned the language being used and that this is the opportunity to change that.  He expressed his opinion that the committee wasn’t ready to sign off on the modeled extensions.  Further, he confirmed with Ms. McKibben that she would be reviewing the text of the manual to see how it relates to the modeled extensions.  Ms. McKibben explained that Mr. Meyer worked with the consultants and would have an understanding of what the ideas were and that together they could come up with wording for the committee to review.

 

Public Works Director Meyer commented that the term “modeled extensions” meant that it was a road that was included in the traffic model that was run to generate traffic on some of the roads in the future and that he did not want to call them modeled extensions if they didn’t make sense anymore.  He added that if the committee changed modeled extensions, half the report would go out the window because the model was run on a different assumption than what’s being presented in the report; that calling it a “modeled extension” was inferring that it’s an important road and meets the goals and objectives of the report.  Ms. McKibben recommended calling them “recommended alternatives”.  Mr. Meyer asked that unless the Road Standards Committee saw something really ugly, that they not touch the modeled extensions because they are the basis of the projection of traffic flows into the future.  He expressed his concern that the committee may get into “micromanaging the report”.  He discussed the report as a 20-year plan with 5-year incremental updates that needed to get into a format that went before the council to be officially adopted for the first time.

 

The committee discussed how to place suggestions/recommendations such as traffic signals in the transportation plan.  They discussed the need to recommend general needs and not get specific on how they are to be carried out.  The committee looked at and interpreted an example of a recommendation regarding traffic signals on page I-28 of the transportation plan.  The committee agreed that all alternatives should be looked at, such as round-abouts, and no specific recommendations should be made.

 

Ms. McKibben reiterated that the recommendations were not clear and not consistent in each section of the plan and again recommended that she and Mr. Meyer go over them and make them clear.  She offered to come up with wording for the committee to review.  Mr. Meyer agreed with her suggestion and further offered that the other alternative would be for the committee to go over each section paragraph by paragraph and come up with comments.

 

The committee talked about specific techniques for creating the traffic patterns needed. 
The advantages and disadvantages of the “suicide lane” were discussed.  Narrowing lanes for slowing traffic was discussed.  The difficulty of driving 25 mph on the Sterling/Bypass was noted because it’s a straight stretch of road.  The issues of the speed limit and the possibility of having a turn lane at the end of the spit were brought up.

 

Bill Smith noted that where there was traffic calming to make it nice for pedestrians, it could create traffic that’s bumper to bumper insinuating that there needed to be a balance.

 

Ms. McKibben explained that the City creates a transportation plan that evaluates the specific corridors and evaluates all the different alternatives and looks at the impact the alternatives would have on the level of service and pedestrian facilities.  The community then gets to have a choice to choose the alternative that best suits their needs or wants.  The traffic study is a more specific study on a specific segment of road looking at all the different options.

 

The committee agreed on a goal to have this to the Council by May.  The original urgency was getting the plan to DOT so they could use it in their traffic study.  The committee expressed an interest in the status of the DOT traffic study.  Mr. Meyer explained that typically DOT asked for local input after they’ve made their decisions.  He voiced his opinion that it would be very difficult for DOT engineers to create a round-about that had never been tried before unless there is support from the community.

 

Kevin Walker offered input regarding working with DOT.  He explained that he will be working out in the Western Alaska airports because when those airports were under the supervision of the Central Region out of Anchorage, nothing ever happened to them and if something did it wasn’t what the community wanted.  Now they are under the Western District where he works and there is communication back and forth.  He commented that part of the problem is that Anchorage doesn’t like to go outside of Anchorage and this is Homer.  Mr. Meyer added that Anchorage DOT is applying urban solutions they are familiar with to rural community problems.  Mr. Walker agreed with the comment that the DOT engineers would not recommend something that’s out of the ordinary.  The committee voiced their support for thinking outside the box, recommending new ideas and bringing them before staff and government bodies.

 

The committee commented on the lack of information from DOT to the Homer community regarding what’s going on.  All were in agreement that they would like to be in on the creation of local project alternatives, versus picking from alternatives already created.  Mr. Smith gave an example of a DOT project on Lake Street that did not allow a large enough radius for a school bus to use the turn lane. 

The committee commented on a void in communication existing between Homer and DOT.  Mr. Meyer nominated the committee chair “Road King” to fill the void.  Chair declined the nomination.

 

Bill Smith commented that the State is obligated to follow local standards, therefore if the City has set standards and that’s communicated to the State they will have to follow that when they build projects.  He suggested, and the committee discussed including in the plan, what specific classifications of streets have to meet what standards, ie. how many sidewalks, ROW width, pavement width, street lights, etc. 

 

The committee agreed that Mr. Meyer and Ms. McKibben would come back with wording for them to review.

