Session 08-04 a
meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair
Marquardt at 5:43 pm on May 20, 2008 at the City Hall Cowles Council Chambers
located at 491 E. Pioneer Avenue, Homer, Alaska.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Marquardt, Roberts, Zak
ABSENT: Velsko
(excused), Smith
STAFF: Public
Works Director Meyer
Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen
AGENDA APPROVAL
The agenda was
approved by consensus of the Committee.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public
comments.
RECONSIDERATION
There were no items
for reconsideration.
SYNOPSIS APPROVAL
A.
Meeting Synopsis from March 18, 2008
The synopsis was
approved by consensus of the Committee.
ZAK/ROBERTS MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2008.
There was no
discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT
Motion carried.
VISITORS
There were no
visitors.
STAFF & COUNCIL REPORT/COMMITTEE REPORT/BOROUGH REPORTS
There were no
reports.
PUBLIC HEARING
There were no public
hearings scheduled.
PENDING BUSINESS
A. 2008 Future Agenda
Items- Review and Prioritize List
The Committee
briefly discussed the list. Comments included:
·
Public transportation was discussed at the Joint
Spit Parking meeting. It was considered as an option to help alleviate some of
the parking dilemma on the spit.
·
Items 9 (Signage on the Spit), 12 (Impacts of
Spit Traffic), and 13 (One Access to Homer) will entail a lot of discussion and
maybe help from consultants.
·
Shared Driveways could be handled via memo that
the Committee encourages them.
·
Vehicles on the Beach are always an issue, but
now there is a full time employee for enforcement. They will see how it works
out.
·
The Spit Road at the Wagon Wheel can be
considered with Impacts of Spit Traffic.
·
As Wasilla and Kenai/Soldotna grow there will
be impacts of people wanting to come to the beach and eventually we will reach
saturation on the spit. There are relationships with a lot of these issues.
ZAK/ROBERTS MOVED TO
REMOVE ITEM 6.
Comment was made
that the Public Works Director has seen it and it doesn’t need to keep coming
back. Public Works Director Meyer apologized for not making a lot of these past
meetings. There was a lot going on with the Town Center project, among other
things. He was also taking classes working toward his Masters degree in Public
Administration. He doesn’t anticipate meeting attendance to be an issue in the
near future. He suggested adding LID assessment methodology to replace number
6.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
ROBERTS/ ZAK MOVED
TO REPLACE ITEM 6 WITH THE INFORMATION PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR PROVIDED ABOUT THE
LID ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
There was no
discussion.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
ZAK/ROBERTS MOVED TO
ADD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LIST.
There was discussion
that they would include the intersections that are identified in the transportation
plan. Public Works Director Meyer suggested focusing on Main Street as the
Governor’s budget included funding for it.
Chair Marquardt said
someone had asked him if the Homer Main Street reconstruction meant the
intersection reconstruction or Main Street reconstruction and intersection. Mr.
Meyer responded his understanding is that it is just the intersection. Ms.
Roberts concurred that it was her understanding too, but added that it would be
worth asking because it is a lot of money allocated for just an intersection.
It was noted that types of signalization and traffic control measures at the
intersection are still open for discussion.
Public Works
Director Meyer commented that there will be opportunity for public input. It is
a State DOT project, but if the state doesn’t have the capacity to deal with
it, the City may be able to step in and work on the design and such. He said
normally the funds are distributed through a State agency to the City. Chair
Marquardt added that there needs to be a broader discussion of what the overall
goal of improving Main Street from Pioneer Avenue to Bunnell Street would
include. Mr. Meyer noted the Traffic Study shows Lake Street and Sterling, and
Main Street and Sterling warrant traffic signals because there are enough
accidents occurring there.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Committee agreed
to discuss prioritizing the list at the next meeting and to email their top
choices to Deputy City Clerk Jacobsen to compile for the next meeting.
Chair Marquardt
commented briefly regarding spit parking. He gave an overview of how the
parking has been considered in the past, which included work from a Spit
Parking Task Force. He said one of the things that came up then that never made
it into the recommendations Council acted on was the issue of employees parking
in the premium spots when the show up first thing in the morning. He reviewed
the notes from the joint meeting and saw that came up in discussion again.
Ms. Roberts asked
for more information regarding shared driveways. Public Works Meyer commented
regarding the issue in Country Club Estates where there is a driveway acting as
a street. He said they encourage common driveways when they can. Mr. Zak
commented when shared driveways are recommended through the Planning Commission
sometimes the reason is to lower the impact on wetlands. Another reason is that
legal lots have to have access to a main road and shared driveways lower the
impact on traffic accessing the main route. It is not to allow for a lot to
further subdivide when they don’t have the legal access.
B. Memorandum 08-53 Re: Direction and
Attendance from Appointed Staff
There was no discussion on this item as it was
taken up in discussion under item A.
NEW BUSINESS
A. Road LID Costs Assessment Methodology
There
was discussion regarding the current road improvement costs Public Works
Director Meyer commented the cost of the gravel road has inflated more rapidly
than asphalt. It was noted that the City pays 75% of the cost. Currently the
HART fund is now being asked to do a lot more than when it was established.
Shifting more of the cost to the property owners who are benefiting from the
road improvements conserves money in the HART program for trails, streets in
Homer, and other things that are needed. Right now water and sewer cost split
is 75% by the property owners and 25% by the City. Public Works Director
commented that he presented some numbers based on a split in the road
improvement costs that was adjusted to 2/3 paid by property owners and 1/3 by
the City. He is surprised that more people aren’t taking advantage of this low
cost. Comment was made that there are lot of people who wouldn’t be interested
in road improvements if the City paid 100% of the costs.
