Session 08-06 a
meeting of the Transportation Advisory Committee was called to order by Chair
Marquardt at
COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Marquardt,
Roberts[1],
Smith, Velsko[2],
Zak
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
ZAK/VELSKO MOVED TO
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF
Mr. Velsko noted
that in the discussion about calcium chloride he didn’t mean that it should be
the number 1 priority but just that it is important up there.
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. Road LID Costs Assessment Methodology
Mr.
Smith commented that he is not opposed to the 80/20 split that the Committee
recommended at their last meeting. He expressed his concern for property owners
who are forced in to an LID process on lots they own that aren’t developed. If
they want to vacate lot lines to avoid additional assessments, then they have
to complete that before the public hearing. In the event that the LID doesn’t
go through they have spent the money to vacate when they didn’t need to.
There
was lengthy discussion regarding a process to allow property owners who don’t want
the LID to defer the assessment. Some discussion points included:
·
Vacating
lot lines in a road LID wouldn’t make any difference as it is based on front
footage of a lot.
·
There
should be leeway in the HART process to say it is for the good of the City and
cover the cost for those who it would be onerous for. Then when the lots are
developed, they would pay the City back.
·
In
hardship cases deferring would be acceptable, but if it is a property owner who
has a few lots, money in the bank, but just doesn’t want to pay, that would be
different.
·
When
someone applies for a building permit or a driveway permit on a lot that has a deferred
assessment, then they w
·
A
policy could be developed to consider deferred assessments on undeveloped lots.
·
If
HART funds are available and not being used by property owners in the LID
process, then the City should be able to use those funds at its discretion on
projects that benefit the entire City with out concern of whether it drains the
fund. Improvements like modeled extensions, intersection improvements and so
forth could be considered.
·
There
is an administrative burden to keeping track of all that and then collecting
later down the road.
·
There
is financing available for an LID. If the assessment is deferred it collects
interest and when it is due, payment is due in full.
·
An
assessment for a road LID on a 100 foot lot is about $3000, based on current
methodology.
·
The
process should be changed so that a person who defers doesn’t pay a lump sum
including interest when they develop their lot, they should come into the LID
just like anyone else. The City may lose some money, but in the long run it
gets us where we want to be.
·
¾%
of our sales tax goes into the HARP fund and some of that money is collected
through sales tax. If the sales tax is reduced after the Borough election, it
will affect road fund.
·
It
would be good to look at some examples to see just how much the City would be
holding papers on as a result of deferring payment on an improvement project.
·
In
the past the City has been sympathetic to property owners and Council has reacted
in some way to help them.
Discussion
ensued regarding the HART fund. Right now the fund is used for improvements in
local neighborhoods and can’t be used for matching funds for state programs. There
may come a time in the future when it w
SMITH/ZAK MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE
Mr. Smith noted the
HART Policy qualifying criteria and those items would apply to
Councilmember
Roberts noted that she is supportive but is reluctant to give the state the
message that we are w
Public Works
Director Meyer noted that the motion specifies matching funds and the intention
is to give Council some room to utilize the fund to pitch in 10% to get a
project moving, but not to give a significant portion of the funding.
VOTE: NON OBJECTION:
UNANIMOUS CONSENT.
Motion carried.
The Committee agreed
to come prepared at the next meeting to propose and discuss amendments to the
HART policy, and all recommendations including the 80/20 split at the last
meeting and the recommendation for HART funds at this meeting w
NEW BUSINESS
A.
HART Policy Review
HART discussion was
taken up during pending business.
INFORMATIONAL MATERIALS
No informational items were presented.
AUDIENCE COMMENTS
There were no audience comments.
STAFF COMMENTS
There were no staff comments.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Roberts apologized for being
late.
CHAIR COMMENTS
Chair Marquardt thanked everyone for good
discussion.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Mr. Smith commented to Councilmember Roberts sometimes
it is very frustrating to be on this Committee because it has no capability to
do anything and it falls to the Council or the Council representative to
Champion some of this stuff forward to Council. The Committee has seen some
frustrating things in the past. One time when the Committee voted unanimously
to try the traffic light at
Councilmember Roberts said she hopes they know
she has been reporting back to Council after meetings and she hopes she has
represented what has been said fairly and honestly.
Mr. Zak commented that at the last Council
meeting there was discussion about the $2 m
There was brief discussion that roundabouts are
impractical at those intersections because of right-of-way issues and the
topography. The Committee has commented in opposition to a one couplet. There
were comments in favor of a traffic light at
ADJOURNMENT
There being no
further business to come before the Committee the meeting adjourned at
MELISSA JACOBSEN,
Approved: