Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works September 28 20041 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL Public Works and Safety Committee September 28, 2004 Councilmember Sam Crawford called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Dan McShane Barbara Brenner Also Present: None COMMITTEE DISCUSSION ONLY 1. DISCUSSION OF LUMMI ISLAND FERRY SURVEY RESULTS (AB2004- 334) Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, submitted and read from a memo to the Council (on file) dated September 28, 2004. In some instances, property owners received more than one survey. They didn't try in every instance to aggregate multiple property ownership by married couples. The intent was to get a sense of the differences between voters and landowners. Cost is the least significant issue, and service is the most significant issue for respondents. Crawford stated he was concerned about making a decision on a new boat based on either property owners versus registered voters. In reality, the results are mostly the same. He's glad they gathered information on the two demographics. Monsen stated the totals are clear. His focus now is to look at the comments that came in and how they explain the results. He received only a handful of phone calls, most of which dealt with correcting an address. He asked whether the councilmember received any calls. Crawford stated he didn't receive any calls. He asked about the additional information provided in the survey envelope. Language regarding cost factors talks about projected operating cost increases. He asked if it is true that adding more parking is more expensive than adding a new ferry. Monsen stated he's reluctant to be specific about cost, which is driven by details, not the big picture. However, he had to present something regarding financial impacts. He created a range of costs for each solution. There is no reliable ability to expand parking at Gooseberry Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Point. To create more parking, they need to create an offsite location. The big increase for that is how to move people from Gooseberry Point to wherever the parking lot is located. The County would have to have a transit bus and driver. The cost estimates are flexible. If they expand parking, it will have to be at an offsite location somewhere. Crawford asked what the Council should do with this information. Monsen stated he wanted to bring the information forward and answer questions. Caskey-Schreiber stated this information could be used when the groundwater level issue comes forth. They should maybe wait to see if the island could support more development before making changes to the ferry. Monsen stated they have enough information now to choose one option. It will take a few years to implement. If they wait one or two years for the result of that study, then implanting a change won't begin until that is done. He is a little nervous about waiting too long to implement a system change. They need to replace the boat sometime. The timing and the size of the boat are still questionable. Caskey-Schreiber stated many factors will determine the size of ferry they choose. She asked how they can decide until they know the population projection for the next 20 years. Monsen stated that if they get a new larger boat and not rebuild the docks, they will acquire the biggest boat they can that would maximize the number of cars crossing the channel. That size is a 30- or 40-car boat. The current ferry size is an 18- to 20-car boat. The boat can't get dramatically bigger, fit the dock, and improve dramatically total capacity. The alternative is to replace the boat at the same size, and address future demand through alternative means of crossing. The two planning and design approaches are very different. It will be time consuming and costly to do either option. William Lee, 2171 Tuttle Lane, Lummi Island, thanked the Council, the Public Works Department, and Mr. Monsen for the survey. The survey doesn't satisfy everyone. Residents worked on this to help Mr. Monsen decide what islanders want done. When discussions on the island took place about the survey, the survey was always discussed as a prioritization, not a choice of exclusive actions, of what they felt the most important first step was to take. In regards to waiting for the land use to be finished, the Council must keep in mind that the ferry is no longer meeting it's level of service right now. If they wait, the situation might be more difficult. Caskey-Schreiber asked how long the Whatcom Chief can continue to operate. Monsen stated that as long as the County continues to invest in the ferry, there is no end date. The problem would be the costs necessary to maintain the boat and upgrade the boat to meet any Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations, Coast Guard regulations, or other regulations that may come up. Caskey-Schreiber asked how they buy a new ferry. Monsen stated that from a cost approach, the best option would be to design and build a new boat that Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. meets the County's operational standards. They don't need to spend a lot of money on consulting design. A 30- to 40-car boat will cost in the rage of $5 million to $6 million. The current boat has the ability to be lengthened. The process to do that probably will not be much cheaper than buying a new boat. Also, they need to consider the docks. Crawford asked if the Council needs to take action now. Monsen stated he prefers the subarea plan be completed to define the