CATC Minutes – May 26, 2011
Page 1 of 4
CITIZENS ADVISORY TRAFFIC COMMISSION
May 26, 2011
Members Present: Christopher Hackett, Gary Obery, Mel Conrad, Miles Adams, and Reuben Worster
Members Absent: Bruno Amicci, Carol McMann, Ellen Miller, Gary Lockwood
Staff Present: Julie Warncke, Transportation Planning Manager, Tony Martin, Assistant City Traffic Engineer; Dave Kinney, Traffic Engineering; , Judy Johnduff, Associate Transportation Planner, Tami Carpenter, Staff Assistant
Public Present:Jeff Leach, Wes Hanson, and Dan Motley
1. Introduction of Members
2.Staff Presentation– Recommend Specific Projects for the Missing Sidewalk and Bike Lanes Bond Project (Julie Warncke, Transportation Planning Manager and Tony Martin, P.E., Assistant City Traffic Engineer).
In November 2008, Salem voters passed the streets and bridges bond measure. This measure included a number of projects that are currently under project around town. We have included a pot of money ($1.2 million) for missing sidewalks and bike lanes to schools and parks. This was not defined so that we could do a broader public outreach to identify what specific projects would go onto the list. We also have another pot of funds, approximately $581,000 that was for pedestrian crossing improvements. A year ago, we came to CATC and held a public hearing for those projects. Some of those have been out to bid and are under contract and the improvements have been started. These included the crossing on Liberty Road and Holder Lane, the median island on State Street near Roberts High School, 25th Street NE near the post office. Curb extension near the West Salem Park on Rosemont Avenue NW.
Initial solicitation from the public had both categories listed together. We asked the public to submit proposed projects within both of those categories. We received approximately 150 individual project proposals. When we separated them we had approximately 50 that dealt with crossings and then 100 were missing sidewalks or bike lanes to schools or parks. We have pared this down to 25 projects. We have come back to CATC with information. These are projects that staff felt could be done within this funding source. $1.2 million is not a lot of money when you are talking about road and sidewalk construction.
Public Works Engineers have done a cost estimate for these 25 projects. From the 25 we have four projects that had cost estimates that were over one million dollars each. Since we only have $1.2 million, we eliminated those projects since our goal is to accomplished as many projects as we can those projects were eliminated. This left us projects totaling just over $3.5 million; this had to be reduced to $1.2 million.
We have made the recommendations for the projects attached. We looked at constructability, neighborhood acceptance, geographic distribution, how the projects fit with the bond language as to the fit with parks and schools.
Criteria for the selection process were set forth in a staff report that went to Council in February 2009.
Staff would like CATC to review the projects, hear public comment, and then a recommendation would be forwarded to Council Streets and Bridge Subcommittee and then to City Council for a public hearing. CATC is an important step but not the final step. After the public hearingand final determination made, projects will move into design and construction.
A CATC member asked about the number of projects. This started as 25 projects, pared down to 21 due to cost constraints. Only 13 projects are currently on the list given to CATC. What happens is CATC makes the determination that they would prefer to add a project not currently on the list? Julie answered it is a possibility that that could happen. CATC Member asked what the other projects are. Attachment 2 contains all projects and cost estimates for those additional projects.
Julie explained the projects to CATC. Attachment 1 is a list of the 13 projects the City is recommending for approval. This list is not in priority order but listed as alphabetically.
CATC Member Conrad asked if the same weight was given to proposed projects for parks and schools or were schools prioritized over parks. Julie answered no not necessarily just that it provided access to a school or park.
Public Comments:
Jeff Leach, board member of Southeast Salem Neighborhood Association, spoke in favor of Project #36 Simpson Street SE at 25th Street SE. The neighborhood association picked this project as one of their top three projects. It is a very busy street and sidewalks would make the elementary school more accessible.
Wes Hanson lives on the corner of Reedy Drive NE and Ellis Avenue NE. Mr. Hanson spoke in support of Project #73, Ellis Avenue NE. Mr. Hanson feels this is a very narrow street and he would be very glad to seeschoolchildren being able to use sidewalks.
Dan Motley owns a duplex that faces Savage Road NE and Ellis Avenue NE. Mr. Motley spoke in favor of Project #73. Believes the City already owns the right-of-way that needed for this project. Believes this project is critical because of this is a feeder for people, especially children going to the park, school, and the Boys and Girls Club.
CATC Discussion:
Question—Is there any financial obligation required from any of the homeowners?
Answer—No obligation from homeowners.
Question—If the project involves acquiring property will property owners be compensated or will it be imminent domain?
Answer—Any right-of-way this is required will be purchased from property owners. The City would go through a right-of-way process. Julie is not sure how much rightofway property will be required for these projects. This was a high-level cursory look that our engineer looked to see what he thought was needed and he did an estimate of based on property values and then added in contingencies. The next step will be a more detailed survey of what is needed.
Question—Are right-of-way costs figured into the totals for these projects.
Answer–Yes
Question —Are county assessed values used for the properties?
Answer—Tony believes that “market value” is used, but they City’s Real Estate people would be the lead on that portion of these projects.
Question—Do most of the properties require right-of-way purchase?
Answer—It is just about 50/50 requiring right-of-way purchasing.
CATC Member Conrad thanked the citizens for coming to the meeting and testifying.
CATC Member Hackett proposed recommending accepting the City’s proposal and sending it forward to Council. Motion was seconded.
Question—Is there an opportunity to look at the secondary projects and is there money for those projects?
Answer—There would only be money available if one of the recommended projects was removed from the list, however, the recommended projects are preliminary amounts and the City believes that all of the recommended projects can be accomplished within the budgetary restrictions. If there are cost savings then they will go back to the list and reevaluate to see what other projects could be brought forward. We would come back to CATC with new recommendations.
Question—This was complied in 2009, there is a new combination grade and middle school being built on Orchard Heights Road NW. This area definitely needs more walkways. Was the anticipation of this school factored in any of these project identifiers and was the speed of the traffic factored in the decision?
Answer—Council approved this process in early 2009 and ideas were solicited from the public in late 2009. Julie believes the school site was known at that time. West Salem Neighborhood Association has been very active in suggesting projects. The school will be constructing sidewalks on Orchard Heights Road NW from Doaks Ferry Road NW to Mousebird Avenue NW, the entire frontage to the signal. A CATC Member stated that the sidewalks are complete. Speed was not a specific criteria of the projects selected. We looked at projects providing primary access to schools. Within the schools category weight was given to elementary and middle schools before high schools. We also looked at providing primary sidewalk or bike access to parks or other pedestrian or bicycle attractors, which mean transit facilities or transit routes, were eligible. Providing missing links where there is a high volume of bikes or pedestrians, or where someone could make the argument that there could be high volume if the missing link was provided.
Question—Was accident history part of the criteria?
Answer—We looked at crash history. There wasn’t any strong statistics on any of the projects we considered.
Vote—All in favor of the motion to accept the 13 projects that staff have identified for improvements.
YES – passed unanimously
8.Meeting adjourned.
Enclosure: Missing Sidewalks and Bike Lanes
cc: File
TLC/JP:G:\Group\director\Tami\CATC 2011\Minutes\26 May 11.doc