Chair
Marquardt agreed that there is more to it than the dollar value, it is a
combination of people on fixed income, perceptions of increased traffic and
people driving faster, and those who just don’t want to spend the money. There isn’t
a big rush on the system right now and the idea of increasing the costs to the
property owner isn’t going to do anything to encourage property owners to fix
the road. It is very generous as it is now. If there were 3 or 4 LID’s that
were processed each year, then maybe there would be a need to increase the
costs.
Public
Works Director Meyer said this has been an ugly breakup season this year and
there have been some areas of the City where roads have suffered to the point
that they are impassable and a fire truck couldn’t get in there if needed. One
of the balancing acts that Council will have to look at during their next
meeting is if the City should stick with the LID process, if they should give
Public Works a bigger budget to work on the roads in a piecemeal band-aid
approach, or spend the City’s money to improve the roads.
Ms.
Roberts agreed that raising the property owner’s portion isn’t necessary right
now. The City has obligations to help build the infrastructure. If too much is
borne by the property owner the infrastructure won’t grow.
Mr.
Zak concurred. It is justified keeping the lower cost for the property owner
other wise the City won’t get the expansion it needs for the roads.
There
was discussion that when the roads are impassible and emergency services can’t
get through it has been considered by the City to force an LID, but council
should have a discussion about policy not price at this point. There are people
on Spruceview and Noview who have stepped up to the plate and paid their fair
share. Question was raised if it is fair for Public Works to go in and repair
someone else’s road at no cost to the property owner. It was noted that the
HARP program was utilized a lot early on and slowly it didn’t get utilized.
Some could argue that the HART program has done what it was intended for and
maybe it needs to be restructured to spend the money on the roads that really
need it. It was agreed that there could be discussion on how to expand the
program, but the LID process for road improvements shouldn’t go away. Once
policy changes have been made and implemented, the program could be reassessed
and then they could take another look at the ratios. Previously it was allowed
that lots could be developed without the infrastructure being there to support
it. Now to subdivide the lot it is worth investing in the infrastructure. Ten
years ago you could have put the road, water, and sewer in Harrington Heights[1],
and the lots wouldn’t have been worth anymore than they were before the
improvements, but that isn’t the case anymore. The environment we are living in
now is changing. The annual review of the HART program should be at the top of
the Committee’s priority list.
Public
Works Director Meyer commented that Council would probably like to hear from
the Committee sometime through the summer. Usually discussion of the fees and
LID costs come up at budget time and there has been talk about whether the fees
are good anymore. It would be beneficial for the
Chair
Marquardt said he doesn’t feel they are ready to make a recommendation at this
point, adding that Mr. Velsko and Mr. Smith will probably have some good input.
B. Mt. Augustine Road Problems
Public
Works Director Meyer commented that this was provided as informational to
represent issues that have come up more this spring than in the past, and how
the City has been responding based on the budgets we have and the system that
has been developed.
Mr.
Zak commented that the cost the property owner received from the contractor
seems reasonable and questioned if it is feasible for the City to be involved
in this way and satisfy the concerned property owners rather than going in and
doing an LID. Since this is a City road he thinks the City would have some
obligation.
Public
Works Director Meyer responded there are about five sections of road in the
City and in several locations LID’s have been attempted and failed. He
explained that the portion of the road addressed in the letter is not a rural
road and the Borough did not maintain it prior to annexation because it is not
up to Borough standards. With annexation the City accepted the responsibility
to maintain roads within the area that the Borough maintained. The Mt.
Augustine roads were not accepted for City maintenance. The HART program funds
are available for road improvement costs and up through now it has been handled
through the LID process.
Ms.
Roberts asked if it has ever occurred where the City helps with the cost of
repair and the property owners took responsibility for the routine maintenance.
Mr. Meyer said he is not aware that it ever happened. There isn’t a policy in
place that authorizes the City to do that.
Mr.
Zak suggested that in the situation where you have a few property owners along
a portion of road that isn’t maintained by the City or Borough but falls within
City limits, and there is full agreement among property owners for a specified
amount of money, they could do a one time LID and the 1/3 - 2/3 split could be
applied to that portion of the road. It might solve the 4 or 5 situations and
be fair to the owners.
Public
Works Director Meyer said this is an issue that gets complicated very fast.
Another issue with Mt. Augustine is that the road is steeper than what the City
would allow. It is beyond the City’s control in that it is a platted
right-of-way that was done 30 years ago and no one was concerned about how
steep it is. There are 7 criteria that have to be met before Public Works can
recommend that a road be added to the road maintenance list. The neighborhood
would have to work together to bring the roads up to standards, but it would be
quicker than the LID process.
The
Committee agreed to add HART policy review to the top of their priority list.
C.
Variance
to Road Prism Width-Canyon Trails Sub.
Public Works
Director Meyer commented even though he missed some meetings, it shouldn’t have
surprised anyone on the
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
Chair Marquardt noted a letter from Ginger
Tornes regarding progress streetscapes in communities that deal with snow that
was provided as a laydown item.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were no staff comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Roberts said she is glad to be
appointed to the Committee and hopes she can be helpful.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Mr. Zak said it is good to have representation
from Council.
Chair Marquardt commented that he appreciated
Ms. Roberts’ comments this evening and it is great to have a solid liaison
between the Committee and the Council. He said he is glad to have Public Works Director
Meyer here; he understands things get busy and recognized that in the past Mr.
Meyer has been in attendance at a lot of their meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no
further business to come before the Committee the meeting adjourned at 7:03 pm.
The next Regular Meeting is scheduled for June 17, 2008 at 5:30 pm in the City
Hall Cowles Council Chambers.
MELISSA JACOBSEN,
DEPUTY CITY CLERK
Approved: