The meeting was called to order by Committee Chair Marquardt on April 20, 2004, at 6:21 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at 491 E Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
Members Present: Kurt Marquardt, Steve Smith, Lane Chesley
Members Absent: Mike Yourkowski
Staff Present: Deputy City Clerk Benson, City Clerk Calhoun, Public Works Director Meyer
The agenda was approved by
consensus.
SYNOPSIS APPROVAL
A. Synopsis of March 23, 2004
The synopsis was approved by consensus.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Annual Review - HARP (Homer Accelerated Roads Program) Criteria
At the last meeting the Committee had requested actual costs from Public Works Director Meyer for road reconstruction projects completed. The Committee reviewed the spreadsheet provided in the packet. Chair Marquardt noted that the committee had speculated that the costs of construction might have increased. Public Works Director Meyer referred to the “construction only” cost table on the spreadsheet stating that Jan Jonker, Superintendent, had kept track of these numbers over the years. He commented that nearly every Homer Accelerated Roads Project (HARP) ever built was on the list including the gravel road costs and the paving costs. Mr. Meyer expressed his surprise that the costs per foot for gravel averaged out to $166 per lineal foot and that a project in 1988 cost $167 per lineal foot. He stated that he had no clear consensus that costs have skyrocketed.
Steve Smith advised that in 1988 Soundview Avenue might have been constructed with a 2 foot template of 2” minus crushed gravel with soil fabric and geo-grid on top of that. When Hugh Bevan was Public Works Director he believed that the crushed gravel would lock into the geo-grid and would distribute the load better. Mr. Smith thought this test was done on Soundview Avenue, Highland Drive, Fairview Avenue and Heath Street. He thought that the crushed gravel was the reason for such a high dollar amount compared to the others. The others would typically have a 2.5 foot template of pit run with some screened gravel on the top, making it 3 feet total.
The committee reviewed the construction costs of some of the specific projects and discussed how the project was constructed in comparison to the costs shown. It was noted that there was no change in the cost of paving since 1990. The definition of reconstruction was clarified - whatever existed is removed and a new design template created. The area was excavated to sub-grade and replaced with gravel. This was typical of a ditched road without curb, gutter and lighting and would include the installation of sewer and water first, and would include culverts for driveways.
The committee agreed that $200/lf average was a good number. The breakdown for reconstruction and paving would be $160 and $40 respectively. They noted that the current rate for paving at $17 per front foot on both sides of the street covered the entire costs of paving. At $30 per front foot assessment ($60 per road foot) it would add up to approximately 40% of the cost.
The committee didn’t think the recent increase in the cost of petroleum products would be significant.
There was extensive discussion regarding the formula for figuring the property owner’s share and what the basis for creating the figures were in the beginning. City Clerk Calhoun advised that the intent of the program was for the property owners to pay 25% of the costs. Discussion included the typical process for paving - to add 2 inches of leveling course under 2 inches of asphalt. In the case of repaving, the asphalt would be ground up and incorporated back into the project, probably as the leveling course.
In reviewing the costs per front foot for gravel the committee figured that at $160 per front foot actual cost, the 25% property owner share would be $40 per road foot, which would place a $20 per front foot assessment. The question came up regarding where the current assessment of $30 per front foot for gravel came from and where the $17 per front foot for paving came from, with comments that this was too much.
There was discussion on what costs were included in the project beyond the front footage -
Corner lots only pay on one frontage
Cul de sacs have very small frontages
Intersections are not covered
Design costs - 10% budgeted
Construction/Inspection costs - 10% budgeted
Administration costs - 15% budgeted
Taking these into consideration there was speculation that the actual cost is probably closer to $200 versus $160. There was a conclusion that lower figures would be closer to the 25% property owner share than what exists. The committee discussed a process for changing the figures. Mr. Meyer stated that he would like to see what the figures on the spreadsheet covered prior to making any recommendations for lowering the assessments.
The committee speculated that the lack of participation in the program is not a lack of interest, but that the property owners do not want to pay the costs. Mr. Meyer pointed out that almost every Water and Sewer Local Improvement District (LID) included the opportunity for a Road LID, such as Forest Glen, Lakeshore Drive, and Harrington Heights, and did not pass. He acknowledged that introducing both assessments at the same time might be a detriment. He further commented that to most people, having a paved road was not a priority in their lives. In talking to people on Water and Sewer LID he advised that there were a myriad of reasons why people did not want to participate. Mr. Meyer stated that when the Water and Sewer LID was constructed the road gets fixed.