service area. Another issue is finishing the long-term lease with the Lummi Nation at Gooseberry Point to allow access. The lease expires in 2010. the Lummi Nation is preliminarily looking at redevelopment of Gooseberry Point, and those plans could accommodate the ferry, but maybe not in the exact same location. There is also an issue of deep water versus tide flats. That affects how long the dock will need to be. The status of the lease is a greater concern than the subarea plan. Crawford stated he would like to move forward with getting a new ferry. There will not be consensus on that by other councilmembers. Their opinions are diverse. Monsen stated he would work with the Executive and come forward at a later date to the Council with a recommendation. Caskey-Schreiber stated she feels good about how they explained the 30- to 40-car recommendation. Don't lose that quick turnaround and slow down delivery. Monsen stated that if they double the size of the boat, capacity will be increased by 33 percent. There will be fewer trips at a higher capacity. McShane stated the size of the boat probably won't be a big deal. The question is whether or not and when they have to replace the boat. One issue is the operational costs that are recouped from fees and federal funds that may be available for operation or capital costs. That's where they will see a diverse opinion. He would like to see more evaluation of the survey comments received. 2. RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE WHATCOM COUNTY 2005 ANNUAL ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (AB2004-335) Joe Rutan, County Road Engineer, described the annual road construction program approval process. They intend to spend 75 percent of the money allocated, but he can't exactly say which projects that money will be spent on. They may or may not get to preliminary engineering on lower priority projects. They have to be listed as a county road project to spend any time on them. The carryover projects from 2004 and the projects beginning in 2005 are well within the process of permitting, design, and right-of-way acquisition. The design features shown on the fact sheets were approved last year. They can be changed, but at an expense. They may also lose the construction window due to permitting and right-of-way acquisition. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Crawford asked if project 12, the Mosquito Lake Road realignment, was already on the schedule. Rutan stated it was on schedule. The priority was moved up from the summer of 2005 to now. They have to repair Tyee Drive in Point Roberts. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Rutan continued to state that there is bad pavement on Tyee Drive, so the road needs to be repaired. The proposal is to make the road two-lane, with bike lanes and a sidewalk. Point Roberts citizens have requested an off -site trail. That is much more expensive and is related to drainage, right-of-way acquisition, and wetland issues. He proposes a bike lane, not an off site trail. The road is bad. They need to get up there and fix it. Constructing an off site trail would take additional time. There is also an issue of ongoing maintenance of a trail. The County will meet citizen needs with a dedicated bike lane and sidewalks. Crawford asked the funding on the Hannegan Road/SR 544 Intersection. It's a state highway. He asked why the State doesn't pay a higher share. Rutan stated the cost is pro -rated based on volume. Hannegan Road is the lion's share of the volume. Caskey-Schreiber stated she's very happy to see this project. It will benefit the businesses at that intersection. She likes the way the road project information is organized in the packet. Rutan stated the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee recommends changes to packet page 184, project 6, column 7, to add an "H" to designate the added bikeway. On packet page 185, project 30, column 7, to add an "H" to designate the added bikeway. Northshore Road will be a challenging project. Purchasing rights -of -way will be expensive. There are dangerous corners. Pavement is failing. There are very emotional opinions on whether or not there are bike lanes and sidewalks versus making the road as narrow as possible to reduce impervious surfaces. They need to do stormwater treatment. The lake is on one side, and on the other side is cliffs and rock walls. McShane stated it might be useful to know the number of accidents on Northshore Road. It's a very dangerous road. Rutan stated the commonality of the accidents is the lack of a clear zone and recovery area. There is the fog line and then the ditch. Providing a shoulder and clear zone recovery area, which will widen the road and might encourage people to go faster, may be necessary. McShane stated he would be in favor of trying to make it safer. Crawford referenced packet page 207. People in the area of Hemmi Road want to know how to start the process of getting a stoplight at the Hemmi Road and Hannegan Road intersection, due to the proximity of the elementary school. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. Do a car count in the morning before school, between the school and the intersection. Rutan stated he can take a look at the peak volume on Hemmi Road at that location. Crawford stated the plan as it is looks good. Rutan stated they are looking at parcels that are available for stormwater related to the Cable Street project. There was a discussion about traffic flows between Lake Louise Road and Lake Whatcom Boulevard. The traffic volume on Lake Louise Road is about one-third and on Lake Whatcom Boulevard is two-thirds. Lake Louise Road has three times the accident rate per vehicle mile. They propose an upgrade of Lake Louise Road to make it safer. There was also discussion regarding mailboxes. Crawford stated they talked about whether some folks use Lake Whatcom Boulevard in lieu of gate 13 because they need to stop and get their mail on the way home. He asked if that's the case and, if so, the possibility of moving some boxes over to gate 13. Steve Greiser, Sudden Valley Community Association, stated that's true. Everyone in Sudden Valley who gets mail gets it at Lake Whatcom Boulevard. The Association created a Postal Committee. Sudden Valley is out of post office boxes, and there is no room to add any more at the facility. The Postal Service is not inclined to address the problem. There are 150 homes under construction. Most won't have mailboxes. The Postal Committee would like to go to a cluster box system. Unfortunately, the cost valley -wide is $500,000. The boxes are expensive and there would be multiple locations. They would have to change street names or addresses. They hoped to start installing cluster boxes at gate two this fall, which would free boxes up at the rotunda. One factor is keeping traffic away from the lake and off of Lake Whatcom Boulevard. The association tried to put an impact fee on new construction, but it was legally questionable. He doesn't know if he will be able to do the first phase. Crawford stated the issue of post office boxes in Sudden Valley is a Sudden Valley issue. However, moving traffic off Lake Whatcom Boulevard is a broad community issue. He asked if there is a rationale to expend some County funds in moving along the gate 13 phase of their project. Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated it is common for a transportation project to include a widened area for bus service and weights and measure. It's possible to create wide shoulders and adjoining facilities that serves the motoring public, just short of putting up the mailboxes. Crawford stated he has a desire to take care of Lake Whatcom. If that means providing an incentive for people to use gate 13, it is logical for the County to pursue. Monsen stated timing is an issue. If the County is going to promote the use of Lake Louise Road over Lake Whatcom Boulevard, they have to figure out the intersection changes that should be part of the Cable Street project. The Lake Louise project will happen a year or two after the Cable Street project. However, in Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. the meantime they may be able to construct elements of the Lake Louise Road project to deal with the postal issues. It will be less costly to do those elements at the time the road project is done. Crawford stated that if they can help that happen, the Council should prioritize it. He asked for anecdotal information on whether folks living at gate 13 use Lake Whatcom Boulevard. He asked whether they would really solve anything by letting people get their mail at gate 13. Greiser stated it would solve a lot. It's not just gate 13. Gates 13, nine, and five all come off Lake Louise Road. That's a significant portion of Sudden Valley's population. It's also where most of the growth is happening. Rutan stated people would also use the road more often if it were safer. Greiser stated a problem with cluster box locations is the volume of people pulling over. They have to do substantial improvements, including ditches and culverts. The Postal Service also has regulations to bring a route online. The committee has come up with several options, including building a regular post office in Sudden Valley. Even if they had the money, it would take ten or twelve years. They looked at having a few large clusters and door-to-door delivery. The conclusion was that the most reasonable option was scattered clustered boxes. Crawford stated the Postal Service is saying it doesn't have the money to put up boxes. He asked the history and process of the Postal Service for something like this. Greiser stated that in most new development now, the developer puts in cluster boxes that become the property of the individual homes. In Sudden Valley, people expect the association to provide a box and point of delivery. It's a huge administrative burden. Crawford asked if they can quantify the vehicle trips per day would be changed. Monsen stated anecdotal information from the association is the best information they can get. The technical survey and analysis to come to the same conclusion may not be better than anecdotal information. Crawford asked if the association could do a survey. Greiser stated it could. He agrees that Lake Louise Boulevard is a nightmare to drive. Rutan stated they would do a lot of public outreach for the Lake Louise project, including hosting one or two open houses for the residents. He will work with the association to compile information through some form of survey. The Postal Service wants to make sure the mail stop is appropriate and safe for the mail carrier. Monsen stated this item will be before the Finance Committee in two weeks to consider whether this program relates to the proposed budget. There will be a public hearing two weeks after that. Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they are not the final approved minutes. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription ATTEST: Dana Brown -Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Sam Crawford, Committee Member Public Works and Safety Committee, 9/28/2004, Page 7