 

C.                 Review DOT Projects: Bartlett Street - Pioneer Ave- Sterling Hwy - East End Road

 

The committee reviewed the DOT striping plans.  They looked at Bartlett Street first and agreed there needed to be a crosswalk and handicap ramps on Bartlett at Pioneer Avenue and on the east side of Bartlett on Fairview Avenue.  The committee commented on the need for handicap ramps on intersections with sidewalks and stop bars at each of the main intersections.  

 

The committee agreed that, in general, anywhere there is curb,  gutter and sidewalk on both sides of an intersecting street there should be a crosswalk and where there is a sidewalk there should be a depressed curb.

 

The committee reviewed in detail the pavement and stop sign placement on Bartlett Street.  There were no recommendations for changes.  The committee noted that none of the plans show things like traffic calming or pedestrian amenities beyond the bare minimum. 

 

Mr. Yourkowski advised at 8:10 p.m. that he had to leave soon.

 

The committee discussed various avenues of bringing their comments and recommendations before government bodies that have the authority to make changes.  Written recommendations were agreed on as being the best.

 

Public Works Director Meyer recommended the committee take home the plans, study them and come back with recommendations.  The committee discussed re-striping lanes on a 10/10/4 basis.

It was noted that this issue came up at the council meeting the night before and that council was supportive.  The committee discussed the reduced cost of striping and walk-ability advantages for narrow lanes and a pedestrian pathway/buffer.  The committee reviewed the striping plan in detail regarding the width of the lanes, the pedestrian buffers and sidewalks.  They happily concluded that the plans do show what the walk-ability expert recommended.

 

The committee agreed to do a final review at the next meeting and scheduled April 13th (5) and April 20th   for meetings.  

 

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 

            A.        Written Comments from Kevin Walker, Re: Kenai Peninsula Resurfacing Program

                        2003- Draft J1- J6

 

Chair Marquardt thanked Mr. Walker for his input; that he had a lot of positive points to make and he encouraged everyone to review Mr. Walker’s comments.

 

Kevin Walker commented that he is a nitty-gritty guy who pays attention to detail and offered his services to the committee.  He also offered that has a good rapport with Rex Young in Anchorage and would call and get the status of the traffic study.  Mr. Walker advised that he’s a “walkability” guy.  He stated that he was curious about how the community felt about left turn lanes and boulevards.  He would like to see more boulevards with medians in the middle and acknowledged that the maintenance people might not like that.  He commented on level of service (LOS) asking rhetorically if the community wanted people to go through town at 45 mph or slow down, walk around and spend money.  He expressed his support for crosswalks where there are curb cuts on both sides of the streets.  He noted that on the Sterling Hwy and Lake Street there were no crosswalks; and that there are crosswalks on Pioneer Avenue but not on the side streets.  He suggested that the committee make this a community standard.  Mr. Walker acknowledged that the airport and the ferry dock were in the transportation plan and questioned how to get people transported from those ports of entry.  In most cases people use a cab for transport and he suggested the plan state that.  He noted that during their discussion of streets the prior evening Council members were commenting that they were not traffic engineers.  Mr. Walker offered his services - he “talks the talk”.

 

Steve Smith commented on Mr. Walkers letter stating that it’s a good recommendation.

 

 

            B.        Written Comments from Mike Heimbuch, Re: East/West Arterials Planning

 

Chair Marquardt asked the committed to make note of Mr. Heimbuch’s comments.  Staff advised that Mr. Heimbuch has contacted the Planning Department several times regarding this issue.  Mr. Yourkowski offered that Mr. Heimbuch could be on the agenda to discuss the matter with the committee.  Chair Marquardt added that this is a modeled extension and the committee would be making a decision to sign off on the transportation plan soon.  He voiced his opinion that if Shellfish were left in the plan he felt it would run into a snag at the Council level.

 

Mr. Yourkowski announced that the HARP estimated balance at the end of 2004 was $2.8 million.

 

The committee briefly discussed the pros and cons of using the money to build a sidewalk on Main Street.  They looked at building sidewalk on one side with piping for drain underneath the sidewalk.  It was noted that on Bartlett the drainpipe would run under the street and outlet in the ditch.  The committee agreed to recommend to the Council that the HARP funds be used for a sidewalk on Main Street, Kachemak Way and Ben Walters Street with drainpipe, catch basins and outlets to the ditch on the other side of the street.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

There being no further business to come before the committee the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m.  The next meeting was scheduled for April 20th , 2004, at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers.

 

__________________________________________

DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK

 

Approved: _________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] These figures were changed and adopted by Council in November 1995.

[2] 1999 to date,  records show 9 Road LID petitions. 7 insufficient, 1 pending - Hazel/Poopdeck completed in 2000.

3 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act   

4 See HARP Manual II Qualifying Criteria Item l - “...road money is prorated proportionally between Groups I - IV.

5 April 13th meeting canceled due to scheduling conflicts on the calendar.