Using the 25% formula for paving assessments and the costs on the spreadsheet, the committee came up with approximately $6 per front foot versus $17 for paving; and for reconstruction it would be $25 versus $30. This makes a total of $31 per front foot for reconstruction and paving which could generate more interest in the program. City Clerk Calhoun pointed out that $31 was what it used to be - $20/ff for reconstruction and $11/ff for paving. Ms. Calhoun further advised that the increase in costs were recommended by ex- Public Works Director Hugh Bevan. There was discussion that this increase may have been to slow down the use of the fund. That there were a couple of moratoriums placed on the fund at one point. It was noted that the water and sewer fund was changed to increase property owners share when the funds ran out and that it did not decrease interest in creating LIDs. There was speculation that this same process would work for the HARP if lowered assessments created a large demand on the fund.
Public Works Director Meyer explained that there were other demands on the fund. Right now the City is spending $500,000 to repave 5 of the roads, however, there was not a great demand and the HARP fund was increasing every year.
Steve Smith recalled that Mayor Gregoire was opposed to the HARP program and used the Bay Avenue project as an example. He explained that Mr. Gregoire alleged that there was no reason to improve Bay Avenue because there was nothing there. Mr. Smith’s point was that after Bay Avenue was reconstructed and paved, people moved in and built fantastic homes and the property values increased, which was the intent of the program.
Lane Chesley cautioned reducing the assessments. He wanted to be sure that everyone understood what the full burden costs were. He explained that costs are only going up and he questioned decreasing the figures knowing that they would have to increase them again later.
There was further discussion by the committee on the percentages of overhead costs. Mr. Meyer advised that the industry standard of 10% for design was used. Mr. Smith added that 15% was used in general. Mr. Meyer stated that 10% was added for construction administrative costs for Public Works and that Finance also adds a percentage. This all added up to 25%. Mr. Smith confirmed with City Clerk Calhoun that ex- Finance Director Newby used to tag the projects at a 25% overhead. Ms. Calhoun agreed with Mr. Smith that 25% was still an accurate figure for overhead costs.
After a brief discussion, the Committee asked Mr. Meyer to contact Jan Jonker and ask him if the repaving costs on the spreadsheet included D-1. Mr. Meyer was unable to reach Mr. Jonker for an answer.
Lane Chesley calculated the figures based upon the “gross margin school of markup” and came up with $27/ff to split. He explained how that formula worked. Normally, when multiplying $160 by 1.25 the answer is $200, however, using the gross margin formula by dividing $160 by .75 the answer is $213. That formula looks at the 25% on the new calculated value. Mr. Chesley commented that in retail, mark-ups are figured by division and a discount is attained using multiplication.
Mr. Chesley brought up the issue of instances when there would not be an assessable party on both sides of the road. He expressed in interest in maintaining a cost margin to cover the projects where there would be property owners qualified to be exempt from paying an assessment. The Hazel/Poopdeck reconstruction and paving project was used as an example because it included property owned by the Federal Government.
The Committee discussed their interest in recommending that the criteria be changed to reflect 25% of the actual costs, whatever that is. There was a suggestion that the committee request a specific recommendation from the City’s professional staff that was supported by some sort of findings. It would have a lot more merit if staff attached justification for the committee to review. There was also a comment supporting making a recommendation based upon the information provided and if there were discrepancies, it would be corrected at the Council level.
The committee expressed concern that they were out of time in making their recommendations. City Clerk Calhoun offered that they could take more time if they needed it.
The Committee expressed their observation that Public Works Director Meyer was not voicing his support of changing the criteria. He explained that he would like to have a better understanding of what the spreadsheet says. He added that spreadsheets could fib a little unless the assumptions for putting the numbers together were known. Mr. Meyer noted that there were two questions - 1. Do we want to change the rates? 2. If so, do we want to stick with the 25% contribution by the property owner? He expressed his observation that the current rates are much closer to the 25% than what he expected. He asked whether or not the community could continue to support subsidizing roads at 75%. Chair Marquardt commented on what the HARP fund has brought to Homer thus far. There would not be paved streets in many neighborhoods if not for the HARP fund. Mr. Smith expressed this opinion that this fund enhances the community and the property values that support Homer’s tax base. Mr. Smith stated that he would like to go on the record saying, “I am an advocate of the HARP program and would like to see it utilized and would like to see it reflect it’s original intent with regard to the percentages”.
Public Works Director Meyer stated that he could come up with a recommendation that would support or not support a change in the price, justification for the recommendation and offer a little bit more detailed information on what the numbers really mean. The committee agreed by consensus to do this.
City Clerk Calhoun advised that Item L of the Criteria Section of the Policy Manual is obsolete - “City share of road money is prorated proportionally between Groups I-IV”. Further, she advised that Item K needed to have the annexed roads identified and included - “City share can apply to related utilities, sidewalks, street lighting, drainage, paving and/or reconstruction of roads identified in Groups I-IV”.
The committee discussed maintenance on the annexed roads. Mr. Smith brought up the issue that Item 4 , “The City will not accept a street for full time maintenance until it meets city standards and is shown on the official maintenance map” - wasn’t fair to property owners. Mr. Meyer explained that the standards for roads had been changed to incorporate the annexed roads and that they had been placed appropriately on the road maintenance map.
CHESLEY/SMITH - MOVE TO STRIKE ITEM L UNDER SECTION II QUALIFYING CRITERIA
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/MARQUARDT/SMITH - MOVE TO AMEND ITEM K TO “CITY SHARE CAN APPLY TO RELATED UTILITY, SIDEWALKS, STREET LIGHTING, DRAINAGE, PAVING AND/OR RECONSTRUCTION OF ROADS IDENTIFIED IN GROUPS 1-IV AND ANNEXED ROADS.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
It was suggested that this item would remain on the next agenda for a recommendation from Public Works Director Meyer. Chair Marquardt asked that staff submit information sufficient for the committee to make a recommendation, then agreed on a recommendation if there was supporting information for the recommendation.
City Clerk Calhoun offered and the committee agreed that she would submit a resolution at the same time.
Lane Chesley expressed his thoughts that it would be nice to have a two-year rate period. He wanted to do thing incrementally so they didn’t make a radical drop one year, then jump prices the next year. He thought this would create hard feelings within the community. Mr. Smith and Mr. Marquardt agreed. Mr. Smith clarified that the committee’s intent was not trying to spur use of the fund by dropping the cost; they were trying to adjust the cost to reflect the original intent of the 25/75 split.
The committee discussed the meaning of Item 3 under Financing/Assessments “The road improvements will be financed on a combined pay as you go basis as well as sale of revenue bonds in a fifty-fifty ration. There may be future bond sales as revenues increase.” Chair Marquardt noted that the fund collects $900,000 every year and $450,000 (1/2) is spent to pay back the bond indebtedness.
City Clerk Calhoun advised that the program originally had a sunset provision of 20 years in 1987.
The committee discussed uses for the fund in the future. There was a comment on the possibility that the modeled extensions of the East/West corridor could be funded from the re-authorization of the sales tax.
There was a suggestion to lower the percentage of the current 51% approval on a LID to make the project go. City Clerk Calhoun explained that the City Council just added another phase to the whole process. They were pretty strong about the 51%.
The three phases are -
1. the request phase - requires 51% of the property owner
2. petition phase - requires 51% of the property value
3. objection period - requires 51% of the assessments.
Ms. Calhoun added that the property value criteria was set by State Law and the only option for change would be to go higher.
Lane Chesley explained a problem in his subdivision whereby an absent land owner shot down the possibility of improvements via LIDs in an area where there were long time residents. Mr. Meyer offered that the City Council has the ability to create an LID in situations concerning health hazards even if there wasn’t a 51% agreement. Ms. Calhoun added that an LID could not be forced upon the property owners. Council could create the LID, however, there was still an objection period and that still had to meet the 51% criteria. There was further speculation on the process of creating a utility project in an emergency situation for public health reasons.
The committee agreed to look at further clarification of the numbers provided by Public Works at the next meeting and wrap this up.
B Transportation Plan - Review
Staff Recommendations for the Text
Staff did not have recommendations ready for review. The committee agreed that they would wait for staff to have time to put the wording together. Further, that they did not need to be involved in bringing the wording up to the current status, ie. change the dates in there from 2000 to 2004.
C. DOT Striping Plans for Projects:
Bartlett
Street - Pioneer Ave- Sterling Hwy - East End Road
Continue
Review and Recommendations
The committee reviewed their discussion and decisions at the last meeting. Chair Marquardt acknowledged comments made by Kevin Walker, a DOT employee. He noted that on Pioneer Avenue there were crosswalks indicated at most of the major intersections.
