2018-11-13 Transportation and Infrastructure Minutes

Browse Search

4L;HMJILN;NCIH Ǳ )H@L;MNLO=NOL? #IGGCNN?? -CHON?MȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚȚ.IP?G<?L ǳǵțǴǲǳǺ D. Consultant Agreement: Strander Boulevard Extension Phase 3 Staff is seeking Council approval to move forward with a Value Engineering consultant contract in an amount not to exceed $75,000. Three firms have responded to the RFQ with interviews forthcoming, and Council is being asked for approval now due to time limitations. The project overall continues to have a funding gap of $64M. Advocacy efforts will be made for inclusion of the project in a possible State transportation package. Representatives from the Transportation Improvement Board recommended the City complete Value Engineering as a critical funding strategy. Committee members discussed the project and expressed support for completing Value Engineering as more will be known in 2019 regarding overall project funding. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 19, 2018 REGULAR CONSENT AGENDA. E. Resolution: Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program Staff is seeking Council approval of a resolution that would adopt a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program that will provide a predictable and equitable process by which residents can request improvements. The proposed budget currently includes $400,000 which will be shared between traffic calming efforts and other safety improvements identified proactively by staff. The Program distinguishes between types of improvements as Level I or Level II. Level I includes passive treatments that can be implemented quickly. Level II includes physical devices that usually require permanent installation and must be coordinated with Police, Fire, and Council. The Program outlines the request process, preliminary evaluation, solution alternatives, funding, design, construction, evaluation, and removal. Councilmembers discussed the proposal. Councilmember Idan stated he likes the education piece, request process, and levels of response, but feels the requirement of 70% approval by the neighborhood for Level II improvements is too great of a barrier for participation. Staff believes the neighborhood approval is needed so the City knows the investment is truly wanted by the affected residents and not just by a Councilmember Quinn mentioned that he had researched policies in other cities and it is common to have a neighborhood approval mechanism. He likes that it t and provides additional documentation to support a consistent process. The policy provides flexibility on the mailing of ballots, since it may be possible to gauge sufficient interest at a community meeting. Councilmembers discussed the importance of public outreach about the program, including translations. Chair McLeod suggested reducing the approval threshold from 70% to 2/3, and the Committee agreed, although Councilmember Idan asserted he would prefer that the City use a system that would provide the neighborhood an opportunity for protest rather than majority approval. Staff mentioned that this is a new policy for the City and adjustments can be made after lessons learned. Councilmember Idan asked if a resident could submit a new request after already having one fulfilled by the City. The proposed policy does not limit the number of requests that can be made by an individual or group. The Committee expressed concern about overuse of the program creating inequity among neighborhoods and requested language that would restrict new submissions with a certain time period. UNANIMOUS APPROVAL AS AMENDED. FORWARD TO NOVEMBER 26, 2018 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.