Public Works Director advised that when he met with DOT they suggested a change at the crossing at Main Street on Pioneer Avenue. DOT wanted to pull it away from the intersection from a site distance perspective. He described it as a “skewed” intersection and rather than running it parallel with Pioneer Avenue, it would be brought a little bit further East.
Steve Smith read what was noted in the synopsis from their last meeting and reaffirmed that this was really what the committee intended. He read, “The committee agreed that in general anywhere there is a curb, gutter and sidewalk on both sides of an intersecting street there should be a crosswalk and when there is a sidewalk there should be a depressed curb.”
Steve Smith noted that the 10/10/4 situation the committee had discussed was being used on the new strip paving using the Homer Accelerated Road Program funds.
Mr. Marquardt brought up that there was a lack of crosswalks on the new East End Road reconstruction. The committee discussed what pedestrian amenities were in the plans on East End Road and pointed out that there would be no curb, gutter or sidewalk beyond East Hill Road. They noted that there were plans for a separated pathway on the north side of road which incorporated major neighborhoods - Meadowwood Subdivision and Clover Lane -, a future ball park and two schools - Flex School and Paul Banks- on the opposite side of the road with no way for kids to get across. The committee discussed the importance of requesting an attachment of the detached pathway to the road in specific areas and providing crosswalks at certain intersecting streets. They agreed that with the reconstruction of East End Road there would be more kids walking or riding bikes into town and, in the future, to the ball park that were never allowed to do that before.
The committee discussed the avenue of communication for passing on to DOT their recommendations. They agreed that the City Council would carry more weight than a committee.
There was discussion regarding at what locations pedestrians would be crossing East End Road to access the separated pathway.
Public Works Director Meyer advised that there was support from the City Council for pedestrian facilities on Rochelle Road up to East End Road.
It was noted that the separated pathway would have a ditch between it and East End Road. The committee discussed recommending a culvert, some fill and signage be placed for access to the pathway at Mariner Drive, Sabrina, Rochelle, Scenic View, Adams Street and Clover Lane.
The speed limit on East End Road came up for discussion. It was noted that the DOT plans show the speed limit in City limits to be 45 miles per hour. There was strong disagreement voiced by members of the committee. The committee discussed recommending that the speed limit remain 35 miles per hour out to Spencer Drive, then 45 miles per hour beyond that.
CHESLEY/SMITH- MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO DOT PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS AT THE FOLLOWING ROADS - MARINER DRIVE, SABRINA, ROCHELLE, SCENIC VIEW, ADAMS AND CLOVER LANE AND FURTHER AT MARINER DRIVE THAT ACCESS BE PROVIDED FOR PEDESTRIANS BETWEEN THE CROSSWALK AT THE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AND THE DETACHED PATHWAY.
The committee discussed briefly the avenue of communication for providing this information to DOT.
SMITH - FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD ‘TO THE COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND’.
There was unanimous consent for the amendment.
The motion would now reads - MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO THE COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND TO DOT PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS AT THE FOLLOWING ROADS - MARINER DRIVE, SABRINA, ROCHELLE, SCENIC VIEW, ADAMS AND CLOVER LAND AND FURTHER AT MARINER DRIVE THAT ACCESS BE PROVIDED FOR PEDESTRIAN BETWEEN THE CROSSWALK AT TE SHOULDER OF THE ROAD AND THE DETACHED PATHWAY.
The committee agreed that this recommendation would be written up in memo form to Council for their meeting two weeks from Monday.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
CHESLEY/SMITH - MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND TO DOT THAT WE STANDARDIZE THE SPEED LIMIT AT 35 MPH ALL THE WAY TO SPENCER DRIVE.
There was not discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
The committee agreed to make their recommendations more specific and in motion form.
SMITH/ CHESLEY- MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND TO DOT THAT IN THE AREA BETWEEN LAKE STREET AND EAST HILL ROAD THAT THERE BE CROSSWALKS AND DEPRESSED CURB AT ALL INTERSECTING STREETS.
There was no further discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
SMITH/CHESLEY - MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND TO DOT THAT CROSSWALKS AND DEPRESSED CURB AND GUTTER BE ADDED TO THE BARTLETT STREET PROJECT ON BARTLETT STREET AT THE PIONEER AVENUE INTERSECTION AND THE EAST SIDE OF BARTLETT AT THE FAIRVIEW AVENUE INTERSECTION.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
There was speculation that Fairview Avenue may be designated a pedestrian-way or bike-way. The committee noted that there would be no pedestrian crossings on Bartlett Street other than at Pioneer Avenue. This was due to the fact that at all other intersections there would be no pedestrian facilities on the west side of the street.
The question came up regarding whether or not it was State law to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks. The question was not answered and Mr. Meyer offered to check into it prior to placing signs. If it’s not law, the committee then regarded their recommendation for crosswalks as a channelization and encouragement for people to use a dedicated crosswalk rather than at random points.
The committee reviewed the Sterling Highway DOT plans regarding the locations of the crosswalks. There were intersections the committee wanted to add due to the possible future development of large retail/wholesale business and the ice rink in the area of Waddell Way. The committee looked at all of the facilities along the Sterling Highway from Lake Street to Pioneer Avenue and discussed recommending crosswalks in specific places.
SMITH/CHESLEY - MOVE TO RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL THAT THEY RECOMMEND TO DOT THAT DOT PROVIDE CROSSWALKS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STERLING HIGHWAY CROSSING PIONEER AVENUE, GREATLAND STREET, MAIN STREET, POOPDECK STREET, HEATH STREET AND WADDELL WAY.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
Chair Marquardt reported that there had been discussion at the Town Center Development Committee regarding narrowing lanes and re-striping. They had discussed that fact that due to ROW constrictions there were only so many feet of paved surface to work with between the curbs. He used Sterling Highway was an example saying that there was room to narrow the lanes, reconfigure things and add some bike lanes. Mr. Smith commented that he believed that the suicide lanes were necessary. He said that where there was existing curb, gutter and sidewalks he felt that bikes were already kind of safe. He added that eliminating a suicide lane would multiply the congestion problem exponentially. Mr. Chesley advised that he believed that some of these issues were going to be taken up in the Scenic Byway study that’s being done by Jensen, Yorba, Lott on that section of highway. They would probably be recommending islands of safe refuge and determining the locations of left turns, etc. He suggested waiting until the Scenic Byway people weigh in with their report before making a recommendation. Director Meyer commented that the Sterling Highway project was a repaving project and re-striping was not a big problem, however, he didn’t think DOT would be interested in stopping to do the appropriate traffic studies, so they can go ahead and get the road paved and re-striped. He added that there are some implications that might take longer to do than what’s justified in a repaving project. He suggested making a couple other motions in regard to the Traffic Study. That the committee could recommend to the Council to recommend to DOT that as part of the Traffic Study in the downtown area, that the creation of bicycle lanes be looked at on Pioneer Avenue, Lake Street and the Sterling Highway.
The committee clarified that this recommendation would be a stand-alone recommendation to the DOT Traffic Study folks.
SMITH/CHESLEY- MOTION TO RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL REQUESTS THAT THE DOT TRAFFIC STUDY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITION OF BIKE LANES ON THE STERLING HIGHWAY, PIONEER AVENUE AND LAKE STREET BY MEANS OF RE-STRIPING.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: YES: UNANIMOUS CONSENT. NON-OBJECTION.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Smith recommended that the Road Standards Committee be renamed to The Transportation Committee and that all consideration of transportation modes - vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles and trails - be included within the scope of the work of this committee. He said he didn’t feel these items were very separable, however, there may be some issues such as some of the trails development issues that would be better served as a sub-committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission. As far as the development of the transportation infrastructure, he said he thought that bike lanes, trails and sidewalks were an integral part of the City and he thought the City should move in that direction.
Public Works Director Meyer commented that the name Roads Standards Committee may have worked real well in the past, however, might not fit what they were doing now or would be doing in the future.
There was agreement by all in the use of the word “transportation” in a new name.
When asked by the committee what his suggested mode of affecting the change was, Mr. Smith replied that the Committee could come up with a new mission statement and send it to the Council. He added that he felt that the Council would probably amend the whole thing.
Mr. Smith added that he thought the Trail Plan and the Transportation Study should come to the Road Standards Committee and be forwarded as one and as amendments to the Comprehensive Plan thus helping form the foundation of the Community Plan. Mr. Smith explained that there is a lot of significance that gets attached to these plans as folks go into making subdivisions and doing zoning ordinances.
The committee discussed the process in which to discuss and possibly propose the name change suggested by Mr. Smith. They decided that staff should come up with a resolution for the committee to review and/or amend and adopt on the next agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Committee the meeting was adjourned at 8:53 p.m. The next meetings were scheduled for May 11, 2004, at 6:30 p.m. and June 1, 2004, at 6 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
__________________________________________
DEENA BENSON, CMC, DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: _________________________________